[PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details

[socal]

@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:

@socal said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:

@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:

@socal The escrow funds are held for 12 months minimum - if at that time your asset has been performing as announced, and making regular payouts, ALL escrowed funds will be sent to you. If for any reason I still have concerns about the asset, the escrowed funds will be released incrementally as long as the asset continues to make payouts and operate transparently. If the asset stops paying out or you disappear, then on my judgement I'll ask the investors whether to consider the asset abandoned and send the escrowed funds back to investors.

This I know, BUT I will keep those funds Escrowed to provide the Investor Insurance if that is what the shareholders choose to do after a year

If you choose to keep them escrowed longer, then that's fine - but if the asset has been honest, then releasing the funds would allow a significant increase in the mining hardware for the asset. I'll leave it for the community investors to decide though..

correct, it would allow for a doubling of effective mining capacity, but I will leave it to the shareholders to choose

[daWallet]

I haven't read everything yet, but:

[daWallet]

@BURSTguy Burst is a decentralized transaction network. Everybody can use it, invest in it, promote it. Your national currency is used by very bad people for very bad purposes and you probably don't care at all.

@rnahlawi nailed it

and @socal should be proud of himself: He got a cold welcome and triggered an avalanche of this magnitude AND is still here, lol.

[haitch]

@daWallet This the first, and probably will be the only ever, thread to get 150 posts, 470 views, and be locked/unlocked twice in the space of it's first 24 hours.

I'm personally glad that Socal hasn't taken the hostile response from a handful of users to his plan personally, and still intends to develop his asset with the help of the community.

And yet again I'll say it - Socal is the ONLY asset issuer who has been willing to follow the asset guideline recommendations I posted here. Guidelines THIS community welcomed - and the first person willing to follow them gets this reception?

I will personally support him 100%.

[socal]

@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:

@daWallet This the first, and probably will be the only ever, thread to get 150 posts, 470 views, and be locked/unlocked twice in the space of it's first 24 hours.

I'm personally glad that Socal hasn't taken the hostile response from a handful of users to his plan personally, and still intends to develop his asset with the help of the community.

And yet again I'll say it - Socal is the ONLY asset issuer who has been willing to follow the asset guideline recommendations I posted here. I will personally support him 100%.

Should I be proud? Lmao

[haitch]

@socal Proud - probably not. Confused and hurt at the schizophrenic reception you received would be more likely. But I'm glad you're still here.

This Community welcomed the guidelines I posted, this reception to the first person willing to adhere to them dumbfounds me.

Carry on with your plans - you'll have my 100% backing, while some of the community gets over their episode and are willing to work with you.

[socal]

@haitch there have been several people already who have expressed interest one person even wants to buy the first 50,000 Share block but we will see how we will proceed before acting rashly

[haitch]

@socal Proceed slowly, discuss with me your intentions, but like I said - 100% backing

[crowetic]

I would like to come in and say a few final comments in this thread...

For one... to the community overall, I'm very sorry for how this thread turned out, this should have mostly been a private discussion between the core members of the team, and should not have come out in this fashion in a public thread. For that, I apologize...

To @socal, I'm also sorry to you, for having this happen in your thread. Regardless of how we all felt about the way your asset was being setup, you didn't deserve this, and it's a miracle you're still here. You've been very accommodating to everything that was said, and this has lead me to have great respect for your character so far. Keep this up and you'll fit right in here for sure. I'm even likely to invest into your asset now, seeing as you're flexible, and you're going to clear up any concerns, you did things correctly regardless of the massive amount of nonsense that happened in the thread...

Now... @haitch, frankly... I'm pretty upset by the insinuations that you've made in the thread... I read quite a few of seemingly backhanded comments, and things that I personally thought were out of line... (especially the thing basically saying you trust socal more than me... and potentially leading to public doubt of my trustworthiness, I didn't expect something like this from you, after the YEARS that we've worked together...) I am aware that we don't always see eye to eye, but that was something that I respected from you... but the way that you handled this particular situation... I'm frankly appalled by it... The little comments here and there, seemingly taking jabs at other members of the team... I can't understand it... I've never seen you act this way before... is everything alright here?

Do you think that I deserved to have you basically publicly challenge my trustworthiness? Over what? Stating that I believe asset issuers should have some investment into their own idea before launching an asset? Was this really called for man? I'm frankly pretty upset with the way this turned out...

I also don't appreciate the comment insinuating that I've labeled myself all-powerful creator of BURST... If you have listened to any of the most recent meeting recordings, you'd see that I don't even like the label 'leader' because this is a TEAM effort, I just happen to be in the position I am due to ASKING the community for their approval, and DEDICATING my entire life to this project... and since I've acquired this position, BURST has seen MASSIVE growth... and there is simply no denying this...

By no means am I saying that it was all me that did this, nothing is further from the truth, but I ALWAYS give EVERYONE credit where credit is due... and I've NEVER even HINTED anything about you personally (haitch) other than you're the best infrastructure guy I've known, and always gave you MASSIVE thanks and credit for everything... so these 'cheap shots' (which due to their wording, could be played off as otherwise...) are completely out of left field, and definitely upsetting to me.

If there were ANY issues whatsoever with me, anything I've done, or the people that I've helped bring to the table (along with MASSIVE growth to the coin) it should have been brought up TO ME, not IN PUBLIC, in a thread of a new potential asset starter...

All I suggested in this thread, is that a newbie making their first post starting an asset, without any personal investment into their own idea... was a red flag, and I'm simply trying to save the community the hassle of another potential scam. Of course, they don't have to listen to me, they can always do what they please, this is the beautiful thing about BURST... but for the most part, people generally respect my opinion, and usually I feel like they appreciate it as well, so that's what I did...

Most of this should have been a private conversation... and in our latest meetings, if you'd have been to them, you'd have known that we have already been discussing adding some more potential verification layers on top of the ID system that you put in place, for asset issuers... because we do think that it should be done...

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the decentralized nature, and all that... and it makes sense for sure to have a place that people can do what they please without any verification... but I also think that a system in place that verifies not only identity, but also assesses risk of the assets and gives a public opinion, done by long-standing and trusted members of the community, could help to give newer members (or anyone really for that matter) more information regarding the assets they will potentially be investing in... and I think this is a good thing.

Anyway, I'm wholeheartedly disappointed at how this was handled, IMO it was completely unprofessional and ended up getting downright dirty... totally uncalled for...

State your opinions, but underhanded comments and potential jabs below the belt? I expected a lot more after all the time and effort we've all put into this...

Anyway, that's about it... I apologize if anyone thought any of MY OWN comments were out of line, but I personally didn't feel like any of them were, I merely stated the fact that some personal investment into your own idea before asking for others to invest into it, is generally (in my opinion anyway) the best way to start something like this, and then gave my iteration of the definition of 'asset'.

Regardless, if anything I said was out of line to any of you, I apologize, and again I apologize for this that should have been a private conversation for the most part, was put out here in public, that was truly unprofessional of us, and hopefully it doesn't make anyone look at BURST differently.

Thank you all for your time in reading my long last reply to this topic... have a good one...

-crowetic

[haitch]

@crowetic I didn't say that I trusted Socal more than you - I said I would have more VERIFIABLE information about him, than I do you. It wasn't supposed to insinuate you were untrustworthy, everyone here knows you can be trusted. The point was he'll be doing MORE to expose his real life identity. As an example, RichBC did the Verification process ( and apologies Rich for using you as an example) - I know his name, address, DOB - I have copies of his drivers license and his Passport information page. If Rich screwed the community, I can set the community on him. I have verified real life names and addresses. I didn't intend to imply I'll trust Socal more than you, it's that I can verify who this person is, and if necessary, track them down. I've shipped stuff to you, and talked to you on the phone - so I'm pretty sure where you live and how to get hold of you - but the ID Verified people have given me copies of their identity that's been verified by their country. National verification trumps what I happen to know.

No insinuation was intended, and I apologize for any offense taken. That was not my intent.

I'm also unsure about what post you're referencing about "self appointed leader" - I've not said that as far as I'm aware. If one of my posts is inarticulate and implies that, point me to it and I'll correct it.

As for the discussion being unprofessional and out of order, I strongly disagree. I posted guidelines on what asset issuers should do to engender trust in them - THIS community said that was welcome and needed. The first issuer willing to follow those guidelines is then basically tarred and feathered by a handful of members of the community.

Again, Socal is the only asset issuer who is willing to adhere to the guidelines this community thought were good, and required. So I will give 100% support to him - if my words were inarticulate or misunderstood, I apologize - but if we're going to have community standards, then not backing him 100% when he wants to adhere to MY guidelines - that would make me a hypocrite. And I'm not. The cost of running the servers that host these forums, many of the pools, the multiple different language websites - that comes out of my pocket in US$. Keeping my word about never penalizing miners if we got on a fork has cost me over 1 Million Burst. Everything I do is for the community, and if someone wants to follow the community guidelines, then I'll back them totally, no matter how new they are and despite the opinion of a handful of members - especially where the primary objectors have their own mining asset, which is a serious conflict of interest when disparaging another mining asset.

Again @crowetic there were no intended underhand comments and below the belt jabs. I was arguing for the right of Socal, willing to follow my guidelines - which NO other asset owner has done - to be given a chance.

[Focus]

@haitch I take offence to what you said, and personally feel targeted by your reply. So let me say this:

When I first came here, it took 3 months before I even fathomed starting an asset or anything of the sort. I built 4 miners out my own pocket(just like you have), only then did I even try for something like an asset, and only when I had established myself as a member part of this community. Having done that, I documented my setup, with screenshots and pictures of the actual equipment put up for the asset.

There were no checks, no identity verification or any other process for doing so. Since then I have self doxed myself to you AFTER the fact, I mean in no way was I obliged to except for showing the rest of the members good faith. I would have gladly followed your ID verification system if it were in place at the time, so your argument of the others not having done so is moot. I did so, willingly even when I didn't have to.

AS for Socal, he mentioned in a post that the community should meet him halfway, then my reply to that would be, great we will meet you half way but if you are asking US to do so, then shouldn't he do the same, just like ccminer did. That;'s the only point that I was trying to make and it goes like this: My personal opinion for the Burst community is that if you want to take something from Burst, then maybe start by giving first, whether it be by implicating and getting to know the members or by financial investment if the person't budget permits. It's like the old adage, it takes money to make money.

Also, haitch, I believe you have seen my track record and I would assume you respect my thoughts and opinions, otherwise you would have not trusted me to the point that you already have, and it insults me, that all you were trying to do was prove a point in public, and at most times at my expense. Yes, this should have been handled in private before it got that heated.

And I am gonna go out on a limb here, yes I may get hot headed sometimes but that is because I am a person with strong morals and strong beliefs(never said that they are all right but regardless), and if you take a look I have repeatedly gone out of my way to help any member the best I can here and further Burst as a whole, many projects and advancements simultaneously, let's not forget the countless hours overlooking pools and wallets to make sure the network is stable... So having said that, and without pointing any fingers, I take it personally that some have not done their due diligence in finding out how I am and how I help this community but instead pointing the finger as if I am a bad guy.

Enough with this rant now.

@socal I apologize if it came off a little too harsh as it was not the intent, It's maybe my idealism of the situation in thinking that people should invest time or money into our community before taking something out, and I will repeat it as I have several times before that it was not personal towards you. Having said that, I fully expect your asset to do extremely well considering all this good and bad press it has received.

[haitch]

@Focus there was no personal insult intended - apparently I'm doing that a lot at the moment. However the vehemence against Socal's asset and persistence on the subject made me question why.

And yes, I do you value your thoughts, opinions and help with the pools.

But Socal is the first asset issuer to follow MY guidelines on issuing an asset. It doesn't matter how new he is to the forums, being willing to fulfill the community approved guidelines lets him give the community the choice about buying his asset.

[Focus]

@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:

@Focus there was no personal insult intended - apparently I'm doing that a lot at the moment. However the vehemence against Socal's asset and persistence on the subject made me question why.

And yes, I do you value your thoughts, opinions and help with the pools.

But Socal is the first asset issuer to follow MY guidelines on issuing an asset. It doesn't matter how new he is to the forums, being willing to fulfill the community approved guidelines lets him give the community the choice about buying his asset.

The community will always have the choice, you can put up a title on his thread as being a SCAM (not saying it is) and people can still turn around and buy assets from the asset exchange....

Anyways, this obviously needs to be discussed further somewhere other that in this thread.

[haitch]

@Focus If I thought this was a scam, the thread would be in the Scam sub category. Again, I will fully support any asset issuer who follows my guidelines.

[Focus]

@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:

@Focus If I thought this was a scam, the thread would be in the Scam sub category. Again, I will fully support any asset issuer who follows my guidelines.

I never said it was, I was merely saying, anyone can go in the scam asset section and still spend burst on any assets that have been scams, the community still has free will

[socal]

Wow I wake up and there's a text wall lol, now most of it does not pertain to me but to the "leadership" so I will not comment on that as it is not my place.

As for everything else that DOES pertain to me, no worries I understand your hesitation but I have been involved with crypto since 2013 mining, trading, investing, promotions, community projects etc. So I do have SOME idea of what I'm doing in issuing an asset. That said I agreed that I should put up more personally funded hardware BUT as stated earlier a few members have expressed interest in investing before I can purchase and setup the rest of my personally funded equipment, which we will take into consideration before releasing the asset

[socal]

Since I will be working closely with @haitch I would like to personally and publicly offer him a portion of the fees for as long as his services are rendered (on top of his one time fees for his verification and Escrow services.

Do any potential investors disagree with this offer?

[haitch]

@socal No need for the fees - use your asset to pay back to your investors and I'll be happy. My help doesn't come with a price.

[crowetic]

Okay so this is my final post (even though the last was stated as that...)

This thread got WAY out of hand, I personally wanted to apologize for any involvement in fueling that, and apologize to the community for my part.

Hoping this doesn't change your opinion of our amazing community.

This was a bit of a touchy subject, and the comments got WAY too far.

Apologies from me for anything that caused any doubt in BURST, or the functionality of the team.

I should have left my opinion of the assets, and not replied in public to my feelings on haitch's opinions. I should have followed my own example. For that I'm sorry.

Thank you all.

[socal]

@haitch not a problem. So where we are now is waiting for me to buy and setup another 10TB and to see if the person's interested in investing early understand the risks and are still interested in investing early.

Also of note, if demand is high enough then an extra block or two of shares can be offered for sale. Now it'll take me time to get my personally funded 10TB up and runninh (I.e. gotta let the fiancee finish Christmas shopping for the kids and rest of the family) but discounting the 10TB from me (13TB total) I'm hoping to get 20TB - 30TB of organic mining capacity setup for the asset before the end of the year