From transparency to Balina FUD: a hate story

I've been involved in a debate in ICO Check which ultimately lead to create a lot of confusion. Let's put a few things straight.

I'll write this as questions and answers.

What was it all about in ICO Check? How did I get involved?

I'd been for a while in ICO Check. I initiated a debate about transparency when the 0bin article about Chromaway has been posted. I labeled this as bullshit and wished some best practices about transparency were used. This triggered the whole debate about best practices and was not related to Chromaway, but to ICOs in general.

Why all my messages in ICO Check and the wrap-up I helped write is gone?

I deleted everything myself because it was serving the wrong cause. Some used this wrap-up to publish the "UNCUT" article, which was full of assumptions and misinformation.

The point I was into was totally forgotten and quotes were then taken out of context, gossips came out, personal attacks without any facts to back the claims.

Having followed it all from day 1, my view is that ultimately misinformation took over facts and people used this convo to target Chromaway and some individuals in a much-maligned intent. I don't like the term because it's overused in the crypto space, but that's FUD and that one is unfounded.

Why am I writing again about this?

To put things in order as I receive dozen questions a day. I think it was a chance that majors actors joined and that we could bring something positive in the space. It's pity what it's about now.

Do I have any relation with Benn Godenzi or Ian Balina?

Nothing.

How is Chromaway involved in all this?

In fact, It isn't. Chromaway was stated as an example in the conversation which was about the ICO space in general. Many other projects have been mentioned, but only one remained, Chromaway.

Does anything shady came out on Chromaway during those convos?

Nothing to me.

Well to me, Chromaway has been transparent by showing up and answering questions. Now they don't even have a public sale, but everyone knows the terms. Can hardly fault them at transparency, we've seen all kind of "layered sales" this year and shady setups, Chromaway is transparent on those matters.

A communication mix-up happened at best. That's all about Chromaway. 

How many ICOs have we seen advisors and COO joining in an open AMA in a chat they don't control? So in my call for more transparency, and despite some glitch in the heat of the moment, I'd be more positive about Chromaway and wonder how many ICOs would engage in doing the same.

Am I tied in any way to Chromaway or have been in touch with team?

No. Only discussions I had briefly happened in public chat with the COO.

Bottom line

People have used this all to launch personal attacks at Ian Balina, Benn Godenzi and Chromaway. 

The point about transparency is totally gone and no-one really cares about Chromaway product or best practices in the scene.

Now the debate mostly relates to a « pool ». Pooling has been a common way to have a chance to enter projects. Most, if not all, have used them.

While « we » as a community had the chance to make something of it all, it just turned into a FUD campaign and doesn’t bring anything positive to the crypto scene.