>EOS.io has a huge group of traditional investors that fully funded eos before there was even a crowdsale for the token.
That's a positive thing as far as I can tell.
>The token sale is purely about profit and extracting wealth from other blockchains.
That seems to be a gigantic leap based on the previous comment. The token sale can't be PURELY about profit if it is also about distributing the token to create a large network.
>The investors and the team have a huge incentive to drive the price up through hype.
Every investor has an incentive to do this with their investments.
>It is making the team and the investors shit tons of money.
It's seeming more and more like this is what you have a problem with.
When you've checked the ethereum blockchain yourself for these recycled transactions we can talk about whether or not their method was honest.
>to think he is speaking truth unbiasedly when he is building a competing product is incredibly naive.
Until this comment he's been promoting STEEM as one of his most successful blockchains. Dan is not incentivised to talk trash about his own creation. Steem has first mover advantage and I know for a fact Dan would have preferred if STEEM had stayed healthy and good for its community. He would have profited from its success. Now he has to put more work into a replacement, and it's not to "make more money", but because he doesn't like to see the community that gave him so much wealth being abused and neglected. I'm not being naive. There is nothing selfish about creating a competitor for his own creation. It would be another gift after the many gifts he's already given you and the world. It would be his way of not letting us down, for those of us who did not let him down.
