> No, you weaseled to "plurality" as if that mattered.
By a wide margin. Of course it matters. Why wouldn't it? Selling all of it would drop the price but not enough to keep the plurality owners from getting rich. Claiming that just because it's half as much hording as I incorrectly claimed (and quickly and happily corrected) makes it OK just shows another example of your poor ethics.
It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains.
> It's just self-debasing name-calling, which any fool can do.
This sentence, even in isolation, shows a complete lack of self-awareness.
And here we loop back to a stupid, trollish claim that at least can be refuted: "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web.
We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising.
If this is your limit on arguing to justify slurs, find a new hobby. It's boring and it makes you look silly or envious.
The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly. To work the order book in the face of falling liquidity would require some buyers who do not see the project risk. And I'd be out of job, and I am not independently wealthy and wouldn't be on good odds after trying such a stunt.
Enough for onlookers. Now go do something better! Note how I did not call you a fool yet. There's still hope, if you stop the foolish, self-defeating and easily falsified comments.
> "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web.
I never claimed otherwise. Ad blocking is completely legal.
> We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising.
Sub-40% of what? People care about the actual money they're being paid, not revenue shares of different-sized pies.
That's all beside the point though. You hold the publishers over the barrel, so they have no choice but to accept your terms, whatever they may be. You're exactly like a piracy service that offers content to users for free and then offers to pay the content owners in a token owned by the piracy service.
> The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly
You're obviously going to sell what you have, slowly at first for income, and faster when your scam fails.
1. We have too little share to "hold publishers over a barrel"
2. Glad you agree users have right to block, so no one is holding anyone over a barrel -- we could just let publishers get nothing. Would you retract "scam" then? Argue consistently for a change.
3. You have not in any event supported "scam". Look the word up! If you mean we are "extorting", see 2. Our users want to support their sites, we help them. This is all found money above the zero that users by right to adblock leave publishers with today. Get it?
I'm done replying; almost all onlookers are way smarter than you and they have enough info to see through your slurs. Plus, the indentation level is too deep!
As for "scam", a slur without arguments or evidence is not refutable. It's just self-debasing name-calling, which any fool can do.