Thread

This account is consciously a reactive, critical account to harmful trends I see gaining currency in the Bitcoin space. Which doesn't make it a high value account to follow, I agree, but its aim is to simply inflict small pinpricks against hubris and groupthink, which may give the poster under whom I comment some cause for reflection (unlikely) or give the viewers of the post some pause for thought (also unlikely but more probable). (The above is on the premise that there is at least some truth in my criticism, which may not always be the case of course. I'm not claiming to be 'the voice of reason' and am open to pushback). Now with respect to Fountain, here is an initial list of why I call it out. I could add more points but these three are a start (and mostly off the cuff). Scam markers for the Fountain app : * Initially heavily promoted itself as a 'listen to earn' platform. This clearly made no sense as a 'business model' and was an obvious typical VC play to burn money early to gain a user base. Users have for a while been complaining they no longer earn from listening and that there was no announcement from the company that this 'feature' was being deprecated. It was simply quietly wound down. * An early VC investor was Anthony Pompliano, whose involvement is a clear scam marker in itself * Fountain undermines the decentralised technology of podcasts, replacing RSS feeds with its custom Fountain URLs and promoting itself as a centralised proprietary platform for following podcasts and interacting with other listeners. Of course it's not alone in doing this and several other bigger players are trying to privatize the podcast space in a similar way. Nevertheless, it is a part of this deplorable trend.

I ommited answering what I think is yr actual point. Why rail against scams (however perceived) when one could spend one's time more productively advocating for or developing real solutions? I agree it's a good point and obviously Satoshi and the cypherpunks took exactly this path. "Real cypherpunks write code" The minor defence I would offer up is that I'm trying, in a very small way, to run interference on the code that's been written