Twitter Threads: on Project “Partnerships”
I don’t care is company X is involved with a well-known company.
I’ve talked to plenty of such companies that have really no clue what they are getting involved in.
As such, they are not a good benchmark to use to qualify a project as “good”.
Anything can and will be used as a metric to declare a project “good”, especially as long as there is a distinct lack of real knowledge about what makes a blockchain project worthwhile.
This means also “partnerships”. I remember when Ethereum joined the Azure program with a few lines of code (which didn’t even include an update function), and it lead to a significant price rise.
Partnerships, at this stage, mean zilch, even if they include well-knowns.
The only thing that matters is whether a project has code that works, is provable, is open source, is open to criticism and has a real testable goal.
If a project lacks ANY of those, it’s suspect and should be.
- Without parameters to test claims, any conversation is useless.
- Without code that obfuscates nothing, there is nothing to test.
- Without open source/FOSS, a project is suspect, because there can be no testing of claims.
- Without openness to criticism (and I’d like to add humbleness personally), testing is useless as it won’t lead to improvements.
- Without a testable goal, it’s impossible to judge where your project is at.
I consider all the rest to be BS, and it should be called out where it’s seen.
BS means good projects will not be seen and that means the BS projects are wasting time and space, valuable commodities.
They are wasting all our time and space.
Arrogant founders that perpetuate any of the above are (even if they themselves believe to be right) opportunistic raiders and selfish bastards.
Originally published at Bas Wisselink.
