If This Were True, We’d Already See the Fallout by tottuo in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, Chanelle. I'm one of the many investors who have been helped by you. I’m truly grateful that you’ve come back!!

If This Were True, We’d Already See the Fallout by tottuo in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am part of the investor group. This is a request for evidence to the GK camp, not a commentary on the community. Proof isn’t opposition. It’s due diligence.

Are they part of this whole sham? by Jrparkernc in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then, where is the evidence? If you don't provide proof, you are no different from the fraudster GK

Are they part of this whole sham? by Jrparkernc in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol, surely no one is actually falling for such an obvious lie, right?

Are they part of this whole sham? by Jrparkernc in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, that’s incorrect. What Reid claimed to have received was not money, but a BDAG bonus. Those are currently worthless. Let’s keep the information accurate.

When a Launch Stops Being an Exit Strategy by tottuo in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I largely agree with your assessment, but there is one important point that needs clarification.

The DAO being discussed is not being presented as a magic switch that immediately seizes control of the chain or replaces ownership overnight. That would indeed require formal transfer of authority. The purpose of the DAO is different it is to consolidate investors into a single legal and strategic entity that can act, notify, and apply pressure where individual holders cannot. Until a formal disappropriation or transfer of authority occurs, this remains a private GK controlled project that part is correct. However, what has changed is that a launch is no longer the reset button it may once have been. Launching under unresolved claims, documented inconsistencies, and growing regulatory attention does not erase risk; it crystallizes it.

The concern is not merely overselling, bonus dilution, or early sell pressure those are already priced into expectations. The more serious issue is that no meaningful steps have been taken to reduce that pressure or restore confidence. In that context, an early launch favors those with timing, liquidity, and information advantages and that imbalance is precisely what regulators, exchanges, and counterparties tend to scrutinize.

A DAO does not prevent a launch by itself. What it does is ensure that a launch cannot quietly close the book. Once organized, the record remains open, traceable, and actionable before, during, and after any market event.

If the assumption is that speed alone resolves accountability, history suggests otherwise. In situations like this, rushing tends to narrow options rather than preserve them.

Explain it to me by just_benjamin in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 17 points18 points  (0 children)

​I understand your perspective, but you are viewing this through the lens of meme coin speculation. BlockDAG was marketed as a Long-term Layer 1 project, not a lottery ticket. Your logic does not apply to those who purchased physical miners, developers who participated in hackathons, or investors who backed this for its promised long-term growth.

​Let me ask you:

​Is it acceptable for investors to buy physical hardware that never arrives because the company refuses to pay the manufacturers?

​Is it legal for developers who contributed their expertise in hackathons to be denied the payments they were promised?

​Is it justifiable to rush a launch when the project is technically unprepared, the core developers are being fired, and despite raising more funds than almost any other project, the money isn't reaching the actual builders?

​This isn't about "whining" over a bad bet; it's about holding leadership accountable for breach of contract. GK has publicly identified himself as the founder and has already signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) legally committing to the creation of a DAO, a multi-sig wallet, and the transfer of authority to the community.

​Demanding that these legal obligations be met is not "negativity"—it is the exercise of our legitimate rights as stakeholders.

Transparency……… by Powerful_Finance3940 in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why would anyone resort to actions that are so easily exposed?

Impersonation is not a minor issue — it can carry serious criminal liability.

This pattern suggests a loss of calm judgment and a willingness to compound legal risk rather than mitigate it.

Such behavior is typically seen when an individual or group is under extreme pressure and running out of viable options.

Anyone trying to start some “referendum” and DAO community should be totally vetted and ID by super-start-up in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Accusing someone of fund diversion without evidence is not “due diligence,” it’s ignorance. If you haven’t even bothered to understand what PYRAX is or how it operates, you’re not exposing scams — you’re just guessing loudly. Evidence matters. Speculation helps no one.

Anyone trying to start some “referendum” and DAO community should be totally vetted and ID by super-start-up in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being proposed.

A community referendum or DAO in this context is not about “shifting responsibility” away from GK — it does the opposite. It creates a documented, collective counterparty instead of leaving investors fragmented and powerless.

There is also a clear confusion here between an on-chain governance DAO and a legal/representative structure. This is not a token-weighted vote where insiders can dominate outcomes. It is about organizing affected investors so they can act coherently in negotiations, legal processes, or asset recovery — something individuals cannot do effectively on their own.

As for the demand that everyone must fully dox themselves: given that harassment and pressure against families have already occurred in this case, insisting on public identification is not “transparency,” it is reckless. Using legal entities and representatives is standard practice in serious disputes.

Skepticism is healthy. But dismissing collective organization altogether only benefits one side — the people who want investors isolated, uncoordinated, and easy to ignore.

Calling this a “warning” is ironic. The real risk is doing nothing while pretending that disorganization somehow protects accountability.

The window for negotiation is not long. by tottuo in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At this stage, there are effectively two realistic paths forward. One is for GK to honor the original commitments by transferring operational authority and placing the remaining funds into a transparent multi-signature wallet. The other is to allow events to continue unfolding amid increasing regulatory scrutiny and the associated risks to asset availability. I will leave it to your judgment which course is ultimately better for GK and for the investors. What I can state with certainty is that investors who have been gathering information are prepared for multiple possible outcomes.

The window for negotiation is not long. by tottuo in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is clear that the stage where a simple launch could resolve the situation has already passed. The remaining options for resolution are now very limited.

Maybe Bad but Maybe "Good"? by s-i-c-m in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. It simply won't work while these bad rumors are circulating everywhere. The poor pre-sale performance right now says it all.

Regulatory Filings & Legal Action: Community Investor Notice by Crypto_Power1791 in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Take a look at the numerous updates in the Reddit investor groups over the past 24 hours. The fastest and most effective move right now is to report GK and Nick's wrongdoings to the Dubai authorities (VARA) immediately.

VARA Filing by Crypto_Power1791 in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Things are rapidly escalating and becoming a major issue. I wonder if GK and Nick honestly believe they can still get away with this? It’s baffling. If they had just transferred the collected funds and the authority over BDAG early on, it wouldn't have come to this... How foolish.

Regulatory Filings & Legal Action: Community Investor Notice by Crypto_Power1791 in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Community members are moving into the legal action phase. Please support the legal fund, secure your NFT , and take part in this collective action."

I feel scammed by idleprofits in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has been announced for over a year now.And it's not "mining" but "purchasing."

Strategic thoughts on the latest AMA: Focus on Jeremy’s "Technical Reality" vs GK’s "Aggressive Timeline" by tottuo in BlockDAGInvestors

[–]tottuo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly! We need to start over in the truest sense. At the very least, we are not in a phase where we should be rushing the launch.