Why the lie? Unless you think he did it for free he WAS paid it is just currently the tokens he was paid with have little value. But anyone who believes Doug actually believed in the product he was shilling has to also believe Doug thought he was getting paid in tokens that had actual solid value. And for some strange reason we have heard him whine about his losses but never been told exactly what he thought he was making.

I thought that everyone who read that would know it's sarcasm, I laid it on very thick. I guess I was wrong.

Doug wants us to believe that he was never paid. No one else saw it that way.

Did Doug say he was never paid or just that he never made any $ on the deal?

If he was paid in Flexcoin or even some other crypto, and it was locked up on CF site for X months, then he was paid, but did not gain.
He had EV, but was in a similar boat to the followers to which he shilled in the shorter term (although I doubt he was gonna announce when he cashed out either).

Apologize. Just reading people in this thread that claim he was an innocent victim and actually mean it makes it hard to tell the fools from the sarcasm.

The latter is closer to what he actually said but he hasn't said either of those things. He said he lost money because of CF's incompetence as well. No clarifications beyond that. It seems most assume that to mean that CF paid him in their token and he never cashed them out.

My belief isn't that he never cashed them out with him having the choice but that he didn't have a choice to cash out until a certain date and it crashed and burned before that date.

Scumbag is an ad hominem. But I do see an issue here.

What happens when a project is created and approaches someone like polk to say 'if you lend your name, you will have any of the benefits and be absolved from any of the negative possibilities". This would be akin to a poker celebrity not making a living off of playing poker but rather by advertising breakeven or worse games as paying out to the skill players.

Crypto and the trading platforms were created from extending and copying the solutions that comprised to birth bitcoin. There are very knowledgeable experts that create and maintain this technology. In general, and almost in perfect unison, they believe that projects such as the one that doug supported here are scams.

That doesn't mean they are, but all of the technical experts believe that they are (as do pretty much every mainstream economist that evaluates the claims of these projects).

Regardless the community needs to decide what to do with claims of ignorance. In this case, who was Doug meaning to lend his reputation to in order to later cash out and gain versus?

There is no social protection against any of the poker celebrities joining actual scams and then claiming they didn't know (when outside of this community and in the technical community of crypto and bitcoin its well known that these projects are scam and run by scammers).

If we need to get actual well known experts from crypto and bitcoin we can do that.

But right now this is an exploit for scammers and different projects have been sucking value out of this and the great poker community since bitcoin was released.

Doug if you would have asked me, I would have convinced you its a scam and that it will eventually be tied to bring down your rep. I have a huge history, rep, and resume in this regard. I wrote the book on the subject of the effects and evolution of crypto currencies with regard to poker.

Nothing wrong with reaching the conclusion that Doug Polk is an arsehole, yeah it's technically ad hominem, but it's not argumentum ad hominem, and it's not (necessarily) fallacious

You seem to be the most knowledgable poster on this topic. Do you have any theories as to where the 84 million dollars of investor's money is?

I looked for it on Amazon but nothing found. What was the name of the book?

Most likely they weren't hedging risks they were betting. Plus without seeing statements on how much the management/equity positions were sucking out of the company hard to know.

In bitcoinland this is an inexcusable mistake Alan points out. Because we know who Roger Ver is and what BCH. Here ver vouches for the mt gox coins that were later shown to be already missing:



But you tried to and it was a scam. What do we do now?

an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of chips

Is it ok for a popular/influential poker celebrity to sell a -ev product as if its +ev to the players? This is the theme.

Would be interesting if he got paid in FlexUSD. You know, the coin he claimed was backed by dollars and couldn't fall in value. What is the reasoning for FLEXusd anyway? If it's backed by USDC, why the **** don't they just USDC?

It's like, you give me $10 million in USDC and I'll give you $10 million in my made up Flex coin. Samesies! My stable Flexcoin has so many more features! You can earn like a bunch of interest and stuff. No reason to have any clue it's a ponzi and when we do run with the money I can claim ignorance because it seemed like such a viable thing!

it's not a ponzi scheme, it's a reverse funnel system

Doug's due diligence was to investigate whether the people involved seemed legit. He saw that Roger Ver was involved, who he knew was not legit. Then he shilled CoinFLEX to us anyway... LOL

I'm curious, why do you say Roger Ver was not "legit" ? I met "Bitcoin Jesus" many years ago, back when BTC was under $100 USD. I found him a bit odd, which was not unusual among Bitcoin early adopters.

I understand there is a dispute over some unsecured loan or financing deal between Roger Ver and Coinflex related to some option or loan or such. (I really don't know the details, what I've read about Coinflex is largely from this thread.)

What I don't follow is your leap from

A .Doug "knew Roger Ver was involved with Coinflex (whch might have been true or not) to

B. Doug knew Roger Ver was "not legit".

What would the basis for those assertions and the leap between them ?

(As it appears here itt, Rgoer was a borrower from Coinflex, on what appears to be a woefully unsecured basis. Do you somehow connect Doug to the making of that loan in some unknown way ?)

it's a self-sustaining economy

Over the years I probably saw over 1,000 ICOs or tokens pitched. The question you ask, "why the **** don't they just USDC ?" is a proper one to ask ANY investor in any crypto.

To put it another way, "wtf is the use case or feature/application for THIS crypto that is not met already by some existing crypto" ?

like Dutch tulips ?

Jeez, Mt.gox ... a blast from the past.

Do you know that Mt.gox was literally named after Magic The Gathering , a fitting name for a crypto industry start up ?

(Fwiw, I think Mt.gox was not a "coin" , but rather a poorly run exchange that was looted by bad actors. There was direct enforcement action brought by the US government and some effort by third parties to salavage what was remaining of the business.)

Didn't mean to slander Roger Ver who is probably a good person, unlike the people at CoinFLEX who Doug trusted.

I was simply going off of what Doug Polk himself said.
https://youtu.be/UxEDxuLNI70?t=289

Thanks for the link, i'll watch it later.

Fwiw, if you want truly cringe-worthy poker-player endorsement of a crypto product, check out Phil Hellmuth and Decent.Bet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62yw76BfuSc&t=21s

lol, I'm not vouching for Roger Ver, I just met him years ago, at the first Bitcoin Conference in the US..

OK, Roger Ver may or may not be a good person

Doug thought Roger Ver was a bad person, but I think we've learned not to put much weight on Doug's judgement.

Ver is notorious. I would be very suspicious if his name came up for anything. And he doesn't have money, he's a criminal, he scams.


I can't stomach watching people/doug talk about this ****. If I need to watch it I will. But how is doug losing money. How does an ambassador have to pay to be an ambassador?

Let's render this to a game so we can apply some 'Machiavellian' thinking...

Doug if the CEO dude of this project said to you that he thought roger ver wouldn't scam them would you accept this ignorance as a defense?

these are easy questions to answer without taking any position on Doug. An ambassador gives time and stakes some portion of reputation on the product. It may be the case that whatever compensation they receive is insufficient for their "investment."