olympus收購
dented case testing the limits of pseudonymity in decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), the lawsuit names a Connecticut resident as the supposed identity behind “Apollo,” one of
olympus收購olympus’s pseudonymous co-founders.UnmuteBitcoin ETFs Are Still ‘Wildly Successful’: Kraken Head of Strategy11:52Bitcoin ETFs Are Still ‘Wildly Successful’: Kraken Head of Strategy02:30Wormhole’s W Token Has a 999% Weekly Return; Why VanEck Is Bullish on Ethereum Layer 2s02:07Three Crypto Predictions in 202400:52Why Injective’s INJ Has Surged 3,000% in 2023CoinDesk has not independently verified the identity of the alleged Apollo and has reached out to the individual named in the lawsuit, Daniel Bara, for comment.What is
olympus收購olympusDAO?The Ethereum-based
olympus收購olympusDAO project has been one of the most talked-about – and most controversial – experiments to enter the world of DeFi in the past year.The project sought to establish its native OHM token as a digital reserve currency through a mix of memes and game theory, but its price famously tanked 95% this past winter.The OHM token now sits at $28 according to CoinMarketCap, down from a $1,300 peak in October.The complainant in the lawsuit filed Thursday, Australia-based investor Jason Liang, says he agreed to promote
olympus收購olympusDAO and paid $50,000 in DAI (a U.S. dollar-based stablecoin) in a private funding agreement in exchange for 4 million pOHM, a precursor to OHM. According to an
olympus收購olympus Medium post, investors like Liang were later able to mint 1 OHM in exchange for 1 DAI and 1 pOHM.In his suit, Liang alleges that after he started selling some of his
olympus收購olympus tokens, the
olympus收購olympus team punished him by rendering inoperable the smart contracts enabling him to redeem pOHM for OHM.Liang says the
olympus收購olympus team’s ability to meddle with key smart contract functionality undermines claims that the project is decentralized.According to the lawsuit, the
olympus收購olympus team also used pseudonymity to protect its members from liability.Liang alleges that a token purchase agreement (TPA) between him and
olympus收購olympus stated that money raised in the private funding round would go to a company that didn’t actually exist. With the identities of
olympus收購olympus’s founders a secret, the lack of an officially registered company behind the fundraiser was, according to the lawsuit, designed to make it difficult for an investor like Liang to pursue legal action against the project.The suit says Liang’s legal team identified Apollo by doing a reverse lookup on a phone number Apollo used to call Liang. The name behind the phone number matches one that was signed on the token purchase agreement that Liang originally thought was fictitious.In an email to CoinDesk, Joseph B. Evans, an attorney for Liang, said: “There is a completely legal and legitimate way to run a DAO. This isn’t it. It appears that certain organizations still believe they can avoid liability if their founders and promoters hide behind screen names, social media handles and fictitious entities. My client provided much needed start-up capital to
olympus收購olympus, and he is entitled to share in its success.”Is
olympus收購olympusDAO an ‘honest Ponzi’?When
olympus收購olympusDAO was launched last year, the project’s unique bonding and staking mechanics promised staggeringly high returns to investors in the realm of 10,000% annual percentage yield (APY). In order for the system to work, OHM holders were encouraged to interact with
olympus收購olympus’s smart contracts according to a set of game theory principles “memefied” by the project’s community.”Hodling,” buying, and staking OHM would theoretically guarantee steady, sky-high returns for the whole community. Selling, like Liang did, was sacrilege.A flock of vocal critics dismissed
olympus收購olympusDAO as a Ponzi scheme from its very start, but the DAO still managed to spur an entire “DeFi 2.0” movement – inspiring popular spinoffs like KlimaDAO and WonderlandDAO to jump in with their own high-yield token systems.As
olympus收購olympusDAO has grown into one of the most popular projects in decentralized finance, its creators – the pseudonymous “Zeus” and “Apollo” – have remained anonymous (until now, perhaps, in Apollo’s case).Pseudonymity of a project’s core contributors is not uncommon in the world of DAOs, and it has been framed as a way for a decentralized community to preserve meritocracy.Liang’s lawsuit suggests there are other reasons why DAO creators might want to hide their identities, and the filing comes a couple of months after the pseudonymous creator of WonderlandDAO,
olympus收購olympusDAO’s largest spinoff, was unmasked as a well-known convicted felon.This is a developing story. Check back for updates.Further reading on pseudonymityWhy CoinDesk Respects Pseudonymity: A Stand Against DoxxingCrypto’s Challenge: Right-to-Privacy vs. Right-to-KnowYour Right to Anonymity Ends Where Risk to My Money BeginsThe Perils of Crypto’s Pseudonymous EconomyWonderland’s (and DeFi’s) Anonymity ProblemOf Course It’s OK to Out the BAYC Founders
olympus收購olympusDAO lawsuit by CoinDesk on ScribdDisclosurePlease note that our privacy policy, terms of use, cookies, and do not sell my personal information has been updated.CoinDesk is an award-winning media outlet that covers the cryptocurrency industry. Its journalists abide by a strict set of editorial policies. In November 2023, CoinDesk was acquired by the Bullish group, owner of Bullish, a regulated, digital assets exchange. The Bullish group is majority-owned by Block.one; both companies have interests in a variety of blockchain and digital asset businesses and significant
我們想讓你知道…這個嘲諷開的有點大啊…..專業Tank來著
記者莊友直／台北報導
前腳 Nikon 社長牛田雄一才說未來將會以高階機型、新微單等不同產品挽救市場，在整合諸多科技結晶的 D850 問世後，似乎市場反應真的好上一些。近期中國媒體也在 Nikon 於上海舉辦百年展覽時，趁機訪問到原本任職開發部長，現職為映像事業部高級顧問的後藤哲朗先生，他除了更進一步確認 Nikon 新微單將會是全幅外，還對其他微單廠商開了超大的地圖砲啊…..
▲Nikon 映像事業部高級顧問後藤哲朗。（圖／翻攝自色影無忌）
首先中國媒體因應 Nikon 特殊的復古全幅單眼 Df，加上後藤先生又是負責開發該機的人，也順道問了一些開發和有無新款機型的問題；不過他提到雖然因應百週年，不少消費者也反饋希望能有 Df2 的問世消息；但以整體銷量來看，Df 表現並不是太好，且開發新款機型還是有隱憂。因此後藤先生也呼籲用戶：「要是真的喜歡 Df 的話，就趁現在馬上去買吧」，明顯是說不會有 2 代機型了啊 XD。
▼被問到 Nikon 復古單眼 Df 有無機會出後代，後藤先生則是以開發成本等因素，間接否認了這個消息。（圖／記者洪聖壹攝）
被問到有沒有可能會拿 Df 的皮做 Nikon 新的微單，雖然後藤先生是迷迷糊糊帶過；但他也提到要是 Nikon 確定要再度設計微單眼的話，鐵定會做 35mm 全片幅格式；再搭配之前牛田社長的發言，根本已經可以說 Nikon 新微單一定是全幅啊。
▼雖然後藤先生沒有直接確認，不過他說 Nikon 新微單要出的話，鐵定是全幅，搭上先前牛田社長的消息，看來真的八九不離十啊，圖為 Nikon 1 微單眼。（圖／記者廖明慧攝）
另外，後藤先生也大膽提出自己對其他微單眼的看法，在被中國媒體問到時，他先說像富士、
olympus收購olympus 與 Sony 設計的微單眼，僅是為了滿足特性消費族群（像是復古機型），並無法完全對應所有消費族群需求；甚至連沒有專業攝影師在用這種重話都出來了（詳細報導請點這裡，筆者完全沒有誇大啊），可說是嘲諷開滿滿。
▼後藤先生在被問到其他微單的看法時，大膽說出像是富士、
olympus收購olympus 與 Sony 並沒有滿足所有消費者需求，甚至沒有專業攝影師使用，真的很狂啊！圖為 Sony A9 全幅微單。（圖／記者莊友直攝）
對於 Sony 首台高速微單機皇 A9，後藤先生也提出 Sony 在 A9 發表之前，其實也歷經很多失敗經驗，不過 Nikon 在對於這些失敗經驗來看，可說是遠遠多過於 Sony 的。讓人感覺有些霧颯颯的一言，應該是後藤對於 Nikon 的逆境生存力相當具有信心吧？而究竟 Nikon 新微單是否會讓攝友比起 D850 更為驚艷，就讓我們拭目以待！
資料來源：《色影無忌》
olympus收購
olympus收購