1. RELEASE BULLSHIT EXAGGERATED NUMBERS.
2. EXPECT THAT MOST WILL NOT VERIFY AND ASSUME OTHERS DID.
3. SOLICIT REAL INVESTMENTS IN YOUR COMPANY BASED ON THE BULLSHIT NUMBERS.
4. PROFIT.
Discussion
🤔
🦢?
You must be fun on parties
🤡🌏🌎🌍
You think we’re lying?
You think people would invest without verifying those numbers?
Come on, Matt.
What a retarded question. Have you ever heard of FTX? Blockfi? Celsius? TerraLuna? Bitconnect?
People didn't verify.
People got rekt.
Your question is either dumb or arrogantly misleading on purpose.
Tell us.
I’m asking Matt as a friend.
I understand don’t trust, verify.
To me he’s just following the Ethos we all approve « don’t trust, verify » and it seems his verification don’t check out.
It’s up to everybody else to also check.
Would be a shame than that « Corey the excellent bullshit caller » cie fall for the same shameless scams if it is the case.
I’ve worked at startups the past 12 years. You just described 100% of Silicon Valley startups.
With the ultimate exit strategy of being acquired or IPO, both of which only help the top 5% at most.
Games gonna game.
This is what most corporations do.
5. GET REKT
WELCOME TO FIAT WORLD.
this has been the playbook for most failed startups in the past decade
If you put Swan Ventures and Bitcoin together, you get a nice acronym. Just saying 🤷♂️
Why is it so hard for people to just self custody? It’s so fucking simple.
If I actually had people coming to me (still working on orange pilling a few newbs) asking how to self custody, I would show them how to do it for free.
You’re right, It is incredibly simple.
Does Ten31 have information rights as an investor in Swan?
Proud to say I've never used Swan. I saw through Cory right away.
house of cards
👀👀
#m=image%2Fgif&dim=360x262&blurhash=%23DHL-ljpEB%7EpIb4sj%5E-hoG%3DSp1%24%7EM%7CIaR%3A%251xpWB0GROIcIWxV%24%7Ct1bdRo%3F6NGIt%24%7ExYazM%7DRlogS3bdRPRmxsR.RooIs*xujWE3WZt7jXkBWFWCWBo%23xUV%40WBxtRjM%7Cj%5D&x=947a0e845f2eb4c89ec2a4c88a389e01d0584802671d884804211fa3fc649f2d
this is the best timeline
The revenue numbers are likely legit if they are reporting gross bitcoin sales as revenue (similar to cash app). 200mm annualized is a crafty way of saying 50mm/quarter and Cash app is 50x that amount which is what id assume to be the multiple ahead of Swan.
Assume an average fee of 2%, the actual quarterly net revenue is probably $1mm on bitcoin sales.
using gross volume traded/bought as your revenue number is bullshit and shady doesnt matter whether youre cash app or swan
Is nostr:npub1tftc33ttam85wraffce62cgtvvjrmttquqlv6a0agtfm5nl4vues82xar5 getting crushed by auto-withdrawal on-chain fees? Is that is what is incentivizing the gobbledygook?