Leicester

If you have this background in the history, I would love to hear that.

But when I look at the graph, it almost looks like there may have been some sort of a distribution of pre-sale that took place because the vast majority of volume is on the sell side, not on the buy side.

usually that means tokens were given to people whether that was by way of some sort of mining or some sort of distribution or some sort of pre-sale i don't know any of that is or isn't true i'm going off the data i saw back in 2021 and i remember 2021 being kind of that dull period the start of the dull period and then later after binance.com

actually added Jasmine to a flag list in 2024 over concerns with the project because of the pump and dump being so aggressive.

So this horror sign, essentially what he said was that the team at the time took coins and they were dumping on the project to fund the company is essentially what he's saying in this interview.

Well, how is that any different than any other crypto out there, right?

And that is essentially a rug pull.

A dev makes money available and then makes it not available.

Effectively, what he's saying here is, well, yes, that happened.

Then there's this other token.

Apparently, they're going to spin up and then try to marry the two to try to make it right for the Jasmine holders.

That's kind of the gist of what I'm getting out of this.

How is that any different than a Ponzi scheme?

Because you're taking money from project a to enrich this other thing over here.

And then you spin up another token as project B that token wouldn't have existed if you didn't take money from project a that's a Ponzi scheme.

So it didn't strike me that he was malicious.

It didn't strike me like he was a criminal.

He's on the video.

He seems like he wanted to be transparent, but it just seems odd.

That's so much in that he's, he's honest, right?