Greetings Friends;
This article is not about the 42-coin project but an event that occurred in a partnership process between the 42-coin team and tver.host.com, but before describing the situation let's reflect on the legitimacy and integrity of the world of crypto and how this It can become worrying given the advances and updates in the near future. Therefore, the idea of this article is to make you reflect on how much the freedom of decentralization can put us in situations of lack of trust or total loss of a certain resource. Is a decentralized international body necessary to oversee agreements between projects and platforms? Do we need government interference to monitor these transactions and agreements? Many questions appear in our minds when faced with the lack of internal values of a person, company or platform. Therefore, this is why crypto suffers criticism every day due to bad intentions. On the other hand, in addition to learning, we must remain calm because in pain or in love, things tend to follow a course of correction and evolution and no matter how much someone has humiliated you or left you behind, thinking they have some advantage or thinking they are superior and they must do what you want; Don't worry... the universe will correct it and you don't need to take revenge, automatically the circumstances of life appear correcting, that is, if you send love you will receive love and if you send pain you will receive pain.
Is Legitimacy important in the crypto world?
We can consider that cryptography is an extraordinary advent that has come to change the way we deal with means of payment and financial interactions, or it was born to revolutionize sending and receiving, it was born to offer a new style of reserving value and also a new style of asset that automatically receives the name of cryptoassets and derivatives. I believe that the trend is to grow more and more, but something will have to be done, and in this case legitimacy, i.e. how much trust we should have in sending a means of payment, and even if there is proof, will it be necessary to turn to our real-life lawyers? That we will have a legal body to represent those who have suffered theft or loss with more interest? Unfortunately, the tendency is for these bodies and restrictions to appear due to someone's idiocy or platform thinking that it can take someone's money and consider it a kind of donation, forgetting that it has a registration number with its government and forgetting about international trade laws and that there is the possibility of filing appeals in the country of the entity that has suffered damage, be it a person, project, company or institution.
So don't go thinking that we can do everything in the crypto world, especially as a company that pays taxes in a certain country/government and as far as we know, consumers have greater advantages over a company or institution that provides a service or sells a certain product. Another important point is integrity, i.e. a person's or company's internal code of conduct, which should be mandatory and not an option. Don't they think they have no advantage? Don't they know the law of marketing is that a happy customer is practically guaranteed a return?
It's worth thinking about...
How can payment for services be transformed into a Donation?
I'll now briefly mention what happened, but if you want to understand more, go to the link where the 42-coin team vented their dissatisfaction in a statement.
Here is the link: SIJU.ME(A place to tell stories)
The impasse occurred on January 17, 2024, when the 42-coin team contacted the platform tver.host.com (a virtual server platform), where a proposal for cooperation was made through a support chatbot, whose contacts and proof are shown on Siju.me, found at the link above. In continuity, the Tver platform accepted payment in the format of the 42-coin Bscan network, i.e. not on its mainchain, but in its "sub-chain", a token on the BSC network for faster transactions. The fee for joining the platform was $500, calculated in 42-coin tokens. There were professional intentions on the part of the 42-coin team to call and discuss the process and progress, but they preferred to correspond with the director of the company, and their choice was to receive on the BSC network and at the time the fees were low compared to today.
In short, on January 30, two weeks later, there was still no integration, for which the 42-coin team paid and on February 8 there was "something like 50%" integration, but complaints arose about insufficient payment and the end of the integration was postponed until the end of the month. Think about the situation:
At the end of February and beginning of March, the Director decided to ignore 42-coin and only got in touch after contacting the technical support bot, where he came to regard the payment for the integration "as a donation"
In your opinion, what should happen to the Tver-host platform? Since it hasn't carried out its integration work, let alone returned the money to 42coin, which paid for the service and didn't receive what it paid for and even lost the money?
I leave you to reflect...
Note: If you are looking for specifications, access the new links at the end of the article, because the intention is not to show the essence of the project but rather a reflection of when there are bad intentions.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, we don't have a crystal ball to guess whether a person or institution has good intentions or not, and we don't even know if they have codes of conduct and their opinions of what is right or wrong. However, this kind of situation only attracts the attention of opportunists who dream of the centralization of crypto and when such cowardice happens, the tendency is that we will soon find centralized or decentralized bodies for advocacy and everything related to consumer laws. Finally, I feel sorry for the people or institutions that do this because life teaches in one way or another that we must follow a basic conduct of life and never take what is not yours.
