Hi, goldseek! I just wanted to thank you for the mention and the link. As you pointed out I'm quite new to this blogging thing so any traffic is appreciated.

Also, I really appreciate the comment that you think my writing is actually of sufficient quality that they would pay me for it; I had never really enjoyed writing before but the concepts were so interesting but super-complex so I really wanted to get them down in a way that let people understand them easier. Guess I did an acceptable job at least in your opinion. :)

I would like to tap into your more expansive experience in blogging if that's OK. My question is in regards to whether blogging has the same ethical code that journalism does.

You're article reports "deafening silence" and you don't mention anywhere that Daniel contacted you directly today in regards to joining a team whose express purpose is to make sure the new model isn't a scam before he moves forward with the ICO.

Now I know that is contrary to the "scam busting" spirit of the article and I would want to leave it out if it were me. If there is no reason for full disclosure I feel like I could write much more impact-full articles.

Thinking about it, that kind of precedent would cause you to have to come out and reverse yourself if Monkey turns out to be legitimate, anything else might be seen as a lack of integrity. Man, that would be such a pain in the patoot.

Let me know your thoughts when you have a chance and thanks again!