At this point, all that is being posted in this thread is petty jealousy. People keep saying there may be new victims, but in the years since this started, no new victims have been posted. Yet the thread was bumped to the top because someone is jealous of a domain he owns. I guess we gotta keep doing it...
At this point, it should be pretty clear that a decision was made to leave this thread open.
You may disagree with the title, you may not.
If a criminal act was committed, does that make the individual a criminal?
Sherrif Joe was recently convicted of criminal contempt. Pardoned by President Trump, and he just announced he is running for Senate.
Is it to say a criminal has never done good before, and/or is incapable of doing good in the future?
Or is it once a criminal, always a criminal, and perhaps always has been?
Who are we to decide? We are what some may say, word of mouth, or a community of industry peers. We are not a judge, jury, or executioner.
When viewing in hindsight, some may say a persons actions (past, present, and future) are to be considered before forming a generalized, and on-going opinion.
Take this example:
Is that dead horse being beaten because he is unable to pay back money he stole from people? Maybe he promised a standard of horse rides he couldn't deliver because of an injury (or a false belief that he was a stronger, and better horse than he actually was, and his marketing over extended his services?) Does it matter that people only wanted to ride the horse because he was once a prized racing horse who gave the fans, and industry, hundreds of winning races, hours of entertainment, and was once considered a star, among the industry?
The stick figure then beats the horse, not just because the horse didn't refund all who weren't delivered the services paid for, but because it appears the horse isn't and/or wasn't making a sincere effort to right the wrong he had created. This appearance may be coupled by the horses unwillingness (or inability) to sell prized possessions such as an expensive saddle, and/or shoes, that are desirable to others. The horse may have been saving these items for retirement, and/or they may hold sentimental value, but others such as the stick figure may see these as assets, and as such valuable assets, could be used to right the wrong created by the horse. But the horse has a family to consider, and as such, the horse is unwilling, or unable to relinquish such assets.
Then, things change, when somebody from the crowd, shouts out that BTC has surged to $XX,XXX per coin. And the horse, having purchased BTC early on using funds acquired from services improperly rendered, realizes he can make everyone he wronged whole again, with interest.
If the horse had purchased 1,000 BTC early on, were to liquidate at $10,000 per coin, then that'd yield a $10,000,000 value minus taxes, and fee's. If the horse owed $1 million, he could pay (or voluntarily settle) with each victim at a 3 x 1 rate, and still be left with a abundance of forgotten wealth.
If each victim was repaid at a 3:1 rate, would there still be wrong doing? Would the horse still be labeled a criminal?
What if the victims were also crypto investors, and hadn't they paid the horse for services improperly rendered, they would have used that money for crypto, and they too would have had the opportunity to acquire an equivalent amount of new crypto wealth. Thus, their 3X return, is negligible in comparison, to what they stood to gain, from the lost opportunity cost...
Now I get these hypothetical examples are complex, and factors such as how long would each person have #HODL'd given the rise are speculative. ie If the horse had knew he could pay off his victims when BTC was at $X,XXX, would he (or his victims opportunity cost perspective) have held until it reached $XX,XXX. Still, in this odd crypto world we live in, it is possible for a dead horse, to make a fortune with investing early in a new ICO. Said dead horse could then repay all he is in debt to, and with interest. And then what?
The point of the example being, Mr. Dicker still has an opportunity to right his wrongs. But is it too late? Can he ever redeem himself? Are there examples of him doing good in the past that should be considered? Some victims, or onlookers, may not consider his past, when there are still outstanding wrongdoings. Thus, it'd be great if Mr. Dicker could clear these outstanding wrongdoings, and then we can discuss closing this thread.
Every individual can consider his past contributions to the domain industry when forming their opinion, but not every opinion will be of the experience/research. If it weren't for this thread, or other info originally posted by OP, then the most common search results of Mr. Dicker would be filled with domain awards such as Traffic Domain Hall Of Fame inductee, and with such title's, positive press, and experience, it wouldn't be difficult to find a new customer to oversell to.
Lastly,
if this thread was closed, than Mr. Dicker wouldn't have the opportunity to come to this thread, and share any updates himself.
