15 August 2026
If a person has interesting thoughts or ideas, Oasis encourages they be shared in this constructive manner that you two are currently engaging in. With that said, the best the moderation team can do is send community concerns to their superiors. Moderators do not control the company or have answers to everything.
I have noticed they're usually excellent at assisting with functional problems, and if they don't know answers to those things, they have routes to obtain the knowledge. As for every single inner intricacy of the business....please keep in mind that similar to other businesses, the leaders aren't required to report the inner intricacies of the business with "the janitors", nor are they to provide industrial secrets to anyone who asks.
Christopher Wolftext not yet in the index
Honestly, your message is exactly what I would call trolling. It’s completely irrelevant to the actual questions I raised and instead tries to attack me personally.
You’ve completely misunderstood the situation. I’m not demanding answers because I’m already heavily invested. I’m considering a significant investment in Oasis and I’m asking these questions before making that decision. That is exactly what a responsible investor should do.
None of my questions are about confidential future deals. I’m asking about publicly announced investments and partnerships, what was actually delivered, their current status, and measurable results.
So “you bought a ticket, enjoy the ride” is completely irrelevant. I haven’t bought the ticket yet.
If the answers are already public, provide the facts. If they aren’t, explain why. Personal attacks, assumptions about my capital, and telling me to “pay someone to explain it” don’t answer a single question.
And judging by the amount of support I’ve received from other community members, I’m clearly not the only person who thinks these are legitimate questions.
Meester WeeskerAs long as there is no name calling or rude behaviour between users, I consider these good discussion to have. Remember to be kind, everyone. ❤️
I’m a bit confused by your response.
You say there should be no name calling or rude behaviour, but the message you’re defending included “spoiled troll,” questioned my ability to understand the project, told me to “pay someone to explain it,” and suggested I stop bothering the team.
I’m perfectly fine with constructive disagreement, but that is clearly personal and dismissive rather than constructive.
If the rules apply equally to everyone, I would expect the same standard to be applied here as well. My questions are legitimate, and disagreeing with them does not justify attacking the person asking them.
Teerapat SaelimHonestly, your message is exactly what I would call trolling. It’s completely irrelevant to the actual questions I raised and instead tries to attack me personally.
You’ve completely misunderstood the situation. I’m not demanding answers because I’m already heavily invested. I’m considering a signi
To this, I need to point out one thing. Secretive details about things are not relegated only to "future deals". They can apply to past, current, and future operations. In addition, there are things like NDAs that outright make certain discussions illegal.
Teerapat SaelimI’m a bit confused by your response.
You say there should be no name calling or rude behaviour, but the message you’re defending included “spoiled troll,” questioned my ability to understand the project, told me to “pay someone to explain it,” and suggested I stop bothering the team.
I’m perfectly
I agree. A kind warning was made. It was also acknowledged. I'm content to move beyond it. If you are not, I am happy to aggressively apply all of the rules to everyone in the situation if that would help you rest easier.
Meester WeeskerIf your goal is professional and polite interaction, that problem appears to have been solved. If your goal is to stir more problems because you don't like the answers or responses you were provided many times...that problem is separate and deserves its own response.
I don’t understand why, after I pointed out the personal attacks from another user, the discussion suddenly shifted to my intentions.
I’m not trying to “stir more problems.” I’m asking specific questions and I have every right to explain why the answers I received are not satisfactory. Moreover, I still haven’t received answers regarding the measurable metrics, and I have also provided the team with an additional list of questions that I’m waiting for answers to.
The other user called me a “spoiled troll,” told me to “pay someone to explain it to you,” and questioned my ability to understand what I’m looking at. That is not constructive discussion, yet you supported it.
So it’s strange that instead of addressing his behaviour, I’m being accused of trying to “stir more problems.” I expect the rules to be applied equally to everyone.
Teerapat SaelimI don’t understand why, after I pointed out the personal attacks from another user, the discussion suddenly shifted to my intentions.
I’m not trying to “stir more problems.” I’m asking specific questions and I have every right to explain why the answers I received are not satisfactory. Moreover, I
I will not travel in circles about this. the "I'm just asking questions" method of causing unrest is well known. The terms for it are JAQing and\or Sea-lioning. I told you once before, and this will be the last time;
The other party was warned. The acknowledgement of that warning was provided. We will not play the game where you acknowledge parts of messages and disregard the rest, or the spirit of the response in it's entirety.
I encourage you to move past it, as the problem has been solved.
Edit: If that doesn't work for you and you're requesting an escalation, let me know directly. As stated before, I will aggressively apply the rules to both parties. Please keep in mind he already received his warning.
Meester WeeskerI will not travel in circles about this. the "I'm just asking questions" method of causing unrest is well known. The terms for it are JAQing and\or Sea-lioning. I told you once before, and this will be the last time;
The other party was warned. The acknowledgement of that warning was provided. We w
I understand that the other user was warned, and I’m not asking you to reconsider that decision.
The problem is that you repeatedly characterize my legitimate questions as an attempt to “cause unrest” or “stir more problems.” I asked specific questions about Oasis investments, partnerships and measurable results. They have been passed on to the team, and I am still waiting for answers.
Disagreeing with the answers I received or continuing to ask legitimate questions does not mean that I’m trying to cause unrest. If you want to close this discussion, that’s fine. But please don’t attribute motives to me that you cannot substantiate.
I don’t want to continue this discussion in this format because I can clearly see that your attitude toward me is aggressive and, in my view, completely unwarranted. I’m happy to discuss the actual questions with the team or other community members, but I see no point in continuing a conversation in this tone.
Thank you, and have a good evening.
Teerapat SaelimI understand that the other user was warned, and I’m not asking you to reconsider that decision.
The problem is that you repeatedly characterize my legitimate questions as an attempt to “cause unrest” or “stir more problems.” I asked specific questions about Oasis investments, partnerships and meas
Ссылка
click to show
click to show
What you're doing is called JAQing. Your questions have been noted. They have been passed to appropriate channels. Some of them have even had responses.
Relentless repeating them over the course of several days is not constructive. That's called sea-lioning. It is an attempt to derail the spirit and focus of the group to respond only to you. This is also a rule violation, which I why I was asking to you be certain of exactly what you're requesting of me. I have not been aggressive with you in any manner. You're being purposefully obtuse, espcially in light of you habit of ignoring, partly or in full, messages that have been directed to you. To that point, had you bothered to look back, I agreed with you previously on one of your posts...but you didn't.
At any rate, I fully agree with you that you should contact the team more directly. Here is that link: https://oasis.net/get-in-touch.
This matter here is closed.
Meester Weesker/warn Teerapat You have been warned against JAQing and Sea-Lioning
User Teerapat has 1/3 warnings; be careful!
Reason:
You have been warned against JAQing and Sea-Lioning
Ссылка
click to show
click to show
The latest Privacy Talks episode deep dives into several insightful topics:
Web3 beyond DeFi and DePIN, and the role of privacy
Your public posts are training Grok by default
Siri is now running on Google Gemini
GitHub Copilot’s token billing soars up to 25x
To learn about all of these and more, choose your platform and do a deep dive into the discussion.
Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfrCkU1Yqw
Listen with Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3qjCNHhY56X0E9N0GfMexI
16 August 2026