Yes, Agree with you!
1 Like
Not to take a stance here but:
Isnât this advertising yourself?
Is this allowed here? @chris.fenwick
As per our terms of service, we are not responsible for the content uploaded by users. Weâll remove anything about NEX that is factually incorrect â this forum is intended as a space where the team can answer questions and dispel misconceptions. Likewise, we will remove any links to illegal trading sites, etc.
If someone has made a video and they want to share it, there shouldnât be a problem with that as long as it doesnât violate other terms of use.
I mean this in the friendliest way possible: please do not try and shill the NEX token when itâs trading on a proper exchange. Organic growth is best for the project and not pump and dumps.
1 Like
Yes but he has a financial incentive sharing his videos here (for the views). Now imagine every youtuber here sharing their own videos. Is the NEX community a place for this? Thanks for answering.
as per terms of service: unwanted commercial content designed to drive traffic to third party sites or boost the search engine rankings of third party sites
1 Like
I donât think thatâs the real Suppoman. I wouldnât be linking my videos if APH went from 42 cents down to 4 cents after claiming APH has better potential (without understanding the magnitude of the NEX project).
1 Like
The function of §2 of the ToS, which you quoted, is to outline that users, rather than NEX, are responsible for the content they upload. The examples given are all of borderline-illegal activities. Users are vouching that they are not doing anything illegal when they post here. If they do, however, then NEX is not responsible. You quoted selectively from a point that targets spam advertising and phishing.
Many third-party websites are going to generate advertising revenue. We cannot ban external links just because someone is making a profit from clicks. The ToS cover cases where it can be argued that such links are essentially spam advertising. The wording is somewhat open on this point â âunwanted or unethicalâ â and in this case, that isnât a fair description. The video is relevant to the discussion in the same way that any third-party content might be, irrespective of whether it was produced by the post author.
In fact, it is better that @suppoman post his videos via an account linked to his identity than use a sockpuppet posing as a fan, which arguably would violate the ToS (no misleading identities are allowed, and likewise the use of a sockpuppet implies a spam intention).
If it eventually becomes a problem that people start using this community for âunwanted or unethicalâ promotions, we will control it.
Thanks for clarifying.
He isnât only making a profit from clicks but also by selling his courses, which he advertises underneath his videos. Although these are not directly visible here.
Also, he has somewhat of a history/reputation on youtube which a lot of people frown upon.
Perhaps iâm considering this where i perhaps shouldnât.
Hope @suppoman can respond to this.
@KILONZO sorry for hijacking the thread, should of made a new topic for this.
Thanks for your concern about the health of the Community. If something like this seems to become a problem, please be assured that we will deal with it. So do feel free to voice any concerns in the future!
1 Like
Sorry M8, just deleted my youtube link.
1 Like
We just established it was not considered unwanted. 
I for one respect your choice removing the link.
Does staking start immediately after the exchange goes live?
Yes, from all reports staking is available from day 1, 
1 Like