Original author: TechFlow

One of the most noteworthy events in recent days is the launch of IO.NET tokens.

From the price changes at the opening of Binance, to the review of the experience of providing graphics cards to mine IO tokens...it seems that all attention is focused on the asset level of IO.

However, there are also people who disagree.

For example, Greg Osuri, the founder of Akash Network, another decentralized cloud computing project, was a bit restless. While everyone was paying attention to the changes in IO prices, he went to experience the IO.NET product.

As a result, the experience was a bit unsatisfactory.

Greg then began to point out various product experience issues of IO.NET on Twitter, and he was transformed from the founder of another company into the "quality inspector" of IO.NET.

IO.NET's CTO Gaurav Tdhinait responded one after another, patiently explaining each of Greg's questions.

The two sides had a back-and-forth discussion. On the surface, it was an objective question and answer session on product experience, but behind the scenes it was a competition between two similar business projects and the maintenance of brand image.

The founder of Akash tried out competitors’ products and gave some suggestions. At this juncture, it is difficult to say whether this was just “just for fun” or “deliberate nitpicking”.

We have compiled the entire conversation between Akash founder Greg and IO.NET CTO Gaurav Tdhinait to restore the event.

Buying an Apple product but getting a Nokia instead, are you feeling cheated?

The cause of the incident originated from an initial failure feedback from Akash founder Greg when using IO.NET.

Greg purchased a cluster of 4 A 100 GPUs on IO.NET and paid the corresponding fees.

After deploying the cluster and paying the fees, Greg found that the goods were not what he ordered. After checking various data, he found that he did not get 4 A 100 GPUs, but only one RTX a 4000.

On paper, there was a huge performance gap between what he wanted and what he actually got. Greg said it was a bit like paying for an Apple phone but only getting an old Nokia phone.

To prove its authenticity, Greg not only asked @IO.NET on Twitter for an explanation, but also posted a video recording he had recorded that included all the purchase and operation steps.

This post quickly went viral, and even others tended to think that this was a fraud and demanded an explanation from IO.NET.

This move quickly attracted a personal response from IO.NET’s CTO Gaurav (@GauravTdhinait), who gave a relatively reasonable explanation.

The so-called "wrong goods" in Greg's video recording is actually because one of the servers (nodes) in the cluster he created is unhealthy, so the cluster cannot operate normally.

As for why A 100 got RTX a 4000, specifically, the RTX a 4000 shown by Greg is actually the master node of the cluster (the server responsible for management and coordination), rather than the working node (the server responsible for actual calculation) used to perform high-performance computing tasks.

And the problematic cluster IO.NET will not charge any money and will be automatically destroyed afterwards.

In simple terms, the video you record is not the same as what you actually see.

When you buy an Apple phone, you still get an Apple phone. It’s just because there is a problem with this Apple phone that the misunderstanding you think has occurred.

More importantly, CTO Gaurav also provided some other evidence: Greg actually created a total of 7 clusters on IO.NET, 6 of which ran successfully.

Greg only posted about this failed case and asked for an explanation. Although IO.NET did not directly comment on this behavior, it is hard not to think that Greg might be nitpicking about this individual case.

The 6 successful ones did not record or say anything, and the 1 failed one recorded the screen and asked for a reply. Some netizens in the comment area also said:

You don't look like you're really here to use the product properly...

Quality inspector

After questioning the product quality, Greg did not stop acting as IO.NET's quality inspector. He continued to complain about other problems with the IO.NET product and kept harping on various experience issues.

For example, Greg said that he recharged 100 U to his IO.NET account, but did not get an upgrade to unlock the qualification to purchase more clusters, and questioned whether IO.NET was deliberately censoring and restricting the permissions of his account;

For example, the CTO of IO.NET thought that Greg's behavior in using the product was abnormal. He quickly created a cluster service and deleted it immediately after 2 minutes. Greg refuted it very seriously, saying that he did not delete it immediately, but deleted it after a long time, because the IO.NET system could not display the GPU correctly, and it looked like the program was not responding, so he deleted it reasonably...

As of the time of writing this article, Greg is still constantly opening new threads on Twitter, even putting various issues together to complain, and telling everyone not to believe the one-sided words of IO.NET CTO, and by the way praising the smooth operation of his own Akash Network.

Whether IO.NET has any user experience problems or how many user experience problems there are seems unimportant in such online discussions and exposure posts.

Instead, the impression is that as the founder of another project, he spends a lot of energy to "experience" other people's products, relentlessly pointing out various problems and seriously refutating every "one-sided statement".

Is this our own CEO or someone else’s free quality inspector?

In this way, dwelling on details makes people feel that you are not being too serious, but rather lowering your level.

Greg's behavior also attracted criticism from the community. Some people bluntly said, "Brother, you should spend time improving your own products instead of complaining about your competitors." Other AKT holders felt that Greg's vision was not good enough and made them want to sell their coins.

Peers look down on each other

In ancient Chinese, the phrase "literati look down on each other" often refers to the fact that literati look down on each other.

In fact, it is very easy for you to get the pleasure and motivation of finding fault like Greg --- I am also engaged in the same business as you, and of course I cannot tolerate your small mistakes; I even often have the urge to say, "If you can't even handle this, then I really want to say something to you."

Therefore, it has to be said that Akash founder’s complaints about IO.NET are a kind of DePIN contempt.

Everyone has two skills, but everyone hopes that the other person only has one.

DePIN or decentralized cloud computing projects are emerging one after another. There are not many technical barriers, but more resource-intensive businesses. The level of experience, the degree of smoothness and the amount of brand resources are often the important chips for winning or losing.

However, if one is not absolutely sure that he can point out problems by personally acting as a quality inspector, it will only damage his own brand image in the end.

After all, if you are too critical of your competitors and something unexpected happens with your own product, the community will bring up old issues.

Leaving room for yourself and others may be the prevailing philosophy in a world dominated by makeshift troupes.