Welcome to the 4AllAccounts forums.

**Garage Logician** · May 26th, 2008, 01:34 PM

Thanks for posting that Lynnette.

**mwong92683** · May 26th, 2008, 03:45 PM

Thanks for posting that Lynnette. At least we know (for now, anyways) that they have not ("yet") done a "runner", which is always a concern when a system is offline with no communications for this length of time (still, again).

I just canʻt imagine a software programmer than can have so many issues that they canʻt stay online for months at a time over and over again, and still be able to keep their job??? And why is it that every time they disappear, they are always working on something "behind the scenes", yet we never seem to see this "new feature" that they appear to be endlessly working on while offline?

**CuriousGeorge** · May 26th, 2008, 03:56 PM

Sometimes the stuff "behind the scenes" may not be software development at all, but possibly infrastructure, such as locating a suitable place for a server farm with reliable back-up power, reliable connectivity and an affordable price. Sometimes those factors do not come together satisfactorily.

campco · May 26th, 2008, 04:12 PM

Hi,

As I said earlier, it can be their choice not to be online. Maybe they don't want the portfolio's to grow and inflate the Digots further. I mean it is not necessarily that thea are not able to stay online!
It's obvious no business, whether in full production or in Beta can treat its customers as DXS does. Somehow this will fire back on them and it will take time to recover from that. Another setback caused by them selves and hurting both themselves and their current customers.

Regards,

Ben

**the Guru** · May 26th, 2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by campco

Hi,

As I said earlier, it can be their choice not to be online. Maybe they don't want the portfolio's to grow and inflate the Digots further. I mean it is not necessarily that thea are not able to stay online!
It's obvious no business, whether in full production or in Beta can treat its customers as DXS does. Somehow this will fire back on them and it will take time to recover from that. Another setback caused by them selves and hurting both themselves and their current customers.

Regards,

Ben

Not disagreeing with you Ben but I doubt if this is the issue. There have been several times when different sections of the system have been 'turned off' while the remaining site stayed online.

For them to be offline more often than being online during the past 12 months goes a long way toward showing what they think about their clients (us) and indeed their own 'system'

nlopedota · May 26th, 2008, 06:57 PM

At least they still communicate ......

NL

alma87 · May 26th, 2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Guru

Not disagreeing with you Ben but I doubt if this is the issue. There have been several times when different sections of the system have been 'turned off' while the remaining site stayed online.

For them to be offline more often than being online during the past 12 months goes a long way toward showing what they think about their clients (us) and indeed their own 'system'

You could be right Guru. Another point to view is that this company might simply not need us during this stage of development. They may in fact be engaging in development in areas of the system where lack of access by 'us' could be vital to development. Providing us with the wrong kinds of information at this stage may be bad for business. If this is the case, a lack of communication or the fact that they have been off line so often might only affect the relationships which present members/merchants have with them. Future businesses and customers would more likely develop their own views of the products and services offered to them.

Although I won't lose much if things don't pan out, I'm hoping that everything goes well for this company and everyone here. I've been following things for a long time, and have done ok over all. I know that in the past, things have worked well for many. This was during the beta period of the system where we were needed in order to test the system for future release. Many did well at that time, and I see no reason why the system will not work for DX and its members if there are legitimate products and services offered.

**Garage Logician** · May 26th, 2008, 09:10 PM

Congratulations on your first post here alma87. Very interesting point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alma87

If this is the case, a lack of communication or the fact that they have been off line so often might only affect the relationships which present members/merchants have with them. Future businesses and customers would more likely develop their own views of the products and services offered to them.

There is an old saying about history repeating itself. So if the history of DX shows they repeatedly and wilfully damaged "the relationships which present members/merchants have with them" I would suspect those in the future researching whether or not to do business with them would not be keen on putting their funds at risk while hoping DX does not reveal the same modus operandi with their money.

**CuriousGeorge** · May 27th, 2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garage Logician

Congratulations on your first post here alma87. Very interesting point of view.

There is an old saying about history repeating itself. So if the history of DX shows they repeatedly and wilfully damaged "the relationships which present members/merchants have with them" I would suspect those in the future researching whether or not to do business with them would not be keen on putting their funds at risk while hoping DX does not reveal the same modus operandi with their money.

GL, I think that only applies if they try to reappear as DXS/GDT. If they come back as someone else, with a vamped system that is not easily recognizable as the "old DXS", then the past history would be a moot point during a start-up phase.