I 100% agree with this. If this had been the narrative from day one, if this had been the way it was promoted, I wouldn’t have said a word. In fact, I might’ve even asked to get involved. I’ve been investing in crypto projects since 2018. By now, I’ve probably been involved in at least 80, if not 100 projects. Most of them started from scratch, operating in a rough-and-tumble way, and then gradually moved toward compliance. I completely agree that compliant projects in the crypto space are very rare, and I also agree with the idea of starting first and then gradually becoming compliant. But if a project isn’t actually compliant and insists on claiming it is, while using compliance as its main selling point, that’s not being rough-and-tumble—that’s straight-up “overhyping” (I’m using a less confrontational term here). From day one, I’ve never outright criticized any project I’ve analyzed. I’ve always based my findings on publicly available information provided by the project team, identified any flaws, and raised questions about them. If they can answer those questions, then it’s my lack of skill, and I’ll apologize and admit my mistake. But if the project team doesn’t respond or gives irrelevant answers, I can only assume the information they’ve provided is inaccurate or untrue. And my analysis is based on addressing this “inaccurate and untrue information.” Making money is obviously a good thing. In fact, all the ways to make money—especially big money—are written in the criminal code. You could even say the criminal code is a guidebook for making money. For those who’ve told me that reading my tweets caused them to lose out on certain trades or coins on certain exchanges, my advice is: don’t bother trading crypto anymore. Study the criminal code instead—it’s more profitable.