Comments on this: They have some somewhat valid points and some points that are totally wrong. Regarding smart contracts: these are byte code on chain, pulled via a Solana RPC node. Anyone and everyone has access to the byte code without signing a terms & conditions. Since I don’t have access to their source code and since the source code we’ve generated is entirely novel, and since we are reverse engineering it out of public interest and not to profit, I think that part holds up strong. Generally I think putting your funds into closed source contracts is *very risky* and has led to $40m in user funds stolen in the last year alone. It used to be considered an absolute retard move and a sure way to get scammed. I don’t know where this trend changed, I guess when crypto was overrun by gamblers who don’t care? Security by obscurity doesn't work: in fact, the opposite. I will address their points and remove anything that has a whiff of violating terms and conditions. Plenty of other projects to reverse engineer (legally). Will redirect incentives toward that work. Believe it or not I am lawful good and I believe we should abide by our laws. But I stand by the smart contracts being available and viewable, on the day of the largest hack ever we should be maximally open source and maximally vigilant. My ideal outcome would honestly just be that pf does the right thing and publishes their contracts open source. It would be the right thing to do. I bet it would save them enormous pain in the future as well. If Shaw can do it, North Korea has already done it. Linus Law: code which has more eyeballs on it is more secure.