[_9omd]

I’m not saying it’s a scam, just that it seems their system isn’t really Sybil resistant due to the issue of account selling. And if that’s the case they either didn’t think this would be an issue, or they expected it but don’t really care, and the claim of Sybil resistance is just marketing. Is this wrong in some way you’d like to explain?

[panarky]

I can't explain anything about this project because I haven't invested the effort to understand it.

Maybe I'll spend the 20 minutes to read the 5000 words in Molly White's article, and then another couple hours to read the whitepaper, then another who knows how many hours researching the claims and counterclaims to make my own judgment.

But probably I'll never do any of those things, and I'll still have high confidence that the project probably isn't simply a scam for sweet, sweet VC money, or unimaginably naive, or full of fatal flaws that every rando can identify instantly.

Because in the past, when anonymous internet commenters are of one mind that a new thing is a scam or fatally flawed, while the team behind the new thing are highly capable, with good reputations for not being scammers or unimaginably naive, usually the anonymous internet commenters don't understand what's really happening.

And then I'll ctrl-f the whitepaper to search for 'sybil' and discover that the arguments in this thread are already discussed in the whitepaper, which gives me even more confidence that the hivemind conclusions of scamminess or naivete are most likely uninformed.

[_9omd]

Once again, I never claimed this was a scam. I'm simply pointing out that the system has an inherent flaw regarding account selling, which makes it not sybil resistant, as claimed by the founders. I usually give projects the benefit of the doubt, but I've never heard Sam or the other founder talk about this major issue with their system design.

[cwkoss]

It's weird that you are so confident while literally admitting you don't know what you're talking about.