Hey, thanks for the response. No, I get it. And I am glad you did not take offense. I simply wanted to use your article to illustrate my point.

I thought you did a decent job covering Hex. That is why I linked it.

My point is, in the end, you did succumb to the temptation for “free money” intending to stake a claim and provided your affiliate link for others to do the same. You did not give an explicit endorsement, but it is an implied endorsement by what you will be doing.

In my first article, I gave Richard high marks for what I call “honest corruption”. He took it badly and blocked me.

Frankly, I was confused about the entire affair. And my curiosity really increased when the previous article I linked disappeared. So I contacted the author and in turn contacted the lead developer who also claims he is the original creator, not Richard. He left the project 9 months ago when the original intent was abandoned.

Again, the original creation was meant to be a joke! And meant to be promoted as such! It all makes sense to me now. If the original intent was publicized I would have joined in the fun and even helped Richard profit by it.

It would have been a hilarious joke! And a wonderful illustration of why such schemes are scams and not sound money. An honest pump and dump! Promoting itself for what it is. And that was the message of Richard’s early videos.

The shift came when Richard promoted it as “better than bitcoin” believing his own BS. Richard changed the original narrative and must now own it and live with it. . . or renounce it for what it is.

UGLY