FUD

Business-Typical

“Ignore the FUD” -Safemoomers, probably

UncleSlippyFist

!Remindme Dec 30 2022 I am always fascinated by things like points 9 and 10, or the edit saying that people are paid to FUD this. Ah well, I still appreciate a good remindme bot. Good luck!

DesignerAccount

Just one comment, bundling Bitfinex in this just shows deep ignorance. If there's one exchange that has made people whole on everything is Bitfinex. And if you want to start Tether FUD, find Paolo Ardoino's Twitter and how they responded to an attack on Tether just a few days/weeks ago. TL;DR They redeemed $7bn in **one day** without batting an eye. 7. Fucking. Billion. Dollars. In. One. Day. Should be enough to stop the FUD, but I'm betting sats some genius will come to explain why it's all a scam. Yawn.

fbdev101

The bottom must be in with all this FUD... "Sell me your crypto cheap"....

owlishlyDestroy17

Why is USDT getting too high, due to the depegging FUD?

No_Yogurtcloset_2547

The bitcoin protocol runs on top of a blockchain and said blockchain is indeed vulnerable to some degree. The article refers to the following study: [https://assets-global.website-files.com/5fd11235b3950c2c1a3b6df4/62af6c641a672b3329b9a480\_Unintended\_Centralities\_in\_Distributed\_Ledgers.pdf](https://assets-global.website-files.com/5fd11235b3950c2c1a3b6df4/62af6c641a672b3329b9a480_Unintended_Centralities_in_Distributed_Ledgers.pdf) Have you read it? "There is no incentive for dishonest nodes in bitcoin" is no valid argument for something to not happen. The question is not whether there is an incentive but rather whether it is possible. Sybil attacks are possible, it requires effort at scale but it is possible. This is the finding of the study which is clearly not FUD. If a party has an incentive to attack the bitcoin blockchain, it can do so and may or may not succeed. There is no proof that it cannot happen. It not happening until now does not proof it cannot happen. This is covered in the chapter about the nakamoto coefficient that brings to the attention that certain actors can become incentivized in the future to mount attacks against the network, including operators of competing currencies and nation states. Also the idea of topological centrality aka how resistant the consensus network is to disruption is not FUD but a legit concern. Bitcoin is in its teens and has a long way to go. No one can tell whether motivation of certain actors does change with time and it is naive to think it wouldnt. Also, what's your take on the distributed organization and the power law for bitcoin? Is a dense and "possibly non-scale-free" subnetwork of public nodes not responsible for reaching consensus and communicating with miners? They have actually empirically determined the degree of distribution (page 17) and found that "the vast majority of Bitcoin nodes do not meaningfully contribute to the health of the Bitcoin network". I am copy-pasting here. Can you link me up to some sources that have proven otherwise? If not, I would not consider it FUD but either fact or at least "the current best estimate". ​ Concerning network centrality they state: "The underlying network infrastructure is particularly important for Bitcoin and its derivatives, since all Bitcoin protocol traffic is unencrypted. Unencrypted traffic is fine for transactional and block data, since they are cryptographically signed and, therefore, impervious to tampering. However, any third party on the network route between nodes (e.g., ISPs, Wi-Fi access point operators, or governments) can observe and choose to drop any messages they wish." Is this untrue? Is this not concerning? Please educate me where this is FUD exactly. ​ So, I would like you to read through the document and educate me and others how exactly this is FUD and where the got it all wrong. Because honestly, I do believe you have not seen the study and cannot address the issues. But I am very, very happy to be educated on this topic and I am hoping for you or someone else to entirely disproof these findings. If not, we should stay cautious indeed and see where this is going.

Background-Boss-516

Like spreading FUD or posting last chance to buy “blank” under “insert amount”?

BTC_Deepfuckvalue

This study is on Blockchain not Bitcoin. Yes "Blockchains" other than Bitcoin are centralized garbage. There is no incentive for dishonest nodes in Bitcoin, dishonest nodes will be ignored. ISPs are just that, service providers. You can use VPNs or other friendly ISPs to route packets. The piece in this article about setting a secondary individual miner password within the mining pool is hilarious. Someone would have to be within physical range of your local network, with passwords to your wifi network, your mining account with the pool, and the primary password of the individual miner to even begin fucking with the secondary password. This is a total non-issue that made me chuckle 🤣. This article conflates Bitcoin, Blockchain, and NFTs which shows the author has no individual understanding of any of these technologies. Continue spreading FUD, Bitcoin doesn't care.

EvaUnit_03

So it's come to this.. we replaced China FUD with USA FUD...

pidg30n

FUD indeed. Here’s my take on their 3 main points… Sybil attack Unencrypted transmissions and old protocols ( actually the protocol itself calls for digital signatures of hashes so they can’t be modified in transit ) — this is the kind of thing you might pick up on a generic vulnerability scanner but when you dig into the details it’s not really a risk. “Careless mining pools” The careless thing they are suggesting is the security of the accounts on the mining pools. Those are only very loosely tied to bitcoin anyways… typically miners store a very minimal amount of bitcoin on a mining pool and configure everything to be sent to an external address ASAP. Most likely they’re talking about credentials for authenticating a mining rig. Listen, if someone wants to hook up a mining rig to my account and give me some extra hash power at no charge to me, please let them.

BTC_Deepfuckvalue

FUD

JulianHabekost

This is literally one of the big problems of crypto and the lack of trusted third party authorities. If you show up at the Deutsche Bank headquarters and demand all their money, they will laugh at you, because that's not how this works. All the accounts is simply a big paper track of authorities that trust each other; it cannot be stolen. Actual money is only stored at ATMs and it's getting less and less with adoption of cashless payments. But everyone who stores crypto is actually vulnerable to attacks. Every piece of infrastructure, be it hardware or software, that you input your key into or processes your key and has access to the internet can be attacked and can be hacked. A hardware wallet could be comprised by malicious employees of that wallet provider. Open Source is even easier to attack, because everyone can contribute. The problem is that the bigger the adoption of something, the bigger the risk of that thing being attacked. With every hardware wallet that gets bought and funds transferred to, the jackpot for hackers or malicious employees rises. Call it FUD, but it's simply the truth. It's the conceptual downside of decentralisation and not trusting a third party.

R0B0TPARTY

Have definitely noticed this myself and have been posting/commenting to this effect for months now ([https://www.np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/uu2lfa/direct_evidence_of_social_manipulation_anticrypto/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf](https://www.np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/uu2lfa/direct_evidence_of_social_manipulation_anticrypto/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)). There is an obvious and deliberate attempt to bring USDT down by spreading FUD and mistruths. They think if they attack USDT, it will bring about the collapse of not only USDT but also crash the entire crypto market.

R0B0TPARTY

Have definitely noticed this myself and have been posting/commenting to this effect for months now. There is an obvious and deliberate attempt to bring USDT down by spreading FUD and mistruths.

thats_just_right

FUD troll? Is that you?

Trylks

With respect to the usual FUD from China…

KingKamp1410

Irrational anger?!? You replied to my comment to add nothing of substance. You got a DD for what I just explained about the wallet?!? Nope, sure didn’t. Just FUD, cause that’s all meltdowners do. What a waste. Meltdowners irk me so much like don’t y’all have something better to do with your time? Like anything at all?

Picoton

Promotional post shilled with upvotes service, only accusing of FUD without giving crucial nor inside information of how OP can guarantee that this will be the year for LRC. Report this kind of posts and never invest in anything a random user promotes here nor anywhere.

KingKamp1410

I should’ve known speaking with a meltdowner wouldn’t go anywhere constructive. All y’all do is FUD and hate with no points of argument. Nothing I brought up is delusion because it’s all very real and happening. But how bout go fuck yourself you loser.

yldf

I read through all your arguments, and you completely lost me at 9 and 10. In my experience, those who are crying FUD most loudly are usually wrong here. Especially #10, which you describe as a positive for LRC, is a huge red flag to me. An active downvoting community for a coin can easily be an attempt to silence criticism, possibly bot-supported, to keep the press positive. Any good project should counter criticism with arguments, not with downvotes. I'm not downvoting your post, either, although I think the number of upvotes it has is way too high compared to what other good, partly better, posts get here. Finally, you emphasize the GME connection. The reason why GME can be an interesting investment/gamble at times is mostly technical. It is not that GME is a particularly good company compared to others - of course there are companies that are way worse. That being said, LRC might do well in the future, and it might not. If someone allocates a small part of their portfolio to it, that's not necessarily wrong. But don't bet your life savings on it, as usual. For me, it's a non-investment case, because of point #10 alone.

pink_raya

there was a mention in this daily. still not sure what to think, he is so instrumental in destroying the mining FUD but at the same time always had bit of a shitcoiner vibe.

T_Blaze

\> The FUD here on reddit - you will see a lot of anti-loopring/ GME posts nd comments. Resistance is bullish, as there must be a reason to try to suppress a good project. aka "I'm hearing bad things about this project, must be a good project"

Tricky_Troll

I literally debunked this FUD in the post which you didn't even read. Good job.

basedisciple

Pentagon with the Bitcoin FUD

_CtrlZED_

Exactly. If there is a lot of anti loop ring criticism it would be great to know what it is and if there is a good response. When people start referring to 'paid FUD-ers' you know they're something wrong. Who gets paid to spread FUD? Where do I apply for that job?

BonBelafonte

Peak FUD will be at BTC 6000

l0rdw00t

How convenient for him to FUD & then play white knight .

ktaktb

zk rollups? web3? NFTs? partnerships with Amazon and Alibaba? ETH? too much FUD? DeFi? GameStop? LOLOLOL This is an insane parody of a hopeless crpyto bro that huffs their own farts 25/7/366. Dude. Please. You need help....

_CtrlZED_

It would have been great it you'd given some potential downsides or risks as well, instead of vaguely referring to FUD and implying it's all invalid. All projects have risks and downsides, and not understanding them, or not being entirely honest with yourself about them is not a great investment strategy. When chains/ protocols refer to all criticisms as FUD, it's a big red flag for me.

Tricky_Troll

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Problems to be solved create uncertainty. Therefore FUD is a suitable term. >I'm not sure why you're talking about ETH price at all. When did I mention price? >We're in a crypto bear market until 2024 and there will likely be a recession this year. That's a big assumption. The fact that so many people are expecting this is good reason to expect this bear market to be different in one way or another. >Why not talk about the tech instead of treating ETH like a speculative commodity? Why is everything about coin price? Lmao did you even read my post? It's a fundamental analysis, not price speculation.

ErinBLAMovich

This isn't FUD, it's a realistic assessment of problems to be solved. I'm not sure why you're talking about ETH price at all. We're in a crypto bear market until 2024 and there will likely be a recession this year. ETH isn't going up. Why not talk about the tech instead of treating ETH like a speculative commodity? Why is everything about coin price?

blitzlurker

“How is it useful or unique” = FUD?

unknownseven

Asking questions isn't FUD. Blindly following isn't a smart investment decision.

hyperbolicjaunt

> why you think there is so much ant-crypto FUD What is this? Crypto for ants?

pixpit_the

86 Execs hired from Amazon, Microsoft, Apple etc. \- Decentralized Crypto Wallet (why you think there is so much ant-crypto FUD) \- NFT market place coming big; And remember: "insiders might sell their shares for any number of reasons, but they buy them for only one: they think the price will rise." - Peter Lynch I could go on, but need to go back to work now. \-

pixpit_the

You sound like FUD articles though.

HappyFiasco

From what I can see from your post it's fast, low fees, has a nice wallet, honest devs and friendly community. How is this better than any other coin? It's the same claims as most other coins. As far as I can tell, the only point of difference is its connection with Gamestop. That sounds good, but what does that actually mean? Have Gamestop outlined their plan or vision what they're going to do? What actual utility will LRC have? What about its tokenomics? I'm not here to FUD it, genuinely curious.

gnarley_quinn

>The response to the FUD - I frequently see comments unfairly criticising loopring be downvoted fairly quickly. This shows the community is aware of the great utility of loopring, and that we are moving on from unfounded criticism. We are so early! ​ Ironically, none of OP's points covered the utility of the token, which is the biggest factor in determining its inherent value. This is not an analysis, it is a straight up shill post. And judging by the number of guilds, and downvotes to other critical posters, the GME/LRC apes are still around and are as insufferable as ever.

gnarley_quinn

>The response to the FUD - I frequently see comments unfairly criticising loopring be downvoted fairly quickly. This shows the community is aware of the great utility of loopring, and that we are moving on from unfounded criticism. We are so early! Ironically, none of your points covered the utility of the token, which is the biggest factor in determining its inherent value.

frank__costello

1. There's no way the SEC goes after ETH, the ICO is past their statute of limitations and it's extremely hard to make the case that 2022 ETH is still a security 2. Any FUD about ETH being a security is 100x worse for other assets

Either-Advantage

Me when people fud my mighty Polygon bag. Going to be holding and DCA-ing till the cows come home. No amount of fear or FUD is stopping us. WAGMI boys.

ghusek

This is right, FUD is never going to stop in this sub lol.

Richadg

Look right above this post. Good straw man post on legit ETH FUD.

Tricky_Troll

Finally, some actually accurate ETH FUD. Thank you for the balanced take!

CointestAdmin

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is its network gas fees. Every transaction needs gas to pay for storage and processing power, and gas prices vary based on demand. Gas price is very volatile and often changes 2-5x in magnitude within the same day. ERC20 transfers are used for a large percentage of cryptocurrencies, and it's the reason much of DeFi is extremely expensive. If I wanted to send ERC20 tokens between exchanges, it's often cheaper to trade for XRP, ALGO, or some other microtransaction coin, transfer it using their other coin's native network, and then trade back into the original token. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > And that's just for basic transactions. Anyone who has tried to use more complex smart contracts like moving MATIC from Polygon mainnet back to ETH L1 mainnet during a time of high gas fees mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > Both Optimistic and ZK Rollups are handled off-chain and require a separate network nodes or smart contracts as infrastructure to validate transactions or generate ZK Proofs. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** require special infrastructure to generate ZK Proofs. These are very computationally-expensive, potentially [thousands of times](https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html) more expensive that just doing the computation directly. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Ethereum) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/v2re03/monthly_optimists_discussion_june_2022/).

kyguyartist

After reading the comments on this post, I'm fully expecting a capitulation event to happen soon. FUD everywhere. I think the bear market will end in 2023, will trade mostly sideways for a half year and and rally hard until 2025. BTC to $100k+ and ETH to $20k+. It's crazy, when BTC goes 10x, ETH goes 35x.

Any_Spirit_5814

I still use it as an "on the go" wallet, like paying a friend my share of the pizza we ordered etc. But never have more than 100-200euro on it. It's not Mycelium or any other of the legit software wallets that are bad, it's the fact that you are connected to the internet 24/7, and you never know how and from what end your wallet can be accessed. Cold storage is the only way of self custody. When it comes to your Celsius post, the whole notion of "FUD" is the most stupid and self-deceptive shit I have ever seen. FUD can only bring down scammers, there is no solid and legitimate enterprise in this world that can be brought down by some random twtter posts.

Embarrassed-Rub8923

the FUD on usdt is by far the most ridiculous shit you can read on reddit. when people win money they win money, when they loose money they win even more money. when some ppl make mistake and they loose 250 million dollar they ask politely and they get their money back. here people get outperformed by a hamster. usdd back on 0.99 btw

thesvsb

Why are we dipping now ? Looks like we don't even need FUD to dip. It is just normal setting.

MicroEggroll

I agree with you. 👆 There is always another coin to mine. The demand will go down, sure. It won’t disappear, people will still mine other alts. Tons of newbs post daily about what you, PSU, etc. to buy, so they can start to learn about crypto. Just because eth mining will not be a feasible thing for GPU’s, doesn’t mean it’ll disappear. It’s all FUD, IMO, to keep the institutions in the lead, front running things, and keep us normal peeps ten steps behind.

FreePrinciple270

That and the one before is the kind of FUD you find believable?

ProfessorPurrrrfect

I was beginning to think this sub was just all FUD

Wilder54321

What FUD?

niloy_r

Man this Bitcoin FUD is actually quite believable. The fear is real

TarkovReddit0r

GDP, Powell, low trust in Crypto, FUD in media, institutions getting rekt and politics / economy is still a mess. I would say we’ll see if this range is the bottom very soon

TarkovReddit0r

Fear is in the streets with GDP & Powell incoming. FUD in media and low trust for weeks. Looks like a lot of testing is coming

CointestAdmin

#Cosmos Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by MrMoustacheMan which won 1st place in the Cosmos Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > #Cosmos Con Argument > > - *Disclaimer: ATOM currently makes up ~1-2% of my portfolio. Including Cosmos related projects like OSMO, JUNO, etc. or projects built on Tendermint like BNB, LUNA, CRO, then it's more like 5%.* > > - While I wrote about the benefits of a [hub and spoke model](https://v1.cosmos.network/images/intro/06-architecture.svg) in the [Cosmos Pro thread](https://np.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/comments/qk4yl2/coin_inquiries_round_cosmos_proarguments_november/), different development models/architecture have different tradeoffs (e.g., [Cathedral vs. Bazaar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar), [empire vs nation states](https://www.finder.com.au\/brave-new-worlds-cosmos-blockchain-and-social-evolution), [different blockchain types](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain#Types), or even [DAGs](https://np.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_dag)). > > - **TLDR**: The overarching focus of Cosmos is on interoperability - but a priority on connecting everything together doesn't necessarily benefit the development or utility of ATOM itself. It's natural for developers to disagree on their vision for a decentralized, open source project and some may even regard that as a positive. But infighting is bad for optics and there are certain aspects of ATOM's tokenomics that may limit its value within the 'Internet of Blockchains'. > > ##Team entropy > > - In February 2020, fighting within the Cosmos team lead to a [shakeup of talent](https://decrypt.co/19769/zaki-manian-cosmos-number-two-resigns) and a [restructuring of the companies involved in developing the project](https://messari.io/article/amid-multiple-departures-cosmos-core-contributor-tendermint-inc-restructures-the-company). > > - Former Tendermint director [Zaki Manian accused founder Jae Kwon of neglecting Cosmos by instead working on a side project, Virgo](https://decrypt.co/18324/tendermint-director-accuses-cosmos-founder-of-evading-responsibility). > > - Some (including Jae), regarded the 'break up' as a [move towards decentralization](https://gist.github.com/jaekwon/7cb869769aecf9c86bfd1b9e61c488df). > > - Zaki (in a now deleted tweet) [disagreed with the decentralization claim and pointed to delays in development, turnover and under-resourcing of the Cosmos project](https://web.archive.org/web/20200207134418/https://twitter.com/zmanian/status/1224384772677390336). Others [reported a toxic environment for engineers](https://twitter.com/jessysaurusrex/status/1224417773620588545). > > - Amidst this backdrop of 'he said, she said' the fact is that core developers like to work on their own pet projects: > > - I'm not sure if Virgo is still a thing, but [Jae Kwon stepped down to work on a Gno project](https://twitter.com/jaekwon/status/1360867477572493313?s=28). Zaki went on to [work on Iqlusion and Sommelier](https://www.linkedin.com/in/zmanian/) while Sunny Aggarwal [started Osmosis and Sikka](https://www.linkedin.com/in/sunnya97/). > > > > ##Project entropy > > - The [community tends to dismiss devs fighting as FUD](https://np.reddit.com/r/cosmosnetwork/comments/r2zhz0/its_a_fud_hit_piece_and_makes_me_sick/). And one could argue that developers shifting to work on other projects is a 'value add' to the ecosystem rather than a detriment to work on Cosmos. > > - I'm not so sure - and I think a related example is actually the main products these teams worked on, [Cosmos SDK](https://v1.cosmos.network/sdk) and [Tendermint](https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/tendermint-explained). > > - In the Pro thread I highlighted how many popular projects such as BNB, CRO and LUNA have been built using these tools. > > - Many of those coins now [have a higher marketcap than ATOM - but, beyond displaying their total value](https://cosmos-cap.com/) under one umbrella there isn't a 'trickle down effect' whereby growth in CRO impacts the value of ATOM. > > - This is a function of the Cosmos design decision to [retain the sovereignty of each connecting chain](https://juliankoh.medium.com/5-differences-between-cosmos-polkadot-67f09535594b). Unlike Polkadot or ETH, a rising tide in the Cosmos ecosystem *doesn't necessarily* lift all boats: > > - Polkadot parachains use DOT's security. Ethereum tokens use ETH as gas. But projects in the Cosmos ecosystem are not 'locked in' to using ATOM. > > - [Transactions fees on the Cosmos Hub do not necessarily need to be paid in ATOM](https://cryptoseq.medium.com/cosmos-atom-token-and-the-commonly-misunderstood-staking-tokens-part-three-958c295c5b78). > > - In the absence of a [shared security model](https://blog.cosmos.network/interchain-security-is-coming-to-the-cosmos-hub-f144c45fb035), all the [connected zones and hubs today](https://mapofzones.com/?period=720&testnet=false&tableOrderBy=totalIbcTxs&tableOrderSort=desc) continue to use their own native tokens rather than enhancing the value of ATOM. So, to go back to developer projects, [Osmosis can post growing liquidity and transaction volume](https://info.osmosis.zone/) but the DEX usage doesn't directly benefit ATOM. > > - So while the Cosmos Hub has been crucial to promoting interoperability, in the future it might not remain the economic center of an 'Internet of Blockchains' but instead get supplanted by one of its 'children'. > > - Jae Kwon spoke to this point years ago, [indicating his support for competition between hubs rather than locking users into Cosmos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OAulsLeDI0&t=749s). > > - And the centrality of ATOM seems to be the subtext of recent [dev arguments over 'Cosmos' nomenclature](https://np.reddit.com/r/cosmosnetwork/comments/scye0t/sunnys_constant_attacks_on_the_cosmos_hub/), with [calls to rebrand](https://twitter.com/sunnya97/status/1486031900925784066). > > - Where Cosmos *does* lock in users is with staking: > > - [ATOM uses a high token inflation rate to ensure a high staking participation. Users who don't stake their ATOM get essentially penalized by inflation, as the value of their holdings is diluted over time](https://medium.com/swlh/what-are-the-flaws-of-the-cosmos-and-how-to-tackle-them-6c114f4f3bd7). > > - This is obviously not beneficial for holders of smaller stacks and/or users who want to retain liquidity without being locked in to the 21-day unbonding period. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/qk4yls/coin_inquiries_round_cosmos_conarguments_november/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Cosmos) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/v2re03/monthly_optimists_discussion_june_2022/).

Hugh_Mungus_Johnson_

Nah, don't pretend like this is coordinated FUD. This isn't his first time getting accused of being a pedo.

rbelewis

If someone is investing just by listening from the influncers then they are not doing good here. Because they are the one that are causing the biggest FUD in the market for me.

fakemoney1020

I am seeing this telling to myself in the 2024, when the market recovers from here. All the FUD, sufferings, insecurity we are getting now will be pays off in the future.

meshreplacer

The problem is the exchanges, they keep taking peoples crypto to loan out to leveraged bets,shortsellers etc.. it is contributing to people losing assets when they collapse. Over time this will erode confidence in crypto and people will start to abandon it. The big issue is these exchanges they are trouble and adding to FUD and market volatility.

Mr_P_Nissaurus

Sounds like a FUD post to me.

ECore

Of course he did lol...how much more can they come up with. All out FUD mode

ECore

In other words it's comparing apples to oranges in order to create FUD.

MrRGnome

Some very long time bitcoiners shitting on past bitcoin magazine events for good reason, not the least of which being they are a platform for scams and scammers. There's nothing FUD about the observation that bitcoin magazine has made a lot of mistakes recently. Including losing 100 btc of their own money to scammers. They just can't seem to learn a lesson and greed gets the better of them every cycle.

CointestAdmin

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is its network gas fees. Every transaction needs gas to pay for storage and processing power, and gas prices vary based on demand. Gas price is very volatile and often changes 2-5x in magnitude within the same day. ERC20 transfers are used for a large percentage of cryptocurrencies, and it's the reason much of DeFi is extremely expensive. If I wanted to send ERC20 tokens between exchanges, it's often cheaper to trade for XRP, ALGO, or some other microtransaction coin, transfer it using their other coin's native network, and then trade back into the original token. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > And that's just for basic transactions. Anyone who has tried to use more complex smart contracts like moving MATIC from Polygon mainnet back to ETH L1 mainnet during a time of high gas fees mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > Both Optimistic and ZK Rollups are handled off-chain and require a separate network nodes or smart contracts as infrastructure to validate transactions or generate ZK Proofs. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** require special infrastructure to generate ZK Proofs. These are very computationally-expensive, potentially [thousands of times](https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html) more expensive that just doing the computation directly. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Ethereum) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/v2re03/monthly_optimists_discussion_june_2022/).

EarthquakeBass

_Under_ estimate? Tether FUD is the first thing out of every crypto skeptic’s mouth. And just look at the article, people are lining up in droves to short it. Betting that Tether maintains the peg and is fine, actually is pretty contrarian at this point

Athlete_Cautious

Nexo try hard to reassure their clients. For instance they just claimed they have no exposure to three arrows capital. Future will tell if it is marketing BS but meanwhile it seems more fair to not blindly FUD all lending platforms & CEXs as one. Them being rekt is bad news for everyone in the end. I don't use them anymore, I'm now a strong believer of "not your keys not your coins" but I think we should stick to the facts.

KillerBaby68

He literally worked with the cops :P You're just misinformed and spreading false FUD. \>>But he did remove already existing tokens from already existing wallets. How.

thefullmcnulty

This is clown-world FUD. At least with bitcoin users have the opportunity to obfuscate or hide identity (TOR / VPN / mixers / LN / p2p) and circumvent any attempts at “black listing”. Not to mention “black listing” is something that will never happen to 99.999% of UTXO holders. It doesn’t actually happen. With fiat your money is the institutions at all times and they just *promise* to pay it back. It’s also the government’s or the police’s money if they come tell the bank it’s theirs because so-and-so broke their rules.

jawni

lol the top voted post in the sub is trying to tie brock pierce's visit to Epstein's island to Tether, despite the fact that Pierce left Tether in 2015. He's had nothing to do with Tether for the last 7 years, but of course this sub upvotes that post to the top, as if their is any relevance. It's a low bar for Tether FUD, but somehow they managed to go lower.

CointestAdmin

#Ethereum Con-Arguments Below is an argument written by Maleficent_Plankton which won 1st place in the Ethereum Con-Arguments topic for a prior [Cointest](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_policy) round. > Ethereum has drastically changed in the past year now that it has rebranded itself as **Consensus/Settlement layer** for other Layer 2 Execution/Rollup networks. It is no longer trying to be a monolithic blockchain by itself. Because of this shift in design, many of its former CONs are no longer major issues. And many of the CONs that still exist often have a beneficial sides. > > I discuss the CONs of Ethereum and their impact on its users here: > > ## CONs > > **Gas Fees** (major): > > The biggest complaint for Ethereum is its network gas fees. Every transaction needs gas to pay for storage and processing power, and gas prices vary based on demand. Gas price is very volatile and often changes 2-5x in magnitude within the same day. ERC20 transfers are used for a large percentage of cryptocurrencies, and it's the reason much of DeFi is extremely expensive. If I wanted to send ERC20 tokens between exchanges, it's often cheaper to trade for XRP, ALGO, or some other microtransaction coin, transfer it using their other coin's native network, and then trade back into the original token. Basically: use a coin on a different network to avoid fees. > > Typical transaction fees for Ethereum were [between $2-10 over the past year](https://etherscan.io/chart/avg-txfee-usd), but they have shot up to $50+ several times in 2021. > > And that's just for basic transactions. Anyone who has tried to use more complex smart contracts like moving MATIC from Polygon mainnet back to ETH L1 mainnet during a time of high gas fees mid-year in 2021 saw $100-$200 gas fees. Transferring ERC-20 tokens (often $20-50) is also more gas expensive because it can't be done through native transfers like on the Cardano network. It's impractical to use swaps like Uniswap for small transactions due to these fees. > > In particular, One/Many-to-many batch transactions are extremely gas-expensive using Ethereum's account-based model compared to Bitcoin's and Cardano's UXTO-based model. [This batch transaction on Ethereum](https://etherscan.io/tx/0x0fe2542079644e107cbf13690eb9c2c65963ccb79089ff96bfaf8dced2331c92) cost over $5000 while [a similar eUXTO transaction on Cardano](https://adapools.org/transactions/e586c6340ee9e60a6c64f447feffe5f89bdabc7741666ecaa681081957938f56) only cost $0.50 in fees. > > On the other hand, these fees provide Ethereum long-term economic sustainability and resilience against DDoS and spam attacks. > > **Competition from other Smart Contract networks** (moderate): > > Ethereum has enjoyed its lead as the smart contract blockchain due to first-mover advantage. But there are now many efficient smart contract competitors like Algorand, Solana, and Cardano. Ethereum is now facing much competition. Who wants to pay $20 gas fees on Ethereum when you can get similar transactions for under $0.01 with Algo and Solana or $0.30 transactions with Cardano? > > Fortunately, the amount of competition is limited because Ethereum is positioning itself as a Settlement layer whereas these other networks are monolithic networks. All monolithic networks will eventually run into scaling issues due to long-term storage and bandwidth limits. It will really depend on how successful Ethereum's Layer 2 rollup solutions will be. > > **Future uncertainty about Layer 2 solutions** (major): > > Ethereum's long-term success is dependent on the success of its Layer 2 solutions. > > These Layer 2 solutions are still extremely early. Even after a year, L2 has a very fragmented adoption. The majority of centralized exchanges currently do not support Layer 2 rollup networks. A few have started to support Polygon, which is more of a Layer 2 side-chain that saves state every 256 blocks than a Layer 2 rollup. Very few CEXs allow for direct fiat on/off-ramping on L2 networks, which puts those networks out of reach of most users. > > Many of these Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Loopring, ZKSync, etc), are not interoperable with each other. You can store your tokens on any specific L2 network, but they're stuck there. If you want to move your tokens back to Layer 1 or to another L2 network, you have to pay very expensive smart contract gas fees ($50-300). Eventually, there will be bridges between these networks, but we could be years away from widespread adoption. > > Fragmented liquidity is another huge issue. Each of these L2 networks has its own liquidity pool for each token it supports. You can store your token on the the L2 network, but you won't be able to trade or swap much if there are no liquidity pools for that token. Eventually, there will be Dynamic Automated Market Makers (dAMMs) that can share liquidity between networks, but they are complex and introduce their own weaknesses. > > Both Optimistic and ZK Rollups are handled off-chain and require a separate network nodes or smart contracts as infrastructure to validate transactions or generate ZK Proofs. They are very centralized in how they operate, so there's always the risk that their network operators could cheat their customers. By now, the community seems to agree that ZK rollups are the future rollup solution to decentralized L2 networks. There is only 1 notable instance of Plasma (Ethereum to Polygon network conversion), and no one uses it anymore since the Ethereum-Polygon bridge is easier to use. The biggest competitor to ZK rollups are Optimistic rollups, and those take too long to settle back to Layer 1 (1 week) and are still too expensive to use (20-50% of the cost of L1 Ethereum gas fees for transfers). > > **ZK Rollups** require special infrastructure to generate ZK Proofs. These are very computationally-expensive, potentially [thousands of times](https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html) more expensive that just doing the computation directly. To reduce the cost, they are done completely-centralized by specialized servers. Thus the cost of a ZK Rollup is cheap at about [$0.10 to $.30](https://l2fees.info/). But even at $0.10 per transfer and $0.50 per swap, these are still at least 10x more expensive than costs on Algorand and Solana. Users will have to decide whether the extra cost and hassle of using an L2 platform is worth the extra security of settling on the more-decentralized and secure Ethereum L1 network. > > **Ethereum Proof-of-Stake merge is arriving later than competitors** (moderate): > > The ETH PoS Beacon chain has been released, it's a completely separate blockchain from ETH and won't merge with the main blockchain [until later this year](https://decrypt.co/78690/ethereum-2-staking-tops-21-billion-merge-horizon), giving its competitors plenty of time to provide FUD. We still don't know how successful the merge will be. Currently, stakes are locked, preventing investors from selling. We don't know what will happen to the price once staking unlocks. > > **MEV and Dark Forest attacks** (minor): > > [MEV](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/rs4wp2/the_dark_forest_of_cryptocurrency/) is actually a pretty big issue for networks with high gas arbitrage and mempools like Ethereum, but most casual users will never notice hostile arbitrage. When you broadcast your transaction to the network, there are armies of bots and automated miners that analyze your transaction to see if they can perform arbitrage strategies on your transaction such as front-running, sandwiching, excluding transactions, stealing/replaying transactions, and other pure-profit plays. "Dark Forest" attacks have reveled that bots are constantly monitoring the network, and they can front-run you unless you have your own private army of miners. > > **Final Word** > > Overall, I still think the PROs outweigh the CONs for Ethereum in the long-run due to its first-mover advantage and the long-term sustainability of the Ethereum network. ***** Would you like to learn more? [Click here](/r/CointestOfficial/comments/ru2luf/top_10_ethereum_conarguments_january_2022/) to be taken to the original topic-thread or you can scan through the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Ethereum) to find arguments on this topic in other rounds. Since this is a con-argument, what could be a better time to promote the Skeptics Discussion thread? You can find the latest thread [here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/v2re03/monthly_optimists_discussion_june_2022/).

iamjide91

Well, I want to believe this is good news for the space. This counters all the FUD surrounding Tether.

No_Bodybuilder_1256

This is nonsense. Cryptocurrency is designed to be trustless and permissionless, Tether fulfills neither of those requirements. Everyone who truly wants to see crypto adopted in real life transactions, is deeply suspicious of Tether. This isnt anti-crypto FUD, its pro-crypto concern.

MelPietz

So a unique and funny joke. Haven't you ever thought that this isn't just funny, but also not true and is just FUD spreaded by their competitors?

Huijausta

> evidence has emerged proving they are fully backed **or very close to it.** L-freaking-MAO. Either they're fully backed or they aren't. There's no in-between in accounting. Now *you* tell us : if the fake backing of Tether is nothing but "FUD", why was Tether fined by a US agency just last year for... lying about its backing ?! How does that compute, huh ? If Tether were a reputable company, surely it wouldn't need to pay tens of millions to atone for a corrupt behaviour. Don't you think ?

CognizantSynapsid

>You made a very bold, false and unfounded claim about Tether. Where’s your proof? You can’t just make claims like that against Tether, which many consider the backbone of cryptocurrency as so many pairs are tied to it. Not false or unfounded. A simple google search or even just a few weeks in the sub would give you more than enough information to be concerned about Tether. Again, concern =/= belief that it will absolutely implode, just noting that it is something to limit exposure to as much as possible. Here are the first 3 articles that came up on a very quick search to illustrate my point ([1](https://m.investing.com/news/cryptocurrency-news/is-tether-a-ticking-time-bomb-2495692), [2](https://medium.com/geekculture/usd-tether-the-largest-ticking-time-bomb-in-modern-financial-history-fabdac79238a), [3](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4459051-tether-a-nearly-70-billion-dollar-time-bomb)). As always, feel free to DYOR and disagree. Your remark about Tether being the backbone of crypto only supports the ticking timebomb argument once you see that backbone is crooked and decrepit. >I just don’t understand why you’d be “DCAing” yet spreading anti-crypto bs that could potentially contribute towards bringing down the value of your own investments. My ego is not so self-inflated that I believe any comments I make on Reddit create market movements. Again, educated and thoughtful discussion should not be an echo chamber and should be nuanced. Nuance and differing opinions are not “anti-crypto bs” lol; however, that type of thinking is supported by apes who screech FUD at any dissenting opinion. Not sure what your deal is but I’ve dedicated enough energy to this for the day.

TBirdyTom

Don’t worry, at least you seem to have your head screwed on. Half the people here are mindless drones who can only say good things about all crypto rather than actually looking at things objectively. Of course FUD is their favourite catchphrase.

tothem0o0n

If every slight criticism makes you think it's FUD, maybe you don't believe in Bitcoin enough?