Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Out of Cycle Update and it feels. It feels so good to be rugged. So bad.
[00:00:12] Happy weekend out there. For listeners to CryptoTalk FM. My name is Lysterm, your host with an out of cycle update that I hesitate doing. But I think it's important because I want to be fair. Best I can let me summarize kind of where we're at because some people might not be following the chaos and I understand, I truly do understand.
[00:00:32] I am going to take a victory lap up front because I have to, because it's what I do. Because it's the only way that you can learn.
[00:00:39] Months ago I had warned quite the vast array of people to be mindful of certain people who then later I teamed the consensus.
[00:00:54] They designated themselves as leaders of a quote army.
[00:00:58] I had somebody stop by and I'm going to paraphrase what they said, but they basically said, you know, you bought a miner so you're one of us. You know, you're part of the army. And I said, no, I'm not part of the army. I'm not because I don't just charge to go to war.
[00:01:16] I take it smart.
[00:01:18] And I said that what's being stated in other circuits was not going to work. I said they're going to cause more problems than they think. I said it's a bad idea. Off jump. I got attacked countless times.
[00:01:35] Fast forward now. We're getting close to the one year anniversary of the start of this chaos. So I thought it was important for me to take a victory lap because if you paid attention you would understand that everything I said was the truth and came to be the truth. And those people who didn't listen now have to acknowledge it. It turns out there's really only one of these vigilantes essentially left pushing the narrative and some separation has occurred within their ranks. This of course, when you have an army that is dysfunctional is apt look it up to happen. You will have situations where these people don't seem to be able to keep the troops on the same page because they don't agree.
[00:02:19] Because eventually they start to see all that rhymes that there's some problem with the leadership of said rank. So then now allegedly there's a new leader and this leader is the definition of incompetent.
[00:02:35] Allegedly. I don't know if this is true. This is what I was told from other people that stopped by and thank you for stopping by.
[00:02:41] I was told that this person who deems themselves now the current leader used to be like a waitress or something, dumped more money than they could afford to lose last year.
[00:02:55] They allied with the consensus and they were just a groupie.
[00:03:00] She was just a groupie.
[00:03:02] Groupie. They were just a groupie.
[00:03:04] So now this person, this is allegedly, that's what I'm told has been embraced by the community. What's called the community, which isn't really the community, it's really a vigilante group. I want to call them a vigilante group.
[00:03:19] And I had done coverage and I talked about how there appeared to be a fork of some kind.
[00:03:24] This was back in the whole coup allegations and people stopped by saying, well I'll, you know, listen in but I'm not really sure what's going on and I'm just talking about what I'm seeing. I'm just, that's the beauty of my coverage. When you listen to other people and they make wild eyed ass claims and they can't back any of it up. Mine is based on what you see. Like I go off what I see, which means you can see it, which means it's the truth. Now whether you dislike what I'm saying is not on table. It is the truth because it's what you can see. It's not misrepresented, it's not misunderstood, it's not misstated as one of the marks once claimed. It is what I see.
[00:04:02] I am then providing my opinion which I'm going to do.
[00:04:07] I encourage those people then to go and make their own opinion. But I'm going to share my opinion about what it means. Then I sit back, I get validated that what I'm saying is the truth. And all I expect is people to come back, give my credit, which to credit some have done, some came back and said I listened to the show. You call it to a T. You're spot on what you're doing that I appreciate those people, right? It's everybody gets it wrong, okay? A broken clock's right twice, A broken clock's wrong twice. I get it, okay?
[00:04:40] I'm not criticizing people that make a mistake. I just want you to come back, give my credit. Because if you've listened for a studious time, you understand that the things I've been saying are the truth and you recognize that you got misled, duped by people who didn't know what the fuck they were doing. That's what we, that's what all this is. That's all that this is. And I'm fascinated truly by the insanity that's going around. Let me summarize now. Let me get to My topic. I had to take the victory lap. It's important. So what you learn? Let me summarize where we're at. Okay?
[00:05:15] First, what did I say? I said that of course there was a fork. People denied it. Here we are. You've got now those Dumb and Dumbers that have acknowledged, yes, there was a fork. Okay? I said there was a different. There's two ledgers, but one chain. I had marks attack me and said it wasn't true. You just heard Dumb and Dumber acknowledge. Yes, there's two ledgers.
[00:05:37] Everything I'm saying is true. They try to deny it. They can't because the data is out there. Okay? So I'm simply covering what I see. If somebody can refute what I'm seeing, then provide counter. They can't. They have to acknowledge it. That's where we're at. Okay? So you have one chain. You have two different ledgers of the chain. You have two different sets of node. The BDAC scan. The BDAC scan is. I can confirm one. It's basically a standalone node. There's like multiple different things underneath it, but it's just one, essentially one node. It's heavily centralized. This is fact. That's true. The other side has a bunch of different nodes that are all talking within their own ledger, but they're basically following what Dumb and Dumber have established in their own minds as, quote, canonical. And they're only stating that because they said so.
[00:06:28] Now they made the claim that the BAG scan side is the attacker. That is not true. The BDEX scan side preceded the other side, thus it cannot be the attacker. When they say attacker, what do they mean? They're talking about essentially? Not exactly, but essentially a 51% attack.
[00:06:45] The reason it cannot be a 51% attack or anything close to it is that that implies that you're all sharing on the same ledger and that you've taken over with respect to all of the blocks and the transactions and all of the different things that are being validated through the proof of whatever that did not happen here. They just simply branched off the ledger and they're doing their own thing and they're declaring that they're canonical simply because there's consensus. There's consensus within their ledger, sure. But there's no consensus with the other side because there's no consensus with the other side. That's the state of it. The state of it is you have two different sets of consensus. You can have singular consensus. One node that simply is declaring and calling the shots is it the right thing to do? Not for me to say. However, there is a consensus within of itself. You can scan, you can read, you can. You can act. Of course the tools are down, but the fact that it functions creates some form of a consensus within itself. We just don't agree that that's the way it should be. And I don't disagree that that's a problem. I'm stating that it's improper to declare it as an attack when that's the side that came first.
[00:07:54] It came first. That's what was built first. And I would remind people that Dumb and Dumber were all on board promoting and supporting that side until they were no longer paid. That's what happened. Okay? Now when you create this other side, which they're entitled to do, and they're entitled to create what they want, allegedly they're trying to convince some of the exchanges to adopt their nodes as the quote canonical I saw mentions that they're trying to target webot.
[00:08:20] I think it's a good idea because we bought is us compliant. And.
[00:08:24] And it is surprising that we bought would not support that. It would not go on board.
[00:08:29] Perhaps we bought does not like the idea that there's two different ledgers in the first place.
[00:08:35] Maybe we bought just thinks it's a little bit sketchy, a little bit problematic that there's two ledgers. If I'm we bought, I would have problems with the idea that you don't have consensus within the one chain. Id.
[00:08:48] If I'm webot, I would say this is. This is the problem.
[00:08:52] You still have one chain. There should be one ledger. The consensus should be within the chain. If. If I'm right, and I don't know because I'm not in webot, but if I'm right, that means Dumb and Dumber caused the problem in the first place by not having consensus with the other side. I know what they would say. He didn't want to let go. I get it, okay? That's why I said Dumb and Dumber should have just created their own fucking chain. Since it's a fork any damn way, they should just create their own chain with a different id. Call it something else. Don't hook into his marketing. Don't hook into his advantage stuff that he built that got you the holders. That's why you did it. You did it because it already gave you the awareness. It already gave you the people. Just like Pulsechain. It gave you a head start, so you didn't have to start from scratch, and you allegedly didn't have the money to do it from ground level. I get it. I get why you did it. I still say it's stupid and you should have created your own separate chain full stop, and then market it. However you did, you didn't do that. And I think as a theory, and I don't know for sure that that might be the reason we bought is pushing back. Because they see there's a chain. It was already established that one is the original one. You guys are the one who branched off, but you still don't have consensus within the one chain id.
[00:10:09] And if I'm the exchange, I would have a problem with that because they can't know exactly what's going on. They can't know that you guys are not the attackers. They can't know that this is not malicious. There's all sorts of stuff they can't know.
[00:10:21] That's my theory. Could be that we bought eventually relents and decides to jump on board with it. If they did, I think that would be a good thing for that side.
[00:10:29] So I'm telling you, my message to you is to watch what the exchanges do. Same thing I said like two months ago. Everything central centers around the central exchanges and what they choose to do. But more importantly, I still question why the fuck neither side is getting on uniswap. I struggle with that because it should be the easiest thing to do to get on Uniswap. At minimum, get on Change now. Get on something that's decentralized. Do that now because you're going to create liquidity by doing that and you're going to create awareness by doing that. And you're going to clean up some of this contention for people that just want to get out of it.
[00:11:06] But I question like, the community side should have long since gotten on at least Change now by now.
[00:11:12] And I question why that hasn't happened. I have a theory, and it's only a theory.
[00:11:16] Is it possible that even the decentralized is not compatible because of this contention with the different ledgers and a single chain id? I don't know. I'm just theorizing. I'm spitballing because I can't think of any other reason why the community side wouldn't readily get on at least one decentralized exchange by now? It's evm, it's erc. You should be able to get on Uniswap at bare minimum, and you damn sure should be able to get on Change now.
[00:11:42] Change now takes almost anything. You absolutely can't do it. I don't know what's going on there.
[00:11:46] I struggle.
[00:11:48] Let's watch the exchanges. Decentralized, centralized. That's where you're going to understand what's really going on and what will or can happen with all of this chaos is going to be the exchanges response to what's going on. It's not going to be what they say in some AMA where they're throwing F bombs up down the end like one of these dumb and dumbers. And it's not going to be the other side where they're dead on silent. But they do a buyback and then they take away the buyback and do a refund and then they give you the buyback back and don't explain exactly what's going on and they throw a different thing. It's not going to be what they tell you. That's not going to be any sort of measure of success. The measure of any sort of movement is going to be around exchanges central, decentralized. The one that gets that done, that's going to be the one that moves on.
[00:12:34] I did, I did say though again like a month and a half ago, what you have is two different ledgers, which is very similar to what happened with Ethereum and Ethereum Classic and the Dow that was.
[00:12:47] And the idea that you essentially have two bags if you were in at a certain point in those that validated your numbers, you have two bags. And I said I would just sit and do nothing. Don't interact with the sites. Even the community side, so called community. They even put a banner that said, yeah, don't interact with the sinkings thing right now we're trying to rebuild it. And that's been like a couple of weeks now. Okay. They're validating what is said to be the truth, which is don't touch the stuff for now. Just wait. They're like, it's interesting. They're all implicitly saying what I've been saying. The BDAC scan staking site, it was briefly up and then people said it's up, it's not up. Now Cloudflare is in front of it. So maybe they were premature and bringing it back up. And I did say a post on CoinMarketCap. Isn't it ironic that you start having issues with the community side when the BDACscan side has issues? Isn't that kind of funny? Well, it's because under the hood there's still shared infrastructure. So I'm saying, and I will say to anybody listening, just stop interacting with the sites for now. I know you want to try to get stuff out. I know you want to get to the wallet. I'm. I'm recommending to you don't interact with either site right now because it's a chaotic shit show at the moment. I recommend just wait, just sit and wait. Think about it. What do you have to lose by taking my recommendation? You really have nothing to lose. If you adopt the community side, you're losing your pre sale money anyway. If you adopt the BD scan side, the shit's down. You can't do anything anyway. So what hurts you to just sit and wait? Think it through. Right now the other two updates I got and then we'll wrap up. First I gave a coverage about the Welsh Dag which was, well, stag trade. Apparently Welsh Dag decided to shut down and they gave some stated reasons on their site that I thought was kind of fascinating. I don't know any information. If you're in the so called community side and you'd like to share that, Please do CryptoTalk FM. Hit the contact form or comments below.
[00:14:37] But it says, quote, they had a banner. It's gone now. They've changed it. It's now a website builder thing. It's completely different. Service has nothing to do with crypto. So maybe they're the ones that built some of these AI sites, I don't know.
[00:14:50] But for a moment they had a banner and it says, quote, welsh Dag is shut down. Welsh Stag has decided to close its servers based on the latest research and understanding of the current state of the network. Thank you for joining Welsh Dag. Please see Telegram for alternative RPCs. Stop. So what does this mean again? I legitimately would like to hear from people on the community side if you have some insight, because they didn't share anything else on that. It was sudden, it was, it was out of nowhere. Some didn't know that it happened.
[00:15:17] But quote, based on the latest research and understanding of the current state of the network. Now mind you, Welsh Dag was pretty much exclusively on the community, the so called community side. From what I saw. Welsh Stack had nothing to do with the BDAC scan side. They did have some viewers that let you see it, but for the most part there they had an RPC set up on the community side. They had allegedly a mining thing on the community side and then they put up a banner where they were asking people to pay 10 bucks a month for a quote, membership so that you could get access to mine into their pool. And I put out a post saying have you seen anybody else in the decentralized area where they were charging a monthly fee for the privilege of being able to mine on the pool? And I said that we're talking about worthless coins because they're not tradable right now.
[00:16:05] Normally what happens with these types of pools and these types of trades is that they take the fees out of what's mined, but that assumes that you can actually sell them on the open market. That's how the whole thing works. So if you're not. This is why I keep emphasizing if you don't solve the exchanges, none of this shit works. And it's possible. I don't know. I don't know these Welsh stack people. Here's the deal. Let's do this gauntlet down. Welsh Stag, folks. Man, female, whatever.
[00:16:32] Mr. Mrs. Whatever. Welsh stag. If you'd like to chat CryptoTalk FM, hit the contact forum. I'd love to chat with you or have you on the show. If you'd like to emphasize or elaborate a little bit more on what concerns you had on the network. What network are we referring to? I'm assuming it's the one chain id. But is it the community ledger? Is it the BDAG scan ledger? Is it the both ledgers? Is it the lack of liquidity? Is it the lack of trading? What was the real reason that you shut shop and did so so suddenly? What was the real reason? Am I right in my theory that the reason you were asking membership is because you were essentially losing money, paying out of pocket for a server infrastructure with worthless coins? And is that the reason that you were doing that? You thought you had something reasonable? Let's chat it out. If you got the. You've got those balls and you want the smoke. And of course, if you're female, you don't have balls. But if you want the smoke and you want to be more transparent about what was going on, this is my invitation. I don't charge from a show. CryptoTalk FM. It's a contact form.
[00:17:32] So Welsh deck's gone. I don't know what this whole specifics. And that's why I'm asking because I'd like to have the both sides community. I'd like everybody to understand that's what all of these don't do. They don't give the full. Here's exactly what's going on. Here's exactly what we see. Here's exactly our beef with it. Here's why we're doing what we're doing. Here's what it would Take to fix it and get us back on track. They don't do that. They just put these ambiguous ass statements and it's fucking nonsense.
[00:17:58] Speaking of ambiguous ass statements, there is a site, BDAG Life, I believe. Yeah, BDAG Life. I believe it is BDAG Life. I like the site. It's actually very neutral. It seems like it's very fair. It doesn't seem like it's biased. It doesn't seem like it's run by marks. I actually. I actually am recommending that you check it out for what it does. It seems like it's neutral coverage and it seems like it's in alignment with what I've been saying, that you're dealing with two different ledgers and they're just sharing the information on both.
[00:18:30] There was a different person, Renee Shadlick, I believe is the pronunciation. I apologize if I got it wrong. But there was a different person who put up what is essentially an NFT.
[00:18:39] And with the NFT, I think it was 10 bucks or something. It might even been higher. But it's an NFT and it's a book that apparently they wrote called, quote 1404, two histories, a documentary novel about Block Dag Trust and the people between the chains.
[00:18:57] And it's got this AI image for Block Dag and a photo that looks like a cross between one of the marks. And now he does put a caveat saying, well, this is not designed to depict any real living person. Of course not, because he blended multiple people. Good, that's fine. But he's talking about words that are here. Lies, greed, manipulation, broken promises, hype, influence, control, disappearance, Millions, questions and all these terms. 4 to 42 million. Partnerships, miners, mainnet, where's the money? All these target words. And, you know, it's designed to. It's designed to trip things. Now, the interesting thing is if you look at the COVID you can. You're automatically assuming he's talking about start to finish. But the funny thing is that the. The crux of his book is not even about.
[00:19:49] It's. It's. He does a very. And I could tell he used AI for a lot of this stuff. So in order to counter his AI, I used AI to help in terms of parsing past the garbage. It's 300 pages plus 300 pages, and I would argue the vast majority of his garbage because he's just kind of going through as if he's doing, you know, like the old days in the newspaper where it's like some sort of investigative journalist and they put all These words of, you know, Vietnam, the ground zero for the. That kind of nonsense that they do when they write it that way. That's what he was doing here. And it was a lot of nonsense. It's like. Can you get to the point? What are you trying to say here?
[00:20:29] I can tell. I the reason I know for a fact that he used AI for the vast majority of it because he didn't seem to understand the components of a well written story. Speaking as an author myself, in order to do a well written story, it depends on the nature of the story. So if you're doing what you are presenting as your own experience, normally what you do is you start with a thesis. Everybody goes back to your college. Okay, you start with a thesis. What is the thesis? He doesn't really have a thesis here. He's using his cover art to create a narrative.
[00:21:03] But then the book doesn't even talk about the COVID art, Harley, at all. It just kind of veers off in a completely different direction. There's not really a thesis here. Okay, what is your thesis? A thesis might be and you need to be specific when you do this. He was very masterful in obfuscating look it up people's names so that he was not making a direct accusation. But everybody knows if you look at the name who they're, who he's talking about. So you might as well just spelled out the name. He didn't do that because he didn't want to get sued. That's really what it is because some of the names in here are very lawsuit happy people. So I, I knew for a fact why he did that. He's trying to put something out there as a narrative. The obfuscation of names doesn't protect you from that suit. So why even put names at all? Is number one and then two thesis. His thesis is lacking. If you go off his cover.
[00:21:52] He's talking about the biggest fraud in crypto history and facts, chats and documents of my story.
[00:21:58] That's not a thesis. That's. That's trigger words.
[00:22:02] That's trigger words. And it's like, oh, but it's my words. No, no, you need a thesis, a strong thesis as an example.
[00:22:09] And I'm not targeting his book. I'm saying in general, if I were going to write some sort of story about my. Let's take my personal experience, okay? I bought a minor. If you listen to that episode. I said I don't think I'm going to get the. And I don't care because it's throw Away money. But if I do, I'll test it.
[00:22:27] I still don't expect to get a minor. Turns out that the site, the form where you put your mailing address, it doesn't work anymore. Like it, all the mailing information's gone. If you submit it again, it'll take it, but it doesn't show up. It just doesn't show up. So either it's still stored and they're not showing it or something weird. Point is, okay, if the mailing address isn't there, I damn sure not getting it.
[00:22:49] So if I were writing up some sort of story about personal experience, I would say my thesis statement, my summary thesis statement, which ironically I've said on the show before, you're dealing with people that don't know what the fuck they're doing. That's. That would be my. I wouldn't put that in writing, but you get what I'm saying. That would be my high level thesis. You're dealing with people on multiple sides that don't know what they're doing, didn't know what they were doing, don't know what they're doing.
[00:23:11] Broad span. That is my summary. Then I'm gonna go down. Okay, why do I feel that way?
[00:23:17] Then that's your story and I'm gonna chunk it out. I'm going to start with each component and I'm going to work backwards. So I'm going to start with Turner. I'm not going to bore you here with all that. I've already done it in episodes. But the point is, I would start with Turner. I actually saw the old video that he used to do where he had Stephen Clark and he had Dr. Collage and Marcus the trainer dude, he had. What's the other guy's name? Josh Sack. That was when he first had hired them and he was doing like a PowerPoint slide. I have that video. I tracked it down and you can tell just looking at that video. These are people that had no idea what they were getting into. They just said there's a great opportunity here to work with some great tech and you're going to make some money. Let's come on, do it. None of them did any due diligence. Right. So since we, if we accept that and if you remember what I was talking about in terms of how Turner was covering it. Yeah. None of them knew what they were doing. They were just getting into a job that was going to pay him some money and let him play around with toys.
[00:24:14] Fast forward close to two years and what did I say? I said kids in a candy store playing with toys.
[00:24:21] Everything was obvious from day one that we're dealing with this from the use of A.I.
[00:24:26] speaking of, I actually tracked down the video. I keep referencing where the guy was standing on the moon kicking his leg. I put that on CoinMarketCap. Follow my profile on CoinMarketCap's community and you'll see I have it pinned at the top. That's the video that I was talking about. Where I people actually bought that was 20, 24 people bought in because what happened? I have the full video. I can't coinmark cap has the limit. What happened is at the time people were critic they he did an update and he was talking about the miners and then people criticized it. Man, this is AI. This ain't real. Well, obviously it's AI you can look at. He's standing on the fucking moon. But then they did a follow up video they posted on X and he says, but I want to talk about this thing where people think I'm AI just so you know that I'm real. And then he zooms out and he just kicks his leg out and smiles. People bought in off that. Like this is how bad the project is and why I keep saying it's just kids playing with toys. But also brilliant marketing. Because if you bought in because of that nonsense, if you bought in because of somebody on the moon, you know it's fake. But also that they kicked their leg out to prove that they're real. And you bought in off that or you bought in off these people doing a presentation where they had no clue of what they were getting into whatsoever. And then some said, I saw this countless places.
[00:25:42] Well, if we had known it was, we wouldn't have done that. Well, what did it matter? Who cares? It could have been Brian Sailor who like it didn't matter who it was.
[00:25:53] It doesn't matter the fact that it's garbage. It's garbage, right? It was garbage back then. We know there's a chain. What can you do with it? Nothing. Who's really building on it? Nothing. What are the exchanges doing right now? Nothing. What did it get you? Nothing. You went off claims.
[00:26:09] That's. That's been my message from Jump. It's like there's nothing here.
[00:26:14] I'll do the minor because if there is something I want to test it. That's it. But it's throw away money. I don't expect to get the damn thing. We know there are miners, but I didn't expect to get one because of what's going on with the Borussia Dortmund in Milan. So I understood start to finish. This was all jacked up to from jump.
[00:26:29] So now I just told you in more concise form. I started with a statement. None of these people know what the they're doing. And then I break down. Here's all the pieces that validate what I'm saying.
[00:26:40] I parsed this document for Renee Shadlick and if Renee Shadlick and I. Again, I apologize if the pronunciation is wrong, but if Renee Shadlik ever hears this. I'm not criticizing you specifically. I actually think, you know, obviously use AI to help with some of this. I actually think you're coming from a place of good. I actually think you're trying to simply share a story. My criticism was you putting as an nft.
[00:27:05] I suspect the reason that you put it as an NFT was to try to recoup what you lost on the project. That's a theory. I don't know for sure. You said you were running a node. Why would you do that when you know you weren't going to get any money off the stuff? Is question number two. I've got.
[00:27:18] And I'm going to just share what the summary of all this is and my critique of what I'm reading.
[00:27:28] The bottom line of this is he provides very factual data, useful data, and a timeline that I think is valuable for people to understand. And I'm going to summarize without stealing his content because if you do want to read it, do I encourage you to just, you know.
[00:27:46] But what he says is that he bought it in 2023. So that means he's got to be one of the OGs. We're talking at a time where there was nothing but marketing. And I think. I don't know this, but I wonder if this is either the same person or somehow aligned with that Baptiste person from ages ago where I covered their medium write up where he was talking very similar to the way this guy's writing. I wonder if they're somehow in allegiance or align somehow. I haven't seen that person since. But I wonder if there's some sort of connection there. I don't know. But 2023 means that's got it. That's got to be the infant of. I didn't even know about the Damn thing in 2023. I was certainly paying attention to this kind of garbage.
[00:28:29] But he says Mainnet launches in 2024. No, it did not. That's not true. The main Net did not Launch until what, 2020? Early 2020 or late 2025, early 2026.
[00:28:43] He's. That's. Mainnet did not launch in 2024. What launched in 2024 was Awakening Testnet and then Primordial. But the Main net was after the fact. They hadn't put out Maine at that time. And the reason that they said at the time, this is the whole situation of, you know, Turner is allied with the consensus and all that that's around that chaos. The main. It wasn't active at that time. It wasn't fully active. No, that's not true. Because you couldn't do anything with what they had said was out and available.
[00:29:16] There's a document Even on their GitHub right now that talks about mainnet and the code and the nodes. It was never updated to connect to mainnet. If you couldn't connect to mainnet, it wasn't live. Let's just get that straight. They talked about it. It was never made live. So his dates are already jacked up wrong.
[00:29:35] And I think what's happening is that when he summarized his thoughts and fed it to AI, he didn't scrub to understand that things are shifted off. So my theory is he says 2023. I think it's 2024 because that would make better sense to me in terms of when he actually bought in then 2024 to 2025. 2025. Late ish is roughly when mainnet truly became accessible and available to some degree. Not full.
[00:30:03] Then I'm shifting everything a year is what I'm talking about for that early phase because it was kind of a cloudy, glassy deal because there was nothing there. So that's start number one. Because he then talks about the shift from Turner to Giggles and that of course was 2025.
[00:30:19] Then he talks about the, the Duna quote, which is the Wyoming business. And this Freeland which I talked about, there was allegedly some other group out there I thought was Discord or Telescommerce, something called Freeland. You know, when this I think, I don't know for sure, but this I think is where one of the remnants of the consensus, one of the marks had spun it up, got it set up and then they, after what happened with Giggles, they somehow got Jeremy on board with this business.
[00:30:56] That's where the whole mentions about a coup came out at that point that he had partnered up with that mark and then he was going to do the coup and try to get take control of the chain and all this. That's, that's, that. That's the Free Land Allegedly.
[00:31:10] Now the whole collecting of evidence and all that, that was, you know, one of the leaders of the consensus, actually the original guy, the consensus that spearheaded all that stuff. And that's the charge, you know, the poor poorly thought out war and push forward and do all this other stuff. That's the dude aside. And then the free land was the we're going to take over the chain and do a coup and do all this. That's that, that's the free land.
[00:31:37] So then he's there saying, well, they found evidence of a fork. Now that implies that the, that Jeremy did not proactively communicate what he was doing and that he wasn't telling people what he had done. But if he was in the free land, certainly he would have been telling people that he had was going to do it and maybe he didn't. Then inside this business, this author and again his, all his dates are a little bit shifted, but it's closer to roughly. But he's talking about prior to the one of the that that leader getting locked up. He's talking about how that leader allegedly was making claims that there were quote moles and insiders inside and that's why they were withholding information. That's the claim that he's making.
[00:32:29] And he's saying that these groups were basically fighting each other. I know that one of the other leaders of the consensus sent a message on Reddit and was saying, don't recommend, I'm paraphrasing, do not recommend allying with this new community because it's Nick and Jeremy. And that person implied that those people couldn't be trusted. Now, of course, I would remind people that Leister Crypto FM told people back in 2025, you shouldn't be trusting pathological liars. In any case, that meant everybody in the Block Deck site because all of them lied at different levels, even Jeremy, because Jeremy was part of shopping. Jeremy was called out about shopping on one of the AMAs. He laughed at the question. Instead of addressing it directly. He laughed at the question.
[00:33:15] I'm saying and have said, if you listen to mine consistent, I said, you're dealing with liars on all sides. You're just picking which liar you believe more because they're all liars in what they're doing. And so all of now you got splinters.
[00:33:29] They started as splinter groups, but now they're completely splintered because they were attacking each other. The coyotes were attacking each other. Allegedly this Freeland group is attacking this Duna group and then this Duna group and the Freeland group and there's some other group, and they're all infighting, all spurred by these claims. This is the allegation being made, these claims made by that one leader, the consensus that there was moles and there's insiders and. And so that's referred to just to educate folks. That's referred to as sowing distrust. Look it up.
[00:34:04] What's happening? And I. I honestly think this happened. That's why I'm covering it.
[00:34:09] What's happened is you have this guy G, who I think is a master. I said back in 2025, you won't beat him.
[00:34:19] You won't.
[00:34:21] He's a master at sewing dissension within your ranks. And that's what I. I'm confident it's what he did. I'm confident he planted people inside. That's why I kept saying insiders and kept warning people about insiders, and I kept warning that he's. You're not beating this dude. He's good at this because we saw it before.
[00:34:42] But they're not paying attention because they put too much money in and they're watching a guy standing on the moon and they're not paying attention. It didn't matter if it's kijos. That's what I'm saying. It didn't matter. They didn't have anything. There's nothing there. They're lofty promises. You wait until they deliver. No, these are gamblers that rolled the dice, hoping they could become a millionaire before it launched instead of waiting for it to be something. That's what happened. They've not acknowledged their part to play in their own harm.
[00:35:11] That's why I knew they couldn't beat him because he banked on that. He told them to their face in the call.
[00:35:16] What about marketing? You wouldn't even be here. He told you to your face. That was the case. And I knew he's smarter than these people. I knew that. This is basically summarizing what I said, which is. No, that there's contention where hate groups and accusations and the narratives are all jacked up. Yes, that's 100%.
[00:35:36] And they never got any factual data. Allegedly the Department of Justice rejected the thing they were trying to do. Nothing worked out. Allegedly. They basically went their own way. And that's what caused this whole community side to just basically do the, quote, coup. Because they couldn't take legal actions. Well, think about it. If you couldn't take legal actions, that the legal actions didn't work.
[00:35:59] Are you reflecting as to why they didn't work? They didn't work because of the people. It had nothing to do with the data. I said, you can make a civil case now and I encourage people to do that. They felt they got wrong. But the war approach was not going to work. The so called covert ops wasn't going to work.
[00:36:14] This because. Because chances are, yes, you got moles and all that shit. You can't hide from that because he's got money to burn to do that. So he's affirming what is said to be the truth while also saying the admin keys. Nobody has any answers on that. I find that interesting.
[00:36:30] Nobody knows who the money is. We know that. Nobody knows what people are really owed. We know that too, because the value was never, the value was never solid. This is why the free market had to happen because it's the only way to do price discovery. To really understand the true value of a thing, you can say, well, I pre saled x amount of money into the project.
[00:36:49] There's no guarantee of return when it's a pre sale, it's just a pre sale. You put money in and you hope it turns into something. He then makes a statement. I saw in the document that was really good.
[00:36:59] I felt I'm paraphrasing but he basically said, did I feel wronged or ripped off versus this person committed fraud? One of them is my feeling. The other requires proof. He's absolutely correct in that statement. And that's what I've been reinforcing to people, okay? That's why the civil case works. Because in the civil case you, you don't necessarily have the same burden of proof. You just have to simply document. Here's what I gave, here's what I expected to return on what I gave. It didn't happen, especially if it's a minor. That's retail. But when you start trying to stop off road and RICO and all this shit, your burden of proof gets substantial. And that's why they said they want more and more people thinking that volume was going to do it. And they got allegedly told by lawyers, I'd rather take these individual because you're going to have a better chance. Because individual cases, there's a lower burden of proof. Like it's the same thing with O.J. simpson.
[00:37:53] It's the same fucking thing. They threw the book at O.J. simpson when they had a lock case. If they had just refined it down to what they knew they could prove, which is that man was at the scene, they could prove that he was at the scene. He tampered with Evidence. They could prove that. They couldn't prove he killed them. They couldn't prove it. They didn't have evidence.
[00:38:14] All they could prove is he was at the scene. That negates the whole. About the evidence on the. Down the sidewalk and in the bushes. It didn't matter. The shoes are there. They proved it was his shoes. So if you say you're at the scene, you tampered with the evidence. You did that. Let's prove that just to get the guy locked up. He'd have been locked up. They didn't. They went. They threw the book at stuff they knew they couldn't prove. That's what happened here. They're trying to go after stuff, guys. You can't prove what you're saying. I know it sounds good, but it's not gonna. You're not gonna be able to see. We see the net effect. And he's affirming why that was because of the infighting and because some of the claims, you can't substantiate 2 and 3, the data, you can't validate or prove any. You can't provide a proof. It's just a feeling. That's exactly correct. That's the charge I'm talking about.
[00:39:04] I'm glad that he affirmed that. Now, here's what I thought was interesting, though.
[00:39:11] And he's not making an accusation or allegation, but he spent an inordinate, look it up amount of time talking about things that one of those leaders, the main leader guy who got locked up later, he spent an inordinate amount of time talking about what that person was saying and doing a lot to the point, just stopping just short of making the accusations. But he's essentially saying. He's essentially saying from my read, no pun intended, that this is ultimately the reason that everything went south. This. This person right here, this over here, that's why we failed. If that person had not been doing what they were doing and saying what they were saying and they had focused everything the right way, we might have been able to do something. But they didn't. And because they didn't, it compromised what we could have done. That's. That's how I take that away, which I thought was fascinating.
[00:40:06] So I asked AI to kind of dig a little bit deeper. And ultimately, it's not that the. It's not that Rene feels negatively about Reid as a person. I don't think it really goes around.
[00:40:20] Here's the thing.
[00:40:22] If you. If you're going to do that, understand what it takes to do what you're trying to do, which is hard evidence. You got to have data, you got to have evidence, you got to build the case strong. He's correct in this one.
[00:40:34] But were you ever going to be able to get to that level of information?
[00:40:38] Were you ever going to be able to get to a case when you taught Rico right? I mean that's like one of the highest levels of criminal penalty. Were you ever going to be able to submit, substantiate that in just a basic pre sale with individuals that don't know what the hell they're doing?
[00:40:53] I never saw you could personally, I thought you were going to fail right on the face.
[00:40:59] So let's analyze why people might have thought that they could pull it off.
[00:41:06] Ego.
[00:41:07] It's all about ego. It's if we have enough people yelling and squawking and screaming, we can make it happen.
[00:41:14] I remind people about Chris Delgado and Coins Coffeezilla and he could not pull it off. Chris Dog. I'll turn himself in.
[00:41:21] Sometimes it's that level, you don't know what's going on at the upper level either. You don't know what influence might be happening up there. That's stymieing. Look it up. Your progress towards what you're trying to do because of these unknowns.
[00:41:34] Just having a number of people is not going to be enough.
[00:41:37] You got to have irrefutable. And this person on the other side is good at covering tracks. If he wasn't, certainly he'd have been in prison by now. Right? But he's not.
[00:41:49] The reason he's not is because nothing that he's done thus far runs afoul of the criminal side of things. Only the civil side of things. The civil side of things in my mind is a lock shut case. But that's usually on the individual.
[00:42:06] It's the mass, which I refer to as critical mass.
[00:42:10] When you try to approach it as critical mass for this, you're not going to work. You got to understand this is singular. You can do it. You should, if you feel like you were wrong, go as an individual. And he kind of supports that. And I like that he talks about how he calls direct, you know, he say this is a scam, the evidence is overwhelming. I remember that where that leader was saying the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence, you know, it's a lockdown, open shut case. I remember all these, these fiery terms that didn't mean anything. So I'm like, no, it's not. No, no, I don't see that at all.
[00:42:42] There was no Case number is what I. I didn't see a case number myself.
[00:42:47] And somebody in CoinMarketCap said, yeah, that's because it was never filed because the DOJ refused it. It's what I was told. There's somebody has information crypto thought that of him at the contact form of comments below. But I remember that. I remember hearing that, yeah, no court would accept it. That's the DOJ business.
[00:43:04] The question that came up around the DUNA was whether or not this is a legal entity could participate in such a case.
[00:43:13] That's an interesting observation.
[00:43:16] I would assume the answer is yes, as a formed llc.
[00:43:20] But the question is whether or not for the purposes of a rico, whether it could. And that's interesting to me because what authority would it have to try to file such a case?
[00:43:31] That's interesting.
[00:43:34] That's a lot of. And understand there's a lot of money that goes into everything I'm describing. And then the questions came up, to wit, around where the money went, how was money used, what's the audit trail. A lot of these fascinating questions came that this Renee is kind of summarizing. I thought that was good.
[00:43:52] But he also makes some interesting.
[00:43:55] He didn't directly say this, but it's something I've said in the past.
[00:44:00] A lot of the tactics used by the block DAG team are the very same tactics used by this leader.
[00:44:08] And that is correct.
[00:44:10] You're using targeted, charged words.
[00:44:13] You're doing call to action fallacies. You're doing things to drum up and they're essentially a form of marketing.
[00:44:21] Right. You're raising money to do a thing. You're using these charged words that lend confidence to something you can't prove. You're rallying the troops. How is that any different than the marketing of the Black Deck team? It's not really. There's a straight line parallel.
[00:44:37] Was that strategic? Was that intentional that we'll use their own tactics against them and it backfired? I don't know. I'm saying that that line was drawn in Renee's document. And I thought that was fascinating because it's something I observed in as well. You're doing the same thing that he's doing. You're just doing it in a way that comes across as a vigilante versus him.
[00:44:59] Doing it in a way that comes across like some sort of financial wizard when we know neither is the case. That was very good. I like that.
[00:45:07] The another fascinating point. Again, this is around. I kept saying his focus was really any, you know, he. His wording was brilliant in hiding it, but he was really focusing on this leader. He called out something very interesting.
[00:45:23] He says that the Duna was built to try to criticize what was perceived as a heavily centralized block dag.
[00:45:33] Everybody agrees that block DAG to date is essentially centralized and has been for a long time.
[00:45:40] But Rene is essentially saying, well, how is that any different than Duna? Because Duna was created by one person.
[00:45:46] One person built the dashboard, one person filled with the requests, one person worked with lawyers.
[00:45:53] Now we essentially depend on you in order to make the Duna thing work. Because it's centralized. How is it any different than what's going on over there, which is, you know, if something happened to you, which ironically something did happen to him, then what about all our information?
[00:46:10] What about our funds? Who else would have access? Think about this. If, if Duna collected money, who owns the keys to those funds? Are there multiple people that do? I'm assuming, but I don't know because I'm not in it, didn't follow it. But these are valid questions that should be asked. Who would. Who else would own the keys other than the one person? The other thing, tinfoil though I might be.
[00:46:32] Is it possible that somebody from Giggles dimed him out to get him locked up because they knew it would cut their balls off?
[00:46:45] Do you see why I'm so fascinated by all the stuff, the stuff I predicted was going to be a problem? A I'm like, I don't this guy. No.
[00:46:54] And then the people that allied with him, I'm like, you guys don't understand. This is a.
[00:46:59] And now here we are and everything is crashed to burn. And now you got this desperation tactic from the so called free land that creates this community. And then you got Welsh Dag that starts out foolish, allegedly, and then just completely shuts. Do you see what I'm saying when I say that nobody really has a plan, Nobody has a singular strategy. Nobody. There's no singularity, despite having a single chain.
[00:47:27] And the one person who tried to do that ended up doing the same centralized approach that always was done and then spurred these dumb and dumbers to create what is essentially a decentralized, worthless walled garden.
[00:47:43] You have to appreciate the irony of what's what you see. It's not even my claim, it's what you see.
[00:47:50] There's is decentralized, but it's a walled garden with no value. It has no value because the chain is still singular and it's still held hostage by this other centralized over here where for whatever reason, the exchanges simply will not shift gears. And I theorize it's because they're not all in consensus and they want one. That's a theory. I don't know. And yet this other business that fired people up and then failed and then the person who ran that was creating a centralized situation to try to do that. And those people fell for that centralization under the claims of trying to force decentralization but they didn't really decentralize because it was still centralized. And now that person is unavailable and nobody really knows what's. You have to appreciate the absolute irony of everything that's happened. And that's why I said to this day, to this day I can't call that a scam.
[00:48:49] I can't.
[00:48:50] You're dealing with people that are killing their own children on multiple sites.
[00:48:57] The. The Duna side killed their own for the reason stated in this document. I agree.
[00:49:02] The community side is killing their own not because of anything they're actively doing, but because it's led by a dumb and dumber who were complicit with the other side to begin with and now they're expected to be believed on this side over here when they are the only ones with minors and they're stacking large bags.
[00:49:22] You have to appreciate from what from my lens why I'm saying that. I'm saying because all these people are. They're the ones killing things because they're just doing stuff off the side creating their own little islands.
[00:49:35] They're creating their own little islands off the side. Meanwhile this guy over here doesn't know what the he's doing either. Nobody knows what they're doing. It's incompetence on multiple levels is what I saw.
[00:49:47] Now the he goes down some of the other asks he's talking about the. Apparently there was something where and I don't know if this is coming from an attorney or I don't know the genesis if you have information Crypto thought that a family contact form but the allegation made is that people in this Duna were requested to write like reference letters for that leader. But why? What's it for somebody in this question what what are we doing? Why are we doing this and that it's we're talking about a personal up individual. We're vouching for the individual. That's not transparency of the structure.
[00:50:31] So I'm assuming and this is an assumption that's why I'd like if you have insight Crypto thought that FM contact for if you like to anonymous or hit comments if you don't care.
[00:50:39] I'm assuming there were questions asked and this was mentioned later, there were questions asked about custody. Who has custody of the funds? What happens if something happens to you? Is there multiple people involved? Why is it a single decision? I'm assuming somebody was challenging these things. I'm assuming that those questions spawned that leader to then make claims of mole and insider.
[00:51:01] And then I'm assuming somebody or someone talked about these reference letters to try to vouch for that person.
[00:51:09] As if that makes it all fine when it never would like that. Just because you write a reference about a person being a good person doesn't mean that they're ethical.
[00:51:18] And it did not. It didn't address what was stated as the claim or the other concern, which is we're talking about what happens if something happens to that person. We're talking about what happens. They get hit by a train. What happens if they drown? Plane crash.
[00:51:31] What is the plan for making sure it's not this central? One person calls the shot situation. Because that's exactly our beef about Black Dag. And you're doing it over here. That's what we're trying to address.
[00:51:41] And it seemed like the responses were positioned as an attack, that we're attacking you because you're questioning my authority. Just like Brian Saylor. Ironically, something about there was an internal thing and a quote was given, an actual quote. And if anybody saw this crypto thought that of him, hit the contact form or comments below. But allegedly this leader said the words quote, just hope it's not. You said that some people were money laundering. How can that happen? If it's Duna and the assets were in custody, presumably of the one person, how could you have money laundering? I'm curious about the claims. These are claims in the document. You can read it yourself. I find that interesting.
[00:52:29] But it says that this person was just inherently distrustful of the members of the Duna that he himself brought together.
[00:52:40] And this Rene, the writer, the way it's being described is very close to cults, ironically talks about how the.
[00:52:54] At first this person was all about let's get everything, let's get all the information, get your wallets, get all the payment track, let's collect it all, let's get everything together.
[00:53:05] Transparency. Because Black Dag's not doing it. Like there was this pitch of how we're going to do stuff, which is we're going to be transparent, we're going to be open. And then at some point it changed to what's in the chat stays in the chat. These are quotes in the book that when people start asking questions and challenging how funds are used and challenging the legal structure and challenging the viability and asking valid questions, that all of a sudden this person started to become defensive and started to push back. Now, I would.
[00:53:37] I don't disagree, but I'm going to have to take a victory lap because this is exactly what I warned people about in late 2025, because the same thing happened just prior to them allying with Turner. I said that if you have this information that you're aware of, why don't you tell the community this? Why don't you come on? And one of them actually wanted to talk at. Talk to me, right? And I said, sure, as long as it's on the show so it's public, so everybody hears it.
[00:54:07] And that's when they started attacking, because allegedly it's covert ops. They don't want to put. They don't want to show their hand. They don't want to put stuff out there.
[00:54:15] When what I said is, if you've got information that puts these people under strong scrutiny, talking block, dag, why don't you want to put it public? What do you have to hide? Because I said, they're inside. They're inside because they're hiding information from you. And it turned out what they were hiding all the time is knowledge.
[00:54:34] Months before the fact that was involved, they knew that before everybody else did, or they confirmed it because inside people had told them this.
[00:54:45] And I said, why aren't you sharing this public? That's all I said, you should be sharing that with the community publicly. What do you have to hide? That's where the whole covert ops claim came in, that they have to hide their. Hold their hand at the. So this mantra then went to, now that I got the Duda and I'm on, I'm in control of this thing. We're going to be transparent. And then when that person gets called out, all of a sudden he's calling people moles and he's calling people insiders. And wow.
[00:55:18] Then at some point it's saying that, ugh. And I.
[00:55:25] I love to have insight because I'm going off what I read.
[00:55:29] So consider this my impassioned plea for anybody who has insights. I didn't follow this shit. You have insight. Crypto Talk fm with the contact form. I'm going off what I read. I'm trying to wrap my head around what the hell is going on here.
[00:55:45] The.
[00:55:46] The founding of all this, the creation of all this, everything that's being set up in this.
[00:55:54] Everything that was created, everything that was stated, everything that was, quote, formed.
[00:55:59] Rene is making the implication that there was uncertainty about the leadership structure of the Duna that led itself to the failure to do anything about Black dag. But he also is making the implication that that person was not truly the leader and that they didn't truly know who was and that they didn't truly know who had access to what funds and what controls. And if it was that person in control, that they didn't have assurance that if something were to happen to that person which did what would be the future of the Duna? Which are valid questions from an ascension point of view.
[00:56:38] But he also essentially is saying, you started this under the guise of we're going to be transparent, we're going to do it right. We're not going to be like them.
[00:56:49] But then you're using these things where I can't covert ops, moles and leaks and things as justification for why you're not. But you're not really addressing our concern either.
[00:57:02] He's stopping outright. He's not saying. He's not accusing, but he's essentially doing. He's essentially saying this person is the reason everything went south. And it's because that person is doing the same thing that block that did for the same reasons, which is there's some. There's some sort of motivation here that they're trying to do, and they like this, you know, position that they're in, and they think that it's the right way to do it.
[00:57:28] Folks, listeners, ladies and gentlemen, boys, girls, children over the ages of 18, if we accept this. And I do recommend you read the book because I think it's just. It's a dry read and he has a lot of padding. That's my feedback for you, Mr. Renee. But I do recommend you read the book. I'm not gonna take his content. That's not my goal. But I do recommend you read the book, because if you read the book, at no point that I saw from what I could parse, do I see that he called anybody a scammer.
[00:58:01] At no point do I see that he felt that he was just blatantly ripped off from the beginning.
[00:58:07] My read of his is that things were fine until they weren't, which is what I said, that this person is at least partly to blame for a lot of the chaos, which I said months ago, that a lot of their approach was flawed in the face, which I said, that they just didn't have a plan. And they're just scattered. Which I said.
[00:58:31] And he didn't speak a lot about the Black Dag deal at all, other than let's get the evidence that would help us prove it.
[00:58:40] But he never acknowledged.
[00:58:43] Maybe that's because the evidence doesn't exist.
[00:58:45] It's not really evidence, it's a feeling. It's a gut instinct. I said to the other person, money movement doesn't prove anything. You got to prove what that to fiat what was it specifically? And trace it end to end. You'd have to start at the bank. You'd have to start at the bank and say there was a recent deposit of X. That deposit came from exchange Y. Exchange Y did a transaction of Tron to the and then cash to USDT that Tron came from. This wallet was sent from that. You'd have to start from the bank side. Why do you think that the banks are not in a place where it's easy to do that traces. Even Zach XPT couldn't do it and he got some stuff wrong.
[00:59:21] This is why.
[00:59:23] And I'm wrapping up. This is why I've been adamant from day one.
[00:59:27] My feeling, I don't see. I even now outright blatant malicious scam. I see incompetence. I see screw ups at countless levels. I see screw ups on.
[00:59:41] He doesn't know what the fuck he's doing. Clearly he's throwing shit against the wall, hoping it sticks. They clearly have no technical competence whatsoever. They don't have technical skill to do any of this stuff at all.
[00:59:53] I see. I see liars on all sides.
[00:59:56] With Turner, he was lying. He was complicit with lies. At no point, even in his new videos has he openly said I lied to you at points. And I apologize that I was lying to you, but I lied to you. He lied when he told you he didn't know who hired him. He lied about the Brucha Dortmund. He lied about the Inter Milan. He lied about the Alex Pereira. He lied about the exchange listings. He lied about the X1 miner. There's been so many things. He lied and he's just putting out content saying, well, Black Dag's the bad guy now. That's all he's doing. And throwing Vander idiot under the bus, that's all he's doing. He's just covering his own ass while not acknowledging that he's a liar too.
[01:00:37] Dumb and dumber over here.
[01:00:39] Create this whole alleged coup and create a fork and then deny it's a a ledger fork and then later admit it. When they get called out for the BS of worthless coins that they're stacking, hoping that they can get on some exchanges and get them to get on board so they can dump off. Because why else would you have 10 people and that's all they have. There's 10 that are running significant as six. You can see it in the stats on the community site.
[01:01:06] They got 10 people that hold on mining. Then Jeremy says, and this was his words, go listen to the ama. People misheard him. He said they block the funds, wallets, funds, wallets. To me, I attribute that to mean the actual money. I don't know because I'm not in the back end. But then the timing of that correlates to when yanks the buyback, puts it as new B dag. Then all of a sudden there's a refund quote where it's put back into the buyback for November 1st.
[01:01:35] Think about this for a second. I literally want you to think, okay, Think of what you're. You have liars on all sides. That's what you have. But also watch what's happening on the side.
[01:01:49] Look what's happening. He did what? Why? Think of why. Why would you take it out and do a newbie dag, which we don't even really know what the fuck that means. Why would you do that?
[01:02:01] Right? When they claim that funds are frozen, then all of a sudden they put it back to a buyback and target November 1st.
[01:02:09] Remember I gave the article that said that Gitlz won his appeals case for the freezing of some tether wallets. That's also within this timing.
[01:02:20] Nothing I see on that bdaxscan side screams scam. It screams incompetence. It screams blatant incompetence. If I were to point out any side that feels scammy, whether they're intending to do that or not. It's the community side only because of the way they did what they did.
[01:02:40] They did it the aggressive way because they couldn't get on board. He was just being recalcitrant. Look it up. I understand he was resistant. He didn't want to play ball. He doesn't want it to be decentralized. I get it. I only said community side should have created their own fucking chain. Don't hook into his marketing. Don't try to steal his holders that he attracted. Create your own shit.
[01:03:02] Create your own. Get on exchanges on your own. That would have been more successful.
[01:03:08] It would have helped create the narrative. We can create our own chain that is fully successful instead of hooking into those. They're trying to leverage those holders. They're trying to leverage those funds. I get it.
[01:03:20] I simply don't agree.
[01:03:22] It's. They should have created their own fucking chain. And I think they would have avoided a lot of this contention.
[01:03:28] Then you get this whole business of the Duna and everything, the Freeland business and all these other fragmented splinter groups that can't get on the same page because none of them understood the problem. None of them understood the real marching orders that needed to happen. Because none of them, as I said for countless months, months, none of them understand how to go to war.
[01:03:49] None of them did. You go to war smart. You don't go to war aggressive. The aggression is the problem. And that aggression is going to be the death of all of them. I don't mean physically. I mean figuratively. It's going to be the death of all of them because none of them understood what they got wrong from jump. What they got wrong from JUMP is first of all allying with the wrong people. They allied with Turner, who by his own admission was not competent enough to do this.
[01:04:14] They're now allying with Vander Idiot, who's lied to them directly. They're allying with Jeremy, who laughed in their face when he asked about. When asked about the shopping business. No matter who they ally with, they're lied to and they believe pathological liars every single time.
[01:04:30] This is why certain liars are really good and why they keep lying. Because they understand that they'll have people following them out of desperation. This has a term, it's called Stockholm Syndrome. I had the same thing with seifu. If anybody was in seifu, you can go back to my coverage of that one and the Stockholm Syndrome coverage, because that's what you got now.
[01:04:50] You've got people suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
[01:04:53] I would argue Mr. Renee as well is suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Might be. Ms. Renee, I apologize. But it's still. This is Stockholm Syndrome all the way around.
[01:05:04] There are people who are harmed. They're frustrated, sad, pissed, angry. Put more than they can afford to lose because of a guy standing on the moon kicking.
[01:05:12] And now they're trying to hook into Hope instead of what I said. If you feel you were wrong, and this is my message and close. If you feel you were wrong, you walk your ass down to your court and you file a civil suit and bring all your data. You might be able to make some traction. You do it. Stop waiting for vigilantes to save you. You don't need a captain. Save a hoe. You go to the court and do it yourself as a civil suit and and try to get your money back. Especially if you bought a miner.
[01:05:42] I'm telling you to do that.
[01:05:44] Stop relying on somebody to help you. Stop relying on somebody to save you.
[01:05:50] You keep following these splinter people because they're giving you bs nonsense promises of something. They can't promise. They can't guarantee you anything. The one constant that everybody seems to be on the same page about is that a civil case is a pretty good bet. But that means you need to do it yourself. And you should ask yourself why you're hesitating to do that. What's stopping you from going down and filing your own civil suit? If you're going to tell me that you don't know how, I would ask you to contact ChatGPT and let it tell you.
![Leicester’s Weekend Update On Another Stockholm Syndrome / Cult Project (OOC) [COLORFUL LANGUAGE]](https://episodes.castos.com/6546338b457f18-29496768/images/2626929/c1a-r5pr3-6z0v48n8hz8q-vkuwrw.png)
