RE: Interesting Criticism from the Leostrategy/Inleo Team

Here is where you lose me. @leostrategy continually identifies the SIRP as an element of its and the overall intent to increase the price of LEO.
When a commenter asked "where does the yield come from?" I identified curation and SIRP as components of that yield.

I did not say that what a bad thing.
I did not say that I believed them to be major components.

Why that was a point of contention when it was a demonstrably accurate statement is baffling.

I have observed that communications that can be viewed as abrasive, probably aren't ideal given that the InLEO team and the LeoStategy project derive value from Hive.

Something that jumped out to me this evening -

I've never interacted with @leostrategy on Twitter. Not once. I've only referenced them twice both on September 18th while interacting with you.

I made an inquiry to you on Twitter, after asking the LeoStrategy team here on chain and getting no response.

https://x.com/GentlemanRural/status/1968663937651511588

LeoStrategy missed their identified deadline to mount SURGE liquidity on BASE. That's not a "false narrative" that's observable fact. The subsequent reasoning for missing the random window in order to ensure crosschain arbitrage bots were functioning may be sound, but I'd argue that deadline was used to create a sense of time pressure to purchase SURGE.

The observation of overlap between the InLeo and LeoStrategy teams is clearly my opinion.

The mechanisms of LeoStrategy appear generally sound for positive price action, and maintenance though the hyperbolic predictions and "up only" seem unrealistic given the cyclical bust boom cycles in crypto.

The weaknesses of the strategy appear to be some level of opacity or obfuscation, LeoStrategy itself being a single account wallet, and the communications management. All of these things can be improved.

The fastest way to get me to make time to laser focus on the details of a project, are to toss around labels like "false narratives".