LEO is a platform that is built on the idea of onchain communication and transparency. So let me start by saying: I have no issue with discussions and I also have no issues with you personally. We’ve spoken together on spaces and other Hive podcasts with relative frequency in the past.

The issue I’ve seen is the convolution of ideas and the portrayal of these ideas as indisputable facts. Instead, I think it’d be wise to purport your ideas as”just your opinion” unless it can physically be stated as a fact.

I will give three examples here as I don’t want to make this an exhaustive comment. I’m also not here to argue or debate. I think discussion is good and anyone is welcome to come to our weekly AMAs and ask me questions. I can give my perspective as someone working on the project (LEO) and as a community leader helping others.

1. That the LeoStrategy team is anything but a group of LEO holders/users/investors who came together to form an organization for the benefit of LEO: I’ve seen you continuously try to paint this as something different while purporting it as fact rather than your sole (unsubstantiated) opinion: “I make no significant distinction between the Inleo team and LeoStrategy team given the discernible coordination and overlapping ownership of the relevant tokens.“

My role in LeoStrategy is purely advisory and they brought me on just a few months ago. LeoStrategy has been around much longer than I even got involve in it. They brought me in as the idea was solid but the project itself was floundering. Go ahead through their old posts / see the LSTR initial sale that lasted 6+ months. These things were great ideas but unsuccessful until they brought a few public-facing board members on. Such as myself and others in the LEO Ecosystem.

I am flattered that you think I have the bandwidth to run all of these projects simultaneously. I could only strive to be able to be that active.

1. The negative comments about how INLEO and LEO are bad for hive rub me in a very wrong way. We’ve spent 6 years building on hive. INLEO is entirely a Hive-based application. We built LEO Premium which is a literal use case for HBD: it settles all payments in HBD no matter what form they are paid in. Then this HBD is swapped to LEO. HBD is a settlement asset and this gives it one of many use cases. I have yet to see many “hive darlings” trying as hard as we have to create valuable and economically sound use cases.

I love Hive and want nothing but the best for it. Somewhere along the way, a few whales started treating me like an outsider. Then some LEO people got upset and have posted threads about why they’re tired of the bs on Hive. Can I blame them? No. Do I necessarily hold all of their views? No. For some reason the views of the few are being attributed to LEO itself. Should the views of every poster on Hive be attributed to Hive itself?

I’m am now and forever will be unafraid to speak my mind. There are some issues on Hive and those issues should be addressed. Among them: the way the DHF is funding projects, the way downvotes have become weaponized and a handful of others. Including the treatment of projects like LEO that continuously try to build a sustaining business ON Hive (not against it). For some reason, a few people in leadership roles take issue to L2 projects on Hive: thinking they take away the base layer.

I don’t know about anyone else, but the very reason I stuck around was the idea of SMTs way back when. The creators of big projects on Hive have a history of being ousted eventually and being outcast for those ideas that made them big in the first place. IMHO this is not a good way to make Hive successful.

1. An example from this post: this is an example of the use of convoluting ideas to create conflict. In your post you share a screenshot of LeoStrategy saying something about the SIRP. You claim “LeoStrategy itself identifies the SIRP as an element of achieving its goals”

In the very screenshot you shared, LeoStrategy is saying “LEO is a hard asset because it has a limited supply and revenue generating mechanisms… such as the SIRP…”

Any rational analysis of this statement would tell you the LeoStategy is calling the SIRP a mechanism for helping the LEO token (which it is: it’s a buyback based rewards pool which replaced an inflationary one). NOT a mechanism for helping LeoStrategy itself. It is the convolution of ideas such as this that rubs me in a very wrong way and makes me ask: what is the goal here? Discussion or defamation?

I’ll reiterate that I take no issue with you nor the idea of open discussion. What I take issue is with people playing fast and loose with reality and misleading people to think of it as fact.

A lot of allegations are made with a lack of evidence. Then those allegations are purported as fact. Then when someone replies to correct the allegations, it is called bashing. It’s a methodology I disagree with and I am not afraid to say it. Others should feel free to speak their mind (you included).

I’m not privy to the conversation had between you and LSTR but I can see from this post and the comments here that you think curation has some role to play in SURGE dividends: with my knowledge of what is being done, curation couldn’t even hold a candle to the monetization needed to pay dividend yield. You yourself said they need tens of thousands of dollars per month to pay these dividends. If that is true, then please add up how much they’re earning from post rewards and curation and enlighten us as to the total that these rewards contribute.

It is ideas like these that seem to be tossed in to create drama. Anyone who tries to run the math on that will see that it isn’t even remotely viable and noteworthy. Hell, I bet their post rewards barely cover the cost of the overhead of server droplets and server management to calculate and pay said yield. Please show the math of things when you share your opinions so people can understand the non-drama-weighting of ideas.

Wish you all the best and if you’d like to discuss in real-time as I’m sure much gets lost in text format; the AMAs are a place where the whole community gathers (including LeoStrategy’s team in the Threadcasts) to discuss ideas, ask questions and even debate things we disagree on. The whole LEO ecosystem is built on the idea of the community-first, community-decided and crucible of good ideas/building above all else.