I appreciate there is no malice. I would absolutely not have a discussion like this with someone I thought was not being sincere. On the contrary, it's because I respect you that I'm giving my view. I agree with those who have suggested that all the information is there and available for you or anyone else to explore and form solid conclusions upon. Dan has already said what needs to be said for anyone prepared to hear it. That simply leaves those that are demanding to be convinced, those that can't or won't do their own research, those that want acrimony, gossip or to further manipulate and finally those that desperately want Dan to fail, integrity or not. Each of those motives or positions is a total waste of anyone's time, let alone Dan's. Also, the assumption that more detail and additional subjective statements and analysis of an issue that has clearly already polarised opinion will lead to improved investment decisions for those already unable to make one is flawed. How many more early investors does the crypto space need? Surely we need the users who will become investors and they will judge the dapps, not the conflicting subjective views of a piece of technical history.

As you have said though, none of this is down to us to decide, but I hope, despite your genuine arguments around clarity, that Dan leaves it alone and continues to refer to that which is already documented. At least until such a time that the world and everyone in it is free!! Feel free to respond but just wanted to say thank you for your time and the courteous debate.