Thanks for confirming that the original article was correct in its analysis and that you have no substantial rebuttal other than nitpicking. Aside from the awfu

Thanks for confirming that the original article was correct in its analysis and that you have no substantial rebuttal other than nitpicking. Aside from the awful usage of "fake news" (almost as though you think it makes you sound more credible), your first rebuttal is this: > At time of raise its was $153M within 2:25, this has been covered widely including a formal statement on our blog. I think you missed the point the article was making. As someone who isn't very familiar with economics, the original article was clear and concise with very clear Gedankenerfahrung which encapsulated individual problems with the Bancor protocol. While writing technical pieces like that is difficult, this reads more like a bad teacher trying to save face when a clever student shows them up. You're just hurting your own credibility.