I'm sorry, but I feel this is really lazy and nonconstructive criticism. Perpertual motion machines violate a law of physics, and the bells and whistles attache

I'm sorry, but I feel this is really lazy and nonconstructive criticism. Perpertual motion machines violate a law of physics, and the bells and whistles attached to it were at best misguided attempts that didn't address the fundamental issue, or at worst attempts to defraud investors. I can't tell what you are claiming here; is it that 1. Sharding is fundamentally impossible; in any public blockchain, all computers must validate all transactions, and the scalability trilemma cannot be avoided, or 2. Sharding is possible, but the solutions outlined in the FAQ are unnecessarily complicated; a much simpler solution exists You haven't provided arguments for either, and I can't even tell which argument you're making. On a higher level, I could agree with the general sentiment that complicated solutions tend to be wrong or at least very suboptimal, but only as a heuristic. It's a heuristic that doesn't even hold very well in this space; in the space of PoW fork-choice rules, bitcoin-style longest-chain is simpler than Somplinsky's GHOST rule (https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/881.pdf), which is in turn simpler than ethereum's current "modified GHOST", but in each case the added complications really were necessary and lead to better properties.