> But each one of those ideas would have been more interesting than the problem he claimed to have solved, and easier to market. If that is true, then it seems

> But each one of those ideas would have been more interesting than the problem he claimed to have solved, and easier to market. If that is true, then it seems like it would be straightforward to execute those ideas and demonstrate that conclusion. The more charitable interpretation to this is that what's "more interesting" to you might not necessarily be what's "more interesting" to M. M's interest prioritization might not necessarily be rational, but it seems like a more plausible explanation than "this is fake".