intellectualhonesty.base.eth ▚▘▚▘▚▘

@VitalikButerin was right. @BobSummerwill was right. @RyanSAdams was right. @TrustlessState was right. @laurashin was right. @eth_classic were right. @ethereum were right. @cobie was right. @0xNLYFANS was right. @masatoalexander was right. @ADAjosephineADA was right. @equalscash was right. @flubdubster was right. The line for apologies start here peeps... add your apology to this thread and heal the crypto market, one apology at a time... especially to any Hoskinson truth-teller that you personally offended. I'll go first... I apologise.

@HolgerCardano24 @MinswapIntern Or he sold the majority of his 2B $ADA to buy a ranch/blackhawk/failed medical centre/revive the woolly mammoth... and needs to become a dRep to ensure votes go his way on the proposals IO are pitching for.

The guy who threatens an entire country (Japanese Community) to vote YES, or it is their fault if #Cardano fails?! Yeah, sure!🤦‍♂️🙈 Nah, for real, everyone can become a DRep, that includes him. Is that the best move he can make considering he has 2B $ADA himself? Probably not! But I support the system - and as long as the system makes it possible - then it is what it is.

Would you support Charles Hoskinson becoming a Cardano dRep?

@HolgerCardano24 @MasoudPazesh It is a parody account.

🚨 عاجل 🇮🇱🇮🇷 تل أبيب تتعرض لهجوم صاروخي كثيف ⚡🔥 💥 ترد أنباء عن انفجارات هائلة وأضرار جسيمة في مناطق متفرقة من المدينة، بينما تدوي صفارات الإنذار في أرجاء إسرائيل.

When Democratic partisans are out of power, they love to blame everyone who refused to vote Dem for the bad acts of the GOP President. Yet House Dems will unanimously vote for this warmongering, AIPAC-serving corporatist to lead their party again, this time as House Speaker.

I genuinely feel for posts like this because, reading it, what I mostly see is someone who bought into a vision and sacrificed heavily for it. But at some point people also have to confront the possibility that they were sold a dream that never matched reality. You put your life savings into Cardano because you believed it was building a better financial system and a genuinely decentralised future. Meanwhile, enormous amounts of value extracted from the ecosystem helped fund things like failed medical ventures, a ranch, a Black Hawk helicopter, woolly mammoth projects, and a founder lifestyle empire far removed from the average ADA holder's reality. And now the same founder who sold people that dream is effectively telling the community how it must vote, while asking for even more treasury funding to deliver things that arguably should have been delivered (or put into) an earlier roadmap eras in the first place, including now shifting major future narratives toward Midnight. That's why so many people feel psychologically broken by this moment. Not just because price went down, but because governance was supposed to finally prove Cardano belonged to the community! Instead, many are now realising how little leverage the community may actually have, even if it collectively holds the majority of ADA, because the crucial infrastructure and implementation capacity remain deeply dependent on IOG. And history strongly suggests that if Charles doesn't get the outcome he wants, there will be no smooth handover of knowledge, momentum, implementation pathways or Twitter handles (see Ethereum Classic). The Leios work, the expertise, the internal coordination - all of that effectively remains under IOG's control. So yes, like i said, people are beginning to realise that voting power can become somewhat symbolic if treasury extraction and core infrastructure remain structurally dominated by founding entities that may not even need to hold significant ADA themselves to maintain influence.

@bobasfk @Yabba900 @ItsDave_ADA @dori_coin @yutazzz And he's got the same sort of Trump loyalists who blindly back him and call all critique of him "CDS".

@Yabba900 @ItsDave_ADA @dori_coin @yutazzz charles be tweeting like trump

Does Fred know how Charles keeps contradicting himself And when you don’t like the result, ask for a reset Whilst Charles talks about a governance reset You can’t make this up $Ada is losing what it once was @ItsDave_ADA @dori_coin @yutazzz

If I believed in Charles/IOG, I would be hyped for Cardano. Unfortunately, once burned, twice shy. I've heard this sort of talk before and we went 0 for 3.

@AlexMorisis Thank you for this video.

What is World Mobile, and why does it matter? In Episode 1, I break down the basics: AirNodes, AetherNodes, Earth Nodes, WMC, WMTx, DePIN, and how the network is trying to rethink telecom infrastructure. Built for people who want to understand the project before judging the claims.

@DanBilzerian This is either the most antisemitic post in history, or you're onto something here.🤔

Who controls the media? Meta owns: Facebook Instagram WhatsApp Messenger Threads Oculus / Meta Quest VR Meta AI Meta is controlled by Mark Zuckerberg who is jewish Alphabet owns: Google YouTube Android Gmail Chrome Pixel phones Nest smart home devices Fitbit (acquired in 2021) DeepMind Gemini AI assistant/model family Waymo — self-driving cars Verily — health technology Calico — longevity research Wing — drone delivery Alphabet is controlled by Larry Page and Sergey Brin who are both jewish Tic Tok U.S. algorithm, cybersecurity and infrastructure is controlled by Oracle Oracle is controlled by Larry Ellison and he’s jewish Hookup Apps Match Group owns: Tinder Hinge OkCupid Match.com Plenty of Fish Meetic The League BLK Archer OurTime Was founded by Barry Diller who is jewish Grindr Was founded by Joel Simkhai who is jewish Bumble Was founded by Whitney Wolfe Herd who is jewish Porn Onlyfans Owned by Leonid Radvinsky who is jewish Vixen Media Group owns: Blacked Blacked Raw Vixen Tushy Deeper Founded by Greg Lansky who is jewish Aylo/MindGeek Owns/owned: Pornhub YouPorn RedTube Brazzers Reality Kings Digital Playground Men.com Sean Cody Tube8 Solomon Friedman is the owner of Aylo and he’s jewish Gamma Entertainment owns/operates: Adult Time Pure Taboo Wicked Girlsway many affiliate studios/platforms Founded by Karl Bernard who is jewish Movies/TV/News Warner Brothers Discovery owns: Warner Bros. Pictures HBO CNN DC Studios Cartoon Network Discovery Channel TNT TBS Max (formerly HBO Max) Adult Swim HGTV Food Network Animal Planet Warner Brothers is run by David Zaslav who is jewish Disney owns: ESPN ABC Marvel Studios Lucasfilm Pixar 20th Century Studios Disney+ Hulu (major controlling stake) National Geographic Disney is run by Bob Iger who is jewish Paramount Global owns: Broadcast & News CBS CBS News CBS Sports Local CBS stations Film Studios Paramount Pictures Paramount Animation Paramount Players Cable Networks MTV Nickelodeon Comedy Central BET VH1 CMT TV Land Smithsonian Channel Logo TV Pop TV Streaming & Premium Paramount+ Showtime Pluto TV Major franchises/IP Top Gun Mission: Impossible Star Trek South Park (licensing/streaming arrangements) SpongeBob SquarePants Transformers Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Paramount Global is controlled by Sheri Redstone, who is jewish Comcast owns: * NBCUniversal * NBC * Universal Pictures * Peacock * MSNBC * CNBC * Telemundo * Sky (Europe) * DreamWorks Animation * Xfinity Comcast is controlled by Roberts family who is Jewish AI/Data Centers OpenAI/ChatGPT Run by Sam Altman who is jewish Palentir provides advanced data integration, surveillance, AI, and analytics infrastructure used by military, intelligence, law enforcement, and major corporations. Its platforms help organizations combine massive amounts of fragmented data into real-time operational intelligence for warfare, policing, logistics, cybersecurity, manufacturing, and decision-making, making it one of the most strategically influential data and defense technology companies in the world. Owned and operated by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp both jewish Oracle owns: Oracle Database Java MySQL NetSuite Cerner Sun Microsystems technologies It’s important because it owns core infrastructure software that powers governments, banks, hospitals, corporations, and large parts of the internet. Its control of technologies like Oracle Database, Java, MySQL, and Cerner gives it enormous influence over the backend systems modern society depends on. Owned by Larry Ellison who is jewish

@robert_drep Will you give people back the money they paid for the ADA, at the price they paid? If so, fair enough, you can decide what to do with that ADA once you have it. If not, STFU, it's their ADA and they can choose to vote however they want.

I have a crazy idea guys. How about instead of voting "No" on the research proposal, that you just sell your ADA and move to a blockchain that matches what you agree with. This way you don't have to try and make Cardano like every other blockchain. Like many of you, the research basis of Cardano is what brought me in, this is what I signed up for. If you don't like it, leave. It's really not complicated. You think it's a waste of money? Fine, there are other options for you, so ask yourself why you are even here. Liberate yourself, as I'm sure you will be more happy with less drama in your life. If you say you like Cardano and want research, but you want to control all that is researched, then you are missing the point. If you don't trust that they will use these resources wisely after 10 years of publishing, then, again, why are you even here? And yes, I'm talking to you @ItsDave_ADA and @yutazzz, as well as the anti IOG crowd.

Honestly, I think this is probably the most reasonable position in the entire discussion. Because even people who support funding IOG should still be asking: Why the resistance to breaking the proposal down further with more granular transparency and accountability? If the work is genuinely essential, strategically important, and broadly supported, then greater clarity should strengthen confidence, not weaken it. And I think this is where a lot of the distrust comes from. Not necessarily the existence of funding requests themselves, but the feeling that the ecosystem is being told: "approve the package largely as-is or risk catastrophic consequences." That naturally creates the perception of an ultimatum, whether intended or not. So while we disagree on likely long-term outcomes, I do appreciate that you're at least honest enough to acknowledge the structural concerns instead of pretending they're irrational or malicious. Anyways, I wish you all the best. I hope IOG delivers and the community aren't back here in the same position in 12 months.

That is a fair assessment and I agree that we both disagree on the likely outcomes. With that said, the one point of emphasis that does irritate me that I know we'll both agree on is the unwillingness to have the proposal split up with more detail. THAT, I do not understand, which is why I do see the language Charles is giving as an "ultimatum," but I believe that's more interpretation of the receiver than intent on the transmitter. If the proposal could be resubmitted in multiple parts with more clarity (or reworked to show why it can't be broken up with details), all this commotion over it would go away. But it's been made clear that's not going to happen, which does not sit well with me and why I am not a blind follower of Charles and believe your concerns have merit. I don't know how this is going to end, I can only control my own actions and will do so accordingly. Like all of us.

Charles isn’t threatening the community. He’s explaining reality. Elite researchers and engineers do not stay without stable funding and long term support. You cannot demand world class innovation while voting against the teams building the foundation of Cardano.

I don't really want to go around in circles here or flog a dead horse, because I think we both understand each other’s position now. You're essentially saying: without funding IOG, Cardano likely dies or becomes irrelevant. I'm slightly less certain than you on that point. I think it would take a brutal short-term hit, but if the community truly believes in decentralisation, the chain itself would survive and eventually reorganise around new decentralised development structures. Where we really differ is on the probability of success with continued funding. You see a meaningful chance that funding IOG leads to Cardano eventually becoming the strongest chain in the industry. I increasingly see a team and founder with a very long history of overpromising and underdelivering relative to the narratives sold: - Hydra - Midnight + Partnerchains - 1000 DApps migrating - Plutus Application Backend - Babel fees - Africa - Dish Network - Chainlink integrations, etc. So when I look at the amount of treasury extraction required versus the historical execution quality and actual market adoption outcomes, I personally don't see the probability of success improving enough to justify it. What I increasingly see instead is a slow descent: treasury depletion, ongoing sell pressure, half-finished or delayed products, shifting narratives, and the ecosystem gradually bleeding relevance over time. A slow descent from top 5, to top 10, to top 20, to top 50, to top 100, to irrelevancy. Whereas the alternative path, while much more painful initially, at least creates the possibility of resetting incentives, preserving treasury resources, and eventually building around a more competent or competitive development structure. That may make me pessimistic. But sometimes cutting losses while behind is more rational than endlessly averaging down on a thesis the market may already have invalidated.

I understand. And there's no way for me to answer that. But I will say we'll never find out if we don't do it. If funding doesn't happen, none of that happens and there's no reason to even look at it from an outside perspective. If it is funded, there is a reason to look at it. It's pretty simple. Cardano's core is not just the tech, it's the sustainability, perseverance, and scalability that is will bring like no chain on the planet. To think institutions wouldn't want that, or look at it, would be naive. My entire point is we have a chance with funding. Yours is filled with "what if's." I'll quote my old history teacher every time someone asked him a "what if" question, "If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bust its' ass every time it jumped." I'll gladly live to fight another day with a "what if" scenario over not ever having that chance. You build things one problem at a time. You don't stop building because of a problem that may never come up.

I think you're slightly missing my earlier point. I’m not saying "why build anything if we all die anyway." I'm asking a much more practical market question: what specific major unmet demand does Cardano unlock even if all of this succeeds that causes meaningful capital, users and developers to flow in at scale? Because "it has lots of advanced technology" is not automatically a winning thesis anymore. The market already has: - smart contracts - high throughput - Bitcoin DeFi attempts - privacy chains - governance systems - app ecosystems So the question is not whether Cardano can technically build impressive things. The question is whether the market will still materially care enough for that to translate into sustained adoption and value accrual for $ADA specifically by the time these things all ship (which right now, I don't see a solid timeline on?).

What you bring up is a hypothetical situation and questioning if it even matters. That's a whole different topic of discussion that I can't say doesn't have merit, but what I will say is without all of that it's dead anyway. This is the same as a bigger question in life in general. Why should we do anything if we're all going to die anyway? It's a mentality I don't understand. So in a scenario where you don't think it will matter, then none of this entire discussion matters to begin with. We might as well all sell and move on. But for me, everything you list IS the reasons it will become the strongest chain in the world. No other chain can claim any of that and I think it is all worth fighting for. None of it happens without the right people doing the work. And all the experts bringing it to fruition are at the center of this proposal. Might as well fund them if we're all going to zero anyway, right?

Exactly. The irony is that a chain that brands itself around rigorous research and scientific methodology increasingly behaves in a deeply unscientific way socially. 🤣 Every failed prediction, missed adoption thesis, or changing market reality just results in a new narrative layered on top rather than a serious re-evaluation of the original assumptions. A real scientific mindset would update its conclusions when reality consistently diverges from the hypothesis.

@intel_honesty my favorite part of the "science chain" is its inability to observe and update its hypothesis based on real world observations.

Holders asking what to do: sell. The window for governance fixes, technical correction, or credible leadership change closed a long time ago. What's left is price discovery on the way down.

Where I will agree with Charles is that we all did lose a lot of money because of Cardano Whale. That fucker kept us on the Cardano boat for longer than we should have been. I lost money and opportunity because I listened to the Whale and believed that Cardano could change the world for the better (and I could make money by getting in early).

@SCATDAO @buxdabomb Good to see SCATDAO is still one of the most honest commentator out there.

Funniest part 🤣🤣

To be fair, I understand your position and I think it’s probably the position a large percentage of ADA holders privately have. You're basically saying: "I recognise the dependency problem, but destroying the only functioning development core before alternatives exist is suicidal." That's a rational position. Where I still struggle though is the forward-looking investment thesis. Let's do a thought experiment and assume IOG delivers and: - Leios ships - Hydra works - governance stabilises - Midnight launches - Bitcoin DeFi integrations happen - partner chains exist - everything on the roadmap lands Okay. What exactly is the new catalyst narrative that suddenly causes massive users, developers, liquidity and capital to flow into Cardano? What major unmet market demand gets unlocked that competitors are not already addressing? Because this is the part I keep coming back to: in 2021 Cardano had an incredibly powerful speculative narrative - "smart contracts are coming." That was enough to drive ADA from roughly $0.10 to $3 because the market could still imagine Cardano becoming the dominant smart contract platform. But today? - Smart contracts already exist everywhere. - High TPS exists everywhere. - Bitcoin DeFi narratives already exist. - Privacy narratives are increasingly being shifted toward Midnight rather than ADA itself. - And the market has already shown it prioritises consumer activity, apps, stablecoins, liquidity and velocity over ideological purity around decentralisation. So I can understand why people feel forced to fund IOG in the short term. What I'm less clear on is what the long-term catalyst actually is anymore, even if they succeed technically.

We agree on the fundamental problem. My point is finding alternatives before destroying the core. The truth is this. If they get funded, the price *may* dip, but will bounce. But it may not dip at all. I personally believe we are at the bottom of the overall market now and we will see growth very soon. These funds will have very little impact overall, while gaining the future proofing it needs with development. If it doesn't get funded, the sell off is likely to be harsh and likely never coming back. Sure, I could front run the sell and "buy back" later. But why would I when the very core of the development is cutoff. There's no reason to buy back. It's dead. Rotating has taxation consequences. I'm not a trader. I'm in Cardano for a reason and would prefer to stay in it. Like it or not, Charles and IOG has A LOT more supporters than detractors (not to mention Charles himself likely being the largest holder of everyone). And I'd prefer not to lose that support because it will be not only detrimental in price, but the the long term viability of the chain itself. Keep them funded. Let people and institutions see it is the obvious choice. I guarantee with more eyes and adoption, alternatives will naturally become available with even more funding that doesn't require the treasury to fund. But at this stage on the timeline, it is what it is. IOG is it. That's not me being fearful, that's just the cold hard truth.

Charles hoskinson @IOHK_Charles just sent a grim warning to Cardano holders, that he will burn the project to the ground if they do not apologize.

I respect you exposing him. But, I'm amazed you still think that Cardano, in its current state of being completely dependent on IOG for infrastructure development, is still the place to build your products on. Like seriously. I very much dislike all the SC hacks on Ethereum, but there's at least come credible neutrality about that chain and all the L2s. There are also chains like Sui (mind you, they do have Walrus) and Aptos, and Near, and Peaq, that don't have FE and their CEOs actively, and consistently, working against their ecosystem projects.

Remember the guy who told us in one of latest videos that people complain about him and ask questions... quote: "many of which have never build a business and have no experience or knowledge how products work" Yeah, everyone is an idiot Charles, you are the only one on the planet who can successfully run a business,... or MAYBE NOT?!👇👇👇

I see common ground here, but the issue isn't whether voting yes or no is "correct." I think the final result will likely be the same. The issue is that after 8+ years, Cardano still appears structurally incapable of saying no to IOG without triggering fears of existential collapse. That means governance is largely symbolic, because the ecosystem remains operationally and psychologically dependent on one company and founder. A decentralised ecosystem should survive the loss of any single actor without entering crisis mode. The fact Cardano seemingly cannot is exactly the criticism. And the uncomfortable investor reality is this... If sustaining the ecosystem requires continuous treasury extraction and ongoing ADA sell pressure to fund operations, salaries and development, then incentives begin diverging between "protecting the ecosystem" and protecting your own capital. You asked for solutions. Well, I'm not a financial advisor, but from a purely market perspective, some people may conclude the rational move is: = Vote however you want politically, then front-run the inevitable selling pressure rather than absorb it. At worst, you potentially buy back lower later. At best, you rotate into assets with stronger organic demand dynamics rather than stay in an ecosystem dependent on perpetual treasury monetisation to sustain momentum. Because there's a huge difference between: 1. a network generating natural economic demand and fee revenue vs 2. a network that increasingly depends on extracting and selling treasury reserves to maintain itself.

Yes, hence the reason I said there was a lot of truth to this. I fully agree with your core message. What I'm saying is we have no option until a viable alternative is a reality. That's just the cold hard truth. Let me put it this way. If you need a heart transplant, do you tell the doctors to rip your heart out and hope a viable option comes along in time? Or do you wait for a viable donor before you do that? That's the exact situation we're in right now. I don't like it any more than you do. But as of right now, there is no other option, and it doesn't have to remain that way next year. Someone find alternatives and we can give them a shot next year if they are truly an option. What you are pointing out is the dilemma without offering a solution. What I'm doing is agreeing with that dilemma, but saying there is no choice without an alternative option. The Option 1 "sell to 0" is a bit over dramatic. That won't happen. But it will certainly happen without the work that needs to be done.