luda

@OneGoodShibe @MoonlitMonkey69 My guess is that they collect fees from transactions on the L2. How much of a fee is yet to be seen. What fee structure would you consider fair (if any) ?

@MoonlitMonkey69 @probablyluda They were *super* excited that Anoncoin was expected to be bigger than pump fun. It seemed to me that it was the kind of excitement that comes with an expected windfall. That's just my opinion though. What IS weird is that no one will answer these questions. Which seems sus 😆

To be clear: DogeOS DOGE is NOT Layer 1 Dogecoin. You cannot send DogeOS "DOGE" to your L1 wallet It is an EVM compatible, 1:1 custodial backed* token, designed to represent Dogecoin on EVM compatible blockchains. *(Full trustless can be implemented, but requires a soft fork update to L1) L1 is, and always will be, the ultimate form of self-custodial transactional sovereignty. It cannot be restricted, hijacked, siphoned or taxed. It is technically impossible to "move" L1 Dogecoin off of the network. It must always exist in an L1 wallet, somewhere on-chain. In that L1 state, it is limited to basic wallet functionality and simple Send/Receive transactions. No user protections, no recovery, no trustless custodial contracts, no intermediary between users. On L1, it is legally sticky to serve as a financial mediator between parties. Without custodial ownership of funds, a system cannot perform automated transactions on behalf of users on L1. L1 is, and always will be, the ultimate form of self-custodial transactional sovereignty. It cannot be restricted, hijacked, siphoned or taxed. DogeOS is offering a compromise: Sacrifice some self sovereignty and trust their system to facilitate EVM functionality for Dogecoin using their 1:1 backed "equivalent" token. --- EVM functionality unlocks: Turing-complete smart contracts: Complex, conditional, self-executing code. Custom tokens: ERC-20/ERC-721 fungible & NFT standards. dApps & composability: Full DeFi, games, DAOs with interoperable contracts. Automated trustless execution: On-chain escrows, liquidations, royalties, etc. --- For many L1 purists, none of this functionality is worth sacrificing their own self-sovereignty for. This is not a "bad" or "wrong" position. It is the most pure Dogecoin stance you can take. However, any meaningful growth for Dogecoin as a practical currency and ecosystem requires more than pure L1 sovereignty. For users, developers, and builders who want Dogecoin to compete in the modern blockchain world, DogeOS provides a necessary and pragmatic bridge. - You voluntarily deposit your L1 Dogecoin into the custodial bridge. - You receive an equivalent amount of DogeOS DOGE on the EVM-compatible layer. - You gain full access to smart contracts, ERC standards, dApps, and automated on-chain logic. - When desired, you can redeem your DogeOS DOGE back to native L1 Dogecoin. This is not a replacement for L1 Dogecoin. It is an opt-in extension layer designed to bring utility and capital efficiency to the Dogecoin community without compromising the integrity of the base layer. L1 remains the ultimate settlement and sovereignty layer. DogeOS becomes the execution and innovation layer. Both can (and should) coexist. The future of Dogecoin does not require choosing one over the other. It requires recognizing that maximum sovereignty and maximum utility are different priorities, and the ecosystem is big enough for both. Purists protect the soul of Dogecoin on L1. Builders expand its reach on DogeOS. Together, they make Dogecoin stronger.

@John_Inubook @OneGoodShibe @ConsciousDoge Telling of what? Are you accusing me of fraud as well?

@probablyluda @OneGoodShibe @ConsciousDoge There is a clear difference between "anyone who posts about them" and someone who's actively engaged in pushing deceptive content and pump and dump frauds. The fact that once again you are purposely dismissing that while trying to spin the narrative again is very telling.

@John_Inubook @ConsciousDoge It's the truth. You have not proven guilt. Go to law school if you want to be a lawyer.

Even if everything you are claiming is true, you are extending suspicion out from the Fdn+HoD to anyone who posts about them, and further extending that suspicion to any project they are working on, and then extending that suspicion out even further to anyone also working on those projects. By your standards, absolutely any project or person operating in the Dogecoin should be labeled as untrustworthy. Not on its own merits but through an arbitrary lens you and your merry band of crusaders choose to apply. Even worse, it is the founders who actually make themselves available for feedback and spend time engaging with your criticism that get the worst of it. Actual grifter projects who ignore you simply go on with their grift, while genuine projects waste time and sanity fielding your endless character attacks.

@probablyluda @OneGoodShibe @ConsciousDoge The evidence is there but it takes more than a lazy 2 minutes research to find it. It's in all their sec filings. That is the reality and acting like it doesn't exist does paint you in a very negative way.

Yes, as in a court of law. And yes, unfortunately it takes years. The issue I am addressing here is that, while abundant red flags have been called out by you, John, Rich etc, neither Grok nor Google has any mention of concrete evidence of fraud when searching. To extend that out to Redwriter, and then even further extend it to our project, is a huge stretch. Even now, me simply stating that actionable evidence is unavailable to the average person, immediately places me on the side of HoD and Fdn, I am now a pedophile protector, and a fraud apologist. Apparently, there is no middle ground to be had with this issue. It is tribal at its core and I was foolish for thinking I could engage with any of it.

@probablyluda @John_Inubook @ConsciousDoge When you say "unproven fraud" are you saying as in "in a court of law"? Because there's almost no mechanisms with which to go after entities like this and even if there was, you're looking at years, if lucky, to get anything to stick. That's a lot of injured parties.

@John_Inubook Nobody in the Doge community has caused more division than your little hater squad. Bad faith. The lot of you. Good riddance

@probablyluda The only difference is that we have receipts to prove it and been proving it while you only have your low-key character bashing, weak insults, trying to change the subject and spin it in another way. I don't need you to believe anything, the evidence is there.

@John_Inubook The whole point I'm trying to make is that one could reasonably argue that Red was not aware of the evidence you possess when he posted about HoD

@John_Inubook I'm the one character bashing lmao that's rich bro. Bring your law degree next time and we can chat.

@John_Inubook The way you argue makes me think everything you've ever said about Fdn and HoD is a lie. Congrats.

@probablyluda Have a good night Tim.

@iMmr_D @John_Inubook Is this the best you have?

Birds of a feather

@John_Inubook Bad faith through and through. It's a shame I tried to engage with your questions thinking you were really just trying to learn more.

@probablyluda Nah, you're not walking this back. You've made your bed. You're defending fraudsters. And red is a self proclaimed journalist but he doesn't do proper research on fraudulent pump and dumps? Are you serious? "he didn't know" but he's been actively pumping their shit 🤣 Sure Tim.

@John_Inubook @ConsciousDoge John, you know very well I also suspect HoD of all the things you are claiming. However, I would never mistake my suspicion for conviction. And I would never try to attribute unproven fraud to anyone else.

@probablyluda @ConsciousDoge I know you won't take the time to do it but if you ever do, you'll see it's there. No vague or false accusations. Glad to see who you really are tho.

@probablyluda @ConsciousDoge And now you sound exactly like Tim when he's defending DeFrancesco. Good job, you played yourself.

Asking Google or Grok "Has House of Doge committed fraud?" The answer is "No" Maybe they ARE fraudulent but at this time, there have been zero SEC filings, zero CFTC filings. An investigation is not evidence of fraud. People involved who have committed fraud in the past is not evidence of fraud. I am in no way in favor of HoD but you are not a lawyer. Furthermore, if this evidence DOES prove fraud, it is not readily available to anyone trying to research the issue, therefore your accusations aimed at Red are based on information he may not have had.

@probablyluda What facts? Your lazy 2 minutes research on google and grok? That's your "facts"? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 That's really rich coming from you.

There you have it.

@probablyluda @ConsciousDoge A quick assessment with grok and here are the laws and criminal provisions on their most recent pump and dump fraud. A thorough search through years of deception and organized serial frauds prove there is without a doubt fraud. The fact is that you are purposely dismissing it.

When you decide to criticize the project itself instead of conjuring up vague accusations about the people behind the project, your criticisms will be happily received.

@John_Inubook Can you prove otherwise? Legally admissible. I am not defending them. These are just facts.

@John_Inubook @ConsciousDoge Yes. Those are the fact on the ground. You and I know about the undercurrents, but according to Google and grok, nothing actionable.

@probablyluda @ConsciousDoge "There is no actionable evidence of fraud committed by HoD." Are you sure about that? That's your answer? Really?

@John_Inubook @ConsciousDoge There is no actionable evidence of fraud committed by HoD. Unsavory dealings and questionable investment offers? Sure. But no actionable evidence. So, not only are you making assumptions about HoD, you are now transferring that assumed guilt to other people.

@ConsciousDoge @probablyluda "Hating everyone trying to build something on Doge is not productive" Nice narrative there lol Yes I've seen unethical stuff pushed by one of the founders of your app, Redwriter. Why is he actively pushing pump and dump frauds?

Your entire argument rests on guilt-by-association ad-hominem against one non-developer member of a four-person team. Even the accusation itself is fallacious. Red did not commit fraud. He did not condone fraud. He simply reported positively on projects in the Dogecoin ecosystem that you label as fraudulent. He may not believe HoD actions qualify as fraud. He may be genuinely excited about ecosystem developments. He may have had dinner with the Fdn and formed his own independent opinion. You don’t (and can’t) know for sure, yet you treat it as “proof” the entire project is compromised. Even if Red were fully aligned with Fdn goals and secretly planning something nefarious, his role has always been marketing, branding, and advisory. He has never had access to the code and has never requested it. The burden of proof is on you to show how this supposedly makes the platform itself untrustworthy, with technically provable evidence, not assumptions or photos. You still haven’t offered even one critique of the actual app or its features. I look forward to anything of substance.

@probablyluda S the foundation is untrustworthy because it partners with a fraudster among other things but when your partner pushes the exact frauds pushed by the foundation and their fraudster fren that's a fallacy somehow?

@John_Inubook That is an ad-hominem fallacy and you know it.

@probablyluda Nothing vague, I've been very clear, one of the people behind your project actively participates in pushing pump and dump frauds to the community. That makes the whole thing very untrustworthy and worthy of warning people about it. Exactly as we've been doing with the fdn and hod

It's been stated repeatedly that DuGs was independently funded and developed. You choose to ignore that because it does not fit your narrative. Honestly I doubt you have even considered the fact that there are 3 other equal founding partners, who have also committed to keeping DuGs independent.

@Fierce_Skit @probablyluda Absolutely but the pattern and actions were not there. After more than a year, we now have a clear pattern that cannot be undone from Red now. I wonder if the fdn funded his dugs project and if so to what extent? Are they the principal funders behind this? Simple questions.

So the idea does come from the fraudation after all.... youtu.be/lablklf3j38?si…