A Feast of Nonsense 1. Whether they subtracted 14.16% or whatever, they fixed the MM/VC/Vault LP allocation and took it from the user pool. The problem is that tokens were issued at different ratios per point, which is a averaging down 1. 2. While the lock-up can be seen as a good thing, the main point is that they received a fixed amount while the users' supply was cut in two or three pieces. Averaging down 2. 3. CEX listing. Good job. So what? It has nothing to do with the distribution issue. It is just an explanation. 4. They are not doing buybacks. I mean, USDC hasn't been transferred from the wallet where it was deposited, and there are no trade records, so with what money, where, and how are they doing buybacks? Evidence: t.me/pgyinfo/13109 5. It's not that they used all of it; they haven't used a single bit. They are just transferring EDGE that they held in another account. Claiming that not all of it was used is just a cover-up. 6. This is also funny; the team used me as a scapegoat and then told me not to do it. Of course, personal attacks or excessive profanity should be avoided, but creating a situation where inquiries cannot even be answered—there is only one inquiry channel, deposits and withdrawals aren't working properly, there are no answers regarding distribution, frustration is building, and yet there is a person in charge. But claiming that they are a team and have no 'direct responsibility' is a bit... 7. This is the real bullshit cover-up. What is the standard for the 'final distribution value'? If you sold it? If you bought it back? Is that even possible to judge?! It shouldn't be a 'case-by-case review.' If you're going to do it, you should do it uniformly based on a specific price according to the system. Receiving it via Google Forms is an error in the first place. And I'll say it again: before considering whether there was a loss or a profit, the distribution didn't go according to plan (1st point), and they aren't doing buybacks (2nd point). Cover-up 4. 8. 'Yeah, we were trying to raise the price'... by cutting down the user circulating supply, that is. ???? I believe they aren't actually doing buybacks for over 98% of the time; they are just luring retail investors by doing money market trading on CEX. They don't have $200 million in net profit, but they are pretending to have it to act like they are doing massive buybacks. If evidence emerges that clearly proves Pagu is wrong, I will bow down in deep apology. However, most fundamentally, in the account where $50 million in USDC was deposited, there are no USDC withdrawal records, not even trade records—let alone purchases—and no EDGE withdrawal records either. While their Explorer may not contain information like 'how many at how much,' it does contain information indicating 'trades were made' (SPOT_TRADE) and 'deposits/withdrawals' (SPOT_IN / SPOT_OUT). Unless that is the case, it implies they are secretly using the portion of the $200 million—excluding the $50 million publicly deposited into edgeX—that was left over from CEX to do buybacks, withdraw the funds, and deposit them into the SAFE address. Why bother?! After depositing $50 million?! And that... it's a different entity, yet they put money from the Amber wallet in?! They didn't even withdraw it directly from the Treasury; they put it into Bybit and then withdrew it again??? I just think everything is a deception. At the very least, there is evidence.