About a year ago, I was much more open minded about this.

Things were not at all clear about where the market was going. Everyone was waiting and debating about what was going to "overtake bitcoin" - largely because it was being 'technologically leapfrogged' left right and centre. New algos were appearing, POS, Bitcoin 2.0, 'shares' you name it.

A year later, after all that flotilla of 'technological prowess' it turns out that none of it even made a dent in bitcoin's market cap.

For me, that changes everything in terms of investment priorities. I have no problem with you pursuing the latest and greatest' tech - in fact I positively support it. What is a bit miserable - specially coming from project staff members - is the levels of adverse petty propagandising you do about competitors while trying to dress it up as 'technical critiques'.

Any technical project is going to have its share of strengths and weaknesses. What matters is that those are consistent with the design specifications which in turn should have a high relevance to the market's priorities. Anyone can come along after the fact and give themselves a 'clean sheet' to rewrite history as long as they don't expect much adoption - as I said, the market's now littered with 'technological leapfroggers' including 14 dirt cheap cryptonotes. But there's only 1 original. That goes for almost every cryptocurrency sector without exception - Bitcoin 1, asset trading, shares, pop-coins, anonymity and 'fiat-friendly'.