Two people have PM'ed me this. They always expect AnonyMint to provide some analysis.

The issue seems to the be same as it was for Iota and Sergio's DAG design, which is that there is no way to prevent double-spends on multiple branches of the DAG. We covered this in great detail at the linked thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13830403#msg13830403

Iota "solves" this by hoping that all payers and payees run a Monte Carlo algorithm, but the only way to enforce it is to have centralized servers, which is what Iota has at launch.

You I suppose propose to incentivize one longest chain in another way, but game theory will always remain that without proof-of-work blocks then there is no Nash equilibrium resolving to one longest chain rule.

Sorry DAGs don't work. But I am not screaming to tell people not to invest in Iota, because frankly Satoshi's proof-of-work block chain centralizes as well, as is clearly on display.

You may want to quote this post before it is nuked by Hitler.