Right.  I'm not pointing fingers quite yet.  Maybe it's a language barrier, too.

But, let's summarize the events :

1) Devs announce a reboot / relaunch with a 3:1 token swap with masternodes.
2) People don't do their own research and miss the massive pre-mine and buy anyway, causing a price runup.
3) Some community members / devs notice the large 'address' of the original dev causing some concern for the swap.  (someone even points to the source code on github to show the massive premine)
4) Devs make an announcement to change to ERC-20 and will now hold an ICO.
5) Community members complain this isn't fair to those who bought on the promise of masternodes and lower coin supply.
6) I point out that you can easily take a snapshot of the current CWXT database, use various cryptographic schemes a la digital signatures to prove address balances that could be used for a swap to the new CWT ERC-20 token.  I also point out that the amount needed to fork the chain is probably much smaller and that we could probabilistically fork the original pre-mine away since it's clear that this amount is not being staked.
7) Devs like my idea but then dismiss it claiming that I say CWXT is ERC-20 and that the mechanism I proposed is not doable (to which I call BS and others are being polite and saying devs are new and don't understand).

. Now we're here. 

I'm sure the community can convince the new team to do the right thing.