No intention to split hair, but apparently, startups are never the victim it seems. We relied on Zapo to interface with BTT community since he claimed it was his thing (and we've now realized that the faux air of mysticism his types tend to exude regarding BTT activities is basically bait and switch). Should anybody be held responsible? Zapo, of course. But then, who's going to hold him responsible?

Might as well argue that he's a product of this community and the activities of his kinds have greatly sullied the reputation (at least the outsider's perception) of what this place stands for. We've been made to understand that the community polices its own, but being a public forum, the policing can only go that far.
However, it kind of stings being told: "That's not our business how much you have paid Zapo...".

OK, we got dumped.
OK, we have nothing to show for it.
OK, we are trying to maintain our integrity by resolving the mess and paying the tokens allocated to those who upheld their end of the bargain too.
What is not OK, is we paying to accounts that have been flagged as scams or cheat.

We draw the line there.

The spreadsheet by Zapo is still accessible for anybody that feels they are capable of auditing it better.

If the community insist on making the audited sheet available, we will do so and explain the parameters involved. However, we do not have the bandwidth to answer why this person or that didn't make the list. Would have been easier for us to just jump ship, but it's best to be the change you want to see and there's no bigger change we want to see now more than crypto community going back to its roots of integrity.