OK, 1st sentence is a fair point, maybe a bad example I used.. But then you go on to add in a bunch of BS to create a false narrative and deflect from the main point I was making, which is you claiming a 125% "ROI" on an investment, when it doesn't exist.
Also a fun fact: You've never once described the difference of a "custodian of someone's funds" and "accepting someone's funds as a payment for an item". I'm not even sure why you would have ever talked to me about that, as it would have had nothing to do with any of our dealings.) 
..

You question me on the comparison above, while comparing an investment to a "payment for an item". Or comparing "someone raising money to buy a GPU miner today, then 9 years from now they have a million dollars" to an organization that takes in funds for seats/shares for a % of a mining operation which provides BTC returns to the coin's address and claims 6 years later they have 125% "ROI" when they don't.

The payment did come with a physical asset or "item", but it also included a long-term investment of NastyFans shares/seats, essentially getting a % of a BTC mining operation, which promised weekly BTC returns to the coin's address and included a built-in donation to OgNasty/NastyMining as part of the payment.

Maybe I just [stupidly] took you at your word back then, because I thought you were an honest guy, and I had more trust in your word back then. But at the end of the day, they were your words. I've tried to just accept you have a condition that, when facing adversity, isn't conducive to being logical and usually comes with rage, so I'm not sure there is really anyway I could ever get through to you.

Regardless of all that, to me it seems unethical and dishonest to claim 125% "ROI" because BTC's value went up.