One reason for the discrepancies between statements, ideas and actions might also simply be because of varying degrees of technical understanding, privacy understanding, degrees of importance that different people on the team put into their values and varying degrees of greed and willingness to throw out such values for profit.
I have no doubt that different people on the team feel differently about their new anti-privacy and pro-censorship stance, but that's why I made the point in my last point about the two positions being mutually exclusive. It does not matter if some individuals have different values, understandings, ethical dilemmas, moral considerations, and so on.
Stating you have solved fungibility while enforcing non-fungibility is an outright lie, regardless of personal opinions.Yes, this somehow makes no sense. I just
created another thread just in case someone wants to discuss it and / or nopara73 wants to take some time to explain how this contradiction in his opinion makes sense.
If you are a lead developer of what's supposedly the 'last hope for Bitcoin privacy' you should have a very clear idea of what existing solution is most private, why, how and to what degree.
~
I'm not sure how they were even able to code a CoinJoin implementation (some amount of skill and knowledge is required), while at the same time apparently being so extremely naive on the whole subject of privacy.
Maybe I'm mistaken, and maybe I've fallen for some carefully planned PR, but until recently I got the impression Wasabi Wallet was created as a privacy solution with very low fees. I also assumed that's why so many people were vouching for it on Bitcointalk.
My next impression is they never expected nor planned to earn a lot of money from it, but suddenly the 0.003% fee turned into substantial amounts of money, and their priorities changed because of that.
Are you implying they 'changed priorities' ('a little less privacy' / 'enough privacy for most people') because of making a lot of money? That greed got to them? I have no idea; I wouldn't do such speculations, but I honestly don't even understand their move from a 'greedy business perspective'.
If a wallet that never claimed anything about privacy makes a decision that negatively impacts privacy, not many will complain. But if you literally made your business about 'having the best privacy' and whatnot and then turn around 180 degrees, without a lot of PR, you can quickly destroy your business.