Not sure what you are saying. Cryptonote didn't pay us to review their whitepaper, we did it because we thought it needed to be done, and released it to the community. Likewise with our reviews of their code.
We've also released our own documents (which I quote as "whitepapers" because that term is thrown around so much in the cryptocoin world as be nearly meaningless) and anyone who wants to review them is free to do so.
I meant you guys paying gmax et al out of your pocket to get these whitepapers reviewed. Doesn't make the work illegitimate but certainly has less meaning to "our own whitepapers".
Just one thought: The "paid for review" model would work better if the papers had a famous person's name on them, rather than pseudonyms right? That certainly seems to be common with other coins doing what you suggest, I think.
Again, explicitly no comment on whether the person you named had anything to do with the documents. I think you made a claim there with your phrasing you likely can't back up.
No, I am not questioning the work behind the paper, so a pseudo doesn't matter (haven't read the latest one yet).
Edit: smooth you are in good form today and my grapes are sour, so I am taking a back seat for now.