Well, someone's got to say it...

For someone with such lucid dialog, you sure have a screwed up sense of "morals".

You've just presented an account of how you actively participated in one of the most ruthless, destructive and rapacious trading gangs in the short history of crypto markets.

While genuine enthusiasts were busy reading whitepapers, discovering technologies and promoting adoption for their assets of choice, you were busy plotting to make sure that all that work didn't have a snowball's hope in hell of ever turning into a genuine market valuation.

Now it appears you expect markets to be "morally impressed" with your account and act upon it. In fact markets will do what they've always done in the absence of infiltration by rabid gangs of pot smoking scamsters - base their valuations according to potential returns.

For all the honesty and lucidity of this account, you are part of the problem not the answer, not least because the tribalism that characterised your actions prior to your road to damascus moment still prevails in its conclusions. You're the ex Goldman Sachs executive with a story to tell down the pub about how you looted the pension funds.

Although I enjoyed reading this epic but your attempt to claim the moral high ground at its conclusion is a bit sickening.

The words stones and glass houses spring to mind.