One can say "twisting" to anything I say, literally anything - hence, it is a moot argument. It is used by you when you have run out of any real arguments.

No one in their clear mind would show any PAC Global team plans to you, a hostile person. Why? No matter how good the plans might be, you would use that information against the team and try to reduce the chances of the project success important to the PAC community. Also, you are not a representative of the PAC community in any form.

You are actually alone in your request(s) and claims - please check the recent weeks of this thread for clear evidence of that. You are literally alone in complaining and being hostile against the PAC Global team and project.

Again wrong, I am not paid by the number of words. Again, please, do not insult.

In contrast to mechanical engineering, do note that a significant part of industrial engineering is marketing/economics, organizational behavior and covers creation of (dynamic) company models. In addition, marketing projects such as quantitative/qualitative research and writing/executing business cases/research setups/proposals is part of being an industrial engineer.
To your point: How does one become "a professional in marketing" (even those who have a relevant degree) if not by doing it? Robin has been directly promoting PAC for roughly a couple of years now through PAC charity.

Unlike you, I do not think that people are stupid. Please be reminded that it is you who actually called everyone holding PAC "morons" just a little while ago.

After reviewing the PAC masternode network, there appears to be a few masternodes suffering from performance issues due to excessive peer connections. The PDF linked below shows the potentially affected masternodes. PAC Global team suggests updating to the newest wallet version available (b5cdfa551) as it reduces the required amount of intra-masternode (or quorum) connections to a moderate amount, without affecting network security.

You are the one consistently getting things wrong (on purpose or not) - every second post of mine is about simply correcting your mistakes and misinterpretations.
For that reason, literally nothing you say or write can be taken as a fact, and needs to be checked and re-checked.

Well, it is not a paper "from" University of Zürich - only one of the authors appears to be from ETH Zürich actually, and not from University of Zürich.

"Coin Tainting
Given that Bitcoin transactions basically consist of a chain of digital signatures, the expenditure of individual coins can be publicly tracked. This enables any entity to “taint” coins that belong to aspecific (set of) addresses and monitor their expenditure across the network. The literature features a number of proposals that cluster Bitcoin addresses, and gather behavioural information about these addresses.
Coin tainting is currently used to achieve a degree of accountability in the Bitcoin network; if an address misbehaves, then Bitcoin users can decide to stop interacting with the address (i.e.,not accepting its coins), thus deflating the value of all the coins pertaining to that address. For instance, following a theft of 43,000 BTCs from the Bitcoin trading platform Bitcoinica, the Bitcoin service MtGox traced the stolen BTC and locked accounts that were receiving the tainted coins.These incidents show that powerful entities in Bitcoin can—rightfully or not—deflate the value of BTCs owned by specific addresses.  If these entities were to cooperate with the handful of developers that have privileged rights in the system, then all Bitcoin users can be warned not to accept BTCs that pertain from a given address (e.g., using alert messages).
Even worse, developers can hard-code a list of banned Bitcoin addresses within the official Bitcoin client releases, thus blocking all interactions with a given Bitcoin address without the consent of users. Furthermore, while coin tainting can be used to “punish” provably misbehaving addresses, it could also be abused to control the financial flows in the network subject to government pressure,but also due to social activism. This empowers few powerful entities that are not necessarily part of the Bitcoin network, such as governments and activists, to regulate the Bitcoin economy. Even if all Bitcoin decisions and operations were completely decentralized—which they are not—coin tainting presents an obstacle to a truly decentralized Bitcoin.
Coin tainting can be especially detrimental if coins are not widely exchanged among Bitcoin addresses. This enables entities to damage only a specific set of addresses, without alienating other addresses in the system. Other users are then also likely to “boycott” the tainted coins."