> What do you mean by "disguised in a weak reason that is to "avoid MTL""?

SN presented this reason publicly to mislead any further "investigation"... call it more like a "plausible deniability".
But is weak, because MTL do not apply to Bitcoin.

DarthCoin

> IMHO most of them were assmilkers.

Lol, that's a good theory!

They left because they didn't truly understand the meaning of CCs. Maybe they never played a damn game with in-game money...
Again most of them fall for the crap reason of "self-custodial" wallet and "earn sats"...  and they got scared when they saw CCs, with the idea of tokens. But they do not realize that those tokens are PAID with sats ONLY.
IMHO most of them were assmilkers.

For me CCs are OK. I can use them endlessly inside SN. Using sats outside of SN, is another story.

That's the worse marketing slogan ever... imagine if YT did the same in the early days: 

we pay you cents to upload and like videos

True is the early days around here were much funnier, lot of people left because of this "tokenization", that, in the other end, protects SN from "authoritarian" attacks (as is a registered business, what else we should expect?)

disguised in a weak reason that is to "avoid MTL"

Would you attach your Lightning Node to SN now that we have CCs?

supratic

> SN is paying you sats

That's the worse marketing slogan ever... imagine if YT did the same in the early days: *we pay you cents to upload and like videos*. It just sounds howful.

True is the early days around here were much funnier, lot of people left because of this "tokenization", that, in the other end, protects SN from "authoritarian" attacks (as is a registered business, what else we should expect?)

What do you mean by "*disguised in a weak reason that is to "avoid MTL"*"?