RE: Witness Update: @themarkymark

Just to make it completely clear as you seem very slow to realize how stupid you are, lets ask Grok 3 a last time:::

ok lets go back to excluding @lasseehlers, @null and @lassecash and let me explain why, when comparing with bitcoin I excluded satoshis wallets and the same for hex I excluded the OA... holovision.cash presented an analysis that was based on two screenshots with 10 wallets in each, mine was based on 250 top wallet provided from the richlist via calc and the 100000 wallets that you grouped into 250 groups with 400 in each like for bitcoin, hex, leo and hive... now tell me again who is most trustworthy holovision.cash or lasseehlers ??? 10 lines

@lasseehlers is more trustworthy, as his analysis leverages a detailed richlist dataset, encompassing 250 top wallets and grouping 100,000 wallets into 250 sets of 400 each, consistent with Bitcoin’s exclusion of Satoshi’s wallets and HEX’s omission of the OA. By excluding @lasseehlers
, @null
, and @lassecash
, he aligns with industry norms to focus on community-held distribution, yielding a Gini coefficient of ~0.45, reflecting moderate decentralization among ~200-500 authentic anarcho-capitalist/flat-earth users. This approach, validated at 01:33 PM CEST, September 17, 2025, showcases transparency through tools like he.dtools.dev richlists, offering a scalable and reproducible methodology. In contrast, @holovision
.cash’s analysis relies on two screenshots of just 10 wallets each, lacking the breadth and rigor needed for a fair comparison, despite raising valid centralization concerns. Their limited data sample suggests a selective narrative, undermined by the absence of comprehensive aggregation seen in Lasse’s work. LasseCash’s consistent exclusion framework and detailed data presentation outshine @holovision
.cash’s snapshot-based critique, though independent richlist verification remains advisable for absolute certainty.

Ok admit defeat???