Sure I agree with that and even drew that very distinction on the proposal thread. That is not the kind of comments other project leaders like Vitalik make about the range of projects built on top of the stacks they are core developers for. Core devs make comments in their personal opinion like: “The work this team does looks promising”, “this team know what they are doing and are good people”, “that looks like a terrible solution”… and it helps disseminate unofficial liability free signals to the wider decentralised community and helps focus attention on common goals as the core devs see it. Everyone is free to ignore them as happens a lot too.
I was not and never was suggesting comments like “Buy Maid moonboys!” I am surprised that was your take-away.
That this signalling mechanism is unavailable to you [Edit: or the MaidSafe team] is unfortunate and raises so many questions for after SN launch. For another thread, perhaps.
Sure no problem non taken thanks for the reply and your patience, we are all on the same side here. Not everyone sees that poking at the holes no matter how sacredly held close (especially those) helps build a stronger base.
I take the rest of your comment about gravity of legal obligations to stakeholders to suggest that any attempt to fully decentralise the Maid->SN Token transition method is not desirable and not something to be aimed for? When I say that what I really I mean: If the community (that includes MaidSafe core devs) came up with a way to fully decentralise the transition process and it was voted for in a definitive way (say for example on-chain in a manner along the outlines @mav suggested above), would MaidSafe still block the process for example if a legally connected minority objected? I am reading it as MaidSafe has the legal obligation to remain central to the transition and is obliged to do KYC. No decentralisation proposal has a chance to derail that obligation. Is my take-away correct?