In case I haven't been clear enough: I do not support Dogecoin Labs. For as long as they keep controlling it, they can go to hell with their takeover of the former @dogecoin_devs account, built by the old open source Dogecoin Core developers and followed by over half a million people for that reason. The whole switcheroo might also violate X's Authenticity rules. No serious company would start their marketing campaign by appropriating the community resources of a decentralized, permissionless projects instead of spending funds in promoting their own channels. Turning it into a marketing channel for a private, for-profit company is disgusting and misleading. The Dogecoin "Foundation" (a group of companies/organizations with no mandate to represent Dogecoin or the community and which pushed several catastrophic things over the past years) gave them access to the channel, we do not know yet know why or how. I am completely opposed to this kind of maneuvers, which will also end up damaging Dogecoin. Stop twisting my words into an endorsement.

I'm not sure who in their right mind would want to take the helm of that. We are not talking about some community-governed foundation whose board simply needs replacing. We are talking about a network of legal entities scattered across different countries, with employees, contractors and commercial relationships, claiming to represent a decentralized cryptocurrency without ever having received a mandate from its community to do so. And what a legacy to inherit, holy cannoli. - The trademarks, man. With what in Italy we used to call a "supercazzola" masked as legal acumen and higher purpose, they claimed they needed to protect the Dogecoin trademarks from abuse and trademark trolls. Instead, they entered into (from what we can read on paper, on the SEC filings) lucrative commercial licensing agreements, and the resulting trademark licensing rights even ended up listed among the collateral for a $5.5 million loan taken out by House of Doge. This is in the SEC filings. The very thing they supposedly wanted to protect on behalf of the community became a commercial bargaining chip. - The promotion of disastrous commercial ventures. They used their channels to enthusiastically promote ventures such as CleanCore's Dogecoin treasury, presenting them as extraordinarily positive developments for Dogecoin. The treasury arrangement subsequently collapsed, agreements were terminated, financial statements were restated, and CleanCore sold basically all its Doge holdings. Yet I have seen NOT A SINGLE EFFORT from the Foundation to explain to the very same audience what went wrong. And some of the people involved in the Foundation also held positions in the companies involved in these arrangements, with financial interests documented in SEC filings. - The Italian football club. Through House of Doge, they associated the Dogecoin name with the acquisition of a substantial stake in @TriestinaCalcio, a historic but unfortunate Italian football club that subsequently faced technical insolvency, restructuring of debt, and the risk of judicial liquidation. Thanks also to the way this was presented in the press, people now believe "Dogecoin owns a football club" and associate Dogecoin itself with the club's financial troubles. This was all over the news in Italy's main news channels. The damage done was huge. - The community accounts. Accounts that built enormous followings through their association with Dogecoin and its open-source developers have been used for commercial promotion. The former dogecoin_devs account has now even been rebranded as Dogecoin Labs, a commercial venture. We still have no clear public explanation of who authorized this, whether control was transferred, and on what terms. These accounts were built on the credibility and work of people who were contributing to an open-source project, not building an audience for private companies. And that's hardly an exhaustive list. Just to mention one, even the financial accounts of the Foundation's UK entities are overdue. Now: I am not a lawyer. And I won't pretend to know whether any of these arrangements might have legal consequences in the various jurisdictions involved. That's for the lawyers and courts and judges to determine. But morally? I have zero hesitation in calling what has happened a grotesque betrayal of community trust, and of the trust of people who worked alongside some of these individuals for years. I genuinely struggle to imagine why any serious, independent person would want to inherit this mess and all the baggage that comes with it. The attraction for someone interested in controlling the remaining assets and commercial relationships is rather easier to understand. And that brings me to the fundamental problem with the idea of electing a new board. Why should the Dogecoin community have to rescue or rehabilitate an organization that was never elected to represent it in the first place? Dogecoin doesn't need to be rescued by a new board of "directors". Almost everybody around crypto is corrupted or tends to become corrupted. Dogecoin needs its independence respected. The Foundation's failure is not Dogecoin's, thankfully.

My intervention was among other things AGAINST the takeover of the dogecoin channels by Dogecoin Labs. They took control of community resources (the old dogecoin_devs X account that in the past was used by Dogecoin Core developers was renamed to DogecoinLabs) because the Dogecoin “Foundation” (a group with no mandate to represent the Dogecoin community and which pushed several disasters over the past years) gave them access to the channel. I am against all of this and disgusted by it. Do not try to frame my opinion in support of it.