KEJ

So @ArchitectsOnArc @arctsdotfun @DYORSWAPDEX The more I read their recent communication, the more I question how genuine this CTO was in the first place lmao Their entire argument is that they built the community, created the lore, developed infrastructure, brought attention to Architects and helped push the token to $3M MC If that's true, then the obvious question is: why stop building the existing token? You guys (dyor) didn't prevent them from developing Architects. You prevented them from unilaterally receiving the creator rights and creator fees while the original creator was still involved. Those are two very very very different things tho At that point you’d have to be braindead not to see the play: they relaunch the ticker, hog the initial supply, sneak a fat bag at launch, and start sucking the fee stream from day one. In other words, instead of actually building value around the token the community already holds, these greedy fucks just want to reset the entire economics ecosystem so they can extract way more value for themselves. Instead, once control over the fees and rights became uncertain, their solution was to abandon the existing token and announce a new one under their own control. That is where their communication starts raising legitimate questions. On the existing token, they seemingly don't hold enough supply to meaningfully benefit from its appreciation, and without the creator fees they also don't control the revenue stream. A new token conveniently resets both of those things. They get a fresh token structure, fresh distribution, control over the launch and control over the economics. Especially when their own statement spends so much time talking about creator fees, development rights, previous market-cap achievements and a future $100M–$500M valuation target. If the issue was truly about protecting the Architects community, then abandoning the token that this same community currently holds should have been the absolute last resort. Instead, it appears to have become the solution as soon as they couldn't secure the economic control they wanted. And that's the part I find difficult to reconcile. A genuine CTO should be able to say: “We believe in this community enough to keep building even before we own the fees.” If they had done that, and the original creator eventually became an obstacle, the community would have had a very easy decision to make once DYOR's formal CTO process went live. Instead, their current approach risks making it look like the existing Architects community was valuable only as long as they could eventually control the token's economics. Maybe that isn't their intention. But based on their own communication, I think it's completely reasonable for people to start asking the question.