Btw, I exchanged emails with Jim Willie a decade ago (could probably dig it out of my email archives). He admitted to me he was an alcoholic.

I don’t think Paul Craig Roberts and Alex Jones are knowingly disinformation agents. I think they ideologically believe in what they’re doing and don’t realize that they’re part of the desired escalation. It’s possible that Alex is just an incredibly good actor, but I lean towards him being sincere and oblivious to his real impact in terms of demoralization.

Is gab.ai decentralized BTW?

Apparently it’s gab.com now. I don’t think so. Well even if it was on a blockchain and I don’t think it is, I know of no blockchains yet which are truly decentralized. This is one of the technological issues we’re attempting to solve with our Hyperdata ledger technology.

Does it offer financialization of any sort?

Last time I checked no.

And what makes KYN illegal and cred legal?

You would need to understand my detailed analysis (including the links from that linked blog to my prior writings on the subject matter) of what makes a token a security or not a security. My layman’s understanding is there are two types of illegality involved.

1. Illegality for the issuers if they’re selling tokens which are unregistered securities to for example U.S., Canadian, Australian or European investors in violation of for example the SEC, Canadian, Australian or EU securities laws. In some cases, there are exceptions to the otherwise onerous regulations (which have difficult compliance requirements) in the case of selling to qualified investors (typically those with very high net worth) in countries with applicable securities regulation. But in most jurisdictions even these exceptional cases also need to be reported (to for example the SEC) which marks those tokens as regulated securities which applies to the next case below. There’s also AML and KYC regulation that applies to centralized issuers. Note issuers selling tokens which are no longer securities may be relieved of culpability.

2. Not so much illegality for the investors who only HODL, but illegality and restrictions for the resale of their tokens which are securities if not done on a regulated exchange. In essence a security is where the risk is secured by another party. Essentially tokens are securities if those who obtain tokens (even they don’t pay money for them but they pay in terms of their effort to obtain them) are relying significantly on the centralized efforts of others (instead of a decentralized free market) for their expectation of gains (or to protect against losses such as even loss of the functionality of the tokens due to project failure). For example, a crackdown could potentially result in delistings from major exchanges.

So while it appears (on only a cursory understanding of their plans) TRYBE might be planning to infringe on both of the above cases, our hope is we will not infringe either with our project. Essentially this means our project needs to be sufficiently decentralized by the time many users are involved so that #2 doesn’t apply. And we need to very careful about the early resale of any tokens (during the period wherein the tokens are still securitized) which the project founders premine which are not issued in a decentralized manner by the protocol itself (e.g. via mining). It’s important to understand that tokens which were initially issued as securities, can become non-securities if the project becomes decentralized such that upon transfer of those tokens, the recipient is basing his/her expectations of future performance on the free market and not significantly on the efforts of some centralized group. But the potential civil and criminal culpability for the issuers who illegally sold unregistered securities remains regardless.

Note (in my opinion of the jurisprudence) centralized efforts of others can apply even to a foundation or protocol such as Steem’s and EOS’s DPoS that operates via stake voting which is analogous to a corporation with daily operations delegated to human corporate officers by the voting shares. Also in at least Steem’s case it can I think be shown that Steemit, Inc. controls a majority of the state voting thus is in control, not the free market. However, this would not be the case if it can be shown that the elected DPoS witnesses are powerless to control the project (i.e. the automated protocol dominates and thus other free market effects more in control of outcomes) and/or are independent from each other such that there’s no centralized control. Although it can be argued that the ongoing development of the blockchain for both Steem and EOS is centralized, if airdropped forks of these projects exist, this would exemplify that the free market has options for the future value of the tokens.

Clearly most of the risk is on the issuers who sell unregistered securities.

Disclaimer: IANAL nor am I a professional investment adviser. This is not to be construed as legal nor investing advice.

EDIT: regarding your reply, there are too many hot potatoes in there for me to touch. I’d rather not go there. I don’t know Willie very well, but I indeed detected within a short period of time via email only that he was lying and fabricating stories. Alex Jones claims he sells products and advertising so that he can finance his productions. I think you do not understand that the Palestine situation is fabricated to cause you to politicize about it. The Zionists have duped you with psyops.

I do suggest you keep an eye for my next blog on the 9/11 false flag. There’s a rough draft that’s almost complete.

At least some sort of a witch hunt should be held

And who decides who is a witch. You’re simply advocating collective violence. I advocate collective non-violence except to those who attempt to deny my free will and put me in a position where I have no other choice but to go to war. Note on an individual interaction level, I could be violent to another male if they deserve it.