You're playing semantic games, @x-veritas. Her agreement with the notion is an endorsement of the statement, no matter how much you try to creatively reinterpret what was said. It's not an inference - concurrence with the statement on Lynette's part, however, is. Basic Aristotelian logic, buddy.

Yet I would expect nothing less from a defender of a woman who utilizes logical fallacies frequently to prove her case. Here are some of Lynette's favorites:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

Lynette already made a fool of herself when she tried to associate bitcoin in some direct fashion with ACChain simply because bitcoin was accepted for token sales and doubled down when she built a conspiracy from thin air based solely on her ignorance of why ICOs are seldom available to American customers (i.e., fears of SEC regulation, not some nefarious plot).

She continues to do so every time she claims ACChain is "tied to the SDR" when it is not backed by any form of SDR bond, including the retail-available M-SDR, nor is it affiliated in any way with the IMF or PBOC. ANYONE can "denominate" value in SDRs, as Louis Cammarosano @smaulgld so succinctly demonstrates:

https://smaulgld.com/smaulgld-sdr-denominated-donation/

These are demonstrable examples of how Lynette does not understand this technology; they are not fantasies about how the NSA or BIS maybe, sort of, could have released an open-source, voluntary protocol to "enslave humanity." Even on its face this is a silly notion.

But this is how Lynette operates: Taking a sound thesis with verifiable documentation and laying atop it baseless speculation. Her assertion that the Equifax breach was somehow a digital false flag to justify blockchain-based credit services is another recent example of such palagorisms being spun as fact. Zero evidence for the claim, zero historical context (like the high-profile TRW credit rating breach of the 90s), yet people begin repeating it as though it were fact.

Furthermore, just because you link to technical documents that Lynette does not understand, with zero context, does not grant you the privilege of understanding. Lynette lacks a fundamental grasp not of blockchain generally, but of what plain Jane databases are and are not capable of:

Notice how that NSA paper (if you actually read it instead of just parroting it mindlessly) assumes that a centralized entity still maintains control over the cryptographic proofs? It has far more in common with Wei Dai's b-money or Adam Back's HashCash than Bitcoin proper. This is built on the research of the early cypherpunks, who were decidedly NOT NSA/CIA/GCHQ/Banker complicit and predate the "How to Make a Mint" paper by nearly a decade. Why is none of this context given by either Sean or Lynette? Because both are playing with a half a deck of cards.

https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/crypto/cypherpunks/may-virtual-comm.html

Yes, there are plenty of nefarious uses for permissioned, closed-source blockchains, as there already are for permissioned, closed-source databases. Yes, multinational and Globalist entities will try and use this technology to their advantage. No, not every open-source, permissionless blockchain is some beta test for a cashless society. If anything, they serve as a viable alternative to genuine, provable beta tests for such a sagacious plot, like ApplePay and its facial recognition/biometric verification.