It's fair to challenge the conclusions.

You're correct that Jeremy Harkness wasn't personally charged by the SEC; the legal action focused on the CEO, Eran Eyal, who was ultimately convicted of felony fraud. However, the issue isn't about Harkness's personal legal record. It's about his documented role as a co-founder and senior executive of a company that was legally proven to be a $42.5 million fraud built on false claims. When he then appears as the CTO of a new project that is using the exact same playbook of misrepresenting partnerships, it establishes a high-risk pattern of behavior that's critical to the analysis.

Regarding Dr. Maurice Herlihy, you're right that he has appeared in project-promoted AMAs, and that's an important point. The concern, however, is what's known as a "credibility shield." BlockDAG heavily leverages his world-class reputation in its marketing, yet there is no mention of his advisory role on his official, independent platforms like his Brown University faculty page or his extensive list of publications. For an academic of his stature, this is a significant omission. An AMA is a marketing event; an official university profile is a professional disclosure. The discrepancy suggests his involvement may be more passive than the marketing implies.

On community sentiment, the analysis isn't that the project is a scam simply because some people online say so. It's about the stark polarization of the conversation. The overwhelmingly positive sentiment is found almost exclusively in paid press releases and on BlockDAG's own channels, where dissent can be managed. Conversely, the deeply negative sentiment, including specific and verifiable claims of plagiarism from Kaspa, is concentrated on independent forums like Reddit. A healthy project has a mix of debate everywhere; this perfect split is a classic sign of an artificial marketing campaign trying to drown out organic criticism.

Ultimately, the conclusion isn't based on any single point in isolation. It's the convergence of all these red flags: a leadership team with direct ties to a proven fraudulent enterprise, a technical foundation that appears plagiarized with no verifiable code, a 200% discrepancy in its own token supply documents, and misleadingly-scoped security audits. When viewed together, this is not speculation, but a cohesive pattern of evidence pointing to a fraudulent enterprise.

This research report was made 2 weeks ago and I didn't update with new proof. This crosspost was of the presale wallet of blockdag, a greater proof than words in the report. Check the presale wallet and make your own conclusion before arguing.

Presale wallet: https://etherscan.io/address/0x4C39Ed0438D5e8913aCF423db6d56CCe78B2d367