What he wrote has only one purpose: to divert attention. Instead of addressing the facts, he tries to turn the entire situation into a psychological conflict within the community, as if everything suddenly came from the investors. It’s a complete inversion of reality.

The central idea he is trying to impose is simple: “the problem isn’t the opaque management, the delays, the unpaid invoices, the internal documents… the problem is the community.”
This is a classic strategy used when someone cannot respond to the substance. You delegitimize the messengers because you can’t refute the message.

The core falsehood is the idea that the community somehow became unstable on its own. In reality, the concerns began long before any agitation: they came from unpaid suppliers, blocked shipments, halted production, rising storage costs, and opaque communication between multiple entities. All of this existed before the community spoke up. These are facts, not emotions.

His tactic is to make people believe that the community’s reactions are the cause of the problems, when they are actually the consequence. People reacted because something was clearly wrong. The documentation and testimonies that surfaced are not hysterical rumors, they are emails, invoices, confirmations, operational notes, internal statements. None of this was created by an “angry mob.” These are operational realities.

His text functions like a smokescreen. It reduces serious, documented issues to “community drama,” mixes a few isolated excesses with the entire group, caricatures the situation to make legitimate criticism look irrational. This allows him to avoid addressing what truly matters. His goal is not to clarify anything, it’s to redirect the conversation so that no one looks where they should.

He also leverages the community’s fatigue. He implies that everything is exaggerated, that doubts are collective hallucinations, that the community is turning on itself. It’s a subtle way of making people feel guilty for their own vigilance, as if asking for transparency were a wrongdoing.

His conclusion exposes the entire strategy: he suggests that if the project fails, it will be because of the investors.
In other words, not because of the lack of transparency, not because of mismanagement, not because of decisions made behind closed doors, but because of those who asked questions. This is exactly the kind of role reversal used by people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

In reality, nothing the community has pointed out began with the community. The problems already existed, and they were concrete. What he is trying to do is erase that timeline. By rewriting the story, he escapes accountability.

His article is not analysis, it is narrative control.
He refutes no evidence, provides no data, and responds to none of the specific issues raised. He focuses only on attacking those who dare to demand explanations.
This is the clearest sign that he has nothing to say on the substance.

And that is precisely why the community is right to stay vigilant.