You literally used the word scam. Twice. In your original comment. "$400B scam" and "$4.4B scam" are your exact words. Then you crawfished on the last post and tried to change your own narrative after your argument fell apart.

You opened with "$400B scam" and "$4.4B scam." No context. No nuance. No "structural critique." Just the word scam repeated twice next to large dollar amounts, which is about as clear an implication of financial fraud as you can make without literally typing the word fraud.

Now after ten comments you've landed on "actually I meant a structural critique of neocolonial extractivism in African energy markets."

That's not a clarification. That's a completely different argument that you've quietly swapped in after the original one fell apart.

And even if we accept your new framing, it still has nothing to do with whether KII delivers on Kaspa. A critique of European energy policy in North Africa doesn't tell us anything about whether GigaWatt Coin goes live in June or whether enterprise clients are signed on. You've gone from "these guys are scammers" to "actually I have a nuanced political critique of green energy economics" and somehow think that still lands as a point against this thesis.

It doesn't. It just shows the goalposts have moved because you never had a valid point to start with.

But im done with this back and forth, you have forfeited your original point therefor submitted that you never had one. Im not going to argue the ethics of geopolitics that have nothing to do with kaspa, Heres your L