Leicester

And somebody said, yeah, that's because the guy's taking kickbacks.

Well, you can't prove it.

But if any of what's being redirected is going to him or to a wallet he controls, yes, that would qualify as a kickback.

In this case for safe moon, it turned out that one person controlled access to all of those wallets.

So it's a centralization issue with reserved, with respect to these wallet addresses.

And if they own the wallets as a safe move, again, if they own the wallets, that means that you're basically paying them.

If you're doing anything where you're doing buys and sells to a wallet, that's controlled by an individual.

That's not decentralization.

Right?

And so then the risk is that somebody could dump off the project on these.

When you have a wallet, then goes back to what I said.

If you have a wallet that you create, SafeMoon wallet still exists.

Okay.

It did.

It did launch.

It did what it's doing.

But by the time it got to that point, the value of the project was in the crapper.

So at that point, what is the real differentiation between safe moon wallet and say trust wallet?

There really isn't trust wallets actively developed against trust.

Wallet does not have any person behind it.