Leicester

And when that happens,

It allows them to essentially control what's going on.

Now, in that case, they weren't doing it for malicious reasons.

They were doing it to use the value of Monero to enrich their own token product.

And they tried to Monero and said, we're just showing you we can do this because you're compromised, right?

Kind of like an ethical hacker, but they were trying to enrich themselves at the same time because it allowed them to influence the price of Monero by doing that.

So that's a form of civil attack.

That's easy to understand how many node operators do single actors control, or you have a bunch of malicious actors in collusion with each other to do the same influence.

This is the same negative impact.

now if you think about what i just said there a number of different malicious actors running notes let's make up a scenario and again any sort of similarity or connection to real world events or entities is purely speculative and not real right but let's make up some scenarios let's say you have an entity formed as an llc

that creates a Dow and I'll pick a United state at random, let's say Wyoming.

Right.

And they create, or they plan to create no, at least one node that they're going to run nodes.

And you have another entity, let's say it's formed in, I don't know, I'll pick a random country now at this point, right?

South Africa, you know, or Dubai or one of these random countries, let's just assume you have a world where node operators in these different areas of random kinds are in collusion.

And the collusion is to make sure that the value of said token for said chain is controlled.

Depending on how diverse that gets, it could create essentially a liquidity drain on the backend, whether or not they have access to the wallets directly,

whether or not they have access to, they could say lock liquidity.

They could do all those things that you see, but because they control ultimately control the network.

And because they're in collusion, they're working together.