I don’t think this phrase means what you think it means; I do in fact put my money where my mouth is.

My mouth is clearly in the “blockchain-based privacy projects are very likely to be either misguided or outright scams, and this particular project has red flags all over” area. And so my money is on “I need to use tools that actually work; there is low likelihood that this project is such a tool; therefore I shall not waste my time on it”.

Demanding that I spent hours analyzing a project that has so many red flags just because you happen do disagree with me is somewhat weird. I’ve spent enough time having this conversation at all, but hey, that’s good entertainment value!

It’s not on me to disprove random project’s exorbitant claims (“prevents traffic analysis by an adversary capable of watching the entire network, including the NSA”). It’s on the project in question to prove them.

So far I have not seen such proof. I have, on the other hand, seen quite a lot of things that suggest that these claims might, in fact, be unsubstantiated.

I could retort by saying: prove to me that the project’s claims are true, “instead of going hurr durr it’s great I love it” (nice veiled ad hominem there, by the way). But I won’t, even though so far I have arguably provided more concrete reasons why I see this project as problematic than you did for your positive take on it.

Telling persons why they’ve decided to use tokens and not rely on pure altruism is not token hyping.

When the rubber hits the road, “using tokens” in this case means simply relying on greed. And relying on greed instead of altruism for something as fundamental as privacy is very telling. It’s not going to end well.