Hey @VaderResearch, I have no interest in having drama with you. But the issue is that you continue to post ratings that either lack substance or include incorrect information and conclusions. I corrected you publicly because you shared misinformation and poorly researched conclusions publicly, despite me having already explained everything to you in detail. If you post research results publicly, expect public reactions. Just to recap: I didn’t criticize or complain about the rating itself. not at all. I simply shared the research process and pointed out the many incorrect claims in your posts. That’s it. Nothing more. You called my statement now “sneaky, dishonest, overdramatic.” Can you point me to the parts that justify those labels? I can’t find them. I laid out the facts about your research process and highlighted what was inaccurate in your post. Regarding the 1% airdrop and your vesting question: I described exactly what happened. These are all facts. I simply shared the full research process so people could understand how it works. And honestly, it felt like a red flag to me. Whether you start with the vesting question or with “Are you open to allocating 1%” it doesn’t change the core issue: you ask this during your research process. Put yourself in the shoes of a project team. How many genuinely think, “1% of our tokens for one twitter space is a good deal”? And how many feel pressured to say yes simply because of your influence? Let’s be real: your project and business model is based on these airdrops, just like it’s based on Virgen points. The pitch is: stake $VADER to get airdrops and Virgen points. So of course you expect - or at least hope - that many projects will agree. That’s fine. Anyone can choose their own business model and as I mentioned to you in my first statement you've earned your position and I respect that. But don’t blur the line between research and business to avoid any conflict of interest. I don’t think it’s right to mix “objective” project evaluations and public ratings with airdrop requests—especially when the research itself is rushed and inaccurate. If you don’t have time to do proper research, then don’t publish ratings while holding this level of influence. If you don’t want to change your business model, then simply leave out public research results and ratings and host the spaces. Let users form their own opinion.

$GEE $GEE $GEE baby baby

app.virtuals.io/geneses/501 - 1% of GodeyeAI (10 million $GEE) from @GodeyeInsight will be airdropped to all stakers of $TIAN who staked at asktian.com/wallet - stakers will receive $GEE based on their resonance score at snapshot time of @AskTianAI’s divination

Please explain why $GEE says to submit the form with the post link multiple times if they already track posts with mentions?