$ (LBRY) LBRY Credit / Odysee - In ongoing litigation with the SEC.

[Madre Muerte]

We all want youtube dead, but it'll never happen. Youtube has the monopoly, google, and decades of media on their platform. Youtube could do anything to piss off their userbase and it doesn't matter.

 

[MeltyTW]

We all want youtube dead, but it'll never happen. Youtube has the monopoly, google, and decades of media on their platform. Youtube could do anything to piss off their userbase and it doesn't matter.

well i mean they pissed off one user to the point she just went in and shot their asses.

 

[Psychic Espeon]

Disptach Xander is the main developer behind Odysee's Live Streaming.

 

[Sprate Header]

We all want youtube dead, but it'll never happen. Youtube has the monopoly, google, and decades of media on their platform. Youtube could do anything to piss off their userbase and it doesn't matter.

Tech startup isn't a YouTube killer? Say it ain't so!

 

[💗Bitchstopher Columbitch💗]

We all want youtube dead, but it'll never happen. Youtube has the monopoly, google, and decades of media on their platform. Youtube could do anything to piss off their userbase and it doesn't matter.

I mean yeah, this won't beat youtube. People actually need to pay a few cents to upload videos and that's enough to deter casual content producers. If you have some spicy things to say and a few bucks to burn it's still a place where you can upload your content though.

 

[irishAzoth]

We all want youtube dead, but it'll never happen. Youtube has the monopoly, google, and decades of media on their platform. Youtube could do anything to piss off their userbase and it doesn't matter.

careful on the doompill all monopolies come crashing down. Not saying Odysee is the killer app but its competent and decentralized.

 

[Sam Losco]

@Haru Okumura wrote up a pretty good post about Odysee paying Ralph a bunch to use their shit while he's basically spitting in their faces. They paid him a bunch of LBC to stake his username which also goes against how they say that is supposed to be community driven. He cashed it out instead.

This post will cover Ethan's activity on Odysee over the past few months, and is a follow-up on my previous posts on that subject. It is VERY long, almost 2000 words, so I've written up a digest version of the main conclusions. I'd call it a "TL;DR", but it's pretty long itself since there's so much ground to cover.

Spoiler: Digest

The totals:
• Ethan has received a total of approximately 6,356 LBC ($1366 USD) from a LBRY staff account (bG1fEEqDVepDy3AbvM8outQ3FQUu76aDot)
• Ethan has received a total of exactly 3,725 LBC ($724 USD) from a second account that looks like a LBRY staff account but isn't denoted as such in the ledger (bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf)
• Ethan has received a total of 12,610 LBC from other sources, including loyalty rewards, user view rewards, donations, and Hyperchats

The more interesting stuff:
• Ethan has a secret LBRY wallet that he used to receive a single transaction of 2004 LBC (~$470) directly from LBRY staff wallet bG1fEEqDVepDy3AbvM8outQ3FQUu76aDot, which he then cashed out using Bittrex
• Ethan has not cashed out since Bittrex closed their market, despite unstaking all of his videos a few weeks ago (i.e. all of his LBC is currently sitting unstaked and doing nothing for his channel)
• bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf has now been conclusively proven to be an account run by LBRY staff member Tom Zarebczan, making bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf an unlabeled LBRY staff account that has repeatedly sent money to Ethan
• Therefore there have been two LBRY staffers sending substantial amounts of money to Ethan, despite Odysee stating that they do not sponsor streamers
• These payments are far in excess of the highest tier of loyalty rewards
• These payments began months before Tequila Sunrise was established
• Tom has Ethan's channel stickied at the top of his own channel on his LBRY staff account
• Tom's account staked 1000 LBC on Ethan's username claim directly, effectively preventing the community from determining who should have the channel name "theralphretort"; this is in contravention to LBRY's stated policy on names being determined by user stakes and not staff fiat
• Ethan grabbed this 1000 LBC, unstaked it, and withdrew it to his primary wallet
• Odysee's Twitter account suggested they might have an exclusivity agreement with Ethan that isn't technically a sponsorship
• Ethan is now uploading his self-proclaimed “Odysee-exclusive” replays to killstream.tv first, violating any potential exclusivity agreement with LBRY staff; he even says he's not putting them on Odysee the next day as he'd originally claimed because it's too much work

All of these statements are thoroughly substantiated and the evidence can be found within the full writeup below. This is not a full enumeration of Ethan's activity on Odysee/LBRY since he's now taking steps to obfuscate his payments using secret wallets but it still covers what I believe to be most of it.

It's been a while, so to very briefly summarize what we already knew about Ethan's LBC income:
* he has two known wallet addresses, bYwaDEmBruqupqxoWYi7KkUV7iUReoFNr2 (which is his primary wallet on which he received his normal income and loyalty rewards), and bJke1hUZdNGS7c7r3xXyXBZnNngod7uKhU (which he used to create his channel / stake his username but does not use to receive any normal income or loyalty rewards).
* in addition to standard income and loyalty rewards, Ethan has received LBC from two large wallets. One of these, bG1fEEqDVepDy3AbvM8outQ3FQUu76aDot, is a designated LBRY staff wallet as denoted on the blockchain explorer:

View attachment 2204199

Site (archive)

It is the account that is often used to disburse Odysee loyalty rewards, but the amount of LBC that is being sent to Ethan far exceeds the maximum level of these rewards:

View attachment 2204388

Site (archive)

In my opinion these are probably payments being fulfilled via reward codes, but I cannot know this for sure.

The other, bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf, is one that I've hypothesized to also be a LBRY staff wallet despite it not being denoted as such. The reason for this belief is that I found an old forum post where LBRY staffer Tom Zarebczan includes this wallet address in a piece of sample code, as I discussed previously:

View attachment 2204273
View attachment 2204202

When we left off, Bittrex, the primary exchange that traded LBC, was about to sunset its LBC market. As I had expected, this major change in the LBC economy led Ethan to cash out a large amount of LBC. It also revealed some other things that required further consideration, resulting in the massive delay in getting this written and posted.

First, though, let's go over Ethan's last Bittrex cash-outs, which include the last two cash-outs he's performed with his primary wallet:

View attachment 2204191

https://explorer.lbry.com/address/bJ1zw4iEadRe8AzLVTsoMP1LrKcYFQm2z1

Here, we see the transactions of 1665 LBC (*0.235 = ~$391) and 1101 LBC (*.209 = ~$230), the last two times he cashed out with his primary wallet:

View attachment 2204192
View attachment 2204197

https://explorer.lbry.com/tx/f68b5c30f145056e3b7d6bd8654debadbc123ca88f0d6b98608d488b5f9ee11e?address=bJ1zw4iEadRe8AzLVTsoMP1LrKcYFQm2z1

https://explorer.lbry.com/tx/23b204551382b4c946f9fb67332e5f318e2270f496b96ef3b3fc67d588339dec?address=bJ1zw4iEadRe8AzLVTsoMP1LrKcYFQm2z1

You probably also noticed that there's a third deposit of 2003 LBC (*0.235 = ~$470), which is pretty interesting, since there was no associated outgoing transaction of this amount from his primary wallet. Examining the ledger reveals the reason that there's no outgoing transaction from the primary wallet - that transaction originated from a different wallet, bMxPULWNpW8JxML3mDjdgto7pskWmf9V1Z, never previously used for anything else. It does, however, have a single large inbound transaction directly from bG1fEEqDVepDy3AbvM8outQ3FQUu76aDot, the LBRY staff account that is the origin of many payments Ethan has received on his main wallet, and then a single large outbound transaction directly to Ethan's unique Bittrex deposit address:

View attachment 2204187
View attachment 2204189

https://explorer.lbry.com/tx/c2d502806070822b494e3ae06795006f709b12b3be00e7487fe1ee7af64f85cf?address=bJ1zw4iEadRe8AzLVTsoMP1LrKcYFQm2z1

https://explorer.lbry.com/address/bMxPULWNpW8JxML3mDjdgto7pskWmf9V1Z

It took a while to be able to confidently describe what this deposit represents. Bittrex allows you to manually request that your unique deposit address be changed, so it was not outside the realm of possibilities that Ethan had changed his deposit address and it had been recycled to another user. However, this possibility was firmly ruled out by his subsequent deposits to that address using his main wallet once again. Since that transaction is both preceded and followed by transactions known to be performed by Ethan using his primary wallet, the only conclusion is that Ethan Ralph used a secret alternative LBC wallet to obfuscate a payment he received from LBRY staff for an unknown reason, potentially related to hiding his income from us since he has sperged out on Twitter and during his shows over these crypto posts in the past.

Now I need to take a brief aside to go over LBRY's policy on usernames. LBRY makes a very big deal about how their user/channel names work, something I've discussed in the past. I'd just like to highlight this excerpt from their design document:

View attachment 2204215

Site (archive)

They go on and on about how the community is responsible for determining what content should be associated with which username, but then go and do this:

View attachment 2204180

https://explorer.lbry.com/tx/d10d1e437e8441e684b50567a90980c6ae9a396b843a9118fe4b3cb745ca6a51?address=bJke1hUZdNGS7c7r3xXyXBZnNngod7uKhU

Here is bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf directly staking 1000 LBC on Ethan's "theralphretort" username claim, essentially using administrative fiat to safeguard Ethan's control of that username irrespective of the community's stance on the matter. Hilariously, Ethan later unstaked the 1000 LBC and transferred it to his main wallet, where it's sitting and doing nothing (staking LBC you're holding just promotes the staked content and costs nothing, so leaving it lying around inert is an idiotic waste), so he basically spat in LBRY staff's face even after they bent their naming policy for him:

View attachment 2204174

https://explorer.lbry.com/tx/520affe9437dcb7749e8bd90b1a7aef7ddae4f49d4dbda18643fe6e3b032ad31?address=bJke1hUZdNGS7c7r3xXyXBZnNngod7uKhU

Now then, finding the secret wallet that received a direct transfer from a confirmed LBRY staff wallet and the username stake directly from a different suspected LBRY staff wallet raised the question of what other questionable behavior Ethan has gotten up to on the platform, and so I decided to figure that out too. Tequila Sunrise was about to launch, and I assumed that it would shake something loose...and I was not disappointed.

On the first day of his morning show (the one where he coped and seethed about my forum posts and then got called by an a-log and sperged out for 10 minutes straight), Ethan received a Hyperchat of 500 LBC (*0.17 = $85) from Tom Zarebczan, the LBRY staffer who wrote the documentation that included the wallet address bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf. Luckily, this was far and away the largest donation he received at that time, so its corresponding entry in the ledger was very obvious:

View attachment 2204154

https://explorer.lbry.com/tx/e95cbf0bb57ca1686f0103ab04d2fa67c0878fa93b43b3a98c1cdfc8f4123384?address=bYwaDEmBruqupqxoWYi7KkUV7iUReoFNr2

Well, as it turns out, the wallet Tom Hyperchatted the 500 LBC from was the by-now-familiar bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf, conclusively demonstrating that it is, indeed, his account, and is therefore an unmarked LBRY staff account that has been used to repeatedly contribute LBC to Ethan over the past several months. He made several additional Hyperchats over the next few days, all from bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf. Furthermore, examining the staked content associated with bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf reveals that it is associated with the Odysee account "thomas.zarebczan":

View attachment 2204172

LBRY Block Explorer • Claim • espanol

When you visit Tom's Odysee page, you are immediately greeted with this:

View attachment 2204158

Profile (archive)

Yes, that is a LBRY staffer with Ethan Ralph's channel stickied at the top of his own channel.

This is all quite strange in light of Odysee's statement that they do not sponsor streamers:

View attachment 2204249

Tweet (archive)

Unfortunately for Odysee, their support of Ethan is not reciprocated. As of May 25th, Ethan has begun uploading his "Odysee-exclusive" Tequila Sunrise replays to killstream.tv instead of odysee.com, spurning the very individuals who have been constantly bending their own rules to pay him:

View attachment 2204167

Tweet (archive)

In fact, on today's (May 26th's) episode of Tequila Sunrise, Ethan responded to a question about replays by stating that he had originally planned to upload them to Odysee a day after he put them on killstream.tv, but that this was too much work and that now he's only going to do it on the weekends. This is not the Odysee exclusivity he has repeatedly touted and is even continuing to advertise on the streams themselves:

View attachment 2204148

"Exclusively on Odysee" (screenshot from today)


View attachment 2204151

Tweet (archive)

(It's still not up, in keeping with what he stated today)

Odysee eventually clarified that while they stated they don't sponsor streamers, they are willing to offer some funding for streamers who leave all other platforms in favor of Odysee:

View attachment 2204150

Tweet (archive)

Ethan has not only not done this, but is now doing the exact opposite, taking full advantage of a new platform's desire to grow as a Youtube competitor. It seems like Odysee is in the process of learning the lesson that every other platform Ethan has ever touched eventually came to know:

You're gonna carry that gunt.

 

[Sam Losco]

Upbit has flagged LBC for investigation (among many others).

https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/largest-korean-exchange-upbit-goes-on-a-delisting-spree-ahead-of-new-regulation/

Business and team competency, public disclosure of information and communication, technical competence, and global liquidity for investor protection are the reasons given by the exchange for the investment warning.

 

[Sam Losco]

Upbit removed LBC so bye bye Korean market.

Also, @Haru Okumura has another deep dive into LBC posted, detailing how corrupt they are:

"We have a collaborative relationship with the people that run [Odysee]." - Ethan Ralph, June 21st, the Killstream

When he said that sentence last night, I posed a question in chat: "what did he mean by this?". The question was rhetorical; I knew exactly what he meant by it, and you're about to, too.

Welcome to LBRY Post 2.

Spoiler: Summary

-Tom Zarebczan used LBRY staff LBC to outbid an existing user for channel name "theralphretort" on Ethan's behalf back on January 28th, 2021
-Tom has maintained this bid via a 1000 LBC support on Ethan's claim that remains active to this very day
-This transaction was performed in a way that is almost untrackable and had evaded my notice until very recently
-This action directly violates the parameters for username allocation outlined in LBRY's formal whitepaper
-The transaction was made months before Ethan started posting anything to Odysee and predated their livestreaming feature by even longer (i.e. this could not have been some sort of payment for Tequila Sunrise)
-Tom has at least one additional unlabeled staff account that is contributing to Ethan's username stake
-Tom himself is currently in charge of labeling LBRY staff accounts in the blockchain explorer, and has been since 2018

Since my last post on this subject caught us up to the present, I'm going to get straight to the point: new information has come into my possession that shows that Tom has been working with Ethan for months to subvert LBRY's channel name allocation process in contravention of LBRY Inc's policies, and the evidence of this fact is encoded directly into the blockchain's metadata as visible through their own web API.

The crux of this post rests with LBRY's policy on naming accounts. Therefore, to briefly recap and expand upon a few relevant points that I discussed before: LBRY allocates usernames in an unusual manner. Multiple accounts can have the same name, and all names have an alphanumeric suffix added to the end of them upon registration. Users stake LBC on their claim to their username, and whoever has the most LBC staked gains temporary access to the short and convenient form of that username without any suffix. All channel names are always subject to an ongoing auction and can change hands at any time based on the current stakes (as we've seen with @thegatorgamer in recent weeks - an unknown party and Shannon Gaines have outbid each other on that channel name several times each).

As noted last time, LBRY makes a big deal about this system, placing a heavy and repeated emphasis on the fact that usernames are allocated based on the consensus of the LBRY/Odysee community as measured by their financial investment. On Odysee, you the viewer quite literally put your money where your mouth is in determining who gets what username. As discussed in the previous post, LBRY staff themselves repeatedly state that it is up to the users, not any central authority, to determine how these names are controlled.

Indeed, this system is so central to LBRY's ethos and protocols that it is directly referenced in the LBRY whitepaper itself:

View attachment 2285995
View attachment 2285996

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9126007

That doesn't leave much room for ambiguity, does it?

(a whitepaper is a formal document outlining the various attributes of a blockchain-related ecosystem and/or cryptocurrency)

As I covered in my last post, Tom had placed a 1000 LBC tip on Ethan's username claim on May 21st, 2021, using his unlabeled staff account (which is still unlabeled at the time of this posting), essentially putting his thumb on the scale in determining who gets to hold "theralphretort" on Odysee in contravention of their stated policy. Of course, Ethan being Ethan, he almost immediately removed the tip and tucked it right into his pockets, but the act remained questionable at best.

As it turns out, though, Tom has done FAR worse than that, and has been doing it for far longer than I could have imagined.

At the beginning of the year, when Odysee was being promoted as the new front-end for the LBRY ecosystem, the channel name "theralphretort" was held by another user...Ethan himself had subsequently registered for the site but was not yet using it for anything. Ethan had nothing staked on his claim to "theralphretort", whereas the other user had 0.02 LBC staked on HIS claim, so the username was allocated to the other user. He used it to post the infamous Xander seethe video, which is still visible on his channel today if you access it with the full suffix:

View attachment 2285991
View attachment 2285990

https://odysee.com/@theralphretort:e5b5caa8afcbb08acdfabcea67464c711dcbcc62

In accordance with Odysee's username policy as outlined in their whitepaper and on their website, the community had spoken, and it had identified this user as "theralphretort": a reasonable conclusion, since that person registered the name first, bid more LBC on it than Ethan, and actually posted content on it (Ethan had 0 pieces of content on Odysee until February 25th):

View attachment 2285984
View attachment 2285985

Unfortunately, LBRY staffer Tom Zarebczan decided that these rules did not apply to Ethan Ralph, and on January 28th he personally placed a 1000 LBC support onto Ethan's claim on "theralphretort", essentially seizing the short form of this username for Ethan. This is NOT the 1000 LBC tip that I discussed in my previous post, but a separate and far more insidious support.

Supports and tips are two very distinct ways of bolstering a claim on Odysee. Both use LBC to augment a claim, but whereas tips involve sending the LBC to the claimant's wallet, supports do not actually give away any of the LBC, merely add it onto the claim temporarily until rescinded. I call supports more insidious in this context because they never actually interact with the claimant's wallet, making them almost impossible to track with the blockchain explorer or even know about unless you have a meticulous attention to detail.

Specifically, I'd had a weird feeling about Ethan's username claim for some time, but was unable to substantiate my belief that it was objectively suspicious until a few weeks ago. Ethan has repeatedly cashed out his entire stock of LBC, but every time he's done so, his username claim total has never dipped below 1000 LBC, even when all of his accounts combined did not hold 1000 LBC post-liquidation. Even when he dumped absolutely everything prior to Binance closing their LBC market, withdrawing even from his secret wallet, his username's support dipped down to, but never dropped below, 1000. I therefore had a high index of suspicion about this specific number, since it meant either Ethan had a second secret wallet or there was another party involved.

Here are some archives of his total username stake over the past few months, showing the trend I have just described:

March 16th:

View attachment 2285966

https://archive.md/quhad

March 30th:

View attachment 2285969

https://archive.md/6Qrys

April 3rd:

View attachment 2285972

https://archive.md/rmq3n

April 8th:

View attachment 2285975

https://archive.md/PUmcS

April 11th:

View attachment 2285977

https://archive.md/jsN2P

May 10th:

View attachment 2285979

https://archive.md/GjEKC

June 19th:

View attachment 2285981

https://archive.md/h80Sj

As you can see, it dips as low as 1006 LBC, but never quite gets below that basement level. Thus, the number 1000 was in my mind as I mulled over this mystery.

Tom actively guntguarding via malicious DMCA interpretation and seething about my forum posts on Twitter immediately made me suspect that he was more directly involved with Ethan than I'd originally thought, and it wasn't too hard to investigate that hypothesis since I'd already done the work of finding his primary wallet ID. Lo and behold, by examining the metadata of Ethan's username claim through LBRY's Chainquery SQL API, I was able to determine the transaction hash of the first LBC ever staked on Ethan's username claim, 3cad7bde031b5c05c2bbbf76920ac12ab73f4402c3a8727873dd52bff28bfd88:

View attachment 2285962

(Archive)

Sure enough, that first transaction was for exactly 1000 LBC; however, the SQL API itself didn't output enough information to understand the nature of that claim. It could have just been a coincidence, but thanks to my previous work with the blockchain explorer, it was instantly clear that I was right: this transaction, 3cad7bde031b5c05c2bbbf76920ac12ab73f4402c3a8727873dd52bff28bfd88, was a 1000 LBC support made by bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf, known wallet address of Tom Zarebczan:

View attachment 2285960

https://explorer.lbry.com/tx/3cad7bde031b5c05c2bbbf76920ac12ab73f4402c3a8727873dd52bff28bfd88

(Here, the ledger shows Tom transferring the LBC to himself, which is the notation it uses to describe a revokable support; a tip instead shows it being transferred to the wallet associated with the claimant's username claim)

Furthermore, if you note the block height of this transaction, you see that it is 900589. Looking through Tom's entire transaction history, it is clear that this transaction is one of only two from his wallet that is part of block 900589:

View attachment 2285958

(Archive)

What is the other transaction Tom made as part of this block? A 100 LBC tip to Ethan's original wallet, bJke1hUZdNGS7c7r3xXyXBZnNngod7uKhU:

View attachment 2285954

https://explorer.lbry.com/tx/b703f41361916da28daa5fe9d74ebcd57ef304080538af8bfa8d0b702ba1ed45

This just so happens to be the transaction directly below the 1000 LBC support in the SQL table:

View attachment 2285953

Taken together, this is conclusive, indisputable proof that Tom took "theralphretort" away from a legitimate active user and hand-delivered it to Ethan using his staff account.

And he did it while the state was still actively prosecuting Ethan Ralph for revenge pornography, weeks before the case was even transferred to the family court.

Worse still, the 1000 LBC support transaction is flagged as "unspent", meaning that it is still active to this day. Yes, that's right, Tom is actively and continuously manipulating the allocation of the channel name "theralphretort" using LBRY's institutional funds in direct contravention of their own policy to leave such decisions to the community.

View attachment 2285952

Perhaps most strange is the fact that all of this was done several months prior to the Odysee livestreaming beta, meaning that LBRY was getting absolutely nothing in return for their "investment", if they even knew what Tom was up to at all.

And it gets even worse. While investigating this transaction, something else became apparent to me: there is a second LBRY wallet, bUfk4BTi34sFh96LhvyPk5wtyxHXcCp1KL, that is contributing 1 LBC to the 1000 LBC support (with 999 coming from Tom's known account, bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf). This wallet also has an Odysee account associated with it:

View attachment 2285933
View attachment 2285944
View attachment 2285947

LBRY Block Explorer • Address bUfk4BTi34sFh96LhvyPk5wtyxHXcCp1KL

https://explorer.lbry.com/claims/4a3ddf64575bccb1cfc7bc1d648bd1618e858ed3

Profile (archive)

This name has been changed, however, and used to be "Tom+laptop". It is therefore a second account belonging to Tom Zarebczan, and it is also not tagged as a LBRY staff account. This trend prompted me to investigate a little bit into the code of the blockchain explorer in hopes that I could find out who was in charge of determining which accounts get tagged as LBRY staff wallets, and the results may surprise you:

View attachment 2285927

Site (archive)

Or, you know, not.

I then investigated further, checking back to see how Tom managed to end up with this role. As it turns out, back in 2018 the CEO of Odysee, Jeremy Kauffman, had instructed his staff to add a feature to the blockchain explorer so that it would denote which accounts belonged to LBRY Inc for the purpose of transparency, a value that the directors of LBRY Inc hold in high regard:

View attachment 2285896

Site (archive)

View attachment 2285897
View attachment 2285898

Site (archive)

As soon as this request was made, Tom enthusiastically jumped in and volunteered himself for this role. It seems like nobody objected, and when you look through the commit history, all but the first commit updating the list of LBRY Inc's wallets were made by Tom:

View attachment 2285917
View attachment 2285918
View attachment 2285919
View attachment 2285920
View attachment 2285921

Site (archive) / Site (archive) / Site (archive)

As an employee of LBRY Inc, Tom's staff account is an account that belongs to LBRY Inc, and yet he has not seen fit to include it in the list despite its prominent place on the rich list. Now, to be fair to Tom, the bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf wallet did not exist back when he made these statements about the list being complete, so it seemed possible that the labeling of staff wallets had simply gotten backlogged and was no longer being updated...until I realized that the most recent update was dated February 2021, 11 months after the creation of bHi3b7diCyKSiCNvKSNQsMnbmvwS2MV7Sf in March of 2020, yet it's still not on there.

Between all of this, Tom's status as a documented viewer and fan of the Killstream, and his decision to personally involve himself in acting on Ethan's behalf in responding to Ethan's improperly filed DMCAs in a manner far exceeding what is required by law even for correctly filed notices, it is clear that Tom has an ongoing conflict of interest that precludes his impartiality in any matter concerning Ethan Ralph.

In my previous post, I stated that LBRY was about to learn what it was like to carry that gunt...but I was wrong.

They already know exactly what it's like to carry that gunt.

After all, they've been doing it for 145 days.