It was about how the team communicated to the community touting asic resistance the whole time (which ultimately drew in a lot of supporters and people to buy the coin because of that)
Communication - yes could have been better and earlier. They should take the criticism and improve that on that.
Lol, that's the biggest understatement since the black knight lost both his arms in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
But fooling investors?
When a project team implies it will do one thing then suddenly does the opposite it is reasonable to think that many will be disappointed, including investors. And I can't help but note that I consider myself more of an investor in DERO, rather than a miner, since I stopped mining back in April and have instead showed my support by being a net-buyer of DERO on the open market.
Asic resistance per se is not a goal, only for miners who want to protect their investments. What Asic resistance stands for in the mind of investors is security of the network from attacks by concentrated hash power. As Dero team has said, many Asic resistant networks now have hidden Asics, which is a great danger and fooling investors who think they buy security.
I previously stated in this thread that I came to agree with the decision to stick with CN for PoW, but now I'm once again not so sure this was the correct decision, but for a different reason: what is going to happen to DERO's network when CN ASICs start failing and can't be replaced simply because there aren't any replacements? *If* DERO grows to the market cap of Monero then ASIC manufacturers will have incentive to make new generations (or batches, anyway) of CN miners, but as of now they certainly don't have any reason to continue producing them.
It would be a terrible irony if the decision that alienated CPU/GPU miners in the name of network security ended up making DERO totally dependent on a shrinking pool of ASIC miners that, ahem, undermines security.
