Comments from Huey made in Wild's Depot Chat Forum:
"Also all forks are voluntary
The core release updates which signaled over of votes casted by nodes was over 90% so i assume 90% of those holders will be updating
However that is up to them. And you"
Discussion from members of Wild's Depot Research & Development team who wish to remain animus for fear of being banned by the illegal ionomy Kangaroo Court:
"Firstly, I think it’s true that Huey & the team does have 90% of the votes. The reason for that is that really, the community of Ion holders is only made up of those who are part of or follow the discord - there isn’t really any other place they communicate or congregate to my knowledge. I’ve sat on the discord chat since it begun, though I’ve only ever lurked, and no one has ever really questioned a single thing Adam or the team has suggested. There might very rarely be a bit of grumbling about the speed at which things happen, but there’s
never, or extremely rarely, any actual debate or discussion about the wider plan or direction.That’s a dangerous thing, because I think it demonstrates that this is just a community of yes-men. I don’t fully know why that is, though I have some ideas. I’d love to know your opinions. I think it’s partially that a lot of the people who are invested are inexperienced in investment full stop, or are naive. Some of the larger investors, like Korvas, for example, are clearly not the smartest people and to be totally, brutally honest, probably don’t have the critical thinking skills to come up with viable alternatives. It’s not their fault, I get that, but it means that there’s very little actual challenge to the teams plans.
MrCoins doesn’t appear to be very active any more, though he’s probably invested in a number of different projects and failure in one in reality probably won’t affect him much. The fact that he was such a strong advocate for this project at all perhaps undermines this, but I feel like he probably has enough experience of alts and investing in general to want to challenge if he desired.
This is very much a top down organisation. It’s a crypto ‘company’ being run mostly as if it’s a traditional company; there’s a lot of tension there between the idea that crypto stands for freedom, consensus, transparency and collaborative work, but
the team don’t seem to want to demonstrate much of that. If you’re invested in Ion, largely you seem to have to put up with whatever the team do. And regardless, I don’t think the community has enough skill to come up with an alternative even if it wanted to, and I don’t think it does.
I’ve rambled a bit here, but boiled down it’s three points:
1) The Ion community isn’t big enough or engaged enough to
possess the collaborative practical skill sets to challenge the plans of the team.
2) The small number of people who are part of the Ion community generally aren’t smart enough to want to challenge the teams direction, and are hostile to those that are because in classic altcoin cult fashion, that’s deemed FUD.
3) The way the team have chosen to run the project and
lack of communication doesn’t seem to encourage the cohort of investors to contribute ideas or engage in debate beyond very superficial things.
If we do a bit of root cause, we could hypothesis that perhaps the reason why there isn’t a more active, critical cohort invested is because it was an obviously crap idea in the first place, so it never attracted the sort of investors that might challenge plans to begin with."
Tiny would be a better word to use.
oops I lied.... it's every other post over the past 2.5 years you've been calling me a liar. 
