In fairness he did do the other reviews with some objectivity, and I have heard some BTC developers like Peter Todd have also expressed dislike on how the IOTA developers have tried to hide some things to the public. I didnt get into the details but it was said that IOTA is centralized.
Anyhow, I read your post history and you are close with the Monero developers. Ask them about IOTA.
I suppose Riccardo Spagni would also disapprove in some things about IOTA. If tangles and dags are to be used and tested, its better to do it off-chain like what Burst is attempting and keep the base blockchain "pure".
Things wrong with this post
1. Appeal to authority
2. Bitcoin is centralized, so Todd should look to his own house--note he also shit on Monero in its early stages and has since changed his tune. Nor should we forget that he has vested interest.
3. Monero community memebers were the ones who put IOTA in front of me (thank you). Also, Fluffy, should apply the same logic to early "No GUI" Monero as it had no fool proof security and mere difficultness kept noobs away so they couldn't harm themselves--same applies for early Bitcoin as it had no seed generator--can't recall if Monero had a seed generator in it's CLI days, but that doesn't negate the fact it was unusable for most speculators). What's missing here is the acknowledgement that the wallet and network are secure and no testnet was needed. Sure, only offering a GUI would have alienated noobs and kept them away, but the IOTA Devs stated very clearly that they weren't going to make the wallet foolproof and that it would only be barebones--I guess some speculators failed to grasp that this meant, "Be your own bank." Even better was there was no plan to release a wallet at all, but the community was so adamant about getting one that Devs gave in--this is a case of it being better if they had never listened to the community as the Dev's instinct to never take on the hassle of any wallet development was correct.
Of course we can play backseat dev after the results are known--where were all these concerns before it happend? Oddly, I can't find a warning from anyone? It's like no one could have forseen noobs trusting their seeds with random dudes on the internet. Pretty sure no one has really examined the Dunning Kruger level of the average crypto speculator--if they did, they'd probably pull all the money from the market and wait for a healthy correction as we sort out the projects that actually can achieve their aims from vaporware and legacy coins that hang their hat on network effects while bringing nothing useful to the table.
4. Hyping Burst at the end--way to show what you are all about, Concern Troll.
I get it, the cryptoidiocricy jumped on a story and made the most of it, but please stop repeating it like you don't know any better--or maybe you really are that dumb. Also, there was never a retraction, except for the news-site that printed that lie and quickly retracted it when the Foundation pulled out their lawyers--maybe you need to learn how to fact check.
