Get unlimited access Open in app

Jstodd Following

Oct 26, 2021 · 13 min read · Listen

Save

My Strongly Worded 1-Star Review of

Avalanche (AVAX), by a former supporter.
See article here: https://read.cash/@J-Stodd/why-avalanche-avax-is-a-centralized-
and-fraudulent-scam-2b77662e

Im going to rewrite my article here for those who cant see the read.cash link:

Why Avalanche (AVAX) is a Centralized and Fraudulent Scam.

Im going to say right now it hurts to write this article, and I don't do it with pleasure. I
do it because it needs to be done. And it sucks. But its time to sever all ties emotionally
and otherwise with this project, and warn all newcomers about it.
For more context this is my previous article on the subject, when my faith in AVAX first
began to waver. It hurts to write all of this because I was so excited about this project
when it first came out, I worked so hard to build it up and spread the good word about
it, and its dreamcrushing to come to the conclusion that ethically and morally I can no
longer be a part of it.
To summarize what Im going to cover in this article:

Avax Validators not receiving their Avax rewards

Censorship on the official Avalanche Hub forum

Lies from the AvaLabs team about building a trustless bridge

Lies on the subject of burning fees

More lies and misleading claims from the AvaLabs team on transaction fees

Emin Gun Sirer wasnt even a Bitcoin believer in the early days

Another look at the centralized coin distribution with the advantage of both good
 g g
retrospect and having had enough time to see things Get
playunlimited
out access Open in app

I hope you make it to the end of the article. I know most probably wont. But if you are
on the fence about AVAX, I think this is important information. At least hear me out on
my side of the story.

Avax Validators Not Receiving Their Rightfully Earned Staking Rewards

It all started with this tweet by Collin Cusce, ex-member of AvaLabs and techie. Im
imagining this thread was inspired by a wave of validators complaining they never
received their rewards, because the very next day I too ran into the same problem.
https://archive.md/hQ4VI

As you see people in Avalanche are now making the claim that you shouldn’t be able to
expect to receive your validator rewards unless you have "100% uptime". But this isnt
really possible to achieve on a practical level, and its not what was advertised
whatsoever. Whats currently being advertised is that you need at least 80% uptime.

But this isn’t the end of the story. This time last year, it wasnt "at least 80%" uptime that
was required. It was 60%. They changed it, increased it by a whole 20%. This massively
increased the risk of monetary loss for all of the validators who already staked and ran
into technical hurdles. 80% uptime is not what I and other OG validators agreed and
 Get unlimited access Open in app

consented to, it was changed after we staked, which is fraud. You can see upset
validators commenting on this issue here: https://archive.md/h2J7G
 Get unlimited access Open in app

Proof of these contrasting requirements: https://archive.md/wip/NwbuP

https://archive.md/wip/FUPlC

Aside from fraudulently changing the 60% uptime requirements to 80% without
discussion, a governance proposal, a vote, or even so much as a forewarning on all
those who were locked into the system and did not consent to it, I personally lost all of
my validator rewards despite having over 85% uptime. This is also despite using a
Get unlimited access Open in app

script provided by an official AvaLabs member, so my node should have had no

problems to begin with unless their script was bugged.
 Get unlimited access Open in app

Thats thousands I’ve lost for no good reason. Sweat, blood, and tears went into that. The
opportunity cost incurred by having to wait a whole year, the countless hours I poured
into researching, troubleshooting, and updating my node, the monetary risk i took in
buying Avax to stake it, the money I paid my cloud service provider, the literal work I
did for the Avalanche network... All for absolutely nothing. Words don’t describe the
devastation here.

The short story here is that even IF you have enough uptime, you can still lose 100% of
your Avalanche rewards, and AvaLabs centrally and willy-nilly changes the
requirements for that without warning or explanation, spontaneously, and therefore
you cannot properly assess the risks of long-term staking. These are serious concerns to
take very seriously if you ever decide to stake Avalanche.

Censorship on the Avalanche Hub Forum

I ranked in the top five of participants in the Avalanche Hub website (formerly known
as AvaHub). I wrote dozens of articles, infographics, and onboarded a ton of new
people. I even gave away thousands of dollars in AVAX.

Over night I saw I was locked out of my account. It required a Google 2FA but I never
set up a Google 2FA. I assumed someone would fix it so I reached out to AvaLabs then I
waited. But 4 months or so go by and Im still locked out. So I create a new account so I
can go back in and see whats going on, and to my shock and dismay, all my reputation
was wiped to zero.
 Get unlimited access Open in app

I thought this act of censorship deserved to be on this list because its a huge slap in the
face to all the work ive done, my amicability and willingness to peacefully go our
separate ways, and its a huge slap in the face to fairness and the reliability of AvaLabs'
promises.

If you decide to ever invest your time and energy into Avalanche Hub, keep in mind
that everything you worked for can be ripped away from you at any moment.

Lies From The Avalanche Team About Building A Trustless Bridge

 Get unlimited access Open in app

This incident in particular struck a bitter chord with me, because i was so extremely
enthusiastic and excited for it. Kevin Sekniqi on Twitter showcased, on the official
Avalanche Wallet, moving "trustless" BTC and ETH on and off the wallet. He said this
technology was being tested and would soon be deployed on Avalanche.

Later on when AvaLabs released its "new and improved" bridge, Kevin was talking
about how it was trustless: https://archive.md/7pgN7
According to the officially released article, this bridge uses a "consortium of trusted
partners" which requires "agreement from 3 out of 4 wardens". Does that sound
trustless to you? Yeah, me neither.

Lies On The Subject of Burning Fees

In section 5.1 of the Avalanche token whitepaper, the role of fee burning is as follows:

"Staker Fees. Unlike other protocols that pay all fees to the elected leader, such as in
Bitcoin, in Avalanche fees are simply burned. Therefore, payment is global and for the good
of the entire ecosystem. Fee burning increases scarcity of tokens in the system. The minting
of the entire ecosystem. Fee burning increases scarcity of tokens in the system. The minting
Get unlimited access Open in app

process offsets the transaction fee burning, therefore there is no danger of the system
grinding to a long term halt due to gradual destruction of coins."

This was confirmed here: https://archive.md/wip/2VzSX

 Get unlimited access Open in app

But Emin Gun Sirer is telling us a different story.

This seems to be a classic case of "Having Your Cake and Eating it Too". Fees on
Avalanche are simultaneously "burned forever" and will likely be "reminted to pay
validators". If any of this is to be believed, then the conclusion to be drawn is that
Avalanche has centrally planned monetary policy by AvaLabs, and is therefore not
fundamentally decentralized on the monetary level.
These kind of lies from Emin Gun Sirer are not a first either. Here he claims that
Avalanche "invented" fee burning: https://archive.md/Wnx6k

More Lies and Misleading Claims From the AvaLabs Team on Transaction Fees
More Lies and Misleading Claims From the AvaLabs Team on Transaction Fees
Get unlimited access Open in app

Avalanche has been advertised as a "low-fee" chain since it's inception, which really is
simply not true. But aside from this, the people in AvaLabs including Emin Gun Sirer
have gone as far to make these lies way more obvious. See here as he claims that Avax
is the cheapest chain: https://archive.md/OmW7N
Get unlimited access Open in app
 Get unlimited access Open in app

In reality, X-Chain transfers cost 0.001 avax or about $0.07, and C-Chain transfers cost
about 0.015 AVAX or $0.60, making the X-Chain almost 100x more expensive to use
than Bitcoin Cash, and the C-Chain between 10x-50x more expensive to use than
SmartBCH. The only thing that Avax is cheaper than is BTC and ETH, and thats not
hard to achieve. I compare AVAX with Bitcoin Cash because Bitcoin Cash has both a
UTXO chain and an EVM sidechain like AVAX, and it is a good representation of
Nakamoto Consensus in action compared to Avalanche consensus in action.
And while on the topic of transaction fees, we may as well go over where Emin Gun
Sirer lied and said that the plan was to reduce fees by two at approximately each step,
but then in the next phase fees weren't reduced at all:
Phase 1: https://archive.md/9VW4A
The Promise: https://archive.md/kfHtT
Phase 2: https://archive.md/6NX2v

This lie matters because its context was it was answering a question I asked about fees
not being reduced enough. After price rose well over 10x Avalabs didnt want to
decrease the fees to 1/10th of what it was, and instead only wanted to reduce the fees
on one of the chains by half (the C-Chain) and then leave the P and X chains the same.
Thi i dt b th t th td ti th
This promise was supposed to be an assurance that they were not done correcting the
Get unlimited access Open in app

fees, but apparently the promise was worthless because it wasn't kept. Even after Phase
3, fees on the X and P chains still were not lowered.

Emin Gun Sirer Wasn't Even A Bitcoin Believer In The Early Days
Emin Gun Sirer (he prefers to go by Gun rather than Emin) makes himself out to be the
biggest Bitcoin and Crypto OG on the block. He makes references how it was him, not
Satoshi Nakamoto, that invented the first cryptocurrency (with his now dead and
abandoned project, known as Karma).

Remind you of anyone? Emin Gun Sirer is arguably the second most self-centered and
self-embellishing fraud in the crypto space, right next to Craig Wright.
In reality, Gun has been a skeptic and critic of Bitcoin since day 1. Here you can see him
mocking those who bought Bitcoin at sub-$100:

Emin Gun Sirer is also infamous in some circles for his article titled "Bitcoin is Broken",
where he says that the entire Bitcoin system can be taken over by "attackers" who
"selfish-mine" (which is to wait to publish blocks until after competitors waste their
time trying to solve them), with as little as 25% of the hashrate. He goes on to imply
that this would spell the end for Bitcoin and that somehow it would stop functioning,
saying it's a "fundamental flaw" in Bitcoin's architecture. https://archive.md/AX7TI
 Get unlimited access Open in app

The entire paper attacking Bitcoin seems to hinge on the fallacy that this little
The entire paper attacking Bitcoin seems to hinge on the fallacy that this little
advantage one group of miners could have over the otherGet
would somehow
unlimited access be
Open in app

asymmetrically in favor of attackers. A more sensible conclusion would be that if this

becomes the winning strategy, then everyone would just do it and then no miners
would have advantage over each other anymore. Either way, Bitcoin has been running
for a long time, almost eight whole years since this paper was released, and theres no
evidence of attacker miners ruling the chain like he fearmongered. And its clearly
fearmomgering. Heres some more context:

Avax Centralization
Its no secret that the people in AvaLabs constantly boast about Avalanche's
"decentralization", as if it had any. Here's just Emin Gun Sirer and his constant shilling
of it:
 Get unlimited access Open in app

But is Avax really decentralized? Id argue not in the slightest. Decentralization is not
determined by the number of nodes in a system, but by how much power each node
has. And I can prove to you mathematically, that AvaLabs has over 51% of the voting
power over the Avalanche network.

The genesis coin distribution for AVAX can no longer be found on info.avax.network
because it has been removed to avoid further bad publicity, but I have an archive of it
here. The allocation is as follows:

18M: Seed Sale

24 9M P i S l
24.9M: Private Sale
Get unlimited access Open in app

7.2M: Public Sale Option A1

60M: Public Sale Option A2

4.8M: Public Sale Option B

18M: Airdrop

2M: Denali Incentive Airdrop

72M: Team

66.7M: Foundation

36M: Strategic Partners

50.4M Community and Dev Endowment

360M Staking Rewards

Looking back on their original coin distribution chart, with the benefit of hindsight
giving us better context, we can see clearly three categories: AvaLabs-Controlled
Allocation, Non-AvaLabs Insiders-Controlled Allocation, and Public Allocation. (For the
sake of the argument im excluding staking rewards which represent 50% of the coin
distribution, because they are by definition not initial distribution, they are locked, not
affecting overall voting power, and in theory would be received by all participating
coinholders equally).

The Team tokens Foundation tokens and Airdrop tokens all fall under AvaLabs-
The Team tokens, Foundation tokens, and Airdrop tokens all fall under AvaLabs
Controlled Allocation, and sits at 156.7M tokens, or 43.5% of the access
Get unlimited token distribution.
Open in app

The Airdrop sits in this category because its never been distributed and there seems to
be no plan to do so, and the Foundation tokens fall under this category because the
Team admittedly controls the Foundation.

The Seed Sale, Private Sale, Strategic Partners, and Community and Dev Endowment
all fall under the Non-AvaLabs Insiders Allocation category, and sits at 129.3M
tokens, or 35.9% of the token distribution. Previously I may have steelmanned
Avalanche and said community and dev endowment falls under public, but the vast
majority of those tokens were given to close friends of AvaLabs (an example being
Avascan, who both received funding and also became a Warden on the Avalanche
Bridge), and what little went to Avalanche Hub for example, is on a censored and
curated forum.

The three public sale options and denali testnet rewards would be what falls under the
Public Allocation category, and represent 74M tokens, or 20.5% of the token
distribution. I consider Denali a public allocation because everyone was allowed to
participate and I saw this from firsthand experience.

357 1
 Get unlimited access Open in app

With ~44% of all tokens controlled by AvaLabs, ~36% controlled by other Insiders,
and ~20% controlled by the Public, your first thought may be that "technically, this
isnt 51% control". But you'd be incorrect. Because not everybody is staking, but AvaLabs
sure is. By their own admission the team and foundation tokens are all routinely
staked, despite only 63% of all tokens being staked. So if you divide 44% of all tokens
staked by 63% of all stake online, you'd have an effective voting power of 69.8%.

An effective voting power of almost 70% is well over the target 51% I promised you
that AvaLabs had over the network. Its not possible, in reality or in theory, to have
"decentralized" governance when one party has 7/10ths of the vote. AvaLabs will
always be doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and no amount of community
action could ever dispute them.

Conclusion
Avalanche (Avax) is not a decentralized cryptocurrency. AvaLabs control roughly 44%
of the active token supply and about 70% of all voting power on the network. AvaLabs
is also notorious for its constant lying, dishonest shilling, and bait-and-switch schemes.
Most notoriously was the millions of dollars in honest staker revenue lost when
Get unlimited access Open in app

AvaLabs unilaterally and arbitrarily changed the node uptime requirements from 60%
to 80% overnight, fraudulently ripping off hundreds of long-term honest validators
and further centralizing the network and lining their own pockets.

AvaLabs engages in censorship against any detractors, and tries to bury the truth to
preserve their reputation instead of confront it honestly. Anyone still involved in
AvaLabs at this point is surely complicit in the dishonesty and lies. I've barely scratched
the surface when it comes to lies, misleading statements, and false promises produced
by AvaLabs. I could probably write an article 10x longer covering all those details, im
just constrained by time, willingness, and the fact nobody would read something that
long anyways.

My urgent message to all those still involved in Avalanche at this point, is to get out.
Avalanche has already over 100x'd from its ICO sale of $0.50 to its current price of over
$50. The pyramid scheme has most likely already done most of the ponzi gains it will
do in its lifetime. And its ponzi'd so far its already overcome the market capitalization
of Bitcoin Cash, which does everything Avax does but 100x cheaper and with 100x
more adoption on an actually decentralized blockchain with a real community. Leaving
Avax for Bitcoin Cash (and SmartBCH) which has stronger fundamentals would give
you more price upside anyways.

I'll let you do what you will with this information. And you're free to amicably disagree
with me. But when the rug is pulled out from under you by these scammers, don't say I
didn't warn you.