더 이상 Pudgy Penguins를 믿거나 지지할 수 없음. 토큰2049에서 해당 공지와 댓글을 보고 내 생각이 이상한건가 의심했음. 이리저리 물어봤지만, 반응은 나와 다름없더라. 매우 실망했고, IGLOO의 전체 사업에 대한 믿음이 떨어졌음. 적어도 내가 한국에서 본 앱스트랙트 러버 몇명은 파머로 치부되기엔 너무나 열정적이었고, 애정이 남달랐음. 그런데 그 사람들한테도 체인이 닫히기 전까지 잘 될거야라고 속이고 다닌 모양이더라. 실패한 스타트업과 러그풀은 다르다고 하는데, XP라는 이름 하에 발생한 피해는 여타 러그풀 피해와 다르지 않음. 그렇다면? 남겨둔 사업체를 가진 입장에서 적어도 비판을 겸허히 받아들이고, 모두에게 친절하고 따뜻해야 하지 않을까? 디스코드 내용들 보니까 전혀 그래보이지 않았음. 하락장을 긍정적인 바이브로 견뎌내던 지난 펭구의 바이브는 이제 펭구 가면을 써야만 허용이 되나봄. 나에겐 의미 있는 PFP이기에 바꿀 일은 없겠다만, 이제 펭구에 대한 컨빅션은 거의 없을 것 같음.

What hurts more than the shutdown of @AbstractChain itself is the attitude and explanation Luca showed across Discord and the Spaces. Shutting down a chain to prevent reckless token launches amid financial exhaustion and poor market conditions is a business decision one can logically understand. But narrative he pushed today sounded far less like the calculated leadership of a founder and far more like defensive complaining designed to shift the blame of system failure onto the community. The most damaging remark was his claim that whether you spent money and time on the chain he lost a few million as well so everyone is in the same boat. This is textbook deflective communication that invalidates the other party entirely. The entrepreneurial risk a founder shoulders and the opportunity cost of regular users who poured time and liquidity into an ecosystem based on trust are fundamentally different. Equating the community devotion to personal capital loss as if both sides are even completely dismisses the organic effort people put in. It is equally contradictory to complain that capital was drained by cherry pickers and airdrop farmers while asking why people could not just be real users instead of farming. The team itself designed the system where every onchain activity was tied to XP and reinforced by a competitive ranking structure. Designing an incentive loop that naturally drives farming behavior and then blaming the users who acted logically within those rules is nothing more than deflecting a failure in product and game design. The vast majority of the explanation today centered on self defense such as fearing community disappointment and pleading for empathy regarding how hard he fought. Abstract shutdown was certainly not an impulse decision made overnight. It was likely a calculated exit strategy planned weeks in advance with legal counsel. The fact that after so much preparation the core takeaway delivered to the public was the posture of being the ultimate victim reveals a severe absence of true accountability. Closing the Spaces by apologizing for the wasted time and money on Abstract while asserting that his ultimate responsibility lies with Pudgy Penguins is a convenient shield. The core users who rushed in early to generate volume and support the chain were the exact supporters who believed in @pudgypenguins vision in the first place. Using one community as a moral shield to write off the disappointment of another cannot be branded as responsibility. A venture can miss its golden window and fail due to poor execution or macro conditions. What remains unacceptable is belittling the participants of a game you designed while using personal losses to erase the collective sacrifice of the community. When a project that champions a community first ethos concludes with this level of disregard it sets a bitter precedent for anyone considering putting their time and faith into a founder vision.