Those are all comments I have made on your proposal. Nothing I said here is new except my surprise to you mentioning again very high multiple X coding speeds.

Who is shipping code with known vulnerabilities? You said you are. Maybe we have different opinions on the word "shipping", but to me if it was merged it was shipped even if not in prod. Let me rephrase then using your definition , you are not shipping code (because it is not on mainnet) with known vulnerabilities but you are merging code with known vulnerabilities . You acknowledged on the proposal that the 3 vulnerabilities claude found on my side with a single pass were identified May 2 (so merged before that) ago but not patched by May 5th, not on mainnet, granted, but merged and vulnerable

@lordbutterfly/re-igormuba-teks9y

These were all found May 2nd during the audit round for EVM. They will be applied over the next few days.

This is what worries me when devs delivery 8x code. I am not defending Ecency because I like them, it is because I commented my worries about security in a proposal asking for over 300k and the guy who made that proposal came to another proposal brag about the development speed of a team that asks for 1/3 of their budget.

If your proposal asked for 1/3 of what Ecency is asking I would actually be impressed and my view on the whole "8x" would change completely, but it is the opposite, Ecency are the ones asking for 1/3 and they are not trying to push their dev methods on anyone else's proposal let alone on smaller proposals, you are the one asking for more (3x more) and promoting your questionable (questionable in my eyes, which I questioned directly at your proposal) methods on a smaller proposal (1/3 the size of yours)

Edit: to make it clear, accountability is all about perspective, ask for more and get questioned more