I had been so busy that I hadn’t even considered writing about this. But after seeing what Berko posted in the Abstract Quant channel, I decided I had to make time to speak up. If this is a business, why are its customers being treated like beggars? People defending Luca’s decision say, “This is a business,” and “It wasn’t profitable, so there was no other choice.” At the same time, they dismiss the people who were active on Abstract as farmers who were only after free rewards, and even treat them like “beggars.” @LucaNetz @pudgypenguins @AbstractChain But isn’t that ironic? Luca sold Pudgy Mystery Boxes to those very people they call “beggars,” and Abstract earned revenue from the gas fees those people paid to use the chain. I was active for about a year, but others spent far longer investing their time and money in this ecosystem. These were customers who paid real money to use the service. If you call Abstract a business, why are you treating the customers who paid to use that business like beggars? We spent our money and time because we trusted them The money those people being mocked spent in the Abstract ecosystem was anything but insignificant. One person said they spent $300,000. Why did we spend so much time and money? Because we trusted Luca and the Pudgy Penguins ecosystem. I also started using Abstract because I trusted them, and I even bought a main Pudgy to join the community. But now, some people in the Pudgy community treat anyone who criticizes Luca or does not support this decision as an enemy. Many Abstract users are also main Pudgy and Lil Pudgy holders. Why do they ignore the fact that the people they are mocking are fellow holders who trusted and supported the same ecosystem? While reading posts about this, I also came across an account of an Abstract user who had spent a lot of money being subjected to racist remarks. Isn’t it shameful to direct racism at someone who has suffered losses, as if mocking them weren’t enough? Also, according to Crocy’s post, he personally prepared gifts and gave them to 10 people from the Pudgy and Abstract teams, yet not a single one of them thanked him. I think this also shows how they respond to the goodwill and effort of their community. Isn’t saying a simple thank-you to someone who supports you and even prepares a gift for you the most basic courtesy? Luca’s decision created an escape route for people to run away when their businesses fail in web3. Among those supporting Luca’s decision, I see many people who run businesses or work on projects in web3. Of course, some may defend him because they are personally friends with him. But I also find myself wondering: are they so quick to defend this decision because it creates a precedent that will let them avoid responsibility by saying, “The business simply didn’t work out,” whenever they want to shut down their own businesses? I think this will give other projects an excuse to walk away irresponsibly. Businesses can fail. But that does not erase their responsibility during the shutdown process or the basic courtesy they owe their customers. After building our hopes, they gave us a shutdown announcement and a liability waiver What I especially cannot accept is the way they behaved leading up to the shutdown announcement. They promoted “Project Quantum,” reached out to active users for one-on-one conversations, and collected feedback. Those actions gave users the belief that Abstract would continue and that, even if things seemed quiet on the surface, something was being prepared behind the scenes. But on the day we were waiting for the XP announcement, what we received was a project shutdown announcement and a liability waiver. When I used the website, I could not access its other features without agreeing to that waiver. It was a truly cowardly way to handle things. After continuing to build users’ hopes and getting them to spend their time and money, they demanded agreement to a liability waiver alongside the shutdown announcement, while publicly saying, “We did our best.” Is this really a responsible way to end things? Can saying it was a business decision justify this entire process? Berko, think about the weight of your position and your words I also want to talk about Berko’s remarks. He said this in the Abstract Quant channel “in my personal opinion tbh with the way people are acting currently, they're only further proving that the winddown was the correct decision” Whenever this statement is criticized, he explains that it was “in context of me seeing violent threats and wild accusations.” But the people in the Abstract community who lost a lot of money and expressed their disappointment did not act violently or make threats. And if you lump the community’s reactions together as “proof that the shutdown was the right decision” because of some people’s behavior, where does that leave those who raised legitimate concerns? I want to ask him: What is your position, and what responsibility do you think comes with it? Surely that position is more than just a title. You need to think about the weight your words carry within the community. Another user in the Abstract Quant channel said: “All I'm seeing in the pudgy discord is people saying ‘oh good thing the focus is back to pudgy’ and then I'm like if that was the point from the start what was the point of all this Wasting our time and money?” To this, Berko replied: “Yeah pandy they spent millions just for fun to lose money, surely Or, it simply didn’t pan out Return to common sense” Was it really necessary to be this sarcastic toward a disappointed community member? Does the fact that the team’s business failed make the time and money users lost meaningless? I could not feel any understanding of users’ sense of loss or any remorse in that reply. His behavior came across like someone telling grieving family members at a funeral, “Isn’t it a good thing that the deceased is no longer in pain?” The person saying it may think they have their own logic, but it shows no consideration whatsoever for the grief of the people hearing it. Are you certain the same thing will not happen to Pudgy? I also want to ask those who treat everyone who criticizes Luca as an enemy After seeing this decision, can you confidently say that the same thing will not happen to Pudgy’s web3 business? If he decides to shut that down for business reasons too, will you say the same things then? What trust are you basing your support for him on, and why are you mocking people who say that their trust has been broken? Are we customers when we spend money, but beggars when we criticize? I also spent quite a lot of money on Abstract, but thankfully, I was able to recover my losses through Rave and MOG. In fact, my biggest loss came from buying and then selling a main Pudgy. Even so, I am writing this because I cannot accept the way people who spent real money supporting the ecosystem are being treated as if they were only after free money. In particular, I saw !tinoz.eth repeatedly criticizing Abstract users in the Pudgy Discord as “beggars” or “free money farmers.” Then what does that make the business that sold products to those “beggars” and earned revenue from the money those “farmers” paid? Does that make Luca, who earned income from those beggars, the king of beggars..? Ultimately, those words deny whose money and participation kept the very business they are defending running. If you want to explain the failure of a business, start by respecting the customers who trusted and used it. Supporting Luca’s decision and insulting the people hurt by that decision are two separate things. Before demanding common sense from disappointed people, I hope you take a look at your own attitude toward them.