Accountability polemic against the wallet's recommenders

A long polemic arguing that the post-incident response has become self-congratulatory while victims are still being counted. It gives figures of over 1,800 BTC gone and a median victim holding of 0.4 BTC, describes the failure as a build configuration error in a custom RNG library, and sets out a claimed warning timeline: concerns about the provenance of COLDCARD's cryptographic primitives raised as early as 2021, credible reports of entropy weakness delivered to Coinkite by 2024, and the specific library identified as not credible with replacement explicitly recommended by 2025, waved off at every step. Its sharpest argument is about interest rather than engineering: it says the volunteers, the red team and the people publishing gratitude threads hold equity positions, sponsorship revenue and institutional relationships that depend on continued trust in the stack they promoted, and calls the response reputation insurance rather than altruism. It names no individual, directing its questions at whoever recommended the device, published guides featuring it and collected Coinkite sponsorship. Held as one of the most fully argued dissents from the incident's dominant framing, and because the funding and affiliation questions it raises are ones this archive discloses case by case. Every figure and every date in it is the poster's own: the loss totals held here differ, no captured source establishes the 2024 or 2025 reports, the prior-warning claims the archive does hold are contested (stackernews-prior-warning-video, btctherapist-prior-drain-report, vladcostea-disclosure-history), and the characterisation of the generator as a custom library is disputed by held sources. None of it is verified here.