/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>28856161
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>28785255
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>28483131
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>16643841
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

Nano’s relationship with BitGrail, their main trading platform, was incestuous and dirty from the very beginning. However, after “Bomber”, CEO of BitGrail found out that his exchange had been hacked for 80% of their Nano assets in October 2017, close to 10% of total supply of Nano, the relationship between Nano devs and BitGrail became criminal.

BITGRAIL PROBLEMS KNOWN BY NANO DEV TEAM PRIOR TO BITGRAIL CRASH
>Insolvency of BitGrail and missing 10 million nano, discovered and made public by the Nano community [1][2]
>Missing transactions on BitGrail, discovered and made public by the Nano community [2][3]
>Single transactions replicated multiple times on BitGrail, discovered and made public by the Nano community [4][3][5][6].
>Millions of Nanos moving out from BitGrail, when the exchange was closed for withdrawals, discovered and made public by the Nano community [7].
>Withdrawals on BitGrail blocked for weeks due to alleged ‘maintenance’.
>Withdrawals on BitGrail blocked for weeks due to ‘KYC’ excuse [8] [9]. Hundreds of thousands remained unverified [10].
>Withdrawals on BitGrail blocked for weeks, due to alleged ‘pending withdrawals’, which were never processed [11].
>Nano withdrawals on BitGrail blocked for weeks due to node problems.
>Customer support ignores tickets - not just for days but for weeks [12]
>Bomber increasingly unhinged and psychotic. Insults his customers on social media for asking legitimate questions [12]. Nano community expressed concern to the Nano devs.

>>16596049
For many, Nano Foundation dumping Nano worth 300 000 USD on Nano bagholders each month sounds insane. Well, not so much when Colin is using funds from Nano Foundation to fight private messy divorce and slander accusations in court.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.746752/gov.uscourts.cacd.746752.1.0.pdf

Has Colin completely lost it? Insane statement in a legal document:
> (In layman's terms, at present, it [Nano] is the Cadillac of cryptocurrency.)
>On 28 January 31, 2018, the periodical Medium declared that it "is objectively the best pure cryptocurrency"

After dumping like a madman, Colin claims to have only 5-6 million Nano left.
Colin is angry that confidential information were leaked from this lawsuit and confidential settlement agreement:
https://decrypt.co/6396/nano-cryptocurrency-seeks-dismissal-170-million-rescue-fork-lawsuit

From Nano Foundations/Colins lawsuit:
>They tell their customers 'if you really believe in Nano ..... go to this small exchange in Italy that we don't know anybody and we have nothing to do but we completely vouch for him and he's running a legitimate exchange', we're gonna [sic] give him the Nano, he's gonna [sic] give us money every time he sells a Nano, he's gonna [sic] take half and we're gonna take half, we're gonna [sic] get rich and then one day there's gonna [sic] be an exit scam and then you're gonna [sic] be out $150 million."
> Mr. LeMahieu and the other Nano developers face the prospect of a jail sentence in a current Federal action

>>16328495
Nano has done zero cost analysis for 100 000 TPS bandwith, CPU and IO. Nano has done nothing to provide how it is feasible for Nano to reach 100 000 TPS within the next years. However, imagining it's possible, you yourself admitted that Amazon and large operators like them will take all the costs and burdens of operating the system. That's a clear and open single point of failure (SPOF) and is the very reason why people choose crypto currencies over banks and centralized payment systems. That Nano is not able to identify a clear and basic SPOF in their system is worrisome on multiple levels.

>>16231319
>pump incoming
Just like summer 2018, right. Crashed from USD 3,5 to sub 1. Market didn't like the news/facts and how you nanoid fanboiz reacted. Remember?

>>14968006
>I am satanist and I buy nano
Nano is pretty much the ultimate crypto for Satanists, right? Why is that? Is it due to the satanic behaviour of the devs and team, plus hellish tech? See:

Dangerous flaws and major problems with Nano
http://archive.is/diUnZ

Nano Heading for Disaster – Dirty Deals with BitGrail
http://archive.is/GGWIG

Nano and Bitgrail leaders scammed over $100 million from Bitgrail
http://archive.is/zAtyl

>>14854922
Zuckbuck coin is about the only coin that will be easy enough for boomers to even use. Congrats you played yourself, Nano is doomed.

>>14281814
>name one reason not to go all in
OK, here are some:

Dangerous flaws and major problems with Nano
http://archive.is/diUnZ

Nano Heading for Disaster – Dirty Deals with BitGrail
http://archive.is/GGWIG

Nano and Bitgrail leaders scammed over $100 million from Bitgrail
http://archive.is/zAtyl

>>14250411
I warned about Nano nearly a year ago. I have only mentioned DAG the last few weeks. Here:

Dangerous flaws and major problems with Nano
http://archive.is/diUnZ

Nano Heading for Disaster – Dirty Deals with BitGrail
http://archive.is/GGWIG

Nano and Bitgrail leaders scammed over $100 million from Bitgrail
http://archive.is/zAtyl

>>14192861
>please reconsider
Already did. Sorry.

>>12612366
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano get a full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Core dev and main community manager jumped the sinking ship, leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>12587541
They guy that found the wallet connected to the devs and movement of $50 million out of BitGrail, when Bitgrail was closed for everyone else, was later banned from /r/nanocurrency.
https://archive.is/acLnr

>>12359464
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>12359464
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11948421
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11641807
Dangerous flaws and major problems with Nano
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11443095
OK.
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.

[1] https://archive.is/8mMEU
[2] https://archive.is/LUN33
[3] https://archive.is/V30nG
[4] https://archive.is/pk03o

See also: >>11443099

>>11434399
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11221217
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.