Signal adds a payments feature with a privacy-focused cryptocurrency

Side point, I think one of the greatest and less discussed risks of crypto is government. Its hard to see them allowing loss of currency control. Currency is so economically important for control & profitable e.g. There much talk the support on the attacks on Libya/Gadhafi was in part due to his desire for an independent currency. So unless crypto spreads so widely pre-regulation its politically unviable to move against, I wonder if we will see governments step in against crypto, at least as a day-to-day transaction option at some point.

Why does it make sense to integrate MobileCoin into anything? Why not use Monero or zCash? Sure, you can definitely explain this to me, but nothing explains that to general people on your GitHub page. Same thing on your foundation page, which simply has logos and "Private Payments for everyone" [1].

I've spent a lot of time working on blockchain and perceptually, it feels like you're trying to sell snake oil here. For example, the mechanics paper [2] starts with "Cryptography. It may seem like only mathematicians and computer scientists have access to this obscure, esoteric, powerful, elegant topic." Cryptography is a tool. What's obscure about it? People are using it right this second. Why is it esoteric?

The paper then continues with a brief overview of 'blockchains' (why the scare quotes?). In the same paragraph, it states that the purpose of blockchains is that "no piece of money can be duplicated or created at will" but this is only one of many points of the entire point of a blockchain. Why does it not explore other facets of blockchains if the goal is to be introductory?

Then, in the fifth paragraph, the paper remembers that people may not be reading this for the first time with no experience, and suddenly jumps up to 11, with this paragraph. Note, this paragraph is one single 91-word jargon-filled sentence:

> MobileCoin is a standard one-dimensional directed acyclic graph (DAG) cryptocurrency blockchain, where blocks are consensuated with an implementation of the Stellar Consensus Protocol, transactions are validated in SGX secure enclaves and are based on elliptic curve cryptography using the Ristretto abstraction on curve E25519, transaction inputs are shown to exist in the blockchain with Merkle proofs of membership and are signed with Schnorr-style multilayered linkable spontaneous anonymous group signatures (MLSAG), and output amounts (communicated to recipients via ECDH) are concealed with Pedersen commitments and proven in a legitimate range with Bulletproofs.

While I want to assume good faith here, I find that the blockchain community often has a history of attempting to "smooth over problems" with lots of jargon and hoping for the best. This sentence, when run through Hemingway [3], gives it a post-graduate reading level. But that's not anything about the cryptography: the paragraph/sentence is simply unreadable to most people. It serves no purpose in the middle of this section.

While I'm sure you'll mention that this is a preview document, you're pointing people to it as the primary resource for people to learn "how the whole thing fits together."

Other warning signs that make me wary are everywhere.

The foundation about page has the Intel, Azure, and IBM logos under a "powered by" footer [4]. The meaning is ambiguous, and the intent is clear: you want to use these big tech company logos, because they're recognized. Yet, this is the exact same thing companies do when they're sponsored by other companies. To the untrained eye, these are indistinguishable things. Is MobileCoin sponsored by Intel, IBM, or Azure? If not, you should remove the logos. It feels like a "trust play." You're not linking to any sites or providing any information as to your relationships with these companies, but it seems like you just have cloud services with Azure and IBM, and use Intel SGX.

There's a typo on the "Foundation Trusted Nodes" page (two words slammed together): "MobileCoin Consensus is built on trust relationships between individuals and organizations who are running MobileCoin Consensus Validator Nodes.Determining" [5].

So, I suppose, if I had a question, it's: why, in all of this documentation and all of the websites that you've linked to, is there not a single "you should use MobileCoin over Monero and zCash because of ..." comparison? Why does it seem more like it's interested in propping itself up and being trustworthy, rather than conveying details about how it's superior to its competition for mobile payments?

[0]: https://github.com/mobilecoinfoundation/mobilecoin

[1]: https://www.mobilecoin.foundation/ & https://archive.is/ktf3o

[2]: https://github.com/UkoeHB/Mechanics-of-MobileCoin/blob/maste... (archive: https://files.catbox.moe/1wal8z.pdf)

[3]: https://hemingwayapp.com/

[4]: https://www.mobilecoin.foundation/about & https://archive.is/JNDbG

[5]: https://www.mobilecoin.foundation/foundation-trusted-nodes & https://archive.is/Pr868

I find it conspiracy-theory in nature to assume otherwise; I think it could've been handled better from a server source code side but I don't really see why this has to be an assumed bad faith thing.

I care how much of future profits will be returned to be, which does depends on the percentage I end up owning. A round needs to enable a bigger gain than the fraction it dilutes everyone.