If you are CURRENTLY accepting advertising money from a person, or ANY money, AND YOU DEPEND ON THAT MONEY they OWN YOU.
I'm another Swan participant since Jan 2022. And yes, I found myself having to stress over the Prime Trust fiasco...and then the jump to Fortress Trust...and now another jump.
But Cory has been out there doing some decent forecasting of what other companies are doing and that they would rug-pull. And as much as we'd love it if everyone just stayed humble and stacked sats. His appearances on main stream channels, just like Natalie Brunell, is good for Bitcoin awareness. And we want people to know, right? Not just because of number go up but because it fights a corrupt system both domestically and abroad (from the Fed/Treasury/JP Morgans of the world to the IMF and authoritarian governments).
I disagree with him "owning" a bunch of bitcoin influencers. Have several teamed up with him over the years, yes. But these people already had successful careers/podcasts/etc without Cory. If anything, they pooled resources to develop better strategy for educating the masses. And Swan is VERY education focus and LEADS with the strong encouragement for self-custody...and willing to educate you on that. They will also educate you on how to setup a bitcoin full node.
That doesn't sound like someone looking to rug-pull. And yes, we all wish he would have led with being more turn-key and liimiting 3rd party risk. But in an accelerating innovation market, there has to be some delegation to people who SUPPOSEDLY do things "best in class"...like custodians.
I value your opinion and positions, nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx, but I also trust the opinions of Stephan Livera, James Lavish, Jeff Booth, Greg Foss, Sam Callahan, Alex Gladstein, Mark Moss, etc. People who may or may not be sponsored by Swan...but didn't need him beforehand and would still do fine enough that they can have independent opinions. Yet they've teamed or supported Swan.
That has to mean something.
Discussion
I agree with the potential, and harsh reality in the real world, of what you are saying. In some cases, people have to choose integrity over compromise with their platform...even if that loses ad revenue. In my opinion, if you provide good content - and are known for integrity - you will never lack for replacement revenue.
I know others go with a subscription model, but you then have to at least self-fund until you build enough of a following to warrant subscriptions.
I know plenty of podcasters I respect make their choices in regard to River vs Swan, or different hardware signing devices, or different mining solutions. Until proven otherwise, I'll act as if they retained their high integrity.