The skepticism here is healthy, imo, but I'll share my thoughts on all the goings-on/drama with Swan recently...

On the first issue of being associated with ten31: I personally didn't have any perception that Swan was trying to associate with Ten31 or that people thought they were related. I also don't really get any messages from people on this sort of thing so I could just be hanging out in completely the wrong social groups, so honestly don't have much useful to share on that one.

As far as revenue, one thing that seemed clear over the last couple of years (which I felt iffy about anyway, i hate suits) was that they were targeting legacy finance bros in Cali and pushing Swan Private really hard in that market. I assumed this was their big capital inflow since they seemed to have been pushing it so hard. (no details, just had been my thoughts)

No idea about the investment numbers at all. But they say they will release in Feb (i think that's right if someone had more info) so i assume we will know then. If they don't release like they say, then obviously that's not a good sign.

Aside from the recent published numbers and whether they are accurate or not, I have found a ton of the drama over the past year or so around Swan has been a lot of making mountains out of mole hills. Maybe it's a "if you shoot 10 times you are bound to hit the target once" sort of thing, but the only thing that seemed like a legitimate concern to me was obviously the whole Prime Trust debacle. However this wasn't a direct issue with Swan (at least in the sense that Swan didn't invest customer funds in LUNA or some dumb shit), but that a crypto adjacent partner had made dumb decisions and Swan had to exit with client BTC. But all the service and withdraws I have had with them during that period and since then, have worked fine (doubly reason to ALWAYS withdraw tho) aside from a week or two that got paused while they were migrating.

I generally think things are overblown because some people just don't seem to like Cory's attitude on social. Which is fair for those to consider that as a concern if they don't get straight answers. Even if they or @`ODELL` are wrong, i don't think that's a bad perspective to entertain. Arguably it's the more robust view to take. Even if they are wrong, it would still have been a smart choice in largely any situation.

Scrutiny and skepticism are usually the most prudent attitudes for pushing to get information available when it isn't forthcoming. But in other situations Swan has been pretty open about when things go wrong (I have mostly just read their emails to find out what's going on, and it doesn't seem to have ever been contradicted when more details come to light later on unless someone has an example of this) - and when issues arise or when their partner actions affect their customers. Taking the third party email leak and recent banking partner policy changes as examples. (ie. I have no doubt every other company with a banking partner involved in bitcoin is dealing with those same policies about coinjoins, but we only got a memo from Swan.)

Just my thoughts. I don't have much to add on the latest info that is being contested though. Wasn't even aware of it until a couple of days ago.

(disclaimer: Swan started sponsoring my show again recently, so I have more incentive to defend them, but this has also been my feeling during the time we were not partnered as well, i didn't stop using Swan during the last year or two.)

nostr:note10cam8hkf6m667h43um64vx7fyfukkk4836wtc2tyep9n64th8snq22q6p6