Why would amulet publish an informal security report with notionals name on it?

@catdotfish - yes of course the former post went out of scope because it was an insanely unprofessional act on the part of @Jessysaurusrex.;

I explicitly asked their team for pre-publication review. You are not the first person to say they’re going to contact them to get my company’s name off of it.

I assume that all 5 people I asked, did as I requested. So why isn’t Notional’s name removed from Informal’s report?

It has not happened.

The only thing I can think is that they were deliberately leaving it there, attempting to attribute to Notional a “low severity” rating on an issue that can stop any chain.

This is why it is decent, and common courtesy to get permission before putting someone (or their company’s) name on stuff.

Please consider the following scenario:

  • I write an article talking about how the world is ruled by mutant aliens.
  • I then give you attribution for that information

@catdotfish you shouldn’t close that thread, until it is changed.

I deserve the right to speak out and say the following facts:

  • The interchain foundation funds teams that misattribute reports
  • The interchain foundation funds a security team that doesn’t even give reporters the opportunity to review the report beforehand
  • To my knowledge all amulet does is ferry things between H1 and core teams, thus informal wrote the report. But it really isn’t about what I reported. I don’t want to be associated with it.

Why are you denying me the right to continue to demand that the attribution be removed, until it is removed?

It seems… ludicrously simple. I didn’t write that and I don’t want my name on it.



PS: People cannot edit locked posts. So you, an ICF employee have locked in the misattribution of informals findings to notional.

PPS: really, that’s all I want. I want my company’s name off of a report that I regard as dangerous. It should not take months on end.

PPS: here’s my email asking to review pre publication.

Conceisely: I wanto my company’s name off of that report because I requested to review it, and I wasn’t given the opportunity to and I don’t agree with its findings, and I reported… 18 separate issues.

@Syed @crainbf sirs please this is gross misrepresentation.

1 Like

Just in with a report from @catdotfish

Thing is I believe that My original email made it extremely clear that I did not feel that amulet actually understood the issue, and that I wanted to see anything pre-publication.

Additionally it sucks that I need to document this stuff publicly.

The reason I need to is that my repeated requests have been ignored.


tell ya what is bogus though:

Slapping someone’s company’s name on a report they didn’t write, without consent, knowing the other firm disagrees:

So is informal bogus? idk

(note direct relevance to this PR)

Actual and legit p2p storms reports here:

Again, no personal attacks, the whatever that is on the fourm, isn’t what I reported and I don’t want association with it.

Probably like how informal wouldn’t want those links in a repo they maintain.

I’ve let the foundation know I hold them responsible for the actual gross misrepresentation and harassment.

repo including all correspondance on the matter, and proof of sploit:


GIven how many times I’ve needed to ask (50+) I figure it is an intentional effort on someone’s part to harm Notional, and will be treating it as such and that sucks.


This is not harassment of any sort it is a last ditch effort before I pull in attorneys – a kindness. Feel like it’s a really easy request.

Screenshot of post taken just now

Screenshot 2024-01-07 at 2 22 17 PM

maybe merge after being less bogus and retracting on every channel that the original report was distributed on.

I did not get to read that report pre publication. Retraction should include apology. Legal stuff kicks off monday, got no choice.

A very public facing retraction (with apology) on all channels might change my opinion that Informal Systems intended to do harm.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.