Please review the draft for May's report

[Chris Lamb]

Hi Leo,

> Regarding feedback to the report: Why did the BlueWallet get this special
> mention? On WalletScrutiny.com, every wallet that is "not verifiable" has such
> a GitHub issue, linked to from the website.

One of the many responsibilities of writing these reports involves
keeping a watchful eye on social media throughout the month for a
number of trends and keywords. I can't say for certain, but I suspect
I came across the BlueWallet issue because it was linked on there.

In other words, any asymmetry in focus on BlueWallet was not
intentional, and merely an artefact of how I write them. I circulate
these posts a number of days in advance of publication, so feel free
to clarify any imbalance you see in future drafts — I must rely on
others to correct any potential focusing as I cannot perform
academic-level due diligence on all references I come across.

> Thanks for featuring WalletScrutiny! My original mail to the list had not
> yielded feedback, so I was a bit surprised :D

I can't speak for anyone else of course but I've been quite busy with
other stuff so your mail kept being pushed down my mental stack. I am
sure that another contributors members will be able to provide some
feedback.


Regards,

--
      o
    ⬋   ⬊      Chris Lamb
   o     o     reproducible-builds.org 💠
    ⬊   ⬋
      o