3 coins left
This is a public release of a product being sold, why would he ask that privately?
It looks to me like it was a typo and should be called out. It's not like there is a lack of space requiring him to shorten it to "VERFY" (and if true, that is a very odd way to shorten the word VERIFY).
In reality this appears to the same kind of typo that is common with AI slop designs. You can even see the gap where the "I"
should be but it was left out. Also, for the side with the design, the laser appears to be set too powerful and the coin appears to be burned. Just my $0.02. Another shit release from an endless stream of shit releases from infinite by design.
I want to address this directly.
The hologram was a manufacturer error. The original approved artwork was correct. Once the issue was identified, I stopped using that batch immediately and am having corrected holograms produced. That one is on me for not catching it before release, and it’s being fixed.
As for the laser work - I acquired a fiber laser last July and have been actively learning, testing materials, dialing in power settings, and experimenting with finishes. Some pieces are intentionally deeper engraved for durability and contrast; others have been part of that learning curve.
I’ve released a lot of designs because I’m exploring different artistic directions and techniques, not because I’m pushing volume for the sake of it. Bridging traditional artistic influences with Bitcoin physicals is something I care about and am continuing to refine.
Not every piece will resonate with everyone, and that’s fine. But reducing the work to “another shit release from an endless stream…” isn’t constructive. If there are specific technical critiques (engraving depth, finish, hologram placement) I’m always open to discussing those.
The hologram typo is indeed an error.
~snip~
That said, I am considering stepping away from this forum, as I have experienced a level of hatred and harshness that I do not feel I deserve, nor do I believe anyone does.
The fact of the matter is you can't handle honest criticism and as a maker you have a responsibility to your customers to get it right. Why do you believe the multiple mistakes displayed and the once a week releases don't deserve criticism? I said to you months ago to slow down... do better quality control... I got shit from your cronies for being critical. Go figure... here we are again with another OBVIOUS mistake that a maker with ANY quality control would have caught and then could have been released as errors. The way this comes off is incompetent. The reason this is important is now you want people to trust your key generation when you have proven that you don't even have the quality control to handle the basics of coin making.
Extra credit question OP... why so quick to rush out all the new work and having the VAST majority with your key generation when you were widely known as the go to DIY maker before your semi recent return?
I have no issue with honest criticism. What I push back on is tone and assumptions about intent. The hologram typo was a manufacturer error. I acknowledged it, discontinued that batch, and am having corrected versions produced. That is me taking responsibility.
You’re right that as a maker I have a responsibility to get it right. In this case, I missed something before release. That’s on me. I’ve tightened my verification process specifically to prevent a repeat.
Where I disagree is the leap from a visible manufacturing typo to questioning key generation integrity.
Those are completely separate processes.
Hologram artwork is a third-party production issue.
Key generation is handled independently, with its own controlled procedure.
If anyone wants to discuss entropy source, air-gapping, verification steps, or handling procedures, I’m happy to do so transparently. Conflating a spelling error with cryptographic trust isn’t technically accurate.
Regarding pace, I’m creating more because I have more capability in-house now. Increased output does not mean rushed security. It means I’m actively building and refining.
If the criticism is “slow down and strengthen QC,” that’s fair feedback and I’ve already acted on it.
If the conclusion is “therefore you’re incompetent and can’t be trusted,” I think that’s overstated.
Collectors can evaluate the work and make their own decisions.
Thank you for taking the time to compile this. I will come up with a comprehensive list for record keeping.
That said, I am considering stepping away from this forum, as I have experienced a level of hatred and harshness that I do not feel I deserve, nor do I believe anyone does.
The toxic environment for coin makers here is nothing new. It is why I haven’t released anything in more than half a decade. As a maker, at some point you begin to wonder if the community will ever change, but I’ve only seen it get worse with each passing year. Probably why not a single innovation has happened to this collectibles market in at least a decade while coin premiums and quality have only gotten worse with scams being more frequent. This is a trend that isn’t slowing.
Do you think that the community should not hold coin makers to a higher standard, when we've seen repeated instances of rug pulls, botched keys, using malware-laced keygen tools? I guess we should just allow newbies to get scammed again and again, because we wouldn't want any new makers to feel any harshness or criticism while they peddle their terrible products here.
Also, I just realized these were coins with the private key applied , and not DIY. As mopar has shown, this error was not caught on 10+ releases so far.
I noticed this within 2 seconds of seeing this picture that not just one word was misspelled, but two. The maker had no idea, and yet somehow managed to correctly generate and apply private keys to each of these 10+ releases with these holograms? Good luck to anyone storing funds on these coins..
I agree that the community should hold makers to a high standard. Given the history of scams and botched keys in this space, scrutiny is justified.
What I disagree with is equating a hologram artwork typo with key generation integrity.
The hologram issue was a manufacturer error. On a zoomed-in, isolated image it is obvious. On a full reflective sheet in normal handling conditions, it was not nearly as visually prominent, which is why it was unfortunately missed. That’s not an excuse, just context. It should have been caught, and I’ve taken responsibility for that.
Key generation is an entirely separate process with separate controls. It does not rely on artwork inspection. It involves controlled environment procedures, verification steps, and independent checks before application. A spelling error on a hologram does not logically imply compromised entropy, unsafe tooling, or mishandled private keys.
Holding makers accountable is healthy. Assuming cryptographic incompetence because of a visible manufacturing typo is not the same thing.
Collectors should absolutely be cautious. They should also differentiate between aesthetic QC and security procedure.
I have collected for many years. Some here have collected longer than me, others are newer. Ultimately I feel that we as a community choose to support those works we appreciate for their time, innovation, design, rarity, trust etc. Some of these factors are easy to promote and grow, others not so much. Trust is gained over time and lost quickly with poor decisions (Yogg). Designs can evolve and inspire, grow and become popular (Alpen). Others are steadfast and honored over time (BTCC). Ultimately we as collectors vote with our purchases. If we trust/like/enjoy/value a maker's item we will buy it. I have purchased many F*D items, am an avid collector of their old/original items, and started to buy the newer releases recently. I have stopped buying F*D items because of issues like these in this thread and because of the high volume poor quality releases. It simply was not worth my time or money anymore. Others may not feel this way, but many do. They should be free to express their opinion regarding each release, just as people are free to express their praise.
I caution you though. I see too many people taking any criticism here as a personal attack, but really I see the concerns raised as simply a stern warning from collectors that have lived the red flags previously and seen the negative outcomes. To ridicule these folks on the forum that are a voice of reason is foolish. You can buy what you want, and collect what you want, but it is disingenuous to disregard the past experiences of members who have been there before with situations like this and try to warn others.
I continue to collect items I see as valuable from members I trust (for now) ie. Cygan/Icaurs, Polymerbit, Ballet, etc. You can do as you wish, but the veteran collectors here are raising concerns for valid reasons.
Geophphpreigh
Hello Geo, I appreciate you taking the time to write this.
You’re absolutely right that trust is earned over time and can be lost quickly. That’s true in this space more than most. I don’t take that lightly.
If you’ve decided to pause purchasing my work because of concerns raised here, I respect that. Collectors should support what they feel confident in..
Where I want to be clear is that mistakes like the hologram issue are not being dismissed. They’re being addressed. I’m tightening QC and refining processes specifically because I understand that trust is fragile.
I don’t view all criticism as a personal attack. What I push back on is when criticism turns into assumptions about intent or integrity. There’s a difference between “this needs improvement” and “this maker can’t be trusted.”
Veteran collectors absolutely have a role in raising red flags when necessary. At the same time, innovation and experimentation also carry some growing pains. My goal is to improve without losing the creative drive that brought me back.
Whether you choose to collect my work again in the future or not, I respect the time you’ve put into this space and your right to speak candidly.
[mod note: Merged consecutive posts]
