It's not really a complaint about the project itself. I'm actually considering paying the $100 to be a member because I think they're attempting to address an important problem and I want to see how it goes and it would probably be more fun to do so as an owner.

But you've got to admit that its a peculiar rhetorical choice to explain at the landing page that your strategy doesn't involve coupling ownership/control of the platform with the ability to control tokens on a blockchain somewhere, without using the same space to explain what it does do instead.

It does the normal thing instead: using a legal system to define and enforce ownership and control.

There's no "legal system", there's a huge bunch of local legal systems, most of them slightly broken in various ways.

I for one would stay away 100 feet from any project that remotely alludes to being vaguely interested in crypto/blockchain. So not doing that is a huge green flag for me.

Haven’t yet seen and canola where this crypto distributed network actually had benefits and wasn’t just a giant grift - to be fair I did not look very hard though.