Jahlon

The Intrepid Studios/Ashes of Creation legal saga continues to unfold as the former CEO and Creative Director Steven Sharif has made a lengthy post on Reddit entitled “April Public Statement and Update Regarding Intrepid Studios”  (https://www.reddit.com/r/AshesofCreation/comments/1slzx3z/april_public_statement_and_update_regarding/)

While this post could be summarized in a single article or video, its length and the number of court records and exhibits included make a more detailed breakdown necessary, focusing on Steven’s investment into Intrepid Studios, the composition of the board, and how these elements fit together.

In the reddit thread Sharif stated: 

“For the last 10 years, you claimed there was no board to answer to. When did that change? Was there always a board? Were you lying?

No, I did not lie.

From 2015 through approximately July of 2024, the board consisted of 100% of the company's shareholders in myself, John, and Tom. That structure was founder-led, stable and consistent for nearly a decade.”

With the information that has been made available through various lawsuits, we can examine the historical timeline to determine if this statement properly aligns with other publicly available information.

Historical Timeline

Intrepid Studios was founded on 20 May 2015.

The Kickstarter for Ashes of Creation ran from 1 May 2017 through 2 Jun 2017.

In a video interview with MMORPG.com recorded on May 22, 2017, Steven Sharif stated to Robert Lashley, “In total, coming to Kickstarter, I believe I’ve put in almost $2,000,000, just about $2,000,000.”

On 3 March 2026 Jason Caramanis filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of the State of California Case No: 26CU011902C.  In his filing he submitted an email from Steven Sharif to Sagar Parikh (attorney for Caramanis) and to Caramanis attaching a Capitalization Table

Questions

Three main questions come out of this historical timeline.

First, why would Steven Sharif state during that 2017 that his total was “just about $2,000,000” when the capitalization table he created states in May of 2015 he had committed $9,550,000 to Intrepid Studios?

Second, why would Steven state in his own Reddit thread “From 2015 through approximately July of 2024, the board consisted of 100% of the company's shareholders in myself, John, and Tom” when the 2019 Capitalization Table he submitted did not reflect John as being a shareholder?

Third, why would he state from “From 2015 through approximately July of 2024, the board consisted of 100% of the company's shareholders” when based on a 14 June 2024 Court Case in Superior Court of California (Case Number 37-2024-00028-199-CU-WM-CTL) that a letter was sent to Steven Sharif on 5 March 2019 exercising conversion rights which would indicate a potential 4.4% ownership interest of Intrepid?

For more information on the preceding conversion reference Ashes of Illusion: The Hidden Investor Behind Intrepid Studios (https://youtu.be/hBWjSTfnpFg).

Analysis

Of the three issues brought up, all three of them appear to be equally weight in importance. 

To begin with the investment amount, was a simple mistake on the part of Sharif when he stated, “just about $2,000,000”?  In the video clip Sharif pauses, in what appears to be an attempt to remember an accurate number.  He states, “I believe I’ve put in almost $2,000,000”, yet two year later the civilization table would reflect 9.5 million dollars.  This represents a substantial difference, exceeding four times the originally stated amount. Was this a simple misspeak or failure to remember, or was there something else going on, or could the difference be explained by how ‘committed’ versus ‘contributed’ funds were being described at the time?  

Second, the capitalization table reviewed does not appear to list John Moore as a shareholder, which raises questions about how shareholder status was being defined at the time.  Separately, Trek Holdings LLC is referenced in connection with shareholder loans, although its relationship to the cap table is not clearly reflected in the materials reviewed? 

Third, why was Jason Caramanis not listed in the Reddit Thread?  Regardless of whatever else occurred with shares of stock, there is a reference conversion letter that was sent to Sharif showing an additionally shareholder.

Finally, it is also unclear whether the term ‘investors’ was being used consistently across statements, as it may refer to equity holders, note holders, or other forms of financial participation?

Thread:  I don't get the hype for Ashes of Creation https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/ngo2pi/comment/gyt3gat/

Ramifications

From the recently released transcripts from Steven Sharif, individually and derivatively on behalf of Intrepid Studios, Inc. v. Robert Dawson, Ryan Ogden, Theresa Fette, Aaron Bartels, and TFE Games Holdings LLC (Case No. 26-CV-00965-LL-MMP) the Honorable Judge Linda Lopez realized the following statement:

Based on the information presented here, what do you think? Do these differences reflect inconsistencies between public statements and submitted exhibits, or are they the result of incomplete context or evolving information over time? Could this be a matter of imprecise or incomplete information, or simply a misstatement of prior remarks?

These questions are based solely on publicly available materials and may have explanations that are not reflected in those records, including differences in terminology, timing of transactions, or incomplete documentation.

Disclaimer: This article is based on analysis of materials that have been publicly circulated and are disputed by involved parties. The authenticity and completeness of these materials have not been independently verified. All interpretations presented are opinions based on those materials and should not be taken as statements of fact and are presented solely for discussion and analysis. Any allegations referenced are drawn from third-party sources and remain unproven unless established through legal proceedings. Requests for correction may be submitted to [email protected]. In January, when everything surrounding Ashes of Creation began to escalate publicly, many in the community expected a prolonged process toward resolution. Lawsuits appeared likely, and there was speculation that individuals, including current or former employees, might begin releasing information. One such alleged release involves what has been described by third parties as Intrepid Studios’ general ledger, which some sources have attributed to Jason Caramanis. 

Caramanis is a known figure within the Ashes of Creation community.  He was the subject of our previous and story video Ashes of Illusion: The Hidden Investor Behind Intrepid Studios (https://youtu.be/hBWjSTfnpFg) and he has appeared via phone on NefasQS’ Twitch show (https://nefasqs.com/).  What drew significant attention, however, was a spreadsheet that has been publicly circulated.

In his video Ashes of Creation’s Financial Records are INSANE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8xSWtwUl1o), Nefas highlighted what he described as unusual or questionable entries within the materials he presented as the company’s financial records, including references he identified as private chefs, historical antiques, DoorDash, and company-purchased Magic: The Gathering cards. Viewers who compare the video’s claims with the ledger as presented may form their own conclusions regarding the nature of those entries, if the materials are accurate.

Based on interpretations of the ledger, some observers have suggested that the records could raise questions ranging from potential inconsistencies or classification issues to questions regarding how funds may have been categorized or separated. Nefas outlines these interpretations in his video, presenting his reasoning and citing materials he references, including the ledger, W-2 forms, and publicly referenced property records

The video drew enough attention that two major gaming news organizations, Kotaku (Allegations Continue To Fly Over Shutdown Of $3.2 Million Kickstarter MMO Ashes Of Creation) https://kotaku.com/ashes-creation-kickstarter-nefasqs-youtube-sharif-2000686976

and PC Gamer (Defunct MMO studio founder denies allegation he spent Kickstarter funds on private chefs, antiques, and TCGs) https://www.pcgamer.com/games/mmo/defunct-mmo-studio-founder-allegedly-spent-kickstarter-funds-on-private-chefs-antiques-and-tcgs/ published coverage discussing the claims raised in the video. The following statements were reported by PC Gamer as a response from Steven Sharif to the allegations:

“NefasQS has been fed false and defamatory information by individuals with an axe to grind, in an effort to litigate this dispute in the public domain alongside our lawsuit already pending in federal court.”

“An examination of the facts through the judicial process has already revealed that the parties behind these claims orchestrated an unlawful foreclosure to take control of Intrepid’s assets from the people who built Ashes of Creation, with the intent to exploit those assets for their own benefit.”

Court records in Case No. 26CV0965 LL indicate that his motion for a Preliminary Injunction was denied. The status of the Temporary Restraining Order following the hearing is reflected in those proceedings.  This article does not focus on the litigation itself, but rather is limited to analysis of the ledger discussed above based on the materials reviewed. The ledger has been described by Steven Sharif as “false and defamatory information.”

It should be noted that additional court filings related to these matters are publicly available. While those filings may provide further context, they are not the focus of this article, which is limited to analysis of the ledger discussed above.

CPAs, CFOs, and an Overview of Accounting Practices

Reviewing a ledger for a company that has been active for more than ten years can be a complex task, especially when accounting codes are inconsistent or unclear. At first glance, the cash flow summary may give the impression that as much as $197,505,033.77 has moved through the records. However, based on the apparent structure of the ledger and the inclusion of internal transfers, that figure may overstate actual external cash movement and should be interpreted with caution.

Searches of publicly accessible CPA license databases in California and Virginia conducted on April 12 and April 13 did not identify records confirming active licensure under that name. It is important to note that I am not a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), and this review is limited to publicly accessible information.

With respect to John Moore, publicly accessible records reviewed at the time of writing did not clearly confirm active CPA licensure in those jurisdictions. A document reviewed as part of this analysis includes a reference to Moore as a CPA; however, this does not preclude the possibility of licensure in another jurisdiction or under a different status.

CPAs, like attorneys, are typically required to be licensed in the jurisdictions where they practice, which involves examinations, regulatory requirements, and publicly accessible databases for verification. Financial records are not only used internally, but are subject to review by shareholders, potential investors, and regulatory authorities such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If a company’s records, supporting documentation, and explanations cannot be reconciled during an inquiry, that may result in additional reviews

Upon initial review of the journal, there appears to be a potential difference in how the information is presented. The ledger begins with an entry of $200 categorized as “additional paid-in capital.” Separately, has been reported in documents said to have been provided to an investor and their legal representatives that he invested $9,550,000 into Intrepid Studios in May of 2015.

If both records are accurate, this may reflect differences in the timing or presentation. For example, the ledger reflects its first entry in June with a $200 balance, which may not clearly align with the larger reported investment. Without additional context, it is unclear how these figures reconcile based on the materials reviewed.

The ledger reflects an investment associated with the Alkazin transaction on September 2, 2015, followed by a $5,000 withdrawal categorized as a “shareholder distribution.” This sequence raises questions regarding how that transaction was classified and whether the designation accurately reflects the nature of the payment.

The records also reference Trek Holdings, which has been associated in some materials with John Moore. Based on the capitalization table reviewed, Trek Holdings does not appear to be listed as a shareholder. If accurate, this could raise questions as to why a transaction involving that entity would be categorized as a shareholder distribution, though additional context may be necessary to fully understand the classification.

By way of general background, Intrepid Studios is organized as a C-Corporation under California law. In such structures, distributions are typically made through mechanisms such as compensation, loans, or dividends, with dividends generally requiring proportional allocation among shareholders and being paid from retained earnings. At this stage, the company appears to have been operating on initial invested capital rather than accumulated profits, which may affect how such transactions would ordinarily be categorized.

Based on the materials reviewed, Trek Holdings has been described in some contexts as a holding entity and was listed as suspended in California records as of 2017. The ledger also appears to reflect a later transaction involving that entity in 2022. Without additional documentation, the purpose and classification of these transactions cannot be definitively determined.

The next area of concern involves what appears to be inconsistent bookkeeping practices, which may make the records difficult to interpret without additional context.

The ledger reflects a transaction in which $358,598.52 was transferred from the Chase Checking Account (5332) to an account labeled “MofO 6178.” This type of internal movement raises questions regarding the purpose and classification of the transfer.

From a structural standpoint, repeated use of wire transfers may also introduce unnecessary transaction costs, depending on the circumstances. Additionally, the way these entries are recorded, primarily as checks and deposits without detailed supporting information, may make it difficult to distinguish between income and internal transfers.

Without clear documentation or consistent labeling, it may be challenging to determine the appropriate tax treatment of these transactions or to reconstruct their purpose at a later date.

There is nothing inherently unusual about a small business maintaining accounts across multiple banks, as this can provide operational flexibility and reduce risk if one institution experiences an issue. In some cases, businesses may separate accounts for income, operating expenses, and payroll.

In practice, transfers between accounts can be handled through a variety of methods, including ACH transfers, which may offer lower costs compared to wire transfers depending on the financial institution. The choice of transfer method typically depends on timing, cost considerations, and the specific banking relationships involved.

Below you will see two ledgers.  The top is the ledger as it appears in the Intrepid QuickBooks, and the bottom is anan alternative example illustrating a more detailed accounting structure.

In the second example, the entry includes a description indicating payroll for the week ending 10/23. The memo field also contains a reference number, which appears to correspond to a check number. These types of details can improve clarity and make it easier for someone reviewing the records, such as a CFO or comptroller, to understand the nature of the transaction.

In the remaining transactions, there is limited descriptive information accompanying the entries, which may make their purpose difficult to interpret. At first glance, several entries are labeled as checks but do not include corresponding reference numbers in the memo field, and appear to be associated with wire transfers.

In one instance, an entry is labeled as a check but reflects a positive amount, which may indicate a deposit rather than a traditional check disbursement. Without additional context or consistent labeling, it may be unclear whether certain entries represent outgoing payments, incoming funds, or internal transfers.

Inconsistent accounting practices and structure early on can create challenges later, particularly when records lack sufficient detail. Ideally, financial records should provide enough information to allow transactions to be understood without requiring significant interpretation.

One approach to improving clarity is to standardize how transactions are recorded. For example, an outgoing wire transfer (OWT) may be recorded with the destination listed in the Name field, the wire reference number included in the Memo, and the originating account identified in the split. Similarly, an incoming wire transfer (IWT) may list the source in the Name field, include the wire reference in the Memo, and identify the receiving account in the split.

Structuring transactions in this manner can serve two key purposes. First, it helps reduce the risk of misclassifying internal transfers as external inflows or outflows, as the movement of funds is more clearly documented between accounts.

Second, it improves traceability by identifying the source and destination of each transfer. This approach can make it easier to track transactions, particularly in situations where a transfer is delayed or requires follow-up, and may reduce the effort needed to reconcile account activity at a later date.

For now, this provides a general overview of the accounting structure reflected in the materials. Based on this review, the ledger may present challenges in terms of clarity and interpretation.

Some individuals associated with Intrepid Studios, including parties identified in related discussions such as Jason Caramanis and Robert Dawson, have publicly expressed concerns regarding the company’s financial management. If the records are accurate, the transactions reflected in the ledger could raise questions about the use and classification of funds, including the possibility of waste, mismanagement, or other irregularities.

The following sections highlight specific examples drawn from the materials that may warrant closer examination.

Tracking the Flow of Funds

As discussed earlier, Nefas has presented an analysis of certain transactions and expenditures highlighted in the ledger. The remaining question is how the total inflows and reported investments align with the records currently available.

In a video interview with MMORPG.com recorded on May 22, 2017, Steven Sharif stated to Robert Lashley, “In total, coming to Kickstarter, I believe I’ve put in almost $2,000,000, just about $2,000,000.”

Based on a reconstruction of the ledger using materials that have been publicly circulated, the total identifiable additional capital contributions appear to be approximately $1,400,200. If accurate, this may indicate a difference between publicly stated figures and the amounts reflected in the records reviewed, though additional context or documentation may be necessary to fully reconcile these figures.

The following summary illustrates this reconstruction and provides a year-by-year view of inflows, outflows, and recorded capital contributions as reflected in the materials reviewed.

The entries shown below appear to reflect the primary deposits associated with the Alkazin investment. While the individual associated with these transactions is identified as a shareholder in the capitalization table, the corresponding ledger entries are labeled more generally as deposits, without explicit designation as equity contributions or shareholder capital.

This difference in labeling may make it more difficult to distinguish between invested capital and other types of inflows based on the ledger alone. As a result, additional documentation or context may be necessary to determine how these transactions were intended to be classified.

There is no way to determine with certainty whether Sharif contributed “nearly $2,000,000”; however, that amount does not appear to be clearly reflected in the records reviewed.

To further add context, a capitalization table attributed to Steven Sharif and reportedly provided to legal representatives of the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust indicates an investment dated May 2015. The table reflects an amount of $9,550,000 associated with that entry.

When compared to earlier public statements in which Sharif referenced contributing “nearly $2,000,000,” these figures may appear inconsistent based on the materials reviewed. Additional context or documentation would be necessary to fully understand how these amounts relate to one another.

Based on the records reviewed, there does not appear to be a clearly identifiable entry reflecting $9,550,000. Given the reconstructed cash flow analysis presented above, a variance of that magnitude would likely be noticeable; however, additional documentation or context may be required to fully reconcile these figures.

In an interview with Asmongold The WoW Killer!? Asmongold Interviews Ashes of Creation Director Steven Sharif | NEW MMORPG (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0LQSMT83L0) on January 5, 2025, Steven Sharif stated:

“of which I’ve put over fifty-five million dollars of my own money into the development of this game. There’s never been a dime or profit that’s been taken from this company in eight years,”

“I am telling you that this game, that I have sunk fifty-five million or more dollars into over the course of the last eight years,”

“and will have to put in another fifty probably.”

If the figures referenced by Steven Sharif are accurate, then the reconstructed cash flow analysis discussed above would be expected to reflect those contributions. Based on the materials reviewed, total outflows appear to be approximately $197,847,747.14, with a resulting negative balance of approximately $369,713.37.

Within that framework, contributions of the magnitude described would typically be expected to be visible in the records; however, they are not clearly identifiable based on the reconstruction presented. This may indicate a difference between the available records and publicly stated figures, though additional documentation would be necessary to fully reconcile these amounts.

The following document was publicly displayed by Nefas and appears to reflect a capitalization summary in which Steven Sharif’s invested amount is listed differently. The document has not been independently verified and is presented for context only.

A central question raised by the analysis is how funds were allocated and categorized within the available records.

In prior public statements, Steven Sharif stated, “There’s never been a dime or profit that’s been taken from this company.”

The following section reflects an independent review of the ledger conducted by PGN Media, in which transactions were grouped into categories based on their apparent characteristics within the records. These categorizations are interpretive and are intended to assist in understanding patterns within the data, rather than to serve as definitive classifications.

The summary below presents these categorized totals as derived from the materials reviewed.

The labels used in this summary are analytical in nature and do not constitute findings of wrongdoing.

Based on the categorization applied to the records reviewed, certain transactions appear to be associated with Steven Sharif, including approximately $362,000 in loans, roughly $50,000 in direct payments, and additional related expenses totaling approximately $1.6 million. Some entries are labeled in a manner that suggests connections to other individuals; however, the underlying purpose and recipients of those transactions cannot be independently verified based on the ledger alone.

Similarly, transactions associated with John Moore appear in the records, including transfers totaling approximately $5 million and loans approaching $3 million, based on the classifications applied in this analysis.

When compared to prior public statements indicating that no funds were taken from the company, these categorized totals may raise questions regarding how certain transactions are defined and whether they align with those statements. Additional context or supporting documentation would be necessary to fully evaluate these figures.

Within the categories labeled 9000, 9001, and 9002 in this analysis, the combined total is approximately $54,261,929.76 based on the records reviewed. These categories are part of the interpretive framework applied to the ledger and are intended to group transactions with similar characteristics.

Some of these transactions may reflect legitimate business activity; however, the level of detail and consistency in the supporting descriptions appears to vary over time. In certain instances, entries such as multiple purchases from the same vendor on the same day may raise questions regarding how transactions were recorded or categorized.

While these observations do not, on their own, establish any violation, they may indicate inefficiencies or inconsistencies in recordkeeping based on the materials reviewed.

Based on the materials reviewed, the accounting entries shown above contain limited descriptive information in the memo fields. As a result, it may be difficult for an external reviewer to determine the full context of certain transactions without additional supporting documentation.

For example, the records appear to reflect transfers totaling approximately $16,500 to an entity labeled “Bank of New Zealand.” However, the entries do not include detailed references such as invoice numbers, account identifiers, or other contextual information that would clearly explain the purpose of these transactions.

Another observation is that corresponding wire transfer fees are not readily identifiable alongside the transfers to the Bank of New Zealand based on the records reviewed.

In general, similar transfers may be expected to include associated fees depending on the financial institution and transaction type. Without additional documentation, it is unclear whether such fees were incurred, recorded elsewhere, or structured differently in the ledger.

Based on the materials reviewed, the accounting records raise a number of questions regarding how transactions were recorded and classified. As of April 14, 2025, additional information has continued to emerge, and further analysis may provide additional clarity over time.

This article is intended to highlight observations drawn from the available records, though many aspects remain unresolved and may require further documentation or review to fully understand.

Additional coverage and analysis may follow as more information becomes available.

Ads Before Product? What Is Intrepid Thinking?

Every time I think I am free of Ashes of Creation, I get pulled back in. Happy birthday to me, I guess, because Karthos, a long-time community member, redeemed 50,000 Paradox Points and requested this viewer’s choice segment:

“I’d like to see you make a video on Ashes of Creation doing marketing for their upcoming Alpha.”

To do that, we need to take a quick look at the most recent livestream.

“This is also something that we get to use to litmus test some of these systems, not within the, you know, I don't want to call it necessarily, um, not within the core golden cohort, right? You guys who are on this stream right now, the 2,500 people who are watching the, you know, 50, 60, 70,000 people who will watch this, uh, Twitch recording and, or live stream on YouTube. You're a very core audience. You are very invested. You like this game, you are sold on kind of what we're trying to achieve. Otherwise you wouldn't be here right now.”

The Numbers Don’t Add Up

On paper, that sounds reasonable. In practice, Intrepid’s community engagement has been trending downward. According to TwitchTracker, the last time they broke 5,000 concurrent viewers on Twitch was December 20, 2024. Their YouTube recap views haven’t hit 50,000 since before that December update. Most livestream recaps since then have been in the low 40,000s, peaking at 43,000 in July 2025.

The more worrying number is participation. Two live servers exist today: Lotharia and Shol. Steven has previously said one server capped at 8,100 players, meaning a total of 16,200 possible testers. Against the 130,000 claimed Alpha 2 testers, that’s less than 12.5% of the base engaged at any one time.

Marketing or Advertising?

Steven framed the livestream discussion around “marketing,” but Margaret immediately followed up with talk about an advertising buy. Those are not the same thing. Marketing is strategy, messaging, and positioning. Advertising is paid placement.

If Intrepid’s solution is to buy testers, that’s questionable at best. You spent nine years cultivating an audience that now largely skips your livestreams and recaps. Instead of addressing retention, the plan is to spend money to acquire more testers?

If the goal truly is “fresh perspectives,” there’s a cheaper option: give away Alpha keys. That gets you new voices without burning money on ads.

The Community Pulse

Look at the Reddit feedback. The thread discussing advertising Alpha 2 pulled 92 comments and 37 upvotes. Intrepid’s own post of their livestream managed just 13 upvotes and 6 comments. That is a picture of community fatigue.

Intrepid has also insisted for years that they haven’t “done marketing” or, when pressed, that they haven’t done paid marketing. Any pushback gets waved off as “semantics.” Words only seem to matter when they serve the narrative of the moment.

The Jahlon Bottom Line

You don’t have a product yet, so any advertising is wasted dollars. With your abysmal retention rate of players who already paid $100 to $500 for test packages, you’re not holding onto the audience you built. You’ve always said “it will be ready when it’s ready.” In the meantime, you already have email lists, forums, a content creator program, monthly livestreams, daily tweets, and a subreddit. You have more than enough channels to reach your community, yet most of them go underutilized.

Starry Studios and NetEase dropped a lot this month, so it is easy to miss small changes that actually matter. The Storage Terminal is one of those changes. It is the kind of improvement that saves time and stops base maintenance from feeling like a second job. Players fall into two camps when it comes to storage:

1. The Organizer, who labels and sorts every crate obsessively. 2. The Hoarder, who dumps everything into the nearest chest and crafts duplicates later because nothing can be found.

The Storage Terminal solves both problems. Place one in your base and you get a single interface to access every storage crate on your property. Need to stash loot fast? Use Overview Mode and deposit items from one menu. Want to tidy up? Switch to Single Display Mode and manage each chest without running around.

1. Key perks players will notice immediately: 2. Centralized access to all property crates, so you no longer have to run chest to chest. 3. Rename crates, pick icons, and sort by crate name so searching actually works. 4. Quick deposit from Overview Mode, ideal for on the fly storage. 5. Merge Items command, which consolidates stacks top to bottom, useful after mass deposits.

Known rough edges to watch for:

1. Overview Mode does not always auto stack like items into existing stacks when you right click, it will drop in the first available slot. 2. Merge Items works in a top down order, which can leave things scattered if you deposit blindly. 3. Depositing everything by accident will require manual cleanup, starting at the top chest and working down. 4. Deviations remain tied to individual player deviation crates, there is no universal deviation transfer yet but vending machines still work

If you want to see how it actually behaves watch the video walkthrough. The clips show the fast deposit, naming crates, the merge order, and the weird stacking edge cases, all in real time. Seeing the UI in motion clears up a lot that reads oddly on the page.

Once Human / Palworld Crossover = Nintendo Legal Team, I Choose You The New Scenario: Deviation Arrives

Starry Studio’s Once Human just dropped one of its biggest updates yet. Version 2.1.4, released on September 24, 2025, opened Early Access to a brand-new scenario called Deviation: Survive, Capture, Preserve. This mode introduces new ways for the players to interact with Deviations. While once confined to the backpack or territory, now they can be studied, trapped, and fought. Players can craft capture grenades, build a team of three deviations, and test their squad in NPC arenas or in live PvP battles. As this is a scenario, you will need to create a new character, or move an existing character, onto a Deviated Secure server.

The update also brought in Fusion, a system that lets you merge Deviations, or even combine them with animals or furniture, to create strange new hybrids. This function is available in scenarios where you can build a Fusion Pod. You cannot currently merge Deviations in Eternaland, because there is no option to build the pod there. Many players have thousands of Deviations stored in E-land, so this limitation has a major impact on how the feature can be used. If you want to see the pod get added to Eternaland make sure to give that feedback to Starry on their social media channels and during game surveys.

With the new love and attention Deviations are getting, there is no surprise that Starry is cooking up something with Palworld.

The Palworld Crossover: What We Know

That “something” is the Palworld crossover, revealed at Tokyo Game Show 2025. On October 30, Pals from Pocketpair’s hit game will arrive in Once Human. The event includes a special crossover island that mixes Palworld’s bright biomes with Once Human’s gritty setting. Is this the map that we currently have for Deviated Secure, or is it something else? You can never be 100% certain with Once Human patches, but my personal belief is the map is the one we are currently on as it has the gyms in place for the challenges.

Previous press releases indicated that players will be able to transform into Pals using event items, which gives them a new way to explore and fight. So far, three Pals (Cattiva, Chillet, and Chillet Ignis) have been confirmed, with more teased. Best of all, the crossover Pals will be free to unlock, not stuck behind a paywall. For fans of both games, it is an easy invitation to jump in.

The Risk Behind the Hype

On the surface, this looks like a perfect collaboration. Once Human gets attention, Palworld reaches a new audience, and players enjoy seeing two survival games collide. But there is risk hiding under all the hype.

Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have already sued Pocketpair in Japan, claiming Palworld copies Pokémon’s creature systems. They even secured new patents that cover how monsters are summoned into battle, which gives them a stronger legal tool to go after anything that looks too close. That is where the danger lies. If the courts side with Nintendo, the fallout will not just be fines. Judges can issue injunctions that block updates, force the removal of features, or even ban content region by region. For Once Human players, that could mean losing access to Pals mid-event or seeing the new island stripped of its crossover content. For Starry, it could mean pouring months of development into a feature that has to be legally erased.

The China Factor

Part of Starry’s confidence may come from geography. Starry and NetEase are based in China, where enforcement of foreign copyrights and patents is inconsistent. On paper, China is part of global agreements that say it must protect foreign rights. In practice, lawsuits brought by foreign companies often move slowly, result in small payouts, or stall in the courts. That reality gives Chinese developers more freedom to push boundaries when their core audience is domestic.

The flip side is that this shield does not extend beyond China’s borders. Nintendo’s lawsuits are already active in Japan, where courts are far stricter and patent cases are taken seriously. If Pocketpair loses in Tokyo, Once Human’s Palworld content could be pulled into the same legal net. That could trigger takedowns or blocks in Japan, the U.S., or Europe, leaving the Chinese servers intact but cutting off global players. The result would be a fractured community, with some regions enjoying the full crossover while others get left with an empty shell.

Smart Play or Taunting the Dragon?

So, is this crossover a clever move or is it poking the bear? From one angle, it is smart. The event builds hype, drives free press, and ties directly into the new creature capture and fusion systems Starry just rolled out. Free Pals also make it easy for curious players to test it out without risk.

From another angle, it is a gamble. Nintendo has already shown it is ready to fight over patents, and by teaming with Palworld, Starry and NetEase could be painting a giant target on their backs. But maybe that is the point. Sometimes studios stir controversy on purpose, as a way to signal ambition and prove they belong on the same stage as industry giants. If the crossover goes smoothly, it may mark a turning point where developers stop backing away from old IP giants and start claiming their own space in the monster-battle genre. If it does not, Once Human could become a case study in overconfidence, remembered more for the fight it picked than the event it built.

Freedom of Speech, Government Power, and the Kimmel Affair: What the First Amendment Actually Protects

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment restrains government, not private parties. The founding generation understood freedom of speech as a protection from government punishment for criticizing those in power, whether by imprisonment or fines for words already spoken, or by attempts to prevent speech from occurring before a single word is uttered. Private moderation by networks, venues, and platforms is not “censorship” in the constitutional sense unless government pressure or control is involved.

The Jimmy Kimmel controversy this week is a clean case study. ABC and its affiliates made editorial choices about a show they own. The new wrinkle is alleged government interference. If federal regulators threatened license action to induce content decisions, that crosses into constitutionally suspect coercion. Modern social media raises the same fault line. Courts have recognized the importance of online forums, yet they have repeatedly held that private platforms are not state actors, while striking down state laws that try to force platforms to carry speech. The constitutional target remains the government.

What the First Amendment Protects

The operative text is straightforward: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Bill of Rights binds government, not private citizens or companies.

Early American practice confirms this understanding. The Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized harsh criticism of federal officials, triggered prosecutions of opposition newspaper editors, and provoked a national backlash that helped defeat the Federalists. James Madison’s Report of 1800 argued that robust criticism of government is essential and that federal punishment of speech is incompatible with a republic. Two centuries of case law sharpen the point. Government cannot punish mere criticism of public officials without meeting exacting standards, such as the “actual malice” rule for defamation claims brought by public officials or public figures. Incitement is punishable only if it is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action, a very narrow window.

Bottom line. Freedom of speech is, first and last, a shield against government punishment or control.

Censorship, Moderation, and Intimidation

Censorship in constitutional law requires state action. Private owners of newspapers, TV networks, theaters, conference halls, or websites exercise their own speech and property rights when they curate, edit, or refuse to carry content. Courts have held that YouTube, for instance, is not a state actor and can make editorial choices without First Amendment constraints.

Intimidation by government is different. Officials cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. If regulators or law enforcement threaten penalties or use their leverage to coerce private parties into suppressing lawful speech, that is unconstitutional. This principle is old and new. The Court condemned “informal sanctions” and threat-driven suppression in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. Modern decisions like Backpage v. Dart and the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2024 ruling in NRA v. Vullo reaffirm that coercive pressure by officials violates the First Amendment.

When a private company or individual decides not to host or promote someone’s speech, that is moderation, not censorship under the Constitution. Censorship only happens when the government uses its power to silence people, either directly or by pressuring others to do it on its behalf.

Case Study: The Jimmy Kimmel Affair

What happened. During the week of September 15, 2025, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! after a monologue about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Large affiliate groups said they would not air the show. News outlets report that the FCC’s chair publicly warned ABC and Disney, suggesting possible regulatory consequences, and affiliates began preempting or replacing the program.

What this is not. Jimmy Kimmel did not ‘lose his freedom of speech.’ What happened is that his show was taken off the air by the network that owns the timeslot and controls distribution. That decision was an exercise of private editorial discretion, not a First Amendment violation. What might raise constitutional flags. The allegations that an FCC leader threatened license action or other regulatory reprisals to induce content changes would, if proven, look like classic unconstitutional coercion. The Communications Act explicitly denies the FCC a power of censorship, and the agency itself acknowledges that it is barred from trying to prevent the broadcast of viewpoints. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said government cannot weaponize regulatory tools to suppress disfavored speech.

Could Kimmel speak elsewhere. Yes. He can stage his own event, livestream independently, or partner with another distributor. His ability to speak is limited by contract and venue rules, not by criminal law. The First Amendment does not guarantee access to any particular private microphone.

Government Interference, the FCC, and the “Public Interest” Broadcast TV is regulated because it uses public spectrum, yet even here the government’s power is narrow. The FCC can sanction obscenity and indecency within strict limits and time windows, and it evaluates broadcast licenses under a “public interest” standard. It cannot dictate political viewpoints or punish lawful commentary. The statute flatly states that nothing in the Communications Act gives the Commission a power of censorship.

If threats of license consequences were deployed to punish or chill a particular viewpoint, that would run headlong into Bantam Books and NRA v. Vullo, because coercive “guidance” that pressures third parties to de-platform lawful speech is itself state action. The correct analytical lens for any Kimmel-related investigation is coercion, not mere disagreement with tone or taste.

Social Media: “The Modern Public Square,” With a Catch

The Supreme Court has recognized the civic importance of social media. In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the Court struck down a state law barring sex offenders from social media and observed that cyberspace, and especially social media, are “the modern public square.” The Court’s language emphasized the central role these platforms play in public discourse, but it did not hold that they are legally public forums subject to First Amendment obligations and are not bound by public-forum rules.

That point was clarified in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (2019). There, the Court held that operating a public-access channel did not make a private nonprofit a state actor. The First Amendment, the Court explained, “prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech” and “does not prohibit private abridgment of speech.” Similarly, in Prager University v. Google (9th Cir. 2020), the court rejected claims that YouTube was a state actor, reaffirming that private platforms retain their own editorial discretion under the First Amendment.

States attempted to override this principle by passing laws that restricted content moderation. In July 2025, the Supreme Court struck down Florida’s SB 7072 and Texas’s HB 20 in the consolidated NetChoice cases. The Court held that the First Amendment protects a private platform’s right to curate content and invalidated laws that imposed viewpoint-neutral carriage mandates or heavy-handed transparency requirements that burdened editorial judgment. Government, in short, cannot compel private editors (including digital platforms) to publish speech they choose not to host.

The Court has also clarified when government officials cross the line by using social media themselves. In Lindke v. Freed (2024), the case centered on James Freed, a city manager in Michigan, who blocked a resident from commenting on his Facebook page and deleted critical posts about the city’s COVID-19 response. Freed claimed the page was personal, not official. The Supreme Court created a two-part test:

(1) Was the official using the account to carry out governmental duties or speak with the authority of office?

(2) If yes, then blocking users or deleting comments is unconstitutional state action.

If the account is used mainly for personal life, the First Amendment does not apply. But if the account functions as an official channel, silencing critics there is treated like silencing them at a city council meeting.”

Policy question: Is social media so integral to civic life that it should be “free from moderation.”?

The current constitutional answer is no. Platforms remain private actors with their own First Amendment rights. The only time the Constitution bites is when government pressures or coerces platforms to suppress lawful speech. Future legislation might address concerns about market power, transparency, or interoperability, but it cannot strip platforms of their editorial discretion without running into the First Amendment, as the NetChoice decision made clear.

Conclusions

The Founders built a shield against government punishment for speech, especially criticism of those in office.

Private moderation is not constitutional censorship. Government intimidation is.

The Kimmel episode is not a First Amendment violation by ABC, yet any credible evidence that federal regulators threatened adverse action to kill or alter the show moves the dispute into serious constitutional territory.

In May 2017, Ashes of Creation exploded onto Kickstarter. The campaign promised a new kind of MMORPG, ambitious, community-driven, and self-funded. Players rallied to the pitch, pledging more than $3.2 million to bring the project to life.

On 1 May 2017, the day of the Kickstarter launched, Steven Sharif wrote to the community:

“I intend to use those funds to bring on additional team members who can focus on building the game, as well as, include certain systems that I think will fit well into our design. I am primarily self-funding the project, but if necessary, I have made some very good friends in my previous business endeavors who are dying to invest.”

The message positioned Kickstarter support as supplemental rather than essential. Sharif presented the project’s foundation as secure through his own financing, with investors presented as only a possibility if needed.

On 4 May 2017, he reinforced the point:

“The project is being funded by myself currently. This is going to be a bigger game, content-wise, than Crowfall, and our budget and funding reflects that.”

That theme carried forward into 2019. In a March 7 Discord QnA, Sharif explained:

“Most software development, banks will not leverage as they don’t like that risk. Usually outside funds are raised through venture capitalists because they are risk oriented – however it isn’t something I have done.”

Four years later the narrative remained unchanged. Sharif shared this message in a May 2021 Reddit post:

“I’m funding the project, so no investors or a board to answer to, no publishers to appease…”

It was a powerful reassurance, a promise that Ashes of Creation was free from the compromises that came with corporate publishers or investor pressure.

Even as Sharif was making those assurances, public filings and court documents reveal a more complicated reality. Behind the scenes, Intrepid Studios already had outside creditors, one who would eventually claim a stake in the fledgling development studio.

In 2015, Intrepid Studios filed its Articles of Incorporation with the California Secretary of State. The document authorized the company to issue 10,000,000 shares of common stock, a standard placeholder for ambitious startups.

On 23 February 2017, several months before the Kickstarter Campaign, financing arrangements for Intrepid Studios began to appear. According to court filings Jason Caramanis, through the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust, entered into agreements with Intrepid Studios for a principal amount of One Million Dollars, at a 5% interest rate, with eight fixed interval payments. At each fixed interval Caramanis had the option to postpone payment or to convert any portion of the amount into Intrepid Studios Common Stock. Additionally, the original deal allowed for the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust to invest up to an additional One Million Dollars into Intrepid Studios.

In and of itself this is a fairly common financing solution for startup companies, where the startup exchanges equity for capital; however, for Intrepid Studios whose Chief Executive Officer had repeatedly stated he was financing the project it might have raised questions, if anyone outside of the company had known about it.

That 2017 promissory note was amended on 9 March 2018 which altered the conversion process from Common Stock to Preferred Stock. Between 9 March 2018 and 5 March 2019 the investment clause appears to have been executed as evidenced by the 5 March 2019 letter from the Beverly Hills Law Corp on behalf of the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust notifying Steven Sharif that the Trust had exercised their conversion rights making them a 4.4% shareholder of Intrepid.

On 21 August 2019, Intrepid Studios, Inc., via a Stock Purchase Agreement, sold another 53 shares of Preferred Stock, a 5.3% share for a total of $2,205,000 bringing the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust ownership total to 9.7% On 14 June 2024, Caramanis acting as Trustee of the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust filed a lawsuit (37-2024-00028199-CU-WM-CTL) in San Diego Superior Court against Intrepid Studios. In this lawsuit Caramanis alleges he was denied access to the financial books and records of Intrepid Studios, including, but not limited to, a list of shareholders, meeting minutes for all meetings for the previous three years, statements of cash flow, balance sheets, and all bank statements for the proceeding three years.

The filings leave unanswered questions, such as why did Intrepid Studios not use the Kickstarter money to pay off their million dollar initial debt? Why did they elect to make no payments to the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust allowing for the full 4.4% conversion? Why did a company that claims transparent development not allow Caramanis to see the records of the company that he, via his Trust, was a partial owner of?

Those questions cannot be answered from the court filings, as Intrepid Studios did not file any documents prior to Caramanis asking for the case to be dismissed without prejudice.

This lawsuit was not the last time the Ya-Ya Legacy Trust appeared in Intrepid’s records. A later UCC filing involving the Trust will be addressed in a follow-up article, pending relevant information.

Intrepid Studios, via their in-house press email, was offered an opportunity to respond to this story and did not respond.

All information in this article is based on public filings and court documents available as of the dates referenced. The current ownership or financing structure of Intrepid Studios may have changed since those filings.

Justin Olivetti, “Massively OP Interview: Ashes of Creation on a New Way to MMO,” Massively Overpowered, May 1, 2017, https://massivelyop.com/2017/05/01/massively-op-interview-ashes-of-creation-on-a-new-way-to-mmo. Accessed September 17, 2025.

Royce, Bree. “Ashes of Creation’s Steven Sharif on his business history, $30M funding goal, and PvP.” Massively Overpowered. May 4, 2017. https://massivelyop.com/2017/05/04/ashes-of-creations-steven-sharif-on-his-business-history-30m-funding-goal-and-pvp/. Accessed September 17, 2025.

Sharif, Steven. “3/07/19 Discord QnA.” The Ashes Post, March 7, 2019. “Q: How does funding for game development normally work? A: Most software development …” https://ashespost.com/3-07-19-discord-qna/. Accessed September 17, 2025.

Steven_AoC. Comment on “I don’t get the hype for Ashes of Creation.” Reddit, r/MMORPG, May 20, 2021. https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/ngo2pi/comment/gyt3gat/. Accessed September 17, 2025.

California Secretary of State. Business Search: Intrepid Studios, Inc. (Entity No. 3788290). BizFile Online. Filed May 20, 2015. https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business. Accessed September 17, 2025.

The Visional Wheel: Once Human’s Strange Experiment With Reality

When Once Human launched the Visional Wheel, it sounded like one of the most ambitious systems the developers had attempted. A constantly turning mechanic that would reshape the world every few months, it promised fresh survival challenges, combat twists, and new scenarios for players to master. Each cycle would bring a new anomaly, bending the rules of the game in sometimes subtle, sometimes dramatic ways.

The first cycle was called the Lunar Oracle, and it bathed the wasteland in the eerie glow of a crimson moon. Under its light, sanity itself became fragile. Step outside your territory for too long and your mind would unravel, sanity draining steadily until you teetered on the edge of madness. Recovery was slower than normal, and only defeating enemies could restore a survivor’s grip on reality. At the same time, those who fought while injured found themselves strangely rewarded. Low health meant higher resource yields, greater rewards from supply crates, and even special “Lunar Whispers” that could be harvested from defeated enemies. The catch was brutal: those whispers faded with time, pushing players into an endless cycle of risk and reward.

For many, the Lunar Oracle hit the right balance. It was simple to understand, eerie in its design, and the rewards felt worthwhile. For others, it was the start of a pattern; fun in concept, but a grind in practice.

The Wheel turned again, and the Starfall Inversion cycle began. Gravity itself broke. Players found themselves in zones of low gravity, leaping into the air with an almost dreamlike weightlessness. It was freedom for some and frustration for others. Combat in mid-air was clumsy, base building became a headache, and precision was replaced with awkward floating. New mods tied to the anomaly only added to the division. Bonuses that activated when airborne or using height advantage sounded exciting, but in practice they were situational and often useless.

Veterans of the game voiced their frustration. On Reddit and in Discords, the verdict was split. Some loved the spectacle of breaking physics, but many felt that the cycle added little for end-game players who already had strong gear. Others complained that the grind for new crystals and formulas was long and unrewarding. Compared to the Lunar Oracle, the gravity cycle felt flashy but less meaningful.

Now the Wheel turns again, and this time the crimson moon is back. Lunar Revelry begins on September 24th (PT), bringing with it an upgraded Blood Moon and a dangerous new foe: the Lord of Moonlight. Unlike the Lunar Oracle, the Blood Moon will now last thirty minutes of real time each night, doubling its duration, and Deviants will grow stronger as survivors lose Sanity to Lunacy.

The Lord of Moonlight is more than just a reskinned boss. It takes on your appearance, summons clones, and in some cases can even morph into a more powerful form with greater rewards. If it defeats you, it levels up, steals your Lunar Whispers, and becomes harder for the next player to take down. Beat it, and you claim all the whispers it has collected.

Beyond the boss fight, there’s a new large-scale Omen of Affliction event where players in different sectors compete in seven rounds of 1v1 trials. Sectors earn points by collecting and submitting Lunar Essence, and players can vote on “Lunar Omens” that actively make the fight harder for rival sectors. It’s part PvE, part PvP by proxy, and it pushes cooperation in a way Once Human hasn’t really done before.

On top of that, there’s a Lunatic Medley event focused on farming Lunar Whispers for rewards. You can redeem them for new skins and collectibles, or even exchange them for items from past Visional Wheel cycles.

Oracle Crates also return in force. Explore strongholds and defeat Lunarspawn to open crates that may contain returning Blood Moon Morphed Deviations such as Lonewolf’s Whisper, Festering Gel, Snowsprite, By-the-Wind, Zeno-Purifier, and Pyro Dino. If you want the new stuff, take part in the Lord of Moonlight game mode. Those crates can drop three brand-new Blood Moon Deviations: Electric Eel, Atomic Snail, and ZapCam.

And of course, the arsenal grows. Two new weapons headline the update:

- SKS Pathfinder: which can trigger frost effects, generate Deviant particles, and charge into an ice spike attack.

- P90 Holographic Resonance: with a chance to trigger Bull’s Eye and unleash AoE damage after sustained fire.

A new Crescent mod suffix joins the lineup, Lunar mods from the original cycle are back, and even the Cradle system is seeing adjustments to fit the season.

The question now is whether this new version of the crimson moon delivers. Does it feel like a proper expansion of the Lunar Oracle, or is it just recycled content dressed up with a new boss and longer timers? The Visional Wheel was always going to walk a fine line. Is it a clever way to keep things fresh while the developers build deeper updates, or is it a cheapened system that risks replacing real scenarios with gimmicks?

Political Recognition vs. Legal Statehood: Palestine, Kosovo, and the Vatican in International Law

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution on September 12, 2025, by a margin of 142 in favor, 10 against, and 12 abstentions. The resolution condemned the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks, called for the release of hostages, and urged the establishment of a Palestinian state “without Hamas” through irreversible steps toward a two-state solution. The measure was non-binding. As such, it carries political weight but no legal force under international law. Israel rejected the resolution outright, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling it “a reward for Hamas.” The United States stood firm in opposition.

The passage of this resolution highlights a long-standing tension in global politics: the difference between political recognition and legal statehood.

Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by more than 130 countries.

Kosovo is recognized by around 100.

The Vatican (Holy See) is recognized by virtually every state.

Yet their legal status within the United Nations differs. The Vatican and Palestine share “non-member observer state” status. Kosovo remains outside the UN altogether. The crucial difference lies not in meeting abstract criteria for statehood but in the geopolitics of UN Security Council veto power.

This article explores the legal and political dimensions of the UN resolution on Palestine. It draws comparisons with Kosovo and Vatican City. It situates the debate in international law, traces relevant historical events, and demonstrates why non-binding resolutions do not fundamentally alter legal realities.

The Legal Framework of Statehood

What exactly does it take for a country to be legally recognized? The answer is not as straightforward as it might appear. International law provides one set of criteria, while the United Nations enforces another. The result is a gap between entities that satisfy the legal definition of statehood and those that achieve political acceptance on the world stage.

The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), signed at the Seventh International Conference of American States in Uruguay, was one of the first systematic efforts to codify the requirements of statehood. Although it was a regional treaty limited to the Americas, its four-part test became foundational to modern international legal thought. Article 1 of the convention specifies that a state must possess:

1. A permanent population

2. A defined territory

3. A government

4. The capacity to enter into relations with other states

The importance of the Montevideo Convention lies in its adoption of the declaratory theory of statehood. Under this theory, an entity qualifies as a state if it objectively meets these conditions, regardless of whether other states recognize it. This framework established a legal baseline for treating statehood as a matter of law rather than political discretion.

Although the Montevideo Convention is not binding outside its signatories and has never been formally adopted by the United Nations, its four criteria have become widely accepted as customary international law. Courts, governments, and scholars continue to cite Montevideo as the baseline test for statehood. For that reason, it remains the “starting point” in legal discussions of sovereignty, even though political recognition frequently overrides its application in practice.

Montevideo offers a clear legal definition of statehood. The United Nations, however, has become the decisive authority in practice on who is accepted as a sovereign nation. Article 4 of the UN Charter (1945) sets the framework for admission, but it functions less as a legal test and more as a procedural and political filter. Article 4 states:

“Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”

In practice, Article 4 establishes a multi-step process:

A state must apply for membership.

The application must win at least nine affirmative votes in the Security Council.

None of the five permanent members (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China) may cast a veto.

If recommended by the Council, the application then goes to the General Assembly, where a two-thirds majority is required for admission.

Unlike Montevideo, Article 4 does not set out objective conditions such as population, territory, or government. Its language is deliberately broad, leaving discretion to existing UN members and, most significantly, to the five permanent members of the Security Council. This structure ensures that UN membership depends as much on political acceptance as on legal qualifications.

The interaction between Montevideo and Article 4 reveals the enduring gap between law and politics in international relations. Montevideo provides the legal criteria for statehood. Article 4 supplies the political gatekeeping that determines whether those criteria matter in practice. Entities such as Palestine and Kosovo can meet the Montevideo test but remain excluded from the UN because of Security Council vetoes. Israel in 1949 illustrates the opposite: despite unsettled borders, it gained admission because it had the support of the great powers.

In the modern era, the United Nations serves as the de facto global benchmark for statehood. Even overwhelming General Assembly support, such as the September 2025 vote on Palestinian statehood, cannot secure full membership if a single permanent member of the Security Council objects. The Montevideo Convention continues to define the legal baseline, but Article 4 guarantees that political realities outweigh legal theory in determining who is accepted as a state in the international order.

Palestine: Political Recognition vs Legal Deadlock

International Recognition

Palestine declared statehood in 1988, and since then more than 130 UN member states, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, have recognized it as a sovereign nation. On paper, that places Palestine ahead of Kosovo, which has fewer than 100 recognitions, and makes it one of the most widely recognized states outside the United Nations system. In 2012, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 67/19, upgrading Palestine to the status of a non-member observer state, the same position held by the Vatican. Non-member status can be conferred by the General Assembly without Security Council approval.

This was not a symbolic gesture. The upgrade gave Palestine access to international organizations such as the International Criminal Court and allowed it to sign and ratify treaties, enabling it to act as a state in parts of the international legal order. Despite these gains, Palestine remains unable to cast votes in the General Assembly or secure a seat on the Security Council. Its position is one of partial legitimacy: a state in the eyes of much of the world, but without full legal standing in the institution that matters most.

Security Council Vetoes

The barrier to Palestine’s full membership is not recognition numbers, but Security Council politics. Palestine has repeatedly secured the support of a majority of the Council’s rotating members, often more than the nine affirmative votes required under Article 4 of the UN Charter. The United States has consistently exercised or threatened its veto, citing unresolved borders, the role of Hamas in Gaza, and the claim that Palestinian statehood must emerge from direct negotiations with Israel. The U.S. veto in April 2024 of a draft resolution recommending Palestine’s admission is the most recent example of this entrenched policy. In practice, the U.S. position ensures that no matter how many states recognize Palestine, its UN status will not advance without a shift in Washington’s stance.

The Role of Disputed Borders

The most prominent legal argument used to justify blocking Palestine’s membership is the claim that its borders are unresolved. Israel occupies East Jerusalem, controls large portions of the West Bank, and maintains a blockade on Gaza, which remains under Hamas’s de facto control. The General Assembly has treated these issues as temporary, allowing Palestine to advance within the UN system as far as observer status. The Security Council, dominated by permanent member veto power, has treated them as disqualifying. The double standard is evident when compared to Israel’s admission in 1949. At that time, Israel also had contested and unsettled borders, fresh from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Unlike Palestine today, however, Israel enjoyed the support of both the United States and the Soviet Union, and that political backing outweighed the lack of territorial clarity. Palestine, despite broader international recognition, lacks the decisive support of a single great power and remains locked out of membership.

Practical Consequences of Observer Status

Being confined to observer status has real-world consequences for Palestine. It can sign treaties and join institutions such as the ICC, but it lacks the ability to vote in the General Assembly or influence the selection of Security Council members. It cannot block or shape resolutions that affect its interests. Palestine also faces restrictions in international finance and trade, since many global institutions take their cue from the UN when determining which entities are treated as sovereign states. Bilateral recognition gives it embassies, flag status, and some treaty access, but without UN membership it cannot fully participate in the international order. This limited status also weakens its negotiating power with Israel and leaves it reliant on external allies to push its case in global forums. In short, observer status allows Palestine to act like a state in some respects while underscoring its exclusion from the highest levels of international decision-making.

Israel’s Admission and the Contrast with Palestine

Israel declared independence in May 1948, following the expiration of the British Mandate for Palestine and the adoption of the UN Partition Plan of 1947. The new state was immediately drawn into war with neighboring Arab countries, and its borders remained unsettled during and after the conflict. Despite these conditions, Israel received rapid recognition from both the United States and the Soviet Union, two powers that were otherwise bitter rivals in the early Cold War. That unusual convergence of support was decisive.

In May 1949, Israel was admitted to the United Nations by General Assembly Resolution 273, which followed a Security Council recommendation. The decision acknowledged that Israel had accepted the obligations of the UN Charter, and it reflected the political reality that a majority of member states supported its admission. At the time, questions about borders and refugees were noted, but they were not treated as disqualifying, in part because the geopolitical interests of the great powers aligned in favor of Israel’s inclusion.

The contrast with Palestine is significant but should be understood in this historical context. Palestine’s unresolved borders are cited today as the central obstacle to its membership. Yet the decisive factor is not the borders themselves, but the political stance of the United States, which has consistently used its Security Council veto to block Palestinian admission. The comparison demonstrates that the UN’s gatekeeping has always been shaped less by strict legal standards and more by the political calculations of the Security Council’s permanent members.

Vatican City: A State Without UN Membership

Vatican City offers a unique counterpoint in discussions of statehood. Its creation was the product of the Lateran Treaty of 1929, signed between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy under Benito Mussolini. The treaty resolved the so-called “Roman Question,” a political and territorial dispute that had lingered since Italian unification in 1870. When Italy annexed the Papal States, the Popes lost control of their temporal territories and considered themselves “prisoners in the Vatican.” For nearly sixty years, relations between the Italian state and the Papacy remained frozen.

The Lateran Treaty ended that deadlock by establishing Vatican City as a new, independent sovereign state under the exclusive authority of the Holy See. Italy formally recognized papal sovereignty over the 0.2 square miles within Rome that make up the Vatican, and the Holy See in turn recognized the Kingdom of Italy and its capital in Rome. Vatican City remains the only country in the world to have been created through this treaty framework, making it a singular case in modern state formation.

Despite its tiny size, Vatican City meets the traditional Montevideo criteria for statehood:

A defined and undisputed territory (0.2 square miles within Rome)

A permanent, albeit small, population

A functioning government (the Pope and the Roman Curia)

Capacity for foreign relations (over 180 diplomatic missions)

The Holy See chose not to pursue full UN membership after the organization’s creation in 1945. Instead, in 1964, it accepted the status of permanent observer state. This position allows it to participate in General Assembly debates and maintain diplomatic relations without becoming entangled in the political alliances and voting blocs of the UN. The choice reflects the Vatican’s preference for neutrality and independence in global affairs.

The Vatican’s case demonstrates that full UN membership is not required for a state to be sovereign, universally recognized, and fully functional in international law. It is an example of how a state can exercise international influence and maintain legitimacy through bilateral diplomacy and treaty participation while remaining outside the UN framework.

Kosovo: Recognition Without UN Membership

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008. It meets the Montevideo criteria for statehood and has been recognized by around 100 UN member states, including most European Union countries and the United States. Despite this recognition, Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations. Russia and China, both permanent members of the Security Council and allies of Serbia, oppose its membership and have used their veto power to block admission.

Kosovo’s position illustrates the mirror image of Palestine’s situation. Palestine is recognized by much of the Global South but blocked from UN membership by the United States. Kosovo is recognized by much of the West but blocked by Russia and China. Both entities function as states in political and practical terms, yet both remain legally constrained by the geopolitics of the Security Council.

The 2025 Non-Binding Resolution: What It Means

In September 2025, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution by a wide margin, 142 votes in favor, 10 against, and 12 abstentions. The measure condemned the October 7 Hamas attacks, called for the release of hostages, and endorsed the establishment of a Palestinian state without Hamas. On the surface, this outcome looked like a major diplomatic victory for Palestine, with overwhelming international support. Yet because the resolution was non-binding, it carried only symbolic force.

The resolution is politically significant:

It demonstrates overwhelming global support for Palestinian statehood.

It condemns Hamas and strengthens calls for hostages to be released.

It places pressure on Israel and the United States, highlighting their isolation on the issue.

The resolution changes nothing legally:

Non-binding resolutions cannot override the UN Charter’s rules for membership.

Security Council veto power remains decisive.

Disputed borders and the Hamas factor continue to provide justification for U.S. opposition.

The September 2025 resolution is best understood as a signal rather than a solution. It reinforced the extent of global backing for Palestinian aspirations but left the core obstacle untouched: the Security Council’s gatekeeping power. Unless the United States alters its stance, Palestine will remain trapped in observer status no matter how many countries vote in favor at the General Assembly.

The UN’s September 2025 non-binding resolution on Palestine highlights the enduring divide between political recognition and legal statehood. More than 130 countries treat Palestine as a state, yet without Security Council approval and full UN membership it remains in limbo. Kosovo shares a similar fate, functioning as a state without UN membership because of Russian and Chinese opposition. The Vatican demonstrates the reverse, proving that a state can exist fully without UN membership when it is universally recognized and deliberately chooses not to join.

This comparison underscores a larger truth. Statehood in practice is determined less by legal doctrine and more by power politics. The Montevideo Convention provides the theoretical baseline for what a state is. Article 4 of the UN Charter ensures that the decisive test is political, resting on the judgment of existing members and the veto power of the permanent five. Israel’s admission in 1949 despite disputed borders illustrates the point. What matters most is recognition by powerful states, not legal neatness.

Accused of Masquerading? Time to Clear the Air

You can call my content cerebral, refined, well researched. You can call it vulgar, crass, profane. I will agree with all of it, because I am.

What I do not tolerate are muppets. I do not suffer fools. You do not have to respect every opinion. You only have to accept people have the right to one. If you say something, justify it.

Anyone honest about my work knows I bring receipts. You may not like my conclusions, but you will see how I got there. Mock my content if you want. If I am not your style, do not watch me. Disrupt the show, I ban you. Done.

What I do not tolerate is anyone questioning my integrity.

So imagine my surprise when Steven Sharif, Creative Director of Ashes of Creation and CEO of Intrepid Studios, accused me of “masquerading.”

Let’s be clear. I stepped away because I lost faith in the project. Before 30 August 2025, I had not covered Ashes of Creation on Twitch since 11 November 2024. https://twitchtracker.com/jahlonpgn/games/497509 The only video I made was an op-ed on Level 80’s bush league article.

Have I ever “mascaraded” (sic) anything about Ashes or Intrepid? No. I do not need to. Intrepid embarrasses itself. The product still cannot stand on its own legs. I stopped covering Ashes because Intrepid did not want negative feedback. For years I pointed out flaws, gave fixes, offered solutions. They ignored it. Then they labeled my criticism “toxic vitriol” capable of causing “emotional duress” and “physical harm.”

If Steven wants to talk about masquerading the truth, let’s start with Reddit. He says the MMORPG subreddit is unfriendly. Yet he is the one downvoted on his own subreddit. That is not vitriol. That is reality leaking into the echo chamber.

If we are talking masquerade, let’s revisit August 2019. Steven claimed Intrepid could not tell the community in February that APOC was coming to Steam, because they did not know.

If they did not know, why did they put Steamworks.Net into the Intrepid Launcher on 17 and 18 December 2018? Developers confirm Steamworks is only for putting a game on Steam and enabling Steam functions. What secret knowledge did Intrepid have that others did not?

Here is the simplest one. Intrepid claimed their studio was over 17,000 square feet. The suite was 5,826. Why inflate it? Would anyone care if it was 5,826? No. Am I the only one who cares about accuracy? Maybe.

Once Human: Permanent Servers Get Final Merge and New Rules

The Once Human dev team has confirmed a major shift for permanent servers. On September 10, 2025, there will be one final World merge. After that, permanent servers will no longer face forced merges. Instead, players will have the option to voluntarily migrate to the World they want.

This decision comes after months of feedback from players who said stability and consistency matter more than the disruptive cycle of merges. According to the devs, new backend optimizations mean that merges are no longer necessary to keep servers healthy.

Another big change lands on September 11 with adjustments to sign-up rules. Once a character joins a permanent server or a settlement-phase server, they will face a 12-hour cooldown before joining another. Repeated sign-ups in the same month will increase that cooldown, but everything resets on the first of the month. The goal is to make server communities stronger and easier to navigate.

If you want to read the official announcement straight from the source, you can find it here: Once Human Dev Blog – Permanent Servers Update

We Have to Fix American Schools Before We Can Fix Anything Else

Introduction: The Foundation of Education Is Cracked

Every society rises or falls based on the qualities of its leaders. Those societies governed by individuals who were prudent, cautious with good judgement often, but not always, saw enlightenment. Those governed by individuals who were aggressive and militaristic often saw expansion but also were frequently plagued with ingrained turmoil in the following generations.

What determines the qualities of leaders? Their education, or their lack of it.

It would be easier, and more inclusive to all citizens, to say the quality of the education of the members of that society, yet that would not be historically accurate. The harsh truth of human history is that the world has seen more societies which operated with elite literacy while the majority remained illiterate, than it has societies which offered free education to the majority of its population. In fact, in many societies keeping the population deliberately illiterate was a way to keep people chained in serfdom and slavery.

In modern America, where free public education extends through the 12th grade, literacy outcomes remain troubling. According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2023, about 28 percent of U.S. adults score at or below Level 1 in literacy, meaning they struggle with everyday reading tasks such as following written instructions or interpreting short texts.¹ A separate 2022 brief by The Policy Circle reports that 54 percent of American adults read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level, and nearly one in five read below a third-grade level.² Taken together, this suggests that tens of millions of Americans lack the literacy skills needed to fully engage as informed citizens. Can we reasonably expect such a large portion of the population to understand, let alone recognize, the slow erosion of civil liberties?

This erosion of civil liberties is becoming alarmingly apparent in 2025, as people continuously echo the rhetoric that due process as protected by the American Constitution only applies to American Citizens, while nothing could be further from the truth. In the original unamended Constitution, the word citizen only appears five times, with three instances being applied to who could serve in Congress or as the President. The other two instances are specific references to citizens of states and not the country as a whole.

Who do we blame for a citizenry that does not understand their own civil liberties and who is afforded those protections? The Education system, the system not the individual teachers, charged with turning students into citizens, has failed so completely that many so-called citizens cannot grasp even the most basic civil liberties. We must begin to focus on fixing America, and to do that we must transcend the idea that schools exist only to prepare students for some nebulous, undefined future.

Instead, we must recognize that schools must evolve into institutions that do more than prepare children for jobs. They must forge students into citizens, instilled with the knowledge, values, and virtues necessary for our society to thrive. Yet this mission must never slip into indoctrination. Education must be rooted in facts and truths, not political narratives, so that students are equipped to think critically rather than trained to echo ideology. A successful graduate of the American school system would be neither Democrat nor Republican, neither liberal nor conservative. They would be a citizen able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both views.

Why? The answer is presented in the form of another question: From where does modern western society draw its leaders? From its populace.

It has not always been so. In earlier ages, leadership was secured by birthright, reserved for those of royal blood who claimed divine sanction as their sole qualification. To resist the crown was to resist God Himself. That is no longer the world in which we live.

For much of the twentieth century, American schools were the envy of the world. Today they are in decline. Despite record spending, student performance has stagnated, teachers are leaving the profession, and young adults graduate without the skills necessary for work or life. This collapse did not happen overnight. It has unfolded gradually, particularly since the creation of the Department of Education in 1979.

If the United States wants to solve its greatest problems, healthcare, poverty, homelessness, climate change, infrastructure, or debt, it must first rebuild its schools. Until that is accomplished, every other reform will remain shallow and incomplete.

One of the biggest problems in content creation is that every platform uses different words for the same ideas. To keep things simple, here is how we will use the terms in this discussion:

Follower: Someone who clicks a button to keep up with you. On YouTube this is a “subscriber,” on TikTok it is a “follow,” on Twitch or Kick it works the same way. The action is free.

Subscriber: Someone who gives you money. On Twitch this is a paid subscription. On YouTube this might be a channel member. Here it always means a paying supporter.

Viewer: Someone who actually watches what you make. They might not follow, they might not subscribe, but they are consuming your content.

Today we are talking about viewers vs. followers, because those are the two groups most creators confuse when they first start out.

Every creator loves seeing their follower number go up. The problem is, that number means almost nothing if people are not watching your content. A follower who never clicks again adds zero value to your channel. A viewer who shows up, watches, comments, and engages is the one who actually drives growth.

It is easy to get lost here, especially when every platform pushes follower goals as if they are the only thing that matters. YouTube wants you chasing 1,000 followers, TikTok locks features behind follower walls, Twitch dangles affiliate, and Kick sets partner targets. These milestones are designed to keep you grinding, not to teach you what really grows a channel. Views are the real engine.

So ask yourself this: would you rather have 100,000 followers who barely give you 2,000 views, or 2,000 followers who rack up 100,000 views? The answer should be obvious. Views drive the algorithm. Views build momentum. Followers come naturally when you focus on viewers.

A follower is just someone who clicked once. Maybe they liked one video, maybe they wanted to support you, or maybe they were just curious. That click does not guarantee they will ever come back.

Your analytics already prove this. For most creators, more than half of their views come from people who are not following the channel. In many cases, it is closer to three out of every four views. That means the majority of your growth, your watch time, and your momentum comes from people who never hit the follow button at all.

So what matters more? Chasing numbers that make you feel good, or chasing the people who actually watch your videos? Followers might give you a dopamine hit, but viewers fuel the algorithm, keep your channel alive, and turn into long-term supporters.

Think of your channel as a store. Followers are the shoppers who walk through the door. Viewers are the buyers who actually make a purchase. Which would you rather have: a packed store with no sales, or a smaller store where every customer buys something?

This is the trap many creators fall into. They celebrate a channel full of followers, but when you look at the numbers almost no one is watching. It is like throwing a grand opening party and filling the room with people who only came for the free snacks. Once the food is gone, they leave, and your register is still empty.

The goal is not to stuff the room with window shoppers. The goal is to bring in people who want what you are offering. Online, that means consistent viewers who watch past the first 30 seconds, stick around until the halfway point, and come back for the next upload. Those viewers fuel the algorithm, build your watch time, and eventually turn into paying supporters.

A store survives on buyers, not browsers. Your channel survives on viewers, not empty follower counts.

Chasing followers is one of the most common mistakes creators make. It leads to bad habits such as follow-for-follow exchanges, buying followers, or obsessing over empty milestones. At best, you get vanity numbers that look good on the surface. At worst, you damage your metrics and credibility. Consider the creator with 100,000 followers but only 1,000 views per video. That gap tells both the audience and the algorithm that something is wrong.

Chasing raw views can be just as harmful. Clickbait titles and flashy thumbnails might pull people in, but if they leave within the first 10 seconds the algorithm punishes the video. The real goal is meaningful views, the kind where viewers stick around and watch.

Retention data is the best way to measure this. Check how many people are still watching at the 10-second mark, the 30-second mark, the 60-second mark, and at the halfway point. Those numbers tell you the truth about your content. If most viewers drop off at the start, your hook needs to be improved. If you can keep a strong portion engaged past the first minute and into the middle of the video, you are on the right track.

The point is simple. Stop chasing empty followers and empty views. Build content that earns meaningful attention, because retention is the metric that drives real growth.

Followers do not grow your channel. Viewers do. A big follower count looks good on paper, but it is a vanity metric. What actually matters is creating content people want to watch all the way through. That is what builds communities, drives watch time, and keeps people coming back.

The 2021 Restart Theory, Ashes of Creation Under the Microscope

For many, this past week brought a new experience in testing Ashes of Creation as it officially moved from Phase 2 to Phase 3 of their Alpha 2 testing. For some it brought disappointment as the game has failed to live up to its hype. For me, it brought new information that Intrepid Studios has been less than forthright with their disclosures about the game.

My Saturday stream started like many others, and was the best stream I have had to date. That is no surprise, I once used Ashes of Creation as the cornerstone of my content creation. While I wandered around in the new Anvils region, many old friends popped into the stream but one brought with him information I had not been previously privy to.

That information, was a concerning post, from a game developer Discord where John “The Digital Alchemist" Waynick had posted back in February about Ashes of Creation starting their full production in the beginning of 2021.

A quick LinkedIn search reveals John Waynick (using the same photo) claims credits for working at Intrepid Studios from May 2022 through February 2025. In February of this year Level 80 published a story (which I condemned as bush league journalism), about 13 developers who were terminated under at-will employment. This does lend some credibility to the post, however, it leaves room for speculation as Waynick was not at the Studio from January 2021 through May of 2022 so he may not be the best candidate to say they started over.. Still, an individual with at least 13 credible years in video game development is more likely rather than less likely to be a judge of what was occurring or what had occurred even in the years prior to his onboarding.

This post, levies some serious accusations against both Intrepid Studios and Creative Director Steven Sharif, as there is no publicly available information or disclosure that the time period leading up to 2021 was “prototypes + R&D”.

In fact, Sharif and other members of the Intrepid Studios team have been adamant that the production has been going along steadily since 2016. In fact, the only thing that the team has said was scrapped was a portion of the back end after their testing environment Ashes of Creation: Apocalypse revealed some engineering areas that needed improvement.

Going all the way back to 7 March 2019 Sharif confirmed “Not the "whole" but a core component of the backend needed refactoring” proving that Sharif has a track record of disclosing when critical parts of the game need complete rework.

It does warrant attention, however, that Sharif does not exactly have a penchant for honesty. “Once again, the MMORPG is on schedule and they are meeting all their milestones” were his exact words on 6 December 2018 during a Discord Q&A. During this time, the company line was that a “before 2020” launch was still something he did not foresee changing.

If scrapping all development prior to 2021 and starting over on Unreal Engine 5 was an isolated incident, it might be difficult to overlook, but a dedicated and diehard fan might be able to do so. This incident was not the first time Intrepid has said something, or failed to say something, relevant to the product's development.

Staff Size Issues going back to almost the beginning

Going back all the way to the time period between August and December of 2018, there was once a question posed to Steven about how many developers were actively working on Ashes of Creation. The answer given was 115, however, that number wasn’t exactly accurate. While there were 115 people “working” on Ashes of Creation, only 52 of them were employed by Intrepid Studios in San Diego.

The remaining 63, split between were employed by Streamline Media, an art studio out of Malaysia. Streamline Media for the historical record is the company that was forced to sue Intrepid Studios in the amount of $241,500 for services rendered. The remaining 28 were employed by Stormmancer, a 3rd party engineering company that provides backend support solutions for Intrepid.

While this might not seem like a big deal, it was the first in a series of instances when the number of employees working on the project as stated by Intrepid has not lined up with public records detailing the number of employees or positions at the company, most notably their payroll protection loans.

As of 15 April 2019, Steven himself stated “just over 60” people were working on Ashes of Creation employed by Intrepid Studios in San Diego and then also people who “worked remotely”.

Between 16 April 2019 and 27 April 2020 Intrepid on several occasions would inform the community that staff members were added to the team including 16 July 2019 where they added at least five staff members and 1 April 2020 where they added an undisclosed number of staff. At that point, the math would seem to indicate Intrepid Studios would be at over 75 and potentially up to 80 staff members, and yet when Intrepid applied for its first Coronavirus Payroll Protection Plan, they reported only 52 jobs.

Later that year on 18 October 2020 Seven would disclose the number to be at 87, and yet on 18 February 2021 they would file a payroll protection plan to only protect 82 jobs, despite claiming that they added on an additional 2 positions in the first week of January 2021 for a total of 89 individuals supposedly working on Ashes of Creation.

Are seven positions anything to be concerned about? Probably not. It is very likely Steven Sharif (Creative Director) John Moore (CEO and Chief Financial Officer), and a few other principal players were not on payroll so there was no need to take steps to protect their positions. It does beg the question though, why are the numbers only sometimes close to being accurate and actually reflective of the staff size?

From 18 February 2021 through 14 January 2022 Intrepid would report increasing their staff size to 120. While a 34% increase in staffing would not be unheard of, until this point in their history Intrepid had not successfully onboarded, and retained, that many people in a single year.

As recently as 7 March 2025 Intrepid is claiming over 250 employees now working on Ashes of Creation, but is that a number that should be accepted given the number of times proof indicates otherwise? Does that 250 number accurately reflect the 13 individuals who were terminated at will in February of 2025?

While there can be something said about the need to “fake it till you make it” overstating the number of people working on a project, an important question must be asked. Why? In 2019 Intrepid Studios was still the belle of the ball, they had no reason to lie about staff numbers. Without a doubt it is a questionable decision to claim the workers at third party vendors as part of your worker count. Do those workers work exclusively on your project, or are they working on a host of other projects while developing solutions for your particular project?

Would it change your perception if you knew the actual truth behind the staff numbers? The staff numbers arne’t the only issue with the staff, it also includes a key member of the staff who seemingly never was.

The Economy Designer who never was - Dr. Rocco Scandizzo

Anyone who has been playing Ashes of Creation in Alpha 2 Phase 3, is aware of many of the economic problems plaguing the game. In fact, it seems as if Intrepid has no direction in terms of economic direction, artisan systems, mobs drops and how to bring all these things into harmony. Intrepid has been searching for a replacement for their Lead Economy Designer for some time now, but early on in the company’s history, circa June 2017, they claimed Dr. Rocco Sandizzo was joining them as their Lead Economic Designer.

Interestingly, Dr. Scandizzo makes no claim of working at Intrepid Studios or on Ashes of Creation in his LinkedIn Profile. Instead, from June 2014 through November 2017 he was the Managing Director and an Executive Producer at Psyop, and in January 2018 he joined Skybound Entertainment as an Executive Producer. It seems odd that the announcement was made that he was joining the team in June of 2017 and yet he continued on at Psyop. Even more strange, is that no mention of his not joining the team was ever made to the community who was left believing Rocco was joining the team and working on the economy behind the scenes.

Nodes Part 3 - “What’s he talking about?”

Although there are many other points that could be brought up about Intrepid, we shall end on the infamous Nodes Part 3. To take a stroll down memory lane, Nodes Part 1 & 2 were well received by the community. So much so that the community was begging for part 3 of the 4 part series. Often a laughing point for never arriving, it was said during a Pax Panel that Trystan Snodgrass was back the studio working on Nodes Part 3. For the full effect of this, you will need to check out the video that accompanies this piece, but there was an occasion where, in my editorial opinion, Steven was laughing at the community during a livestream.

“The community often asks where Nodes 3 is at” and then among laughs he says “I was like Trystan is back at the studio and he’s editing” to which Trystan replies “I remember that and I was like yeah, what’s he talking about?”

This incident, for some people, was the last straw in a series of let-downs from a rookie studio that is now 5 years, 8 months and 4 days late on their promise of “before 2020.” For others, it was business as usual dealing with Intrepid Studios.

On 30 August at 2:33 Pacific Time, Steven Sharif was given an opportunity to respond to the image at the beginning of the story. As publication was 4 September at 6 am Pacific, and there was no response from Steven Sharif, Margaret Krohn, or anyone else at Intrepid Studios, it is safe to say they have refused to respond.

Does having these four incidents lined up neatly in a row change your perspective of Intrepid Studios? Are you still dedicated to the project? Is your confidence in their ability to deliver shaken? Or did you give up on Ashes of Creation long ago?

Sources

15 April 2019 Interview: (Just over 60) https://youtu.be/Ep5Dsglari8?si=dve6ckbLdIwWn27h&t=355

18 October 2020 interview (87 Staff) https://youtu.be/ZOV_puvaIvU?si=3F5S7xtJGvUWf1cs&t=3438

16 July 2019 (at least 5 staff) https://ashesofcreation.com/news/creative-director%27s-letter-july-2019

Once Human: Can’t Place Your Base? Build Tip to Avoid Issues

Today on Reddit I came across this post:

In it, a player explained that they could not place their base because they had been gone too long and their property was packed up. This is a recurring issue in Once Human for anyone who steps away long enough for their base to be reclaimed. The problem is especially serious on permanent servers where frequent world merges take place and many players only log in once per week to maintain their progress.

The current system has a clear flaw. If you cannot drop your property, you cannot properly edit or interact with it. Finding a placement spot requires very flat ground, which is often difficult to locate. Two areas that players recommend are outside Tall Grass Inn and outside White Cliff, both of which offer large, flat surfaces. Another problem comes from the fact that if you cannot drop your property, you also cannot enter build mode. Unless you live entirely on someone else’s property, you are stuck. There is no way to destroy your entire base and start fresh.

The best workaround right now is to build small and simple, directly on the ground. This reduces the risk of being unable to redeploy your property after being gone for several days or after a world merge. A compact 3x3 block is enough space to function without overcommitting. Even with a narrow entryway, this design provides room to build, decorate, and run a farm.

This flaw in the building system should be something that Starry Studios and NetEase fix quickly. The game monetizes through a cosmetic cash shop, with housing items being a top seller. The developers should want to ensure that players are not frustrated by being unable to place or use their property.

Every piece of successful content does at least one of three things: it educates, entertains, or engages. The best content does all three.

I call these the Three Es: Education, Entertainment, and Engagement. Understanding how they work, when to use them, and how to combine them is the difference between content that gets ignored and content that builds communities.

Most creators stumble because they focus on only one E, or worse, they try to do all three without understanding what each one actually accomplishes. Each E serves a different purpose, attracts different audiences, and grows in different ways.

Education builds authority and long-term value. Entertainment drives immediate engagement and shareability. Engagement creates community and loyalty.

When you understand the Three Es, you can create content strategically. You know what you're trying to accomplish with each piece. You know what success looks like. You know how to measure results.

Let's break down each E, how to use them, and how to combine them for maximum impact.

Education: Teaching Something Valuable

Educational content teaches people something they want or need to know. It solves problems, answers questions, and provides value that lasts.

Educational content includes:

How-to tutorials and guides

Tips, tricks, and best practices

Industry insights and analysis

Skill development and training

Reviews and comparisons

Explanations of complex topics

Why Education Works:

Educational content has the longest shelf life. A good tutorial can drive traffic for years. People search for solutions, and if you provide them consistently, you become a trusted resource.

Education builds authority. When you teach something well, people see you as an expert. Authority leads to trust. Trust leads to loyalty. Loyalty leads to community.

Educational content is highly searchable. People actively look for solutions to their problems. If your content solves those problems, search engines will find it and recommend it.

The Challenge with Education:

Educational content often grows slowly. It's not immediately viral or shareable like entertainment. It requires patience and consistency.

Educational content can be dry if not presented well. Pure information without personality or engagement can lose viewers quickly.

Educational content requires expertise. You need to actually know what you're talking about. Fake expertise gets exposed quickly.

How to Create Better Educational Content:

Start with real problems your audience faces

Break complex topics into digestible steps

Use examples and demonstrations

Add your personality and perspective

Make it actionable, not just theoretical

Follow up with advanced content for those who want more

Educational content is an investment. It takes time to pay off, but when it does, it pays off for years.

Entertainment: Making People Feel Good

Entertainment content makes people laugh, smile, or feel something positive. It's content people consume for fun, not necessarily to learn something specific.

Entertainment content includes:

Comedy and humor

Gaming and reactions

Storytelling and narratives

Music and performances

Challenges and experiments

Personality-driven content

Why Entertainment Works:

Entertainment gets immediate engagement. People share funny videos. They clip great moments. They tag their friends. Entertainment content spreads naturally.

Entertainment builds emotional connections. When you make someone laugh or feel good, they associate those positive emotions with you. Emotional connections are stronger than logical ones.

Entertainment is highly rewatchable. People will watch their favorite funny moments multiple times. They'll show them to friends. They'll reference them in conversations.

The Challenge with Entertainment:

Entertainment can be hit-or-miss. What's funny to one person might not be funny to another. Humor is subjective and cultural.

Entertainment often has a short shelf life. A funny video might go viral for a week, then disappear. It's harder to build long-term value with pure entertainment.

Entertainment can become a trap. If people only see you as funny, it's hard to branch out into other types of content. You become pigeonholed.

How to Create Better Entertainment Content:

Understand your audience's sense of humor

Be authentic to your personality

Don't force jokes or try too hard

Use timing and pacing effectively

React genuinely to situations

Find the fun in whatever you're doing

Entertainment is about connection. The goal isn't just to be funny; it's to create moments people want to share and remember.

Engagement: Building Community and Connection

Engagement content creates interaction between you and your audience, and among your audience members. It builds community and makes people feel heard and valued.

Engagement content includes:

Q&A sessions and AMAs

Community discussions and polls

Live streams and real-time interaction

Personal stories and behind-the-scenes content

Collaborative content with viewers

Response videos and community highlights

Why Engagement Works:

Engagement creates the strongest bonds. When people feel heard and seen, they become invested in your success. They don't just watch your content; they become part of your community.

Engagement provides direct feedback. You learn what your audience wants, what they struggle with, and what they care about. This information helps you create better content.

Engagement builds loyalty. People who feel connected to you personally are more likely to stick around through algorithm changes, platform shifts, and content experiments.

The Challenge with Engagement:

Engagement requires time and energy. Responding to comments, hosting live streams, and building community takes work beyond just creating content.

Engagement can be overwhelming as you grow. What works with 100 viewers might not scale to 10,000. You need systems and boundaries.

Engagement can become drama. When you interact directly with your audience, conflicts and misunderstandings can happen publicly.

How to Create Better Engagement Content:

Ask genuine questions and listen to answers

Share personal stories and experiences

Respond to comments and messages regularly

Create content based on community feedback

Host live sessions where people can interact in real-time

Acknowledge your regular viewers and supporters

Engagement is about relationship building. The goal is to create a community where people feel valued and connected.

Combining the Three Es

The magic happens when you combine Education, Entertainment, and Engagement. The best content creators find ways to teach something valuable while being entertaining and building community connections.

Here's how to blend the Three Es:

Educational + Entertainment:

Make tutorials funny and engaging

Use storytelling to explain complex concepts

Add personality and humor to informational content

Use entertaining examples to illustrate points

Educational + Engagement:

Ask questions during tutorials

Respond to viewer questions with educational content

Create content based on community problems

Host educational Q&A sessions

Entertainment + Engagement:

React to community submissions

Play games with viewers

Share funny stories from your life

Create inside jokes and community memes

All Three Together:

Host live streams where you teach something while being entertaining and interacting with chat

Create tutorial series with personality and community involvement

Do educational content that's fun and responds to viewer requests

The key is to start with one E and gradually add the others. Don't try to do everything at once. Master education first, then add entertainment. Or start with entertainment and add educational value. Or begin with engagement and build from there.

When all three work together, you achieve the strongest outcome: immediate visibility, long-term relevance, and a loyal community.

Managing Your Expectations

The most important lesson is to know which E you are serving before you create a video. Education grows slowly, but builds lasting value.

Entertainment grows quickly, but the results taper off.

Engagement strengthens your community and improves algorithm performance.

Content creation is not about instant success. It is a long game. By setting realistic expectations, you avoid burnout and frustration. By combining the Three Es strategically, you create content that attracts attention, provides long-term value, and builds a thriving community.