I’m not so happy with this article. It seems to be a far more political piece than anything else. There is very little mention of the white paper and it seems to more focus on Venezuelan politics.

“Venezuelan-controlled, oil-backed token” this could work, with the right people behind it (maybe not Venezuela though). I think that this article should recognize this.

I am not refuting that this ICO and token may be abusing blockchain technology, and I (having been in Venezuela about two years ago) am fairly aware of the escalating issues affecting their governance, currency and citizens. I invite the author to ask themselves :

If the white paper was published by Norway, how would this article change?

To me this is an attack on Venezuela but not on blockchain itself. Given their track record, this may be justified. Perhaps more evidence to support the “misuse of blockchain technology” would add lots of value to this article. I guess at the end of the day my concern is that this article misleads readers to read about blockchain when it is far more political and this just adds unnecessary hype to the blockchain bubble. More clarity about the article’s scope could make this more clear. I hope you find my comment constructive.