Every day that goes by it becomes increasingly clear to us that @cantinaxyz is an extractive entity and a net negative to the space. A week past @jack__sanford 's killer piece on the countless deficiencies of the Cork contest and no hint of a response soon. With the amount of attention that article received, if they could mount a defense they certainly would, aka silence is an admission of guilt. This week our Cantina bounty submission, which they agreed shows a capped loss of funds for a blockchain operator at high likelihood, resolved in mediation to Low severity. Having read 10s of Spearbit/Cantina reports and 100s of bounty writeups, monetary loss of any amount is never below Medium impact, so they are clearly relaying the sponsor's perspective in a classic "client is always right" mentality, as they always do. In fact, they don't even hide doing it. By their own docs, they Default to Client's Perspective. I guess only in the most egregious cases they reject the client's take. And what if the client simply ignores their mediation? In any other platform (e.g. @immunefi) we've worked with, not respecting the mediation is grounds for immediate removal of the client. On Cantina, client has an allowance of 5 bounty scams per year. Yes, you read that right. We've also recently found that their Fellowship program has a highly aggressive exclusivity clause. Fellows cannot submit anything to other bounty platforms, or notify projects directly, even if millions of dollars are at risk. Instead this highly-sensitive and time critical knowledge has to be shared with Cantina, who decides how to proceed. They are the boss, they call the shots, bow down or leave mentality. We have more examples of outrageous handling on Cantina, but will leave those for another day. For now, we want to raise awareness, like other leading community members, that auditors should be voting with their feet when it comes to where they spend their precious time hunting. A security platform that loses its balance and favors projects over bounty hunters undermines the entire white-hat process and encourages researchers to earn their worth through less ethical means! Let's work as a community to strengthen high-integrity, transparent and net positive organizations over industry bullies. The statement above is the personal opinion of TrustSec directorship members and should be interpreted as such.