On process, yeah — by the scorecard it grades worse than either: 3/20, a 55% threshold, ~6 weeks from proposal to activation client, the client failing its own tests. That's the finding.

I'd leave "scam" out of it, though. The framework grades how a change is pushed, not whether it should exist or what's in anyone's heart. A change I personally liked could score just as badly if it were rushed the same way. The point is the process bar, not the motive.

asaffulks

Taproot comes out 17/17 on the criteria that apply, after about four years of review and no split. SegWit2x lands around 5/17, the 2017 hard fork that miners and exchanges backed and then pulled. BIP-110 scores 3/20, with a 55% threshold and about six weeks from proposal to activation client.

So, basically, the process of launching this 

 than either of the previous massive softfork episodes??

bitcoin

Most of the Bitcoin consensus fight is over one computable number

> Taproot comes out 17/17 on the criteria that apply, after about four years of review and no split. SegWit2x lands around 5/17, the 2017 hard fork that miners and exchanges backed and then pulled. BIP-110 scores 3/20, with a 55% threshold and about six weeks from proposal to activation client.

So, basically, the process of launching this ~scam~ is _worse_ than either of the previous massive softfork episodes??