Dumb hit-piece, Stability's contribution was vital to the creation of those models. Article doesn't even make the claim that the investors were confused on if Stability owned the models, it just insinuates they were for absolutely no reason.
What reason? Did they have an investor tell them they were misled? It's not in the article. Did Stability hide anything about who made the models? Again not in the article. It's content-less insinuations.
