KyroN

黑夜 | ENVtuber | Art (Do Not Repost) | Gaming | English & 中文 | VGen:

[KyroN @Kyroberos]

@WhereWindsMeet_

[Where Winds Meet @WhereWindsMeet_]

HONK! Your Goose Overlord has an announcement.
Since you've all been hopelessly obsessed with my magnificence, I've decided to grant you the greatest honor imaginable: a chance to experience my life!
🪿The limited-time event Phantom Thief Goose arrives July 2 (UTC)!
📢Goose Rules:
See something you like? Take it.
Someone objects? HONK at them.

Drop a comment to swear your fealty, and I'll pick one lucky Wanderer to win a goose plushie!
#WhereWindsMeet

[SilverPalace @SilverPalace_EN]

🎁Follow and RT for a chance to win [Test Access or Detective Character Stand (random)]!

▍How to Participate
1. Follow @SilverPalace_EN
2. Like and retweet this post

▍Event Period
From now until 2026/07/09 23:59 (UTC+8)

▍Event Prizes
[Test Access] x10
[Detective Character Stand (random)] x10

Follow us on other social media▼
Discord: https://t.co/YRbOdJvA1G
YouTube: https://t.co/8bHuFRO1Y6
Facebook: https://t.co/vZCY8mvInz

[KyroN @Kyroberos]

My wallet: Oh… oh no.

[Wesley ✨ @wesleytypes]

Steam Summer Sale is here.

[KyroN @Kyroberos]

@Chococo_TV Back to the House of Asses tonight yay!!

[ChocoCoTV 🐭 Mouse Vtuber @Chococo_TV]

Let's finish this! House of Ashes part 2 with @Kyroberos tonight at 9.30pm GMT+8/SGT

[ChocoCoTV 🐭 Mouse Vtuber @Chococo_TV]

House of Ashes will be postponed as i was feeling unwell after REPO. I had a lot of fun regardless. 😘

[Rino🚀 @RinoTheBouncer]

Who can relate?😭🚀

[Lucius Merryweather 🖊️🐶 ASTRALINE @Merrydawg]

I promise you, nobody is ignoring you because you aren't cool enough. Everyone just has terrible time-management skills, and end up only speaking to like 2 people on Discord unless absolutely necessary.

[ChocoCoTV 🐭 Mouse Vtuber @Chococo_TV]

Playing the next game in the Dark Pictures Anthologies series : Little Hope.
This time with @Kyroberos so she can share half the decision making and QTE burdens 😂

⏰9.30 pm GMT+8/SGT
🗓️10 June 2026

[/ᐠ - ˕ -マ @lovesickdoe]

_(:3」∠)__

[★ pupp • ON BLUESKY @puppsicle]

There are 4 things that are certain in this life:

1. Life
2. Death
3. Taxes
4. My flesh cubes getting circulated every few months on social media

[KyroN @Kyroberos]

https://t.co/4NUhjEputq

[KyroN @Kyroberos]

Felt like I have been working on this forever but FINALLY I AM DONEE🥹
It was supposed to be a smol YCH thing then I just had to keep adding stuff lol..🥲

🔗to full illust in replies 👀

[麗しの空｜青空展6/28-7/25 原宿ﾃﾞｻﾞｲﾝﾌｪｽﾀｷﾞｬﾗﾘｰ EAST artpiece @lei_926_]

木目まで手描きのパレット
あなたはどれが好き？

[RAINA ライナ 🍱 lorecrafters @RAINAplease]

On Luminara/Camana:
Every time one of these collapses happens, the pattern is the same - many people had concerns, but they stayed quiet publicly. Not out of indifference, but for reasons that make complete human sense:

"Maybe they'll change and improve, everyone's figuring things out."
"Maybe I misunderstood - I'm not perfect either."
"I know what it's like to have rumors spread about me without being heard out properly.”

See, VTubing - especially in the EN space - built its identity on radical acceptance: "anyone can be one," "everyone is welcome”, “you just have to be you”, etc. That's a real part of its appeal, and many VTubers who talk about how they were outcasts/bullied in their prior lives, but “found their tribe, family, community etc” in this place will attest to that.

But it means that the act of speaking out, even with good reason, creates dissonance: raising concerns can read as exclusionary, cliquey, being a bully, or drawing lines in a space that prides itself on having none. The culture that makes the community feel good to be in is the exact same culture that makes it hard to say "actually, not this one."

The pressure to stay silent doesn’t just affect those with less power, clout, etc. Bigger names - whether creators, or staff - also face their own version of the dilemma: if you go public with concerns, you're seen as bullying someone just trying to figure it out. People can also accuse you of being unprofessional, more so if you're a business raising concerns about others who could be seen as your competitors.

And regardless of what the power dynamics are, what your size/clout is relative to the person/business of concern...there will ALWAYS be an ulterior motive people will ascribe to you for saying something:

"Look at you, punching down. Are you threatened by them?"
"You were small and growing once, what gives you the right?"
"You're just jealous because you haven't gotten their success. Underhanded much?"

There's also what the community has learned from watching people speak out about things: bad actors have been known in the past to come out first and control the narrative under the guise of "warning people", and some Google Dockeys + posts floating about on x dot com REALLY should've stayed in the DMs and calls.

So when these sorts of posts come up, audiences are rightfully wary about believing any accusations right away - the fatigue is real.

The issue now is that because of this, even if you have legitimate receipts of a person or a company you're concerned about, and even if there are MULTIPLE people with similar shitty experiences, you kinda need to be a perfect victim - above reproach, did everything right, never lost your cool emotionally etc - or the story stops being about what they did, and starts being about who you are, that you're jealous etc. "They're just as shitty, stones in glass houses" and all that.

And it doesn't have to be against someone with a big fanbase as a creator. If someone like Camana (who btw isn't the only one in this space to do this) has the appearance of connections, resources, opportunities that others are hungry for - warnings about them get read as naysaying or bitterness.

Just look at Expert Armchair's past critique in April about Luminara's “charity” business model itself, and his comments on how Camana was carrying himself online when talking about the business + himself...and how people reacted in Luminara + Camana's defense.

So the critique, no matter how nicely worded or accurate, gets seen as gatekeeping.

Or "oh you didn't get in, and you're now trying to burn it down for everyone else."

Or "ok I know it sucked for you and you had a bad time, but do you have to ruin it for the people still there? That’s selfish.”

Or anything in that vein, but the specifics depend on whether you have anything to lose (or not) professionally.

Most people will say they don't have the headspace to deal with all of this - totally understandable, content and businesses are hard grinds in and of themselves.

Which is why for many who feel they cannot afford the risk, the rational-to-them move (if they can stomach it) is to carefully disclose things in private to a trusted “whisper network” of friends + business partners who you know will trust that you’re reasonable, and won’t sell you out, and then just wait - and just hope the bad actors do themselves in eventually by their own actions. And just cross your fingers for karma and all that.

Others vaguepost - leaving their own trail of early signals - which requires less legwork than compiling a full evidence bank for a Google Dockey, and which the community historically reads as drama-stirring. I'm personally unsure how to feel about it, but I understand why it happens.

The problem is that someone who knows the bar for accusation is THIS high can just...wait you out. And while you wait, they fill the silence - new people cycle in who don't know well enough, the bad actors build enough goodwill with them, so there will always be someone ready to say "they've always been good to me."

Part of how these bad actors fill that silence is by constructing credibility nobody can easily disprove - which they do by name-dropping affiliations and partnerships that don't actually exist, in order to lure in new people. Or they might stretch the truth about the nature of their relationships with others, because historically speaking, the most convincing lies are those with a degree of truth in them.

One example I've seen is of someone claiming "we've gotten to be good friends as fellow business owners", when in fact the truth is "we only went to dinner a few times, and he kept interrogating me about my business and hounding me with proposals on how we should work together".

So "do your due diligence" ends up becoming hollow advice when not every talent or staffer has a direct line to whoever's being name-dropped to confirm things. The named parties have no reason to proactively deny claims made in their name that they don't even know about.

And even when they eventually do cut ties because things went bad behind the scenes - the way Zentreya and other partnered agencies of Luminara/Camana did - keeping things diplomatic in public leaves a vacuum the bad actor gets to fill with their own version of events.

So the association still travels, but there's no real room to correct the record.

Now for what it's worth, there are some things that I've learned to treat as signals when evaluating a business opportunity in this space - before deciding whether to get involved. Not ironclad proof, but patterns to pay attention to.

This is a non-exhaustive list, and the three patterns I'm about to cite here aren't unique to this situation - I've seen versions of all of them before. But Luminara + Camana's case is a clean illustration of each.

"VISION AND VIBES" AS A BUSINESS MODEL
I know cold business numbers can be off-putting in this space and feel inhuman, especially if all you want to do as a creator is just focus on creating.

But if someone who's supposed to be a business person can't talk hard business facts, proper operation considerations etc past a certain point, and lean heavily on vision and passion instead to sell you on things as a talent, partner etc - please remember that vision and "we'll see how it goes" is NOT a substitute for knowing how you'll actually operate as a sustainable business.

Recall that throughout 2025, Camana front-loaded a lot of appealing things to build hype, interest and goodwill:

"I got offered a huge sum of money to make this agency happen"
"I'm funding this with my other company"
"no cuts from streaming"
"I do this for the community, not for self profit"
"if you were offered a model at no upfront cost and all you had to do was pay a cut of your content earnings until you paid it off, would you take it" etc etc.

Many veteran indies and even some trusted industry staff ended up engaging with these posts, which had the effect of boosting credibility and legitimacy to other people looking from the outside.

But watch what happened in response to pushback, because how a business and its leadership carry themselves during the tough times is typically a bigger indicator of their values and capabilities.

Back when Luminara and Camana found themselves under scrutiny in April 2026, it wasn’t out of nowhere. People had previously (rightly!) brought up during Luminara’s unveiling + launch in 2025 that their proposed “no streaming cuts, we'll make money through merch + events + partnerships instead” business model had many parallels to VShojo's approach at launch…which is not an encouraging reference point, given what happened in July 2025.

In addition, past participants of Luminara’s “community events” (tournaments etc) had raised concerns with how those events’ logistics were handled. So Camana choosing to go “keeping it real, we only made ~7k in the first 6 months” on his personal account definitely raised concerns for those who were paying attention throughout.

But his direct rebuttal to the structural business critique he received painted the critics as people who want "perfect CEO emotionless robots”. He ended up not engaging with the actual concerns raised, but recasting them as an unreasonable emotional demand.

He then talked about how much he did “for the community + talents, for free”, and closed with "all I care about is making sure the people I actually work with are happy" - which shifts the goalposts for what accountability for a sustainable business looks like.

And it worked: people sympathized with his "woe is me" struggles in the replies - "you don't deserve this". Talent and staff closed ranks and argued with people on threads, saying stuff like "he's just trying to make it work", "can't you see he's suffering?", "you're shitting on us", "he’s trying to be transparent, what more do you want?"

(To be clear: NONE of the people who believed Camana should necessarily feel stupid for doing so - but we do all have some responsibility in properly vetting the opportunities that come our way.)

Similar deflection and attacks happened in private too - when good faith concerns about structural + business ops considerations were raised during negotiations by the creators and businesses Camana was looking to recruit, some people noted that his tone and approach changed, and that they also got smeared behind their backs as a result. But don't take my word for it; read the stories of the many creators that came forward about their experiences.

This playbook is sadly not unique: I've seen "business" people get offended in the past and say "you're looking down on me and my org" when I've raised concrete operational/financial concerns about their offers. “I trust you and this is how you treat me?”

But remember - guilt-tripping talent, staff, business partners, and even your community is not a sustainable business model by any means.

Y'all already know the collective term for this: "black company".

ABUSE OF NON-DISPARAGEMENT AS "STANDARD NON-DISCLOSURE"
There are many legitimate reasons for signing these things in this industry, but the timing and intensity of the enforcement is the thing to look at here.

I am not a lawyer, but please keep in mind that non-disclosure is NOT the same as non-disparagement - and the latter has been abused in many cases to silence people from speaking about bad + harmful experiences, even if they were truthful. My friends "lovingly" call this a "don't be mean to me/us" clause.

If non-disparagement agreements get pushed as a condition for joining or leaving, ESPECIALLY after a conflict has already started: that's information management being dressed up as "legal caution" and "professional diplomacy".

If you're a talent, artist, staffer etc looking to leave an org because of negative experiences in particular, and a non-disparagement agreement is pushed on you AFTER you give notice: yeah, that's a warning sign.

To people wondering why some Luminara talents and staff might be cagey about the specific circumstances and incidents during their time + when they left, even when there's LOTS of horror stories out there from others who weren't directly in the company - other than the talents/staff in question just wanting to protect their peace and energy that comes with disclosing these stories, the non-disparagement enforcement fears are another possible reason.

(And in case it wasn’t clear: I wouldn’t hound them for their stories either, if they’re not comfortable with managing the increased scrutiny. I personally believe in their agency to surface things in their own time.)

"RULES FOR THEE, NOT FOR ME"
I already touched this somewhat in the “visions and vibes as a biz model” point, but this is specific enough that I need to address it separately.

I know that "free speech vs professional discretion" is a thing and all, but definitely watch for who's allowed to be "just [being] honest", and what that honesty targets.

In healthy orgs and discourse, both internal and external concerns about how things run (note: not defaulting to value judgements/comments about a person’s character right away, because that's noise) get treated as useful information, and responded to with grace. Which is just as it should be.

In dysfunctional orgs and discourse, legitimate structural questions get reframed as personal attacks or bad attitude, while personal criticism from the top gets framed as "investment in your growth." The critique is only allowed to flow one way, and the goalposts + categories get swapped to make sure of it.

(See again: what happened in response to public + private pushback against Camana/Luminara.)

"OK RAINA, shit happened and the person + agency is an absolute lemon, absolutely rotten, and needs to get out of this space. What now?"

The sad truth is that in the content space (especially VTubing), the social, professional, and financial cost of an early warning/whistleblowing falls on the person who gives it. But the cost of staying quiet gets paid by whoever comes next - and to everyone caught in this collapse, talent, staff, creatives, would-be partners, financial backers: I'm really sorry. The scope of who was affected is wider than most people realize, and I'm sure the financial, emotional, and opportunity costs have been significant.

Expert Armchair has already weighed in on this in the QRT. His take is harder-edged and more prescriptive than mine: the private whisper network is unfortunately poison that is ineffective against these bad actors, and what needs to replace it is proper documentation, evidence, and public callouts that meet an actual evidentiary standard. Not post-hoc testimony once someone's already irrelevant, deactivated their accounts, and everyone's just effectively dancing on their grave.

I fully agree with where he's pointing. Everything I've just laid out explains exactly why getting there is so difficult.

The structural conditions that make silence the "rational move" don't disappear just because we know they're wrong - they have to be actively dismantled. And right now, the cost of doing that dismantling falls almost entirely on individuals who are already paying for it.

And that's before accounting for the time needed to build a strong evidence bank for a public callout. In a space where your relevance as a creator depends on consistent output, building a thorough evidentiary record that's properly verified is a MASSIVE time-sink that competes directly with your own content and life. I've personally been in journalism for over a decade, and the responsibility that comes with that level of vetting is absolutely huge.

So "why are you spending time on this instead of focusing on your own career and content" is a legit rebuttal, and it isn't entirely wrong. The ask is significant, and not everyone has the headspace for it - not an excuse or justification, but a reason nevertheless.

Armchair himself might get dismissed as "just an analyst/commentator who pops up occasionally to milk drama" - but making this post, with this language, under his name, is itself an example of absorbing the costs he's describing. You can say his skin in the game isn't the same as that of a "standard VTuber" or an agency, but you don't need to be a major industry player for the risk to be real.

I'm fully aware of the irony that I'm writing all this now, after the fact: I've addressed these patterns for years in private, and also generally in public in recent months - but naming this situation and the harm explicitly is something I'm only doing now.

The closing line of the quoted post lands for a reason, and it's one I can personally relate to - and am finding the strength to overcome, given I've got my own similar stories to tell (with different bad actors involved). I'm able to cite the "focus on yourself instead of wasting time on this evidence bank" example precisely BECAUSE I've lived through this.

My sincere hope is that we figure out how to change this culture of silence and "keeping the peace above all" (that protects legitimate bad actors) in due time.

#RAINArambles

[ExpertArmcha1r 🕶️🪑 @ExpertArmcha1r]

This accepted industry norm of "warning others" in private about supposed bad actors has to stop.

It is poison to the professional standards of this industry because it grants the people who practice it in good faith the feeling that they're doing something meaningful, while those who are supposed to be hindered by it are entirely unbothered so long as they can keep up public appearances.

It doesn't work against genuine bad actors with access to money or funding.

It doesn't work against genuine bad actors who are shameless enough to namedrop any industry figures they've even brushed shoulders with for clout.

It doesn't work against genuine bad actors who are willing to leverage the social politics of online "positivity" to stigmatise legitimate criticism.

These are the only bad actors who pose any sort of serious threat to anyone. All of them are entirely unbothered by this person-to-person warning system until they get outed for something that costs them their relevance - at which point they've already done their damage and are usually beyond meaningful reproach.

"Warning others" at cons, mixers and orgies is a supposed industry safeguard that amounts to little more than easily-weaponised gossip at the best of times.

The worst part? It even allows those same bad actors to couch their dismissal of legitimate complaints (corroborated as they might be) as just more of the same idle, backroom backchat.

What's more, this trend of only providing anecdotal testimony against bad actors after they've become publicly-approved whipping boys needs to stop as well.

Every time someone only airs their complaints publicly (& without evidence or documentation) after the supposed bad actor has been rendered irrelevant by something else, they reinforce the exact same industry norm that allowed said actor to operate in secret for so long.

I can probably count on one hand the number of people giving public accounts of Camana's seedy dealings now that also spoke up about a month ago when he was boasting about Luminara's evidently unsustainable business model and calling other companies in the space "predatory" by comparison.

Why are all these allegations only being publicly aired now? It is because he's no longer a threat as the head of an agency without any talents left in it? Is it because all of the other surviving businesses in this space still worth playing nice with have publicly disavowed any affiliation with him and his company? Is it because he's no longer on the same site and can't or won't reply any more?

I can sympathise with people's reasons for not wanting to be inconvenienced by the process of levelling public critique against an active entity.

Maybe you don't want to burn bridges with the talents who are coping about the pie in the sky promised to them by their boss. Maybe you don't want to deal with the cattle on social media who will jump to their defence by virtue of them claiming the mantle of a "talent first" business. Maybe you don't want to start a gossip war against someone who appears to have (comparatively) loads of money behind them to avoid the possibility that they actually sue.

All of these reasons are understandable, but when you speak out against someone or something only after they've lost all their relevance, understand that you achieve nothing but personal catharsis. The cattle will have already been milked, and the talents might've been too.

Nothing will change and the next person with a suspicious amount of funding or sufficient number of "connections" will go on to do almost the exact same thing while making the exact same false promises to anyone who will listen. Some of the people who will listen might even be the same people who were burned by the last now-irrelevant disaster too.

If people want this industry to be more professional, then we need to start moving away from an industry warning system modelled after high school girls bitching about someone who gave them the ick.

If you have a legitimate complaint, gather evidence and documentation. If a peer in the industry who you've never interacted with before solicits you to talk business (or asks to meet up in a situation where talking business might very well occur), archive the conversation if it happens online or bring someone along who can corroborate your account of the interaction in real life (in case things get uncomfortable). Have a buddy at parties whose job is to stay sober and listen in on conversations that you have with other industry figures.

The most important step will be moving away from person-to-person "warnings" to public callouts. Not shoddy Google dockeys airing out personal drama with nothing but a few obviously cherry-picked Discord screenshots, but a proper dossier and/or accompanying testimony from witnesses. This will be the biggest and most difficult step because it will require people to decide whether to speak up publicly based on objective standards of evidence rather than vibes and public consensus. However, it is crucial if anyone genuinely wants to make the industry more hostile to Camana and his ilk.

In an industry where careers rely on clout and favours, there is virtually no incentive to make this shift. However, I urge anyone who has felt genuinely burnt by Camana and his dealings to consider how wholly played-out the entire debacle has been.

Luminara was not an original sales pitch. Camana was not a novel scumbag. We've seen countless instances of the exact same thing before in this industry. They keep repeating themselves for a reason.

If the only bad actors you're willing to publicly confront are deactivated Twitter accounts or bankrupt businesses, then you'll always win but you'll never change anything.

So long as people continue to seek public consensus as their main form of protection while speaking out, bad actors will continue to infest this space entirely unbothered.

Stop waiting until someone else with more autism or less to lose gives you permission to speak by making the first move.

[GL @gldivittorio]

Bar

[mari ☁️ @m_stormwitch]

World so fucked even I FULLY agree with what the Pope said here in his first encyclical

[Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex]

Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness. #MagnificaHumanitas
https://t.co/6i9MWs6LJl