Twitter users were incensed by this chart:
It's being slammed as one of the most outrageous charts ever.
An image search reveals this chart form has international appeal.
In Arabic, but the image source is a Spanish company:
In English, from an Indian source:
Some people are calling this a pie chart.
But it isn't a pie chart since the slices clearly add up to more than one full circle.
It may be a graph template from an infographics website. You see people are applying data labels without changing the sizes or orientation or even colors of the slices. So the chart form is used as a container for data, rather than an encoder.
The Twitter user who called this "outrageous" appears to want to protect the designer, as the words have been deliberately snipped from the chart.
Nevertheless, Molly White coughed up the source in a subsequent tweet.
A bit strange, if you stop and think a little. Why would Molly shame the designer 20 hours later after she decided not to?
According to Molly, the chart appeared on the website of an NFT company. [P.S. See note below]
Here's the top of the page that Molly White linked to:
Notice the author of this page. That's "Molly White", who is the owner of this NFT company! [See note below: she's the owner of a satire website who was calling out the owner of this company.]
Who's more outrageous?
Someone creating the most outrageous chart in order to get clout from outraged Twitter users and drive traffic to her new NFT venture? Or someone creating the template for the outrageous chart form, spawning an international collection?
[P.S. 3/17/2022 The answer is provided by other Twitter users, and the commentors. The people spreading this chart form is more ourageous. I now realized that Molly runs a sarcastic site. When she linked to the "source", she linked to her own website, which I interpreted as the source of the image. The page did contain that image, which added to the confusion. I must also add her work looks valuable, as it assesses some of the wild claims in Web3 land.
[P.S. 3/17/2022 Molly also pointed out that her second tweet about the source came around 45 minutes after the first tweet. Twitter showed "20 hours" because it was 20 hours from the time I read the tweet.]