You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.

Is it a hard fork that's been maintained since 2011 without pulling? Or is it a soft fork that's still pulling from upstream regularly?

If it's the former attribution still matters, but if it's the latter lack of attribution is outright dishonest.