Show Posts
I would consider the received money to be only in users possession (i.e. not owned), until the work is completed. As the work is not going to be completed, and it's not a force majeure situation or anything like that, then full payment shouldn't be accepted. Regardless of whether the received funds would be kept or donated, it's still accepted money and it shouldn't be accepted in the first place. On the other hand user would then need to send money to the scammers. I would keep these two things separate and treat the received money as something you shouldn't have been sent at all.
I have already clarified why I don't agree with this assesment. This would be the case if it were bounty management where work has to be completed at the end of a week. Keeping something open involves no work.So basically the aTriz situation but not carrying on with the project right?
No, absolutely not. That was a bounty management thing where aTriz knewingly continued with the thread despite knowing that information was fraudulent (+ that was a ICO this is an airdrop).Was the payment solely for creating and maintaining this thread or were other funds included earmarked for any other service this person was supposed to provide or any escrow for any other possible payments?
Creating, posting and keeping it open for a while (which essentially requires no work to do). No maintaining of any kind, nor any other service of any kind.Did anyone else get scammed or lose money or their effort over it?
Nobody got scammed because of it as it was never published (other than temporarily in archival). Whether someone got scammed before, that I do not know and can not know.How much for the service already rendered and how much is the remainder/overage? Is it substantial?
What does this even mean? If you are asking how much of the work was done in terms of percentage, you can argue any arbitrary number IMO. For example: If you see 'not locking a thread for a certain amount of time time' as zero work (since it requires zero effort), then you could argue that 100% of the work has been done.Who busted the scam?
Maybe instead of giving all of the money to charity you could give it to the scam buster, or a good chunk of it, as a reward.. Maybe put some of it up as a public bounty to bust more scam ICOs?
Reward and incentivize the good samaritans stopping these scammers..
This was not publicly revealed yet, but it isn't an issue as there is no project thread/no way to buy any tokens etc. Should be today/tomorrow once things are wrapped up.Maybe instead of giving all of the money to charity you could give it to the scam buster, or a good chunk of it, as a reward.. Maybe put some of it up as a public bounty to bust more scam ICOs?
Reward and incentivize the good samaritans stopping these scammers..
Depending on partnership/job terms, there should be option to take everything/some/none and do the job, but exploit loophole on terms by add/modify all information based on the fact that Project1 is scam
For example on thread title "[ANN] Project1 - Yet another scam project"
That seems like a creative exit (as the title was to be chosen by the user). However, it still may lead to victims and the thread author would get the blame IMO (despite title && possible disclaimers).For example on thread title "[ANN] Project1 - Yet another scam project"
Given my understanding of the situation I would keep whatever amount is appropriate as payment for the work already done and then the remainder is a tricky situation. Giving money back to scammers sounds like a terrible outcome. Charity or refunding those that were scammed in the past (especially by the initial fundraising for project1) would seem an appropriate response.
There was no fundraising AFAIK (yet).
).
