I am not familiar with rugdoc, so I am not sure how credible they are --and departing from it, how credible you are by using their service to prove yourself-- one thing that caught my attention though, the claim of no transfer tax , which from my intepretation, is withdrawing or depositing something into a wallet. It seems you both have a different  info. And further, am I understand correctly that 10% from some activities is allocated for you? Where is this from and why?

You're intending to say that despite their age, -- because the founder, which are their parents, are not stupid to bring the family without "orienting" them with something-- they're very likely to have an in-depth knowledge of metaverse and programming for crypto? Is there a proof to backup this claim? Some record that they've taken an online course in programming or something alike, perhaps? Their posts and stories while taking the course? Anything?

Or were you trying to say that their role is as an influencer without actually being involved in the development? Much like McAfee, and thus, implying that the project's future and technicalities itself is not important because all they need is the hype built on the influencing their social media followers?

Thank you! This is what I'm trying to say and ask on my post about the relevance of Hermansyahs --especially the children-- in project's capabilities to strive in cryptocommunity. Sure, an info that the project is inspired by their children is heartwarming and soul touching, but it's irrelevant. People will be more interested --and it'll be more useful too-- if OP tell us about the experts on the team.

For the whitepaper, what I wanted to say is exactly what Rikafip wrote. As for the other two points, the QR and the fact that the multisig didn't even crossed your consideration, IMO, it just strengthen the questionability of you, like you couldn't care less about any details and nooks and crannies of your project. It appeared to me --as the certificate and the QR within it is issued by the auditor-- that you couldn't bother yourself to check something as simple as the QR, which literally took mere seconds, it is arguably not the trait of a project that seek for a long term goals. Same thing with the multisig, you seems didn't plan thoroughly for the benefits of your investors.

With those said, can you please inform us how should your holders still believe in you that you'll actually be here long term and didn't rug-pull, especially with the entire supply in your possession? Because, let's face it, those signs are not good.

Still couldn't see how a traditional game turned into metaverse and two artists are connected. Moving forward from that issue, though, the Hermansyahs here are the developers and founders and responsible for the tokens? Or were they just a paid promoter --or advisor, if we borrow the old term-- like how McAfee used to be with several projects?

About your team, err... founder, I am failed to see how the background story that you gave on the opening post should be able to assure people of the project.

Allow me to clarify, this is a metaverse project with a currently-in-trend P2E method, where the game is an Indonesian traditional game called congklak, founded by people with background in music industry. How are these related?

Very well done explanation, I have to admit that I am impressed. To make it clear, you're fully refunded --or compensate-- all of those who involved in the project, and this project is the replacement of amazon that's referred on the public newsletter?

Tomato tomahto. If it's any consolation though, the title of this board is scam ACCUSATION, thus it is not too far from the realm of logic that the subject labelled as "scammers" on this board is on the status of accused. It is also widely known that being "labelled" as scammers doesn't directly means you are. The forum is open for your defense and if you're proven to be correct, the thread will be locked with clarification, even an apology if you deemed necessary. I am more than willing to apologiz if I am proven to be wrong and you can defended all of the points raised.

Speaking of...


And it is also widely know that it is an acceptable action to took the essence of someone's idea of something and describe them with your own words. With. Your. Own. Words. This is even a widely known practice in academic field. It is, however, not acceptable to take the entire idea and directly copy them, let alone without crediting the original author.

What's more interesting, though, you said more than once that there might be more plagiarism on your WP, like you didn't know it yourself. Were you not the one who wrote it? Let me guess, you freelanced it to a content creator?


So it's a harmless mistake, then? You, or them, just somehow wrongly placed the QR code for Mocking Metaverse on your certificate? Two questions: did you not check the QR code before releasing the document to public? It is a rather crucial factor to be checked, IMO. I would check every single milimeters of my certificate if I were you. It's called the commitment to project. Two, were your projects related, or share the same owner? It is, by far, the most logical explanation I can pull to understand the error in barcode placement, like: you scanned the barcode and it redirects you to Mocking Metaverse and you're ok with it because it is also your project and you didn't realize that the the QR code you scanned is actually for XCavator and not Mocking.


Yes, not all release the entire supply altogether, but most of those projects you mentioned as your defense will at least has a locking mechanism where the rest of the total supply and the gradual release is done by smart contract, not manually where the entire total supply is being in control of the token owner --which its fate relies completely on the pureness of the dev's heart.

The rest of the other projects, those that have to take the path where they control the tokens in their hand due to specific reason, even took a "smart" route to assure their investors that there will be no foul play by utilizing multisig method. Have you never heard of them, or is it not even crossed your mind? And to claim yourself to be on this field since 2018 and survived the winter...

Yeah, yeah. You're a unique one and aimed to achieve great height. I found that your whitepaper is plagiarized, your KYB certificate belongs to other project and... well, as you've admitted it yourself, you hold the entire token supply. I would invite you to answer and give your defense toward the accusations here

What happened: The project raises several red flags, as listed on the thread title and which will be described in more details in sections below

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3461862
Scammers Website: https://xcavator.co/ | archived
Scammers ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5392519.0 | archived

---

---

First Red Flag: Plagiarism
Plagiarized Documents: Whitepaper | archived
Original source: Several, as listed below, but kindly check section 4, the image section for easier view
[1] http://enkwallet.com/ and https://cryptonmr.com/?page_id=280/
[2] https://support.nominex.io/en-us/article/47-what-is-monero
[3] https://genesisdigitalassets.com/the-challenges-of-industrial-scale-bitcoin-mining/

---

---

Second Red Flag: Faking credentials, owning other project's KYB --Know Your Business-- as their own

[archived]

Alleged Document: Project KYB Report | archived

If you actually checked at the document, though --see appendix [4] on section 4, it looks like a very poorly made "official certificate" with a QR that will redirect you to this link --edit: the link automatically redirect to the certificate, so I'll paste the link manually, https://me-qr.com/d4NLr as well as adding appendix [5] to maintain fairness-- I've tried both with my phone's QR code reader and online QR code reader, just to be sure, and both bring us to the same page, so it is safe to say the QR code --nor the certificate-- belongs to them. The link itself will redirect us to a detailed certificate issued by Smart Contract Security Audit for Mocking Metaverse additional note: I didn't check both the certificate issuer or the mockingmetaverse project as both are not the points of interests here.

---

---

Third Red Flag: Holding and have control of the rest of the token "to be sold manually when the market condition is suitable"

---

---

Some screenshot for easy view:

[1]



[2]




[3]



[4]


[5]

---

---

Notifying and inviting the accused to answer and defend themselves here

O...kay? I have to be homest, that's a rather worrisome answer. What happened with that project? Was it failed or something?  If it was, what'll make you sure that this latest project of Invert didn't face the same fate?

#PROOF OF REGISTRATION
Forum Username: holydarkness
Forum Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=754818
Starting post count: 2472 (including this PoA)
BEP-20 Wallet Address: 0x280E7EB232A480D142262Dc526618BaFBbdB4619

As the OP was online today and could post on some threads but seemingly decided to ignore my invitation I am left with no option but to think that the OP couldn't deny and find anything plausible for his defense, and to conclude that the accusation is correct... although the latest findings on the accusation thread few days ago by FatFork actually pretty much already sealed it.

Now that you said it like this, I very vaguely remember there was a project about Amazon Forest. I am not sure if it was Invert's that I read about, though. Does the project --amazon land tokenization-- has an ann thread or wp that I can use to jog my memory?

I don't think I understand this correctly. Rebase system, simplified, allows a burning or minting tokens so that the total supply will always be very volatile to keep the rate at certain value. For example, on day 1, there are 1,000,000 LANUNA with 1,000 LANUNA equals to 1,000 USD --just for illustrationary purpose-- and the day after, some crazy people burn 500,000 LANUNA, which logically will put the rate to 500 LALUNA for 1,000 USD. But, due to its elastic nature, the token will automatically mint new tokens so their rate will stays around the pegged currency. Wouldn't that means exchanges will be less likely to delist them because their rate is rather stable.

With that said, though, I followed one or two rebase projects in the past years. One kicked me out of their TG --and later disappeared with money-grab-- because I drill them with questions, the other ones more or less faced the same situation as your investment, they're gone into the thin air.

Hence, I am trying to understand, and then to see if you're legit or not. Although I have to say that so far the signs are not good. Maybe you can help me to prove myself wrong, we can start from your wp

And my question is still left unanswered. Maybe you didn't know the answer as you're only acting as their CM. If so, can you please add this to the next AMA? I know that I can just go to your TG, but such information like I asked, IMO, should be available for public like this forum and not limited to your channel.

Are you part of a project or company named "Invert", https://letsinvert.io/, because most of the team you listed were employees of the said compan but didn't put beverlytrees on their portfolio. I'd like to lernr and find the connection myself, but it seems invert's webpage is... intended to be more artistic than informational

I hope you can ease my preliminary concern here, when I checked the parent website, jacquieetmi --darkness swallows the rest of the link-- I didn't find any mention of Jimizz or any article correlating you with them, can you please point out the article or page on the parent website that you're indeed are the branch project of their company?

Is this the same project with the exact same concerning issue raised on this topic --copyright infringement from Netflix's series-- and prompted the past CM to erase their track? Have you do a DD on your part prior to accepting this project?

Archived original post from ninjastic: