OP Updated to reflect the lack of reasonable response to the misrepresentation of the size, scope and substance of the underlying operation.

In light of the fact that the ICO launches tomorrow the negative rating has been restored to alert potential investors to the situation.

Sure, because reading a few posts up is too hard, right?

!!! Warning !!!

This ICO has been
exposed as fraudulent

!!! Warning !!!

See this thread for details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2077842.0

It is next to non-existent for a fledgling platform seeking millions of dollars through a token ICO which was only dreamed up a couple of months ago, Jason. The fan-boi newbies you've got posting in this thread are just the Indian freelancers chasing bounties, they aren't your staff, they aren't even unique to your platform.

The thing is, you haven't been quite as keen to promote gigb2b as you have your ICO and that does not bode well considering your somewhat dishonest spin on the size and scope of your platform.

You've made sure to get lots of copy-pasta articles in circulation promoting a multi-million dollar ICO. Trouble is, they don't really come across as honest when you're spinning the image of your platform to be something it is not, namely, an operation of size, scope and substance.

I don't think you are rushing gigb2b's development at all, but you sure as hell are racing forward with a multi-million-dollar ICO sale with barely any time between your flurry of newswire NATV promotional articles and the actual launch date. Many of these articles show they were published just FIVE DAYS AGO and you're intending to launch this Friday?!

There is no justification for doing that other than to take advantage of FOMO while making vague hand-wavy promises about how you'll use the funds. You've got no escrow, no oversight and the fact is you've got nothing really invested in gigb2b.com other than a few thousand dollars and a boatload of fake 'likes' on Facebook. What is to stop you misusing those funds? It wouldn't exactly be difficult for you to siphon off 'expenses' into your own pocket, considering you're running the business as the sole operator of it.

Speaking of which, you cite 'Native Currency LLC' as being the commercial vehicle through which you are operating, but I can't find any such incorporated company online. Which jurisdiction is it registered in? For that matter, 'GIGB2B Inc' doesn't seem to be pinging up on company registrar records, either.

LOL. You wouldn't have to dump NATV tokens, you're aiming to be in possession of many thousands of ETH. So that promise is just another specious straw-man.


There is no "Our", Jason, there is simply YOU and a handful of freelancers who have registered on your just-another-freelancer-website and, as I said, they're not even unique to your platform as they got there only because they were already active on other freelance websites you were advertising a couple of jobs on!

You have single-digit social-media activity and sod-all traction but you've chosen to frantically ramp up your marketing for a multi-million-dollar ICO you only thought of a couple of months ago. The optics on this do not look good.

The only way you could possibly justify this ICO would be to have in place both an independent escrow to hold the funds AND to employ an independent audit company to oversee their expenditure. Given that you're potentially seeking many millions of dollars, I don't mean some Mom-and-Pop outfit from your former business associations, either, I mean a proper blue-chip firm.

Otherwise you're no different from any other sketchy "Trust me..." promise-merchant.

!!! Warning !!!

This ICO has been
exposed as fraudulent

!!! Warning !!!

See this thread for details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2077842.0

ORLY? I'm supposed to do all the work for lazy bounty-seeking idiots who can't be bothered to check the status of the project you're racing to post support for?

Get stuffed.

Anybody who has been tagged and wants their rating removed has to delete their supporting post and dm me. I've got enough to do without having to change your nappies and wipe your arses.

You don't exactly live up to your username given that you posted this TWO DAYS AFTER this scam had been exposed.


Yeah you don't really come across as so contrite in your dm to me, though:

It would probably be a good idea perhaps to start by deleting the post you made offering to translate for this scam and then try asking me to reconsider the rating, no?

Okeydokey matey.

I guess I should put an address in this thread finally, given the absurd number of hacked accounts popping back to life recently.

I'd appreciate a quote or two to lock it in place:

1NUofxuC3XsRdENV1sx5MJENAuBXLYRz45

!!! Warning !!!

This ICO has been
exposed as fraudulent

!!! Warning !!!

See this thread for details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2077842.0

SMH. Guys, seriously, do you even have a lawyer engaged for this process? You absolutely CANNOT make these kinds of statements!

You could say these tokens will be burned, you can say they would not be sold within a particular timeframe, or that they will not be sold for less than the ICO price, but you can't say they will be sold for a declared value in excess of the ICO price. That renders the process a sale of a financial instrument and contravenes the securities laws of most jurisdictions in the world by way of asserting that there will be a future profitable value to them.

You risk potentially serious consequences in being so careless with how you're handling such matters. Get a lawyer to explain all this to you!

No, I already said that the payment of bitcoin to post an ICO thread WOULD NOT equate to it being considered trusted, it would simply be a means by which we can throttle the flow of new ICOs being launched through bitcointalk, thus reducing the numbers to a more manageable rate for investigating and evaluating.

The bitcoin collected doesn't even have to be paid to those who expose scams, we just need a process implemented which would serve to reduce the number of threads being posted.

It would be absolutely critical for there NOT to be a 'verified' or 'approved' label for ICOs, as that would be a legal minefield and likely open to abuse.

!!! Warning !!!

This ICO has been
exposed as fraudulent

!!! Warning !!!

See this thread for details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2077842.0

You are employing what is known as a 'dishonest argument' strategy through creating a 'straw-man' and defending it. In this case the straw-man is your claim that my issue is about whether I 'believe in' your project. The issue is not whether I believe in your operation, but whether you are presenting your operation accurately and honestly.

See, this is why I am becoming more and more alarmed at how you are choosing to respond to the points I am raising. Your entire reply in the post above seeks to dismiss everything I said with logical fallacies and half-truths, but in this particular claim you are going for an actual lie.
Your cap is 30,000 ETH, which at today's prices is over $10,000,000.00

That most certainly is "Millions of dollars" and your claim towards not needing it or not seeking it is specious and utterly dishonest. If you didn't need funding you wouldn't be having an ICO in the first place and if you weren't seeking millions of dollars you wouldn't have such a high cap.

You are a one-man-band operation, Jason and you've populated your platform by throwing some dollars at the Indian freelance community. Unfortunately you haven't managed to get any traction, only the loyalty of a bunch of freelancers who were paid to get you referral clicks.

I'll give you one more chance to respond honestly Jason and if you choose to dismiss these concerns again through dishonest argument and hand-wavy bs, I will be forced to restore the negative trust rating and scam accusation thread to draw people's attention to the dishonest nature of this ICO you are running.

Timeline of GIGB2B.com and NATV token:






That you are seeking to rush into a multi-million dollar ICO in the space of only TWO MONTHS between you advertising for a freelancer to code your token and launching your ICO, following a lackluster user response to your website, suggests either an extremely naive approach to investment funding or, as I have explained is becoming a more serious possibility, a cynical grab-for-cash following a quick bit of astro-turfing of a yet-another-freelance-website-operation, for a few thousand bucks.

No, it would be about Bitcointalk regulating the abuse of this forum by scammers, that's all.

The idea would be that 95% of the ICO scams currently being started would be blocked as many of them are literally thrown together for a couple of hundred bucks of expenses at most and wouldn't have the means to raise several thousand to pay a posting fee for an announcement thread. Stopping the plethora of cheap-ass scammers would at least lessen the number to a more manageable degree and allow time to investigate the more devious and determined fraudulent ICOs.

It isn't to say that anybody who paid the fee would be considered legit, no, it is simply to throttle the flood of ICO threads sufficiently that we can at least have a fighting chance of exposing the criminals and the con-artists.

FFS, which part of:

Confuses you?

LOL. WTF are you even on about now?

You sought to con people into investing ETH into your ICO, so funding clearly is a major issue.

Really, just stop posting, you're only making yourself look like more of an incompetent scammer.

Delete all your supporting posts for the scam and, once done, notify me and I will remove the rating.

Next time be more diligent.

I'm getting tired of all the bounty-seeking twats helping these scammers con more people into believing they are legitimate, solely because you can't be bothered to actually look up a few posts and see that it has already been called out as a fraudulent ICO.

I'll remove your rating this time but I tend to limit the appeal process to a one-time-only opportunity.

Do better in future.