|
Post proof of this or you will be reported.
|
|
|
|
Yeah the user kalehon - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1762484 - is a bot, these are some of the posts he repeats: This project is very interesting, I am sure a project with this concept will be successful, I hope bounty soon begins, but I do not see the reward for bounty on the distribution diagram of the coin
I would like to ask you a question: how do you guarantee the stability of the platform?
Can you give us more info regarding the pre-sale phase and can you show us the smart contract for the token to see it?
It looks interesting and will continue this project. I hope to develop further and look forward to more updates!
Cannot open the whitepaper link. Can you give me another link?
Note: He's probably scraping posts of off the web, so don't hold it against the original poster. |
|
|
|
These two statements are entirely compatible. Allow me to elaborate.
Most scams are obvious. Some are ponzis, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of reading their website. Some have fake teams, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of looking at LinkedIn. Some are plagiarized, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of reading their whitepaper. If a scam is this obvious, then a disclaimer shouldn't be enough to absolve a manager of all responsibility. They should be doing a minimum level of research. If they promote such an obvious scam, they should be tagged.
Some scams are not obvious. Take Bitconnect for example. Bitconnect fooled a lot of people for a long time, and they made millions. I don't think you can blame a manager for being involved with a project they didn't know was a scam when no one else knew either or it couldn't be reasonably exposed. In those cases, provided they break off all ties once the scam is exposed, a disclaimer is fine and they shouldn't be tagged.
I would echo that disagreement does not equal bullying
Ponzis are just a form of fraud. New investors are paid by the money of the old ones. The moment new investors stop coming in the chain breaks and the owners make a run for it. Bitcoinnect was literally the definition of a ponzi scheme and it wasn't at all hard to realize that since there are countless examples like it. I may have expressed myself wrong, a better way to say what I meant was stop being influenced by an opinion of a higher ranking member. If you were not influenced I apologize, although it seemed to me like you were and without a need for it since you are in the right while the other user is clearly in the wrong although they won't admit it. |
|
|
|
Thank you actually for elaborating my point.
The scammer was sentenced for over a century in jail, yeah.
What about the scam agents ? And this is state justice, not some internet board with "wanna-be ICOs", like you say.
Which one is the most "critical" ? Were there consequences for the agents ?
Now that you repeated that, in your view, managers have responsability, can you please address my first point ?
What do you recommend to do this ? Let's find practical solutions that BMs can use.
How can managers protect themselves from a team that appears legit at first glance, with only a page on 2 different social networks at start.
Only then, they add more and more bullshit, make Linkedin plagiarised profiles, and update the project OP (that has been accepted by the manager) since they can do that.
Except from checking the whole marketing of every project that is managed on a daily basis to prevent scams, which would take forever, what do you recommend ?
I have no better solution to provide, this is why I think they shouldn't be responsible. But meh.. difference in points of view etc ...
Since you think otherwise, what do you recommend, practically ?
Scam agents? If you mean auditors, they helped build the case and got a reduced sentence. You can also bet they got a hefty fine and can't do business in the branch anymore. Still, it's beyond me how you can use Madoff as an example and how you can compare a business that operated for decades before being exposed to these scam ICOs. Also, one important thing you fail to realise, we are talking about the reputation of a member, not about banning him from the forum. All of the Madoff employees and partners(since you're using them as an example) do have a bad reputation after the scandal, wouldn't you say so? Would you hire someone that worked with them? Would you like to know whether a person worked for Madoff before hiring him? Would you like a warning before conducting business with that person? If the answer is yes, then congratulations, you see my point. Nobody is holding you back, you can work with Woshib all you like, but other users deserve a warning in the form of red trust and reference. Regarding your question, a project with "a page or two on social media" shouldn't be launching an ICO now, should it? There is no need to check the "whole marketing" as you put it, just check the team behind it and whether the project lies on their website(which it often does), simple as that. They should protect themselves by doing the research since it would be the best course of action for both their reputation and the well-being of the investors. |
|
|
|
Can you please explain how to prevent an edit function from being used by the team running the project ?
Other than, having to check every other social media page they advertise, on a daily basis, consistently, during the whole life of the bounty ?
And make sure this is still legit. Can you just estimate the time this would take ?
We take all your criticism, but what are you recommend ?
Afaic, BM aren't responsible for the teams actions.
Were the agencies used by Madoff to advertised sentenced to anything ? No.
These topics weren't even brought on during trials.
First of all, my recommendation has been the same from the start of this thread. Bounty Managers have to accept responsibility for their actions. They are getting paid to manage bounty campaigns and they should do their due diligence on who they are working for. Projects that don't pass the test can manage their own bounty from their own account(which is usually new, low ranking, no rep - since they don't deserve to have the reputation of an established bounty manager tied to their project. Secondly, I won't even address the fact that you compare a 65 billion dollar scam to wanna-be ICO scams. Madoff managed to scam auditors who do checks for scams, false records, manipulation for a living, as well as the SEC. Compare that to barely literate ICO scams with fake teams behind them and yeah... you get the point. |
|
|
|
I don't think marlboroza is being bullied and I for one respect his decisions, even if I don't agree wholeheartedly with them. I don't think anyone is screaming at him to reverse his feedback, simply disagreeing with him. Members here are on both sides of the fence when it comes to this issue, and I think both sides need to be heard.
I wouldn't suggest marlboroza remove any feedback he left, nor would I counter it in a case like this. Not all DT members agree with one another. Oftentimes there are issues nobody can reach a consensus on, but it's not bullying to express an opinion.
I was talking about o_e_l_e_o changing his statement after Lauda's post. I don't think posting a disclaimer should be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any and all scams and shadiness. There is really no need to appeal to the extremes. I'm sure that you've understood what I meant.
Apologies. Not my intention, and I accept a disclaimer is fine when the project wasn't obviously a scam.
|
|
|
|
Apologies. Not my intention, and I accept a disclaimer is fine when the project wasn't obviously a scam.
What are you even talking about here? Obviously, he didn't take the job knowing it's a scam(I hope). Disclaimers are not enough, in no line of business is working with scam projects legal, knowingly or unknowingly. Everybody should do their own due diligence if they are putting their name and reputation on the thread. Disclaimers mean shit when you're getting paid for it.
Taking this case again as an example, however - the first project he was promoting was an obvious ponzi. A disclaimer should not be enough to absolve all responsibility. People have been tagged for joining a ponzi signature campaign - I fail to see how we can't then tag someone for running one.
Here you're back on track. Most of the scams are obvious to people who do the research and especially to experienced bounty managers. By the way, stop being bullied into an opinion by higher ranking members. You were right and there was no need to apologize, extreme or not, your example was spot on. Scams are scams, be they elaborate or simple. |
|
|
|
|
I think there are more pressing matters on the forum. Most of all, I don't think the forum is in a "presentable" state for youtube or anywhere really. Anyone who watches the videos will be like "Let me check this out" and see the countless pages of "sir" "sir" "please sir" "thank you sir" "remove negative trust sir" "I'm bounty hunter sir". If you think it can't get any worse, well think again. I really believe in this community and the quality members are truly great, but until we rid ourselves of these shitposters, promoting the forum to the wider masses is like shooting ourselves in the foot. You don't get a second first impression. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Let me get this straight: You want to blame a victim for being the victim multiple times? That makes perfect sense. Not.
Why are you referring to the BM as a victim? He is the one actively promoting the ICO. No, you can not say his job is counting and managing spreadsheets only. Also, since when is a victim someone who gets paid while the people who he manages(bounty hunters) don't? In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.
Which legal right was the BM deprived of here? Also, the reason BMs aren't held responsible is that they would be out of their jobs if they had to check the credibility of every project since most would fail the check. Doing any job for scammers should be frowned upon by the community, so I don't understand why everyone is overthinking this. |
|
|
|
~
That's marketing my friend and it's been like that for a long time lol. Regarding mdayonliner's post. To me this is very unethical business. You are double cheating with people.
- First with the subscribers who trusted you with their contact details and
- 2nd with those who will buy the list.
Imagine 10 customer (fools) end up buying the list, 10 company/customer will sending 10 emails a day or with same shit, is going to end up in the junk folder of the email recipient. No conversion and nothing in return. Waste of autoresponder cost (money), time, bandwidth, memory etc.
A standard opt-in page always have the privacy warning to keep the details protected. This is utter garbage spilled into text. First of all, if you know how to do e-mail marketing it certainly won't end up in the spam folder. Like it or not it's the world we live in today. What do you think the new GDPR policy is about? Read what they make you accept now and you'll see exactly how privacy is a myth to say the least. Each and every website collects your information and sells it to advertisers - it's how internet marketing works. I was just selling a targeted mailing list, nothing else - no names, no personal info, except an e-mail. We can debate whether it's right or wrong but calling me a scammer is just stupid. So if you don't mind, I'd rest this case unless the OP manages to produce some evidence that he even spoke to me, let alone conducted business. You can post a new topic where we can debate the moral side of it, but I rest my case here. |
|
|
|
|
You'd be better of hiring an English "coach" for yourself with all that money you have.
|
|
|
|
So you wanted to give him positive trust to counter the negative? Now you want to leave the negative and remove the positive he has already received?
-snip-
Removing previous positive =/= leaving negative =/= countering negative. You brain is clearly unable to comprehend this. Now go back to your little account-selling dungeon, 'jeet.  You know, when someone runs out of things to say they deflect or become primitive like in your case. My brain is fine, but your mouth(or in this case fingers) is running faster than yours.  |
|
|
|
I am exceptionally too bad brother. Fair don’t stress approximately this and keep clam. I trust that the issue will be illuminated naturally. If it's not too much trouble don’t so much concern almost this.
I am exceptionally too bad brother. Fair don’t stress around this and keep clam. I trust that the issue will be illuminated naturally. It would be ideal if you don’t so much concern almost this.
Someone fix it, it's broken. |
|
|
|
Complete the details and include some proofs please. Selling Email/Accounts databases or any other personal info is really unethical, if it's not yours, you don't have the right to sell it. I reported one post with the same purpose earlier.
Anyway, I visited your profile and was a bit surprised with one of your posts. For me, it's a bit funny that you commented that on his thread (see quote below) and now you're here saying he's a scammer because you didn't get the database? Oh wow! to sell databases is not ethical and unlawful
I do not advise making deals with this person
Wtf are you two even talking about? It was my database that I bought, so what's your problem? I've bought it from an internet marketing agency and don't see any reason I can't do what I please with it. It's not hacked it's not exploited in any possible way. Regarding scams or whatever, I didn't even make a single sale lol so not sure who could I have scammed. What could have happened rather, is that the OP is someone I reported or outed for scamming as you can see from my post history and is trying to get even. Anyway, this was a colossal waste of time. Oh yeah, his account was registered on 12th September 2018. Must be legit. Recently I received a threat for posting that a user is scamming on the forum. Here's the image:  A day before the OPs account was registered. Fascinating. |
|
|
|
That said, I'm going to change my feedback on him to a neutral, since in the deal we did he was the one to send funds first and thus I didn't really risk anything. There's enough doubt in my mind about his other actions that I don't think he needs a DT positive for that.
I advise others to do the same or completely pull their feedback. We really need to stop giving out 'positive trust', which is obviously seen as something *prestige* (unfortunately), as references to successful trades. Positive trust from DT for e.g. 0.01-2 BTC trades is ridiculous at best, naive and stupid at worst[1].
[1] This is IMO - readers: do not get triggered if you see the 'trust system' as a *trade system*. Wait, you wrote this literally a few hours before: It does not. Your emotional argument against OP is your own thing that is not of concern of me. Based on past ways of settling similar situations, Marlboroza should remove his rating or someone should counter it. So you wanted to give him positive trust to counter the negative? Now you want to leave the negative and remove the positive he has already received? Maybe you should refrain from commenting on posts until you form a concrete opinion on the topic instead of being stubborn and arguing with others. I've seen you post very intelligent things on this forum, but I've also seen you post shit just so you can argue with someone. |
|
|
|
Upstart project? Good luck with your sales thread!  |
|
|
|
|
Hahaha and he uses the same e-mail and Telegram on all of them. Genius! Nice catch!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
