Hi, Crypto community,
Just letting you know that 5th company went out and told about IDAX.pro scam:
https://medium.com/@xcryptclub/xcrypt-important-update-33c784e4eb58
Also, this is what CoinMarketCap says and will do nothing, even ignore voice call evidence:
Answer from <support@coinmarketcap.zendesk.com>:
Thank you for sharing your findings. If we are able to independently verify the information, we may consider issuing an alert on the page. We appreciate where you are coming from, especially since it springs from good intentions.
Even though we try our best to verify the data with the projects on our site, we are not in the practice of censoring or policing others as that would be antithetical to the raison d'être of the decentralization movement - self-sovereignty. In an open ecosystem like the one we are in, we believe that the best policy – that we follow closely – is to over-provide on data and let users make their own informed choices about what to do with that data.
Consequently, the presence of a project on our site does not constitute an implicit endorsement of its merits.
We have always encouraged our users to perform their own due diligence (https://coinmarketcap.com/disclaimer/).
This is particularly important because the unregulated and cross-border nature of this space makes it difficult to seek recourse.
Self-curated screenshots and/or social media/forum posts of unknown provenance are difficult to verify because they can be doctored or orchestrated via sybil attacks/sock puppets. It is not that we are impugning your intentions, but we have to be mindful that a preponderance of “evidence” does not always confer truth.
Consider the following case: A complainant claims that an exchange had stolen his funds and furnishes screenshots of the ‘pending withdrawal’ status dating several weeks back. Even if we were to assume that the screenshots were genuine, it is not easy to ascertain whether the impeded withdrawals were a consequence of malicious intent on the exchange’s part or account termination/freezing policies that the complainant had triggered through his own actions.
However, we understand that these concerns are valid and have implications on the community and the impressions that people have about the crypto space. Going a step further, we will be progressively updating our site to be even more in line with our view that users should be given the power to experience and use the data in a way that fits their needs most.
Underscoring our commitment to remaining neutral by avoiding censorship and judgement of the (de)merits of specific projects, we believe that there is value in publishing a wider array of data points to enrich the decision-making process of our users. You may have noticed that we recently added a ‘Ratings’ tab on our site. Going forward, and in the spirit of mitigating centralized points of failure, you can expect to see additional data sources. One example would be adding metrics to evaluate exchanges such as liquidity measures, hot/cold wallet balances, and traffic data. For instance, if an exchange with low traffic has $300M volume and just 5 BTC in its wallet, users will be able to draw their own conclusions without the need for us to make arbitrary judgment calls on what is 'good' or 'bad'.