Hi, thank you for accepting my invitation and presenting yourself here. If you don't mind, can you explain why OP's KYC need 48 hours to be verified while your ToS specified it to be --you said and I quote-- up to 24 hours or less?

I am sure they're very much aware of this thread and the latest accusation thread raised against them. I looked into my DM with them on TG earlier today and found that it's read [double checkmark] somewhere in between I sent the DM and today, which means they've been aware of the re-invitation and choose to be silent. On their group, they also made a post replying a user about CCFI and yet ignored the inquiry made by someone else earlier --the screenshot is on my previous post-- about the scam accusation thread of MetaSystem, further clarifying their stance of this allegation.

As such, I had to resort to the drastic measure of labelling their account and the threads they made --as well as future threads and evasion-account they'll make-- with type-1 flag banner with reference to this thread for a "more" in-depth explanation why I think the flag is justified as well as serving as the "single flag-explanations topic". I hope members of the forum can see that it is not my attempt of abusing DT and flag system, noting that the flag was raised not under the belief that anyone dealing with them is in direct possibility of losing fund, but rather indirectly, as in if they invested on the project whose bounty they managed, they're exposing themselves to the said risk.

---

Flag Type-1: feel free to exercise your judgement to support/oppose

After mulling over it over a day, I am sending them a re-re-invitation to give their side of story to this thread before taking the step of raising a flag. Let's hope they decide to grace us with their presence.




It also came to my awareness that the participant of their bounty group had also mentioned the scam accusation against MetaSystem, so it's quite safe to assume Crypto Bountyes, or whoever pseudonym they choose to use, is well aware of the current situation.

The lack of TX details themselves, in my opinion, are the evidence. There is something suspicious by the silence. Let's put ourselves on the shoes of those people whose username put by DireWolfM14, they --or rather, we-- got a promise that our non-collateral loan was acccepted and then we never received it. If we are real and not the alt of Loansik12, wouldn't one of us, at least one of us, ask for clarification that goes along the line, "hello good sir, how do you do. When can I have my loan?", or "My good sir, I have not yet received the payment." or, "Sir, plz good sir, I need the loan to buy shiba 5 years and be millionaire, I need helping."

None did.

It'll be a different case if Loansik12 PMed them and rejected each of their loan. That'll nicely explain why there is no transaction on each of the wallet and none protested. But that'll be a breach of implicit --or could it be even a written one?-- contract. Loansik12 agreed upon a "contract", and then rejected them behind the screen, and most likely unilaterally. At the very least, it entitled them a suspicion. Why else would someone offered a non-collateral service, agreed, only to decline it later on behind the screen?

And ultimately, the silence itself. The thread spread from 28th of May to 12th of June, if they're not guilty, or they've send the payment, perhaps to a different address that's changed by mutual agreement behind the screen, they surely would try to defend themselves, provide TX ID, ask the borrower to made testament, or at the very least, those borrower will say something themselves and provide statement that'll defend Loansik12.

Can we agree on these?

If we have to venture into the realm of possibilities, there are several that I can think of.

One, merit fishing, hoping that people thought their action is an act of kindness and give them merit and later on sell them.

Two, almost similar to merit fishing, trust fishing. Perhaps they hoped that, encouraged by the "successful" transaction between their alt and fake deals, and possibly the alts themselves left feedback that'll encourage members to leave similar ones, they'll farm the trust and sell them, or use the built-up trust to make a huge loan themselves which will be defaulted.

Three, and this is a long reach, attempting to steal the collateral. When there is someone asking for deal and they asked for collateral, they might went, "you go first, send me the collateral." and later never actually send the loan to the borrower. Though they do asking for escrow on their now-deleted thread, it seems that was just barks, not the bites.

Whatever that is, wouldn't the fact that they fake deals is enough to warrant some suspicion and advise people to exercise caution upon doing any deal with them?

And here I am, not even realizing that there is a team section. I must have confused myself and looking at the Tetrix's website --the team button was just a placeholder for their case-- instead of MetaSystem's in between archiving pages, screenshots, and writing the thread... or maybe I'm getting rusty at this, LOL.

Nonetheless, good job for you both, I really appreciate both of your help and contribution.

---

I don't think they even wandering around this board and thus, this thread might go unnoticed. I think I can write an open invitation to ahmim/Dotar/Bountyes on their group, inviting them and effectively informing each of their participants about the current situation, but I am very well aware that they can simply delete my chat and the attempt become useless. I am mulling over raising a flag type-1 against them --was asking the same for other people's opinion about it on the reputation board-- as that'll be quite effective to warn newbies and it can't be deleted by them, but if I have to be honest, I think a flag is quite a drastic and incorrect step for the very reason I said on the said thread,


I guess I have to take this with me to The Dreaming.

I found and would like to think that this is the MO of the projects that the group --or perhaps it's a single entity, one person with his alts, behind the bounty team--  managed, no team details, questionable whitepaper. They most likely hired the BM and not the well known campaign and/or bounty managers for this very reason, because they know the BM wouldn't care to do a research before accepting the job.

Updating with previous and recent development:

I reached to ahmim the day after I raised this thread to inform them about the existence of this reputation discussion and in hope that they'll engage to it, which they only replied with an as short as possible answer as shown on the image #1 below. Nonetheless, they updated their group with a rather positive note that I hope was made as the outcome of this issue, as seen on image #3, which followed by the absence of any bounty made by ahmim or Crypto_Dotar ever since.

However, as it turns out, instead of refraining from bounties without escrow and/or avoiding questionable projects by conducting a tad bit of research before accepting a project like I thought they did, I stumbled upon another project managed by their alt, Crypto Bountyes, with yet another whitepaper plagiarizing project and no team, details can be found here.

So far, they currently managing three campaigns, MetaSystem Token which mentioned above, Pi4ur^#4 which... quite easy to tell how it'll end up [image #5], archived "whitepaper" is here, just in case, and CCFI^#6, that had a previous campaign managed by other bounty manager, which upon glancing at their own group, I don't think has a bright future either [image #7 and #8].

#1 #2

#3 #4

#5 #6

#7 #8

So, with this recent development, I once again resort the community's decision and advise. I left a negative tag on both ahmim and Crypto_Dotar --and Crypto Bountyes soon after this-- should a flag to warn clueless investors also be raised? In one side, I think they're not the owner the project, thus they're not directly scamming anyone and no one is --directly-- at a risk of losing money by dealing with them, nor there is a casual or written contract being breached, so none of the three types of the flags matched their case here. But, I'd like to think there is a fine line between naive due to the lack of experience and couldn't-care-less-as-long-as-I-get-paid in accepting to manage bounties.

I am well aware that the bounty hunters participating on their campaign mostly are newbies who couldn't care less with the quality of the project, they'll just protest later when the bounty didn't pay. But I think, if there is at least a yellow banner on every thread this manager raised, newbies will be more carefull on enrolling, thus less newbies will be likely to join and less exposure of the scam projects they're managed to the cryptocommunity.

Will a flag be considered appropriate or will it be considered an abuse of DT system?

What happened: Plagiarizing whitepaper and website
Suspect's Profile Link: N/A [They don't have an official account here, far as I know. However, we have...]
BM's Profile Link: Crypto Bountyes, the one and the same with ahmim^[1]
Suspect's Website: https://metasystemtoken.io/ | archived
Suspect's ANN thread: N/A
Suspect's Bounty thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5454471.0 | archived
Suspect's Documents: https://metasystemtoken.io/white-paper_MSYS.pdf | archived
Plagiarized Source:

• https://trondao.medium.com/tron-4-0-online-conference-lucia-wong-ceo-of-wink-the-ideal-platform-for-comprehensive-39402f20831d | archived
• https://medium.com/@dlptoken/dlp-token-features-and-how-it-works-7e73baba1d87 | archived

Flag Raised: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3185

Additional Notes:
^[1]Crypto Bountyes uses and redirects us to the following group for his bounty: https://t.me/CryptoBountyes with @samil507 as their bounty manager. ^[1] [suppose he edited the link after this thread posted, the archived page still shows this fact]


Ahmim and his alt, Crypto Dotar was previously exposed for managing scam bounty campaigns in the past.

^[2]Other than the plagiarized whitepaper, I found extreme similarities of their web design with a project called Tetrix Token^[2]

Some screenshot for easy view:
It'll be quite hard to read through their WP, thanks to the strategic decision to put black-over black of the texts over their logo. I've tried to highlight it to boost visibility. Hope that helps.





<sup>[1]


[2]</sup>

Let's not jumping too quick to a conclusion for now. There is an instance of a reputable casino whose case I attended, where the accuser claimed they've been cheated because their KYC was rejected after a video verification and as it turns out, during the video call, the security team confirmed that the man on the video call doesn't match with the data submitted for KYC.

OP might be the one wronged here, or OP might be submitting a false document, or there might be other reason that we're not understand yet. Let's open for any possibility for the time being, and if there is a valid proof that Maverick cheated their user, I wouldn't mind leaving a negative tag for them myself.


Maverick, have you got any success in reaching to Tomas? I see that your countdown timer on CG is only 20 hours left. Can you assure us, in any possible way that you're comfortable to provide us with, that you've reached to the representative?

Umm... excuse me, I didn't mean to ruin the mood, but... wouldn't your statement, that the current reputation system --and by it, you actually tried to say DT system-- is garbage a tad bit contradictory? Given you utilized the very same system to try to remove one particular negative feedback from sticking to your profile?

Umm... though your point is quite applicable, that Helena Yu shouldn't worry much, I think you misunderstood the context here. Helena Yu vs rby is about trust list, not feedback. If I may use your account as example, it's this one, not this one.

You do aware that double negative infers a positive, right? So me fearing you should-not dis-trust me can also be read as me fearing you should trust me. LOL. All jokes aside tho, that's just me being polite. I know you won't be offended by my statement.

Well, uhh... Hood, well noted on the way you prefer your name to be spelled. My sincerest apology on this [this one is not me being polite, it's real] I usually pay good attention on how a username is written, specifically scrolling and opening a thread in new tab just to be sure I wrote the name and each capitalization, symbols, etc. to be as how the user wrote their name. But sometimes I also slipped. Please don't expect no more typo in the future.

OP, why is this matter so much for you that you made a topic about it? Pure curiosity. Rby is currently not on DT and quite far away from his path to reach DT1 if he aimed for it. Him distrusting you wouldn't bear much effect to your account and forum's experience. [No offense, rby]

And to answer your question, I think this is the correct way to use the forum's trust system. Though Loyce advise --as you've quoted, so it's established that you're aware about the thread-- to not distrusting someone solely on retaliatory purpose, the trust and distrust list is there to facilitate members of the forum to express their trust toward someone's judgement. Rby did not trust your judgement, and you did not trust his --hey look, you both are backscratchers, congratulation-- he didn't think you leave an accurate feedback and so do you. End of story.

I think we should also consider a possibility that their customer support's response is to deescalate the situation. The screenshot is too short and didn't give a bigger picture of the situation at that time, but there is a possibility that copiouscoolant was there to fuel the fire, giving provocative chat while they didn't actually have a situation or issue at that time.

As Loyce said above, it is not right simply because you'll --intentionally or not-- vote yourself for DT1 election. The requirement for DT eligibilty by theymos is as follows:


I marked the relevant point in blue.

The first part of your first question, "If it is right for me to include my alt in my Trust list because I Trust the feedback my alt gives to other users," it is ok because it simply serve the purpose of being your backup account, or in a layman's term, your cloud. For instance, LoyceV uses LoyceMobile as his back-up when he's on mobile device and away from PC.

In reality LV does not put LM on his trust list, but for the sake of illustration, let's suppose he does, it'll serve a purpose --at least one of the purpose-- where he needed to leave a feedback on someone while he goes mobile, this feedback will reflect and shown on his main account, disregarding LM's DT rank, as LM is part of LV trust list. However, LM should never add LV on his trust list as it'll --assuming the alt has at least 10 earned merit-- instantly give 1 vote to LV's eligibility for DT and this is wrong.

Note that prominent members mostly also put a feedback on their alt, stating that the said account is their alt. For LM, it read "LoyceMobile is my alt, don't deal with it, I use it on untrusted devices/locations. To reach me, talk to LoyceV only." Aside from serving a purpose said above --informing the forum that it is his alt-- it also can be used to inform people who wanted to put LM on their trust list that it's an alt, so the trust should be directed to the main one instead.

[If my statements and explanation contains some or any wrong info, anyone is free to correct it]


Not sure about this one, but I don't think there's any DT1 who ever made a mistake by electing themselves through alt.

Again, please provide screenshots and other evidences to back up your claim as well as helps us get a better grasp of your situation. The way you narrate the srory right now, it really didn't work towards your favor. Let's hope if the ectra evidences and screenshots you gave could tipped the scale a little.

Perhaps you mean 2019? I couldn't see any possible way you can complain bitterly in 2016 about the issue raised by Malboroza in 2019? And could it be, perhaps, you're referring to your other connected account, Goms and you just forgot which account you use to raise the complain due to the pile of accounts you own, and assuming you made the complain by this account? Goms did made a complaint, but I can't find any complaint made by this account, although everything should be archived by 2019, either by Loyce's archiver or Ninjastic's

I don't think I understand you correctly, though probably it's just a badly narrated story. So, you're not withdrawing yesterday, it was three days ago and were asked to wait for two days up to today for KYC to be completed, or are you withdrawing today and were told that you'll have to undergo KYC which will take two days?

All things considered, I don't see how they scammed you, you're agreed to a term that 10% will be deducted as a cancelation fee. They asked you prior to the cancelation, and you answered,


which were an agreement for them to process the cancelation.

As for the KYC/AML, it is stated on the second paragraph of their aml-kyc policies


Their FAQ page also covered the point stated by their customer service, which also answered your question about 80%; No, they shouldn't be able to, as their ToS specified 10% and not 80%.



For the record, I am merely stating the obvious here, I am not defending them. This is the first time I heard about them, and I am understand your reluctance for waiting for two days, given their ToS state that the longest time should be 24 hours or less. I am inviting their representative here to give their explanation regarding your issue, but don't hold your breath, their last online activity was on the 30th of May, almost two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, can you give us the exact screenshot of your email exchanges with them? Maybe they give an explanation about it there.

No need to send me a DM. There are a lot of escrow service on the forum. This thread is recently updated with highest trust rating escrow provider, this one is rather old, but not necessarily obsolete, and can still be used as a reference.

If I'm not mistaken --and that's me being polite when I tried to say, "I know he does, but I am not sure he'll accept business with you or not"-- GazetaBitcoin also begin to provide escrow service and currently doing it for free.