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.

Yes, it doesn't. IIRC the old trust system works like the sum of trusts given to an account, e.g.: someone with three positive and two negative "trust" will shows +1/0/-0, while someone with three positive and three negative will show +0/0/-0. The system today works by showing the sum of each feedback, e.g.: someone with five positive and two negative will shows +5/0/-2 instead of +3/0/-0. So the counter-feedback which on the "old world" can be and were used by DT members to negate an arguably invalid negative trust, it doesn't work on this new system.

The best OP can hope is for the DT members to distrust Malboroza. Enough distrust will kick him from DT and thus will make the -1 score "invisible" from OP's default profile. But given the multiple posts made by several users here on his findings and the reason behind the feedback, I can't see why we should start ~malboroza.

OP, if what you said is true that you're only looking to have a deal with someone and you think that malboroza's tag will hinder you from a successful deal, use hugeblack's and dimonstration's advise to use an escrow. It'll "bypass" the cautiousness raised by your counterparty due to the negative tag you have.

May I ask OP to decide against it? I've been trying to reach betnomi's representative through PM, and I am notifying icopress right now by mentioning his username here [hopefully he use the notification bot] as he has previously helped intermediating cases against betnomi.

OP has made a scam accusation against betnomi. Creating "another topic" by writing on their ann will make it harder for people overseeing this case to keep track of the flow of information as they have to get back and forth between threads. If OP wanted to move the discussion to their ann thread, then lock this thread for the time being until a result has been reached and re-open it just to update with the final verdict. Otherwise, just wait here until their representative come with an answer, or --if OP deemed he has to-- wrote to notify them about the existance of this thread on their ANN, but refrain from engaging further discussion made by other users on that thread and invite anyone who interested to move to this thread.

I would strongly advise against that. There is no need to dox yourself to complete strangers on the forum --and from it, the world-wide-web-- while CasinoGuru could facilitate this discreetly. Sensitive document will be set as private and can only be seen by the involved parties on CG. As stated by Maverick's representative, they're trying to get in contact with casino guru's representative attending your case, Tomas. You can either give them some time to see if they can get in touch, or expedite it by reaching to Tomas and informing them that Maverick is trying to reach them through Tomas' email because their earlier invitation to attend the case did not reached Maverick's inbox.

If I may give another suggestion, rather separate from the main concern right now but would probably be useful in the future, suppose Tomas asked Maverick to submit all of the KYC document you sent to Maverick before so they can check it themselves, offer to Tomas if you could also re-submit the document yourself to Tomas so CG will have two sources and wider possibility to crosscheck the data.

Another thing that I have to point out, as both parties agreed to take the dispute to an ADR, CasinoGuru, the verdict given by CG will be final and both parties should honor and accept it.

I understand correctly they're only locking your withdrawal and not your account? Can you perhaps add more evidences like your betting history and everything you can? It won't hurt either to take screenshots of everything just for a keep-safe, in case you got locked out from your account. Not that I am saying they'll do that.

Meanwhile, I'll PM betnomi to inform them about this issue.

I don't think AG intermediate cases against Maverick Games, I can't find their name on AG's database. CasinoGuru, though, does. The other complainant you mentioned above kamen1 has already submitted complaint on CG. OP, if you want to, you can do the same. Meanwhile, I am PM-ing their representative to notify them about this case.

The thread is not even one page long, you can at least try because it is not that hard. Please spare some time before giving any comment so that it can be considered --at the very least-- contributing. The OP has already in touch with third party, an ADR called Casino Guru, and Maverick has been trying to reach them through other methods because it seems there is a miscommunication or whatever that make CG's invitation never arrived on their inbox.

If OP would confirm his identity, then it's better to be done on an ADR who reviewed personal and sensitive documents privately, not here where OP can accidentally doxxed himself.

Judging from:

1. Their reluctance to share "private" contract like TX hash proof of payment.
2. They asked me to send an email for that simple matter, to the one that listed on their page, that bounced, while the other email is yet to give me any reply up to this day
3. They have no registeration for such an ambitious project that's definitely need a legal compliance in form of --at the very least-- registered company
4. And given that when Murat finally provided TX ID himself to me and it is revealed that the transaction is indeed as he claimed, 62.5K token and it's still there

I'd like to extend the benefits of doubt to Murat that he's not the one cheated his bounty participants here, and instead, the "company" breached their contract. As for your suggestion, I think it is quite safe to assume, inferred from his reply to me and his post on his bounty group, that he's pursuing the matter periodically.

Oh, by the way, they kicked me out from the group and deleted my chat. So that speaks volume too.