Quoting what saxydev said on the other thread so anyone can catch up and get the relevance with my post below,



I have zero knowledge of monero, so guide and correct me if I'm wrong, but basically if we want to prove this payment and get to the end of this case, we can do it from https://localmonero.co/blocks with txID 6cb0178cd40e70339bf83d80a71936d14721954958679ea4a910349562900e95, so the complete web address would be,


which would bring us to this page,



Where the "Recipient's Monero address" is what's given by the OP, 4B5P6RUPjedUu6xMavFrEthePYfgaEmnMHsoRKQf4jC1b2JYShUZdKS1FtDg7Y5phbQnhRY4MoLKZi6 KgR2emFeg9DC3HCG and the TX private key is what saxydev would provide, he wrote and I quote, "to a trusted person outside the gang of [...] GazetaBitcoin"

Am I correct?

If I am, then I'll ask saxydev, do I fall under that criteria? You asked if anyone would do their role as part of the community, and here I am, volunteering purely to get this case closed. I don't think I'm on any gang on this forum, and I would like to call myself --well, self proclaimed as it is-- trustworthy enough. Would you PM me that TX private key which will allows all of us to see the truth behind this case?

And to any other members, as I am aware that screenshot can be edited, but suppose saxydev kept his words and provide me with the TX private key so that I can confirm that the payment is indeed sent --or didn't sent-- would the screenshot provided by me enough as an evidence? I can assure you all that I won't bother editing the screenshots --aside from cropping and obscuring anything that can be used to identify me-- as whatever shown wouldn't benefits or detrimental to me.

Yes, but it's a very very very small campaign with as small rewards, one week only signature and reddit campaign with 600 USDT pool, 300 USDT each. If the amount OP stated is true, the amount they lost would almost equal to the amount allocated for that marketing. I looked at their spreadsheet, the highest paid for reddit was 34 USDT and signature was 28 USDT. It was distributed successfully, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if they launched that bounty for the sole purpose of giving false credibility and tricking people into thinking they're a good platform.

I would very like it if I can be proven wrong.

Let's just wait and hope that their compliance team changed their mind when Monday come. Your link to their flag is not correct, it's this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3106

Ahh... Owlgames, a name I haven't heard in a while. And you too, been a while.

Yes, their customer service is notoriously poor. On one case I followed, they kept trying to assign the blame to the victim --that case didn't end beautifully due to the victim's own greed, though-- and diverting the matter at hand to other topic. While on the other case they almost costed a reputation of another betting platform who uses them as a third party service.

Moving to the point of the case, I don't think your accusation here will made known to them, since they're been away for a while, 20 January. Let me try to hail them via TG and let's hope they don't... block and kicked me out.

---

Edit:

LOL, that's fast. I was just uploading my screenshot to ibb and posted my post here and when I returned to tg to see if my message got read, I found...



As I have the CM's username at hand --luckily I took this precaution-- lemme try once again, in a good faith, to hail them, this time through PM to their CM

---

Edit 2:

Ahh well, they're thorough and efficient in blocking people who they don't want to communicate with. Anyone else would like to try inviting them?


 

Notify them about this thread so they can come here and give their side of story.

I didn't mean to rub a himalayan salt on your wound, but I'm a bit curious on how you find this platform appealing? Looking back at their ANN, 8 of 9 pages they have basically debating their false claim of NO KYC while their ToS --which the users agreed-- specify they're allowed to ask for KYC anytime. A deliberate misleading title and dirty marketing. One red flag.

The demands by a lot of member of this forum for them to edit their thread title also came to a deaf ear where they deliberately ignore and pretend didn't read. Another red flag.

Third red flag? This,


Anyway, as it's already happened, what you can do now is --as said above-- notify them and let them explain themselves here. The community will mark and flag them if they found to be guilty.

tl;dr: we are on a stalemate, flag supported. It now has 3 DT supports and should be active.

Bear with me, it'll be a long post, I spent my entire day --literally-- mulling over this. I even sat on the floor, waiting for my laundry while reading back and forth between posts.

---

In the spirit of being fair and just, the official of Ole777 has actually replied with the reason why $12,000 was confiscated from OP, although they somehow replied on their ann instead on this, more proper thread. Their reply had also been quoted and replied by OP here on this thread


Nonetheless, it wasn't an answer that's constructive to the development of this case or --at the very least-- invoking confidence for the platform. Tracing back, basically, most of their explanation for these situations is, "you're caught in syndicate and arbitrage betting, that's all".



On the same day that Carlos posted his answer on their ann thread, describing the tight situation he currently is, I advised him to ask the compliance team to create an account here and answer these pile of issues, as they seems to be the key to all of the cases here, and their reluctance to provide the backing evidences of their counter-accusations only complicate things.

I can understand that a platform is reluctant to share their multi-acc abuse detection system because it'll make the system obsolete, but I can't fathom why won't a platform shows a proof of arbit, as --if I understand correctly-- it's mostly about the bettor's bet log and it won't do them any harm.

At some point earlier today, I realized that we are at a stalemate. The only way to move forward is if compliance team level down and shows their evidences. Otherwise, it's just an empty counter-accusation. We can drag it out for years and make Carlos goes back and forth between this forum and the compliance team and still at this exact point if they stays on their ground.

And this is detrimental for the cryptocommunity who want to play on their platform. We can't be sure how many people in the future joining up in a good faith --while we still trying to put this case to rest-- and got unlucky by getting into this similar inconvenient situation with no plausible evidence to justify the action taken against them.

At the same time, I'm still standing on my belief that OP's flag¹ is still lacking the stated requirement. I even consulted to the guide on raising and/or supporting flag to get some insight on what step is the best to take here and what's the justified action, and theymos said,


Reference for the fact-statement mentioned above:

I wouldn't hesitate to support the flag if it's a type-1 flag as the condition is instantly met for that flag. Flag type-3, though, is still not completely true, and that's purely because Carlos seems to still gave his full effort to ensure that point number 4 is not valid and point number 2 will never befell to the OP --aside from point number 1 that I will explain on the postscript.

However, in the consideration of my point of stalemate, I think this case is just as good as a dead-end if the compliance team keeps refusing to give their supporting evidence. And no matter how hard Carlos plead to the team, as long as they still holding on their decision to not sharing any incriminating proof against OP, point number 2 and 4 on the type-3 flag is as good as a proven and fulfilled.

Thus, in hope that the nice red banner on their ann would help us get through this situation, I supported the flag and leave a negative feedback to the suspect. The flag will now be active.

---

¹by the way... i think flag type-2 is more accurate, since OP did not have a written contract with the suspect. The "contract" is the ToS that OP checked upon signing up, which basically an agreement. Unless I'm wrong and such action [checking the "i agree ..." box] can be considered as a written contract?

---

Edit:


Type-2 and 3 flag will also be visible to newbie and guest once active, much like the type-1 flag

Thank you for addressing this, I'm looking forward for the updated document.


They'll see an authwall.

I was actually logged into my account when I checked your LinkedIn. However, I think I've found the issue, your profile somehow won't work on mobile version. I was talking about the "/m/" part of the url, not the device mode.

I tried to access your profile through my phone, both in mobile version and in "desktop site" and it shows as below. Removing the /m/ part --which take us to the full desktop version of LinkedIn-- clears this [see image next to it, pay attention to the address bar]


 


I'm flattered by the offer and your time, but I think it would be best if you instead published a page which give a detailed info of your tokenomy --and other things that you might want to explain further and more in-depth-- rather than explaining it to me in private. Afterall, it's the community and your future investors that you need to convince. It'll be more convenient if anyone can access the info so they don't have to ask again and again in the future.

Posting a confirmation that I've changed the code. Can you please inform me if all is good and as expected?

I have to agree with FatFork at this pace and point. I didn't mean to be rude and I know you've been doing the best of what your job requires and allows you to, but if Ole777 wants to clear the situation, I think it might be on your company's interest to appoint someone from compliance team to share this account with you and start answering questions with faster results, because this model is highly inefficient, and your compliance team's "playing hard to get" certainly didn't contribute anything positive to the outcome of your reputation. It's practically as good as if spyrosc200 or bachezy just exchanging emails with their... your customer service.

Or perhaps they can create another account, one that's controlled by the compliance team, where they would only come when a complain is escalated on this forum and you'd hailed them to go online and address the issue, while you work as a community manager distributing announcement and news.

---

Edit: a small typo

Maybe you have a good project, it's still undecided and, so far, unaccounted for. Which is why we are here for, to see it through.

To set the record straight, I am not against cryptocurrency in generals. What I'm against, and --borrowing your words-- have bad attitudes for, are scam projects. Speaking of which, I'm happy to prove your project are not what we think it is. Unfortunately, you're still unable to give me materials to prove it wrong. If you read through my first post here carefully, you'll be aware that I'm more concerned for the absence of your whitepaper instead of your medium-load-due-to-enormous-graphic.

So, when can we expect it? The whitepaper?

LOL, ok, I have to say it's quite rare that I smiled a when I'm conducting --well, typing-- a DD, yet here I am, grinning widely at the wittiness your postscript. Addressing it, the answer is a yes and, sadly, a no.

Yes, finding the nature of your relation with Smilodo which leads to finding your web age --both of them--, domain history, and your license took a significant burden away from my mind. But no, I am not exactly at a relaxed state. If... you perhaps would indulge me on the people behind your project? It would took another slice from my plate.

I can see the names and their avatar as their profile picture but since it's an avatar and the names are quite... overshadowed by other, more historically well-known people, I can't pinpoint on the exact people behind this team and verify if they're indeed a living being with records as stated on your pitchdeck, and the fact that the link to your linkedin on your website somehow... didn't work, made it even more difficult to verify and get assurance of the credibility of these team.



Another thing that I'd like to know is your tokenomy. Do I understand correctly that team owned a 15% of the total supply, with the collective percentage under the team control for development, marketing, anspd advisors, minus the one frozen on vault, is 37%, while the sum of circulating supply available for the market is 33%?

Isn't it a little bit double standard that you advised people to stay away from this platform --which, a sound advise, like it or not-- but you promoted and defended a similar business model that you don't even bother to clarify? What happened? Bitnaka paid you while citybuildtrade refused to do the same?

Hi, first of all, wow, I'm so glad that you answered me very politely and professionally, it's a nice change of scenery.

Moving to the topic, your explanation helps a lot, I really appreciate it. I look around --well, it's part of the DD i do for the community, I hope you understand if I'm being nosy-- and can confirm this ownership through this crunchbase page, as well as that I can see you're completely registered --since 2016, if I understand it correctly-- under Aeddon AG.

Your story of beginning your journey with smilodo.com also matched the trace back done through waybackmachine, given you've launched smilodo back in October 2020 and only purchased the aeddon domain roughly one year later.

May I ask, out of curiosity, why'd you decide to launch your own metaverse only now? I mean, these metaverse hype has been around since like... 2021? I honestly can't remember when does it start. So why now and what pushed you to finally build and launch your own metaverse?

Ahh... this clarifies the concern I've been having since you announced your flag. TBH, I've been wanting to say it since then, but choose to refrain from it as it's completely fall under the judgement and decision of the user who raised the flag to when and why they deemed the flag necessary, but if I have to be honest, I think your flag is a little bit too premature due to the fact that once raised, a flag can not be retracted --the forum even warned about this right below the "confirm" button-- and especially because it's raised when the accused are still willing to cooperate and replied to your case... well, until couple of days ago. It can only be deactivated by the lack of supports or a stronger opposition amount by DT.

Flags, if you may, can be seen as a final judgement, and is based on a concrete and accurate evidences. On the case of your flag, the statements you agreed and acknowledged are as follows:


Which is also why, speaking for myself, no DT supported --and thus, activated-- the flag yet, point number 2 and 4 is yet to be fulfilled. Rest assured, though, that your case is being watched by enough DT that would support the flag once they think it's conclusive enough, even though only few leave their comments, we are still there, watching and assessing the situation.

The OP is not even bothered to answer my question although they're keep being online, their website still a rather jumbled mess that seems to be build from free template with drag and drop designs. I would tread carefully until several points are being cleared up

Certainly the whitepaper will be uploaded several days before the token presale to give people time to scrutinize and mull over it before they can decide that it's a good thing to put their fund on your project? So we can expect the whitepaper in like... two or three days?

Wouldn't you agree, then, that your thread title is a little bit misleading. They're not stealing your deposit, and unless you have proof that the amount sent to the wrong chain was, is, or will be recovered and spent by them, the statement is rather false.


And in that case, people would throw accusations against them, saying that they lied because there is actually a way --or two-- to recover it, and conclusively they're untrustworthy. Instead, they state it out front that they can recover it but there will be fees charged for it, and they asked politely if the customer would agree with it. If the customer didn't agree, they didn't force them to.

I've asked Rollbit Razer to come to this thread and let's see if they can give their insight on that 200$ fee. But their last online date was a week ago. If anyone has a link to their tg, I'm more than willing to rely the message there too just to get to the bottom of this --IMO-- unnecessary accusation. Not discord, fb, or twitter, please.

Hi, will there be any community manager from their platform coming here to address questions? I found several things that made me quite uneasy and it'll be very nice if Aeddon team could appoint someone to answer with the capacity of their officials.

If I may start from probably the easiest, is the site build by a website builder, on a free trial version? I saw this watermark on the bottom of each page, and if I may use wix as reference, it's basically there to persuade the user of the web-builder platform, on this case, Smilodo, to purchase paid membership and remove the mark.

I wouldn't call your project as unique, given you're actually one of many that proposed this idea; generally a project launchpad and fundings. And I'm yet to see any that reached success. By success, I mean they didn't run with investors' fund.

But perhaps you're different, and I'd like to know further. Do you perhaps have any plan to update your website with whitepaper and team details?

First of all, your post opens several point to be discussed about, ones that's too diverse to be discussed on the same time. So I'll just quote the post for future reference and start with the one I mark in bold.

That said, I'll add that I don't know how can I say this without sounding like a total jackass, but I still have to ask, so I'll just shoot it: were you saying that you propose to open your service in certain market without prior study of the said field, all the advantages and disadvantages you'll get from choosing that market?