I don't think they have an account here on this forum so they can be informed about this issue and hopefully expedite your case, do they? And can you provide screenshot of the said statements made by kraken's admin?

Given the frequency of this mixed up chains is quite a lot, Kraken should probably start considering to have some pool to reimburse the fund immediately with what they have from the reserved pool and whem they fixed these mix up --months later-- the fund they recovered would be placed back to the pool. It's almost ridiculous how their member has to suffer a lot of opportunity-lost from the price fluctuations while they tried to fix the problem that they've admitted as their mistake.

You misunderstood OP's whole post. This is not a service announcement thread, it's a scam accusation. The site is not OP's and they didn't offer their service. OP warns us about site mentioned on the opening post that's very likely a phising site, as proven by virustotal. So, it'll safe to assume if you deposit that sum of money to the said platform, you'll lose your money, and got phished.

Below is Coinbox1's reply in regards to the most recent development for the case. I'll gladly play an owl as they're seemingly stand by their words and refused to reply here.


As how I've stated here, I have been weighting upon this decision for a while now as OP's activities and involvement on his case seems to became more and more sporadic, as well as how they seems to put less and less effort on their case, tilting the balance of the weight more towards the validity of decision made by AG.

To be honest, it was in my sincerest hope that bumping this thread by reposting OP's defense from other thread will sparks OP's activity, as that seeems to be not the situation here, it became less and less fair to keep the tag on Coinbox1.

Don't get me wrong here, I am still in my opinion that TD's actions toward resolving disputes are more in poor side, but I have to agree that --under these recent developments and situation where OP keeps being absent-- it is not fair to keep the tag, especially considering the above defense made by TD against providing evidences, as stated on the last part of the quoted post from them, is within the realm of reasonable.

As such, the tag will be changed to neutral to serve as a reminder for this case.

Pardon me, I got notified that you replied me on this thread yesterday and was intended to reply you right away as I have been drafting and weighting my next action and reply toward that case for a while, even before you posted your latest reply, but I was catching myself up with certain case of a hacked issue on the neighboring thread --it's eleven pages that's quite heavy to digest-- and fell asleep right in the middle of the read. Let it be known to public that my mind and consideration was already made before you post your reply that's addressing and questioning my feedback, so that there's no future impression by you that I'm... obsessed with you, or with tagging you with negative feedback.

In fact, I initially have no intention to reply here and was planning to quote your post to the referenced thread based on the snippet of your answer from the notification that I got. But as it turns out your whole post has a chance of misleading people for my judgment --which I'll admit I played certain part on this misunderstanding--, I have to straighten one specific thing.

I'll divide your post into two parts where I'll post the snipped version --and more case centered-- into the more appropriate thread, and address the situation that's more general and had to be straightened out here, with the point in question marked in red.

Just so everybody is clear and there's no question for my standing for AG, as well as for future reference, when I said "arbitrary platform", i was meaning to say "arbitrator", with regards to this definition:


Not knowingly that there's a difference between the two terms. I owned my language barrier and stand corrected

Ahh, maybe I was a little bit unclear. Allow me to clarify using your attached picture. Is there a page that shows all of those assets on "Personal 1", "Shib #2" and "double up" into one?

So, suppose I have 3 eth and 20 BNB on "Personal 1", 50 eth, 3 BNB and 1,000 usdt on "Shivb #2", and 3 xrp on "double up", the "overview" --or whatever they're named-- page will shows:
- 53 eth
- 23 BNB
- 3 xrp
- 1,000 USDT

insread of having to select each wallet and look at the amount on the said wallet individually?

Quoting this post from OP's post on other thread to allow Coinbox1 to address their latest counter-defense

---

Edit: to my BM, please disregard this post from my quota and consider it as an illegible post

Hello, I will shows a good gesture by pretending that you missed my standing and opinion for the tag which I wrote here


And to fulfill your wish to be more in line with the community spirits and forum rules, I'll replace the tag to reflect a more accurate reference, Poika5's case.

If people probably missed the entire case, Poika5's case is indeed also marked as solved by AG, but it was not before Poika5 can give their defense, and Poika5 has to resort back to this forum to give their defense here. Wrong thread, I know, and I've told them about it, but they haven't been online since last week, not sure if they gave up or got caught red handed and hide, and we'll probably will never know as Coinbox1 wouldn't share their evidence here, or addressed the counter-defense by Poika5.

Again, yes, AG had marked this situation as solved, but that's one of the downside of an arbitrary platform, the decision is made by one person instead of the public eyes and opinion, we can't be sure how accurate and unbiased their decision are --no disrespect to AG, just stating my opinion-- especially as Poika5 actually still have things to say, so the ticket on AG probably was prematurely closed.

So, my standing is still the same. I'll be more than happy to revoke my tag if you can address the concern properly. Meanwhile, I'll change my feedback with the more accurate reference so it won't be "misleading" and repost Poika5's last saying to the more proper thread so you can address it properly. Rest assured, I am just, if you didn't give me any reason to tag you, I won't, and I am more than eager to remove the tag, so please give me a reason to do it.

As a side note, the other case marked as solved is not actually solved per se... wait, I'll just requote myself of what I said about this:

If you bother to read the entire case described throughout the thread, you'll see that your sentence I marked in italic is somewhat insubstantial, borderline misleading. I've even explained several times why the tag stays, and have been offering them option to remove the tag, which they didn't fulfill.

Now, if you said that their cease and desist letter was a reflection of what happened on the case you referred, again, if you've been reading the entire thread instead of just blurting things out, you'll see that the statement by Coinbox1 won't make sense in reflect to your "accusation", i.e. because me and Pmalek acted unfairly.

This is what they wrote, let's break it down statement per statement, specifically on paragraph 3 as that's where they wrote the reason behind their action:


The primary reason for this decision is the behavior of certain members of this board who, at least from our perspective, have repeatedly distorted our statements and made public threats in our previous communications.

Neither me nor Pmalek distort their statements, you can read both of the thread carefully, I am pretty much sure we said and commented based on their previous statements, quoted in full. If any, they're the one who distort our statements, they systematically snipped our sentence to match their narratives while the whole sentence itself said a completely opposite meaning. I've broken it down here and here. I'll humbly asked you to spare some time reading the threads, and if that's too much of a time for you, then that two specific posts and tell me who twisted whose words?

This kind of conversation they are fond of, and in general, their preferred ways of communication, is not something we should be involved in according to our code of conduct, and it is simply too much for our employees to bear emotionally. Just like most forum members, our employees are living people. Men, women, with family and kids. We have a responsibility to ensure they are not subject to unnecessary emotional harms. For this reason, we found it extremely difficult to continue as before, because our employees' mental health was at risk.

The kind of conversation we're fond of, our preferred ways of communication, is by providing evidences to the public, to address everything with transparency and available for public's eyes. If that's not fitting to their code of conduct, then I question which kind of problem solving method is fitting to their code of conduct.

And about bearing it emotionally... I am not sure how exactly providing evidences of what someone said could burden one's emotion so greatly. In my country and my culture, it called being responsible of what I said and owning my actions. They banned someone for late betting and other reasons and when they're asked to prove it, they deemed it harming them emotionally? And that's just if we refer "them" as in the employees. If we broaden the scope and interpret their "them" as the Men, women, with family and kids, it's even more absurd.

It is employees' responsibility to choose if they want to leave their problem at the office or drag it out to their loved ones. Again, this is us asking them proof and the basis of their counter-accusation. If they said it harm them emotionally, would it too far fetched to say they're playing victim? Pretty much sure in every place in this near-round rock we called Earth if we accuse someone of something, we also have to provide the evidences.

If any, shouldn't it be me and Pmalek who feels victimized and left emotionally harmed by their actions? They distorted --and caught red handed doing so-- our statements, they lied to the public and smeared our reputation. If I and Pmalek could still continue on living without any emotional stress after such gross action while they had to go into their shell just because we asked them to provide proof of what they said, well....

Now, if we talk about the case itself, it is actually not solved, per se. They accused their user of multiple late betting (par. 3, line 2) and provide one example, proven to be wrong and asked, politely, several times to provide another example, and they basically goes, "Ok, you're right, our bad. Here's some extra fund to compensate our misdemeanor".

There's still no proof if the user is indeed cheated the system by multiple late bettings or the platform wrongly accused them. There's no clarification and they didn't own up to the accusation and statement they made to the user other than backing up and paying some compensation when they've exhausted all their possible way out.

I think that's all I want to say from my side, I'd really love to hear your feedback about this.


I am not. And I will never do such gross action of tagging someone without substantial proof to justify the tag just because I had a bad blood with them.


If I may give my personal opinion, I'll say it's not a good practice. If a platform decided to stop addressing cases on this forum and prefer a platform which more discreeat and the final decision is made by one person, I think it's fair to ask whether they prefer the solution method because they're more comfortable with the reliable platform or they're too afraid to open their case to public where everyone can contribute to the case and they can't exactly control the outcome they wanted.

Just like what several other members have pointed out. True that arbitrary platform like AG and CG on some cases are somewhat... more capable because they'll require every statement to be backed by evidences, where the evidences are kept private for their eyes only. For some cases it is good, for example for the case of multi-acc, this forum couldn't verify the victim's credibility by asking them to provide KYC, while those platform could, thanks to their rules of secrecy.

But for some other cases, where the case Oshosondy mentioned ironically serves as a very excellent example, solving it through arbitrary platform where only one person assigned to review the case and became the ultimate judge and jury, is not convenient or fair.

Having several eyes to see and validate the evidences --as well as brought some evidences themselves, just like the referred case-- is a good way to solve problems as unbiased as possible.

---

Edit: I just scrolled past coinbox1's latest post and learned that they painted it like I am a very bad and stubborn guy for keeping my tag for the case marked as "solved" although the past page of that thread describes my standing very nicely. But, as it seems to raise unnecessary annoyance and since it took mere seconds to adjust it like what mahdirakib suggested, the tag for said case is now retracted and will be replaced with a new one with more accurate reference.

Can't help but being curios, does your platform also offers a tracking service for multiple address? For example, I have an metamask-based ERC wallet and then when trustwallet became a trend, I also have a wallet on TW, with some of my assets on MM still sitting there these days. Can I put both addresses on your plarform and simultaneously knows my entire assets on both wallet?

Not sure if I should be flattered by this because it means you think I am still quite young --while I am relatively not, I've been roaming this earth for a while when friendster is still a thing-- or be insulted because it'll put me on the same generation who ate tidepod and do tiktok dance (PSA: I don't have tiktok)


My heart skipped a beat. What email? And what personal things do you actually send to them? I am sure you don't have my email address, it's set to be hidden by the forum setting, and I haven't give you any address.


Pretty much I didn't blackmail you. I didn't ask you for money --if there's any, then that's definitely not from me-- or extort you for anything other than asking for the reason why there's no mention of the aves on your teams' details... or, in the very near future, other essential and basic details of your project. There's no harm in it if you're really legit, it'll be very easy to answer and would help boost your credibility and I don't think that'll count as blackmail.

Ah! Ironically, Google's quick view feature actually helps. I can visit marant's page as you directed through quick view and saw the Aves being mentioned. And thanks for your help on providing company reg number and the details, I gave a half hearted effort on looking for this info before --and decided to do it later when I have more free time at hand-- you just crossed one of my to-do list.


To be honest, it's been probably a decade since I really use Facebook other than to look at someone's profile and verify their identity, so forgive my rustiness on that platform, but I can't actually see your comment, there's this "most relevant is selected, so some comments mau have been filtered out" note at the bottom of my scrolls. Although I think this one has became unnecessary as you've proven Fazlic's involvement on this project enough through the mention of Aves on Marant's page that you gave me


Now, this is what made me jumped out of my not-so-comfortable bean bag and promptly replied you. Can you please share me the details of these people who contacted you and the supporting evidences of screenshots of their request. Do you have name or something else that could help identifying them? Do you mind sharing it through PM or whatever channel you preferred?

I can assure you that I am not one of them --for the love of god, I've give my best to be fair and just, with a twist of sarcasm and an ass, people on this forum will stone me alive if they found me doing such malicious action. I think several DT on this forum would vouch me for that--, but I've been curious of these group harrasing people for a while now and have been looking for some lead about them. There were claims a few months back about how some group of "highly ranked member" asked for certain "ransom" where if the "victim" didn't comply, they'll threaten that they'll have their group of highly ranked members to harrass their ann thread continuously.

Sounds familiar? Is this what happened to you? Can you give me more info about them --maybe through PM so it won't pollute your ann and we can stay on topic for this project since I still have several other things to ask you while simultaneously looking for the truth behind this... gang?-- you're not the first one claiming to encounter such harassment from other members, but none actually ever gave a good evidence of their claim, or any details, when I asked them further. If this truly happened and you can give me good lead, I'll try to investigate them myself.


Sorry, but... you're not my type. Fret not, though, I believe there's still plenty of fish out there for you. LOL. This joke aside, I am dead serious about the previous part of my post about the harrass-er.


Because... my main focus is on proving if a project is legit or not and looking for truth behind accusation cases(?). That why the last posts you're been looking at are not transparent(?). You know, because I did my job nicely and most of them are caught red handed being fraud and money grab? Which... also why I'm here. Not trying to say that your project is one of them, though. The jury is still out, hopefully I'll be proven wrong, which --once proven-- would make me immediately scarce from your thread. So your cooperation would be much appreciated.

---

Edit for your edit:


Umm... coffee? And a sincerest suggestion, you might want to hire a CM to tackle all of the questions and queries if that's overflowing from your plate.

Hi, giving you the benefits of doubt here as I found several worrying point about your project. If you may ease one of the burden from my plate, it'll be nice. It's about your team, or... the lack of it.

Your team is composed of four people, but following the social media link you put on each of their profile on your website, only one of them actually listed AvesCoin as their employment, Dumancic. Even the CEO himself. Fazlic, did not have any mention of Aves, although he did mention Marant on his profile. The project Manager, Klekar, last post on twitter was for... giveaway? nearly one year ago? Actually, glancing over his tweets, all of them are about joining giveaway. Is there, perhaps, a social media of his that shows better work experience and professionalism? Last, Popovic also did not put Aves on his employment record on LinkedIn.

Could you please boost our confidence by explaining about this matter and prove that they're indeed working with AvesCoin by asking them to update their media to reflect this current issue?




About Marant, Ltd., what's the company about? I've been trying to access the website to get a better grasp of Mr. Fazlic through so many browser and devices, wifi and mobile data, vpn and non vpn, but I still can't access it.

Too bad it comes to this, for the sake of those already investing, I hope this is just a hiccup or something else, or that their angel investors are just them posing as interested party to shill the investment.

I asked a friend of mine --which, should't be blocked like me-- to check their discord, and it was not available anymore too


Referencing to these points, I'll leave a tag --I wonder if a flag also necessary-- and edit the opening post adding these latest development. AdvantageBlockchain, if this is just a simple error, some of your intern just accidentally erased your discord, website, and edit your ann to nonexistence or something, you can drop by here at any time and explain what happened





https://archive.ph/xhezd

In no attempt to point out the obvious or to be patronizing... wouldn't it be easier for you if you tweak your free spins bonus to a really loyal members? Not only it'll persuade your users to be well...more loyal, which in other words, spent more time and funds in your platform, it'll also helps you from having to handle similar situations in the future, especially as you've stated that it happens a lot.

One thing that I don't understand though, so you found them doing things that against your ToS and cheat your system, abuse your bonus, etc. but later let them withdraw the money they got from it?

You do aware that by your clarification on this post, it became clear and move us to the same page that you're seeking for angel investors, thus what the first part of my post serve?

Also, please know that the "law" applied for projects in crypto is to questions everything and guilty until proven otherwise, don't take it personally as it applied to almost every projects. So yeah, I don't think sitting tight would do. Especially as what I asked is not --at least according to me-- too difficult to provide, suppose you do have a full and established team behind your project.

Or could you give a good reason why it is so against your idea to show your team? If I'm in your position, I'll gladly snap pictures of my staffs if that's what it take to get rid of this particularly annoying human from asking me a lot of things. Plus, it'll be a good credibility point for my project.

Pretty much sure I wasn't talking about angel investors investing in securities, although you're free to point putr which part of my post lead you to think that, and I'll explain it to you in other way. What come to my realization is that none of my questions are answered by you.

Thank you, these matters at least... clarified, that you're looking for angel investors. This would limit the possible risk area as fewer --clueless-- people would be less likely to be fell --let's suppose-- into a money grab scheme. Reassure me again, how much is it to be angel investors? And I'll assume you won't just accept anyone's who's willing to invest?


That it'll be shared upon launch? In April, according to your roadmap? I wonder why would it took so long? And why do they need to be hidden? Although, any angel investors who's interested will be given your details?

But alas, as I am banned from your discord for being rude here, while my main interest is always the safebeing of the community, I can't get to see these team and the guys who spend 16 hours helping people, which left me to... fumble in the dark. As I am curious about your team --this is one of the few last issues before I can rest and feel assured that you're safe project for this community-- I have to rely on the internet and educated guess.

Allow me to explain why it is so crucial for me. First, you have four years in your hand prior to the incorporation, and almost seven month after it, yet only now you started to create your wallet and made "significant" move. During those four years, you didn't produce anything other than the idea itself. It is fair to say that it feels like you put almost zero effort on it. And then there's this fact that once it's finally up, your website --for a project with such ambition-- is rather poor in design, just as mentioned earlier by someone else on your ann thread that it uses the template that's usually used by scam website. Second, the fact that you needed funding for wallet kickstart and hired freelancer to build it. Not that they're necessarily wrong, just... feels a little bit concerning as it implies how deep your knowledge and effort on the necessary fields; years of zero result and milestone, free website template and freelancing your most fundamental pillar. Level with me here, wouldn't you be suspicious too if a project with such characteristics suddenly appeared? The surge of "incidental" shillers also didn't help, if any, it just make the suspicion grow stronger. I'm aware that you said on your ann that you've weeded them out, but the fact that you -very likely-- hired the shiller service will still remains.

And later on, I can only assume that the registered office is your own home --I looked for it on Maps-- again, although it is not wrong, it raises a great amount of concern, especially if I let my mind thrown back to the statement that you've been on it since 2018 as a sole proprietor, registered it on May 2022, and only just now started to break your ground.

I can't shake this feeling that your team is just you and maybe a couple of hired CM and the angel investors themselves. There were no professionals on it, any experts on the fields necessary to pursue your ambitious aim. It won't even too far fetched to think that there's a possibility you'll just cease to exist one day, dismissing your entire "team" with your users funds in the following months, since there are no provable professionals that had their reputation at stake for "collateral" to ensure that the company will keep their community's interest at best and will strive through things instead of running away with their funds like the great ICO mess in 2018.

So tell me, why can't the people behind the team be revealed and had to wait until launch in April, while you'll have people start exchanging your token before then, as you'll finalize and confirm listing for your token in February and March --by the way, I think the order is kinda switched here, how could you finalize a listing, and then confirming it later? It'll make more sense if you confirm the listing with the platform in February and then finalizes it on March.

Even if they're not doing HYIP, their pictures are all taken from the internet, and... i don't think there's a 74 Fox Lane in Bochastle? Far as my maps suggested, Fox Lane is in Sheffield, and it's... a house, for sale... sold.


 


 

Ahh... Yes, I stand corrected, in the tangled mess of your constant indirect answer, it seems I overlooked this one statement and used the term IPO, partial company ownership, and corporation sale too loosely and interchangably. After all, you kinda did offered the partial ownership to public, LOL.

Allow me to retract that part about IPO, to be more fitting to your term,


And then allow me to recall some of your statements hinting toward public offering --or partial ownerhisp, or whatever terms you see fits-- instead of angel investors,




But maybe, this is all indeed a huge ball of misunderstanding, poor word of choices, and a habit of indirect answer. So why don't we settle to prove your seriousness and legitimacy by something easier like what Rikafip suggested and I've asked on your ann thread? The team.

I think if your team has been spending 16 hours a day to work everything out, they won't mind one minute or two just to have a group photo? Or better yet, as you've updated your WP three times, why not tasking someone with a very easy job of adding a page or two on the fourth revision, containing the team details. It would greatly helps casting out the cloud of suspicion towards your project.

Oh? Why don't you said so from the earliest part of our discussion? It'll help us saving a lot of time... wait... maybe that's because you had to improvise and blurt it out just now.

I've been deliberately mentioned IPO several times in our earlier discussion for you to deny them, like here or here, as well as mentioning public offering, partial ownership, etc., i've even brought the screenshot of registered company for public offering --which, honest to god, also placed to give you a chance to inform us that we're on a different page and you've never talking about security offering. You have plenty of time to deny and straighten by saying "no, not a security offering, I am talking about an angel investor." Which you never did, until all of your means of excuse seemingly exhausted.

But let's assume you did tried to say angel investors and all this time you just, uhh... not, uhh... --I don't kow a nicer way to spell it, so forgive in advance-- not smart enough to realize everybody understood you wrongly, that you're talking about angel investor and we are all thinking about something entirety different but you can't see it so you can't clarify it before this point.

In crypto, angel investors are those who usually offered to seed, and invested, on a private round. But as you've been publicly opening yourself for seeding, I don't think it's meant to be for private round, nor did you actually referring to angel investor all this time.

Then, let's assume you're trying to say angel investor in traditional terms, the good old school business philantropic partner. As you stated here that the deal was signed by lawyer,


Which I strongly believe you're trying to say notary, basically a lawyer who oversee a deal and became a legal witness of the said deal being signed. The keyword here is "legal witness" as they're required to be present on the same room as the other parties and see the ink being drawn. By this basis, I'll boldly assume the "angel investor" here is also a Canadian, because I can't fathom how an overseas angel investor would fly in with their notary --or you fly with your notary-- to legalize the deal.


You're saying that all this time, since you created your ann up to this point, you tried to propose either your family or someone random in this forum who happen to be a high profile someone with $5M net worth?