I have to say that you just made my day, in a positive tone and not even a hint of sarcasm, I spent at least three hours reading articles upon articles about crowdfunding in Canada that might help with any other cases in the future, and I always love to learn new things. If only we met in other circumstances...

Now, back to our topic, diving through FCAA, I found that Canada allows certain leeway on their public offering procedure, where a small business entities are allowed to crowdfund certain amount to handle their legal documentation. This is a very interesting news and --for the first time-- at least we're almost on the same page and same understanding of the current situation. But...

Tell me, am I interpreting this section correctly? That the crowdfund exemption for prospectus should be done through a third party, a crowdfunding platform, whom obligated to share the details of the exempted company requesting crowdfund through their platform?



I didn't find this platform mentioned anywhere, even when I asked you which method do you suggest the buyer to invest on you... well, of course, it could be a simple case of oversight, not a big problem. So what is the crownfund platform you use, again?

Another thing that I'm honestly confused and hopefully you can explain better. On the rules issued by FCAA, it is stated as below,



The first part I marked in blue box strengthen the understanding that in order to be allowed for crowdfund with an exemption, you had to go through a third party, a funding portal, but point 5.(1).(d). is rather... complicating things, isn't it? As what you tried to raise is included on the category of investment fund

Oh, come on, up to this point, you've successfully convince me that you actually didn't have the permit, you keep deflecting the question, answering even the simplest one with something else. I'll go down and matching your words of choice: do your company registered in Canadian equity regulator?

But based on your statement above, I doubt it is, as you seems to be the one didn't know how a public offering and shareholding works. Shareholder registry is not meant to be private, it should be open for public; at least that's how it works in my country, as well as bases on these articles:



But, of course, just like before, I might be wrong, Canada might have a different set of rules. So why don't you quote us the rule that state otherwise?

These questions are simple, your contract lawyer can help you answer them in seconds, so please make sure you have a direct answer for both questions on your next reply, or I'll be convinced that you're suspicious enough that I'd have to raise a flag to warn people. Especially as your "new whitepaper launch" did not exactly shed a new and important information compared to the previous one.


New whitepaper archived

As you're not offering a token and more toward announcing your portfolio tracker platform, I think this board would suite you better: service announcement. You can move your thread by clicking the "move topic" button at the very end of this page, left side.

At this point, I am not sure you're really don't know what I actually asked or you give your best to be ignorant. Allow me to repeat, kindly answer the following question with a simple yes or no: do you have all the requirements needed by Canadian authority to conduct a company public selling?

Anything else? Yes. You've been avoiding the simple question that's already been asked several times and one of the main concern that brought us into this situation and make people have to guess. If there was an elephant in the room, it is now a T-Rex.

Do your company have the documents and other legal requirements to offer this partial ownership of the company?

This was never directly answered. You only said some percentage of the company had been sold to investors with the document looked by lawyers. It is open to a lot of possibilities. Maybe the investors didn't know they fell into an unauthorized deal, maybe the deal itself never actually happened --for all we know, it's just your words without proof.

So, do you have the permit to legally conduct an offering to the partial ownership of your company?

Well ironically and sadly, I didn't do anything on your discord, how am I simply being there, a silent observer, without any comment ot even a word, considered... unloving (?). I visited it once to check that "meet some members" you suggested, and later, yesterday, as I got curious on your member's growth. I even recalled one of your team --or was that you?-- greeted me

What's interesting, though, is that I joined the second time after your whole "you are rude, we won't talk with you anymore" kinda post. Don't you agree that, if your true intention was to keep this particulary annoying member from corrupting your channel, it'll be more logical if you kicked me there right at that moment, right before or after the greets? The interesting part is the slight hint that the kicking happened only after this thread was raised with proof of abnormal spikes in members, which lead to a plausible question if the real reason is not to prevent this sarcastic human from polluting your channel, but rather to limit me from finding any other abnormalities in your super growing channel.

As for the whole buying parts of the company, I spare some of my time today to look around Canada. Given you signed all your post --and PM to me-- with "Spencer", I believe this is your company?


Incorporated on 13 May 2022? Your personal LinkedIn told us that you've been self employeed on the company since 2018, and your only employment history right after graduating from school, though. In the greatest attempt to not being a snide and not to assume, I'll just ask your opinion about this findings.

Continue on to the IPO-equity-partial-ownership or whatever name you preferred them to be, with the complete company name in hand, I consulted to a pair of Canadian stock and securities listing platform, I can't find your name on it, not even on their specific list for blockchain companies



Now, of course I noticed a part of your post earlier today --but not earlier than my digging activity, which was around my morning coffee-- which quoted in full above, and will specifically re-quoted below:


It came in harmony with how you keep avoiding my question about your documents for going public, and the findings that your company is not listed on the stock market: you're not available for public yet. So enter this previous statement from your ann thread:


And that offers of some spot available for the partial ownership and documents being reviewed by real lawyers. Best benefits of doubt I can give up to this point is that you're currently in the process of having your IPO permit. But, if that's the case, how exactly do you have already signed portion of your company to investors and offered some that's left to others? All while you're yet to be audited and deemed healthy for selling your equity? Isn't that... against the law?

Hmm... ok, thanks for coming here, first of all.

For point number 1, I'd like to find more about these servers, but when i looked back into my discord, I see that the channel is no longer on my list and when I tried to rejoin through invitation link on your website, it said



Can you perhaps help with this issue? Certainly it's just a small glitch?

For point number 2, I think I'll refrain from commenting on this matter and let the community decide themselves about the sudden spike of members... i mean shillers. And moving to point 3, especially the extra note, yes sure, I'd like everybody to read our entire discussion on the thread, it's just two page, and well documented on the archive section of this thread. Or better yet, allow me to give a screenshots of the section about IPO





While for "posting random screenshots of Discord Members saying they work for us", would you be a lamb and point me out to my post where I specifically said this?

Move this to your own thread, you're borderline OOT by presenting the evidences here, not to mention it's rather non-contributing to your own case as Coinbox1 probably didn't visit this thread anymore after 3 January --that's the last date of their edit on their first post on this thread.


So... you're suggesting me to... delete or change the trust into neutral with reference for this thread, and create a new negative one with reference to Poika5's case? Although it would be more technically correct, it seems redundant, no? It'll be better to just leave it the way it is until Poika's case got cleared then leave the feedback in reflect to the result of the case.

If you don't want to talk to me any further, perhaps you would grace us by talking to the community? Here on the (possible) scam accusation I've raised against you? Hope to meet you there and you can prove none of my suspicion is true. After all, my biggest concern and the purpose behind this... snide was and is to protect the community.

What happened:Possible scam project
Suspect's Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3511054
Suspect's Website: https://www.theadvantageblockchain.com/ | archived
Suspect's ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5417350.0 | archived
Suspect's documents: whitepaper | PowerPoint | Roadmap
Additional Notes:

I can't be sure if they're a scam project or not due to the lack of concrete evidences, hence I am open for anyone tried to help with this matter, but so far, several things are pointing toward that directions, as such:

1. No team details
Initially, I asked for team details, I think it is quite reasonable that a project that runs on remittance would have the people behind the team be known to anyone investing on the project or remitting their money through the platform, but they asked me to go through discord to "meet some members" which --as I've shown and told them on the original thread-- is not exactly convincing



and their final answer for this matter before I pursued other matter [point 3] that's more interesting was, the snipped quote came from the same post for this quoted post below and snipped quote on point 3


2. Discord members
Now, this is fantastic. They've been around since 17 October 2022, on 2 January 2023, they managed to get 47 members, then 300+, then 500+ in two days. As I am pretty much sure discord "followers" can be bought just like telegram, I peeked into this extremely drastic increases and found a glimpse which I believe is not too far away from my suspicion --that those members are inorganic--



3. Going IPO
They claimed that their investor will have portion of the company in Canada, as in IPO in real life,


Which raised my eyebrows. I'll openly admit that I am not well versed on IPO procedure in Canada --anyone from Canada and familiar with this issue, a contribution and insight will be much appreciated-- but I am quite versed on the stock and bond in my own country and I know that the buyer would have an account in brokerage or bank account, basically a third and appointed party that intermediates the company and the buyer. We can't just go to a company, arranged a meeting with their staff, be it higher or lower seats, and buy the shares ourselves. Likewise, a company can't just decide to go public one day and sell their shares freely to anyone. They have to get through thorough process like registering their company for public offering, waiting for some grace period, being audited, doxxed, amongst other things. A quick searches told me that Canada basically applied the same rule, which they initially deflect by saying,


and after I pointed out the sources on this post, their statement changed into


Upon pushed further about the matter, how exactly would they suggest investors to buy the ownership and do they have all the required documents for going public, they went into the defensive-offensive mode of "you're rude, we don't want to answer your question anymore", much like the telltale of scam projects we have in the past. Well, I am "snide", but that's simply because they kept circling around the question that's very easy to answer if they're truly legit.


As stated on the earlier part of this post, I am not sure if this is a clear case of scam, the three points I raised above might means nothing and I am simply too paranoid, but as my... eccentricity had provoked them enough and made them refused to talk further to me, and I can't clarify the whole IPO permit and team details and other aspects for legit project, I hope this thread can provide a better outcome as well as inviting other pairs of eyes and insights.

---

The suspect has been notified

---

Edit 1: as per 11 January 2023, Advantage Blockchain's website, crucial posts on their ann thread, and their website ceased to exist. While the nature of their investors --angel investors-- finally explained in clear after a quite a misunderstanding --I'll own part of the blame, but it also happens because they never answered questions directly and always leaning toward ambiguous answers-- they still refused to reveal the team behind this huge global remittance project.

By those evidences found so far, I am leaving a negative tag towards them.





https://archive.ph/xhezd

It's a common rule on most casino with an understandable reason behind it. One that can be easily think of is that multi acc means they can cheat on whatever bonus the casino --I'm talking about casinos in general-- gave, like faucet, rain, first time deposit bonus, free bets, etc. Another thing is the possibility of distributing a huge amount of balance acquired through cheating or abusing the system into several acounts with smaller withdrawal amount to avoid suspicion.

A one time withdrawal of 10,000 USD might raise the casino's attention and prompt them to look into your account. Split them into five or ten accounts, and then withdraw 500 USD at a time, and you can take them all without even going into their radar.

Grab your popcorn, it'll be a long story to read.


The feedback is not solely made on the case of Laki21000, it also reflected on how they addressed the situation for accusations raised against them in general, i.e. banning without trying to look for clear evidences first, or even tried to consider listening to the defense made by the accuser (the user they unilaterally banned), how they goes into grasping straws like this, or how when they're cornered, instead of trying to address the situation professionally, they choose to twist words and changing narratives through a sneaky edit like this or this --not to mention that the original unedited-but-edited post was hinting a hidden threat of "we know you"--

But, as I am quite agreed with what examplens said on paragraph two and liked the perspective I previously failed to see on the paragraph three, I was more than ready to change my tag, as stated on the quoted post below,


However, sadly, that outcome is not quite reached. We are still not in the clear on why Poika5 was banned on the first place. Sure, they offered evidences that AG deemed trustworthy enough, namely one of these (see the screenshot) which later rebutted by Poika5 on the whole post.

And with Poika5 went AWOL, and TD refused to answer the defense on his last post, we can only assume on several things, one is that Poika5 did multi-acc-ing, or maybe it was the "inhuman activities", and when they realized it's a lose war, they buried themselves. If this is the case, and TD has proofs, I am failed to see why they can't provide the proof of multi acc here and need to have a third party with policy of hidden evidences. If I may mention name here, Sportsbet tackled similar issue without needing to wait for so much ruckus.

If I may point out one thing that's seems amiss to me is how TD basically goes through this whole headache of blocking Poika5 when they offered KYC, twice, then insist that they need KYC to see the problem only after Poika got concerned of their privacy, then going through AG, dragging the whole situation on excruciating slowness, taking their time to verify KYC that the ticket almost closed by deadline only to come with the explanation that is far more obscure than what they've --forced-ly-- told us here on this forum weeks before it

Another possibility --and I have to admit that my imagination runs pretty wild on this one-- is that they reached an agreement off the screen with Poika5, with NDA involved, hence the sudden AWOLness.

But, for this case and specifically at this situation, I hate assumptions. I am well aware that I am sarcastic and witty and a real pain in Jesus' arse, but I am --at least I perceive myself as-- fair and reasonable. I would much prefer to lean toward facts than wild assumptions.

I can accept and would consider that the sneaky edit and word twisting is more likely an unprofessionalism of one entity --who named himself the-marketing-guy-behind-this-post-- and would probably be unfair to be held against the entire company of TD. Basically, all they need was kicking that guy and replacing him with someone more professional, and future scam accusation issues would hopefully didn't have to get through the same misery of smear campaign. I am more than happy to forget about the whole word twisting scene --with the sincerest hope that they won't attempt the same stunt next time our path crosses-- they don't even needs to apologize to me for whatever bad impression they've made on me, i understand completely that it's a risk included in the package when you choose to poking people with persistent questions and annoyed their days, every day, just to get to the bottom of the truth and giving fair justice to anyone deserves it.

This brings us back to what my statement on previous post said, I will consider changing the tag to neutral if they can give clear reason for the case of Poika5, which would convince me that they're a transparent and fair business. However, again, this is not achieved. We got to the bottom of Laki's case with them basically admitted they made a mistake and tried to grease their way out of it, and Poika's with something that's far more unclear than what previous "interrogation" gave us.

I'm more than happy to change into neutral if they replied here, or on the more appropriate place, Poika's thread, the evidences they said they've well documented on this "manner that's impossible for an ordinary human player."

Bottomline and tl;dr: In my personal opinion, it is not safe for anyone to play on such platform which would confiscate your funds and would only consider your case after so much noise was made. We don't know how many people out there in the past already got to this similar situation and didn't get a good ending because they're not persistent enough like Laki. And that, deserves a warning. Maybe not a type-2 flag, but clearly a tag.

But let me turn the table, purely in the spirit of discussion and not being aggro, why do you think it'll be good and safe to remove the negative and turn into neutral if they didn't show any good gesture or any sliver of professionalism?

How exactly my knowledge --or the lack of-- on stock jeopardize my credibility? I'm, fortunatelly, quite familiar with how stock and bonds works in my country, which became the reason why I initially wondered how exactly someone could buy a partial ownership in Canada simply by... well, I am not sure what method do you exactly offered, since you have not answered that question yet. And as I said and acknowledge, some rules might be different from my country and Canada, but from what I found on my quick research and what you said on the quoted text of my previous post above, it is not quite different; either through a stockbroker, an authorized financial entities --read: banks--, or through opening an account. So how is it exactly? Both for my credibility and for the method you propose.

And about not protecting the community, again, how exactly do you judge that my actions are no longer to protect the community, and rather the opposite, if what I tried to do is covering all their bases, making sure all that needs to known, well... known. For example, the one interesting thing that still left unanswered, do you have all the necessary legal document and permit to go public? It's a yes or no question, very easy to answer.

As for the rage, rest assured, Sugarball, I am completely chilling right now. If you must know, I am currently sitting in a rocking sofa and a chamomile tea with perfect warmness sitting next to me. While for me not making any sense, on which part of this circling discussion did you lost, dear? I'll be happy to spell it out for you.

Do you have another screenshot to make the conversation whole? Just to be sure no one is biased and fully understand the dialogue you have with rollbit as well as knowing all the facts from your side. Screenshot of a relatively small part of the whole conversation seems rather prone for misconception.

So which part exactly does my educated guess wrong? Investor would need a Canadian bank account --I'm pretty much sure a Singaporean or Dutch couldn't just go to their local bank and asked to buy your share-- or a brokage account. And you, knowing this --I'll assume you do know about this and not just learned from me because you're not running about it first to your "contract lawyer"-- offered a nice "feature" where people buying from you would have a portion of ownership of the company.

Tell us how, exactly, if they'll need to have a brokage account and/or Canadian bank account to buy your shares, do you propose investor to buy? Because this is not mentioned anywhere in any of your document, or posts. By simply sending some fund into your designated wallet? Wouldn't that against the law, then? Which, would circle us back to one of the original points of why this issue arose; have you got the necessary permit and other legal documentation to conduct IPO?

I'd say it is less of an assumption and more to an educated guess, since my questions and statements are made based on your answer and some quick searches.

But to clear what's unclear for you about my source, in hope we can get into the bottom of this, here's several --I always crossreferencing with several sources-- that helps me with my... guess:




Now, as I might be wrongfully informed, I'm only human after all, and clearly your legal dept. would knows better about the rule of buying percentage of company ownership in Canada, why don't we straighten this up with you citing us the rules --preferably issued by Canadian govt.-- that said otherwise.

LOL, ok, and what did your contract lawyer said about this plan for IPO? Have you run this idea though them from the legal perspective? I'm not an expert in legal for investments, especially the one in Canada, but a quick google result told me that your "next round of investors" would need an account in Canadian brokage firm to buy these "few spots available" in order to be able to "purchase a percentage of the hosting corporation in Canada". Not to mention the paperwork you'll need to have to be eligible to held a public offering of physical business entity. Am I wronf? Again, what's your contract lawyer say when you run this prospective idea to them?

I'd guess the video call was to "double verify" OP's KYC documents. If OP --to put us into their shoes-- did found a vulnerability and exploited it, there's a chance they submitted fake KYC too as a failsafe and to hide their real identity. Agreeing to a video call would suggest OP is not scared because they're guilty and more than happy to cooperate.

Wow, like an IPO, then? Have you got an in-house legal team in your office? In Canada?


Just to be clear, the admin in discord is... yourself? So you kinda vouched for yourself? Convenient. And why can't the team details made known to public? If they're legit and totally going for a long term business, I don't see a reason why not, especially as it'll eventually has to be published in the near future.

Checked and I can see you have the linux version updated minutes ago, but no version for windows is available. Although I can also see you followed my request to remove the older version which contain malware.