Ahh, how happy I am to learn that it wasn't just me that think they're a bit off. I've been curious and suspecting that they're part of a group, unfortunately I didn't have enough evidence to proof that they're indeed connected --other than the aforementioned same thread ann style and each of them commenting each other's thread.

I've been asking details about their project for a while and each of them, one by one, started to "didn't see" my questions

So far, what I can gather from them before they stopped replied my barrage of questions were:
Nexum - well... I am ashamed that I closed my topic with them as that field is rather unfamiliar for me.
Predict Vision - I didn't get into this project
Z1 Financial - Practicing a rather discouraging decision of the equivalent of nepotism by offerring 30% of the private sale token --sold at lower price than public token sale-- to their staff
YachtX - where do I start? Let's see... Ohh, they encourage their customer to use their service to avoid taxes, or in their own words, tax benefits.
Goge - failed to prove the charities they mentioned they did, also didn't want to divulge team in fear of "some of us were living in a non-LGBT-friendly zone"
clime finance - I didn't get into this project

With that said and my suspicion shown to be quite justified, i took a slightly deeper search and found these other threads with similar thread title style, similar post pattern [see quoted below], and within these thread are username with bumping services that's already tagged by lovesmayfamilis, so I think they who rikafip listef above is a part of the same bumping service




[ANN] ✨✨✨ Shuna Inuverse ✨✨✨ Next-gen gaming NFT utility initiative
[ANN] ✨✨✨ SAWA ✨✨✨ Crypto Fund Syndicate Protocol
[ANN] ✨✨✨ Fomo Chronicles ✨✨✨ Where NFTs Meet Art
[ANN] ✨✨✨ LaCucina ✨✨✨ New and exciting ways to succeed in DeFi with NFTs

Did you read my post carefully? Although I have to agree that their professionalism and competence are quite questionable in regards to wrongly linking username of their "partners", your suspicion is proven to be wrong. If you see the images on my previous post, you can see that the accounts they announced as their influencer on their feeds did posted content about influencio on their own Ig story.

This proves that your claim of they're not even aware that they are being used is wrong as I am sure --unless the influencio team is a hacker who hacked each of those influencers' ig profile just to post a story, and that those influencers somehow didn't notice an extra content on their story-- those stories didn't upload themselves, those influencers post the content on their consent.

Just to satisfy my curiosity and double check, I looked at their ig once more few good hours ago and managed to snip some evidences.



However, it need to be noted that partnering with tons of influencer didn't directly translates as a good project. One of the best example of this is the McAfee's situation.

Ahh, my apologies, I read the previous section of your post from my screen which put the word "bunker" and "trader" into different line and I assumed you mistyped, and that you meant to say that your target market --to whom these information will be beneficial to-- are "banker" and "trader". Revisiting the post after reading your reply quoted above made me realize that it was not two separate words and you're meaning to say "bunker trader" and it is not a typo.

I'll say if your target markets are the bunker traders, then your proposed solution of integrated information served in blockchain could be beneficial for them

Snipped the first part of your post because it made the entire post confusing. To avoid similar situation happens in the future I'll reply in summary of our topics. Kindly just quote my post starting from below the line and snip all of the section from your quoted post and this part.

---

In regards to the demographic,
demograpic mapping, together with geographic and psychographic is part of segmenting activity of "STP" that should be the earliest step your project took as the result of the analysis gives you on which target market you should focus yourself on.

Although it is true that a target market of projects could change as they adapting themselves to the ever changing market needs, not knowing which part of societal segment --either from financial side, age wise, or preferences-- should gives me certain degree of right to ask how serious are you for this project because you don't even know on which demographic you'll stand.

In regards to partnership announcement:
One month and you already conduct your token sale via pancakeswap? Wouldn't it be a bit unfair because your holder --I'm talking about those who seriously interested-- will not get enough material to determine the prospect of your project?

In regards to tax evasion:
--as well as correspondence to the earlier section about demographic, which I'd really love you to prove me I am wrong, that you've already did the segmentation stage analysis; on this particular topic, geographical demographic-- please tell me which countries that allow exclusion of wealth in crypto form and which countries do you plan your first customers to be and/or which regions do your partners usually catered their customer at.

In regards to discount:
--that it is not guaranteed that all of your partners could give the best discount-- shall we agree that it means if someone planned their vacation dilligent enough the conventional platforms could give them far better and cheaper accomodations? If so, shall we return to the initial question, how's your platform simpler --which we can agree it is not, because your project require more steps for those who store in fiat-- or better if you require more steps and/or have potential to be more expensive than those people usually use?

In regards to NFT:
Please update me on the definition of NFT because maybe I'm a bit outdated. Wasn't NFT stands for Non-Fungible Token, i.e. the token are indivisible, unique and what's more important --as the name implies-- it is not fungible as means of payment, it is only meant to be collected and sold at certain price in whole? So how does your NFT fit into this scenario again? by owning an NFT, they can use it to book a hotel room or other accomodations? Are you sure you're not cofused and mixed NFT with what we call "Voucher", dear?

In regards to removing the "not a trading instrument" part, I think I have ben clear enough on where I stoo for this matter. If you can't create a sable coin, then your token is subjected to be freely traded by anyone interested, and that part of your whitepaper is rather futile

Hmm... quite strange that they required a mobile phone number and not an email address to sign up. This could be a soft force of KYC --some countries require their phone number holder to register their ID-- or the more likely scenario, they collected your phone number to be sold to a third party.




This is a perfect example of the scheme you're explaining. I would advise account2636 and any other who experienced same situation where someone you're not exactly close with or know well --let alone only meet once or twice on facebook-- to gave a read as the scam report gives quite a nice story and detail of how they're being scammed.

I would suggest to stay away from the site if you aren't really need to use their services. I took a glance at their site, and although this doesn't directly indicate they're scam, but several things raises my concern, such as:

1. Their favicon --that logo on the your browser tab next to the site title-- and the header of their site shows tickmill logo and name. I'm not sure if they use a template from somewhere --a theme detector I use shows zero result, though-- and forgot to change them or intentionally uses their logo to boost false confidence by making the site viewer think both companies are related. However, Tickmill's official website didn't include them in the list of their group of companies, nor a google keyword tickmill and storeaus brings any result, which --IMO-- means there were no such partnership or relation at any degree between them.



2. Their site is not exactly secured, as can be seen from warning if you tried to access them through chrome or duckduckgo --the browser, not the search engine. In my personal opinion, a secured and encrypted website is a must factor for those who caters exchange platform



3. And this is probably the most crucial thing that I should have lead with this, LOL, they don't have a sign up page. Not the one that I can find. How would you trade on a site that didn't allow sign up? More importantly, why a trading site made such a fatal error to not including a sign up page on their site. However, if you can find their sign up page, I am willing to sign up for you, just to see and conduct further investigation.

I am failed to see on which part of your quoted answer did answered any of the points I asked above and before. Would you please just stop talking in circles and just gave me direct answer for the questions? Let's just assume i am very dumb and I can't find an answer if you didn't spell it out for me

I was waiting for a reply on the other thread to see evidences that devans would shows us, surprised that you decided to create another thread instead, which made the follow ups for the accusations itself is quite messy.

With those said, I thought it was agreed and stated on the previous thread that you didn't mind the mute etc., and would settle with devans unlocking the withdrawal of your funds? Why bother making the situation more complicated by pursuing other matters --whether all of those accounts are indeed and provably yours or they made a false assumption-- and returned to the starting point?

As for the site owner, devans, is there a logical explanation of why you refuse to agree to unlock his withdrawal feature on all of the accounts with funds that he can prove an ownership of, and made a written agreement that justabadhairday is permanently banned from your site, never to return?

I took a quick read of your thread, and I see that there is an user --probably more-- that got permaban, both through their IP and app, so I know that you have this option. With justabadhairday's agreement --signed if you deemed them necessary-- that they'll never return and if they do then it is within your right to froze all of their funds, I think insisting to hold their money is excessive.

There it is again, the emphasizing on luxury vacation that's followed by "yacht". Wouldn't you agree that it is rather labelling and gave a false conception that an idea that a luxury vacation --according to you and your company's philosopy" is lying around in a yacht and sunbathing?

And perhaps it would be the best for everybody if you can actually share us about this big partnership, I am assuming they're the same company that you based your first hand research from one crypto user. When will this info be available for public?


First, in regards of tax "benefit", many countries require their citizen to report their crypto holdings as their holdings are considered as their property and assets, for example as pointed by this article by time and from IRS page. By encouraging them to do the action, you're encouraging a tax evasion, which is a crime punishable by law. What is your response on this matter?

Second, you're sounds very confident that your platform will gives the best discounts, is this a guaranteed rate? In other words, suppose a hotel room in LA costs 1,500 USD per night and you offered a promo which put the price on 650 USD. Were you sure and guaranteed that other platforms will not have a better price? Worldwide?


Sorry, how's the NFT fits into this whole scenario, again?

As for trading instrument and the mention of it on your whitepaper, once again I'll try to explain, if you want to ensure that no one would utilize your token to make profits/losses then you have to make them a stable coin, otherwise you will not be able to stop people from using them however they want to, including, but not limited to, trade them.

I didn't see how my opinion matters into this. If I "No, let's keep it that way", would you then pursue the course of a stable coin? And if I say "yes, you should remove it", would you then change the whole concept of your token from the non-tradable into a trade-friendly one? Was it that easy for you to sway from one concept to another?

1Maybe I didn't make myself clear on what question I asked on the first point. In simple words, "what is the requirements needed to be qualified as investors on your public sale?" While for point number 2, even with a defense that only 30% of the allocated presale is purchasable by the staffs, I still think that it is highly unethical, and it's quite a surprise that such policy and decision came from a project working in financial sector. If we may take a stretch, the action is comparable to a nepotism, where the decision maker favoring their relatives --on this case, the staffs-- for special privilege in form of a cheaper token price.

Sadly, this is a case of water under the bridge, people can only take this fact into consideration that the project they're about to invest are applying and embracing such work ethic and it is not completely impossible that they'll also gives priority and special privileges to their managements and staffs for future cases.

Thank you, the explanation give a more clear insight on where you stood. Nonetheless, I still don't understand how it'll work for the traders and exporter/importer. Far as I can get from reading your reply, your service works for the middlemen i.e. the forwarders and --as you said yourself-- the insurance companies, while the end user themselves --the traders--  whom you propose the solution to the aforementioned common issues would rarely bothered with the issue of the shipowner's behavior, vessel consumption, etc.

Again, no. I am judging everything based on a fact that you violate their chat room rules and ToS by begging for money. If you read carefully, I didn't include the case of defaulted loan --removed from the topic as stated by the last sentence of my previous post-- and earlier I said that your case is a two different situations, whereas I judged everything on situation number  1 --the banning and withdrawal restriction-- based on their rules that you've agreed to.

Not spamming the chat, ok, I stand corrected, I've striked the section from my sentence. But it doesn't change the fact that you still violate their rules.

Here, I dived deeped into their site just to get a better view of the bottom of this case, and present you their chat rules, archived here but unfortunately I was the first who archive it, so any changes prior to this date is unknown. I am somewhat sure the dev didn't change it recently, though.

You violated rule number 1, asking for money, and number 3, mute-evasion.



This should clear the case number 1, why you and hundreds of your alt accounts kept being banned, while others don't: they didn't make hundreds of new accounts.

As for case number 2, the fund freezing, wasn't two of your accounts "PrtScr" and "CapsLock_" already unlocked by the dev? Proof: here, as the latest reply on February 6th after on the 5th, you burst emailing him about deposit while being banned? Were you saying that the unlocked accounts are not the one you currently use to deposit and/or held any balance?

If that is the case, then I would have to agree with what actmyname said that the fund should be returned at the fullest and then you should be agreed to leave for good due to the violation of multiple mute-evasion

No, what caused you to be muted is not the loan, it's your persistence to spam their chatroom begging for money --to be paid back, true, but we've established that it's a tomato-tomahto-- which violate their ToS, as evidenced by your own proof, archived here in case we needed them for some reason.

As for the refund --well, actually... I read them for the whole case-- I decided to dedicate my time to read their ToS page, archived here by someone from one and a half years ago so we can conveniently ruled out the idea --suppose there's this wild idea popping out from nowhere-- that he recently modified their ToS specifically for you.

You might want to read what you've actually agreed to, multiple times:



Terms number 4 specifies that the site owner has every right to temporarily halt withdrawals if he deemed it necessary for the funds' safety or for other important reason. The important reason being used as the base here, which they'll be justifiedly took, is the violation of chat rules --no begging for money-- and a disruptive behavior --spamming the chat room-- multiple times and mute evasion.



You also inadvertently violated point number 3 --although they only discourages it and not prohibits it-- by dealing with other players.

I've PMed devans to give his side of the story and to see if he has a special policy and decision for you. Let's hope he would come here to give us another side of the coin. But, the way I see it, removing the case number 3 --the defaulted loan-- as you've said it didn't worries you, they took a rightful action that you've agreed to.

Edit: recanting statements via strikethrough and adding a sentence based on latest evidence, marked in italic.

The way I see it, there are three different cases of two different situation here.
1. The banning
2. The withdrawal restriction
3. The default of lukemac123

I have to side with them on the decision to mute and ban you under the accusation of spamming and begging for money --and multi accounts that I think people will universally agree that it is uncalled for. Even if you defended that you're not begging for money and instead asking for your loan to be paid, objectively speaking, it's a case of tomato-tomahto.

Both the site owner, the chat room community, and the website themsleves are not facilitating or directly invoved in your loan, the transaction happened between the borrower, lukemac123, and you. Thus, the dispute should be done internally and it is not necessary --more precisely, dreadfully not wanted-- to bring this to the web's chat that specifies the rule of "no begging". For this case, I think you actually do violate their ToS.

For the case of withdrawal restriction, from what I gathered from the pieces of information you gave --which also rather scattered here and there-- they'll agree to unfroze your assets once you agree to stop talking about your banning, or if we re-word them to be a tad bit lengthy but more specific, they'll unfroze when you stop begging for your loaned fund on their chatroom --which ToS has a rule about this-- and got banned for it only to create another account to repeat the process. Again, I think it seems fair.

As a side note, bustabit has their official ann thread and Daniel has an account here. In attempt to hear the story from their side about this whole "they laughing at me" and deposit issue, I'd notify them about this accusation.

Lastly, for the case of unpaid loan by lukemac123, it actually should be a whole separate topic. You have two different --yet simulataneous-- situation here, with bustabit on account freezing, and with lukemac123 for defaulted loan.

Nonetheless, if we have to addres them, just like bustabit, the harsh truth is, there were nothing this forum can do about it, unless if they have an account here and you know their UID. If you can bring enough evidence of the defauted loan, namely the tx receipt of you lending your money to them that's never paid back, the account can be tagged and --if necessary-- flagged.

It is a common knowledge that lending funds to people --let alone those you only met online and barely knew-- poses a risk of default. That is why you need a collateral.

I don't think I understand how using your platform could solve problems in delivery delays. Some, if not most, of the delays happens out of the shippers or the client's control, like force majeure on seaways, problems in land trucking route, overtimed stuffing, or even the ones like what recently --still-- happened and hit a major damage to the shipping worldwide, the scarcity of empty containers to be used by traders and suppliers due to the bottlenecked docking in west coast?

two things that I don't get quite clear from your whitepaper, in your ICO page you add a footnote that the project are not meant for th Cambodian --why?-- and only for qualified investors. Given you will have a public sale --which imply anyone may join-- it might be better to add more details on what specification needed by people to be eligible as qualified investors.

Two, on your investment event page, you said that you manafed o raise 3M usd just from the staffs and management of your company? Was it a mistranslation or something? Because if that is what happen, and given the private sale price is lower than other sale stage, shouldn't the staffs themselves are not allowed to participate and monopolize the token sale at the reduced price and instead shoud allows the private seeder to participate and bought at lower price as a privilege for being a project seeder?

Sorry that I have to break the posts into parts as it'll be easier to stay on topic this way. The sentences themselves aren't directly correlated to each others that's being broken, thus didn't reduce the whole meaning.


Well if you ask for my personal opinion, that is a wrong move as it created the opposite effect. I think most will agree that once they read the tagline "high-end exclusive yacht life currency", a sentence that combine three words associated with expensive life in a sentence --high end, exclusive, yacht-- people would automatically assume their pricing is on the high tier.


First, in attempt to stay in course from what initially asked, the topic is not how long can someone stay in Bali, the question is about your target market --which, as stated on the earlier part of your quote above, is for all groups of income class-- and their preference should they asked to choose between spending weeks in Bali or few days on a yacht, which we can safely assume they'll prefer the latter, thus made your offer of "luxury yacht life" rather unappealing for most of your target market.

But, if we shoud also breach from the topic and put a consideration that people will use your app becase they're looking for a way to get lower cost, by turning the two weeks into three weeks, basically you're inferring that by utilizing discount from partners and loyalty points, thus saving some bucks from their budget, your customer could extend their holiday? How is this different from the promotion given by agoda and the likes? If you plan your travel correctly, you will get a lot of discounts.

What I'm trying to know is if your discount will be bigger than other apps, because I once got a Sheraton suite with 50%+ discount on one conventional travel app and I know for sure that if you dilligent enought to browse through these app --namely, "plan your travel correctly'-- you could even get a limited-time offers of hotels or other accomodations with 75% or more discounts.


Wouldn't it be severely biased if you build your entire project based on a "first hand research" conducted by your partner of an international customer? What about the rest?


Well, that's entirely in your hand. If your token is not meant to be an investment and trading instruments but only as a means of payment, then you ought to also guarantee that your coin fills the requirement of a means of payment: a store of value. Your coin will maintain their rate at certain price and not volatile, or in our crypto-terms, a stable coin. Because if you can't guarantee this, that your price fluctuates instead of being stable, what stops people from using your coin as a trading instrument?


The question and the statement-on-question is not exactly how you're better than Airbnb --the topic about possibility discount aspect of this project has been asked on above section, anyway-- it's how you're simpler than the conventional traveling platform. Your statement said


which heavily implies that by removing the third party intermediaries like CC issuers or international banking networks, your payment method is simpler because they're shorter, less hassle and things. While, if we look at it from the perspective of non-crypto-community or a crypto user who keeps their savings in fiat, it actually took more steps as they'll need to exchange from fiat to your coin and back to fiat again suppose there is some balance left. While if they use the conventional means, all they need is their credit card, literally one screen of payment and confirmation.

Adjoining this with the section about how if we plan our trips smartly, we can save a lot, the conventional ways seems to be even more appealing. Because by utilizing credit card instead of YachtX Coin, they're not limited to only transact within your ecosystem, thus got a better chance of planning trips and destinations and discounts.

For instance, by not being limited to roam in your platform browsing for hotel that offers 50% discount, plane tickets at 30% discounts and restaurants --I'm assuming here that you'll also e partnered with restaurants and tourist attractions-- vouchers that need to be used within certain timeframe, they can use their CC to book a 60% discounted hotel in Agoda, 35% discount of flight from Trivago, tourist attraction discounts from Tripadvisor, and oh look, that restaurant they stumbled upon on their afternoon walk gave a half price happy hour with Visa. And all of those transaction --just like yours--  would also be summarized into one bill.

Was wondering the same, especially as the story is not that long and OP has already made a well written chronology of the accident on his blog. My best guess would be this post served two purposes: to report the unfortunate event that OP got and to promote their blog --I honestly can't think of another reason why redirecting readers to the blog and not just copying the entire article here; well, I'm not saying that the practice is not allowed or wrong, just stating the obvious-- given the blog is about scams happened in crypto world --three articles so far. If I may say... it's quite ironic, someone who tried to raise awareness of scam got scammed... LOL?

Anyway, as a good citizen of crypto community, I dive through the --again-- story that's not too long and could be simply copy-pasted into a post here, the tl;dr were:

OP got a message from random user on Instagram, claiming that she's a senior accountant, promoting a new exchange site, tried to play with fire by depositing and withdrawing several times at low amount, and suddenly they gave rules that if you made profit that is larger than the amount you deposited into the site, they'll charge a 20% tax that can only be paid by transfer, deducting from his wallet's balance is not an option. Thus, OP can't do his final withdrawal.

The full story, snipping the whole introduction and scammer's IG profile as it is clear that the profile is fake goes:


One question for the OP though, was the 100K USD you claimed you lost is the amount you deposited into their exchange, or was it the sum of what you deposited and the profit you made? If it's the latter, then the actual amount scammed is not 100K.

I am leaning toward a very likely scenario where their trading platform is rigged so you'll easily made profit to lure you into trusting them. Thus, let's say you deposited 1,000 USD and made 99,000 usd of trading "profit", the total amount scammed is not actually 100K, but rather 1,000.

---

All in all, as this thread's role is to warn people who do their DD of potential scam by typing certain keywords into the search engine, I'll wrote some key factors here so anyone typing this on google --or duckduckgo-- will get this thread on their search result.

scammers name: (allegedly) chenxialing 陈曉玲
scamming method: contacting through DM, LINE chat, and WhatsApp with these numbers +1 (406) 319-5868 and +1 (706) 578-8023

Can you make your roadmap more detailed? It's just "phase" without exact dates or timespan. Second, I am not reading your tokenomy wrongly? You really allocate more than 25% of the total supply for team? And an extra 33% for future development that --once again-- is to support the team while they're developing update for your robot war?

In spite of my agreement and understanding that point 6 to 8 could help determining the rating of a borrower, I have to agree with jc12345 that the rest of the points are rather useless. Point number 1, for instance, if numbers of transaction in one wallet is put into factors, then a holders who preferred one or two coins and store huge amout of these coins in one wallet once every a while would have a lower credit score than an airdrop hunter's wallet who get tons of transaction in microdose.

One other thing that's also should be addressed is point number 5. How does NFT transaction matters? There are a lot of crypto holders who doesn't give a thing or two about NFT. Never buy them or even browsing through opensea --well, I am one of them-- this doesn't automatically made the user has a higher possibility of default than those who spent their funds on NFT.

I would really love to hear you explaining how you decide and considers all 9 of the points raised by jc12345 as a determining factor