Umm... so, I am sure you're quite aware that investors in crypto are not limited to those who familiar with the field they're investing on --like, active in metaverse when investing on gaming token, etc.-- so let's pretend that all of us are the kind of people who need a full graphic and step-by-step by phone guide just to turn on their PC, what makes your VPN different from others out there?

Ok, this is quite interesting. Searching your company name leads me to your parent company and their registration number. The details is protected behind a paywall though, so what I can get for free is just as below, and I need to go through website age analyzer to learn how long have you been around; a little more than a year. I would assume the past year is a preparation stage? Or is there any milestone achieved during that "stealth mode"?

You started your token sale since last November and it'll still be on sale 31 days from the time I made this post, which means you have around two and a half months? What's the current progress so far? How much gathered within the past month?

Can you also do something about your address? A "Stockholm, Sweden" is clearly not an address.

I think examplens question is sufficient, if answered, to put some weight into the scale, which is why I didn't comments further, to wait for your response regarding it. However, since you keep ignoring their questions, I could only assume that the answers are not favoring you, that if you answered, you'll only show people that you did a misconduct and breaching contract.

You keep insisting that you've done your part, where one of it were listing om coingecko, and that they refuse to list GREEN because of insufficient points from GREEN's side, namely a poor website design and no team details. Thus, it is not your fault.

However, have you been aware of these lack of requirements when you offered GREEN your service and promised them the listing? If your answer is yes, then why do you still promising them the listing although you are fully aware that the chance is very slim? If your answer is no, don't you study a project prior to offering them your service? At least studying the basics like if their project is "doable".

And please at least tell us that you've warned GREEN prior to the agreement that there will be some difficulties in listing due to the lack of certain requirements. Because if you didn't, you're rather misleading them by giving an impression that all GREEN need is to pay and everything will goes smoothly.


This sounds awfully like an evasion, like you know you're the wrong side and you can't prove otherwise, hence you want to leave before making much more damage --like the shocking revelation how you encourage your client to fake team members. I think it is quite fair to say that, up to this point, people here are giving you benefits of doubt by refraining from tagging with negative trust until there is enough evidence to conclude who is at fault here. If you decided to walk away --disregarding what't the real motive behind it-- how should we know what's your defense will be against them?

Last, no response regarding advise of fake team? I think we can safely put a decision regarding this.

You posted the wrong imgbb link, the one with referenced email is this one: https://ibb.co/sySrtWM. You might want to change the link on that post via edit to avoid confusion from future readers.

---

Sweety, I am sure you completely understand what they talked about and which email they're referencing to, it took almost zero brain power to understand what he talked about, really. But in case you failed to understand it due to the wrong link --I mentioned above-- here, I'll post them side by side for a better understanding for everyone.

The original email, according to GREEN


The email version of TOKPIE


Please explain this matter.

---

I have to say I am very disturbed when I reached this part of --crazy and chaotic-- quote-pyramid that my jaw is literally dropped followed by an involuntary whistle of amazement.

One of the main purpose of this board on bitcointalk is to fight against scammers with their fake team etc. and here TOKPIE casually suggest a project to add fake team to be accepted by CoinGecko. Only Satan knows how many projects were suggested by them to do this to pass a crypto platform, it brings a big perspective to the legitimacy of projects supported and marketed by TOKPIE.

I think, if TOKPIE can't provide a very reasonable and acceptable reason behind this corrupted suggestion --which, I have to say, from where we stood right now I don't think there will be any acceptable reason--, even if this scam accusation is resolved, there is still this issue that worth a whole different flag and red trust.

Now that both party is here, discussion and investigation should be easier.

BTCITA187, I'd like to give you a mind-blowing information: email screenshot works both ways. Just like how CryptorClub could provide history of email exchanges between them and TOKPIE, you can too.

As you claimed that they have been silent since 25 April, and only now started to complain in order to blackmail a refund, can you provide a screenshot of email history indicating that it is indeed true that your last email with them is as how they provide in the evidence, and there were not any other emails in between April and December, whether from their side complaining about the broken agreement, or from you asking anything --thus, proving and favoring your side that you've delivered the product as promised and there were no issue up to earlier this month.

Second, is there a logical, acceptable, or whatever reason you can provide that explains why you stopped the lifetime volume assistance support? No matter who blackmailed who --I'd like to point out that YOUC, your partner, is also blackmailing CryptorClub, threatening that they'll have a very bad review that'll appear on google's top result-- a deal is a deal, you promised a volume assistance that's free for forever, which should at least trasnlates for as long as the project live. Not only that, as per their claim, you also failed to deliver the promise where they'll be listed on CoinGecko, CMC, etc.

I couldn't care less about what other project said about you in the past. There are a lot of projects that started good and left the stage in the years that follow. Like YOUC, for example, and how their thread is now abandoned. So, what is your version for these two accusation points I state above?

Edit: adding and changing some words to better match the terms raised by TOKPIE on the email and the situation happened.

I'm somewhat sure you're aware that there is an active and unsolved scam accusation against you and your partner, TOKPIE. I'll really appreciate if you can give your side of the story on the thread to avoid a flag to be raised against both of the projects.

Failed to give your side of the story will most likely validate the accusation and would persuade people --or at least me-- to support the flag against you.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376009.0

I'll hope to heard next from you on the thread from above link.

As I previously stated, all indications up to this point are in favor of CryptorClub, that Tokpie/YOUC are doing misconduct by breaching their contract. However, I would really love if we could cover every ground --and every side of the story-- before the flag raised. What concerned me, other than some emails are not shown in full, which leads to a possibility to a biased judgement from the third parties who read this thread, is the date between the emails.

CryptorClub were exchanging emails with Tokpie team on April, which emails can be summed as that Tokpie promised a promotion, free lifetime volume assistance, and listing on CG, CMC, etc. within 24-72 hours after the payment, which set us roughly around the end of April 2021 at the latest to see all of the deals to be completed. So why do they waited until December, more than 7 months, to report the failed deal? I'm curious if there are other exchanges of emails between April and December.

Further, TOKPIE's reply on this part of email gave an impression to me that CryptorClub missed a step or two, I'd really appreciate if either side can give an information about this



Now, I'm not sure if my hunch is correct, that judging from the post history, LinksMe.ga is CryptorClub's alt, and if I'm correct, whether this should be considered as a ban-evasion, but I'll leave that matters --just like I'm temporarily dropping the discussion in GGREEN's Ann-- in pursue of solving this case. Given CryptorClub is currently temporarily banned from the forum for incentivizing post, I understood that his reply will be delayed for at least until January 2022 and LinksMe.ga is jumping in to fill the position, I'll appreciate if LinksMe.ga can answer and shed some light into the matters I asked.


On the other hand, BTCITA187's silence is rather concerning. If by some reason they're not aware of this thread --which I doubt they didn't-- I am somewhat sure they noticed that bright orange negative trust that sat on their profile. Just in case, I'll wrote on TOKPIE's telegram as well as sending a PM to them. I'll add the screenshot of the invitation via edit. If they remains to be silent after the invitation... well, let's hope not.

Edit: a screenshot of notifying BTCITA187 via PM and a post in YOUC thread --which managed by them.

I searched YOUC thread --which also managed by BTCITA187-- and learned that both project had formed a partnership. A cursory glance at the last page gave me an impression that YOUC, however, seems to start abandoning their project.


Although all indication up to this point pointed to the direction that the accused are indeed doing a misconduct, I think we need to be sure we cover every side of the story, this email --I quote below-- is the entire length of the email body? What I wanted to know is whether there is a statement anywhere and at any point during your negotiation with TOKPIE/YOUC that there are certain terms and condition that has to be met for the lifetime volume assistance?

If there is a clear evidence that there were not any information about terms and condition for lifetime support, thus TOKPIE/YOUC is breaching the contract, I'll gladly support the flag.

Hi, thanks for jumping and filling in. I am assuming you are... another dev of this project?

Replying to your post script first, as I feel it's kinda right on point, I have to agree that the use of "clean reputation" would sounds a bit judgemental and has a tendency of negative tone. Although I have to counter-argue, just to be clear, that I raised the point because CryptorClub kind of stressing, borderline bragging, that the project has a clean reputation, while I think there is quite a difference between clean reputation and no reputation, given they didn't mention any worth-mentioning development since the project started, especially when this "reputation" itself was tainted with a bump in the past where you encourage a ponzi scheme.

Dropping the ponzi matter for now to be ore focused on the matter at hand, a project, or someone, who barely has no development or something worth mentioning for years doesn't exactly translates as a clean reputation. To put into perspective, let's say someone invested certain amount of fund into a project, and the project has no development for three years, other than a casual "we'll launch an update soon" will it be true to claim that the project has a clean reputation? While it is also true that it is not necessarily translated as a "bad reputation", I think bragging that you're trustworthy just because you've been around for three years plus is not really well placed or necessary. Thus, "no reputation", not bad or good until proven otherwise. BUT, to move forward and giving benefit of doubts, I think it would better to drop the term "reputation" completely and focusing on the topic about the progress of the project, which leads us into the next part of your reply...

You said that the roadmap on the website is outdated. Why doesn't it be updated? I thought --based on the impression I got from CryptorClub's previous post as well as the goals you state on the website and ANN thread-- one of your focus are on the website, I can only imagine how an interface and the information provided on the site should plays a major part on it. Can you please shows the progress achieved during the past years? It will effectively shows how clean... ehm, how advanced your project is.

Last, just a small curiosity, assuming you're part of the team whose opinion matters to the progress of the project --at the point when I wrote this, I have no answer of your position, so I have to assume you're part of them-- and you are not in favor of CEX, then why trying to use Tokpie which leads to the trouble that pushes you to raise the accusation on the other thread?

I agree that using TG search bar is quite a bad idea, but I think there are quite some inexperienced users out there who stil uses the search function, thinking it'll be more accurate and focused than using a web search engine, while it is not necessarily true. Thus, embracing the spirit of better be safe than sorry, this thread --and other warning thread I made-- is an attempt to inform clueless members and newbies, which doubles as a report of a phising attempt.

It might be wise to add, another good idea --a better one than using google, actuallly-- is to get into the project's website or their official ANN thread. They most likely will have a link to their medias, like twitter, telegram, instagram, etc. which will --absolutely-- more accurate.

Ahh, I see now. So by "personal results", you're referring to the liquidity provided and funded by the project itself. And for daily volume, pardon the cluelessness, I am exre rarely use DEX and that was the first time I went to quickswap, so the cluelessness should be understandable. [1]

As for development, the irony is you feeling you duplicating info and still failed to provide the exact information asked although the question is quite clear. If I have to be more specific, this is the point I wanted to know:

On your GREEN ANN thread, you made these milestones below,



And three years after, an update of achieved milestones are on what the next images show. I am divided between if you had an outdated info on yout website, or... none of the initial achievement are actually achieved.



So please re-inform us, what achievement --aside from launching websites-- do you get from the past three and a half years to support your claim of clean reputation?

---

[1] On a completely different and unrelated topic, exploring quickswap lead me to a fake telegram group attempting a phising, please be warned, everyone.

First thing first, copy and pasting other's work and pretending that such beautifully crafted words are yours is highly despised on this forum. We are a strong believer that plagiarism is a telltale of a scam project because if you're serious with your work, you'll put efforts and not just stealing other's work.



Second, is this supposed to be a drawing and and decoration to your site or a piechart of your tokenomy? Where are the percentage, numbers, or whatever that we can use to understand how much token allocated for what?



Next, given the two points above, I kinda think it's rather useless to ask and prove further, but let's give it a shot. Where is your whitepaper? I'll hope it's free from copied materials, unlike your "preface"

Better not waiting for people's interest before you release the screenshot of letters. If you'd like to propose a possible scam activity by someone, you should as well present all of the evidences you have against them.

On the other side, your username ringed a bell on my mind that I couldn't just place, it was until I looked at the accusation thread against you selling fake tokens that I remember we have an unfinished discussion on your ANN thread, about your claim of "clean reputation" and your project's progress for the past three years, which for whatever reason, you didn't reply.

Not that long ago. As per their roadmap, they just gathered their team members --which, of course, has no details whatsoever on them-- on Q4 2021, in other words, most likely one month ago. And the whitepaper, yes, that's a lightpaper. It'll be too insulting to call those 13 pages of mostly images and background with bare detail of information as a whitepaper

There's a difference between information readily available on the internet and handing the information on a silver platter. What you did was the later. He's irrelevant, you've acknowledged that he's probably not at fault and is also a victim here, yet you put his name and details on the board that's specifically to inform people about scammers.

You argue that you --quoted and repeated here-- "post this to make it easier, more transparent and serious for anyone who cares to do some research on the fraud I've identified" and that you have no other motives for this. And you still refuse to mend the damage you did to him, by "exposing" him, by at least removing that part on your post, even after --I can't stressed this enough-- you acknowledged he might be a victim here. And you dare to say you have no other motive? You state on that very same sentence that I quote that you've identified the fraud. Who? Him? Because for anyone who skim through this thread, without properly reading it, that's the impression they'll get, thank's to your "readily available information". And all of this "identification" is done while you hide under an alt-account.


What do I think went on here? Well, if I have to be blunt, there are three things happens here.

One, in case that "the guy" is really innocent here, then we have a serious case of defamation.

Two, a binance address that's aready used by someone, who happen to be also a whale and a thief who utilize the very wallet to stole money from unfortunate hands --emphasize on the plural form-- and you're somehow the first to report, although there should have been a lot of other victims out there... hmm... I don't know. Please help me, what exactly are you trying to insinuate here? That trustwallet stole money? That their dev is the thief? Because you've assure us that it is definitely not a malware or a keylogger or any hacking activity.

Three, your insinuation as described above aside, a salt to your wound, there is a case of carelessness. With your ability to "dig" the info of "the guy" and how you aware of the suspicious activity of wallet 3117, it will be justified to think that you're not a newbie to crypto --unlike what your account suggested-- you should have to know the rule of thumb to double and triple check your address prior to sending or receiving.

And you didn't do this.

Given you're sure there is no malware or keylogger involved in this story, this is the only explanation how you managed to accidentally sending your BNB from binance hot wallet to 3117. If we want to be all honest here, this case is 99.99% your fault.

Their total supply is not 10 trillion, it's 1 quadrillion --that's 1,000 trillion, or 1,000,000,000,000,000, or 1x10^15-- 10 trillion is what they burn, with a sweet sweet promise that they'll burn more.

Oh look! They also do charities!!!

His contribution is, at the very least, pointing out a small misconception that adds an insight to the chronological order of your case --that you send from your binance exchange wallet, a hot wallet, not from your non-custodial wallet-- and shows a possible error in your judgement --which you also acknowledge as per the post I quote above-- because "the guy" shows his innocence by giving you a screenshot of a watch-only wallet, a possible hint that he doesn't has an access to the wallet.

Adding Jawhead999 explanation to the equation, let's see if we get this correctly:

First, you create an non-custodial wallet via Trustwallet, with address 0x34799829Fa3d040B3D57E5c550d90681a7283117, and then you realized that the address --I'll refer it to "3117" from this point forward-- has already got multiple transfers prior to your creation date. Suspicious by this activities, you decide to create a new account, a completely new account which has no prior transaction like 3117 which you deemed fit, and which address is yet to be presented here. But then, you send 0.48bnb from your Binance Exchange account to 3117 and not the new wallet despite knowing that 3117 has quite a suspicious behavior. Why?

Second, for the case of AjidZronze, giving the benefits of doubt and as the consensus at this point --which, I stressed again, you're quite agree-- is that "the guy" is also a victim here and has no knowledge of the case or access to the wallet. Wouldn't it be quite unethical to reveal his identity, like social medias and phone number, for public consumption? Especially on crypto forum like this where annonimity is quite a valuable asset.

Content removed for resolution.

So, a short story before we begin, I was playing around Quickswap, a fork of Uniswap that runs on Polygon Chain, because a project I currently investigating was on it. It leads me to a Telegram group that poses as their official account, which --I believe-- their sole purpose is to lead the visitor to their phising site.

I am not an admin of Quickswap, or related to them, this thread was made to warn clueless users and members from a trap of a phising site on a telegram impersonating them.

If you type "quickswap official" on the telegram search bar instead from a search engine like google, you'll get a result as below.



Their telegram will looks quite legit, with a lot of members commenting and actively chatting, bot admin, a "chief admin", they even has a nice "star" on their name to strengthen their official-ness. But, if you look closer, you'll notive that those members has to be a bumping accounts or bots or fake users, given most were a "deleted account" or account without username, and if you scroll way back into their earliest date, you'll see that they only began to "talk" recently.



Anyway, let's say you're looking for their tg group because your transaction got stuck or you're facing some problem in swapping on their platform, stumbled upon this channel and you believe this is their legit channel, so you followed suggesstion of their bot because they said you have to try these steps first prior to PMing an admin --which, the admin himself is also a scammer.



Following their link will brings you to these sequences:



And that's it. You know what'll hapen next if you submit your private key into thier site. As the rule of thumb suggest: NEVER, ever ever ever, give your Private Key to anyone.

tl;dr: There is a fake Quickswap telegram channel which leads to a phising site. Quickswap official Telegram Account is @QuickSwapDEX, as informed in one of their tweet back in July which also acknowledged there are channels impersonating them: