Can we agree that you conveniently leave my question unanswered? So, is that a "yes, we are much alike with the promotional bots", or "no, we are completely different"? And if you're different from those promotional bots, how?

So, if I may be blunt,  you're rather similar with the telegram spam bots that joins existing groups with lots of members, real members that's interested in crypto, to advertise projects they're paid to do?

That is exactly what he meant, his opinion were based on the trader's preference.

At this moment, JACS only have one exchange, that's rather... not that well known (and yes, I am being nice here). I am sure we all can agree that it gives near zero volume, which can be translated as little to no interests on traders mind, which is understandable as JACS is still expanding. But, If we burn on this situation, when traders are not even paying attention on the project, it'll gave significantly less enthusiasm and responses compared to if we do this when more listings happen.

Other than that, if we burn under current situation, and suppose that it appeal a lot of traders, many would still be hesitant and decided against buying upon knowing that they have to deal with... non-reputable exchange.

A completely different story would occur if we wait a little until the situation are more preferable.

Bottomline: if we wait for better exchanges, there will be more eyes on us, thus the burning will gave more exposure.

Wouldn't that, then, be rather in tone with "Oh great, another advertisement discord that want to take our money for advertising"? Like the ones you said you wouldn't do?

There are a lot of questions not anwered, you simply hust made a long general and repetitive post. But let's straighten this first, you claimed that the decision for gradual release were from the AMA session when you laid out your strategy, and that the vast majority of the community were supporting the "new" strategy, this was during the AMA session? On 11.11?

Where does this AMA, that give birth to this whole situation because the majority of your community supported the decision, happened? And where does the proper announcement from your side?

And about how this situation "will soon be entered into a smart contract. You cannot change them," well, we can't change it, but you can. Notice the future tense? It is yet to enter the smart contract, you can change them if you want to, but you don't. Same like there are protest about this arrangement and you decide to not listen to them, claimed "we heard you", and then continue on with the plan. This speaks volume of who you are and what kind of business you ran.

Ok, let's start from this first: what ads were you planned to sell? Video ads or like projects paid you to put banner on your site and/or you promote them?

Kindly correct me on any of these statements if they're wrong:

1. You didn't do any token sale, so all the funds spent on this project comes from dev's pocket.
2. Projects that do giveaways on your platform didn't need to pay or donate tokens to you, instead you'll buy the token yourself and share them for the community for free, with funds from dev's own pocket.
3. You'll frequently do a raffle/giveaway of your own token, which later you'll buy back, with funds from dev's own pocket.

I wonder why you still asked Hhampuz to figure this situation of airdrop, as he stated and answered right after your opening post, he managed only the bounty program. The airdrop were held and managed bt by other manager (or perhaps no manager at all) and he was not on it.

Your airdrop bounty violated forum rule, you may not incentivize posts. Are you trying to fake interests on your project by doing the airdrop? archived

Actually, there were no official exact, or estimated, date for uniswap listing. Although I would agree that the longer listing on a reputable exchange happened, the bigger a risk market would get bored and less enthusiastic

Ok, now it made sense, so the blackhole were considered as a holder that's entitled to a share, and the number of tokens burned (or sucked by blackhole, for the sake of the theme) that grew, were the result of compounding done by the said wallet.

So like... There are 20% tokens allocated for you? Also, I see you have "template" for bounty, or at least planned to held one in the future, where is the allocation for this activity?

I don't think I get the number for blackhole. The RFI distributed from the entire tx fee were divided proportionally to each holder according to the amount they hold, correct? If we may use easy number, let's say there were only 2 holders of RFI, 2,000 RFI and 8,000 RFI. So A will be entitled to 20% of stake and B, 80%. Suppose there were 100 RFI transferred or traded, this will brings us to a situation where A will be entitled to 20 RFI and B 80 RFI, am I correct this far?  Where is the allocation for blackhole, then?

P.s.: ad yes, I agree, the graph shows a nice recovery

I'd like to start with an apology for the situation happened due to me being too quick in concluding and reading the signs wrongly.

A few days ago, upon my own initiative, I tried to contact one website they listed as their subsidiary, "bet2winasia", to further check their legitimacy. I checked that the gambling platform were online since July 2019^[1], stated their company license code (Global Lottery Group, Limited) that is verified as legal business entity, as well as their gambling license^[2], and I concur that their statement and/or confirmation would help verify the legitimacy of GlobalLotteryGaming.

Bet2winasia replied to my email earlier today with a confirmation^[3] that they indeed are affiliated with GLG and will soon integrate GLG's token into their platform. Thus, GLG's legitimacy is confirmed and backed by an existing gambling platform that is owned by a licensed company.

I would like to once again apologize for the misjudgement and inconvenient situation I made. As the suspicion and scam possibility were more or less negated by bet2winasia's claim, I hereby withdrew my accusation and flag. I am well aware that flag can not be deleted, however I hope that by deactivating them would restore their reputation.

I am also aware that raising false flag should bear consequences, and I hereby ready to receive whatever situation I have to bear for the false accusation.

I once again deeply apologize for the misunderstanding.

Some screenshot for easy view:

[1]

^[2]Unfortunately I can not verify this one as I didn't know any platform to perform such verification.

[3]

Yes, I do received it. I was undoing the accusation and composing a withdrawal statement as I spoke. I am sorry for the inconvenience, the statement will be ready in a short minute and will be posted below

So why do you even attempted to held a private sale if you don't need money?


Capped and closed or failed and none raised? The "dedicated address" were the one on opening post? No ETH were sent to it. If any, some were withdrawn, why is it?


And the point of you raising topic about OTC and SAFT if you're not one of them were...?



You're referring to your three pagers?  Yes, I have. Both your website and three pagers, to be exact, and none mentioned the second company. While for the first company itself, it's the reason why I got my reply delayed is because I've been waiting for them.

You see, I do my researches, and I found that bet2winasia were a subsidiary of global lottery group, not gaming, so there is a name difference between your project and the multimillion dollar company you claimed to be yours. Giving you benefit of the doubt, why is the name difference?



And, of course, I'm still patiently waiting for their reply to confirm you were indeed their parent company, which they haven't. And given you're here, certainly you can rush them to give me answer, as you're their owner

Continued to Nominex team,

In reply to bakasabo


Regarding the AMA, can you tell me that this is widely made known? To the whole community? Or were it just to small community or perhaps none at all? As far as I know, you were just mentioned it once on the group, without clear details of when or where, and then suddenly when someone asked, it was announced to be "today" by someone, which you, as admins, were not even bother to clarify and share further details. Also, it was implied that the AMA were for a non-english participants? Russian, is it? Wouldn't that means the session and decisions made during the sessions were not fair and didn't represent the whole community, and thus it's barely "the majority of our users"?

Reference: from telegram channel, these are the best and closest to AMA announcement



While the other channel (from the link on the said post) didn't even mentioned any ama on 11.11. Their group didn't even have single chat during the entire 11.11



Amd then, the claim of "tens of thousands of users" were this data pulled from your website members? Because the sums of the three of your group only have less than 2,500 members, excluding deleted accounts of bot and the dev themselves, that's barely tens of hundreds.


 

---

In reply to onecall123

The calculation you referred were as below:


How sure are you with these number and can you give a guarantee that, by doing hunters "a favor" by withholding their payment against their will for one year, their earning will increases 63 times? Suppose someone owned 100 NMX, with assumption token price upon unlocking were 1.4 USDT, can you assure us that if the said person didn't sell each of his token for the whole period and sell them by the end of it, he'll get something worth of (100 x 1.4 x 63) 8,820 USDT?

---

In reply to nutildah


Then, the answer is no. I'd like to know how you'll answer this, combined with the point made by slow death's two posts above

Nominex team, is there any particular reason why you deleted some of your replies on this thread? Allow me to recall some of them:

In reply to examplens


Show me the announcement made right after the start or during the bounty duration in regards to your answer number 3.

---

In reply to royalfestus


The heading of this thread, alongside with the opening post and several posts on this thread, were made before you announce the duration of bounty. Which, the time applied before the said "revision" were 3 years. Nonetheless, the essence of the thread is still true to its content, that you cheated hunters by delaying payment that is not agreed before.

---

In reply to aioc


Ever heard something like, "Better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have."? By holding hunters payment, you effectively suppressing their ability and option to use their token at will, and sell on the price they deemed right, especially if the price soars in a near future. You were so sure hunters will sell right away instead of holding until the price is right, why is that? This action of holding the payments certainly should be considered as an act of denying opportunity. Far as I know, it was our rights, and you denied the rights.

I asked you this once on telegram group and I'll ask here again,

"Say, let's say one week from now a token called ABC reaches 3x its price and it is expected to face bear run soon after, do you say token holders may not take the chance and sell their token at once? I thought your concern were that we dumped the token at whatever available price and thus creating price dump? If someone sell all of his token at a high price because he thought it's time to sell, you didn't allow this to happen?"

Ok, but the percentage of burned token were from the 1% transaction fee, right? Wouldn't that mean the more it grow, the less amount of token a holder will get?

So uhh, the scheme roughly goes like this: 1% of each transaction is set as a transaction fee, which 99% of them will be distributed to each token holders, and 1% of that (on other words, 1% of 1% of every transaction) will be burned. Thus, the burning rate is 0.01% of every transaction?