The accusation was that worldcore lied about E&Y valueing the company at $30Million. They did not lie about that.


The accusation is now that they:  

(6) lied about an audit.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181014102114/http://worldcore-review.com/en/2018/05/29/what-rating-gave-the-company-worldcore-global-leader-in-audit-ernst-young/








It appears that they claimed that they were audited but if your read what they are describing and substitute it with "valuation" it suddenly makes much more sense.



It still reads like garbled nonsense but it makes more sense using the word "valuation"  than using the word "audit".

The website that stated it is also not registered to Worldcore and there is nothing to prove that it belongs to them. It could be some incompetent bounty manager that wrote that.

I'm not trying to excuse it but there appears to be more "Laurel and Hardy" to this than outright scam.

(6) lied about an audit. Partly proven:  ☑�

Worlcore-review.com The site appears to dedicate itself in a counter FUD / smear campaign. Which is only making it worse for themselves.


https://web.archive.org/web/20181014102114/http://worldcore-review.com/en/2018/05/29/what-rating-gave-the-company-worldcore-global-leader-in-audit-ernst-young/

"the available resources and possible future prospects were estimated." does not describe an audit. It describes a valuation.

I believe this to be a case of "mistranslation", "misunderstanding of terminology" or "incompetence".

So it is proven that it was said. It is unclear exactly the role of the person who said it. There is a strong indication that they did not understand what they were saying was wrong. Anyone reading the actual E&Y report that the article linked to would have discovered that it was not an audit but a valuation.

Who-ever is doing their PR is doing a terrible job. They appear to have taken a very adversarial approach rather than to tackle it logically and systematically.
Most of the "issues" have a logical explanation but their reaction to the accusations makes them look like an angry teenager is running their PR.
I can understand why they would be angry - but their approach is making it worse.

Wordcore-review.com is full of errors and gives a thuggish impression.

It even spells its own name wrong in places.




Like I said: "Laurel and Hardy"

It is fine for you to disclose it .The Privacy Act only applies to the Company providing the service - not the customer.
People often post their TXid on here.

The report is not completely useless. It is just an expensive way of saying "buy this".



ICOs think they can control FUD by having a self-moderated topic. To the experience investor that would already be a red flag. It is like an echo chamber. The real issues will be discussed elsewhere - over which they have no control and can often lead to the other extreme. - superFUD.

Conclusion:

It is concerning that there is evidence that supports reasonable suspicion that Worldcore is linked in some way to Benson Union and other Pavel Krymov ventures. I have not seen any evidence that I would consider conclusive proof.

There is evidence that worldcore has conducted itself in an unethical way.

In the form of creating false qualifications and exaggerated sales hyperbole.
Exaggerated sales, exaggerated client numbers, overstating capabilities.
Posting on the forum with a multitude of sockpuppet accounts and making threats.


It is my opinion that the Ernst & Young report is real.

However I would be concerned that the E&Y assesor was not given an accurate account of afffairs since there is evidence of exaggeration and hyperbole.

https://scamworldcore.com/en/worldcore-is-scam/ lists a number of accusations that are concerning.

Hopefully Worldcore will read this and re-assess their conduct both in this forum and in their way of presenting "facts".

While I would not call it an outright scam - my advise would be to avoid it and treat it with extreme caution.

My detailed investigation can be viewed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2236259.msg46853910#msg46853910

Suchmoon often manages describe the situation perfectly:


Recommendation:

Hopefully going forward Worldcore starts acting with more transparently with less hyperbole so the investors and consumers are given facts rather than fiction.
Often people who have invested a lot of time an resources in their project become very attached and protective of the project. They want it to do well and tell "white lies" to make themselves appear more sucessful or attractive to investors.
This is something that slowly crosses over into - misleading investors and "fraud".
When you seek investment from the public it is important to be "squeaky clean" because "misleading investors" by a company that seeks millions in investment often results in jail terms. It is not too late to change.

They do exist... and if you see this description in the review it will be memorable...

swifthub.eu and Swifthub Ltd are two completely different things. Swifthub.eu is a domain name and Swifthub.ltd is a private company.

It would be like saying RESEARCHER FORUM LTD Company number 08759523 owns the researcher194 account on bitcointalk because they both have the name researcher and it is related to forums.  

I have seen no evidence that Swifthub Ltd has had any links to swifthub.eu other than that it shares a symilar name.

The website swifthub.eu clearly states that it is

 Lanbo group inc as the legal entity operating under the brand "swifthub"

https://web.archive.org/web/20150628010924/http://swifthub.eu/







Lanbo Group Inc. operating under the brand of Swifthub was changed to EUPSProvider s.r.o. operating under the brand of Worldcore.

Website swifthub.eu became worldcore.eu


https://opencorporates.com/companies/pa/657230


The UK company status is "dormant" which means they just used it to reserve the name while the actual trading is done with the Panamanian company which is held on behalf of the owners by a Panamanian Law firm.


https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11501674

The company is run out of Panama.


That is what they call an unsubstantiated assertion. It is neither helpful or accurate. I'm only interested in facts.

The problem with poor quality accusations is that people check them out and find they are wrong. It hides the true issues.

Lets approach this with an open mind and concentrate on what is provable.



So far my concerns are:

BOTs / Shills posting on the forum ☑

Veiled death threat ☑

1)Partly proven:  ☑�  I view this as evidence to support suspicion rather than evidence of proof.
Google code links sites
I'm not convinced that it proves ownership (on the balance of probabilities).
It could mean that the same web developer monitors those sites.


I agree that makes it more suspect. But the way that they have conducted themselves has not been that logical or ethical. In the same context as:
They could have removed it because "it appeared suspicious" or because "it proved something". Unless there is other evidence I am still willing to give them the benefit of doubt on this one before progressing to the next assumption that the sites have the same owners.

The implications of being related to those other sites is very serious and I think more proof is needed to make such a serious accusation.

2) Proven: ☑
Fake qualifications.

3) Still to be investigated. �




The problem with a roadmap is that it is a plan. Sometimes plans change or are delayed.
It doesn't appear that they have "run off with the money" so delayed plans are not an indication that there is a scam.

4. Likely exaggeration ☑�   I view it as exaggerated sales hyperbole.
While we do not have access to their customer database their website traffic does not indicate that they have 300 000 customers.


However their website traffic has substantially decreased since that statement in April




It is also not clear how they conducted the study on their customers. They may have "studied" sales data from since inception.





They also stated:


Many crypto related companies did see huge growth over the November 2017 to March 2018 period. I'd like to see Worldcore to provide some proof of those assertions. There does not appear to be any evidence that suggests that they have 300 000 customers.


5. Not proven. ☒  

An Audit and a valuation are two completely separate things and different departments from Ernst & Young. Unless the valuation report is false (no evidence of such) then the valuation has occurred. So the accusation that worldcore lied about it is false / incorrect / mistaken.
The reliability of the report is questionable. "Reliance restricted" is a red flag. It means that worldcore paid E&Y to give them a valuation that they wanted for their ICO.  It is as reliable as saying " someone who I paid a lot of money says my business is worth $xxxxx".

An audit is a series of tests done by an auditor to test the reliability of the accounting system. It checks that the data can be relied upon. It is of limited scope so it does not always pick up serious financial issues. It mainly checks that the accounting system is reliable.

That is exactly what started to annoy me. It was hard to see the facts from fiction.

Veleor was great and supplied a list.


1. Somewhat true. Link is not strong. Looking for more corroborating evidence. I'm not sure of the importance / relevance of the -1 and -2 at the end of the number.
Benson Union UA-33418442-1 and Worldcore UA-33418442-2  It could be a re-issued code.

2. True

3. Not yet checked.

https://scamworldcore.com/en/benson-union-is-old-pyramid-of-pavel-krymov-and-predecessor-of-worldcore/


The whole website is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130423232807/https://bensonunion.net/contact_us



No legal entity was given on the website but also it doesn't indicate it even has an office in NZ.

I asked for the alleged link to that company. The evidence that ties it to worldcore. The screenshot is of the FMA warning that it is a scam.

I'm very interested in the alleged link to fx-trend.com

Do you have any info about that ?

Swifthub Ltd was struck off for failing to comply with the companies act 2006 but there is no evidence that that company is associated with worldcore.

Their website clearly states Lanbo group inc as the legal entity operating under the brand "swifthub"

https://web.archive.org/web/20150628010924/http://swifthub.eu/





https://opencorporates.com/companies/pa/835374







According to Worldcore they are called EUPSProvider s.r.o and their license checks out on the CNB website.
link

I notice the the URL from the archive doesn't go to the "buildwith" website

I can't find the linking between the sites on the buildwith website.

https://hghltd.yandex.net/yandbtm?fmode=inject&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbuiltwith.com%2Frelationships%2Fworldcore.eu

EDIT:

Verified the information now:


https://web.archive.org/web/20181013135954/https://builtwith.com/relationships/tag/UA-33418442


https://web.archive.org/web/20181013140505/http://regcure.relatedsite.com/analystic/UA-33418442-2

But this appears to be linked with Indian sites:

https://archive.fo/K7inS
https://archive.fo/Rngr2
https://archive.fo/4GoGP
https://archive.fo/dzSKX
https://archive.fo/EfSa0
https://archive.fo/vBQ06

When an organisation fakes qualifications it is not a good start.
Like the OP I did a simple test to see how many records the website held.

To a native English speaker this reference would also be considered a red flag:

It isn't a matter of "who I believe". I haven't made up  my mind on that and would have to look into the validity of claims made by both sides. What makes it more complex for me to do that is that my comprehension of the Russian language is not great. (Although I do know several people that regularly help me with that.)

What I do see is what has been posted in Meta. Tit for tat accusations and threats.

By your conduct it is harder to distinguish between fact and fiction.

One of your accusers made an accusation about a company before. I talked to the CEO and not only established that the company appears to be legitimate but the accuser appears to have accepted it as well.  The conduct of the company impressed me and very quickly we were able to establish that it was due to misunderstandings of fact. During the entire process - the company conducted itself ethically and provided more verifiable evidence than necessary. (Evidence which we thoroughly checked).

During the process it also became apparent that the accuser had expressed genuine concerns. (But was mistaken). Which makes your accusation that your accusers are just Ukrainian scammers very difficult for me to believe.

From my experience - reputable companies - do not go about making veiled death threats or on a smear campaign offensive or have an army of annon newbie accounts posting the same things..

They generally go out of their way to provide transparent and reliable proof.

I'm less interested in "proof" that they are scammers. I'm interested in "proof" that you are not a scammer.

Even if you are successful in convincing me that they are scammers it still does not prove that you are not a scammer.  Do you understand my concern ?

Figure out what the core accusations are and then provide strong verifiable evidence showing that it is incorrect or untrue.

Perhaps Marina Uni or someone familiar with the accusation can make a list of concerns and accusations and you can then answer them one by one with easily verifiable proof that the accusation is mistaken, partly incorrect or false.

Also I don't believe Halakha is in use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halachic_state The "National identity bill" citing

Is a far cry from being Halakha

It is a pity that politics sometimes prevent the recognition of a valid contribution.

Despite the downfall of Mark Karpeles I'm pleased that Theymos hasn't removed the recognition of the contribution that he made on this forum and to Bitcoin.

Others may disagree but I believe that bad doesn't necessarily outweigh good. Each should be judged separately on its own merits.

With political opinion "good" and "bad" are even more subjective.

When it comes to "the kettle calling the pot black". I've had a look through your posts. They are exclusively in Worldcore scam threads with what appears to be a black PR campaign against those that you are accusing of a black PR campaign against worldcore.

Instead of countering any accusations made with evidence of the contrary you appear to be exclusively engaged in a smear campaign against those you accuse of spreading black PR.




I don't know what planet you live on - but smear campaigns against accusers are not believable. They might result in the other person being tainted but it does not rescue your reputation. It drags it into the gutter. Smear campaigns are conducted generally by unethical scammers that want to deflect from reasoned discussion.

Even if the accusations are valid you would need to provide more proof than usual because the accusation of scamming was made against you first.

If you want to make your business look credible then you counter accusations with:

Evidence that prove they are wrong.
Transparency where the owners are in a public campaign where people can see who they are and communicate and interact with them directly rather than dealing with it through numerous anonymous sockpuppet accounts that are more interested in making unsubstantiated accusations rather than to simply prove their accusers are wrong or mistaken.
If you expect people to make financial transactions with you then you should not hide behind anonymity.

I can categorically say that based on what I have seen you post you have the appearance of a typical scammer. I have not bothered to look into the Worldcore situation because I simply have too much other stuff I prefer to do. First impressions count. So far it is a bad one.

Still needs some fine-tuning 

The top Hero listed on there:

Name:   phishead
Posts:   1029
Activity:   1029
Merit:   517
Position:   Hero Member
Date Registered:   August 24, 2015, 07:44:30 PM
Last Active:   Today at 02:03:24 AM

Does not have enough merit to rank up.

I suppose not having the merit to rank up is unlucky but the "luck" really relates to the activity count.

 

Perhaps. 

Actually - if they bothered to read the rules and participated in a constructive way they would earn more.

Most shit-posters get paid in worthless scam tokens promoting scammy ICO's. Their earnings are as worthless as their posts.

Good posters have the opportunity to participate in worthwhile and well paying campaigns.

From one of the bounty hunters: