I am logged in and i can see the profile. Looks like he blocked it from being viewed in public unless one is signed in. 
There is no need to even worry about ICObench mate, They are shit and have been promoting scam lately by highly rating exit scam projects. Any investor who beilieves in their rating would really be ignorant or naive. I dunno whether they have a profile in this forum Personally, I'm not remotely worried about them. However, when you're managing a community, you tend to try and anticipate them and there's no denying that ICOBench and similar ratings site are the first and sometimes only source of DYOR for those just getting in. It's like instant noodles - let someone else do the heavy lifting and tell me how good this is  |
|
|
|
I am pretty sure it's him. This is his Facebook profile link that sent the message: https://www.facebook.com/igor.karavaev.9803And as you can see from the screenshots, his first message was in January which was not responded to. I got onboard as SMM last week and started responding to all messages including his. Then, he replied with the ransom demand today. If it's someone impersonating him, that means they've been sitting on this impersonating account for close to 3 months doing nothing? I doubt it. An impersonator would have reached out to other ICOs and most likely would have been outted.  The Facebook account is already either deactivated or removed which only means that the person trying to extort you is already in the wind. Even if ICOBench is a shady website I doubt that the real Igor Karavaev will be messaging one by one ICO devs to be extorted by him, usually it's the either way around in which scammy ICOs will be the one contacting ICOBench to inflate up the ratings since they do have what they call " premium listings" in their website in exchange for BTC. The most probable thing that happened is an impersonator tried to scam you and thought that you will bite his scam. Nope. Profile is certainly not deleted. Tried another browser and it's still there. However, when I tried a third browser that is not signed into facebook, it said profile/link not found. Seems like you can only see it if you're signed in |
|
|
|
It isn't "proof" that he is the actual scammer. It could be someone impersonating him. Tell him to "get f@cked" and see if your rating is affected. If your rating is affected then you know it is probably the real him & then complain to ICO bench. They have removed "experts" before when faced with public humiliation when they turn out to be frauds or corrupt. Scammers are great at making threats and not following through with them. ICO Bench is a scammy website anyway. Looks like the payment address has never been used: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1DywC5QBwzRRBJ8D1HqZdthotwYkL5ex8I am pretty sure it's him. This is his Facebook profile link that sent the message: https://www.facebook.com/igor.karavaev.9803And as you can see from the screenshots, his first message was in January which was not responded to. I got onboard as SMM last week and started responding to all messages including his. Then, he replied with the ransom demand today. If it's someone impersonating him, that means they've been sitting on this impersonating account for close to 3 months doing nothing? I doubt it. An impersonator would have reached out to other ICOs and most likely would have been outted. I'm pretty sure it is an impersonator. It is an identical copy of another identical facebook profile: https://www.facebook.com/iggikvIn fact neither profile gives me much confidence at all. Neither profile show much history of this persons existence . The the profile that wrote to you only cam into existance on 30 January this year while this profile https://www.facebook.com/igor.karavaev.9803 dates back to 2016.    Stands to reason that the one that dates back to 2016 is the real one. And that account happens to be the same one that contacted us: https://www.facebook.com/igor.karavaev.9803 |
|
|
|
Are you sure he is linked with ICOBench's team? If there is something like that then the ICOBench's main account needs to be tagged for sure.
I don't know why people believe so much in such benchmarks which can be biased if paid a premium to show some time good score.
People still continue to trust such benchmark platforms and advisors who are nothing but are just profiting by fooling people ( I mean most of them).
If you have something good and interesting then you don't need them to trust your score on their platform.
I am positive. This is his Facebook profile link: https://www.facebook.com/igor.karavaev.9803And as you can see from the screenshots, his first message was in January which was not responded to. I got onboard as SMM last week and started responding to all messages including his. Then, he replied with the ransom demand today Is the profile deleted? Facebook says "Profile not found" to me when clicked. Perhaps you can find some other proof to work with (if you have) Just now checked their platform and I think anyone can apply for expert so I don't think ICOBench is actually allowing such but still they should be stringent in checking such profiles who are applying for experts. Maybe some other expert is trying to frame him? Who knows. Nope. Profile is certainly not deleted. Tried another browser and it's still there. However, when I tried a third browser that is not signed into facebook, it said profile/link not found. Seems like you can only see it if you're signed in |
|
|
|
MiracleTele reviews by these "experts" on ICOBench has been nothing sort of a joke with most review based on the need to have more "advisors" and implying that they are the sort of advisors needed. I've also have the "honor" of working alongside some of these experts/advisors and their input is nothing but adding points to site and getting paid for plastering their mugshot on the ICO website. Most don't even read the WP! |
|
|
|
It isn't "proof" that he is the actual scammer. It could be someone impersonating him. Tell him to "get f@cked" and see if your rating is affected. If your rating is affected then you know it is probably the real him & then complain to ICO bench. They have removed "experts" before when faced with public humiliation when they turn out to be frauds or corrupt. Scammers are great at making threats and not following through with them. ICO Bench is a scammy website anyway. Looks like the payment address has never been used: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1DywC5QBwzRRBJ8D1HqZdthotwYkL5ex8I am pretty sure it's him. This is his Facebook profile link that sent the message: https://www.facebook.com/igor.karavaev.9803And as you can see from the screenshots, his first message was in January which was not responded to. I got onboard as SMM last week and started responding to all messages including his. Then, he replied with the ransom demand today. If it's someone impersonating him, that means they've been sitting on this impersonating account for close to 3 months doing nothing? I doubt it. An impersonator would have reached out to other ICOs and most likely would have been outted. |
|
|
|
Are you sure he is linked with ICOBench's team? If there is something like that then the ICOBench's main account needs to be tagged for sure.
I don't know why people believe so much in such benchmarks which can be biased if paid a premium to show some time good score.
People still continue to trust such benchmark platforms and advisors who are nothing but are just profiting by fooling people ( I mean most of them).
If you have something good and interesting then you don't need them to trust your score on their platform.
I am positive. This is his Facebook profile link: https://www.facebook.com/igor.karavaev.9803And as you can see from the screenshots, his first message was in January which was not responded to. I got onboard as SMM last week and started responding to all messages including his. Then, he replied with the ransom demand today |
|
|
|
|
Can see the enthusiasm and focus towards delivering a focused product for a particular community. The DAO approach is also nice, but I'm not sure your particular implementation of this structure will work. For starters, you claim the structure will be used for funding startups, however, I believe the broad ambiguity of this approach raises a lot of concerns particularly in the industries you'll be focusing on - real estate, agriculture, puppetry, robotics, basket weaving? Which? Of course, as DAO, people can propose and come up with ideas, but not everybody is an authority in the field/industry being proposed for funding, so who will these people understand the SWOT and feasibility studies of the proposed industry? My suggestion is the team should focus on industries that they are technically competent in because they are the gatekeepers for both the project and the community in its infancy
|
|
|
|
Phore is better than ETH, more the exchanges is a matter of time...
That's quite a very bold claim, probably based on ETH's lack of privacy for those who've never heard of ERC223 or read Vitalik's commentary on Zk-snarks and proposed implementation on the blockchain. Very bold indeed |
|
|
|
From 70 satoshis on 11th of March to 172 satoshis on 21st of March:  Sharder got multiplied by 2.5x... Probably because of: >8th March meet-up >coming under the radar of crypto influencers like notsofast and cryptomocho of Twitter. >coming under the radar of "paid groups" for a possible "100x" potential coin. Interesting times ahead!
Telegram Q&A round:https://www.reddit.com/r/Sharder_Official/comments/b377gu/telegram_qa_iii/2x in a year is quite the gain in any market but crypto. A 2x gain, having fallen 7x from ATH, is not really much to be in the celebratory mood for. However, seems like the tech could really be something down the line. Might be worth that second look |
|
|
|
I'm tired of this market. Just like we held for more than a year... I mean all the coins and only the staking rewards have made me comfortable
We cried for adoption and institutional funding to enter the market. They came and we're now back to complaining again. 2017 is gone and that pattern is very unlikely to repeat itself - and if it does, then we'll truly be heading for a complete crash by the end of it all |
|
|
|
Fresh off the printing press, Module has another update for the community. This one deals with MODL tokenomics and has an interesting piece about the difference between a coin and a token. Have a read HEREI am confused in article they said MODL is coin not token but MODL based on ERC-20 tokens as ICO platform they choose ethereum for sale. Also the total supply in there smart contract shows 3.75B and in article they write 15B  The current MODL is an ERC20 placeholder token that will be swapped for the coin when the blockchain is released. MODL is developing its own blockchain and will swap the existing ERC20 tokens for their own coin. And the total supply is 15b. 3.75b is circulating supply Correct! MODL for now is just an ERC-20 token and will become a native coin once the platform has been released. For more information, please see its whitepaper at https://modltoken.io/doc/whitepaper_en.pdf . Nice, this MODL even though they not reach the hardcap it doesn't bring them down. A big future awaited for their coin once it was fully working. Nowadays eth token or token based are not so good and the real thing is if a company can create their own blockhain they can much more maximize its use unlike having it in erc20 token they are only under the eth blockchain. Frankly, they actually surprised me with their drive to continue development despite raising what can best be described as a "paltry" sum by this industry's standards, especially when some pos rake in tens of millions and vanish into the night. |
|
|
|
ICO sale will end in November 14, 2019 That's too long considering the ICO market is depressing state. If anyone wanting to invest in this project should need to say goodbye on their money for the next 8 months  Plus the waiting time for exchange listing that is not 100% sure gonna happen. Yeah, that token sale timeline is way too long. Roadmap does seem to suggest there will be a series of ongoing development, but I'm guessing most hands would be waiting to see the headquater first in July then the distribution of their solar plants to those poor africans in september before any vein quivers. But let's see them poor africans response first. BTW, OP, which countries in Africa will benefit first and why? |
|
|
|
I haven't followed the project for a long time and missed some news , so can anyone tell when the team is going to launch the platform ?
I joined their TG few months ago and recently someone asked about the launch too, so please refer to the quoted message below (or visit the link to check the message in web). If you want real time updates and discussions, I suggest that you join in their Telegram group and/or check their social media accounts for news instead of here because most post in this thread is just spam IMO. Sonny Never PM/DM 1st, [07.03.19 21:06]
[In reply to Dheker]
Beta will be launching by the end of March. Full version in May Precisely and thanks for adding a much-needed voice to this side of the equation. Social media and telegram are currently the best communication platform with the team and project development. There's always an admin at any time/hour of the day to address any concern |
|
|
|
Looks like this is just a fake masternode project that only answer question relating to pre-sale and any common question from the community are left unanswered.
What do you expect when a crypto project claims it will unify communities by having certain improvised communities to afford power and hardware cost to buy and stake coins that will bridge the gap? It's all about selling premine and forking off to the next name-calling scam |
|
|
|
But Nick in the end we believe that Tokens that pay dividends are the interesting ones for real investors. All that hype that happened with Utility Tokens last year, if we are honest this lead to unbelievable valuations without anything behind it. With securities people at least get dividends from real business going on.
So, this is a security token registered with relevant regulatory authorities? Sorry for just chiming in like this, haven't had time to go through the material and wanted to get this off my chest first. Also, if this is an STO, could you point me in the direction of the registration material(s) that says so? Thanks |
|
|
|
Fresh off the printing press, Module has another update for the community. This one deals with MODL tokenomics and has an interesting piece about the difference between a coin and a token. Have a read HEREI am confused in article they said MODL is coin not token but MODL based on ERC-20 tokens as ICO platform they choose ethereum for sale. Also the total supply in there smart contract shows 3.75B and in article they write 15B The current MODL is an ERC20 placeholder token that will be swapped for the coin when the blockchain is released. MODL is developing its own blockchain and will swap the existing ERC20 tokens for their own coin. And the total supply is 15b. 3.75b is circulating supply |
|
|
|
Many people write that the developer makes significant adjustments to the platform and does it quite often. Can you find out more about this?
Could you kindly point out to these many sources that have been writing about these adjustments and more importantly, could you please highlight what these significant adjustments are because this is sounding like all your previous posts on this thread - misinformation I did not see in his posts anything like what you described. He only sent users to study information from official sources of the project, no more. His post was a claim that "Many people write that the developer makes significant adjustments". What we'd like to know is the specifics. "Many people are bald" is not as informative as "1 in 3 adults is bald according to WHO". This is just a general analogy. However, when you're talking about a specific product in the product-specific channel, such claims need specific - at the very least, what adjustments were done and when? If he's is willing to believe "many people" with no shred of evidence or proof, then we can all assume that all humans breath through the roof of their heads too. No need to ask for evidence. Just believe |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
