Cheater Scheme in Utopia Android Review Campaign

[Awaklara]

The scheme used by cheaters in the Utopia review campaign with triangular transactions. Addresses receiving payments from the campaign manager send their Bitcoins first to other addresses before collecting them into one address.

Thread: [NEW] Utopia Android Review Campaign | Newbie - Legendary | Escrowed Funds 💎
Spreadsheet : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Yxuc3gWQmPfmNRrUbIQslNtiqhHhGhG7ydt_x_3g3YU/edit?gid=0#gid=0


https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/3LWqmX76zVN1x43vzk6UWeZiNGbfuezfPv
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/bc1qrv7r0pqkts83khy85svvh0jskldmm4q62gf2nw

Boomerage

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qz2udqn2vht3k4kzduqcprtjsxqe97a89vcr23k

send to address: bc1q8vmj6vze6exvmv0c4qhxd2unn0c528pt6wwa8k

Dario Brady

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1q2zmvlxn5t6saml8tgv6mkcacxc2frq73mjgu4k

send to address: bc1q52alh6uy6xe6dfyntcrknswmcum6nl3l892vy5

Hendrix Black

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qxcjhzrey0rs7z6lqqmcsfzglj8vyx3n4zfps4p

send to address: bc1q7r050k9g0qnnk7nd0dfvwkf3alp9q0vmlzx22k

Kennymela

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qwahkz8a8ljetpjqd9hdxhed0pdn8l6zq7l9gs3

send to address: bc1q6wgsujcllezz7ynn4m7g8rlq2d5xc2n3awwsvy

Monicavery

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qjqn0reuz0kawmzf9c2zj308hvyreapgj76q6e3

send to address: bc1quywp7d6yknkwqkhc7w39nn0tf5d6vk2k3h2rys

Remy Estrada

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qxfug96qy5r6kv3jn8tde2nm0pwnu3mkep73kdl

send to address: bc1qm057wsggere6ghn66m86rgyk5k2u4v4vkprkym

Serenabean11

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qxjlmhatsk9k2ugtfsqtxpml8n26fh0t56zfr4u

send to address: bc1q95ld48mj8vk62mdlc8dwgdzru5vltlvfca8c40

Spinach zandawer

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1q2xa3p9f3w9h7kmp7pygmghmzz84xqld28knncj

send to address: bc1qrdclpqtzaz3zzp9t6yp9zww38saj974z965hcl

Eliana Atkins

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1q89haxpv3c2rnzprr0jh47pwdxtsp5hrrtqptf6

send to address: bc1qtv4ldfqatzmfr75c8ztk7rfp52vyfyvnd3z20g

Quinn77oc

Bitcoin Address (Segwit): bc1qdk289y68k02zz0hhg29axz695y5l7c65rp5s8r

send to address: bc1q54u3sp84k0fz77wytg3yawph8992tthejap0lf

Nellie Frost4t

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qj5v0jm2put6um8a9wfnc3xyw6syvyke3ua0ydj

send to address: bc1qprt6spjg6cf4wqf4jxee87n66m4q2pqxnsrjgv

Giovanni33

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1q39nux5cxa98sjcjs38hak6ul3qqr5m0uacyduj

send to address: bc1q3v3ujw438xqqesm8xcw5wwhxel7r2g024xu03c

Remington Fuentes

Bitcoin Address(SegWit): bc1qtkgdmdnrgeve8ycjgy8e98lnfn9ulg8xz2az04

send to address: bc1qkylxwnz4tc8flu2k2rg2wgms85sw0nrez3yq4z


@joeperry, your client may not care about cheater accounts or Newbie accounts that make reviews for their projects. But you make the rules.

THE RULES & REGULATIONS
Do not enroll your own alt-accounts in this campaign. I have the right to remove you from the campaign without payment and leave you negative trust if you are caught enrolling your alt-accounts.

If you care about your campaign, maybe you should limit the criteria of Newbie accounts that apply. Even newly created accounts you accept, it's like you intentionally attract cheaters to participate in making your campaign successful.

[dkbit98]

If you care about your campaign, maybe you should limit the criteria of Newbie accounts that apply. Even newly created accounts you accept, it's like you intentionally attract cheaters to participate in making your campaign successful.

This would not stop cheaters doing the same cheating like usual, they only need to upgrade to jr.member rank or get those accounts in some other way.
If they are willing to do this kind of cheating for extra $5 than they can do much worse
I would not accept any inactive members, and I would take a look at forum history of all participants.

[Ojima-ojo]

This is the lowest Chester's can go in my opinion because $5 is a kind of too low to get the attention pf any reputable forum members and only newbies and Jr. Members will take such offers seriously amd if you notice a trend in the suspected accounts you will see that their are alts and most are low ranks.


Hope we get more evidence that we can nail the down, I have always viewed those low paying reviews campaign ranging around $5 to be a spam fist ground for alts farmers   and bounty cheaters.

[Amphenomenon]

If you care about your campaign, maybe you should limit the criteria of Newbie accounts that apply. Even newly created accounts you accept, it's like you intentionally attract cheaters to participate in making your campaign successful.

This would not stop cheaters doing the same cheating like usual, they only need to upgrade to jr.member rank or get those accounts in some other way.
If they are willing to do this kind of cheating for extra $5 than they can do much worse
I would not accept any inactive members, and I would take a look at forum history of all participants.

This is true but I think base on the campaign, I think the dev team might not care much about these alts and that is why they have been no much innovation on dealing with it. Since they may be likely be concerned with mainly the number of emails that give the review on playstore.

Also I don't disregard the fact that the pay is also an influence on this.

This is the lowest Chester's can go in my opinion because $5 is a kind of too low to get the attention pf any reputable forum members and only newbies and Jr. Members will take such offers seriously amd if you notice a trend in the suspected accounts you will see that their are alts and most are low ranks.

The fact is in this review reputable members here won't really matter simply because the review ought to be posted on playstore and so viewers might not even be aware or recognize those who are really reputable at Bitcointalk there, this makes them focusing on rep members not their top priority rather the more, the merrier.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

This would not stop cheaters doing the same cheating like usual, they only need to upgrade to jr.member rank or get those accounts in some other way.

Or we would suddenly start seeing some high ranking accounts waking up just to apply. Those cheats are just something else 

If they are willing to do this kind of cheating for extra $5 than they can do much worse

Bounties that have always accepted, all ranks are not profitable anymore, so those newbie accounts are close to useless unless if the person behind can get about 20 of them into a review campaign. That's 20x$5 ($100). Not worth the effort but at least some beer money. 

This is the lowest Chester's can go in my opinion because $5 is a kind of too low to get the attention pf any reputable forum members and only newbies and Jr. Members will take such offers seriously amd if you notice a trend in the suspected accounts you will see that their are alts and most are low ranks.

The CM decided to go for Quantity or quality, so I guess it's up to them since it's their money.

[joeperry]

Hi @Awaklara, thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I appreciate the effort you’ve put into exposing these cheaters. I'll make sure to remove, reject, or not reward users who have been negatively tagged. Instead of outright rejecting new accounts, the least I can do for now—while discussing with the Utopia team—is to add an extra challenge by requiring at least 6-8 posts spread throughout the past week before they can apply or be accepted. This will take effect next week. This way, cheaters will likely lose interest in exploiting the campaign, and if they still attempt it, the effort required wouldn’t be worth just $5-$7.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Addresses receiving payments from the campaign manager send their Bitcoins first to other addresses before collecting them into one address.

While I think that the most normal thing is that they are cheaters, and I see that all those who have commented think so, could that addres not be a consolidation address of a CEX or a casino, for example?

[Pandu Geddon]

If you care about your campaign, maybe you should limit the criteria of Newbie accounts that apply. Even newly created accounts you accept, it's like you intentionally attract cheaters to participate in making your campaign successful.

Some bounty managers seem to also apply restrictions at least for the amount of activity from Newbie accounts. It might help a little to reduce woke up accounts and new accounts to apply. But it will not be effective enough to reduce the greed of cheaters. They will only need more effort to adjust their accounts to be able to apply for campaigns.

is to add an extra challenge by requiring at least 6-8 posts spread throughout the past week before they can apply or be accepted. This will take effect next week. This way, cheaters will likely lose interest in exploiting the campaign, and if they still attempt it, the effort required wouldn’t be worth just $5-$7.

Hope you succeed in your way. But as I said, it will just take a little more effort on their part. Some of the accounts mentioned above seem to be only for your review campaign. Now those cheaters will just create new accounts and spam POA in the bounty thread and they will be eligible to apply for your review campaign with their new addresses.

[nutildah]

While I think that the most normal thing is that they are cheaters, and I see that all those who have commented think so, could that addres not be a consolidation address of a CEX or a casino, for example?

Unlikely, as every address that sent funds to 3LWqmX76zVN1x43vzk6UWeZiNGbfuezfPv received funds from an address belonging to a review campaign participant.

This is the exchange address:

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/BTC/3LWqmX76zVN1x43vzk6UWeZiNGbfuezfPv

Its part of a wallet with several bitcoin and over 345,000 addresses in it.

[lovesmayfamilis]

All cheating accounts were created practically on the same day. For me, this is not only the manager's short-sightedness but also the cheater's stupidity. It is difficult to imagine that the manager would not bother to check where such an influx of new accounts with the same registration date came from. Unless you consider that it is profitable for him. Whoever owns these accounts will eventually earn glaucoma, since managing dozens of accounts is too labor-intensive, but at the same time quite cheap.

[xLays]

It is difficult to imagine that the manager would not bother to check where such an influx of new accounts with the same registration date came from. Unless you consider that it is profitable for him.

Yes, for me this seems profitable for them. In a way, it’s similar to purchasing fake reviews. These accounts aren’t concerned about being flagged since they’re just newly created and they can simply make another account anytime. We all know that lol. If they truly wanted genuine reviews for their product, they wouldn’t accept accounts like these and would at least limit participation to Member Rank. I’m sure they’re already aware this would happen, but they likely accepted it anyway due to the limited number of applicants.

[Awaklara]

All cheating accounts were created practically on the same day. For me, this is not only the manager's short-sightedness but also the cheater's stupidity. It is difficult to imagine that the manager would not bother to check where such an influx of new accounts with the same registration date came from. Unless you consider that it is profitable for him. Whoever owns these accounts will eventually earn glaucoma, since managing dozens of accounts is too labor-intensive, but at the same time quite cheap.

I think the Utopia review campaign is losing its appeal, maybe because of the small payment factor or maybe something else. If you look at the beginning of the campaign opening, it will definitely involve several accounts that have quite high activity and rank. But after some time it seems that only Newbie accounts will apply. The situation is also seen in their first review campaign, when the payment was using USDT. I am sure at that time must have been exploited by cheaters.

Yes, for me this seems profitable for them. In a way, it’s similar to purchasing fake reviews. These accounts aren’t concerned about being flagged since they’re just newly created and they can simply make another account anytime. We all know that lol. If they truly wanted genuine reviews for their product, they wouldn’t accept accounts like these and would at least limit participation to Member Rank. I’m sure they’re already aware this would happen, but they likely accepted it anyway due to the limited number of applicants.

Because the review campaign for Android App, of course the reviews are given to increase the rating on their App. But what I wonder, the campaign is run for several rounds, some accounts apply 2-3 times. Meaning, they provide reviews with different login account details for each review. Whether it is intentional or indeed a direction from the manager. If it is intentional, isn't it just an attempt to manipulate? Forget it, who cares about that.

[Pablo-wood]

Because the review campaign for Android App, of course the reviews are given to increase the rating on their App. But what I wonder, the campaign is run for several rounds, some accounts apply 2-3 times. Meaning, they provide reviews with different login account details for each review. Whether it is intentional or indeed a direction from the manager. If it is intentional, isn't it just an attempt to manipulate? Forget it, who cares about that.

The provided reviews with different emails was intentional to give participants a chance for a second round.

• Participants may participate up to 2 times, but you must use a different valid Gmail account for each review, and each review should be distinct from the other.

Since the review was open for newbies - legendary, high profiled users could open be behind those accounts just to accumulate as many $5 as they can from each review. I doubt those accounts are linked to a complete newbie in the forum. It should be a more experienced forum user who knows the stand to lose nothing if the new account gets tagged because they have their main account which they won't want to engage in the review.

[KingsDen]

Seeing review campaigns with amount as low as $5 is irritating, but it seems it's becoming a trend that Betkin manager cited utopia as a yardstick for launching $5 review campaign. Honestly, $5 is nothing, even if it is doubled. But when cheaters found a way to participate upto 15 times, it's now 5 x 15 = 75. Anyone irrespective of your country will agree with me that $75 is a decent amount to earn by doing a generic and repeated task.

[Awaklara]

The provided reviews with different emails was intentional to give participants a chance for a second round.

• Participants may participate up to 2 times, but you must use a different valid Gmail account for each review, and each review should be distinct from the other.

I missed the point, however more positive reviews is what Utopia developers want. They pay participants for it, they wouldn't care much about abuse in their review campaign.
I just wanted to let the manager know about this, I guess he will make some adjustments.

Seeing review campaigns with amount as low as $5 is irritating, but it seems it's becoming a trend that Betkin manager cited utopia as a yardstick for launching $5 review campaign. Honestly, $5 is nothing, even if it is doubled. But when cheaters found a way to participate upto 15 times, it's now 5 x 15 = 75. Anyone irrespective of your country will agree with me that $75 is a decent amount to earn by doing a generic and repeated task.

I don't know how Betkin manager made Utopia review campaign as a yardstick for their payment. but both will be different. Utopia with Android app review while Betkin is related to casino sites.
I just hope Betkin review campaign situation will not be like Utopia. I will try to see it later.

Thread will be locked, if there is an update I will open it.