Does Binance do some diligence upon listing? SONM listing - Not moderated

[ilia7777]

Since Almedia that started another thread is obviously just trying to do damage to SONM project, I had to start this one where I'm going to post my replies he chose to delete for everybody to see how lies created on the fly by those having enough time to waste it on forums.

Here is the full not moderated version. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UwA8gVJj9T6L1of85ZoNG7q-9flcC4sChp_eMRk5_Yw/edit?usp=sharing

And below I'm going to repeat the most important parts of yesterdays conversation with Almedia:

ilia7777:

"I've read your message on page 185. Would it be correct to say that according to your calculations you didn't get about 5000 SNM ? Like I said I'm just trying to understand what is the truth here. According to SONM bonus calculations were explained many times over. So you are saying nobody ever explained to you why did you get the numbers that you've got ? No response, no explanation, nothing, correct ?

Almedia, pardon me for one more question. I checked your address and I see that all your SNM tokens were transferred to an address that is said to be phishing scam. Did you lose all your SNM tokens ? What happened here ?

  Latest 4 Erc20 Token Transfer Events

TxHash   Age   From      To   Value   Token
0x81c0b06b8fa2094957e51e3e825b228aa802eb3c29de7fdd7a68b4faff97627c   30 days 19 hrs ago   0x9c9582fb1b6e1e22f4c09f86fda41681241d590f   OUT   Fake_Phishing26   50,312.615491048860291764    SONM
0xa2dda1cbeeab478a7e03d466afab6d8be834d2424fa2866cf971b90e3aeac009   72 days 11 hrs ago   0xffa40c76e54b528a3c0538116c387f4131923388     IN     0x9c9582fb1b6e1e22f4c09f86fda41681241d590f   195.81214    SONM
0xc35b15f53bf9a38586d4c86fdef227bca431a0e10fef0c279fdae9636b94685b   87 days 8 hrs ago   0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000     IN     0x9c9582fb1b6e1e22f4c09f86fda41681241d590f   37,740.001396386175345915    SONM
0x2665c1b47cf84453bfad5e3e9d6c2fe8e862909ad47fba0224107e3efe44a4af   88 days 22 hrs ago   0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000     IN     0x9c9582fb1b6e1e22f4c09f86fda41681241d590f   12,376.801954662684945849    SONM"

Almedia:

"Yes, it is a phishing address, that happened 1 month ago. I got so frustrated with this scam ICO I didn't even care tbh. Then I came to know yesterday they managed, somehow, to get listed in Binance and I didn't want to let it pass without saying anything, as more and more people might buy that thinking it is a good investment."

Almedia:

"Quote from: ilia7777 on September 12, 2017, 08:42:37 PM
I've read your message on page 185. Would it be correct to say that according to your calculations you didn't get about 5000 SNM ? Like I said I'm just trying to understand what is the truth here. According to SONM bonus calculations were explained many times over. So you are saying nobody ever explained to you why did you get the numbers that you've got ? No response, no explanation, nothing, correct ?

According to SONM where? Provide some link where they say they explained how they calculated the bonus, because afaik they never did. Their only and final email to me saying anything was embarrassing:

---------------------------------------------
1. Bonus rate connected with time of confirmation of transaction, nor it was made.
 
2. Due our information, you gain 2.5 bonus from transaction 2017/06/16. At 17th, 15:46:20, there was no bonus rates for all contributors.
 
Timestamp   BTC_adr   ETH_adr   Tokens transfered   Bonus multiply
2017-06-16 01:34:09+03   1SnMfzJef62gv4jByDijAa6mNRngYb9MR   0x9c9582fb1b6e1e22f4c09f86fda41681241d590f   12376.801954662684945849   1.025
2017-06-17 15:46:20+03   1SnMfzJef62gv4jByDijAa6mNRngYb9MR   0x9c9582fb1b6e1e22f4c09f86fda41681241d590f   37740.001396386175345915   1.000
 
Cheers,
SONM Support
---------------------------------------------

The first fallacy, item 1, is saying they used some "confirmation of the transaction", but the time of the transaction 2017-06-16 01:34:09 is when THEY sent me the tokens, so they withheld the tokens for hours after it was already confirmed in BTC blockchain many times over. So what they are saying here is "we gave you the bonus of the time of the transaction we ourselves did, not actually the time of your actual transaction confirmed to our actual BTC contribution address".

Now item 2, they gave 195.81214 tokens as bonus for a 2.5% over 12376.801954662684945849, now please do the math yourself to see if even this matches... they cannot, or do not want, calculate even a miserable bonus.

This is all without saying they never explained which exchange rate they used to credit tokens in the first place. Their website was showing 1 USD = 9 SNM, but this was not what they actually delivered, they delivered much less. So everything about this ICO is either too dumb or intentional."

Ilia7777:

"The tokens were supposed to be sent by smart contract weren't they ? Wasn't it supposed to be around the same time when the transaction was confirmed ?
If I understand Portuguese correct, this is the time of confirmation of your transaction Incluída Nos Blocos   471433 ( 2017-06-15 20:15:31 + 155 minutos )
It is logical that the time of confirmation would be used instead of time of sending isn't it ?
The calculation gives us that you were supposed to be receiving 13,733 tokens instead of 12,376 but that is using your exchange rate, how did you come up with 0.63 average exchange rate ?
There should be no average there should be only actual exchange rate at that point and again I assume that you want to use the exchange rate at the time of transaction sending and not at the time when it was confirmed. The smart contract obviously can only calculate everything at one point in time. So this is what happened it seems.

From this I make the conclusion that you are trying to discredit good project based on your own assumptions on what was supposed to happen.
Now getting late replies from the support team isn't a good customer support. But this crowdfunding for a startup its not like contacting support of your internet provider. They were simply overwhelmed.
Again please correct me if I'm wrong.
The only thing you should be unhappy about is that they didn't disclose the exchange rate the smart contract was using at the time of token issuance ?
It needs to be verified if it was technically possible at all.

Report to moderator 
ilia7777
Jr. Member
*
Online Online

Activity: 31


View Profile  Email  Personal Message (Online)
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
   
Re: Does Binance do some diligence upon listing? SONM listing
Today at 06:53:24 AM
Reply with quote  Edit message  Delete message  #26
I also would like to add that your frustration has to do more with loosing your money recently and not with your SONM investment. When people are saying that they are frustrated it usually means  that weren't able to get their X2 quickly right after ICO. When investing in a startup you should understand that its an investment and an investment takes time to provide return. Time and patience. Remember this if you want to be making money.

The end result of your investment doesn't depend so much on how the bonus was calculated. Me and my friends also invested in SONM during pre-ICO and our investment is at least 60 times bigger than yours and you know what, we were buying ETH at its peak and our pre-ICO 20% bonus disappeared completely by the time ICO started because ETH just dropped from its peak. These are risks related to investing in cryptocurrencies. And I'll tell you one last thing, I will be holding my SNM until there is product that people will be using and then I will consider exit with whatever return there will be and I want this to be put on record here on the forum."

[1714004026]

1714004026

[1714004026]

1714004026

[1714004026]

1714004026

[1714004026]

1714004026

[Lauda]

Since Almedia that started another thread is obviously just trying to do damage to SONM project...

Like the project has anything of worth damaging to begin with. You're deflecting from the primary issue raised by the user.

[ilia7777]

What was the primary issue ? To me the primary issue is that the SONM team is working hard to create a product. There will be Q&A session today and you are welcome to ask any questions if you like.
Everything mentioned by Almedia has been explained by SONM many times over. The polish team, the escrow, the Voronkov story.

You know in stock market there is always the news and the fundamentals. Stocks move over the short term based on news and over the long term based on the fundamentals. It doesn't matter how many unhappy people would try to discredit the project, what is going to matter in the end is the product. So SONM team focus is on the product right now.

About me diverting from main issue I think that I actually focused on main issue. Almedia wouldn't be posting this if he wasn't unhappy, so I tried to investigate this and its clear that to him this is about about 400 dollars worth of tokens he thinks he should have received. However we are not idiots here and we all know what is blockchain and that on blockchain only confirmed transaction is a transaction. How can you calculate bonuses based on time of sending the transaction and not based on time of its confirmation ? Its a bit strange, but Almedia has different opinion. The fact that ethereum isn't perfect and that sometimes it takes hours for it to confirm transactions is something we all have to live with.

Now as I psychologist (I have few degrees and psychology is one of them) I can tell you that he is primarily unhappy with what he considers bad investment on his part. And he is bad investor because he doesn't understand investment fundamentals. He got frustrated with not getting his X whatever too quickly, lost all his tokens to some scam and now instead of accepting responsibility is trying to take out his anger on whom he considers to be the source of his problems. While the source of his problems is himself.

Now if you will forgive I have some work to do.

[Almeida]

I deleted some of your posts first because you were stacking the topic with a flood of irrelevant messages, second for being a troll diverting from the issues raised, jumping to conclusions with false premises and, finally, distorting things as you are doing now.

By reading the very posts you collected anyone can see I first replied to you in good faith and kept your messages, you came attacking me at your very first message without commenting anything I wrote.

Good luck with your thread.

[ilia7777]

I deleted some of your posts first because you were stacking the topic with a flood of irrelevant messages, second for being a troll diverting from the issues raised, jumping to conclusions with false premises and, finally, distorting things as you are doing now.

By reading the very posts you collected anyone can see I first replied to you in good faith and kept your messages, you came attacking me at your very first message without commenting anything I wrote.

Good luck with your thread.

I wasn't attacking you my friend, I tried to understand your claims, since you've started with unpaid bonuses this is what I focused on. Obviously you have nothing to reply to the subject of the matter. If you wanted to serve the community by cautioning about SONM project that would have been a noble goal. But since you initial claims are false as it turned out what you are doing in reality is trying to cause damage to the project.

If there was indeed unproper behavior of SONM team with intentionally calculating wrong bonuses I would be the first to support you in getting this resolved.

[Lauda]

What was the primary issue ?

The primary issue, more or less, is the failure to remove the escrow in time and notify both the escrow and users. Therefore, SONM team has deceived pretty anyone who failed to see that sudden change before the ICO start (which represents the majority of the people).

To me the primary issue is that the SONM team is working hard to create a product.

Vaporware. Yawn.

Everything mentioned by Almedia has been explained by SONM many times over. The polish team, the escrow, the Voronkov story.

Indulge me and explain the escrow again. There is absolutely no explanation that could justify what was done.

About me diverting from main issue I think that I actually focused on main issue. Almedia wouldn't be posting this if he wasn't unhappy, so I tried to investigate this and its clear that to him this is about about 400 dollars worth of tokens he thinks he should have received.

Are you seriously trying to imply that legitimate issues such as this should be dismissed because the author might have a hidden agenda?

However we are not idiots here and we all know what is blockchain and that on blockchain only confirmed transaction is a transaction.

I guess my unconfirmed transactions are vapor.

[Almeida]

Now as I psychologist (I have few degrees and psychology is one of them)

  --- appeal to authority, first red flag

I can tell you that he is primarily unhappy with what he considers bad investment on his part.

We can agree on that.

And he is bad investor because he doesn't understand investment fundamentals. He got frustrated with not getting his X whatever too quickly, lost all his tokens to some scam and now instead of accepting responsibility is trying to take out his anger on whom he considers to be the source of his problems. While the source of his problems is himself.

False, I published my complaints way before this.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1845114.msg19977427#msg19977427

Phishing happened over a month after this

https://ethplorer.io/tx/0x81c0b06b8fa2094957e51e3e825b228aa802eb3c29de7fdd7a68b4faff97627c

During all that period I could have dumped your shitcoin in liqui.io, to be honest I concluded your ''project'' was doomed and didn't give a damn anymore, then I got in a phishing address to set up the wallet for another thing. Thanks god they stole your shitcoin and not real assets. I didn't really felt much of a loss. My aim has being to call you out the whole time, what I did also over a month before the phishing:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1845114.msg20022540#msg20022540

I could have stayed quiet to preserve the value of your shitcoin in my own interest, so you are getting the intentions very wrongly here.

Now, much after this I started that thread only because your shilling machine got you considered to be listed in Binance, and Binance is a decent exchange that didn't do their due diligence and already have enough problems with the Chinese gov mess.

I wasn't attacking you my friend, I tried to understand your claims, since you've started with unpaid bonuses this is what I focused on. Obviously you have nothing to reply to the subject of the matter.

Sure all the detailed posts I've made are "having nothing to reply". I showed you a very simple math calculation, how much is 2.5% of 12,376? Your supercomputer people think it is 195.81. I hope that among your many degrees there is something related to basic math.

You also insist that the tokens were calculate at the time of the transaction being confirmed. Funny, because the transaction in ETH blockchain was confirmed by yourself, so this is just a very convenient way to deliver whatever you want irrespective to the confirmations I had in BTC blockchain. In other words: you didn't respect the confirmations of MY contribution, you used whatever the rates and bonuses of the time your supercomputer team sent me tokens. This is the same as me giving you money for 5 pieces of bread, waiting for hours and you coming back and saying you have only 4, charging the same price of those 5 earlier on.

If you wanted to serve the community by cautioning about SONM project that would have been a noble goal. But since you initial claims are false as it turned out what you are doing in reality is trying to cause damage to the project.

Typical poor rhetoric of qualifying a claim without ever addressing it.

If there was indeed unproper behavior of SONM team with intentionally calculating wrong bonuses I would be the first to support you in getting this resolved.

 

[jack0m]

Dear Mr Frankstein, I don't know why Almeida deleted your posts, it might be a mistake but I do believe his accusations are based on real facts and can't be deemed as FUD.

You claimed the SONM team is working hard to create a product, I won't put this into question for now, as I believe it's too early to draw any conclusion and we just need to wait and see if they're able to stick to the roadmap.
Having said that, I think a business must build its reputation not only based on the quality of a product (which again, cannot be assessed so far), but also on relationships with stakeholders.
So the issue under discussion is about the amateurish, unprofessional and somehow disrespectful way they dealt with contributors, who have been reporting since the very beginning any kind of issues with bonuses, bounty, pre-ICO reimbursement, etc. and experienced lack of support, unreasonable and unjustifiable delay in getting an answer if any, unconsistent answers from different staff members who replied the same email several weeks apart, and contradicting each other, false official statements from community managers, like those announcing all issues with bonus incorrect calculations were solved, while they obviously were not, followed by a later admission there were actually a few "edge cases" to be fixed in "a few days", etc.

I'm trying to be transparent and report my experience with SONM's ICO sticking to the facts, yet I'm not willing to leak my Ether address and the amount I invested, for privacy concerns. As I told you in pm, I'm a rather small investor, but when it comes to some matter of principles, I think behaving correctly and transparently is a must regardless of the disputed amount. I can still provide evidence of the above mentioned shady behavior, if necessary, as one other user on Telegram posted a screenshot of his chats with the support, where they repeatedly promised for over one month they would send him a bonus difference, while he's still waiting for the transaction that was supposed to come in a few days...

Now, that may not be enough for calling it a scam, though it certainly sounds utterly disrespectful and at the very least is a sign of incompetence and unpreparedness to address even apparently minor issues. That's something one would not really expect by a team who aims at something as ambitious as building a global decentralized supercomputer, and should scare anyone who invested their money in this project.

[ilia7777]

Dear Mr Frankstein, I don't know why Almeida deleted your posts, it might be a mistake but I do believe his accusations are based on real facts and can't be deemed as FUD.

You claimed the SONM team is working hard to create a product, I won't put this into question for now, as I believe it's too early to draw any conclusion and we just need to wait and see if they're able to stick to the roadmap.
Having said that, I think a business must build its reputation not only based on the quality of a product (which again, cannot be assessed so far), but also on relationships with stakeholders.
So the issue under discussion is about the amateurish, unprofessional and somehow disrespectful way they dealt with contributors, who have been reporting since the very beginning any kind of issues with bonuses, bounty, pre-ICO reimbursement, etc. and experienced lack of support, unreasonable and unjustifiable delay in getting an answer if any, unconsistent answers from different staff members who replied the same email several weeks apart, and contradicting each other, false official statements from community managers, like those announcing all issues with bonus incorrect calculations were solved, while they obviously were not, followed by a later admission there were actually a few "edge cases" to be fixed in "a few days", etc.

I'm trying to be transparent and report my experience with SONM's ICO sticking to the facts, yet I'm not willing to leak my Ether address and the amount I invested, for privacy concerns. As I told you in pm, I'm a rather small investor, but when it comes to some matter of principles, I think behaving correctly and transparently is a must regardless of the disputed amount. I can still provide evidence of the above mentioned shady behavior, if necessary, as one other user on Telegram posted a screenshot of his chats with the support, where they repeatedly promised for over one month they would send him a bonus difference, while he's still waiting for the transaction that was supposed to come in a few days...

Now, that may not be enough for calling it a scam, though it certainly sounds utterly disrespectful and at the very least is a sign of incompetence and unpreparedness to address even apparently minor issues. That's something one would not really expect by a team who aims at something as ambitious as building a global decentralized supercomputer, and should scare anyone who invested their money in this project.

Jack0m, as opposed to Almedia your reply is a reply of grown up man. A reply I was actually waiting for.  Admitting mistakes is very important and let me do it on behalf of SONM right here. This ICO was done by a young team having no experience in crowdfunding. The project team simply had not enough resources to deal with all inquiries in timely manner and yes organization could have been better and yes there could have been more clarity and consistency. You could complain about not very professional behavior and rightfully so, but there is a red line between doing that and using words like SCAM. SCAM is when somebody is trying intentionally to steal from you, to deceive you and so on. This was never team's intention. SONM can easily go to court against Almedia and win the case and may be it should, so that others would be more careful with their statements. He is trying to create a false picture of the company that has nothing to do with the reality. Team members and SONM tops sleep in the office these days working hard to deliver what they promised therefore such statements make people them quite angry. Let me say it clearly one more time. If somebody believes that something was miscalculated lets take a look at it openly and see if its true.

[ilia7777]

Just in case this is going to erased in the other thread I will repost it here as well.

Ilia7777:

"Almedia, you are incredibly stubborn and this is my last reply to you here. It should be clear to everybody reading it that you just want to twist facts eternally to prove your imaginary point. I include here your threats sent to SONM customer support:

"Do you want to solve this without any harm? I give your tokens back in exchange for my BTC back, what do you think? I leave this as it is and I won't be able to do anything. You go along with your business, I don't care."

In your email to support you are blackmailing SONM to give you full refund and make threats. Since you didn't get what you wanted you started this thread."

[Almeida]

Just in case this is going to erased in the other thread I will repost it here as well.

Ilia7777:

"Almedia, you are incredibly stubborn and this is my last reply to you here. It should be clear to everybody reading it that you just want to twist facts eternally to prove your imaginary point. I include here your threats sent to SONM customer support:

"Do you want to solve this without any harm? I give your tokens back in exchange for my BTC back, what do you think? I leave this as it is and I won't be able to do anything. You go along with your business, I don't care."

In your email to support you are blackmailing SONM to give you full refund and make threats. Since you didn't get what you wanted you started this thread."

What is the date of so called blackmailing?