Wapinter related with Scam? Why he repeat to promote ICO with fake team ?

[marlboroza]

Have you ever thought that campaign managers put food on many people tables?

Have you ever thought that you idiots who are promoting obvious scams are taking food from many people tables?

[1714851940]

1714851940

[1714851940]

1714851940

[1714851940]

1714851940

[1714851940]

1714851940

[Lutpin]

It is worth pointing out that Wapinter is currently evading a forum ban they have gotten with their alt account Wapinter Bounty Portal.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4486093.0

I don't think campaign managers have a duty to research the project in as much depth as you suggest.  They're just taking on a job, and when any of us apply for a job we usually assume good faith on the part of the employer.  It also assumes the manager is capable of and has the time to delve into detective work.  I think what you're saying shifts the blame way too much onto the campaign manager's shoulders.  What if there's a critical detail that the manager misses?

I am not sure why a Bounty manager has to be taken responsible for a scammy ICO, I mean before you invest in an ICO you are advised by mostly everyone to do your due diligence, to investigate whether the project is a scam or not, in other words, I hereby advise you all who assimilate SCAM ICOs with good intended and hardworking managers to do your research before participating in a Bounty.

Managers should do a minimum of research before they accept a position.
Participants should do their research before they start advertising a project.
Investors should do extended research before sending their money anywhere.

Just because the managers do research, doesn't mean participants should not do their own research anymore (I have discussed that recently with mdayonliner).
Likewise, a manager cannot take themselves out of responsibility by claiming all research has to be done by participants, they should do their own due diligence as well,
as they put their reputation on the line with the positions they take on.

If all three groups (mangers, participants, investors) of people do sufficient and independent research, scams can be found and stopped way earlier than right now,
because the more people check a project, the more likely bad apples like these get found both quickly and reliably.

Currently, third parties that have nothing to do with either group have to point out problems to the managers which then only react, at a point it might already be too late for participants/investors.

[The Cryptovator]

P.S. It can happen to anyone, nobody is perfect. Picking the wrong campaign is just a matter of time, but that doesn't mean you are doing it intentionally.

Yes it can happened with me also. I have no question about exit scam. Recently it's common problem about fake team. Specially taken from Google. This case we found Wapinter 3 bounty. All is same case. It's not minimum responsible to manager check little bit on Google about their team ? My question why same thing happens repeat. There already sign for scam. Even we can't call scam until happen. But there is strong sing.

   do your research before participating in a Bounty.
 

That's why participant deserve scam.

[TitanAI]

Have you ever thought that campaign managers put food on many people tables?

Have you ever thought that you idiots who are promoting obvious scams are taking food from many people tables?

Nobody is promoting scams, as you can very well see, he closed the campaign.

[TitanAI]

It is worth pointing out that Wapinter is currently evading a forum ban they have gotten with their alt account Wapinter Bounty Portal.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4486093.0

I don't think campaign managers have a duty to research the project in as much depth as you suggest.  They're just taking on a job, and when any of us apply for a job we usually assume good faith on the part of the employer.  It also assumes the manager is capable of and has the time to delve into detective work.  I think what you're saying shifts the blame way too much onto the campaign manager's shoulders.  What if there's a critical detail that the manager misses?

I am not sure why a Bounty manager has to be taken responsible for a scammy ICO, I mean before you invest in an ICO you are advised by mostly everyone to do your due diligence, to investigate whether the project is a scam or not, in other words, I hereby advise you all who assimilate SCAM ICOs with good intended and hardworking managers to do your research before participating in a Bounty.

Managers should do a minimum of research before they accept a position.
Participants should do their research before they start advertising a project.
Investors should do extended research before sending their money anywhere.

Just because the managers do research, doesn't mean participants should not do their own research anymore (I have discussed that recently with mdayonliner).
Likewise, a manager cannot take themselves out of responsibility by claiming all research has to be done by participants, they should do their own due diligence as well,
as they put their reputation on the line with the positions they take on.

If all three groups (mangers, participants, investors) of people do sufficient and independent research, scams can be found and stopped way earlier than right now,
because the more people check a project, the more likely bad apples like these get found both quickly and reliably.

Currently, third parties that have nothing to do with either group have to point out problems to the managers which then only react, at a point it might already be too late for participants/investors.

You are right, managers should do a minimum research, which he probably did, but you are asking here for an extensive research in fact ... make up your mind.

Why people like you exist is a thing which I didn't figure out yet. Throwing mud at a manager who never scammed or endorsed a scammy project makes me wonder on which side you are.

Throwing flames on a forum just for the sake of getting merit points and draw attention is also something that I cannot fully understand, please clear things out for me if you are so kind.

I am probably the most impartial person on this forum, as my life isn't only about this forum or a single person. And this is a statement which I strongly support.

I would like to know if you are having problems getting campaigns to manage here on this forum, because that would explain a lot on why you are throwing mud at a honest person.

P.S. I have worked for various Campaigns and under various Campaign Managers but I have never had problems with any of them. My work was always clean and payment also came as I expected it to come. I also helped to detect lots of scammy ICOs, but I never came here to flame on forum about one or another, I just pointed out the SCAM Projects, which in fact, is the main problem, not the Campaign managers, IMHO.

[Lutpin]

One question though, are you in any way part of the "Wapinter Bounty Portal" team (you know, the guys with the banned account)?

Since you ask about a shared bounty management account here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3606878.0
And the very same day, this thread is posted by a member of the WBP team: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3603094.0

The wording is so similar, it's almost...the same.

Some of our team members have individual accounts here on froum which we do not share with anyone. But we want to create an official account for bounty management whose login details will be shared with some of our core team members.Is this allowed according to forum rules? Some of our members are based in different geographical locations. is it okay if they login and use one account from different ips and location? Need guidance from forum staff

All of our team members have individual accounts here on forum which we do not share with anyone but we want to create an official account whose login details will be shared with some of our core team members. Is this allowed according to forum rules? Some of our members are based in different geographical locations, is it okay if they login and use one account from different ips and location?
I need guidance from forum staff if it is not too much asked.

Is that why you defend Wapinter that much, because you are directly involved here, because you are a member of their team?
Or is there another reason why you have posted the (almost exactly) same thread?
You do not have to answer if it's making you feel uncomfortable.

[TitanAI]

One question though, are you in any way part of the "Wapinter Bounty Portal" team (you know, the guys with the banned account)?

Since you ask about a shared bounty management account here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3606878.0
And the very same day, this thread is posted by a member of the WBP team: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3603094.0

The wording is so similar, it's almost...the same.

Is that why you defend Wapinter that much, because you are directly involved here, because you are a member of their team?
You do not have to answer if it's making you feel uncomfortable.

I don't feel uncomfortable at all, Yes I am part of his team, I am not ashamed of my friends, but I also worked for other campaign managers and I was myself marketing manager for a successful ICO which I really don't need to point it out here in this thread, who knows me can confirm that what I say is true.

The wording .... LMFAO PLEASE but I insist, IF you are suggesting that my account is shared or anyone EVER used my account to post, I hereby invite forum admins to check my IPs and if it was used by anyone else I will gladly accept to be banned. IF not, you should add yourself negative trust and ask all your noobcakes army that post for you to give you negative trust for talking crap and putting dirt on someone's reputation.

That said, I am clean, always will be, no reason not to be. I am more of a reader on this forum than a writer.

If there is someone that has something personal with anyone, then that's you my friend. At least thats what I see from your posts towards Wapinter's reputation.

[Lutpin]

Nobody is promoting scams, as you can very well see, he closed the campaign.

Indeed, nobody is promoting any scam because the bounty threads for all scams mentioned in OP are closed.
Like the thread for xeonframe, which is lock...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3963215.msg40587785;topicseen#msg40587785
wait, it's not locked? That would mean, people are currently promoting a...I don't wanna say it.

Top job designing those signatures, btw.

[mdayonliner]

Just because the managers do research, doesn't mean participants should not do their own research anymore (I have discussed that recently with mdayonliner).
Likewise, a manager cannot take themselves out of responsibility by claiming all research has to be done by participants, they should do their own due diligence as well,
as they put their reputation on the line with the positions they take on.

If all three groups (mangers, participants, investors) of people do sufficient and independent research, scams can be found and stopped way earlier than right now,
because the more people check a project, the more likely bad apples like these get found both quickly and reliably.

I totally go with you after the conversation I had with you however I will say the managers part is very important because he dealt with the project team first hand. A manager should need to develop a sense of detecting good and bad (trying to scam) project.

As a participant my experience is...
It's really hard to find a good project. On top of it, a percipient has 100s of projects if not 1000s to chose one. Now, when the number is large of course the person feel overwhelmed, and how much research (especially extensive research) s/he can do? Also you feel uncomfortable in most of them (projects) when you see newbies/members with no good record in the forum posting sig campaign topics.

So to me, the filtering criteria is... Go with a manager who has good reputation, who already proved him/her in the community etc. Of-course don't forget to do your own part (a little research) once you get accepted.


Now come to as an investor: When I am paying money out of my pocket (even if it's a penny), I will definitely make sure that I am not going to lose it. Although in reality most of the time it works the opposite LOL. Scammers are making money out of people.

[TitanAI]

Nobody is promoting scams, as you can very well see, he closed the campaign.

Indeed, nobody is promoting any scam because the bounty threads for all scams mentioned in OP are closed.
Like the thread for xeonframe, which is lock...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3963215.msg40587785;topicseen#msg40587785
wait, it's not locked? That would mean, people are currently promoting a...I don't wanna say it.

Top job designing those signatures, btw.

Thanks, appreciate it. IF you ever need a signature designer don't hesitate to contact me.

You can find me here in this list too for future reference if you need it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1610428.0

[suchmoon]

The wording .... LMFAO PLEASE but I insist, IF you are suggesting that my account is shared or anyone EVER used my account to post, I hereby invite forum admins to check my IPs and if it was used by anyone else I will gladly accept to be banned. IF not, you should add yourself negative trust and ask all your noobcakes army that post for you to give you negative trust for talking crap and putting dirt on someone's reputation.

You wouldn't get banned for having an alt account. You could get banned for plagiarism.

[holydarkness]

[...]

So to me, the filtering criteria is... Go with a manager who has good reputation, who already proved him/her in the community etc. Of-course don't forget to do your own part (a little research) once you get accepted.

I am on the same note with this, I usually took bounty manager as a point of consideration when I look for bounty campaign as I assume they have at least read and study about the ICO whose bounty they managed. Afterall, they have reputation to maintain.

And although Wapinter is not the only manager that fell into this situation, he's somehow the first that I know that got several scam ico at the same time, which made me wonder if he even study about the campaign he managed or he just blindly accept every campaign offered to him. Especially because he had this team of managers that gave me an impression that he took an ICO and gave it to his team to handle.

[Lutpin]

You wouldn't get banned for having an alt account. You could get banned for plagiarism.

Moonie, stop spoiling my surprises.

[TitanAI]

You wouldn't get banned for having an alt account. You could get banned for plagiarism.

Moonie, stop spoiling my surprises.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1755478.msg17530692#msg17530692
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1749935.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1778405

You and your friends have dirt on your hands too, I could dig deeper but no need. I have nothing personal against you, but before accusing someone of something make sure you are clean yourself. Why didn't you make your research as signature campaign OP before starting a sig campaign for a scammy project?

[DarkStar_]

You wouldn't get banned for having an alt account. You could get banned for plagiarism.

Moonie, stop spoiling my surprises.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1755478.msg17530692#msg17530692
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1749935.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1778405

You and your friends have dirt on your hands too, I could dig deeper but no need. I have nothing personal against you, but before accusing someone of something make sure you are clean yourself. Why didn't you make your research as signature campaign OP before starting a sig campaign for a scammy project?

No one, apart from one of the scammers lost money from that scam.

[Lutpin]

You and your friends have dirt on your hands too, I could dig deeper but no need.

I'm sorry, is this the best "dirt" you could find on me?

A campaign where I did everything I could to secure a BTC payment for participants, since the ASC they were supposed to get was going to be worthless due to the screwup by the ASC team.
I did my part there. I promptly joined the discussion with the escrow team and coordinated further steps with them. Not for myself, but for the people I had enrolled.

Investors? Covered and fully repaid by the escrow team.
Signature Campaign Participants? Compensated in BTC, which they were all happy to accept and not one of them complained about.

To sum it up in one sentence:

No one, apart from one of the scammers, lost money from that scam.

Now do we see Wapinter out there busting his ass, trying to get a payment for the participants of his latest campaigns? Will those be covered, will the participants be paid in any way?

[Joel_Jantsen]

You and your friends have dirt on your hands too, I could dig deeper but no need.

You should have. (*Hint : You have already hit the bottom)

I have nothing personal against you, but before accusing someone of something make sure you are clean yourself. Why didn't you make your research as signature campaign OP before starting a sig campaign for a scammy project?

Oh he's clean.Very clean. I was one of the members who created the ANN thread and acted as a Development Manager for the project.Technically, you should directing your queries towards me and not the escrows involved.You went from defending Wapinter to attacking Lutpin. Must admit you are taking it way too personally.

[deadley]

<snip>

I don't think campaign managers have a duty to research the project in as much depth as you suggest.  They're just taking on a job, and when any of us apply for a job we usually assume good faith on the part of the employer.  It also assumes the manager is capable of and has the time to delve into detective work.  I think what you're saying shifts the blame way too much onto the campaign manager's shoulders.  What if there's a critical detail that the manager misses?

If a project turns out to be a scam, and they're in the middle of running a campaign, I think it's enough for a manager to do as Yahoo62278 just did and end the campaign.  Basically it comes down to the question of whether we're assuming a project is a scam until proven otherwise or legitimate until proven to be a scam.  There have been enough scams such that we probably ought to be assuming all ICOs are, but I don't think it's a campaign manager's duty to expose them before taking on the job of manager.

Agreed, what you all said, but how bounty manager can accept ICO which offering 40% monthly return. It's clear sign of scammy nature of ICO, there is no way any project can give 40% return monthly on consistently. Did he read at all or just negotiated his fee without checking what is the project and whom behind it?

I don't think, he did read it at all or he did read and don't care about anything, just wanted to earn his fee.

As a bounty manager sometime we really can't filter scammy ICO because it is fool proof or really good in everything. But Coinect ICO had fix high monthly return that is clear sign of Scam. How any bounty manager can miss that?

I am probably the most impartial person on this forum, as my life isn't only about this forum or a single person. And this is a statement which I strongly support.

You are working with Wapiner, how you can be impartial? You are directly linked with Wapinter and you lectured here like you don't relate to Wapinter.

[Scam Exposey]

<snip>

I don't think campaign managers have a duty to research the project in as much depth as you suggest.  They're just taking on a job, and when any of us apply for a job we usually assume good faith on the part of the employer.  It also assumes the manager is capable of and has the time to delve into detective work.  I think what you're saying shifts the blame way too much onto the campaign manager's shoulders.  What if there's a critical detail that the manager misses?

If a project turns out to be a scam, and they're in the middle of running a campaign, I think it's enough for a manager to do as Yahoo62278 just did and end the campaign.  Basically it comes down to the question of whether we're assuming a project is a scam until proven otherwise or legitimate until proven to be a scam.  There have been enough scams such that we probably ought to be assuming all ICOs are, but I don't think it's a campaign manager's duty to expose them before taking on the job of manager.

I don't know what came on your mind that managers don't have the duty to research the project if that one is scam or not while the fact is they are the one who's main involve of everything since they are the one who's running the advertisement campaign for that scammy one's. Managers should be the first defense against scam so that no casualties happen and also Managers who have high ranks and reputation can attract investors so they must do their due diligence to know if the project is legit or not.

[Scam Exposey]

We can actually see so many miss handled campaigns and end up scamming but guess what only unreputed managers get tag and those reputed wanna bee which hunts for fee's evade the tagging and just burried the issue while DT afraid to sue them up.