Plagiarism whitepaper --https://ypro.finance/

[lovesmayfamilis]

What happened:  Plagiarism whitepaper


ANN Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5311919.0
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210124050757/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5311919.0
Profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3025529
Website link: https://ypro.finance/
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210124050906/https://ypro.finance/
Whitepaper : https://ypro.finance/YProFinance_Whitepaper_v1.0.pdf
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210124050849/https://ypro.finance/YProFinance_Whitepaper_v1.0.pdf

Domain Name: ypro.finance
Registry Domain ID: da4bfe9f32c945c29465a1f39a1d785c-DONUTS
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.porkbun.com
Registrar URL: http://porkbun.com
Updated Date: 2021-01-17T00:57:42Z
Creation Date: 2021-01-12T00:56:59Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2022-01-12T00:56:59Z

Domain Name: rigel.finance
Registry Domain ID: 87796fefc5c24339a7f376c092f964b6-DONUTS
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namecheap.com
Registrar URL: https://www.namecheap.com/
Updated Date: 2020-12-15T20:19:39Z
Creation Date: 2020-11-11T13:51:51Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2023-11-11T13:51:51Z
Registrar: NameCheap, Inc.

Plagiarism whitepaper
https://rigel.finance/Rigel_Finance_Whitepaper_v1.pdf
https://decrypt.co/resources/what-is-yield-farming-beginners-guide

https://copyleaks.com/dashboard/v1/businesses/report/qdhy6gxbz4vob58a/preview?key=8hqjmo2jdasukrbf&suspectId=f10d14f514&viewMode=one-to-one&contentMode=html&sourcePage=1&suspectPage=1

[andrei8787]

Reported to Cryptoscamalert
https://cryptoscamalert.com/crypto_scam_report/1127

[YProFinance]

Really? You set us as scam, because we have a few paragraphs about what farming is and risk disclaimer from Rigel?  

We've added information about source to whitepaper.

[sujonali1819]

Whitepaper : https://ypro.finance/YProFinance_Whitepaper_v1.0.pdf

Seems it does not work now, That means they already removed it?

BTW The info what actually copied from other source is a definition. And it always stay as the same. In this case it should be considered as plagiarize content for a project? I am not directly saying it is a plagiarism / it is not plagiarism. Just want to be more clear about it.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Whitepaper : https://ypro.finance/YProFinance_Whitepaper_v1.0.pdf

Seems it does not work now, That means they already removed it?

BTW The info what actually copied from other source is a definition. And it always stay as the same. In this case it should be considered as plagiarize content for a project? I am not directly saying it is a plagiarism / it is not plagiarism. Just want to be more clear about it.

Yes, if you see, I just showed that the document contains plagiarism. The text is not written, but copied, in any case, a source is needed from where the information was taken.
I have not created any flag, not marked with a negative tag. Anyone who understands that if the white paper does not contain any information other than the copied material, which, by diligence, can be conveyed in his own words, will draw the necessary conclusions for himself.


And besides, they themselves do not deny that they copied from this document.
https://ypro.finance/ypro.finance_whitepaper_v1.0.pdf

[YProFinance]

Whitepaper : https://ypro.finance/YProFinance_Whitepaper_v1.0.pdf

Seems it does not work now, That means they already removed it?

BTW The info what actually copied from other source is a definition. And it always stay as the same. In this case it should be considered as plagiarize content for a project? I am not directly saying it is a plagiarism / it is not plagiarism. Just want to be more clear about it.

Whitepaper : https://ypro.finance/YProFinance_Whitepaper_v1.0.pdf

Seems it does not work now, That means they already removed it?

BTW The info what actually copied from other source is a definition. And it always stay as the same. In this case it should be considered as plagiarize content for a project? I am not directly saying it is a plagiarism / it is not plagiarism. Just want to be more clear about it.

Yes, if you see, I just showed that the document contains plagiarism. The text is not written, but copied, in any case, a source is needed from where the information was taken.
I have not created any flag, not marked with a negative tag. Anyone who understands that if the white paper does not contain any information other than the copied material, which, by diligence, can be conveyed in his own words, will draw the necessary conclusions for himself.


And besides, they themselves do not deny that they copied from this document.
https://ypro.finance/ypro.finance_whitepaper_v1.0.pdf

Yes, you are right. Its our fault. The source of text should be mentioned in our document.

[$crypto$]

Yes, you are right. Its our fault. The source of text should be mentioned in our document.

You should be more careful before making a whitepaper, if you want to be serious in this matter, you need to do it professionally, don't just copy and paste, we know that current projects often make mistakes from their whitepapers, therefore the source is very important if you want. use that content.

There have been many WPs that I found before, the beginning is the same as yours, even all of them were copied without explaining where the source came from.

[The Cryptovator]

And besides, they themselves do not deny that they copied from this document.

Was it mentioned from the beginning? I can't open the archived link since it's redirecting to downloading, but I don't want to download it. If they mentioned it at the beginning when you made the accusation, then I think it should call copy paste instead of plagiarism. Because they use reference links from where they copy-pasted. But of course, this is a red signal for investors. I am wondering how they will succeed even if they can't write a full whitepaper by themselves. It's better to avoid such a project.

[qwertyup23]

Yes, you are right. Its our fault. The source of text should be mentioned in our document.

You should be more careful before making a whitepaper, if you want to be serious in this matter, you need to do it professionally, don't just copy and paste, we know that current projects often make mistakes from their whitepapers, therefore the source is very important if you want. use that content.

There have been many WPs that I found before, the beginning is the same as yours, even all of them were copied without explaining where the source came from.

I personally think that the essence of plagiarizing is causing it to appear that you were the one who originally created such thread, but in fact, you stole/copied it from a different source.

Even if the whitepaper contained sources, but if you copy-pasted without even changing a single word/phrase from where you got the information constitutes plagiarism. Posting the link and indicating the source on where you copy-pasted the information cannot remedy the fact that you made it appear that you were the one who made such statements.

[holydarkness]

And besides, they themselves do not deny that they copied from this document.

Was it mentioned from the beginning? I can't open the archived link since it's redirecting to downloading, but I don't want to download it. If they mentioned it at the beginning when you made the accusation, then I think it should call copy paste instead of plagiarism. Because they use reference links from where they copy-pasted. But of course, this is a red signal for investors. I am wondering how they will succeed even if they can't write a full whitepaper by themselves. It's better to avoid such a project.

No, it wasn't there before. I have the original file as I also noticed the similarity and was about to raise a thread myself before seeing this one. Screenshot below, as well as team admitting and acknowledging their mistake.

Yes you are right. We have not included the source of materials that we used on the last page of white paper. Very sorry about it. We only used paragraphs describing what farming is and risk disclaimer note from Rigel.

[lovesmayfamilis]

It seems that they do not know where they copied all the information from. And it's easier for them to admit that they copied it from another project, at a time when there is another source.

https://decrypt.co/resources/what-is-yield-farming-beginners-guide

Sometimes definitions are copied from Wikipedia, this is a common source and copying is understandable. But they admitted that the white paper was copied or, stolen, from another project.
I think that says a lot.