Bitcointalk Charity and its funds

[examplens]

Are you suggesting they're alts?

I don't think they are alts. cabalism13 is quite different than the rest two from what I have observed; not sure about the other two though.

I also don't think they are alt accounts, but there is certainly an interesting history between them.

bl4nkcode take a loan from cabalism, 20000 PHP (which is around $400 today as Google says) on Apr 16. '21.

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5679/56796511.html

cabalism13

2021-06-16

Reference

Got a loan >$400 from him for 2 months. Paid. Thank you.

this is nothing unusual, but it is interesting that cabalism is taking a loan from DarkStar_
first on (reference) 2021/04/05 - $200
second (reference) 2021/04/26 - $400 (just 10 days after he accept to lend almost the same amount to blankcode)
then third (reference) 2021/06/04 - $2000 (which is still open, if the data in DarkStar_ spreadsheet are correct)

I don't insinuate anything, it's just illogical for me to lend money to someone and at the same time ask for a loan from a third party. whether he resold the loan, yet at that time blankcode had a good enough reputation to get a loan from Darkstar (just my assumption) there was no need for a mediator.

[Poker Player]

then third (reference) 2021/06/04 - $2000 (which is still open, if the data in DarkStar_ spreadsheet are correct)

If I understand correctly, he asked for $2K in June that he was going to pay back in 2 or 3 months and at most 6. He should have paid it all back already and according to row 174 of the spreadsheet (if I understand it correctly) he has made a partial payment of $500 of the total $2,686 he has to pay back, plus he has left BTC and bnb as collateral, but he has not paid it all back yet.

I guess now that his bitcointalk account is ruined the temptation to not pay may be even greater.

Incidentally, I see several people I know from the forum in the spreadsheet and I am surprised. No way you're going to see me paying 2.70%-6.60% monthly interest. I must be financially very healthy because it seems crazy to me.

I don't insinuate anything, it's just illogical for me to lend money to someone and at the same time ask for a loan from a third party. whether he resold the loan, yet at that time blankcode had a good enough reputation to get a loan from Darkstar (just my assumption) there was no need for a mediator.

It is certainly curious

Edited to say that I see in row 213 that crwth has an active non-secured loan. The same. I hope he is honest and pays it back but in a non-secured loan where the only collateral is your Bitcointalk account, if the account is ruined, there may be a temptation not to pay back the loan.

[examplens]

If I understand correctly, he asked for $2K in June that he was going to pay back in 2 or 3 months and at most 6. He should have paid it all back already and according to row 174 of the spreadsheet (if I understand it correctly) he has made a partial payment of $500 of the total $2,686 he has to pay back, plus he has left BTC and bnb as collateral, but he has not paid it all back yet.

the delay does not necessarily mean a problem and if both parties agree, extending the repayment period is ok.
I guess lender ^DarkStar_ probably knows about this drama and I hope this all ends positively.

Incidentally, I see several people I know from the forum in the spreadsheet and I am surprised. No way you're going to see me paying 2.70%-6.60% monthly interest. I must be financially very healthy because it seems crazy to me.

Never say never. you can't know what can happen to you and that you may need money urgently.

[Poker Player]

Never say never. you can't know what can happen to you and that you may need money urgently.

Yes, you are right, never say never just in case.

Let's hope that the loans situation ends up positively and they pay back what they owe.

[LTU_btc]

I still want to believe that funds were spent properly, but things definitely don't look nice. Even if they spent all money for good case, this is not how things should be done. If you decided to make charity campaign, publicity and transparency should be main thing. After all, all these money were donated by people, it's not your own property. If I would do such thing, I would try to keep receipts of every purchase and add record of it to spreadsheet. Because it's not enough to add vague information that $50 were spent on potato or $100 on rice without any receipt.
What I unlike most in this situation that these users don't bother to reply to accusation properly and seems that they don't give a shit about it. And coincidence or not, but soon after accusation they become basically inactive on forum.

[yahoo62278]

It would be good if yahoo62278 would confirm the data are the same as the one shared by cabalism13; just to make sure I didn't tamper with any data.

I cannot confirm anything currently. I have no access to the sheet now myself. I will ask them to make the spreadsheet public, but cannot guarantee they will.

[Igebotz]

If you decided to make charity campaign, publicity and transparency should be main thing. After all, all these money were donated by people, it's not your own property. If I would do such thing, I would try to keep receipts of every purchase and add record of it to spreadsheet. Because it's not enough to add vague information that $50 were spent on potato or $100 on rice without any receipt.

I'm surprised that this charity has been running for almost two years with approximately 2BTC+ donated and that there are no single receipts of items purchased, only some random pictures of foods and packed items that could be obtained from the internet (I'm not accusing anyone, I'm simply stating the possibility). If C13 was able to withdraw $500 from the charity account for medical care without the authorization of the donators, it's probable that some of the charity funds were used for purposes not mentioned above. I don't know C13's financial situation, but it's risky to put such a large sum of money in the hands of someone who isn't financially sound...

What I unlike most in this situation that these users don't bother to reply to accusation properly and seems that they don't give a shit about it. And coincidence or not, but soon after accusation they become basically inactive on forum.

They do not give a fuck they are somewhere drinking beer and laughing at our comments  after all nobody is going to jail.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I still want to believe that funds were spent properly, but things definitely don't look nice.

I take back what I said about not posting in this thread, because for whatever reason I feel like I have to respond to comments like yours; you are correct that things don't look good, and the longer this goes on with no reply from any of the members involved, the worse it looks and the worse it probably is. 

It's possible that it could take time to provide a full accounting of funds moved/spent by any one member, but when there's just radio silence that isn't a good sign that anything is being worked on.

If C13 was able to withdraw $500 from the charity account for medical care without the authorization of the donators, it's probable that some of the charity funds were used for purposes not mentioned above. I don't know C13's financial situation, but it's risky to put such a large sum of money in the hands of someone who isn't financially sound...

I'm pretty sure there's a way to put bitcoin in a wallet with 2FA or something similar, right?  Aren't bitcointalk's funds held in an arrangement like that?  That might have been a good idea with this amateur-hour charity, since if they did that Cabalism13 would have had to ask permission from at least one of the other members before using some of the funds for his own purposes.  Instead, he apparently sought advice from people who had nothing to do with the charity and were in no position to give him permission to do anything with those funds.  At least that's what he claimed.

They do not give a fuck they are somewhere drinking beer and laughing at our comments  after all nobody is going to jail.

I bet you they're not, and the only reason I say that is because none of them are your typical fly-by-night scammers, plus I don't believe the charity was started with the intention of scamming anyone.  I think temptation and the availability of a large amount of money got the best of at least one of the members involved.

[LoyceV]

I'm pretty sure there's a way to put bitcoin in a wallet with 2FA or something similar, right?  Aren't bitcointalk's funds held in an arrangement like that?

That would be multisig, which is more complicated and leads to higher transaction fees.

That might have been a good idea with this amateur-hour charity, since if they did that Cabalism13 would have had to ask permission from at least one of the other members before using some of the funds for his own purposes.

That's why there was an escrow involved. I wouldn't have trusted bL4nkcode with 1 Bitcoin, but that's not relevant because the anonymous donator did trust him.
The purpose of an escrow is to make sure funds are only used for the right cause.

Instead, he apparently sought advice from people who had nothing to do with the charity and were in no position to give him permission to do anything with those funds.  At least that's what he claimed.

He could have claimed it was charity for his grandfather, which would at least make it a tiny bit in the spirit of the charity (assuming he was still alive at the time):

To be honest, yes. I have used 500$ from the funds back then for the medications of my deceased grandfather, I even asked before I did that on my Filipino Community

I don't believe the charity was started with the intention of scamming anyone.  I think temptation and the availability of a large amount of money got the best of at least one of the members involved.

To quote myself:

"opportunity makes the thief"

I think most people would feel temptation at a high enough amount of money. It's best to prevent that opportunity from happening.

[condoras]

I think temptation and the availability of a large amount of money got the best of at least one of the members involved.

Ok, let's take this possibility as true. What did the other two do? And especially the one who work as escrow for a fund, a keeper of others' money. He just says hell yeah, take whatever you need, after all, is for charity. Now, for whos charity, it doesn't matter. We name our greediness an "urgent need" and take the money.
I'm sorry to say it but there is nothing to wait for here. Their irresponsibility and sloppiness are a fact, as their silence for the matter. I see all the members trying to justify the behavior of these three and these three (who fail to do what they suppose to do), not to be bothered. So why do we have to bother?

[Poker Player]

... plus I don't believe the charity was started with the intention of scamming anyone.  I think temptation and the availability of a large amount of money got the best of at least one of the members involved.

I have the same opinion, and I think so far everyone I've seen commenting on the thread has said the same thing. That in the beginning the intention was good. Probably neither they themselves cared too much about keeping receipts nor the community to control it because if you get a $50 donation, another $20 donation and I give you another $25 donation, if you show me some pictures that's enough, but if you get a whole Bitcoin, you have to be very careful.

If this were a criminal trial (which obviously it's not,) then yes, I would be in agreement.  But this is more like a civil suit where the proving liability, not guilt is the criteria.  Which brings me to the part of your quote that I bolded:  When someone is charged with handling other people's money (such as charitable contributions,) it's that person's responsibility to provide the evidence of where the money is going.  Since crwth is guilty of not honoring that obligation, in my opinion that's enough for a tag and flag.

In the end I deleted my neutral tag and supported the flag, partly because of this argument and partly because of the fact that they disappeared from the forum days ago. If I considered myself innocent I wouldn't do that.

To me they consider themselves somehow guilty and defeated. bL4nkcode used to earn $100 a week from the Best Change signature campaign. That's good money for someone living in the Philippines. crwth didn't write as much but he also made money from the campaign. Think of them as people who have borrowed money on the forum, some as little as $200.

If I considered myself innocent, even if I didn't keep all the receipts, I would have come more to this thread to show my face and fight for my reputation and save my income.

[Timelord2067]

I think temptation and the availability of a large amount of money got the best of at least one of the members involved.

Ok, let's take this possibility as true. What did the other two do?

2021-12-19, 18:56:31    Last Active:    cabalism13
2021-12-21, 13:00:09    Last Active:    crwth
2021-12-22, 08:15:01    Last Active:    bL4nkcode


The three options are:

• All three are alts.  I discount this scenario due to the fact there had to be collaboration between at least two parties in promoting the "charitable work" being done.
• There are two users.  I favor this scenario in which two users, for example cabalism13 and crwth are alts are able to persuade the other person (two votes to one) how to spend the funds.
• There are three users. Two users might be able to persuade a third user for some of the time, however, the third person will at some-point form a differing opinion and voice concerns.  That hasn't happened.

[Igebotz]

If C13 was able to withdraw $500 from the charity account for medical care without the authorization of the donators, it's probable that some of the charity funds were used for purposes not mentioned above. I don't know C13's financial situation, but it's risky to put such a large sum of money in the hands of someone who isn't financially sound...

I'm pretty sure there's a way to put bitcoin in a wallet with 2FA or something similar, right?  Aren't bitcointalk's funds held in an arrangement like that?  That might have been a good idea with this amateur-hour charity, since if they did that Cabalism13 would have had to ask permission from at least one of the other members before using some of the funds for his own purposes.  Instead, he apparently sought advice from people who had nothing to do with the charity and were in no position to give him permission to do anything with those funds.  At least that's what he claimed.

Since only a few wallets support 2FA, multi-sig would've been the best option, but that wouldn't have changed anything because a single "send $500 to my wallet" message from C13 to BLK would've been enough to get BTC pushed to his wallet, and he already knew why he chose his friend to be the escrow in the first place.

They do not give a fuck they are somewhere drinking beer and laughing at our comments  after all nobody is going to jail.

I bet you they're not, and the only reason I say that is because none of them are your typical fly-by-night scammers, plus I don't believe the charity was started with the intention of scamming anyone.  I think temptation and the availability of a large amount of money got the best of at least one of the members involved.

I believe there was a misquote there because I never accused any of them of being scammers, nor did I suggest the charity was involved in any kind of scam attempts; instead, I just stated that these guys have opted not to give a fvck about reporting the charity's activities to anyone.

Yes, there is charity work going on, and I saw some images from crwth and BLK in the charity thread, but at this moment there are questions in everyone's heads, and pictures aren't enough; we need to see something on paper at least once in a while. I secretly hope that this organization will grow and expand beyond the Philippines to include other neighboring countries.

[yahoo62278]

I think temptation and the availability of a large amount of money got the best of at least one of the members involved.

Ok, let's take this possibility as true. What did the other two do?

2021-12-19, 18:56:31    Last Active:    cabalism13
2021-12-21, 13:00:09    Last Active:    crwth
2021-12-22, 08:15:01    Last Active:    bL4nkcode


The three options are:

• All three are alts.  I discount this scenario due to the fact there had to be collaboration between at least two parties in promoting the "charitable work" being done.
• There are two users.  I favor this scenario in which two users, for example cabalism13 and crwth are alts are able to persuade the other person (two votes to one) how to spend the funds.
• There are three users. Two users might be able to persuade a third user for some of the time, however, the third person will at some-point form a differing opinion and voice concerns.  That hasn't happened.

I don't know about your options, but these guys not logging in for days certainly speaks volumes to me. I have tagged and supported flags against all 3 at this point.

[DarkStar_]

If I understand correctly, he asked for $2K in June that he was going to pay back in 2 or 3 months and at most 6. He should have paid it all back already and according to row 174 of the spreadsheet (if I understand it correctly) he has made a partial payment of $500 of the total $2,686 he has to pay back, plus he has left BTC and bnb as collateral, but he has not paid it all back yet.

the delay does not necessarily mean a problem and if both parties agree, extending the repayment period is ok.
I guess lender ^DarkStar_ probably knows about this drama and I hope this all ends positively.

Yes, I can confirm that the loan is still active and I have had communication with cabalism13 prior about an extension. Hopefully I end up getting full repayments from cabalism13 and crwth.

[icopress]

it seems strange to me that all three guys provided vague facts, I would understand if this behavior was traced only in one participant in this case, but not in three at once.

Are you suggesting they're alts? [...] What are the odds they all stop posting and stay offline at the same time?

No, and I think you will agree with the extremely low probability that these three accounts can be operated by the same person (especially considering the posting style and the fact that all of these accounts are members of DT1). Speaking of oddities, I meant a general chat in a telegram or other messenger in which these three could coordinate their actions and words, at least this would explain the synchronous offline.

Yes, I can confirm that the loan is still active and I have had communication with cabalism13 prior about an extension. Hopefully I end up getting full repayments from cabalism13 and crwth.

Hope you get your money, and hopefully you have a contingency plan, ^{[as there is indeed a possibility that, looking at such a large number of red marks, debtors will find it inappropriate to pay bills and will eventually leave the forum]}.

[Timelord2067]

It's unlikely that this alt will be come active again, but am just placing it here so that it is on the record:

2 Accounts Connected:

bL4nkcode01, bL4nkcode,

2016-02-10, 11:24:27 Date Registered:    bL4nkcode01
2016-02-12, 01:17:03 Date Registered:    bL4nkcode
2016-11-28, 00:59:25 Last Active:    bL4nkcode01
2021-12-22, 08:15:01 Last Active:    bL4nkcode

Proof:

bL4nkcode

2017-05-20

This is my alt account.

[AB de Royse777]

Yes, I can confirm that the loan is still active and I have had communication with cabalism13 prior about an extension. Hopefully I end up getting full repayments from cabalism13 and crwth.

Shit!
I feel you bud. In my lending business I lost more money then profited and eventually I decided to stop the service.


I am not being judgemental for a nation or a race but unfortunately Filipino community is losing their credibility in fact lost all credibility. Remember those guys TYM, asu? If I am not wrong then many more scammers were in fact from Philippine. The numbers are high if we compare with other community.

There is a pattern for them. They join and build up a solid reputation. They do it very fast. TYM, asu, cabalism13, crwth and many more, bL4nkcode is a bit different I guess (Took long time to pull the scam for him).

I think from now on we should not trust guys who are very focused on building up good reputation that they are getting it too fast. They are fine as long as they are not asking for money or involving them in a trade. We should not also leave them positive tags or in the DT system very quick just because they are contributing in the community. Let them have over x years of legibility, maybe 5 years (?) before giving them a positive feedback or adding them into the DT network.

There are many users who I have seen built up their reputation very quick, in fact the number of merits they earn is a short span seems unbelievable. But consider them with a regular forum user, they should not have even one 10th of the merit they earned or appreciated by the old times. Who knows these guys might have very similar plan? Some day they will pull a successful scam and they are preparing for it?

PS: My own observation by the way. These incidents should give us some lessons.

[LoyceV]

I think from now on we should not trust guys who are very focused on building up good reputation that they are getting it too fast. They are fine as long as they are not asking for money or involving them in a trade. We should not also leave them positive tags or in the DT system very quick just because they are contributing in the community. Let them have over x years of legibility, maybe 5 years (?) before giving them a positive feedback

I don't think account age matters much, and I definitely wouldn't trust someone just because their account is 5 years old.
This is what theymos said about a Newbie with 2 posts:

surprisingly, the person who got the random $1000 I accidentally sent, EZ0010, returned the BTC ~immediately. Thanks to him!

The lessons:
 - There are good, honest people in the world.

[AB de Royse777]

I don't think account age matters much, and I definitely wouldn't trust someone just because their account is 5 years old.

My point is to decided if you want to add them in your trust network and leave them a positive feedback.

I can find you users who are getting easily in the trust network just because they earned few hundreds of quick merits, busted scammers or did certain activities which looks positive and now they became DT members with unnecessary positive feedback left by other DT members like "This is a good scam buster I trust him" or "x is very active forum member and contributing in the forum from xxx times".

If someone is very focused in building up their reputation and doing is very fast then there should be things to be worried. This was my point of the last post.

This is what theymos said about a Newbie with 2 posts:

surprisingly, the person who got the random $1000 I accidentally sent, EZ0010, returned the BTC ~immediately. Thanks to him!

The lessons:
 - There are good, honest people in the world.

I think I am one of those people who do put everyone in the same line. I have fought for newbies in many occasions. And in many occasions they even did better deal than a highly reputed member in the forum for me.

If you want to deal with them then let them trust you first (if you are old timer and highly trusted in the forum). Don't leave them a feedback and don't add them in your trust network until there is a certain long period they are active in the community and doing good things for it.