Firstly we would request the moderator to kindly consider changing one thing in the Scam Report Format and that is the labelling of ‘Scammer’ in ‘Scammers Profile Link’ unless until proved. It will be better to mention ‘Accused’ instead of ‘Scammer’ as all the law system in the world doesn’t label the accused ‘Guilty’ unless proved. We would apologise if we are wrong for this.
Tomato tomahto. If it's any consolation though, the title of this board is scam ACCUSATION, thus it is not too far from the realm of logic that the subject labelled as "scammers" on this board is on the status of accused. It is also widely known that being "labelled" as scammers doesn't directly means you are. The forum is open for your defense and if you're proven to be correct, the thread will be locked with clarification, even an apology if you deemed necessary. I am more than willing to apologiz if I am proven to be wrong and you can defended all of the points raised.
Speaking of...
First Red Flag: Plagiarism
Reply- For the first red flag we would like to mention that the matter which are accused as Plagiarism are research material and provides general information which doesn’t relates to our project.
And it is also widely know that it is an acceptable action to took the essence of someone's idea of something and describe them with your own words. With. Your. Own. Words. This is even a widely known practice in academic field. It is, however,
not acceptable to take the entire idea and directly copy them, let alone without crediting the original author.
What's more interesting, though, you said more than once that there might be more plagiarism on your WP, like you didn't know it yourself. Were you not the one who wrote it? Let me guess, you freelanced it to a content creator?
Second Red Flag: Faking credentials, owning other project’s KYB –Know Your Business—as their ownReply- Our Know Your Business (KYB) is genuine and the certificate is provided to us by
https://auditrate.tech[...]
Both our KYB and Smart Contract Audit is genuine and can be verified on the website of auditrate.tech
So it's a harmless mistake, then? You, or them, just somehow wrongly placed the QR code for Mocking Metaverse on your certificate? Two questions: did you not check the QR code before releasing the document to public? It is a rather crucial factor to be checked, IMO. I would check every single milimeters of my certificate if I were you. It's called the commitment to project. Two, were your projects related, or share the same owner? It is, by far, the most logical explanation I can pull to understand the error in barcode placement, like: you scanned the barcode and it redirects you to Mocking Metaverse and you're ok with it because it is also your project and you didn't realize that the the QR code you scanned is actually for XCavator and not Mocking.
Third Red Flag: Holding and have control of the rest of the token “to be sold manually when the market condition is suitable”
Reply- Not all projects release all the tokens together. If it is so then we would like to get the literature or guidelines for the same. Also please understand that our project requires mining farm setup and we cannot procure mining equipments at our will due to the limited supply. As we have said that all the funds from the sale of tokens will be used for setting up mining farms and if the project releases the tokens and sells them at suitable market conditions then the infrastructure will be bigger which will generate more profits and we don’t see any harm in this. Moreover every project have plans to list on multiple exchanges and have to provide token liquidity for it, and so we also will be doing that as our token is not a mineable token and is a fixed supply token which cannot be increased. Our concept and working is at par with any good business policy and as every new project is successful only on the faith of the project community we also are expecting the same. We have disclosed our concept and working clearly to our community.
Yes, not all release the entire supply altogether, but most of those projects you mentioned as your defense will at least has a locking mechanism where the rest of the total supply and the gradual release is done by smart contract, not manually where the entire total supply is being in control of the token owner --which its fate relies completely on the pureness of the dev's heart.
The rest of the other projects, those that have to take the path where they control the tokens in their hand due to specific reason, even took a "smart" route to assure their investors that there will be no foul play by utilizing multisig method. Have you never heard of them, or is it not even crossed your mind? And to claim yourself to be on this field since 2018 and survived the winter...
