Investigation of possible 2 cheater accounts: Ezravdb & Jeway

[English Patrol Scuad]

I know that I should post it in this thread: Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk IV (2022 Q2) [MODERATED] - but because I am still doing investigation to find out the truth and accuracy of the evidence based on sentiment here, so I decided to start this thread before posting it in the right place.


2: Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue/Active)

• Ezravdb
• JeWay
  

Proof found:

https://i.imgur.com/GsKddFw.jpg
[Archive]

https://i.imgur.com/E82ax9b.jpg
[Archive]

Related Addresses:

Code:

bc1q7acs7fj8eg396kpzs2fkzg9wpqfgtd52hd74xg - Ezravdb
bc1qs3t5lcnx4qgw0n72ta6thnzwqtwws4468hg835 - JeWay

Explanation:
The two addresses were connected because they were caught sending a number of bitcoin received in one of Hhampuz campaigns (Mason Five), Ezravdb send bitcoin to Jeway.

Proof: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/10b00cde3e1b44870e912bea02f25cd64a21bf3008e43cb693e511fbcd65cb29

Ezravdb & Jeway also cheats another camapaign Hhampuz: [BOUNTY] Monopoly Millionaire MMG | 4 Week $30k Social Media/Sig Bounty! who both join the signature program. On the spreadsheet page, Ezravdb is at number 89 while Jeway is at 74.

https://i.imgur.com/VFEZStb.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/WzewipS.jpg

Spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14RrRRR6Bpx3iWvcv71W5Epypuyu0KL_a-S-IBHLlMBw/edit#gid=1913642730

Ezravdb & Jeway also cheats camapaign Hhampuz: [BOUNTY] Mason Five | A Brief History of Tomorrow | 2 Week Signature/Twitter $3k who both join the signature program. On the spreadsheet page, Ezravdb is at number 34 while Jeway is at 22.

https://i.imgur.com/sVb5hiP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/rSagKc7.jpg

Spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wuivUmF_QRhN7GLlkXMKniWxR25BZBCawEFHqrqh0kM/edit#gid=975084243

Later, Ezravdb & Jeway tried to scam another campaign (Stake.com) by submitting an application. Jeway has already been accepted into the campaign, while Ezravdb seems to have failed.

https://i.imgur.com/besevpC.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/07GCgb1.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/k8XJHUm.jpg https://i.imgur.com/e9GZ9hL.jpg


So, if you and I use this evidence as a compelling reason to tag Ezravdb & Jeway as a cheater, is this an unreasonable error?

Someone may be able to quote my post to show the image. I'm still a newbie so I can't post image. Thanks

[1714734660]

1714734660

[1714734660]

1714734660

[1714734660]

1714734660

[Solosanz]

I know that I should post it in this thread: Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk IV (2022 Q2) [MODERATED] - but because I am still doing investigation to find out the truth and accuracy of the evidence based on sentiment here, so I decided to start this thread before posting it in the right place.


2: Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue/Active)

• Ezravdb
• JeWay
  

Proof found:


[Archive]


[Archive]

Related Addresses:

Code:

bc1q7acs7fj8eg396kpzs2fkzg9wpqfgtd52hd74xg - Ezravdb
bc1qs3t5lcnx4qgw0n72ta6thnzwqtwws4468hg835 - JeWay

Explanation:
The two addresses were connected because they were caught sending a number of bitcoin received in one of Hhampuz campaigns (Mason Five), Ezravdb send bitcoin to Jeway.

Proof: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/10b00cde3e1b44870e912bea02f25cd64a21bf3008e43cb693e511fbcd65cb29

Ezravdb & Jeway also cheats another camapaign Hhampuz: [BOUNTY] Monopoly Millionaire MMG | 4 Week $30k Social Media/Sig Bounty! who both join the signature program. On the spreadsheet page, Ezravdb is at number 89 while Jeway is at 74.




Spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14RrRRR6Bpx3iWvcv71W5Epypuyu0KL_a-S-IBHLlMBw/edit#gid=1913642730

Ezravdb & Jeway also cheats camapaign Hhampuz: [BOUNTY] Mason Five | A Brief History of Tomorrow | 2 Week Signature/Twitter $3k who both join the signature program. On the spreadsheet page, Ezravdb is at number 34 while Jeway is at 22.




Spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wuivUmF_QRhN7GLlkXMKniWxR25BZBCawEFHqrqh0kM/edit#gid=975084243

Later, Ezravdb & Jeway tried to scam another campaign (Stake.com) by submitting an application. Jeway has already been accepted into the campaign, while Ezravdb seems to have failed.








So, if you and I use this evidence as a compelling reason to tag Ezravdb & Jeway as a cheater, is this an unreasonable error?

Someone may be able to quote my post to show the image. I'm still a newbie so I can't post image. Thanks

Quoted for visibility, want to watch the drama first.

[_BlackStar]

OP, the evidence you present is much more complete than the evidence I found, it seems much more convincing that my doubts all along not to say the two accounts are connection are in vain. They send bitcoin from account A's wallet to account B wallet before sending them to the exchange wallet, that's solid evidence at this point. Then they also cheated on some of the same campaign which is a violation of any manager's rules for campaign. I have previously notified Hhampuz about these account connection, I hope now they should be excluded from any campaign he manage and any campaign manager should blacklist these two accounts.

want to watch the drama first.

There shouldn't be any drama as the evidence is pretty clear and I have to tag it as a connection account and cheat many campaign. But if it proves otherwise, I'm also willing to revise that tag ASAP.

[_BlackStar]

Due to the evidence in this thread I tag 2 accounts, but I don't see it effective so far ^{[at least for managers and campaign].} One of the ^[Jeway] users is still in this campaign and he gets paid weekly even though the evidence mentioned in this thread is quite valid. I'd like to invite @Carrollzinha to share his opinion on why those users are still in your campaign even though they were found guilty and broke the rules?

♦️ If you receive negative trust while enrolled we reserve the right to check & kick you out from the campaign with no pay
♦️ Members with more than 1 account in this campaign will be kicked out with no pay

Is it because my DT power is not convincing enough, or whether 1 valid red tag can't really prove anything?

[JeromeTash]

Due to the evidence in this thread I tag 2 accounts, but I don't see it effective so far ^{[at least for managers and campaign].} One of the ^[Jeway] users is still in this campaign and he gets paid weekly even though the evidence mentioned in this thread is quite valid. I'd like to invite @Carrollzinha to share his opinion on why those users are still in your campaign even though they were found guilty and broke the rules?

♦️ If you receive negative trust while enrolled we reserve the right to check & kick you out from the campaign with no pay
♦️ Members with more than 1 account in this campaign will be kicked out with no pay

Is it because my DT power is not convincing enough, or whether 1 valid red tag can't really prove anything?

You did what you had to do... It's up to the signature campaign manager to remove them from the campaign or not. I don't think it has anything to do with your DT "power" or something along those lines.

[Mahdirakib]

I'd like to invite @Carrollzinha to share his opinion on why those users are still in your campaign even though they were found guilty and broke the rules?

♦️ If you receive negative trust while enrolled we reserve the right to check & kick you out from the campaign with no pay
♦️ Members with more than 1 account in this campaign will be kicked out with no pay

Is it because my DT power is not convincing enough, or whether 1 valid red tag can't really prove anything?

Maybe the second rules is limited to the use of alts in the Stake campaign only. User ‘Jeway’ have two negative feedback on his account now. Based on the first rules, Jeway should be removed from the campaign. I have asked the campaign manager about it, and she said this



Anyway, current week of Stake signature campaign will end today. I think Carrollzinha is going to take some actions today when this week will end. Perhaps, she is going to follow the first rule.

[_BlackStar]

You did what you had to do... It's up to the signature campaign manager to remove them from the campaign or not. I don't think it has anything to do with your DT "power" or something along those lines.

Yes, as you said should have nothing to do with my DT power. Managers have the right to decide anything, but when they make written rules, it can be a bit unprofessional if they break them, unless they remove them from the rules.

Maybe the second rules is limited to the use of alts in the Stake campaign only.

How not, even though only one account is accepted and is in the campaign, this user wants to cheat the campaign by registering with two accounts. Don't you think it's cheating?

I've also notified the manager about the tags I gave to both accounts, now I'm waiting to see what the manager will do for them or at least one of the accounts still in the campaign. If managers don't want to hire spammers or users who break the rules, then they shouldn't hire cheaters either.

[Little Mouse]

Due to the evidence in this thread I tag 2 accounts, but I don't see it effective so far ^{[at least for managers and campaign].} One of the ^[Jeway] users is still in this campaign and he gets paid weekly even though the evidence mentioned in this thread is quite valid.


Is it because my DT power is not convincing enough, or whether 1 valid red tag can't really prove anything?

Come on, mate. If someone doesn't have any problem attaching their brand to a neg tagged user, that's their choice. You have done your job by tagging the accounts. Did you tag them because you want them to be kicked out from the campaign? I'm pretty much sure your motive was to expose them as alt only. You feedback is still valid to expose them as alt. You don't need to be worried anymore I think.

[Mahdirakib]

How not, even though only one account is accepted and is in the campaign, this user wants to cheat the campaign by registering with two accounts. Don't you think it's cheating?

He made the attempt of cheating in Stake campaign, but he failed to do it as the campaign manager didn't accept his alt account ‘Ezravdb’. However, he has made the abuse in other campaign in the past. In that case, JeWay really deserve to be kicked out from the campaign. JeWay was only active in the Gambling Discussion board since last month, and he hasn't shown any contribution to the forum. Moreover, he is using his alts account to take the benefits from the signature campaign here. I just left negative feedback to his accounts.

~snip~

The user tried to break the rules of the campaign. JeWay/Ezravdb has abused in some other campaign before. It will encourage other abusers to do the same thing if the campaign manager doesn't take any action against him.

[FatFork]

How not, even though only one account is accepted and is in the campaign, this user wants to cheat the campaign by registering with two accounts. Don't you think it's cheating?

I've also notified the manager about the tags I gave to both accounts, now I'm waiting to see what the manager will do for them or at least one of the accounts still in the campaign. If managers don't want to hire spammers or users who break the rules, then they shouldn't hire cheaters either.

Yes, according to your evidence, he participated in bounty campaigns with multiple accounts, and that is definitely cheating. The important thing is that the cheater is detected and that the bounty manager is aware of the facts. Now it is up to the bounty manager whether he wants to keep such members in his campaign or not.

Many bounty managers decide on each participant on an individual basis, regardless of negative tags. And that's okay. Because sometimes trust scores, even from DT members, can be unfounded or unfair, so it is better for each manager to decide what works best for his campaign.

BTW, since the suspected members did not comment or try to explain their side of the story, I left a few negatives on their accounts as well.

[JeromeTash]

Yes, as you said should have nothing to do with my DT power. Managers have the right to decide anything, but when they make written rules, it can be a bit unprofessional if they break them, unless they remove them from the rules.

I understand your point too, but let's leave that for the Campaign manager to decide since they are the ones spending the money on the campaign. Pushing too hard for it may lead to unwanted drama.

♦️ If you receive negative trust while enrolled we reserve the right to check & kick you out from the campaign with no pay

There's nothing that suggests that as soon as someone receives negative feedback, they will be kicked out of the campaign ASAP.

I have seen a couple of managers (not 1xbit) accept certain users with negative rep.

[_BlackStar]

Come on, mate. If someone doesn't have any problem attaching their brand to a neg tagged user, that's their choice.

Nice, you're right. But let's take a look at one of the suggestions on signature guidelines, it would be great for every manager to consider. So we don't have to worry too much about that because the campaign manager also has a perspective on why participants are accepted or not on a case by case basis. But if the tag was clearly caused by cheats in some of the previous campaigns, then accepting it in the campaign is a bad idea.

• Consider not accepting users with negative feedback. It never looks good when users have negative feedback and 99% of the time the feedback is there for a good reason, but if you want to take this on a case by case basis then that's down to you.

Did you tag them because you want them to be kicked out from the campaign?

Nope, it's a bad idea and I've never thought of anything like that.

I'm pretty much sure your motive was to expose them as alt only. You feedback is still valid to expose them as alt. You don't need to be worried anymore I think.

You're right, the motive is to find more cheater and tell managers that they shouldn't work with cheater. My question is only because there are rules stating prohibition, otherwise what's the point of rules?

50 merit, for what? 

I have seen a couple of managers (not 1xbit) accept certain users with negative rep.

Remember, it is at their discretion on a case by case basis. But back to the best advice, don't give cheater a chance to promote your campaign as they might as well scam you. So I'm done here.

[FatFork]

50 merit, for what? 

The 50 merit for that post is probably his way of venting frustrations after being kicked out of Stake campaign.
It is unlikely that we'll see these accounts used on the forum anymore.

[Pandu Geddon]

if traced from the blockchain transactions of the two accounts. both accounts may be part of a fairly high-ranking farm account.

I'm still not sure about the blockchain transaction proof I got. but maybe this could be another clue for another investigation from @JeWay account.

transactions that occur are seen with almost the same pattern and time. all of them send using the new wallet before sending them to the main wallet.
account wallet => new wallet => main wallet

Proof: https://bscscan.com/address/0x2df9a2f3298d505fa87678c8bc9016acd7a55f41

account	|	address	|	new address	|
cvasy	|	0x09095C90861D28a67B737c82e07652fBA42083ec	|	0x1381498C0d0A47192EeD50169561bfd3eb99C7fc	|
Ten98	|	0xDcEf5FeD5a341c4bf80489577806E39Aa80fDca6	|	0xf9914603EDdB08D4D938BcAE24b19dF17013dFD9	|
davincicode666	|	0x388c8907A6287FB46924Ecb756Aa05d71ab2AB3E	|	0xc8CD5f01d45d15C92fC0F1F92468a29588c2d628	|
adiebitsler	|	0x27c0431D33eaceC7C1224B4Ed79cFda5Cf73f895	|	0xD5F6531b72cDa6e9148d30ECCCE23e8C9AC3786B	|
Ezravdb	|	0x0b4300a8f1aFfad5459688edE59fDD3731f8E4aa	|	0xCDafC1537094724C67a0521293538356a7a81974	|
domoy77	|	0xd08aC3B2Cc3f414Bb995C72176663E1D9E47A041	|	0x84ff4F9349bB0BA1B393468e30A5Ff175c010DC5	|
BlackBaron	|	0x7c789F514F2bf007eB810318DEEEb859B3394658	|	0x8258B12419DaFf46c708f0652371f5339855610a	|
JeWay	|	0x07B5D66C93F33249EB87c9031A563032681e36cB	|	0x08c66fA34656099cfB762265fEc6Be855d97e7b6	|

there are more, some accounts with full member and Senior Member rankings.

Triangular transactions such as these may not be strong evidence of a farm account connection. but looking at the transaction times and transaction patterns which are almost the same, I assume everything is indeed connected.

I'm trying to find other evidence, but nothing for now. but for the linkage, these accounts join in the same bounty campaign. I'm sure there is.

[_BlackStar]

-snip-
I'm trying to find other evidence, but nothing for now. but for the linkage, these accounts join in the same bounty campaign. I'm sure there is.

And it looks like we're going to do another big cleanup now that you've discovered this oddity. I will do a thorough check of all the addresses in the above transaction, for sure we will get more accounts connected now. Thank you for telling, Will update the list soon.

[Mahdirakib]

50 merit, for what?  

The 50 merit for that post is probably his way of venting frustrations after being kicked out of Stake campaign.
It is unlikely that we'll see these accounts used on the forum anymore.

Maybe JeWay dumped 50 merits on ‘Little Mouse’ post as he is the only one who hasn't left negative feedback on JeWay's account . Anyway, he (JeWay) was aware of this thread. But he never tried to defend himself. Carrollzinha has removed him from the signature campaign, we have lost one spammer from gambling discussion board .

-snip-
I'm trying to find other evidence, but nothing for now. but for the linkage, these accounts join in the same bounty campaign. I'm sure there is.

And it looks like we're going to do another big cleanup now that you've discovered this oddity. I will do a thorough check of all the addresses in the above transaction, for sure we will get more accounts connected now. Thank you for telling, Will update the list soon.

The above evidence won't be enough to connect those accounts with each other. Perhaps, the user has used ‘new address’ as a middleman so that no one can link those accounts directly. I hope you guys will find some direct evidence of those accounts connection. I appreciate your efforts.

[_BlackStar]

The above evidence won't be enough to connect those accounts with each other. Perhaps, the user has used ‘new address’ as a middleman so that no one can link those accounts directly. I hope you guys will find some direct evidence of those accounts connection. I appreciate your efforts.

Why do you think so, did you try to do more research from the above transactions? Now let's see what I found based on the available evidence here: https://bscscan.com/address/0x2df9a2f3298d505fa87678c8bc9016acd7a55f41

16 accounts connected: account wallet in bounty => new wallet => main wallet

Strategy: Join the same campaign, get paid, sell it to the exchange, and accumulate all BNB to the main wallet.

Code:

Main wallet: 0x2df9a2f3298d505fa87678c8bc9016acd7a55f41

Code:

cvasy
Ten98
davincicode666
adiebitsler
Ezravdb
domoy77
BlackBaron
JeWay
marcous
Surrapatt
2tang
fadil46
imamusma
whiteblue
alisonwonder
arifteguhr

1. cvasy

Code:

- 0x09095C90861D28a67B737c82e07652fBA42083ec
- 0x1381498C0d0A47192EeD50169561bfd3eb99C7fc

2. Ten98

Code:

- 0xDcEf5FeD5a341c4bf80489577806E39Aa80fDca6
- 0xf9914603EDdB08D4D938BcAE24b19dF17013dFD9

3. davincicode666

Code:

- 0x388c8907A6287FB46924Ecb756Aa05d71ab2AB3E
- 0xc8CD5f01d45d15C92fC0F1F92468a29588c2d628

4. adiebitsler

Code:

- 0x27c0431D33eaceC7C1224B4Ed79cFda5Cf73f895
- 0xD5F6531b72cDa6e9148d30ECCCE23e8C9AC3786B

5. Ezravdb

Code:

- 0x0b4300a8f1aFfad5459688edE59fDD3731f8E4aa
- 0xCDafC1537094724C67a0521293538356a7a81974

6. domoy77

Code:

- 0xd08aC3B2Cc3f414Bb995C72176663E1D9E47A041
- 0x84ff4F9349bB0BA1B393468e30A5Ff175c010DC5

7. BlackBaron

Code:

- 0x7c789F514F2bf007eB810318DEEEb859B3394658
- 0x8258B12419DaFf46c708f0652371f5339855610a

8. JeWay

Code:

- 0x07B5D66C93F33249EB87c9031A563032681e36cB
- 0x08c66fA34656099cfB762265fEc6Be855d97e7b6

9. marcous

Code:

- 0x6E62AD4f245f69315A66ffD620dc0Ac1d8dE948d
- 0x83C13d08971286Fb9bF07f04056F57821e56f7C4
- 0x0b38cF288fCAB87684007EaB2594F29C85ADC325

10. Surrapatt

Code:

- 0xD699A9144078Df8B93Faff615965626166Bc7617
- 0x09095C90861D28a67B737c82e07652fBA42083ec

11. 2tang

Code:

- 0xC86a5d29d2Ff6724A4F9484a99918E2eFF6d0a93
- 0x126aD933de593c7e5C1238E4971bbf43714Bfc2d

12. fadil46

Code:

- 0x8bfFF3831d356444a434823cf6026FC50c4b1faD
- 0x5a499f5b444910aD8E9AD7459255992CF4fE4Df5

13. imamusma

Code:

- 0xCe2b095Ad4499f3751d54e0C7C363300Db4A8ac3
- 0x6e2Af536D77055fD45CDB72D03C3835c7691fBc7

14. whiteblue

Code:

- 0xF2847891CC55c9a158EA63270ceba1611AF6d9c1
- 0xF683421B3cd7e44b1205a5ca0c1A832B61343E8A

15. alisonwonder

Code:

- 0x277D24300684CAE24dC410eFeBd13eC3b835C503
- 0xff22c629a00A6cF91A361fe6d0fDB6d3F4F2F3E4

16. arifteguhr

Code:

- 0x2211f17Ca8c70990DB9f430Fc2687a6CF3B895f4
- 0x054d2B0E88E82E438606a7cAD6096B50AD7D1655

I really believe that all the accounts I got based on the evidence above are linked to each other and join the same campaign ^{[quite a lot of campaigns].} This is the big of farmers accounts, so I think they all deserve a negative tag now.

[Igebotz]

I really believe that all the accounts I got based on the evidence above are linked to each other and join the same campaign ^{[quite a lot of campaigns].} This is the big of farmers accounts, so I think they all deserve a negative tag now.

Will you decide the fate of 16 accounts for a transactions outside of the forum? Do you know that some bounty hunters buy from other bounty hunters after distribution? Are you also aware that some bounty managers also buy shitcoins from hunters? All of this occurs outside of the forum. Not saying same thing happened here but this COULD be the case in the accounts below, I believe that painting red is overkill! I expected to see a bunch of newbies farming, but this is different. You might also want to slowdown buddy, you've been painting a lot lately.

I will investigate this case further and provide feedback if I discover anything new.

[BITCOIN4X]

_BlackStar, I don't know how you linked all of the above accounts as cheates and stabbed every single one of their ass with a red pen, that's something awful to see in my opinion. Some of the accounts are from the local Indonesian community and this is really sad for me to watch.

I'm not against how you expose cheaters accounts, but tagging the 16 accounts above still requires clear evidence to avoid being off-target. Maybe you need to consider some reasons before tag them all because as one of the local Indonesian community, I am very sad to know that some of the above accounts are red tagged if it is not proven to be true. Give them a chance to explain the problem, so there's at least a pause before you stab ass all of them. This is my friendly request to you, while I appreciate your forum contribution. Thank you.

[Timelord2067]

_BlackStar, I don't know how you linked all of the above accounts as cheates and stabbed every single one of their ass with a red pen, that's something awful to see in my opinion.

Funny how English Patrol Scuad started the thread but it's _BlackStar who is asking all the questions...  

[rozak]

I really believe that all the accounts I got based on the evidence above are linked to each other and join the same campaign ^{[quite a lot of campaigns].} This is the big of farmers accounts, so I think they all deserve a negative tag now.

the red tag you provided seems overkill. all accounts do have the same transaction pattern. but that doesn't provide solid evidence for the red tag you provided.
I know the tags you provide are private from your own research. but in my view a neutral tag indicating the possibility the account is part of a farm would make more sense. as @igehhh said, there is another possibility for a transaction to occur.

after that, everyone can look for other evidence to substantiate the blockchain transactions that have been published. such as the use of social media or the same address.

[Carollzinha]

I'd like to invite @Carrollzinha to share his opinion on why those users are still in your campaign even though they were found guilty and broke the rules?

♦️ If you receive negative trust while enrolled we reserve the right to check & kick you out from the campaign with no pay
♦️ Members with more than 1 account in this campaign will be kicked out with no pay

Is it because my DT power is not convincing enough, or whether 1 valid red tag can't really prove anything?

Maybe the second rules is limited to the use of alts in the Stake campaign only. User ‘Jeway’ have two negative feedback on his account now. Based on the first rules, Jeway should be removed from the campaign. I have asked the campaign manager about it, and she said this



Anyway, current week of Stake signature campaign will end today. I think Carrollzinha is going to take some actions today when this week will end. Perhaps, she is going to follow the first rule.

Just as it was said in that image, his first negative trust was kinda irrelevant as he had no other account in the campaign but at the moment he received that second negative trust, while he was inside of it, then he surely could not be kept.
As I previously mentioned in a few forum threads, we have someone only taking care of these cases (negative trust & edited posts) since we have had recently 2 guys breaking these rules inside the campaign so we were aware of that -2 of JeWay still on Sunday, which made things easier for us not to be paying him for one more week. Also I can't deny that Mahdirakib's message on Telegram got me surprised as I had no idea how big this issue could become.

Also, one more time, I want to thank you guys for still being around & helping us to keep not only our campaigns but specially the forum clean of such things.


And last but not least, my name is "Carollzinha", not "Carrollzinha" and I am "her", not "him" 

[_BlackStar]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

I understand your concern about this possibility, but realize it or not there are some very basic differences that you can use as the reason why I say the 16 accounts above are cheaters not collectors. Here's the logic.



Explanation:

Bounty cheaters: After the cheaters get paid from the bounty, most of them will sell to the exchange for fear of losing the price. To erase the traces of transactions, they try to move all those tokens or coins to a new wallet before selling them on an exchange. For some scammers who know how to get rid of the trail, they might convert all the token proceeds sold to another altcoin before they accumulate it to the main wallet. But in this case, all the cheaters don't convert BNB to other altcoins and they just sell and accumulate it to the main wallet and this keeps traces of the transactions discoverable.

Collector: They buy from bounty hunters, and any tokens or coins they buy will not be immediately sold to the exchange because usually they will wait for a higher price. All of these tokens or coins are more likely to be in one wallet ^{[temporary wallet]} before waiting for the price to worth it. They will sell to the exchange in a single transaction, not every time they buy from a bounty hunter. The reason collectors buy tokens or coins from bounty hunters is to hold them for a certain period of time and they want to maximize the potential of altcoins, not sell them immediately after they buy.

After all, the reason you are worried has actually become a common reason for every cheater who is caught accumulating their assets to the main wallet, especially because they are caught bounty cheats with multiple accounts. Marking the above 16 accounts obviously for one reason, they are bounty hunters who cheat by joining multiple accounts on the same bounty.

You can also do further research on the 16 accounts above. But I'll bet that you won't find social media connections between accounts and wallet connections between accounts because they are experienced enough people to avoid mistakes. But unfortunately, they forget that accumulating assets to the main wallet without converting them into other altcoins can be accurate evidence to get them tagged as cheaters.

Maybe I can still make the mistake of marking the above 16 accounts as cheaters, and if that's true then I'm still willing to remove or revise the tag. But unfortunately not many people like to look for cheaters from high ranking accounts but it seems they are very good at getting cheater accounts from newbie who just abuse social media campaigns for a few cents.

Funny how English Patrol Scuad started the thread but it's _BlackStar who is asking all the questions... 

As you can see in the thread, not many people are willing to do their research and get solid evidence about the first two accounts until I actually flag them, but about newbies a lot of people do the opposite. After all, we can't just sharp to down, right? This is free work, so anyway this is part of the contribution too.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

stabbed every single one of their ass with a red pen
<snip>
Give them a chance to explain the problem, so there's at least a pause before you stab ass all of them.

LOL.  Honestly, I'm not even understanding the blockchain connection evidence between the two accounts as presented in the OP.  It doesn't look as though those two accounts were using the same address to receive payments, right?  That's what usually is used to link accounts together (or something similar).

But we all know account farms exist, and it does look mighty suspicious to me that these two accounts seem to be following each other around.  I know bounty hunters tend to apply to numerous bounties, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are indeed alts.

Funny how English Patrol Scuad started the thread but it's _BlackStar who is asking all the questions... 

That is odd, is it not?