[ANN] Whirlwind.money | ⚡No Fee⚡ | Ultimate Privacy | Anonymity Mining 12% APR🔥

[n0nce]

A bit late to the party here, but it has been brought to my attention by PowerGlove, thanks buddy!

I'm really pissed off, and not because I lost money; fortunately, I had grasped that "don't leave coins to third parties" cliché. I'm so pissed off because I've been advertising and recommending this shit for months, in such a way that I'm practically part of this scam. And it's just feels awful.

I totally understand you; personally I do think that we have a lot of responsibility, just like web content creators, who promote products and services with their online presence.

That's why we should be very careful when choosing what to promote. I've been offered lots of different signature and avatar campaigns here in the last 2 years and Whirlwind was one the many campaigns I avoided. Mostly because it was a completely new service with 0 track record, i.e. 0 trust (in my book).

What also slightly tipped me off is that for the price they were paying, there was quite a number of low-quality posters who were not very knowledgeable and / or did not write readable posts.
For me, on one hand that means I simply don't want to be a part of the same campaign, and on the other hand it means that Whirlwind doesn't really care about the quality of posts under which their ads show up. This is quite the red flag if you ask me, especially at such a high pay rate.

My current deal by AgoraDesk - a service that exists for years and is run by the LocalMonero folks - is definitely paying less, but I feel so much more comfortable promoting something I've known for years and used before myself.

Actually, I've basically written this exact same wall of text in a personal message with PowerGlove all the way back in April 14, 2023 - ask him if you don't trust me..

Ya doesn't feel great, but don't blame yourself, because

1- You didn't know it would turn out to be this.
2- You had no way of knowing.
3- You were not a part of the scam, but rather a victim.

I don't fully agree, especially with points 1 and 2. We should always be cautious about new projects in general, and especially so when they start dabbling with extremely high interest rates on deposits. To the best of my knowledge, so far that has always resulted in exit scams.

I mean, by your logic, nobody could have predicted Bitconnect to be a scam?


Anyhow; while I did miss this whole fiasco when it was happening, I actually noticed how suddenly all the Whirlwind banners quietly disappeared.

I hope this will be a lesson to all of us and that people will take more care in sponsorship choice, instead of just looking at the $/post.

[1714299889]

1714299889

[1714299889]

1714299889

[1714299889]

1714299889

[BenCodie]

Is there a chance some really big shit is going on in their lives, and they are incapable of going online? For like... A month? I really can't believe this is an exit scam. The service seemed legitimate.

I'm really pissed off, and not because I lost money; fortunately, I had grasped that "don't leave coins to third parties" cliché. I'm so pissed off because I've been advertising and recommending this shit for months, in such a way that I'm practically part of this scam. And it's just feels awful.

It makes you question the integrity of the service you're currently carrying in your signature.

You have a signature advertising a mixer that uses exchanges to "clean" coins...which is even more centralized than a protocol-based mixer. If you are truly worried about the effect of services going scam, or you wanted to change the result of the future, you wouldn't be advertising for another one. Yet, here you are.

Ya doesn't feel great, but don't blame yourself, because

1- You didn't know it would turn out to be this.
2- You had no way of knowing.
3- You were not a part of the scam, but rather a victim.

I don't fully agree, especially with points 1 and 2. We should always be cautious about new projects in general, and especially so when they start dabbling with extremely high interest rates on deposits. To the best of my knowledge, so far that has always resulted in exit scams.

I mean, by your logic, nobody could have predicted Bitconnect to be a scam?

An obvious ponzi vs. a mixer offering reward for boosting liquidity, which generates returns from its business, is not the same at all.

Though the anonymity mining should have been whirlwinds first red flag and I am very surprised they got away with that, without a question. In fact, that's extremely suspicious.

I haven't been keeping up with the recent news on this... So, we have another bitcoin mixer go out of business? Exit scam?
Has anyone managed to come up with a ballpark figure for the total amount they scammed?

Given the nature of the scam, I think it's a lot of money.

The multisig pool address has 12.7 BTC in it, somewhere around 350k USD, judging by how much they spent on their review campaign, the other campaign, the leftover in escrow, the website, the code, the design, and all that, it makes me doubt that they would settle with just 350k, also, it's almost sure that the 350k sure includes some of their own funds.

So this was a lot of money, time, and effort invested, 100k profit or so won't cut it, my guess is somewhere around the 9th of this month the mixer hit the jackpot, a large deposit came in, and that's what triggered the code/person into executing the exit scam, notice that, the multisig address doesn't necessarily receive all the deposits, you get a different deposit address and what happens next is up to them.

We may find out eventually if a large deposit was made, someone might come here and tell the story, also to anyone that might say "Oh it was obvious, I knew it" I'd call b.s on that, it was a "masterpiece", the guy/guys behind it were pretty intelligent, far more sophisticated than the average "send me your 1 BTC and get 2 BTC tomorrow".

The crypto space is crazy, and even more, reasons to NEVER trust anyone or anything regardless of how legit they look, but 'risk' is a part of the ecosystem, we could only hope this serves as yet another lesson to every one of us.

When I first investigated the hot wallet of Whirlwind, it had about 8 BTC in it.

Minus what was spent on advertising, the profit would have been low.

It's likely that the admin underestimated the volume of mixing and it became unfeasible to run both the mixer and the campaign. It was either exit with the total loot, or stop the campaign, refund anonymity mining, and leave with less than they entered.

The only valid excuse would be that this whole service is run by a single person, and that person is dead, in jail, hospital, or anything that stops him from physically operating the mixer, and that won't be any better than the whole service being a straight-out scam.

There is another hypothesis, which is that the developer of the service has a relationship in one way or another with Tornado Cash. Both services are very similar in terms of name, design, logo and a lot of things. On 10 August 2022, Tornado Cash developer Alexey Pertsev^[1] was arrested.

tornado.cash >> Whirlwind.money >> The same logo >> same UI design

If this is true, then the US Treasury Department has blacklisted the service^[2], and therefore either he was arrested or tried to hide himself, especially since the service did not seem profitable and he did not withdraw $40,000.

If this is the case, it is best to forget about this service (or trying to receive escrow payments) and consider you lost your money.

[1] https://www.fiod.nl/arrest-of-suspected-developer-of-tornado-cash/
[2] https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/recent-actions/20220808

It was a play on Tornado - I thought that was obvious when the service came out.

There is likely to be no connection here. The design style is extremely basic and someone with the knowledge can replicate it with no problem.


Just based on these posts and all the other garbage I'm reading, I'm starting to think there is something bigger and more shocking at play here. I'm not going to be the one to expose it, but if you know what I'm talking about and are involved - may karma rightfully bite your ass in the future.

[n0nce]

I mean, by your logic, nobody could have predicted Bitconnect to be a scam?

An obvious ponzi vs. a mixer offering reward for boosting liquidity, which generates returns from its business, is not the same at all.

At a certain yield, such services are simply not sustainable without being a ponzi, i.e. paying existing customers from new customers' deposits.
All the crypto ponzis so far had some kind of 'excuse' for how they were able to give insanely high returns without risk and without being ponzi schemes. 'Reward for boosting liquidity, which generates returns from its business' sounds to me like it fits right in with those previous 'services'.

[LoyceV]

Though the anonymity mining should have been whirlwinds first red flag and I am very surprised they got away with that, without a question.

If you read back, you'll see there were questions. There were some answers, and it sounded plausible so they got (at least) the benefit of the doubt.

Just based on these posts and all the other garbage I'm reading, I'm starting to think there is something bigger and more shocking at play here.

Do tell

[BlackHatCoiner]

You have a signature advertising a mixer that uses exchanges to "clean" coins...which is even more centralized than a protocol-based mixer.

If we stop advertising products that might turn out to be scams in the future, then there is nothing left to advertise. Everything is potentially a scam. Plus, someone might prefer the comfort and pricing of a mixer over decentralized solutions.

[mikeywith]

I mean, by your logic, nobody could have predicted Bitconnect to be a scam?

I knew Bitconnect was scam, did you know WW was a scam?

You are doing apple vs. orange here, we were not promoting a Ponzi scheme, it was a solid mixer with a smart person running it, we had no way of knowing, everything looked legit.

Furthermore, if anyone was certain WW was about to exit scam, why didn't they warn about it? It was the most active mixer thread, all of you saw it, it is easy to come now and claim that you knew it was going to happen after all said and done.

also, by your words above, you are putting yourself liable for whatever goes wrong with the service you are advertising for, it is up to you if you want to do that, personally, I do not promote obvious scam, i do my best to test and check the service, but I do not guarantee the integrity and reliability of the service, i am not an insurance company.

[n0nce]

I mean, by your logic, nobody could have predicted Bitconnect to be a scam?

I knew Bitconnect was scam, did you know WW was a scam?

I was suspicious due to various reasons, especially with the whole 12% APR stuff. That immediately sounds fishy to me, after experiencing sooo many 'staking platform' ponzis coming and going (exit scamming) over the years.

Furthermore, if anyone was certain WW was about to exit scam, why didn't they warn about it?

Certain? No. Uncomfortable advertising it? Yes. That's why I could not accuse them of anything; that would have been unfair. At the same time, I did not want to risk something like this happening and having my name attached to it.

also, by your words above, you are putting yourself liable for whatever goes wrong with the service you are advertising for, it is up to you if you want to do that, personally, I do not promote obvious scam, i do my best to test and check the service, but I do not guarantee the integrity and reliability of the service, i am not an insurance company.

No guarantees of course; after all we're just forum handles here. But these handles do have some reputation and I do think we put it on the line whenever we endorse something (in writing or implicitly through signatures).

That being said, I don't judge anyone with a different opinion, just throwing mine out there, as that's kind of what we do, right..

[examplens]

Is this really a scam case? It seems that the escrow managed to cover all the unfinalized withdrawals (or maybe I'm wrong). Plus, most of them are actually part of a promotional campaign, not the actual use of the service. At least when this forum is in question.

Furthermore, if anyone was certain WW was about to exit scam, why didn't they warn about it?

Certain? No. Uncomfortable advertising it? Yes. That's why I could not accuse them of anything; that would have been unfair. At the same time, I did not want to risk something like this happening and having my name attached to it.

This reminded me

[LoyceV]

Is this really a scam case?

Even if there are currently no victims, the site still allows deposits while withdrawals don't work.

[stormbounty]

For me I knew it was a scam after they didn't reply my support E-mail for a week. then after I called them out on it they gave the excuse of already replying with a similar scenario to mine deep in the forums.


As someone that runs a business, albeit smaller, I identify that as a scam intention behavior... If you are curious, they never replied the email till today, 2 months later!

I was just given a refund by minerjones.

Thanks Everyone, I hope no one loses money in this.


Special thanks to CRYPTOHF . I hope i got the username right.

[JollyGood]

That is precisely the problem if we can call it that. How much due-diligence can be applied before selecting a product or service to advertise or promote? Some do end up scamming and some do not. I suppose if signature campaign participants investigated and concluded there were no major concerns that they were dealing with scammers that would be the best they could do.

You have a signature advertising a mixer that uses exchanges to "clean" coins...which is even more centralized than a protocol-based mixer.

If we stop advertising products that might turn out to be scams in the future, then there is nothing left to advertise. Everything is potentially a scam. Plus, someone might prefer the comfort and pricing of a mixer over decentralized solutions.

[EustormBit]

That is precisely the problem if we can call it that. How much due-diligence can be applied before selecting a product or service to advertise or promote? Some do end up scamming and some do not. I suppose if signature campaign participants investigated and concluded there were no major concerns that they were dealing with scammers that would be the best they could do.

You have a signature advertising a mixer that uses exchanges to "clean" coins...which is even more centralized than a protocol-based mixer.

If we stop advertising products that might turn out to be scams in the future, then there is nothing left to advertise. Everything is potentially a scam. Plus, someone might prefer the comfort and pricing of a mixer over decentralized solutions.

You my friend is the cheapest person I have ever come accross on the internet. You can sell your conscience and your soul for a pot of porridge

[GazetaBitcoin]

You my friend is the cheapest person I have ever come accross on the internet. You can sell your conscience and your soul for a pot of porridge

Not sure to whom exactly you are referring from the list you quoted, as there are 3 users in that quote. Besides, perhaps you could try to improve your English a little? Your grammar is the grammar of an underclassman.

[mikeywith]

I was suspicious due to various reasons, especially with the whole 12% APR stuff. That immediately sounds fishy to me, after experiencing sooo many 'staking platform' ponzis coming and going (exit scamming) over the years.

So if not for the 12% APR you wouldn't be suspicious? and what are the other various reasons you had? anything that doesn't apply to every single service that is currently running?

I did not want to risk something like this happening and having my name attached to it.

See this is the point of disagreement here, you think your name is attached to the service you advertise as if you are holding yourself responsible for the outcome, I would like to remind you that people lost a lot more funds on CM than they did on WW, according to your logic, all of us who advertised it have our names attached to CM and should take a part of the responsibility?

The end result for both CM and WW is lost funds, people who lost funds couldn't care less how and why it happened.

No guarantees of course; after all we're just forum handles here. But these handles do have some reputation and I do think we put it on the line whenever we endorse something (in writing or implicitly through signatures).

Advertising != endorsement.

That being said, I don't judge anyone with a different opinion, just throwing mine out there, as that's kind of what we do, right..

I don't mind people disagreeing with what I say, in fact, I get that more often than not, but I had three clear points as follows:

1- You didn't know it would turn out to be this.
2- You had no way of knowing.
3- You were not a part of the scam, but rather a victim.

You said exactly this:

I don't fully agree, especially with points 1 and 2

So you are saying that

1- We did know it would turn out to be a scam.
2- We had ways of knowing.

Saying you don't agree with those points means nothing but that, and you went as far as comparing WW to Bitconnect, implying intentionally or unintentionally that every one of us knew for sure it was a scam (just as we knew Bitconnect was) and yet continued to advertise it.

I don't see any difference in your point of view between WW and the very service you advertise right now, You can't guarantee they won't exist scam AND you are not sure they are actually scams. Suspicion, not feeling good about it, don't like the logo, don't like the op, all mean nothing, it's either you are SURE it's scam on which you have to expose it rather than stay silent and show up after the party to say "I knew it" -- or, you are not certain of neither legitimacy nor scam and thus there is no difference between any service you advertise.

[decodx]

Why do people continue to compare ChipMixer to WhirlWind.money? ChipMixer has invested years in building its reputation and trust. And, as far as I'm aware, they didn't scammed anyone. They were seized by the government.

I've used both services. Unlike WhirlWind, I didn't lose a single satoshi on ChipMixer. Now, I don't know who lost or how much on ChipMixer, but when we compare the two services, they operated quite differently. On ChipMixer, everything was more or less automated, and the moment you deposited funds, you had access to the private keys of the pre-funded chips. You could withdraw whenever you wanted. My guess is the people who might have lost out on ChipMixer after the seizure are the ones who decided not to cash out from their chips, for whatever reason. WhirlWind, on the other hand, was built to rely on one individual or a small group. The moment they chose to scam, users couldn't withdraw their coins anymore.

[LoyceV]

Advertising != endorsement.

That's the tricky part: even though I agree, many people don't think that way. Just like they think Merit is an endorsement.

[mikeywith]

Why do people continue to compare ChipMixer to WhirlWind.money?

Because you are reading out of context, I am not discussing CM per se, I was simply implying that if someone thinks that those who participated in WW are remotely responsible for users' loss -- they should think the same in regard to any other service including CM, I used CM as an example since the person I was discussing with was advertising CM.

You may come up with all kinds of differences between the two services, but the end result is the same, a large failure which resulted in lost funds and possibly a lot of data leaked.

So, if advertising for WW was wrong -- then advertising for CM was also wrong, it's also wrong to advertise any other services now since all services without exception could fail or exit scam and thus result in lost funds.

That's the tricky part: even though I agree, many people don't think that way. Just like they think Merit is an endorsement.

I understand that coming from someone who never advertised any service before, but as soon as you start advertising something it automatically puts you on the same boat as everyone else who promotes a service that isn't an obvious scam like Ponzi, so it makes no sense to say "I am better than you because I am advertising this service which I so happen not to guarantee".

I have nothing against n0nce, but the main takeaway of his post was

1- WW was as obvious a scam as Bitconnect.
2- Everyone who participated in WW did it for the $/post despite knowing it was a scam

I respect his decision for not feeling comfortable advertising WW or any other service he doesn't like, but those claims make it seem like every one of us was advertising an obvious scam just for money, maybe he didn't mean it that way, but his post implies exactly that.

[JollyGood]

Regarding the two points you stated, if that is what any member thinks it is their opinion and there will always be a difference of opinion. If there are members who have the principle that Whirlwind was an obvious scam that is there opinion but in my opinion it does not have merit because it was not obvious to most of us.

Also, if there are any members alluding that those who participated in the signature campaign knowingly promoted a scam (for the sake of $125-$150 per week), that too is an opinion they are entitled to. I think that opinion will be shared by a tiny minority.

That's the tricky part: even though I agree, many people don't think that way. Just like they think Merit is an endorsement.

I understand that coming from someone who never advertised any service before, but as soon as you start advertising something it automatically puts you on the same boat as everyone else who promotes a service that isn't an obvious scam like Ponzi, so it makes no sense to say "I am better than you because I am advertising this service which I so happen not to guarantee".

I have nothing against n0nce, but the main takeaway of his post was

1- WW was as obvious a scam as Bitconnect.
2- Everyone who participated in WW did it for the $/post despite knowing it was a scam

I respect his decision for not feeling comfortable advertising WW or any other service he doesn't like, but those claims make it seem like every one of us was advertising an obvious scam just for money, maybe he didn't mean it that way, but his post implies exactly that.

[BenCodie]

You have a signature advertising a mixer that uses exchanges to "clean" coins...which is even more centralized than a protocol-based mixer.

If we stop advertising products that might turn out to be scams in the future, then there is nothing left to advertise. Everything is potentially a scam. Plus, someone might prefer the comfort and pricing of a mixer over decentralized solutions.

That's a bit extreme. More like you'd just get paid less to advertise more legitimate campaigns.

Economics say to me that the rate would reduce, advertising would be more affordable, thus more legitimate businesses would opt to advertise here instead of scams and exploitative/basically-scam casinos like current.

I mean, by your logic, nobody could have predicted Bitconnect to be a scam?

An obvious ponzi vs. a mixer offering reward for boosting liquidity, which generates returns from its business, is not the same at all.

At a certain yield, such services are simply not sustainable without being a ponzi, i.e. paying existing customers from new customers' deposits.
All the crypto ponzis so far had some kind of 'excuse' for how they were able to give insanely high returns without risk and without being ponzi schemes. 'Reward for boosting liquidity, which generates returns from its business' sounds to me like it fits right in with those previous 'services'.

If the business generated more than 12% in earnings per year, then it's not a ponzi. The difference between an obvious ponzi and whirlwind is that the mixer was clearly working, the unknown wasn't if the business was real but rather that no one could known whether or not it was turning a profit after advertising expenses. That's why I didn't speak up when I saw it. I'm sure others didn't speak up also for this reason.

Though the anonymity mining should have been whirlwinds first red flag and I am very surprised they got away with that, without a question.

If you read back, you'll see there were questions. There were some answers, and it sounded plausible so they got (at least) the benefit of the doubt.

Just based on these posts and all the other garbage I'm reading, I'm starting to think there is something bigger and more shocking at play here.

Do tell

There's nothing to tell...and definitely no evidence to tie with the nothing that is to be told. Very much not interested in giving my idea of what's reading between the lines, only to be bashed and for the problem to remain unchanged.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I don't understand why people are so obsessed with the 12% APR. If they had the money to run the most profitable signature campaign, leave $40k as collateral, charged absolutely zero for mixing, and carried a shitload amount of money to begin with as we saw, then it doesn't preclude the possibility that they wanted to attract users via APR.

That's a bit extreme. More like you'd just get paid less to advertise more legitimate campaigns.

I'm yet to understand how is this legitimacy measured. Presenting yourself as the superior custodial mixer, about to introduce blinded bearer certificates, backed by significant collateral, and employing one of the most reliable campaign managers, had successfully and convincingly passed my test of legitimacy.