Failed to submit review and also did not refund the payment.

[Gladitorcomeback]

Flag supported and feeling regret for jamyr that despite of knowing the result he nor reviewed and not returned back fund. I don't know what really happened with this user because he lost his account reputation and participation in any future review, signature compaign for just 90$.


On 6 April this user reviewed Utopia Ecosystem successfully and from his review its clear that he know how to review any project. Interesting fact here is that utopia review reward is only 20$ for seniors member and payment is also made after review. in last 3 months he posted only 14 posts and not applied for any signature that mean this user was no more interested in being active on this forum and unfortunately he leave this forum in very bad style by scamming Honest manager.

[1715228979]

1715228979

[1715228979]

1715228979

[1715228979]

1715228979

[1715228979]

1715228979

[1715228979]

1715228979

[NotATether]

I guess he tried (successfully) to pull off an exit scam.

I don't remember whether you had a minimum merit/120 days requirement for this review, but perhaps you might need an active account requirement as well, after this.

[Little Mouse]

I don't remember whether you had a minimum merit/120 days requirement for this review, but perhaps you might need an active account requirement as well, after this.

There was no 120 days merit requirement but a lifetime 50 earned merits + Full Member minimum rank.

[NotATether]

I don't remember whether you had a minimum merit/120 days requirement for this review, but perhaps you might need an active account requirement as well, after this.

There was no 120 days merit requirement but a lifetime 50 earned merits + Full Member minimum rank.

See, that's the mistake. Assuming malicious applicants, what is there from stopping old, dormant accounts from before the merit system coming in and making applications?

Or people who've earned their 50 merit a year ago and hardly get a merit in 6 months?

These are exactly the kind of things that 120 day merit requirements stop, because it can identify the active, constructive user from the inactive user and also the spammers/bounty hunters/etc.

[JeromeTash]

Cheap fraudster. He thinks 0.003 BTC is worth more than his reputation?  Flag supported!

not sure which part of the Philippines he is from but it's possible that jamyr was affected by the recent typhoon here in the Philippines, that being said, refunding the money after failing to submit the review even after asking to extend the deadline would have been the right move. sorry you had to deal with this Royse777, Flag supported.

I don't know which country he is from, but Examplens was in a close to similar situation and all he did was to inform Royse777, and he was granted a new deadline.

After several deadlines, jamyr had a chance to even refund, which he didn't.

[acroman08]

not sure which part of the Philippines he is from but it's possible that jamyr was affected by the recent typhoon here in the Philippines, that being said, refunding the money after failing to submit the review even after asking to extend the deadline would have been the right move. sorry you had to deal with this Royse777, Flag supported.

I don't know which country he is from, but Examplens was in a close to similar situation and all he did was to inform Royse777, and he was granted a new deadline.

After several deadlines, jamyr had a chance to even refund, which he didn't.

Based on the information on his profile and his post history, he is from the Philippines but not sure which part. yeah, I agree that he could have informed Royse777 about his situation if he was affected by the recent typhoon that hit the Philippines or he could have just refunded the money after failing to submit his review instead of scamming.

[Eternad]

Based on the information on his profile and his post history, he is from the Philippines but not sure which part. yeah, I agree that he could have informed Royse777 about his situation if he was affected by the recent typhoon that hit the Philippines or he could have just refunded the money after failing to submit his review instead of scamming.

I remember seeing him on our local section since he was very active before when he still enrolled on signature campaign. He is also actively promoting Bitsler on our local board and casually bump the Bitsler official ann thread even though he is not officially part of the team.

If I’m not mistaken, He was once involved on commotion before with Icopress on one of the review campaign he was involved. He is asking the payment immediately afte he post his review. He was showing some sign that he might gonna run at some point but I never thought that he will throw his account for a mere 90$ while he can earn this easily on signature campaign.

[ScamViruS]

I wonder how he made the decision, he ruined his account reputation just for $90. I'm surprised he participated in the review campaign but didn't make that much effort to submit a review. This user may have intended to get such an amount and go offline with it, even if he has an active loan. But adding the review campaign fund and loan amount would not be such a big amount that he would scam it, but in fact he did it. I won't be surprised if he has more alt accounts.

Flag supported and Tagged.

[Nwada001]

I have also supported the flag. What I see is that payment was made upfront. I don't know if this is usual or what because I have never participated in review but I suppose that if the payment was made after submitting a satisfactory review instead of upfront, this wouldn't have happened. However, I understand that maybe the payment was made this way for simplicity and convenience.

I believe one of the reasons why the campaign manager and the project team paid upfront for the review was because the review itself will require participants to spend a few dollars in order to successfully try out all the features of the project.

The project had good intentions so that participants wouldn't complain about not having funds to pay for the review service. It's just so sad that someone out there decided to use that to their own advantage by scamming the $90.

[PX-Z]

What I see is that payment was made upfront. I don't know if this is usual or what because I have never participated in review but I suppose that if the payment was made after submitting a satisfactory review instead of upfront, this wouldn't have happened. However, I understand that maybe the payment was made this way for simplicity and convenience.

....

The project had good intentions so that participants wouldn't complain about not having funds to pay for the review service. It's just so sad that someone out there decided to use that to their own advantage by scamming the $90.

Paying upfront a way to encourage the quality poster users to participate with a risk since getting tagged and refunding the payment is mentioned on the rules if failed to review and/or if the review is not accepted by the manager. Reading such rules will filter already those who are capable of doing it, plus the experience if the manager to picked its participants. But unfortunately, things happens and was never come back online to explain his side if he really got problems irl including internet connections. But until then, these negative tags and flag will serve its purpose.

[virasog]

not sure which part of the Philippines he is from but it's possible that jamyr was affected by the recent typhoon here in the Philippines, that being said, refunding the money after failing to submit the review even after asking to extend the deadline would have been the right move. sorry you had to deal with this Royse777, Flag supported.

Some mishaps do happen in life but he could have let Royse777 know the situation and I am sure he would have come up with another extension or anything. 90$ is not that big amount and one should not ruin his reputation because of it.

I have also supported the flag. What I see is that payment was made upfront. I don't know if this is usual or what because I have never participated in review but I suppose that if the payment was made after submitting a satisfactory review instead of upfront, this wouldn't have happened. However, I understand that maybe the payment was made this way for simplicity and convenience.

This is only one off incident among so many other applicants. All of them were paid upfront and they did the job. If you are honest with your work, it does not matter if you get the payment upfront or after the work.

I guess he tried (successfully) to pull off an exit scam.

Exit scam    
A Senior Member account is not worth of mere 90$. This is suicide and not an exit scam.

[Learn Bitcoin]

I was just wondering why would a Sr. Member will scam a 90-100$ amount  

Some people has nothing to do with their ranks, as their main target is to get some money. No matter how. His 250 merits were air-dropped, and the other 100+ merits he earned in the last couple of years. When you see people not in a signature campaign and unable to earn ten merits in the last 120 days, they are unlikely to get hired by any campaign managers.

So if they didn't get any chance in any campaign, there is no money, and the account has no value. It's not safe to sell accounts as well. So, assume he destroyed his account for that $90. At least he was able to get some money. Sorry for your loss Royse777

[knowngunman]

I believe one of the reasons why the campaign manager and the project team paid upfront for the review was because the review itself will require participants to spend a few dollars in order to successfully try out all the features of the project.

The project had good intentions so that participants wouldn't complain about not having funds to pay for the review service. It's just so sad that someone out there decided to use that to their own advantage by scamming the $90.

Actually my first time seeing a company (project in this case) paying participants before the service. I applaud Royse777 for having the courage to undertake this innovation despite knowing that things like this are bound to happen. I presumed it immediately I saw the thread but I wasn't expecting participants to abscond with the payment but was expecting shitty review that will not get approval. It's greediness that made some of them to apply even knowing that they can not perform the tax efficiently. There was a report of copy and paraphrasing in that same review thread too.

The project want to make impression in the forum in my opinion. If it's the complaint of not having fund to carry out the review, I think a part payment would have been better and besides they are people who are ready to use their funds for the review pending payment and those who don't have fund should stay off. It's unfortunate losing senior member because of $90.

[Smartvirus]

I don't remember whether you had a minimum merit/120 days requirement for this review, but perhaps you might need an active account requirement as well, after this.

There was no 120 days merit requirement but a lifetime 50 earned merits + Full Member minimum rank.

See, that's the mistake. Assuming malicious applicants, what is there from stopping old, dormant accounts from before the merit system coming in and making applications?

Or people who've earned their 50 merit a year ago and hardly get a merit in 6 months?

These are exactly the kind of things that 120 day merit requirements stop, because it can identify the active, constructive user from the inactive user and also the spammers/bounty hunters/etc.

I think that wasn’t a consideration here and shouldn’t really be with the review being just a one time thing and merit requirement is not always an absolute judge.
Still, it was a duty Jamyr old his contractor to deliver or refund. At least the user had been active within the period of assigning the contract and had been on/off before that, perhaps few days or a week interval in between posts. It would have been much easer to read the detail contained in the OP carefully and take notes to when you could deliver on contract as the manager would have been open to accepting or giving directives on request.

It’s just becoming clear now that something has been going on with the account, following the series of password changes via email and secrete questions also, the not so activeness of the account but hey, his getting the other side of the bargain and it’s fine to say it’s okay.

[Fiatless]

I believe one of the reasons why the campaign manager and the project team paid upfront for the review was because the review itself will require participants to spend a few dollars in order to successfully try out all the features of the project.

The project had good intentions so that participants wouldn't complain about not having funds to pay for the review service. It's just so sad that someone out there decided to use that to their own advantage by scamming the $90.

Except the member in question has another reason for running away with $90, I never thought a senior member's account will compromise his account because of that sum. The time, input, and cost of data used to build this account are far more than the sum. And I believe this will be the assumption of the manager. He never thought a member with such rank will not honor the contract. I don't blame the campaign manager at all because what he did was to motivate participants to put in their best in the review. His action can discourage managers from paying upfront for a project. But I am glad that it is just one member that had this bad record, which means we have more trustworthy members in the forum.

[coin-investor]

Exit scam    
A Senior Member account is not worth of mere 90$. This is suicide and not an exit scam.

It's an exit scam for me, even if it's $50 or lower if the account is useless and he cannot get into a campaign that pays Bitcoin because he cannot keep up the competition among members who are vying to get into the campaign, he's just waiting for something like this to scam, he has a bad reputation of defaulting a loan and paying it several months later I don't think he can get all these feedback even if he comes back to pay the loan unless he has a strong reason or alibi.

[Nwada001]

Except the member in question has another reason for running away with $90, I never thought a senior member's account will compromise his account because of that sum. The time, input, and cost of data used to build this account are far more than the sum. And I believe this will be the assumption of the manager. He never thought a member with such rank will not honor the contract. I don't blame the campaign manager at all because what he did was to motivate participants to put in their best in the review. His action can discourage managers from paying upfront for a project. But I am glad that it is just one member that had this bad record, which means we have more trustworthy members in the forum.

This is just the thing about people and greed; the manager and the project team have done their part by trying to use a few criteria in judging who is qualified to be in the campaign and who is not, but it is obvious, just like you and other members have said, that the user will definitely have other accounts or the account might not be operated by the real owner, if not with such rank and the little reputation the account might have. $90 is very, very small to stockpile the account like that.

But I just hope the member is in some kind of contract that makes him very busy to the extent of forgetting this one, or their country, or whatever area that he might appear to be in is having some internet down time. I just hope the user can come out some day and refund the $90. Maybe the Manager will consider forgiving and all the negative tags will be changed to neutral or removed.

[Sim_card]

I have also supported the flag. What I see is that payment was made upfront. I don't know if this is usual or what because I have never participated in review but I suppose that if the payment was made after submitting a satisfactory review instead of upfront, this wouldn't have happened. However, I understand that maybe the payment was made this way for simplicity and convenience.

@Rose777 did the upfront payment for the review so that every member that is to partake in it will be motivated and have the  some funds to test the wallet and to also subscribe for the plan,so that there will be no excuse of lack of funds for testing because some users exhaust their weekly pay that same day that they receive it, but Jamyr has taken advantage of this by not giving OP a proper reason why he can't meet up with the review or he should have better still send back the funds to play safe.

[Woodie]

This is what happens when we don't read rules and jump to applying for a campaign all because of the rewards,  but either way for a high ranking member unacceptable course of action!

And the worst part about all this is the extra options given to complete the task or refund the bitcoins to avoid all this, and non have been met, flag supported 😐

[virasog]

I thought he might not be active on the forum recently but then I saw he was last active on August 05. He should have returned this amount if he could not review it or maybe he did not understand the Mixin safe project but whatever was the reason he should have been in communication with the manager.

To be honest, I had the slightest of hope, very little indeed, that he is offline on the forum and when he comes back he may either apologize, ask for an extension to submit the review or maybe submit the review as soon as he is online.

However, to my disappointment, nothing of this happened. I checked and he was online on August 16.



He did not even care to reply whatsoever on the situation. Perhaps he already knew the outcome and he had made up his mind that he will ruin his account for 90$.