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

[Igebotz]

I think it's best not to be too harsh on him now that he's shown up here and says he's committed to repaying what he owes.

Yes you are right that what he has done is not logical, but sometimes we humans get carried away by emotions knowing that what we are doing is not right, like the problem gambler who knows what he is doing is wrong but continues to gamble and lose.

I supported the flag btw, that doesn't change.

Anyone in his shoes could easily do what he did, but what he wrote up there has no substance. He clearly stated that he can't pay right now, it could be months, it could be years, it could be forever, and he hasn't shown any reasons why anyone shouldn't support the flag or why the company or Royse should hold back on his words. I expected him to show up with sufficient grounds and plans to resolve the situation, but he did the opposite.

It takes 35-45 mins to test and give a review- he's lazy and has no excuse. Flag supported.

[1715555480]

1715555480

[1715555480]

1715555480

[1715555480]

1715555480

[acroman08]

Sorry if this sounds too harsh and unreasonable to you , 0.003 btc is currently worth about $78, this is money you could earn ,and even more, every week if you join or joined a signature campaign, even if you are were not in a signature campaign at the time this happens , it is really stupid to allow your reputation, and a senior ranked account to be destroyed for what excuse exactly?, And for just a mere $78, it is just insane to be honest , or maybe you have other alt accounts and losing this one is not a problem for you , but then again , you messed up big , I hope you still refund the money regardless of the feedbacks , at least , to prove indeed that you have the intention to refund it in the first place .

What complicates things even more, Jamyr will no longer be able to participate in campaigns due to negative feedback. Therefore, returning bitcoins will be very difficult, even if it is a small sum of $78. I personally do not believe that he will return to the forum, at least not under this account. He lost all motivation to do so.

What makes it a lot more difficult than it already is, is that $78 is almost 1/4(sometimes even more than 1/4) of the total average monthly salary here in the Philippines.

Hello.

First, Id like to apologize to Royse and mixinsafe ,
I have my excuses but Royse was generous enough to have given me extension(s) so no excuse will make any difference.

As I have told Royse over tg, I have all the intention to refund the 300k sats. I just cant right now.
Thanks to those who contacted me btw about this, sorry to disappoint.You know who you are.


Apologies again Royse.

I am not surprised that others are doubting you(including me) but Good luck, I hope you can pay back the 3mbtc as soon as possible even if it is just little by little.

[Ultegra134]

Sorry if this sounds too harsh and unreasonable to you , 0.003 btc is currently worth about $78, this is money you could earn ,and even more, every week if you join or joined a signature campaign, even if you are were not in a signature campaign at the time this happens , it is really stupid to allow your reputation, and a senior ranked account to be destroyed for what excuse exactly?, And for just a mere $78, it is just insane to be honest , or maybe you have other alt accounts and losing this one is not a problem for you , but then again , you messed up big , I hope you still refund the money regardless of the feedbacks , at least , to prove indeed that you have the intention to refund it in the first place .

I think it's best not to be too harsh on him now that he's shown up here and says he's committed to repaying what he owes.

Yes you are right that what he has done is not logical, but sometimes we humans get carried away by emotions knowing that what we are doing is not right, like the problem gambler who knows what he is doing is wrong but continues to gamble and lose.

I supported the flag btw, that doesn't change.

I see things differently here bro, I like to be fairly judgemental rather than emotional. This is so annoying, someone entrusted such an amount in your care and you just disappeared without communication. Coming to apologize still doesn't exonerate this guy and giving the excuse of an internet connection is a simple lie.

I don't know how you guys follow cases logically, I do very well, and I frown at people playing smart. You who didn't have an internet connection received money that can't be withdrawn without internet but could not send it back to the sender when you have the internet connection.

Common!!! He would have still earned the BTC if he did the job. His intention in collecting the money was not good from the onset though he might have a change of mind now. Maybe people who know him physically are now attacking him for his bad attitude or a conscience playing guilty. That's how I see it.

I've been watching this report since the day it was originally posted. Although I'd like to attempt to not be harsh against the accused, but he received payment in advance for a review he hadn't completed. Unfortunately, the OP shouldn't have paid in advance, but I'm guessing that he wasn't expecting an Sr. Member to scam him for such a minor amount. I'm siding with EarnOnVictor; he's right. The accused had plenty of chances to make up for the review he didn't complete, and on top of that, he is failing to return the money after he missed the deadline twice. If he wasn't capable of conducting the review, he shouldn't have gone ahead and accepted.

I understand the accused was perhaps in a dire situation to not be able to afford $80, but he should have been more considerate and gone ahead with the review, supposing that his side of the story is true. Now, for less than $80, he has permanently ruined his reputation and his chances of ever rejoining a signature campaign. An Sr. Member account could generate up to $150–$200 if he was willing to put in the necessary effort and create constructive content; such an account is worth much more than $80 in the long run.

Flag supported.

[Stalker22]

Unfortunately, the OP shouldn't have paid in advance, but I'm guessing that he wasn't expecting an Sr. Member to scam him for such a minor amount.
~

What do you mean by OP should not have paid in advance? Those were the campaign's terms, and they were in place to attract higher quality participants. There were a 100 participants in this campaign! And, just because of one bad apple...?  No, I do not agree with that. The OP went above and beyond to accommodate everyone, even allowing extensions for late reviews. And even after all that, jamyr had plenty of chances to return the money. Yet here we are, and he still has not. Even if he spent the money, he could have simply asked for a loan, which shouldn't have been a problem given the amount.

[Ultegra134]

Unfortunately, the OP shouldn't have paid in advance, but I'm guessing that he wasn't expecting an Sr. Member to scam him for such a minor amount.
~

What do you mean by OP should not have paid in advance? Those were the campaign's terms, and they were in place to attract higher quality participants. There were a 100 participants in this campaign! And, just because of one bad apple...?  No, I do not agree with that. The OP went above and beyond to accommodate everyone, even allowing extensions for late reviews. And even after all that, jamyr had plenty of chances to return the money. Yet here we are, and he still has not. Even if he spent the money, he could have simply asked for a loan, which shouldn't have been a problem given the amount.

I'm not saying that the OP is at fault. Certainly, there's a reason that the other 99 applicants went along and stuck with the original plan, to deliver a constructive review, in which the accused failed even after receiving an extension; these are the terms he agreed to. Royse is a well-known campaign manager; I understand the reason he did it, but it's how each individual has a different point of view. Personally, in the only review in which I participated a while ago, I completed the review and then got paid for it.

The worst of all is that he hasn't returned the money as he should have already. I understand that something unexpected might have happened, but in that case, if he's unable to deliver, it's mandatory to refund the manager immediately and have someone else fill the vacancy in the review campaign.

[holydarkness]

Unfortunately, the OP shouldn't have paid in advance, but I'm guessing that he wasn't expecting an Sr. Member to scam him for such a minor amount.
~

What do you mean by OP should not have paid in advance? Those were the campaign's terms, and they were in place to attract higher quality participants. There were a 100 participants in this campaign! And, just because of one bad apple...?  No, I do not agree with that. The OP went above and beyond to accommodate everyone, even allowing extensions for late reviews. And even after all that, jamyr had plenty of chances to return the money. Yet here we are, and he still has not. Even if he spent the money, he could have simply asked for a loan, which shouldn't have been a problem given the amount.

I'm not saying that the OP is at fault. Certainly, there's a reason that the other 99 applicants went along and stuck with the original plan, to deliver a constructive review, in which the accused failed even after receiving an extension; these are the terms he agreed to. Royse is a well-known campaign manager; I understand the reason he did it, but it's how each individual has a different point of view. Personally, in the only review in which I participated a while ago, I completed the review and then got paid for it.

The worst of all is that he hasn't returned the money as he should have already. I understand that something unexpected might have happened, but in that case, if he's unable to deliver, it's mandatory to refund the manager immediately and have someone else fill the vacancy in the review campaign.

The reason why payment paid in advance was because the review will require reviewers to deposit some funds into the platform. I am strongly assuming Royse arranged the advance payment so that the participants didn't have to use their own reserved capital to complete the task.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

Hello.

First, Id like to apologize to Royse and mixinsafe ,
I have my excuses but Royse was generous enough to have given me extension(s) so no excuse will make any difference.

As I have told Royse over tg, I have all the intention to refund the 300k sats. I just cant right now.
Thanks to those who contacted me btw about this, sorry to disappoint.You know who you are.


Apologies again Royse.

Judging from this statement and the post history of this user "jamyr", I just keep wondering how on earth was he even given an opportunity to run a review in the first place? Because though I can understand that the Mixin Safe review was as a result of "first come, first serve", but for me, I felt more other majors needed to have been put in place to offer choosing the wrong people for that job, just like what "jamyr" is saying right now. Because any reasonable human being, knowing the fact that you can't refund the money that have been paid for a review job, would have made an attempt to submit a review, even after the deadline, and left for the manager to accept it or not, but however, this user felt reluctant till this day, and still even has to mind to come up hear to say, "I can't refund the money"... WHAT A BOLDNESS!!

Who knows if it's not a Sr.Member account been manage by a Newbie...

Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

[notblox1]

If you fail to do what you sign up for and you repeat this action several times than you should not be trusted ever again.
Saying sorry without giving any estimate date when you could refund coins you received is bullshit.
jamyr deserve to be nominated in next competition as cheater or biggest fail of the year.

[holydarkness]

[...]
Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

As in people on the signature campaign of the platform that's about to be reviewed to be given top priority, e.g. suppose platform "A" have a signature campaign and happen to held a review campaign too, participants of "A" should be given priority against other users who doesn't wear their signature and/or people who wear signature "B"?

Though it has its own merit in form of that the participants will have [if they didn't already] a good grasp of the platform, I actually against this idea for numerous reasons. A sense of exclusivity for one. Two, a bias. Three, it hindered a chance of reviews from broader spectrum of people.

[jamyr]

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate.
It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)



Thanks for the Judgement I wish you guys were this engaged or enthusiastic back when I was  ... well that.

Bye for now.

[LoyceMobile]

What makes it a lot more difficult than it already is, is that $78 is almost 1/4(sometimes even more than 1/4) of the total average monthly salary here in the Philippines.

If I'd be given the opportunity to earn a week's worth of salary in a short amount of time, I'd take it!
I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

[SamReomo]

Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

Are you referring to people who are participating in campaigns managed by Royse777 or you're referring to those members who are participating in signature campaigns managed by other campaign managers?

If you're referring to the members who are currently accepted in Royse's managed campaigns than that would limit all those members of the forum who can contribute in a good way to a review campaign. And, that type of approach will be biased as well because many deserving members won't get the chance to participate in those review campaigns.

If you're referring to all those members who are currently accepted in a signature campaign managed by someone else than Royse then in that case the scenario will be similar. In that type of case, all top members of the forum who aren't accepted in a signature campaign would be deprived of taking part in those review campaigns. I don't think that a manager like Royse777 would ever do something like that because if a manager does that than many deserving members of the forum will be out of luck and they won't be able to avail such opportunities.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

[...]
Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

As in people on the signature campaign of the platform that's about to be reviewed to be given top priority, e.g. suppose platform "A" have a signature campaign and happen to held a review campaign too, participants of "A" should be given priority against other users who doesn't wear their signature and/or people who wear signature "B"?

Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

Are you referring to people who are participating in campaigns managed by Royse777 or you're referring to those members who are participating in signature campaigns managed by other campaign managers?

It seems both of you are getting me wrong when I said people on campaign should be given a top priority first, because what I meant is people on campaign generally (i.e active forum users) and not users who just come to drop post on this forum once in a while, just in the case of this user accused of not submitting his/her review (i.e you can check his/her post history and you will notice he/she rarely post, which also means he/she is not always active on this forum).

So in general, what I mean is that people on campaign, not minding whether it's been manage by Royse777, Hhampuz, Icopress e.t.c, as long as they are on campaign and they are always active on this forum, they should be given priority first, than people who just come to visit the forum once in a while.

[_BlackStar]

-snip-

So in general, what I mean is that people on campaign, not minding whether it's been manage by Royse777, Hhampuz, Icopress e.t.c, as long as they are on campaign and they are always active on this forum, they should be given priority first, than people who just come to visit the forum once in a while.

Priority is up to the manager because he is the one who has the policy about who will be accepted and who will not - but it's a advice that might be considered.

Users who post regularly are expected to make more sense to participate in any campaign - but that doesn't mean users who post occasionally should be turned down all without exception. Regular users are likely to be expected because they are more likely to stay abreast of any developments than those who don't - but this also comes at the discretion of the manager. Nobody expected this to happen - but it is a reality.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate.
It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

Yep, if you look at it critically, it's actually 0.003+ BTC. You took the money and spent it, wasted the time of the manager and caused damages to the client even after several deadlines. Yes. You owe them 0.003+ BTC
If you weren't up to the task, then what was the point of even joining the review campaign in the first place?

[acroman08]

What makes it a lot more difficult than it already is, is that $78 is almost 1/4(sometimes even more than 1/4) of the total average monthly salary here in the Philippines.

If I'd be given the opportunity to earn a week's worth of salary in a short amount of time, I'd take it!
I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

Yeah, I completely agree with you, I'd take it too and would be wasting that opportunity.

I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

True, and I agree, wasting the opportunity is stupid. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned that jamyr could have been affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month, the thypoon left a lot of damages so I could understand if he couldn't finish the task because of the typhoon, but taking the money is just wrong. just to clear things up, this is just an assumption, I don't know wich part of the country he is from and I am not 100% certain whether the thypoon is the reason why he couldn't finish the review but it is the plausible reason I could think of.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

True, and I agree, wasting the opportunity is stupid. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned that jamyr could have been affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month, the typhoon left a lot of damages so I could understand if he couldn't finish the task because of the typhoon, but taking the money is just wrong. just to clear things up, this is just an assumption, I don't know wich part of the country he is from and I am not 100% certain whether the thypoon is the reason why he couldn't finish the review but it is the plausible reason I could think of.

Please, let's stop trying to play the safe game here @ "acroman08", because did the accused person say anything about him being affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month just as you said? Please let's just stop making assumptions while the person in question hasn't altered a single word. He is guilty and should accept the fact that he is, and just send the money back without trying to play safe because what will take of him if really he was either sick or affected by a natural disaster to come onto the forum, complain to the manager about his/her latest challenge, because I'm sure Sir Royse777 would have definitely understood and extended his deadline, but yet he never did any of that.

[AB de Royse777]

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate.
It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

How can you forget the value that was damaged?

Don't tell me it's a free money I gave you to hold for me. Even a personal loan in the forum will add a daily interest.
Where is the price of the time I have wasted waiting for your review, wrote you several times, then extended the campaign again to find a replacement for you.
Where is the price of the time I spent to adjust the fund in the escrow wallet, several extra transactions between my own wallet and escrow wallet just because you failed.

The wasted amount of time + the hassle + the extra load of work + other many factors.
Add all then the damage may worth more 0.003 BTC.

Would you settle it for 0.006 BTC? I will gladly  remove the "+".

[acroman08]

I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

True, and I agree, wasting the opportunity is stupid. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned that jamyr could have been affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month, the typhoon left a lot of damages so I could understand if he couldn't finish the task because of the typhoon, but taking the money is just wrong. just to clear things up, this is just an assumption, I don't know wich part of the country he is from and I am not 100% certain whether the thypoon is the reason why he couldn't finish the review but it is the plausible reason I could think of.

Please, let's stop trying to play the safe game here @ "acroman08", because did the accused person say anything about him being affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month just as you said? Please let's just stop making assumptions while the person in question hasn't altered a single word. He is guilty and should accept the fact that he is, and just send the money back without trying to play safe because what will take of him if really he was either sick or affected by a natural disaster to come onto the forum, complain to the manager about his/her latest challenge, because I'm sure Sir Royse777 would have definitely understood and extended his deadline, but yet he never did any of that.

Huh? play safe? who said he isn't guilty? because I never said he wasn't, I even said he should have informed Royse if he was affected by the typhoon or not and he should have just refunded the money instead of scamming. you should read my previous posts to understand why I replied like that to LoyceV's post.

[holydarkness]

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate.
It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)



Thanks for the Judgement I wish you guys were this engaged or enthusiastic back when I was  ... well that.

Bye for now.

Technically, the "+" is kinda justified. Other than the extra fees he mentioned above [time, tx fee, workload, etc.] there's the obvious conversion rate. If we suppose you "loaned" from Royse, with the term to return it on the exact USD value, where at that time, the rate is around 30,000ish USD, you earned 90 USD, and as per the current rate is 26,000ish, you kinda "owed" 0.0034... btc, thus, 0.003+

Even if we lock the rate at when Royse asked for refund, 6th of August, BTC rate at that time was roughly 29,000, so it'll still be 0.0031..., still a 0.003+