The wording is such that I can't take it seriously: "Scamming the idea of".... Wait what?! Followed by: "caused Jambler a reputational damage".... Wait a minute? Which one is it? The first one was scamming an idea, but the "idea scammer" got reputation damage and somehow that's a problem? Which one is it?
I think it needs a little clear explanation. Let us consider each feedback individually for each accounts.
First icopress.
[...] His shrewd argument caused Jambler a reputational damage [...]
Obviously Jambler knew mixers are ban but they trusted icopress's cunning idea. Icopress convinced them to continue the forum advertising. He influenced them that he [icopress] will always guide the community, will always present the product as a none mixer so that it does not look like a mixer. He also suggested them to be the sponsor of big community events
[1] [community award, pizza day baking] so forum members will not argue because they are thinking Jambler is always spending money and members are taking their share. But now everyone [one or two may still have argument] accepted it a mixer and Jambler become a joke. That's what I meant by a reputational damage for Jambler caused by icopress.
[1]- Have we lost a major sponsor for Bitcoin Pizza Day? Yes.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5387753.msg63941634#msg63941634I can not find the post now but long time ago when mixer ban discussion started back in December, in a post he was posting similar statement about sponsoring the community award.
The feedback for Jambler [Jay Johanson]
Scamming the idea of banning mixer on the forum. The business model explained wrong so that they can continue advertising on the forum without a major advertising competitor.
From January 1st the idea are "Mixers are ban". But to avoid the ban, the team was giving all their focus to call it a software provider [not a software provider at all though, I noticed somewhere they even changed some texts of their website to make it look like a software provider]. All mixing process were done in their end but because they did not have a front-end under their own domain they were calling the product as not a mixer.
Before
https://web.archive.org/web/20230331054656/https://[banned mixer]/
Now
Let's be more close. Snap on November 15th 2023:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231115115459/https://[banned mixer]/ [replace "[banned mixer]" use "JamblerDOTio" DOT=. in the URL]
Theymos posted Mixers will be banned from January 1st.
Snap on December 7th 2023:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231207030249/https://[banned mixer]/
On the other hand can we accept it with a guarantee that these front-ends, those they are calling partners are not from the Jambler team itself? Jambler team itself can easily finance the marketing and hosting expense. All it needs to buy a domain, install the PHP code and create a different name to launch front-ends to accept coin under different domain names. The core is always same, pointing to one central database. What confused me a lot that out of 5% plus 0.0007 BTC (network fee), Jambler is taking 3% plus 0.0007 BTC (network fee), the partner was taking even less than 2%. Who in their logical business mind will spend so much money to give majority share to the API provider and is going to keep less for themselves? Visit clickbank, the biggest affiliate network, you will find referral commissions are even 90%, the product provider is taking even less than 10%. It's because overtime from many referrals the product owner eventually make the bigger money than the referrals
By doing all these Jambler team wanted to avoid the rule that was implemented to avoid mixers on the forum. A scam does not always have to be with the cash/digital money. When someone have an idea and someone else stole it then this stealing is also a scam. Jambler stole "Mixers ban" from the forum and continued their marketing in the forum for three more months.
