💦 splash.tf / splash.cx - instant exchange BTC / ETH / XMR / DAI

[LoyceV]

- splash.tf will automatically redirect to splash.cx

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea? I don't use "metamask", but their incorrect warning could easily be added to your new domain too. Switching domains only makes it easier for real phishing sites.

[examplens]

- splash.tf will automatically redirect to splash.cx

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea? I don't use "metamask", but their incorrect warning could easily be added to your new domain too. Switching domains only makes it easier for real phishing sites.

I'm not sure how much the problem has been resolved, because when I still try splash.tf, the metamask warning appears first, before redirecting to the new domain. Now it would be necessary to change all the existing .tf links to a new one in various directories, forums... and it seems to me that this might be a more demanding job than insisting on delisting with MetaMask.
Plus, I think that switching to a new domain will raise more suspicion because that's the way scammers work.

[splashed]

That Alex guy on Github is annoying as hell. He added the domain to the blocklist without even any evidence of phishing. Imagine adding a domain to the blocklist based on such a report

Malicious domains, IPs, IPFS hashes, or IPNS names

Code:

https://plainswap.app/

Please explain why this content is malicious
Scam exchanges, typical fake instant swap services, AI made and same scams as splash.tf / much more.

And refusing to unblock it after 3 requests without even citing any reason.

Yes, it is very unfortunate that such a person without good judgement / reasoning is solely in charge of this. You would think a company as big as MetaMask would have a better system in place.

It is not hard to check if our site even has JavaScript. Any competent person would be able to reason that No JavaScript means we can't ever:

Use their interfaces to collect user signing keys (especially cryptocurrency keys) and send them back to home servers.

We urge anyone who still uses MetaMask to switch to Rabby, which is a significantly better extension wallet.

@splashed, you might want to update the title as well with the new domain name.

We'll keep it for now, since we still own it and it redirects to the new domain, so we don't attract MetaMask's attention. We have a feeling they're targeting us for whatever reason.

I'm not sure how much the problem has been resolved, because when I still try splash.tf, the metamask warning appears first, before redirecting to the new domain. Now it would be necessary to change all the existing .tf links to a new one in various directories, forums... and it seems to me that this might be a more demanding job than insisting on delisting with MetaMask.
Plus, I think that switching to a new domain will raise more suspicion because that's the way scammers work.

That is interesting. We'll look into it, thanks for reporting.

We're unsure how to proceed with insisting on delisting, since they won't listen to reason. They have unblocked more suspicious sites like this:

https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/issues/269041

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea? I don't use "metamask", but their incorrect warning could easily be added to your new domain too. Switching domains only makes it easier for real phishing sites.

splash.tf remains our primary clearnet domain, and it redirects to the new domain. I disagree that it makes it easier for real phishing sites impersonating splash, since anyone could impersonate us at any moment, clearnet or otherwise. Our users come mainly from BitcoinTalk, and they would check the links in this thread before attempting swaps. The only real defense is spreading awareness.

I hope the liquidity will be 4 or 5 zeros.

We have added 4 zeros, 5 zeros coming soon 

[Forsyth Jones]

That Alex guy on Github is annoying as hell. He added the domain to the blocklist without even any evidence of phishing. Imagine adding a domain to the blocklist based on such a report

Malicious domains, IPs, IPFS hashes, or IPNS names

Code:

https://plainswap.app/

Please explain why this content is malicious
Scam exchanges, typical fake instant swap services, AI made and same scams as splash.tf / much more.

And refusing to unblock it after 3 requests without even citing any reason.


@splashed, you might want to update the title as well with the new domain name.

This is unprecedented absurd. This throws the reputation of MetaMask's blacklist down the drain. Just imagine how many false positives must be on that list, there will come a time when everyone will ignore it.

Some people are simply ignorant and won't change their way of thinking, even when presented with proof, they refuse to see or believe it.

Ignorance is the evil of the century.

[logfiles]

We'll keep it for now, since we still own it and it redirects to the new domain, so we don't attract MetaMask's attention. We have a feeling they're targeting us for whatever reason.

I mean like adding the new domain name in the title, so guest users can easily know that both are related. Something like

Code:

 💦 splash.tf (splash.cx) - instant exchange BTC / ETH / XMR / DAI

You definitely have to fight back the targeting. Do not give up 

If they can't produce any phishing attempt evidence, then they should unblock it

We're unsure how to proceed with insisting on delisting, since they won't listen to reason. They have unblocked more suspicious sites like this:

https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/issues/269041

I will also try to create a new issue regarding this when I am free, and we see how that annoying guy will respond.

[examplens]

We're unsure how to proceed with insisting on delisting, since they won't listen to reason. They have unblocked more suspicious sites like this:

https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/issues/269041

I will also try to create a new issue regarding this when I am free, and we see how that annoying guy will respond.

I remember that there was another exchange that had the same problem with MetaMask and one person who refused to remove a legit site from the blocklist. That chat lasted a long time, and the person on the other end was quite unapproachable for any constructive discussion.

[bitmover]

We're unsure how to proceed with insisting on delisting, since they won't listen to reason. They have unblocked more suspicious sites like this:

https://github.com/MetaMask/eth-phishing-detect/issues/269041

I will also try to create a new issue regarding this when I am free, and we see how that annoying guy will respond.

I remember that there was another exchange that had the same problem with MetaMask and one person who refused to remove a legit site from the blocklist. That chat lasted a long time, and the person on the other end was quite unapproachable for any constructive discussion.

I think they are being cautious because there are some services which were initially legit and later on became exit scam.
I remember a few years ago a mixer which was also blocked in metamask , got unblocked and then made an exit scam...

I think after a few time metamask will unblock splash, as long as there is an open issue and they keep operating

[examplens]

I think they are being cautious because there are some services which were initially legit and later on became exit scam.
I remember a few years ago a mixer which was also blocked in metamask , got unblocked and then made an exit scam...

I think after a few time metamask will unblock splash, as long as there is an open issue and they keep operating

It's perfectly fine for them to be careful, but you can't ruin someone's business because you react slowly when you misjudge a legit site. At the same time, there have never been more phishing sites, and many are still without MM warnings.
Otherwise, referring to this case (the bad thing is that the exchange has already been in maintenance mode for a long time). A certain AlexHerman1 from MetaMask seemed pretty pissed off here.

[logfiles]

I remember that there was another exchange that had the same problem with MetaMask and one person who refused to remove a legit site from the blocklist. That chat lasted a long time, and the person on the other end was quite unapproachable for any constructive discussion.

Then it means this is not the first time they are falsely labelling a service as phishing without any proof and seem to have their egos bruised once an appeal is made.

I think they are being cautious because there are some services which were initially legit and later on became exit scam.
I remember a few years ago a mixer which was also blocked in metamask , got unblocked and then made an exit scam...

I think after a few time metamask will unblock splash, as long as there is an open issue and they keep operating

If I recall well, 3 or 4 issues have been opened and Alex does not even want to listen/read/research. He just closed the issues and moves on. I think he is an incompetent sadist.

[examplens]

I don't currently have an additional browser with a neutral MetaMask extension, but it seems that there are no more warnings. Can someone check?

[logfiles]

I don't currently have an additional browser with a neutral MetaMask extension, but it seems that there are no more warnings. Can someone check?

1. On my Opera browser that does not have any Metamask extension, the site loads and redirects well with no warnings.
2. On my Firefox which does have the Metamask extension (but for some reason the extension has some trouble starting). The site load and redirects well with no warnings.

3. On my chrome which does have the Metamask extension that starts up well, the "This website might be harmful" warning comes up immediately before the website redirects. On clicking on the "proceed anyway" button, the website then redirects and loads normally.

This simply means changing the domain name and redirecting to it does not help. The warning still stays. It looks like grumpy Alex may have to endure some more block list removal requests

[NotATether]

Splash, I have successfully withdrawn my referral BTC (thank you!)

But I am still having problems with XMR to this day. 0.198 XMR is lower than the minimum?

I think the minimum XMR amount needs to be clarified, because I don't think it's just 0.1 XMR

[splashed]

Splash, I have successfully withdrawn my referral BTC (thank you!)

But I am still having problems with XMR to this day. 0.198 XMR is lower than the minimum?

I think the minimum XMR amount needs to be clarified, because I don't think it's just 0.1 XMR

Thanks for letting us know, we'll have a look.

I do see that you have withdrawn your XMR referral several times many months ago, hm 

[NotATether]

Thanks for letting us know, we'll have a look.

I do see that you have withdrawn your XMR referral several times many months ago, hm  

Yes, it was working before, but the last few times I've attempted to withdraw, I've gotten the minimum balance error.

[splashed]

Yes, it was working before, but the last few times I've attempted to withdraw, I've gotten the minimum balance error.

We fixed it. It was a subtle rounding bug. Your balance was (for illustrative purposes) 0.1979 XMR, which was rounded up to 0.198 XMR for display on the website. This number was then sent as the amount requested to be withdrawn - which is more than your balance, therefore the error.

Try again please, should work now 

[SFR10]

I forgot to post an update last month ^[sorry], and I almost forgot to post this month too ^{[my bad]}.

Update for the remaining funds in escrow

1% or a minimum of 0.0005BTC standard fee + a 1% storage fee for each additional month (0.0008632796 x 12 months)
0.0008632796 + 0.0103593552 = 0.0112226348BTC ^{[escrow fee]}

Total amount of 0.08632796 - escrow fee of 0.0112226348 = 0.0751053252BTC ^{[remaining funds in escrow (without rounding it off)]}

[examplens]

@splashed, you really need to start thinking about adding an alternative to the DAI token. I noticed that there are fewer and fewer services that accept it, and the solutions when you have DAI in your wallet are becoming quite limited.
Maybe even add a rebranded DAI, or USDS, if you don't already want USDT or USDC. That would be an understandable decision.

btw, is your affiliate program functional? I shared the link at least 10 times, I don't think I was misled when they confirmed to me that they used Splash. I don't see any traces in the aff dashboard

[splashed]

@splashed, you really need to start thinking about adding an alternative to the DAI token. I noticed that there are fewer and fewer services that accept it, and the solutions when you have DAI in your wallet are becoming quite limited.
Maybe even add a rebranded DAI, or USDS, if you don't already want USDT or USDC. That would be an understandable decision.

btw, is your affiliate program functional? I shared the link at least 10 times, I don't think I was misled when they confirmed to me that they used Splash. I don't see any traces in the aff dashboard

Thank you for the DAI suggestion. We will start thinking about it.

Yes, our affiliate program is functional, we've been paying out users like @NotATether 

[NotATether]

Another error in the referral dashboard!

Payouts work, but on the latest Safari on iOS, the dashboard for Monero (and possibly other coins) shows two fields for the payout address.

This bug is not reproducible on desktop.

Here is the screenshot for reference

[splashed]

Another error in the referral dashboard!

Payouts work, but on the latest Safari on iOS, the dashboard for Monero (and possibly other coins) shows two fields for the payout address.

This bug is not reproducible on desktop.

Here is the screenshot for reference

Thank you for the report!

We'll get that fixed