Cryptomine Signature Campaign could be a Scam

[lolled]

Hi All.
This campaign here could be a potential Scam.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=875272.0

Facts:
1.The owner of the website chose a Hero Member(Non-Trusted and never been an escrow before)  for escrowing the funds of the campaign ( 7 BTC)
2.A lot of people requested a proper trusted escrow for the funds but it was declined. Carra said, that if enough people show interest, he will be willing to use another escrow.
 After a lot of people posted about their concerns, Caara posted this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=875272.msg9680889#msg9680889

Accusations:
1.Firstly, The Escrow in this case is a Hero Member account. It could very well be a purchased account or he could be behind the cloud mining site.
2. I don't see why would anyone send the funds to a Hero Member for escrowing if that member has had no past experience of escrowing the funds. The Cryptomine site owner said, that they want  to give new users a chance, but it all sounds fishy. No one gives an anonymous person 7 BTC to escrow, specially when he has no past history of trust.

3. After a lot of requests, Caara finally made this post : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=875272.msg9680889#msg9680889
It sounds like he is making decisions independently, which suggests he is also the site owner. I would love to see messages exchanged between the site owner and Caara about this decision.

I reallly don't see why would they not let another escrow members hold the funds(redsn0w) , who is trusted and is willing to hold the funds for free.
People would rather trust the money with a trusted escrow rather than a New user who has a Hero Account. The only way to make it a legit campaign is to allow another escrow, or do the payouts weekly. But it seems, that both are being declined and the 10 day payout is offered at a much lower price.

[puzzel.me]

True that. No one would send 7BTC to a random user. But there are some things that are in their favour too - They did not accept all the participants and had a limit on the number of participating members(If somoeone was scamming then I think he would like to cause as much harm as he can).

One more thing is there, he is paying too much. The competition is less at this time and he is almost paying double what others are paying,so yes, it could be a possible scam.
They should send the funds to a trusted escrow.

[Quickseller]

True that. No one would send 7BTC to a random user. But there are some things that are in their favour too - They did not accept all the participants and had a limit on the number of participating members(If somoeone was scamming then I think he would like to cause as much harm as he can).

the 7 btc is probably all they have. If they accepted more members then they would need to "prove" they controlled more Bitcoin then they really have based on their rates.

One more thing is there, he is paying too much. The competition is less at this time and he is almost paying double what others are paying,so yes, it could be a possible scam.
They should send the funds to a trusted escrow.

any time someone offers to pay above market rates is almost certainly scamming and/or has zero intention of following through on their offer.

I would say the site has a high probability of being a scam. The account may or may not be a shill (he could just be too dumb to ask that funds are actually in his control prior to him posting that he is in control of the funds)

[puzzel.me]

True that. No one would send 7BTC to a random user. But there are some things that are in their favour too - They did not accept all the participants and had a limit on the number of participating members(If somoeone was scamming then I think he would like to cause as much harm as he can).

the 7 btc is probably all they have. If they accepted more members then they would need to "prove" they controlled more Bitcoin then they really have based on their rates.

One more thing is there, he is paying too much. The competition is less at this time and he is almost paying double what others are paying,so yes, it could be a possible scam.
They should send the funds to a trusted escrow.

any time someone offers to pay above market rates is almost certainly scamming and/or has zero intention of following through on their offer.

I would say the site has a high probability of being a scam. The account may or may not be a shill (he could just be too dumb to ask that funds are actually in his control prior to him posting that he is in control of the funds)

They can also be experimenting with this thing. They can run the website for a month and if they earn a handsome profit, they would pay the people, else they would run away(they wont have anything to loose as they would only be left with a non-profitable bussiness and a hero account that they most probably bought from somewhere).

[lolled]

The thing is straight and simple. The site is for the people. Majority of the people are requesting a reputed escrow, then why does Cara decide what to do with the funds. The site owner should straight away transfer it to a reputed escrow and do it for the best. Not doing it also questions the trust rating of the site, And I do not feel comfortable even buying 1ghs on the site.

[PolarPoint]

No sane person would send 7btc to an untrusted guy to manage a sig campaign. Aren't they worried about the campaign manager running away? After all, it is only a userid on a forum. The campaign is paying way above market rate and this is not the way to run a business.

The only explanation is they plan to sell as much hash rate as possible in a short period and run.

[puzzel.me]

No sane person would send 7btc to an untrusted guy to manage a sig campaign. Aren't they worried about the campaign manager running away? After all, it is only a userid on a forum. The campaign is paying way above market rate and this is not the way to run a business.

The only explanation is they plan to sell as much hash rate as possible in a short period and run.

There can be a solution to this.
We can ask a reputed member of the forum to threaten the users to not to join the campaign untill funds get transferred to a trusted escrow else they get a negative trust.

[lolled]

No sane person would send 7btc to an untrusted guy to manage a sig campaign. Aren't they worried about the campaign manager running away? After all, it is only a userid on a forum. The campaign is paying way above market rate and this is not the way to run a business.

The only explanation is they plan to sell as much hash rate as possible in a short period and run.

There can be a solution to this.
We can ask a reputable member of the forum to threaten the users to not to join the campaign untill funds get transferred to a trusted escrow else they get a negative trust.

Honestly, I don't think that is going to work. I have not seen more than 3-4 persons in the campaign object to it. Most are just happy to be part of a campaign and don't care if they get paid. If they don't , then they will come and post in the scam sections, when at first they had the chance to take the steps to avoid such a thing.
Since, Cara is now acting independently, and decreasing pay for people requesting a 10 day payout, I can make no other conclusion that the plan is to ignore requests for another escrow by offering a low pay, so people don't ask for one as they will be paid less.
And, since some people request a lesser pay for 10 day periods, they are taking this opportunity to enrol more members for the amount which is left over from the less pay.

[Quickseller]

No sane person would send 7btc to an untrusted guy to manage a sig campaign. Aren't they worried about the campaign manager running away? After all, it is only a userid on a forum. The campaign is paying way above market rate and this is not the way to run a business.

The only explanation is they plan to sell as much hash rate as possible in a short period and run.

There can be a solution to this.
We can ask a reputed member of the forum to threaten the users to not to join the campaign untill funds get transferred to a trusted escrow else they get a negative trust.

Why would participants deserve negative trust? They would be the ones getting scammed. It is not 100% clear yet that the site is a scam so they wouldn't be advertising an obvious scam.

[puzzel.me]

No sane person would send 7btc to an untrusted guy to manage a sig campaign. Aren't they worried about the campaign manager running away? After all, it is only a userid on a forum. The campaign is paying way above market rate and this is not the way to run a business.

The only explanation is they plan to sell as much hash rate as possible in a short period and run.

There can be a solution to this.
We can ask a reputed member of the forum to threaten the users to not to join the campaign untill funds get transferred to a trusted escrow else they get a negative trust.

Why would participants deserve negative trust? They would be the ones getting scammed. It is not 100% clear yet that the site is a scam so they wouldn't be advertising an obvious scam.

the participants should get a temporary negative trust. They arnt advertising an obvious scam but they are obviously advertising a site that is a scam(most probably).
They should be asked not to join the campaign till funds are held by an trusted escrow.

I also wonder  that whats the point of using carra as an escrow. Escrow agent is someone that is trusted. Here carra is someone who is not trusted and is a guys who is even less famous than me (ok, I am infamous). This whole thing just finished the point of trusting these guys because they have a so called "escrow agent".

[pawel7777]

the participants should get a temporary negative trust. They arnt advertising an obvious scam but they are obviously advertising a site that is a scam(most probably).
They should be asked not to join the campaign till funds are held by an trusted escrow.

So you want to punish participants with neg trusts in order to protect them from scam?? Is that what you're saying?

If you claim that the cryptomine (as a business) is a scam site, then it's a whole different thing, and it's irrelevant whether there is or isn't an escrow. In such case no one should be advertising it anyway.

[ligeros]

The account may or may not be a shill

I'd say it is pharmed account. 90% of his old comments were made in giveaway section. Just look.
So probability that account was sold is high.

[21coin]

i see that this signature campaign has good payment for users
one of the best i have seen according to amount of BTC for users per month

[Quickseller]

No sane person would send 7btc to an untrusted guy to manage a sig campaign. Aren't they worried about the campaign manager running away? After all, it is only a userid on a forum. The campaign is paying way above market rate and this is not the way to run a business.

The only explanation is they plan to sell as much hash rate as possible in a short period and run.

There can be a solution to this.
We can ask a reputed member of the forum to threaten the users to not to join the campaign untill funds get transferred to a trusted escrow else they get a negative trust.

Why would participants deserve negative trust? They would be the ones getting scammed. It is not 100% clear yet that the site is a scam so they wouldn't be advertising an obvious scam.

the participants should get a temporary negative trust. They arnt advertising an obvious scam but they are obviously advertising a site that is a scam(most probably).
They should be asked not to join the campaign till funds are held by an trusted escrow.

I also wonder  that whats the point of using carra as an escrow. Escrow agent is someone that is trusted. Here carra is someone who is not trusted and is a guys who is even less famous than me (ok, I am infamous). This whole thing just finished the point of trusting these guys because they have a so called "escrow agent".

I don't think you understand the meaning of giving someone trust. Someone should receive negative trust if they are scamming or trying to scam. The sig campaign participants are not scamming, trying to scam nor are they promoting a confirmed scam. They are the ones likely being scammed.

Someone pointed out on the signature csmoaign thread that carra is suspiciously making more decisions then would be expected. I would say that the account is likely a shill of the website. It was previously participating in the bitdice campaign so it was appearing to previously be active and not appear to be a purchased account. I checked the seclog yesterday and didn't find his account having his password changed in the last 30 days. I think what he is doing is unique and appears to be circumventing many "checks" that people will look for when trying to spot a scam.

[puzzel.me]

No sane person would send 7btc to an untrusted guy to manage a sig campaign. Aren't they worried about the campaign manager running away? After all, it is only a userid on a forum. The campaign is paying way above market rate and this is not the way to run a business.

The only explanation is they plan to sell as much hash rate as possible in a short period and run.

There can be a solution to this.
We can ask a reputed member of the forum to threaten the users to not to join the campaign untill funds get transferred to a trusted escrow else they get a negative trust.

Why would participants deserve negative trust? They would be the ones getting scammed. It is not 100% clear yet that the site is a scam so they wouldn't be advertising an obvious scam.

the participants should get a temporary negative trust. They arnt advertising an obvious scam but they are obviously advertising a site that is a scam(most probably).
They should be asked not to join the campaign till funds are held by an trusted escrow.

I also wonder  that whats the point of using carra as an escrow. Escrow agent is someone that is trusted. Here carra is someone who is not trusted and is a guys who is even less famous than me (ok, I am infamous). This whole thing just finished the point of trusting these guys because they have a so called "escrow agent".

I don't think you understand the meaning of giving someone trust. Someone should receive negative trust if they are scamming or trying to scam. The sig campaign participants are not scamming, trying to scam nor are they promoting a confirmed scam. They are the ones likely being scammed.

Someone pointed out on the signature csmoaign thread that carra is suspiciously making more decisions then would be expected. I would say that the account is likely a shill of the website. It was previously participating in the bitdice campaign so it was appearing to previously be active and not appear to be a purchased account. I checked the seclog yesterday and didn't find his account having his password changed in the last 30 days. I think what he is doing is unique and appears to be circumventing many "checks" that people will look for when trying to spot a scam.

they seem to have a well planned scam.
And the users should receove a negative trust because they are being assholes and are just fine with an almost obvious scam campaign.

[botany]

they seem to have a well planned scam.
And the users should receove a negative trust because they are being assholes and are just fine with an almost obvious scam campaign.

I believe that this signature campaign will not pay. The actions of the campaign manager are very suspicious.

Asking for those who are in the campaign to be given negative trust defies logic. Even if you do consider them as ass-holes, that is no reason for giving negative trust. 

[Nerazzura]

True that. No one would send 7BTC to a random user. But there are some things that are in their favour too - They did not accept all the participants and had a limit on the number of participating members(If somoeone was scamming then I think he would like to cause as much harm as he can).

One more thing is there, he is paying too much. The competition is less at this time and he is almost paying double what others are paying,so yes, it could be a possible scam.
They should send the funds to a trusted escrow.

I think it is in fact not paid too expensive. previously, I followed the sign of fortunejack paid 0.03 / week for Sr.Member and when summed 0.12 for 1 month.
While on cryptomine.io "Seniors Members: BTC 0.150 for the first 50 posts and BTC0.125 for the next 50 posts / month". do not differ much.
do not say if there is no evidence,;)

[puzzel.me]

Carra is just avoiding all the accusations! He is certainly a scammer!
He is avoiding all the requests by members to escrow the funds to a trusted member.
STAY AWAY

[caga]

Carra is just avoiding all the accusations! He is certainly a scammer!
He is avoiding all the requests by members to escrow the funds to a trusted member.
STAY AWAY

I don't mind if he shows this behaviour on the signature campaign. But, because of this, I will never try out their cloudmining website. If he is not the owner, then the real owner should see this.

[Towlie]

Carra is just avoiding all the accusations! He is certainly a scammer!
He is avoiding all the requests by members to escrow the funds to a trusted member.
STAY AWAY

I must admit this does look sketchy and people shouldn't join, but sadly many members will just see he is a Hero member and disregard his lack of trust.