Topic: . (Read 207 times)

I think this much plagiarism may be allowed, not such a problem because there are many terminologies and definations which can not be changed as it might change the meaning of the content.We arent taking any sides here but due to 10% plagiarism i think we can not add a project to scam catagory. In my country 18% plagiarism is allowed. Just saying. I dont know about yours.

In a project that you create, you must have a professional team because this involves a project that will later raise funds, it should not be arbitrary with a junior team by plagiarizing a whitepaper from various sources and you do not include references, it is the same as you steal with the uniqueness of other people's content, I know that if the project has made a mistake, especially in the plagiarism whitepaper, it can be said to be a scam because they think that there is no trust in it later.

Remember a lot with the word "swap is misused, therefore I investigated your project and it is true that they plagiarized this whitepaper for me this is really embarrassing because trying to trick investors with stolen content.

How is this project a scam? Please advise.. keen to know the criteria you have used for this..  I guess you call projects like Falconswap great right? They don’t even have any swap protocol still.  You have got to be kidding...

Since when does not even 10% plagiarism constitute a scam?? Ever heard of defamation? You need to remove these false accusations, I haven’t cited any evidence other than your vague interpretation of what a scam is...  do you have nothing better to do with your time?

You even stole your words from @royalfestus ,  “Scam description
What can really be the excuses for plagiarizing whitepaper? It doesnt show any form of commitment to such project and it is a good reason to be discouraged from the project.”

...

Reported to Cryptoscamalert
https://cryptoscamalert.com/crypto_scam_report/1033

Hi Bitcointalk members,

I wanted to respond on the whitepaper plagiarism claims.

I apologize for not responding sooner than this, it’s was brought to my attention around 30 minutes ago and I was in shock as we are definitely not scammers and are just trying to support everything decentralized.

I will at least make an attempt at a statement below and I would be more than happy to answer any questions that land with us after that directly. And I mean any...

I appreciate everyone’s opinion on this post and even though these comments and claims are not something anyone wishes to wake to in the morning after working so hard to stand a new dApp up, the evidence that our whitepaper is plagiarized in some technical element descriptions is compelling and evident.

I made the wrong decision in having one of our junior dev team members put it together.  I don’t appreciate the short cuts taken in the whitepaper but I can assure you that our lead developers and his team have produced some great code that works as intended and is already at Version 1 and tested and proven on Testnet deployment. 

I take full responsibility as I made the call and I will have it amended immediately by the central team and lead dev and proof read and fact check prior to release of a final iteration.

 Please understand that we haven’t taken anyone’s money or cash, we are far from anything resembling a scammer and we are not running away from this project as we have worked too hard to get out dApp to this point.

Heck, we developed and paid for our dApp development out of our own pockets and haven’t yet raised a single penny.  I do understand how a plagiarized whitepaper looks, yes I do remember Justin Sun....   

Please feel free to shoot any questions at us about our project in the meantime, I also apologize if you hate our website, we really didn’t think it was all that bad tbh. 

We would sincerely appreciate your understanding on this matter and we will continue to attempt to save face where we can and reinforce the honesty and integrity that should have been attached to our ecosystem in the beginning rather than claims that we are scammers.

I do understand that trust can only be earned from this point on with actions, so we now have some extra work to get to that point. 

I will also bring this fact to your attention, we have already released our version 1, we haven’t moved to any crowd sale until we had finished, yes there was a lot of moving parts and the whitepaper suffered as a result of this. I do understand that the whitepaper should express our vision and technology scope, I wish we had a better first iteration to compliment the fully working dApp.

Thank you kindly for reading this, if you are celebrating Christmas, or just celebrating the holidays or other festivities, we hope you have a safe and happy time.. it’s been a ridiculously trying year to deal with lock downs, COVID and everything else going in around the world... so make the most of this important time with your family and loved ones.  I also wish that the bull keeps up its bullishness and caps off a crappy year to get some of our bags of alts to ATH’s! Wouldn’t that be nice? 

As mentioned above, please reach out to me with any questions, either on here or over DM, I will be more than happy to answer anything.


Sincere apologies,


James Lee & KwikSwap Team

Thank you for responding to this quicker and locking the ANN thread, I just assumed that a project plagiarized the whitepaper I found could be a scam, so I hope you put it off for a while until the team provides a proper clarification and defense.

Oh, I didn't get a chance to go through their whitepaper, they reached us to post their ANN thread. I just check the plagiarism of their whitepaper and it seems their whitepaper is 10% plagiarised. Which seems no issue I think. That's acceptable if you ask me.

Nice findings though, I'll lock the thread and ask them to edit their whitepaper.

.