Topic: [ANN] Whirlwind.money | ⚡No Fee⚡ | Ultimate Privacy | Anonymity Mining 12% APR🔥 - page 6. (Read 12789 times)

Why do people continue to compare ChipMixer to WhirlWind.money? ChipMixer has invested years in building its reputation and trust. And, as far as I'm aware, they didn't scammed anyone. They were seized by the government.

I've used both services. Unlike WhirlWind, I didn't lose a single satoshi on ChipMixer. Now, I don't know who lost or how much on ChipMixer, but when we compare the two services, they operated quite differently. On ChipMixer, everything was more or less automated, and the moment you deposited funds, you had access to the private keys of the pre-funded chips. You could withdraw whenever you wanted. My guess is the people who might have lost out on ChipMixer after the seizure are the ones who decided not to cash out from their chips, for whatever reason. WhirlWind, on the other hand, was built to rely on one individual or a small group. The moment they chose to scam, users couldn't withdraw their coins anymore.

So if not for the 12% APR you wouldn't be suspicious? and what are the other various reasons you had? anything that doesn't apply to every single service that is currently running?



See this is the point of disagreement here, you think your name is attached to the service you advertise as if you are holding yourself responsible for the outcome, I would like to remind you that people lost a lot more funds on CM than they did on WW, according to your logic, all of us who advertised it have our names attached to CM and should take a part of the responsibility?

The end result for both CM and WW is lost funds, people who lost funds couldn't care less how and why it happened.


Advertising != endorsement.



I don't mind people disagreeing with what I say, in fact, I get that more often than not, but I had three clear points as follows:


You said exactly this:


So you are saying that

1- We did know it would turn out to be a scam.
2- We had ways of knowing.

Saying you don't agree with those points means nothing but that, and you went as far as comparing WW to Bitconnect, implying intentionally or unintentionally that every one of us knew for sure it was a scam (just as we knew Bitconnect was) and yet continued to advertise it.

I don't see any difference in your point of view between WW and the very service you advertise right now, You can't guarantee they won't exist scam AND you are not sure they are actually scams. Suspicion, not feeling good about it, don't like the logo, don't like the op, all mean nothing, it's either you are SURE it's scam on which you have to expose it rather than stay silent and show up after the party to say "I knew it" -- or, you are not certain of neither legitimacy nor scam and thus there is no difference between any service you advertise.

Not sure to whom exactly you are referring from the list you quoted, as there are 3 users in that quote. Besides, perhaps you could try to improve your English a little? Your grammar is the grammar of an underclassman.

You my friend is the cheapest person I have ever come accross on the internet. You can sell your conscience and your soul for a pot of porridge

That is precisely the problem if we can call it that. How much due-diligence can be applied before selecting a product or service to advertise or promote? Some do end up scamming and some do not. I suppose if signature campaign participants investigated and concluded there were no major concerns that they were dealing with scammers that would be the best they could do.

For me I knew it was a scam after they didn't reply my support E-mail for a week. then after I called them out on it they gave the excuse of already replying with a similar scenario to mine deep in the forums.


As someone that runs a business, albeit smaller, I identify that as a scam intention behavior... If you are curious, they never replied the email till today, 2 months later!

I was just given a refund by minerjones.

Thanks Everyone, I hope no one loses money in this.


Special thanks to CRYPTOHF . I hope i got the username right.

Even if there are currently no victims, the site still allows deposits while withdrawals don't work.

Is this really a scam case? It seems that the escrow managed to cover all the unfinalized withdrawals (or maybe I'm wrong). Plus, most of them are actually part of a promotional campaign, not the actual use of the service. At least when this forum is in question.


This reminded me

I was suspicious due to various reasons, especially with the whole 12% APR stuff. That immediately sounds fishy to me, after experiencing sooo many 'staking platform' ponzis coming and going (exit scamming) over the years.

Certain? No. Uncomfortable advertising it? Yes. That's why I could not accuse them of anything; that would have been unfair. At the same time, I did not want to risk something like this happening and having my name attached to it.

No guarantees of course; after all we're just forum handles here. But these handles do have some reputation and I do think we put it on the line whenever we endorse something (in writing or implicitly through signatures).

That being said, I don't judge anyone with a different opinion, just throwing mine out there, as that's kind of what we do, right..

I knew Bitconnect was scam, did you know WW was a scam?

You are doing apple vs. orange here, we were not promoting a Ponzi scheme, it was a solid mixer with a smart person running it, we had no way of knowing, everything looked legit.

Furthermore, if anyone was certain WW was about to exit scam, why didn't they warn about it? It was the most active mixer thread, all of you saw it, it is easy to come now and claim that you knew it was going to happen after all said and done.

also, by your words above, you are putting yourself liable for whatever goes wrong with the service you are advertising for, it is up to you if you want to do that, personally, I do not promote obvious scam, i do my best to test and check the service, but I do not guarantee the integrity and reliability of the service, i am not an insurance company.

If we stop advertising products that might turn out to be scams in the future, then there is nothing left to advertise. Everything is potentially a scam. Plus, someone might prefer the comfort and pricing of a mixer over decentralized solutions.

If you read back, you'll see there were questions. There were some answers, and it sounded plausible so they got (at least) the benefit of the doubt.

Do tell

At a certain yield, such services are simply not sustainable without being a ponzi, i.e. paying existing customers from new customers' deposits.
All the crypto ponzis so far had some kind of 'excuse' for how they were able to give insanely high returns without risk and without being ponzi schemes. 'Reward for boosting liquidity, which generates returns from its business' sounds to me like it fits right in with those previous 'services'.

You have a signature advertising a mixer that uses exchanges to "clean" coins...which is even more centralized than a protocol-based mixer. If you are truly worried about the effect of services going scam, or you wanted to change the result of the future, you wouldn't be advertising for another one. Yet, here you are.


An obvious ponzi vs. a mixer offering reward for boosting liquidity, which generates returns from its business, is not the same at all.

Though the anonymity mining should have been whirlwinds first red flag and I am very surprised they got away with that, without a question. In fact, that's extremely suspicious.


When I first investigated the hot wallet of Whirlwind, it had about 8 BTC in it.

Minus what was spent on advertising, the profit would have been low.

It's likely that the admin underestimated the volume of mixing and it became unfeasible to run both the mixer and the campaign. It was either exit with the total loot, or stop the campaign, refund anonymity mining, and leave with less than they entered.


It was a play on Tornado - I thought that was obvious when the service came out.

There is likely to be no connection here. The design style is extremely basic and someone with the knowledge can replicate it with no problem.

---

Just based on these posts and all the other garbage I'm reading, I'm starting to think there is something bigger and more shocking at play here. I'm not going to be the one to expose it, but if you know what I'm talking about and are involved - may karma rightfully bite your ass in the future.

A bit late to the party here, but it has been brought to my attention by PowerGlove, thanks buddy!

I totally understand you; personally I do think that we have a lot of responsibility, just like web content creators, who promote products and services with their online presence.

That's why we should be very careful when choosing what to promote. I've been offered lots of different signature and avatar campaigns here in the last 2 years and Whirlwind was one the many campaigns I avoided. Mostly because it was a completely new service with 0 track record, i.e. 0 trust (in my book).

What also slightly tipped me off is that for the price they were paying, there was quite a number of low-quality posters who were not very knowledgeable and / or did not write readable posts.
For me, on one hand that means I simply don't want to be a part of the same campaign, and on the other hand it means that Whirlwind doesn't really care about the quality of posts under which their ads show up. This is quite the red flag if you ask me, especially at such a high pay rate.

My current deal by AgoraDesk - a service that exists for years and is run by the LocalMonero folks - is definitely paying less, but I feel so much more comfortable promoting something I've known for years and used before myself.

Actually, I've basically written this exact same wall of text in a personal message with PowerGlove all the way back in April 14, 2023 - ask him if you don't trust me..

I don't fully agree, especially with points 1 and 2. We should always be cautious about new projects in general, and especially so when they start dabbling with extremely high interest rates on deposits. To the best of my knowledge, so far that has always resulted in exit scams.

I mean, by your logic, nobody could have predicted Bitconnect to be a scam?

---

Anyhow; while I did miss this whole fiasco when it was happening, I actually noticed how suddenly all the Whirlwind banners quietly disappeared.

I hope this will be a lesson to all of us and that people will take more care in sponsorship choice, instead of just looking at the $/post.

If something bad happened to the person/team behind Whirlwind rendering them unable to work or post it did not stop them from communicating with Hhampuz telling him they would be fixing the issue upon their return. The fact the Whirlwind forum representative was very articulate in presenting and debating makes this one of those projects that will always leave us wondering what really took place behind the scenes.

Their Whirlwind website should have given them several times more than the $40,000 they deposited in the escrow to make an exit-scam worthwhile because any profit would have to take that loss in to account. We do not know how much they made from abandoning the project. In the near future I hope we do have some clarity regarding the facts rather than speculation. One thing is clear, if they returned to the forum they will probably be caught out if any similarities are spotted.

Either way, stormbounty will have to talk to the escrow instead of complaining here.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think whirlwind once confirmed that his note is still funded. I will try and find that quote.

---

[edit] Here it is:


Even though this reply was meant for another member, the conversation still revolved around stormbounty's case. So, I believe this suggests that his note still held funds back then. July 4th also marked the final appearance of whirlwind on the forum.

You may be on to something. One of the reasons he couldn't get a refund, was because if he's lying and still has the private key, he could claim it twice. Or someone else could show up with the private key.
Since the site is gone now, the only possibility would be if he withdrew already while complaining here. But if that would be the case, wouldn't WWM have noticed that and called him out on that?

From what I remember about his case, he lost access to his note because he allegedly kept the wrong private key (from a new browser session). As a result, he can't prove that he didn't receive the funds back because he doesn't have either the private key of the note or the withdrawal LoG. All he has is a deposit LoG. But, given the current situation, even if he is lying, and actually has the private key of his note, he is no longer able to withdraw his funds.

Now, I'm not exactly sure who should make the call here, but I'd suggest giving the guy his money back, if anything's left in escrow, regardless of his mistakes. After all, his money ended up with whirlwind, and it's not like the casino situation where folks knowingly gamble away their money.