Topic: Does Binance do some diligence upon listing? SONM listing (Read 1838 times)

Yes, I trust Binance. But some exchanges do a little bit of research and technical checking before listing, like Bittrex for instance. I hope Binance take this path too, because so far it has been an excellent exchange.

No they do not. It is not their responsibility to do any sort of research other than to make sure that the links are correct. All they are is collection area for data that others put in. Do not expect them to do any research for you instead you have to follow the information and make sure that what you're investing in is proper investment. They are good to be trusted.

Ok, bye.


Blackmailing? This don't even need a reply...


No, I'll keep it right there, thank you.

Let's see what comes next from your part...

Almedia, you are incredibly stubborn and this is my last reply to you here. It should be clear to everybody reading it that you just want to twist facts eternally to prove your imaginary point. I include here your threats sent to SONM customer support:

"Do you want to solve this without any harm? I give your tokens back in exchange for my BTC back, what do you think? I leave this as it is and I won't be able to do anything. You go along with your business, I don't care."

In your email to support you are blackmailing SONM to give you full refund and make threats. Since you didn't get what you wanted you started this thread.

Go ahead and erase it as well and I will repost it in another thread.
 

You are again diverting from the issues I wrote and trying some intimidation and discrediting me. Let me tell you very clearly: I'm not afraid of you, this is not soviet union, you can't possibly intimidate me with anything you do or write. Acting like this is damaging your image far beyond my posts -- why it is that a single person like myself is capable of damaging your company? why are you so worried if you didn't do anything wrong?


I didn't say anywhere, nor did I imply, that tokens should have been issued before confirmations. I said the confirmations were yours.


Are you really saying that the investors are the ones that should discover the exchange rates you used to sell your product? You really think you don't need to explain this?

And the question is not strange, it proves you didn't read what was already provided in the OP.


So your API gets the price, now what? Which timestamp is used? The timestamp of the eth transaction of you sending me tokens? In this case, once again I repeat, you are delivering tokens not taking into account the confirmations in BTC blockchain. I'm curious to see how you explain this part.

Why don't you provide at once all the mechanics used in the whole process?


Go ahead and sue me, I won't be intimidated by sonm bullies. Your ICO was an unregulated public offering of a security, thus rendering you outlaw in half a dozen countries or so.

The reason I used the word SCAM is: sonm got rid of the trusted and advertised escrow in a veiled way moments before the ico without telling the community, and kept his name; after that sonm also was absolutely incapable of admitting crystal clear mistakes, to replying to emails properly and respecting investors, sonm hired profile came countless times to forums to say everything would be solved in 1 or 2 days and we should email this or that emails, sonm did this for MONTHS and at the end of the day all investors I know who had problems with bonus/exchange rates didn't get it corrected!!

You attacked the escrow calling him a mercenary, you attacked people who had issues saying they were intentionally misleading people. You banned people in slack and telegram because they complained over the lack of communication. Since you never, ever, opened a dialogue for any of this, showing no concern with your image, it is impossible not to conclude you simply took our money and then ignored the problems. This is what scams do, no matter how clever or expensive are the pictures and videos you publish.

Now, why don't you simply admitted you've made mistakes and refunded unsatisfied investors? Wouldn't that be far easier? That's also another thing pointing to scam, unconcern with self image before individual investors and resistance to refund some few BTCs. Refunding and investor protection is what security laws enforce and it would be in the interest of sonm itself not to tarnish its own image if sonm is a real business.

Almedia, I'm not sure if you are reading my messages carefully. Your transaction was confirmed 2 hours 45 minutes after it was sent. No tokens could be issued before the transaction is confirmed. Is this clear to you or not ? Your question about the exchange rate is strange because you can look up the exchange rate yourself if you like based on the timestamp of your transaction confirmation. Getting USD/BTC exchange rate in realtime is trivial to implement inside smart contract. Take a look here https://www.coindesk.com/api/ It doesn't require any complicated cross chain amazing tech as you put it. There is a  HUGE difference though between having the discussion about fairness of your bonus calculations and far reaching conclusions on your end about SONM team trying to steal from you. First type of discussion could end up in a resolution on who is right in this debate while second can lend you in a courtroom. So once again I'm asking you to be very careful with your statements.

This is SONM stile. Go ahead, I couldn't care less for your article, you are making things worse for yourself, not me. I displayed everything about my case and have nothing to hide.


No, your goal is to troll and cause confusion. Your first message:

"Almedia, can I ask you to focus on facts please. How much you've invested ? How exactly your bonus was miscalculated ? Which exchange rate was used, which one was supposed to be used and why ? How many tokens you think that you didn't receive as a result ? "

Everything pointed in OP already, you ignored.

The whole thing you wrote before boils down to say that I want to damage SONM image since:

(i) a smart contract did everything and;

(ii) I'm complaining because SONM didn't tell me the exchange rate they used.

The first is false, unless SONM developed cross chain amazing tech between BTC and ETH chains, what I know you didn't, you imputed the non-ethereum transactions manually as your own sonm_community profile said, the former is also false because I'm not complaining that you didn't simply tell me the exchange rate, but rather, that you displayed a misleading exchange rate, delivered less both in exchange rate and bonus and, on top of that, refused to explain (still refuses BTW) which criteria you used. You can't explain because you fucked up, intentionally or not, and don't want to appear like a fool/scammer in public.

To this date your contract source code is not even verified in etherscan.io:

https://etherscan.io/address/0x983f6d60db79ea8ca4eb9968c6aff8cfa04b3c63#code

Even FuckToken has its contract verified:

https://etherscan.io/address/0xc63e7b1dece63a77ed7e4aeef5efb3b05c81438d#code

Again I want to reiterate that my goal with you was first of all to understand what really happened.  Its too bad that you didn't like the conclusions I made to a point of deleting them. Obviously you chose to delete it if you have nothing to reply. Here is another thread for everybody willing to read what I wrote https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/does-binance-do-some-diligence-upon-listing-sonm-listing-not-moderated-2175769

Almedia, deleting my messages is a huge mistake on your part. It only proves that you are not interested in discussion but rather in creating reputation damage. I will make an article from your case which would include my replies.

@SebastianJU, you are being very kind, but let's face one thing: they kept your name as escrow without telling you that you were out and, much more important, without telling the community you were not escrowing anymore. Those who had time to read your message didn't contribute to the ICO. This is for me a very concerning trust issue, since having trusted escrows is a big bonus for an ICO in the eyes of the community, being malicious or shady about it is a scam-like attitude and deserves a negative trust.

Now, having had all the problems I had, I started to dig this and I found out all these problems. They are not a coincidence, they wouldn't have occurred with trusted third parties. They were not simply committing noobish errors, they had issues with every single step of their ICO process: part of their own team being kicked at pre-ICO stage, you being kicked after pre-ICO, changing the agreement with pre-ICO investors, falsely disclaiming they had you as escrow during ICO, a co-founder leaving right after ICO completion, ''problems'' with bonus and exchange rates during ICO, lack of communication and, finally, they answer all of this sending trolls or noob accounts to attack or discredit anyone in their way. Your message at that time was replied with an accusation of you being a mercenary, ad hominem attacks while you were mainly describing facts. This is what SONM is and I think this thread is making it clear.


...

So they have a troll, ignoring the things laid out in this thread, i.e. intentionally diverting away from it with not really relevant nonsense? That does not surprise me. >90% of the listen ICO/token advisers are just full of bullshit and used for hyping/marketing.

Tl;dr: To tag or not to tag?

Just to chime in on request of Almeida...

It has been negotiated and never taken back that I escrow both preICO and ICO. However it looks they underestimated the success of the PreICO a lot. It was the same for me also.

Next thing that happened was that the ETH-Price made a price rush and became worth a lot more than before. Nobody awaited that also. That led to problems with the bonus they had announced. Somehow a lot of persons claimed they would now have to invest a lot more on a USD-level than preICO investors because of the price rush. I didn't say my opinion at that time since it was not my topic but if I would have been asked by them I would have said that it was the decision of the preICO-Investors to "sell" their ETH in favor of that token + bonus. Taking out the risk of price development of ETH. They signed out of the option of raising eth price as well as a falling eth price.

SONM-Team might have feared about the investments in the ICO because of the complaints of potential ico investors so they decided to recalculate on a USD-level. Not sure how it turned out for the preICO-investors. If they would have decided to not take the bonus and keep their eth to buy into the normal ICO. Or if they would have gotten the bonus normally on top. For sure it was a hit.

Anyway. I could understand that in the face of the price rush of eth they would have wanted to save the escrow fee, which has been negotiated on other preconditions by the way. I also could understand that with the success of the preICO they thought the ICO will fill anyway fully in a short time. At that time ETH-ICO's were that crazy and with this start it was to be anticipated. So at the end escrow was an unneeded cost factor because the ICO would have been sold out regardless. Also they might have felt unsafe that someone else holds the funds.

In any case, everything could have been spoken about and fixed. Which I would have welcomed and waited for it.

Regarding the time of the announcement. I tried to get in contact a long time before already. Checked back again and again but found it ok when they claimed a lot of work has to be done upfront. At one point no communication happened anymore which might have been the point where the decision has been made. I pressured more and used more channels to contact someone. Finally could check the ICO contract and it did not contain an escrow anymore.

My quotes listed are correct as far as I have seen them. Only want to say that I tried to speak about the handling of the ICO a long time before.

Not sure how the development of SONM is going. It was a success for them regardless of the surroundings. Though some noobish errors has been made that could have been prevented. Each of them does not really provide trust though it was a success and maybe trust is not needed anymore because it was the ICO of a lifetime, no new needed.

Honestly I always had the impression that they really want to create something though of course one never knows. Future will tell how this turns out.

not really a troll, he's one of SONM advisors:
https://blog.sonm.io/ilia-frankstein-joins-sonm-advisory-board-6a9ae8696269

Here we see that SONM kept SebastianJU name during and after the ICO, not asking the translated threads to update the information and all of them were announcing him as official escrow in their respective OP's, including the russian thread while SONM is a russian project (he is still there announced as escrow):


I can't prove but it is very suggestive that they erased his name of the english thread very close to few hours before the ICO, SebastianJU was assumed to be the escrow by everybody there and SONM team didn't communicate this change at any point before the ICO, still keeping in the thread the ICO would be using escrows -- this claim being kept during and after ICO, then erased.


The message above was a few hours before the ICO. See the screenshot below.

According to SONM where? Provide some link where they say they explained how they calculated the bonus, because afaik they never did. Their only and final email to me saying anything was embarrassing:

---------------------------------------------
1. Bonus rate connected with time of confirmation of transaction, nor it was made.
 
2. Due our information, you gain 2.5 bonus from transaction 2017/06/16. At 17th, 15:46:20, there was no bonus rates for all contributors.
 
Timestamp   BTC_adr   ETH_adr   Tokens transfered   Bonus multiply
2017-06-16 01:34:09+03   1SnMfzJef62gv4jByDijAa6mNRngYb9MR   0x9c9582fb1b6e1e22f4c09f86fda41681241d590f   12376.801954662684945849   1.025
2017-06-17 15:46:20+03   1SnMfzJef62gv4jByDijAa6mNRngYb9MR   0x9c9582fb1b6e1e22f4c09f86fda41681241d590f   37740.001396386175345915   1.000
 
Cheers,
SONM Support
---------------------------------------------

The first fallacy, item 1, is saying they used some "confirmation of the transaction", but the time of the transaction 2017-06-16 01:34:09 is when THEY sent me the tokens, so they withheld the tokens for hours after it was already confirmed in BTC blockchain many times over. So what they are saying here is "we gave you the bonus of the time of the transaction we ourselves did, not actually the time of your actual transaction confirmed to our actual BTC contribution address".

Now item 2, they gave 195.81214 tokens as bonus for a 2.5% over 12376.801954662684945849, now please do the math yourself to see if even this matches... they cannot, or do not want, calculate even a miserable bonus.

This is all without saying they never explained which exchange rate they used to credit tokens in the first place. Their website was showing 1 USD = 9 SNM, but this was not what they actually delivered, they delivered much less. So everything about this ICO is either too dumb or intentional.

Ilia777, go troll in another thread, I'll leave below the last message explaining to you what you asked.

It is everything provided in the links I posted in the OP, page 185 of ANN thread is where you will find all the details of the message I sent to SONM and they ignored so I exposed it. Following pages are where you will find their ridiculous reply and my other reply.

And what you are saying is not true, no one provided anything that I didn't and I don't see why exactly I should reply your questions, since I don't know who you are. You have a russian name, Ilia, are you related to SONM project?

Almedia,

You are ignoring my question. While others clearly stated what was their experience, I don't see any facts and numbers from you. I understand that you are frustrated, so I'm trying to understand what exactly happened and what kind of solution would have satisfied you now should SONM decide to review your case and cases of others ? It seems that they were just overloaded with work, not necessarily there was bad intention on their side. Unfair behavior to investors would be just plain stupid.

About the bonuses and exchange rates, they never, ever, released anything explaining how they did it. Their support was a joke, they made people waste time awaiting for clarifications to deny their request.

Some people are still constrained and afraid to tell everything because they still have tokens and they don't want to lose (more of) their money, because they know if many of them came here the token would tank even harder.

I confirm I had a similarly unpleasant experience with incorrect bonus calculations. First they asked to send our complaints to [email protected], yet ignored all emails for more than one month, while repeatedly promising all issues would be solved "within a few days".
In the end they denied any token difference on the unproven claim that they got the correct ETH/BTC conversion rate from Coinmarketcap. I asked them several times to prove their claim and disclose the exact calculations based on BTC transaction's timestamps, and show the history API they were using to get conversion rates one month back, but they never answered. That would be a chance to show their good faith and transparency, as any reputable and trustworthy business does, but they prefer instead to keep treating others like idiots and lack common basic respect for contributors...

It's not surprising that SNM price is still far below ICO's rate, despite the recent announcement that Binance is listing it: after all price is made by the market, and the market won't trust any business which behaves in such a shady and disgraceful way!