Topic: Flag - "CryptoSparks" - page 5. (Read 1779 times)

TL;DR

Prove you are innocent or we will assume your guilt and penalize you based on assumptions that could just as easily be false as true.

Here's a few "concrete red flags" for you that can be found just in your signature:


It might be free to connect but you are also charging people a $10 fee and 30% of all profits. If they make net losses for the month, they still owe you $10, and you lose nothing.


You have no guarantee that its "safe" other than your word. "Passive income" is also a term meant to attract a certain audience, mainly those who attempt to profit off Ponzis and MLM schemes.


This is based on nothing other than your word, and again you are just throwing out a big number in hopes of attracting a special kind of moron. Its a tactic we've seen employed by scammers hundreds of times. Just because you present "backtest data" of something, it does not mean that data was not altered to make things appear in your favor. You have a strong penchant for doing this as has already been demonstrated by you saying you've made 100% winning trades when the very data you've provided says otherwise. It might just be a little lie but it goes to show that you are willing to lie to promote your project.

We don't even need to delve into your loan request to present enough evidence to warrant a type 1 flag.

Nobody's saying its impossible to profit with a trading bot. What we are saying is the way you are going about promoting it is incredibly shady and you use several sales tactics that overlap with those used by scammers.

Nobody needs an intricate knowledge of your business model or the trading process to recognize your behavioral pattern and understand how the crowd that you are appealing to here is the same as that of Ponzi and MLM scammers. You throw out big numbers while saying your service is "safe, free and easy", which is all bullshit backed by nothing other than your word and a handful of verifiable trades. That's what warrants suspicion about your project.

Like I tried to say earlier before TS derailed the conversation, come back when you have several months of verifiable trade history under your belt and then we'll talk again.

"concrete red flags" = objective evidence

It does not mean guesses, suspicions, or assumptions, all of which are not concrete but arbitrary and completely subjective. I am not overlooking anything, I am refuting their arguments and bringing attention to the fact that this kind of arbitrary enforcement will not only not prevent scams, but will result in people disregarding the rules even more because of their arbitrary and selective enforcement breed disrespect for the rule of law. No one respects a system of rules for thee and not for me.

Many people argue trying to sell your account is grounds for accusations of fraud, yet some how you remain trusted, funny how that works. Could it be because these inquisitions are more of a popularity contest than an examination of facts? Either the standards apply to everyone or they apply to no one, and for them to apply to everyone they need to be well defined and objective.

Most of the people running around accusing people built their reputations on doing so, regularly at the expense of innocent users with no repercussions to themselves. Furthermore they prevent dissent to their opinions by creating an atmosphere where anyone can be made subject to these arbitrary accusations and scrutinizing every action they have ever taken. Tell me some more about attacking my opponents while your entire statement consists of personal attacks and almost nothing on topic.

If the partnership request to lenders is the real problem, why didn't you all attacked that at first? Why do i have all kind of illogical feedback?

Why can't you understand that the "risk free" is referred to us taking the market risk while giving fixed interest to the lender that would have still access the funds?

I guess the answer is... you got roasted on every other aspect, and in your case little shiba, because of huge lack of technical knowledge. much wow!



I also find very funny how most of you guys, and ladies, start your accusation with something like:




Just an advice, if you don't know anything about a subject, don't pretend to know better than who works in that field.
You can have your opinion that "is impossible to make money with bots and markets", but that is just.. your personal opinion.

Your pointless flag states:

Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with CryptoSparks is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.

Is clear that the bold part is totally untrue, since you have 0 concrete evidence against us and all your accusations are based on personal opinions and lack of knowledge.


Also stop with the " is hard to find evidence" theory. Is very easy to spot a scam and prove it. The fact you have nothing against us even though you have access to the live demo account via api key ( special link for suchdumbmoon and smallbrainers )should make you think.




Where is the "concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions. " ?
Why there are knowledgeable & reasonable forum users that don't agree with it?

Funny how you pop out only now that a few of your pathetic internet police buddies came out of their dirty holes, don't you have casinos to spam? did you get your weekly payout based on the rekts that you bring to sportsbet?

Objective proof of fraud isn't needed for a type 1 flag.


I'm open to dissenting opinion, and you're not the only one dissenting. You've just overlooked the others because their existence doesn't fit in with your narrative. And your dissenting isn't even based on an actual analysis of the situation at hand but rather your desire to troll the regular targets. You should probably add CryptoSparks to your trust list as your next move, if you haven't already.


Suchmoon doesn't need to "raise their profile" (whatever that even means) as they - unlike you - have long been considered a voice of reason around here.


And that's the problem. You measure your self worth based on your own judgments of yourself, which is why you are so out of touch with reality and nobody takes you seriously.


You marginalize yourself every time you enter the fray with a bullheaded attitude that is based on little other than the desire to attack your "opponents."

Of course it is observable. Objective proof of fraud it is not, just an assumption. I know for a fact others agree with me. Most won't speak up for fear of being the next one targeted arbitrarily in retribution for challenging the hive mind. After all burning witches at the stake makes you look good and raises your profile. Defending people from the witch hunters is just work that will result in retribution, why would they speak up?

Even if no one agreed I would be perfectly happy calling out your double standards. If you haven't noticed yet I have little need to have the approval of others when pointing out these logical inconsistencies. Unlike you I don't measure my self worth based on the judgements of others, but hey maybe if you keep trying to marginalize me suddenly it will work.

It is very observable that CryptoSparks asked for a 5 BTC loan and said it's risk-free.

You don't uphold any "principles", you're just making shit up when you're unable to get someone to agree with you. You can't be possibly dumb enough to believe that your incessant yapping about your virtuous character means anything to anybody except yourself.

Nah, you have kind of been a twat from our first interaction including this one.  I don't need your approval, and you haven't been around long enough to have any clue about what I have contributed. Any chance you are going to get back on topic and present evidence to support this flag?


Perhaps because you were never once held accountable for your abuse and you continue to deny it ever happened.


The words he used were "concrete red flags" ie something solid and observable beyond mere suspicion. You are free to have your own opinions,you are not free to have your own facts and rules. No matter how abhorrent you think I am, I am still not part of a collectivist hive mind that punishes anyone of a different mind. I am just one individual that upholds principles no matter who they apply to. Its easy to feel right with a dozen of your friends ready to dogpile on anyone who challenges you. This is all that is wrong with the current default trust as it stands. Feel free to find some more friends to reassure you of your correctitude in your arbitrary witch hunts.

A "red flag" in this context is a warning sign (I doubt theymos meant a Chinese national flag). You might think that asking for a 5 BTC loan and lying about risks is not a warning sign but apparently for other users it is.

It's quite amusing actually how you moan about mobs and bullies, but you're the one expecting others to follow your only true religion while your opponents seem to be aware of the possibility of existence of different opinions. I'm starting to think that you may not be a "knowledgeable & reasonable forum user".

That was a mistake, and in the jungle it only takes one.   Techy is still using posts I made six years ago against me.  :/


A successful pattern we should all follow! 

I stated my opinion regarding the subject in hand, you quoted my post and started a discussion, I politely engaged in the discussion, and then the first thing you wrote was :

I treated you with respect, and based on your alleged way of treating people you should have been respectful to me, I think the only time you to talk nicely to someone is if they agree to your thoughts, if they disagree, it gives you the right to show your disrespectful attitude.


What mob that is ? you mean the gang?   hate to tell you that i have not been accepted yet, going to apply again next week , I have better chances now after I "cast aspersions" , I might need to cycle a few more merit and then I am good to go.


Rambling, Nagging and whining do not help build any community, speaking of how you "helped build the community"  , 90% of your posts are either in Politics & Society (useless for the forum ) and Market place ( You selling your stuff and that does not do anything to the community, in fact the community is doing you a great favor by providing you a great platform to trade) and the rest of your posts are either in Meta or Reputation (Obviously crying and whining about trust system/merit/mods ,,etc)

I hate to break it to you, but you are really just an average forum user, that is not bad per se, you just need to reconcile with yourself and move on.

Adios,

If I am wasting my time posting here, what are you doing? Your posts are most valuable and sanctified are they? This is not a place where people trend towards politeness, and frankly I don't give a flying fuck if you or anyone else thinks I am rude. I treat people with as much respect and politeness as they give me, and you simply don't like being treated in the way you treat others as you join this little mob to cast aspersions to raise your own profile.

I have been raising these issues for years because unlike you I was around long enough to have helped build this community and recognize this behavior as antithetical to the entire purpose of Bitcoin. I don't need your approval or the approval of anyone else for that matter. I know for a fact my efforts have yielded results even if you are to dumb to realize it.

Now that you are done with your own pissing and moaning, do you care to present any evidence to support this flag or do you consider your suspicions alone sufficient regardless of the stated flag requirements?

Every time you get asked a question you can't answer you start being rude and disrespectful, if my "rambling" does not matter then stop quoting my posts and go do something better with your life.



You have been whining about everything regarding the forum for years now, and nobody seems to care about your worthless opinions, you have been here for 8 years probably repeating the same shit over and over again, how long more till you realize that crying about every thing in this forum won't change a thing? or maybe this place is not for you after all.

None of your rambling matters, The fact is Theymos implemented these standards in order to stop arbitrary accusations without evidence, and you have none. An environment where anyone is subject to arbitrary accusations and is guilty until proven innocent is far more destructive than an environment where some scammers slip through the cracks (which you will never stop anyway). This is an invalid flag and an abuse of the system as it was designed.

Does this fact apply to those who ask you to send them 0.25BTC and receive 1BTC in 24 hours ? assuming it's a newbie account with no "evidence" that would support any flag?

if you want to talk about solid evidence then 90% of online  scammers are innocent, simply put most evidence are just screenshots of conversations and shit, they can be easily faked, the same thing applies to all gift card scammers and any other sort of internet scam, good luck having a solid proof against any online criminal, based on your theory we might as well just cancel the whole idea of the flag system since we rarely present any solid proof that would satisfy you and ask the victims to take their cases to court.

TS, let me ask you a question, would you lend CryptoSparks 5BTC if you had that ? I bet on NO , simply because you do know that it's very unlikely you going to get your money back, if Theymos or any other trusted member asked for the same loan, you probably wouldn't mind , despite the fact that there is no solid evidence that Theymos is going to pay back neither CryptoSparks would scam you, logic is stronger than evidence in many cases, this case is no exception.

I wonder if anyone on DT1 has realised yet this thread has become a platform for CryptoSparks' services?

This is the problem of your point of view:


If you have a winning strategy, doesn't mean that if you go 100x (people still do that btw?  ) you will still be able to apply that exact strategy.
I honestly think there's no long term winning strategy that can survive the risk of 100x leverage.

Going back to our bot, leverage is dynamically set based on many factors, there's no way to set a higher static leverage to maximize the ROI.

I get your points about the lending request, but i repeat that it was more of a partnership proposal to the liquidity providers of this forum(the lenders).
Who would take a loan leaving the funds in control of the lender? The proposal should have also marked how using us as service providers instead was a way better option.  

The loan would have been repaid monthly from the same money sitting in the trade account. The mathematical and technical impossibility to liquidate the full account, the 2 year of data showing how the avg risk involved per position is only 5% while the avg monthly ROI is 25% , and ultimately considering the scheduled income coming from set commissions, would have EASILY allowed us to pay the 5% monthly interest and the 10% payback, giving the lender a fixed ROI while dumping the market risk on us.

As you correctly pointed out, the lending request became a issue only after the trolls realized how their attacks of "SCAM", "PONZI", "DON'T SEND BTC TO THIS USER' ecc were miserably failing because they didn't even take the time to understand our bulletproof business model.


Lastly i would like to point out that the 100% win rate we are keeping since launch is not alleged, but printed in stone and easily verifiable via api key provided in our thread.

Again, do you have any evidence of malpractice or just more speculation and suspicion?

"bob123 alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with CryptoSparks is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

The flag requires "concrete red flags", I.E. evidence, not just suspicion. This is not a valid flag.

This is not a loan per-se , it's more like an investment,  simply because the only way CryptoSparks is going to repay the loan back to the lender is IF the bot works , if the bot does not work there will be no money left to repay the loan, CryptoSparks then will have one of two options

1-Run away and disappear
2-Borrow more money from other investors/lenders in order to repay the the previous interest, and then if the bot fails again , he will need to borrow more money again and again until he gets to the point of no going back and then he simply run away with whatever money left.

I have been day trading Forex and Crypto for long enough and I can tell you for sure that , anyone who has a working bot , especially a bot that has a similar success rate to the alleged results presented by CryptoSparks would not be looking to promote it on this forum, if he is so certain that the bot works he would sell his wife and kids and trade with 100x leverage for 2-4 weeks and become instantly rich.

CryptoSparks might not be attempting to scam, but he sure is willing to risk people's money without showing them the complete risks and consequences of using a trading bot especially on Bitmex, so this can also be considered unethical and probably illegal in many places.

In the best case scenario CryptoSparks is simply asking for 5BTC loan that has 50/50 chance of repaying, which is risky enough to be flagged for, some of those feedback are not appropriate , but the flag is more right than wrong.

There's a certain irony in what you wrote above given you felt compelled to quote the affirmation a few posts earlier: (did you even read the affirmation?)


The fact that more don't affirm the allegation, or reject the contention is more to do with one side or the other has not made a compelling enough case, rather than to say because they don't reject it, they some how must be de-facto supporting a measure (without actually clicking on the support button).

Yes it is actually a style of "court" because there is no outside arbitrator.

Time to put your pitch-fork down and extinguish that torch. (and stop feeding the Trolls)