Topic: I would like answers on that (Read 522 times)

The dev team must have proof to support their claim 'investor safety' when decide to close down trading on the exchange. If there is a hack, vulnerable or maybe just exchange have a problem on their end and deposit and withdraw must closed, I think it's totally understandable. If not, users, traders of that coin should apply pressure toward exchange to make sure everything is transparent. In the end, there must be trust between both parties to moving forward, defuse the problem.

Well, every assumption can and should be made that the team and managers only have the company interests in mind, in which case maximum profit at expense of everyone else.

Bear in mind most managers are very dictatorial. "Team members" rarely know what it's all about.

Just my two cents from the person who started raising the concerns.

Re network stability:

1. Every team member knows that I have written a farewell on Mar 19 and it was there for half a day until it got removed when "someone" woke up. Tech teams knows that I announced the decision on Mar 05, the week before Gen 3 migration.
2. In the farewell, I've told that I step down, but would be available for an advise if needed. Energi Core were consulting to me until my article on Apr 13/14.
3. The exchanges were expected to have wallets closed for 1 week only.
4. Exchanges got order to close deposits on Mar 06. Right before that, large amounts from Treasury got deposited to exchanges as shown before. Overall exchange wallets got bloated dramatically.
5. Migration happened on Mar 10, the majority of coins migrated until Mar 15 iirc, possible scammers like Bashful were stopped, exchanges where expected to open deposits on Mar 17 latest (it can be seen in announcements).
6. Then, exchanges were ordered to only open withdrawals, but keep deposits closed. I could not get explanations for that.
7. When I was leaving, the network was stable - fact, the deposits where overdue to open for 4 days compared to withdrawals.
8. If there would be even a slight known uncontrolled technical issue, I would know about that at that moment and would not leave that early.
9. The CoinFabric must be able to confirm that we started negotiations on audit in Aug 2019 (!), but Energi leadership overtook that and assured me that the audit was handled. Therefore, I can assume that "someone" could know about possible security issues in advance to use that for an excuse.


Re security issues:

1. No one from Energi has told me anything about possible security problems except the "nothing at stake" problem, but I have found a few of them later and even reported to Energi immediately.
2. The "nothing at stake" problem was mitigated in Gen 2 as part of DoS protection. The same protection was introduced into Gen 3 with some tweaks and improvements. So, it was a poor excuse to have deposits closed.
3. They disabled DoS protection in v3.0.4/v3.0.5 even with my immediate protests. After 18 days, they restored everything in v3.0.6 and called that an accomplishment.
4. I admit, that I have recently found a bug I introduced in very early proof-of-concept code, before even talking to CoinFabric, but that does not give an opportunity of account draining and affects only coins at migration (not a problem for users now). That also has an elegant quick and non-hardfork solution to mitigate.
5. I have found possible large staker "run-away" problem in connection with target of Difficulty 1 and a number of other minor issues, all reported and available as code: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54285537 . PoS difficulty+time model may need some revision though.
6. The "run-away" problem does not apply to exchanges, unless they do staking, but a solution to bail out miner has been provided already.
7. There was a partial consensus smart contract call reversion done from about Apr 07 when Energi Core forcibly rebuilt a chain overriding 500+ blocks from a valid main chain. It was caused by an infinite loop which would not get triggered on a live chain. It affected only Masternode payouts, not critical for deposits.
8. I've also found a possible narrow place where "address().send()" and "address().transfer()" are used what can be used as a sort of DoS vector: potentially, gas can be recovered in target contracts through freeing of storage memory what can be used to bump EVM memory usage and/or stack depth to cause reversion inside the consensus contract. That does not allow to steal funds though and could be easily and quickly mitigated, e.g. forbid targets with non-empty code.
9. There is also a theoretical way to do stake mining after a block gap of 1h to build a stronger total work chain, but it's not exploitable on a live chain. There is old fork DoS protection well described in the SRS, the one Energi Core disabled in v3.0.4.
10. The network staking entropy was heavily affected by 1k MN collateral and auto-collateralization feature. That was affecting the pace of block generation. Partially, it seems that the originally chosen difficulty change algorithm has too large coefficients and I would tune that. However, the ballast staking was compensating the problem pretty well.
11. There is a known tricky bug with Merkle/Patricia tree state due to non-determinism of some operations which get triggered under some conditions on some old forks, but that prevents some large reorgs while the main chain continues to work.
12. The large "reorg" problem is not a problem itself (Proof-of-Stake needs to know state in previous blocks to verify headers), stalled forks and dynamic checkpoints are assumed to stop weak chains and force fallback to chain downloader instead of individual block retrieval. "PoS state error" message is not an error in that case at all, it was left just to visualize such cases.
13. Can there be other problems? Of course, it is a complex software, it must have bugs. Why the chain was rebuilt on Apr 06/07? From what I have heard until Apr 13, I understand that it was a terrible mistake of choosing a badly side-chained Treasury staking node as reference for dynamic checkpoint creation instead of the proper main chain. I have not heard anything about security breaches because Energi Core was still consulting to me almost until the time I wrote my article about Crypto Gen 3. Nodes left on the proper chain were staking with no problems AFAIK. If there would be a demo of a security issue then why it was not done in the testnet instead? If a real attack then what would be the point as the last exchange closed its deposits on Apr 03?
14. The main security issue is that Tommy and Ryan can drain ANY account they want and excuse that with "Masternode owner voting", and they can override blockchain causing double spend attacks, and they can change the dynamic consensus at any time with no voting. Their excuse is the same as if local gang in town would decide who's next property to take by a 20% of quorum. There are reasons why absolute monarchies passed away, and why we have separation of concerns in state governance. There is a reason why it is a crime to take functions of any authority.

Re project itself:

Everyone long enough in the business understands quite well that it is a modified Ponzi scheme, but only people blind with hope of future income shutdown their minds. Masternodes stopped attracting "investors" (or "victims" correctly) due to the price barrier and general economical situation. So, MN collateral got decreased to 1k with phony voting done afterwards, but even that is not enough. That's why a derivative bubble exchange is going to be built. I won't even start about the phony charity - it would be offtopic noise. After the first Earndrop in 2018, the coins where bought out and later sold during artificial crazy market prices of 2019 - I know that for sure from the main actor . Possibly quite the same happens with the last Earndrop dump of Q4'19/Q1'20 at price of a little above 1$ and now re-sold at 3+$, but they are a bit more smart the second time - they possibly left less traces in blockchain and kept funds obfuscated in exchanges. Before the Earndrop dumps, the price was apparently decreased with Treasury & personal coin dumps in Q4'19.

The total emission of NRG is about 28,500,000, and they state that a dump of the recovered 200,000 NRG, less than 1%, would seriously hurt other coin owners... As in any other pyramid. The real value of Energi is 0$, but it is common for most cryptos though. Obviously, it is one of the reasons they have blocked additional 93+k of coins which I could control - they were scary of me dumping those. I contacted only a single exchange with request for delisting based on its own rules to get a material evidence to connect trolls to Energi Core, and only after Energi Core had shown self being dangerous to any coin owner. Energi Core lies even in that.

Energi head-hunted me back in 2018, and I literally told them: "I do not believe in crypto, neither I believe in fiat". When I started to contribute into Energi Cryptocurrency (no contracts, except of verbal agreements, "Energi Core Ltd" not even existing), I was too focused on technical aspects until I learned what was Earndrop last Summer when I had to deal with its technical issues and not reported GDPR data breaches. Earndrop shows very well the totalitarian social media marketing sect with a hyper-narcissistic leader associating self with the King, Cyrus the Great. I was ready to leave Energi immediately and only my professional interest to complete the started project (Energi Gen 3) and an opportunity of building another team from scratch was stopping me. Energi has moved release date 3 times (Q3'19, Q4'19, Feb'20) in the Roadmap without even preparing Marketing or Support resources for each deadline. They just put those by pointing a finger into the sky - apparently, they knew they will move the release after the last Earndrop dump settles to re-sell coins at higher prices during closed deposits. Software readiness has never interested them. It seems, they have not even done external audit, but claimed to have that handler. I remind that Beta testing started in Aug 2019.

At the same time, you can see how Energi trolls talk to themselves with an obvious impersonation of me in the main Energi thread. This alone, is enough to understand the moral and methods of Energi leaders. So, the "deposit scam" aligns to that with no doubt.


P.S. In post-Soviet countries, we've seen enough of pyramids in 90's. No pyramid can last forever, it either collapses or transforms through a process when the majority of "investors" loses everything. Then everything starts again. This smaller scale pyramid can destroy the future of many families who make self victims by "investing" into the scheme. Unlike other coins, they constantly lie and shill with sarcastic mocking "love to the World". I've uncovered the true maniacal face of their leader during the last call with him, he literally told me: "Yes, I am a maniac" when he was threatening me, and the blocked coins prove that pretty well .

From my point of view the team does not want investor to feel like it's dumping project which might have adverse effect on the price which they will inturn gain nothing. So they heard to play their card very well for the betterment or success of the projects.
Though only the manager and the team can have accurate answer. Every other will be assumption

the problem is the OP is not buying coins or maybe getting them from the Bounty campaign or maybe from the airdrops campaign. in this case I will not say much, maybe for more detail about the aims and objectives of the project they can be interrogated directly with the project team itself.

Personally i will take this behavior from the team as suspicious as i have previously seen some projects that have taken strange steps like these and later on they have declared themselves bankrupt or exit scammed.

They were depositing under the pretex of market making as they fix the chain issue. (proof was posted by their ex lead dev  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54244182

Now that exchanges realize that the chain in centralized in the hand of one person they are never going to probably open deposits. This just a logical observation.

Tommy froze the ex dev's funds BTW using that key. And some other address aswell

if like that continue to complain until your funds can immediately be withdrawn and do not use the platform provided by the project again.
it is better to look for a safer one, even though the project promises a large monthly dividend, it should be avoided if you cannot directly access your balance.

Usually stop withdrawing, depositing and trading activities when experiencing problems with the project, but this case is not clear why. Are all those who hold their tokens or coins not investors? or maybe they have just distributed a very large number of airdrop campaigns and don't want a dump

The team are in the best position to answer the question and that is it. But normally, the only reason why a project's deposit will be blocked, suspended or under maintenance on an exchange is when the team gives an order for it to be so, at the same time, the team can't order for block or suspension of deposit if they are not carrying out a major upgrade and/or development. But I think if the situation lingers, then it looks wrong and makes the team wanting, we can't rule out that fact because most team are trickish and won't hesitate to fill their pockets at any given opportunity.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that exchanges do not want to open deposits, because they are afraid that Tommy can freeze their wallets. And at the same time, you claim that they accept deposits from the ENERGI team, which can freeze their wallets.

In such cases you halt trading.

Not close deposits for retail and keep them open for the team.

+ Tommy has an EBI key that controls any wallet he wants. That's probably why Exchanges won't open deposits, they could have their coins frozen by Tommy at any time and don't want to risk that.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Yes, and there are also many who benefit through the Miracle Tele project when the project is being carried out and after the bounty period is over, it's just that those who hold tokens are victims of scam from the Miracle Tele project, it is very unfortunate.

They also explained the closing of deposits. Their network is not yet stable enough and there are breaks in the chain. But they are working hard on it.

Regarding deposits, here is one potential issue that could occur due to a chain split. Say you sent some NRG to the exchange and you were both off chain. The exchange accepts the deposit and you trade for a different coin/token then withdraw. After that, you both realize that your transaction wasn’t valid. Since you have already withdrawn the new coin/token, the exchange cannot undo this and because the original transaction was off chain, they don’t get the NRG you sent (you may be good about it and resend but not everyone would). Now the exchange is out those funds with no way to recover them. Multiply this by however many people do their deposits at this time and it could be a massive problem. Setting an arbitrary time for confirmations is not really a solution to this because how do you determine how long it will take for the exchange to realize they are off chain?
With withdrawing, everything is in the exchanges system so if you are both off chain, the exchange still has this information saved and can process the transaction again once they are back on chain.

I have seen a similar case in the MiracleTele project, this token is freely traded on a decentralized exchange but not on the main exchange because it prohibits deposits, scammer projects have easily increased rates because actually none of them can trade on the main exchange.

My friend also experienced something similar when joining CINDX. The development team reasoned that it was to make it easier for the team to control prices in order to provide benefits to investors. Sometime after the tokens were distributed, there were indeed those who sold them on the fork delta, at very cheap prices. While the development of the project is still ongoing. So the decision was taken by the dev team, I don't know, is it really the right reason or just an excuse to escape, because until now there has been no further development of information.

observing the situation more deeply, even on the very topic of NRG announcement, probably NRG investors are in trouble.
Suspicions for a scam exit is great.

This is very similar to Bizpaye Token, Developers have blocked the withdrawal in a certain exchange and Blocked the deposit in other exchange which make it suspecious. Their reason for doing is for bounty hunter make the price dump that might be the same case with the token you are token about, or maybe the developers are cooking something up to get all the tokens listed in all exchanges they listed it in then run away and scam.

The termed probably known as locked or special case where developers choose to restrict movement of tokens or coins. Usually it is done by investors who purchased on early bird cases anf has provisions to let their buyers agree on the terms of vesting period.

Also there are times that they have giveaway through airdrop and bounty and decides to locked the tokens for a certain period. Purpose is not to dump of course. On the other case, since its not an erc20 token maybe exchange have some trouble with their blockchain? I know NRG, maybe there is some error just ask the devs about it.