While you want to defend it as a mismanaged project, that's fine and good if it helps you sleep at night and serves your cause.
As far as whether it's a scam or not, I actually say it's no scam, it's fraud. Most legal definitions say it's some sort of intentional misrepresentation of fact or concealing information from someone who is relying on truthful information and is harmed by that action.
Are you honestly saying you've read through all of the Fibonacci thread and say those conditions aren't meant when reading through Jasin's own posts, especially those leading up to the "big updates", his subsequent disappearance and then the mystery theft? Well, you know you're being dishonest with us and yourself.
You rely on what Jasin tells you as the truth. Would you not admit that he might be not telling you the truth? What if that was the case?
But, i give you credit by trying to distract the discussion by labelling me as BRUTALLY UNETHICAL... I really will cherish that one.
Topic: Jasinlee - one of XC's "Team Members" is a master fraudster - page 9. (Read 11045 times)
Do you guys have problems with substantiating by any chance?
You're really not as good at this as you think you are.
Perhaps, but if the best you guys can do is call my posts "wordplay", you've got nothing.
If you had a case for Jasin being a scammer, it would be pretty simple to establish. Why? Because you'd have proof, and proof is a pretty simple thing.
What you really have here is a long story that amounts to nothing.
Quote
Because a coder of his stole the wallets... yes I know the facts. It's pretty rough all round.
Quote
You have not read the threads. According to Jasin all funds were returned to him.
So... because I assert that a coder of his stole the wallets, you conclude that I'm not aware that the funds were returned? Ha ha.
#reasoningskills
Quote
While I can appreciate your wordplay and your interest in defending jasinlee. If I was an objective investor your replies would scare me off even if the OP did not.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. That's not your concern though.
Quote
For any others wanting clarification or proof who don't want to read the links I provided post here. Responses to synchillis are pretty pointless as I'm sure you can tell.
Who's synchillis?
I only chimed in because someone here is insistent that Jasin ... took money from imaginary people, and that hundreds of pages of posts is not substantive.
No, Jasin took money from real people. That's perfectly clear.
And then his project got into a mess.
And now he's slowly straightening it out.
Quote
Because a coder of his stole the wallets... yes I know the facts. It's pretty rough all round.
You have not read the threads. According to Jasin all funds were returned to him.
While I can appreciate your wordplay and your interest in defending jasinlee. If I was an objective investor your replies would scare me off even if the OP did not.
For any others wanting clarification or proof who don't want to read the links I provided post here. Responses to synchillis are pretty pointless as I'm sure you can tell.
This is much more than just a project blowing up. This is someone taking money for a project and failing to even produce any tangible proof that the money received was indeed going towards work of the project.
No, this is exactly what happens when a project blows up. Something goes wrong, and then sentiment turns against the project and accusations start flying.
I do PR. I'm very well aware of how quickly people perceive things to be "tangible proof" when in fact they're just misperceived half-truths and emotion.
Case in point: XC's FUDstorm at the hands of a competitor. The FUD was solidly and resoundingly repudiated (before I was part of XC), but not before most people had dumped. And they dumped because they believed they had "tangible proof" that XC was a scam. They were all wrong. The "tangible proof" (like, say items in github, etc.) turned out not to be any kind of proof, and the truth came out.
Oh please stop with the mis-direction.
First:
When a project blows up, sentiments and accusations start flying in addition to valid complaints.
You're just sweeping everything said here as false accusations when in fact:
1. Money was taken for a product.
2. Said product was not delivered.
3. Requests for explanations are met with nebulous / non-verifiable excuses.
3. An entire website filled with data on customer orders was taken down and has not been put back up well after the promised date.
4. No explanations are offered for the delay.
5. Jasin has not answered any further questions and has been MIA for the past week and a half.
Second
You're trying to confound the meaning of tangible proof and the use case. Your example is the use of fabricated proof to attempt to back an accusation. In this case tangible proof constitutes verifiable proof to prove a point; that work was done. Again, the refusal to allow someone to contact a foundry to verify dealings with Fibonaci is a red flag.
I would agree that you have red flags.
I disagree that you have any kind of proof that Jasin is a scammer.
Since allegations of scamming are very serious and highly damaging, they should not be made lightly or without proof.
Therefore, do not accuse Jasin of being a scammer. It's profoundly unethical.
In all courts: taking people's money, failing to deliver a product, failing to prove that you've taken steps to try to fulfill contractual obligations, and destruction or concealment of financial records would very much scream scam.
Again, perhaps you would like to address the hundreds of pages in the threads on failure to do any of what was mentioned above as pure hearsay? That everyone is just out to get Jasin?
In that case, stop attacking xc members and xc itself and battle Jasin in court.
Perhaps you can point to a direct quote where I am attacking XC members and XC?
Other than the one sentence of "FUD: You are either very naive, stupid, or being paid very well. Take your pick." because some bloke is wasting my time by posting illogical arguments and parroting back the same invalid arguments over and over? But really it's more of a satire.
Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Or perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip?
I only chimed in because someone here is insistent that Jasin is not scamming people. That he took money from imaginary people, and that hundreds of pages of posts is not substantive.
Perhaps the title of the thread wasn't the most subtle approach, but you as a PR person should probably know why major companies tend to distance themselves from prominent employees that get involved in scandals?
Sorry, I should have specified that as being general advice to everyone.
Do you guys have problems with substantiating by any chance?
You're really not as good at this as you think you are.
This is much more than just a project blowing up. This is someone taking money for a project and failing to even produce any tangible proof that the money received was indeed going towards work of the project.
No, this is exactly what happens when a project blows up. Something goes wrong, and then sentiment turns against the project and accusations start flying.
I do PR. I'm very well aware of how quickly people perceive things to be "tangible proof" when in fact they're just misperceived half-truths and emotion.
Case in point: XC's FUDstorm at the hands of a competitor. The FUD was solidly and resoundingly repudiated (before I was part of XC), but not before most people had dumped. And they dumped because they believed they had "tangible proof" that XC was a scam. They were all wrong. The "tangible proof" (like, say items in github, etc.) turned out not to be any kind of proof, and the truth came out.
Oh please stop with the mis-direction.
First:
When a project blows up, sentiments and accusations start flying in addition to valid complaints.
You're just sweeping everything said here as false accusations when in fact:
1. Money was taken for a product.
2. Said product was not delivered.
3. Requests for explanations are met with nebulous / non-verifiable excuses.
3. An entire website filled with data on customer orders was taken down and has not been put back up well after the promised date.
4. No explanations are offered for the delay.
5. Jasin has not answered any further questions and has been MIA for the past week and a half.
Second
You're trying to confound the meaning of tangible proof and the use case. Your example is the use of fabricated proof to attempt to back an accusation. In this case tangible proof constitutes verifiable proof to prove a point; that work was done. Again, the refusal to allow someone to contact a foundry to verify dealings with Fibonaci is a red flag.
I would agree that you have red flags.
I disagree that you have any kind of proof that Jasin is a scammer.
Since allegations of scamming are very serious and highly damaging, they should not be made lightly or without proof.
Therefore, do not accuse Jasin of being a scammer. It's profoundly unethical.
In all courts: taking people's money, failing to deliver a product, failing to prove that you've taken steps to try to fulfill contractual obligations, and destruction or concealment of financial records would very much scream scam.
Again, perhaps you would like to address the hundreds of pages in the threads on failure to do any of what was mentioned above as pure hearsay? That everyone is just out to get Jasin?
In that case, stop attacking xc members and xc itself and battle Jasin in court.
Perhaps you can point to a direct quote where I am attacking XC members and XC?
Other than the one sentence of "FUD: You are either very naive, stupid, or being paid very well. Take your pick." because some bloke is wasting my time by posting illogical arguments and parroting back the same invalid arguments over and over? But really it's more of a satire.
Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Or perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip?
I only chimed in because someone here is insistent that Jasin is not scamming people. That he took money from imaginary people, and that hundreds of pages of posts is not substantive.
Perhaps the title of the thread wasn't the most subtle approach, but you as a PR person should probably know why major companies tend to distance themselves from prominent employees that get involved in scandals?
Why people like you always call everything "FUD"??
childish wordplay sessions
To denigrate my posts without saying why they are "childish wordplay" is to not substantiate your claim.
Do you guys have problems with substantiating by any chance?
Why people like you always call everything "FUD"??
Because it doesn't fit the narrative he wants. So he continues to have these childish wordplay sessions thinking he's being effective but doesn't see how it objectively looks.
you are just narrowly defining "proof" as how you see fit and then judging it as invalid
Yes I am.
This is why:
Accusing people of scamming is a serious and highly damaging thing.
It should not be done lightly or without proof.
-Hundreds of pages of complaints of posts from forum members who have not received what was promised for their payment.
a) XC had hundreds of pages of FUD.
b) Delayed payment does not constitute a scam.
Quote
-Members who are voicing their complaints have wide range of registration dates, posting patterns and times.
Yes, I believe that the majority of these are legitimate.Nobody disputes that Jasin's project got into a mess.
Quote
-Jasin has not posted a response in the thread in a week and a half since his last post.
The reason for this is personal. Therefore unfortunately I cannot disclose it. But his silence by no means constitutes an abandonment of the ASIC project.Quote
You are either very naive, stupid, or being paid very well. Take your pick.
I'll take the third option. That would be sweet.
Organiser persists in systematically hounding Jasin and spreading any negative sentiment he finds about him.
Yet Organiser was never a customer of Jasin's.
Now if it were the case that Organiser has proof that Jasin is a scammer, Organiser's actions would be justified.
But if it were not the case that Organiser has proof that Jasin is a scammer, Organiser's actions would be manifestly awful and brutal.
Since the facts presented here and in the other threads are inconclusive at best, and since Organiser has not had opportunity to engage in a refund process with Jasin, he lacks the crucial evidence needed to assert that Jasin is a scammer.
Therefore Organiser is brutally unethical.
Yet Organiser was never a customer of Jasin's.
Now if it were the case that Organiser has proof that Jasin is a scammer, Organiser's actions would be justified.
But if it were not the case that Organiser has proof that Jasin is a scammer, Organiser's actions would be manifestly awful and brutal.
Since the facts presented here and in the other threads are inconclusive at best, and since Organiser has not had opportunity to engage in a refund process with Jasin, he lacks the crucial evidence needed to assert that Jasin is a scammer.
Therefore Organiser is brutally unethical.
Oh shit! You sir, are a gem!
You do realize you are just narrowly defining "proof" as how you see fit and then judging it as invalid by a personal standard that cannot ever be met because whether you want to admit it or not, your perception of the situation is incredibly biased. But as an intellectual, you'd never admit to something like that.
If you have indeed read the entire Fib post and have no suspicion of fraud happening, well there's really no point in engaging in your hobby of arguing with people online.
Who knows... maybe I am a customer... maybe I was a customer... maybe I got a refund... maybe i'm involved with a pending lawsuit... maybe i'm just mad... none of those discount me from being involved, just because you say so...
Quote
I disagree that you have any kind of proof that Jasin is a scammer.
You are not welcome to respond to this. Even though clowns of your caliber can't keep from it.
A - Person says "Cachecoin is worth .01 bitcoin if you order my ASIC"
Quote
B - Person sells their cachecoin they mined months before to you to buy their ASIC using their wife's account.
Jasin directly sold YOU cachecoin? Or did you buy it on an exchange?Quote
C - Person has no evidence they ever had an ASIC because the foundry would "cancel the order if they knew it was going to be used for cryptocurrency"
Jasin is not obligated to supply such evidence, and not supplying it does not constitute fraud. So you should delete this line.Quote
D - Person disabled their website and used it promoted XC
So? How does this pertain to a scam in any way? I think you should delete this line too.Quote
E - Person offers you discount (in cachecoin) that is now worth 0.2% of what it was.
Then why the hell did you pay using a volatile currency? It would be completely unreasonable to expect anyone to refund you some other amount than the one you paid. He even offered you a discount.Quote
F - Person "runs out of refund money" for people who paid in bitcoin and litecoin.
Because a coder of his stole the wallets... yes I know the facts. It's pretty rough all round.Quote
This is the calliber "red flag" we are talking about for those thinking about investing in XC. The currency now promoted on the site that took all of our orders.
All this stuff simply evaporates into thin air when you take off your scam-accusing lenses, as I've hoped to show here.
The truth is that Jasin's ASIC project got into trouble, and he's doing all he can to straighten out the mess. You scam-accusers are making things harder for everybody.
Why people like you always call everything "FUD"??
Here's why:
"FUD" stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".
What's been propagated in this thread is wilfully unsubstantiated claims of a very serious nature about Jasin.
Their effect is to produce fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Jasin, XC, Cache, etc.
Since they're unsubstantiated and therefore cannot be properly called facts, they're simply "FUD."
(Now what does this tell you about the kind of person I am?)
Facts:
-Hundreds of pages of complaints of posts from forum members who have not received what was promised for their payment.
-Members who are voicing their complaints have wide range of registration dates, posting patterns and times.
-Jasin has not posted a response in the thread in a week and a half since his last post.
-Site that had all of users orders is no longer available.
FUD:
You are either very naive, stupid, or being paid very well. Take your pick.
This is much more than just a project blowing up. This is someone taking money for a project and failing to even produce any tangible proof that the money received was indeed going towards work of the project.
No, this is exactly what happens when a project blows up. Something goes wrong, and then sentiment turns against the project and accusations start flying.
I do PR. I'm very well aware of how quickly people perceive things to be "tangible proof" when in fact they're just misperceived half-truths and emotion.
Case in point: XC's FUDstorm at the hands of a competitor. The FUD was solidly and resoundingly repudiated (before I was part of XC), but not before most people had dumped. And they dumped because they believed they had "tangible proof" that XC was a scam. They were all wrong. The "tangible proof" (like, say items in github, etc.) turned out not to be any kind of proof, and the truth came out.
Oh please stop with the mis-direction.
First:
When a project blows up, sentiments and accusations start flying in addition to valid complaints.
You're just sweeping everything said here as false accusations when in fact:
1. Money was taken for a product.
2. Said product was not delivered.
3. Requests for explanations are met with nebulous / non-verifiable excuses.
3. An entire website filled with data on customer orders was taken down and has not been put back up well after the promised date.
4. No explanations are offered for the delay.
5. Jasin has not answered any further questions and has been MIA for the past week and a half.
Second
You're trying to confound the meaning of tangible proof and the use case. Your example is the use of fabricated proof to attempt to back an accusation. In this case tangible proof constitutes verifiable proof to prove a point; that work was done. Again, the refusal to allow someone to contact a foundry to verify dealings with Fibonaci is a red flag.
I would agree that you have red flags.
I disagree that you have any kind of proof that Jasin is a scammer.
Since allegations of scamming are very serious and highly damaging, they should not be made lightly or without proof.
Therefore, do not accuse Jasin of being a scammer. It's profoundly unethical.
In all courts: taking people's money, failing to deliver a product, failing to prove that you've taken steps to try to fulfill contractual obligations, and destruction or concealment of financial records would very much scream scam.
Again, perhaps you would like to address the hundreds of pages in the threads on failure to do any of what was mentioned above as pure hearsay? That everyone is just out to get Jasin?
In that case, stop attacking xc members and xc itself and battle Jasin in court.
This is much more than just a project blowing up. This is someone taking money for a project and failing to even produce any tangible proof that the money received was indeed going towards work of the project.
No, this is exactly what happens when a project blows up. Something goes wrong, and then sentiment turns against the project and accusations start flying.
I do PR. I'm very well aware of how quickly people perceive things to be "tangible proof" when in fact they're just misperceived half-truths and emotion.
Case in point: XC's FUDstorm at the hands of a competitor. The FUD was solidly and resoundingly repudiated (before I was part of XC), but not before most people had dumped. And they dumped because they believed they had "tangible proof" that XC was a scam. They were all wrong. The "tangible proof" (like, say items in github, etc.) turned out not to be any kind of proof, and the truth came out.
Oh please stop with the mis-direction.
First:
When a project blows up, sentiments and accusations start flying in addition to valid complaints.
You're just sweeping everything said here as false accusations when in fact:
1. Money was taken for a product.
2. Said product was not delivered.
3. Requests for explanations are met with nebulous / non-verifiable excuses.
3. An entire website filled with data on customer orders was taken down and has not been put back up well after the promised date.
4. No explanations are offered for the delay.
5. Jasin has not answered any further questions and has been MIA for the past week and a half.
Second
You're trying to confound the meaning of tangible proof and the use case. Your example is the use of fabricated proof to attempt to back an accusation. In this case tangible proof constitutes verifiable proof to prove a point; that work was done. Again, the refusal to allow someone to contact a foundry to verify dealings with Fibonaci is a red flag.
I would agree that you have red flags.
I disagree that you have any kind of proof that Jasin is a scammer.
Since allegations of scamming are very serious and highly damaging, they should not be made lightly or without proof.
Therefore, do not accuse Jasin of being a scammer. It's profoundly unethical.
In all courts: taking people's money, failing to deliver a product, failing to prove that you've taken steps to try to fulfill contractual obligations, and destruction or concealment of financial records would very much scream scam.
Again, perhaps you would like to address the hundreds of pages in the threads on failure to do any of what was mentioned above as pure hearsay? That everyone is just out to get Jasin?
Quote
I disagree that you have any kind of proof that Jasin is a scammer.
You are not welcome to respond to this. Even though clowns of your caliber can't keep from it.
A - Person says "Cachecoin is worth .01 bitcoin if you order my ASIC"
B - Person sells their cachecoin they mined months before to you to buy their ASIC using their wife's account.
C - Person has no evidence they ever had an ASIC because the foundry would "cancel the order if they knew it was going to be used for cryptocurrency"
D - Person disabled their website and used it promoted XC
E - Person offers you discount (in cachecoin) that is now worth 0.2% of what it was.
F - Person "runs out of refund money" for people who paid in bitcoin and litecoin.
This is the calliber "red flag" we are talking about for those thinking about investing in XC.
Why people like you always call everything "FUD"??
Here's why:
"FUD" stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".
What's been propagated in this thread is wilfully unsubstantiated claims of a very serious nature about Jasin.
Their effect is to produce fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Jasin, XC, Cache, etc.
Since they're unsubstantiated and therefore cannot be properly called facts, they're simply "FUD."
(Now what does this tell you about the kind of person I am?)
This is much more than just a project blowing up. This is someone taking money for a project and failing to even produce any tangible proof that the money received was indeed going towards work of the project.
No, this is exactly what happens when a project blows up. Something goes wrong, and then sentiment turns against the project and accusations start flying.
I do PR. I'm very well aware of how quickly people perceive things to be "tangible proof" when in fact they're just misperceived half-truths and emotion.
Case in point: XC's FUDstorm at the hands of a competitor. The FUD was solidly and resoundingly repudiated (before I was part of XC), but not before most people had dumped. And they dumped because they believed they had "tangible proof" that XC was a scam. They were all wrong. The "tangible proof" (like, say items in github, etc.) turned out not to be any kind of proof, and the truth came out.
Oh please stop with the mis-direction.
First:
When a project blows up, sentiments and accusations start flying in addition to valid complaints.
You're just sweeping everything said here as false accusations when in fact:
1. Money was taken for a product.
2. Said product was not delivered.
3. Requests for explanations are met with nebulous / non-verifiable excuses.
3. An entire website filled with data on customer orders was taken down and has not been put back up well after the promised date.
4. No explanations are offered for the delay.
5. Jasin has not answered any further questions and has been MIA for the past week and a half.
Second
You're trying to confound the meaning of tangible proof and the use case. Your example is the use of fabricated proof to attempt to back an accusation. In this case tangible proof constitutes verifiable proof to prove a point; that work was done. Again, the refusal to allow someone to contact a foundry to verify dealings with Fibonaci is a red flag.
I would agree that you have red flags.
I disagree that you have any kind of proof that Jasin is a scammer.
Since allegations of scamming are very serious and highly damaging, they should not be made lightly or without proof.
Therefore, do not accuse Jasin of being a scammer. It's profoundly unethical.
Jump to: