Topic: TOKPIE Exchange - scam (Read 637 times)

I just thought that false volumes could as well be created on the DEX in order to get on CG, but this is no longer a problem of TOKPIE or this topic, you are right. We are just talking about a hypothetical crypto projects that could be honest for their users.

I am not sure how correct my following statement is, as I'm not really well versed on this topic, but IMO, the short answer for your question is yes. Adding token to DEX is relatively easy, you only need to provide LP and convince your holders to do organic trading to fulfill the daily trading volume. Once these requirements --listed above on the screenshot-- met, you can apply for CG and co., and once listed on CG, I think it'll be easier to apply for a CEX. Not the big player CEX, small ones first, but that's a start.

Alternatively, if you still really aim for CEX --I'm not sure if they still do this-- you can try to enter those event of community vote free listing. I recall several big exchanges held these events years back.

Nonetheless, our discussion has walked to the zone of OOT. So if you want to know further, I'd suggest you to... have your own thread. Not sure which board for this kind of topic, though.

Do I understand you correctly that the right way for a new token that is not scam and does not want to seem so is to listing it on DEX, achieve any minimum daily trading volumes, and only then add it to CEX (not like TOKPIE), CG, CMC and others?

it seems like you started from the wrong side. You want to be listed on CG first, and only then do you look for the possibility of an exchange. it seems to me that the reverse is necessary.
creating a token is the easiest thing today, everything that comes later requires much more specific work. listing on the exchange for all new tokens is a big problem and that's what exchanges like Tokpie and similar use. after all, you still need to achieve a constant daily trading volume which is very difficult to achieve (Tokpie offers artificial trading volume).

Thanks, I'll try to fill out the on CG form myself. But I do not understand, if my token is not traded on some CEX and it has no volumes on DEX (but it listed there), it will not be able to get to CG? Nevertheless, there are a lot of scam-projects on CG. It turns out that scammers (like Tokpie) are deceiving other scammers (who use Tokpie) with the help of scammers (in CG)?

Yes, they are free, like examplens said. The hard part that made such... fishy platform like... tokpie were preferred to help new coins to get listed is because of the conditions that has to be met to be listed, these requirements will not be disclosed to you prior to listing, but several of them are: the daily trading volume, trading spreads, and team details... which, tokpie surprisingly --in a bad way-- is more than happy to help you tailor them. You can see them yourself on the point number one of this remnant of evidence from previous expose of their shady business

they ^Tokpie just want to take your money. it was discussed in the topic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tokpie-exchange-unethical-and-blackmailing-way-of-doing-business-5377380
I certainly didn't trust them or enter into a deal with them.

Have you tried to communicate with Coingecko about the necessary conditions for signing up for their service? As I know, listing on their service (CMC also) is free.

I found this topic because I received an offer from TOKPIE about listing and adding my token (SONE) to CG, CMC, Etherscan.
And I have some doubts about whether it meets the requirements of CG. And will I be able to get the services TOKPIE specified in the offer, or after payment it turns out that my project does not meet the requirements of CG and I can not fix it in any way.
How can I be sure that my token is suitable for CG?

Regarding refund. I propose about 50% refund twice. Twice got note: no refund.
I understand your position: no agreement - no refund. In same way agreement was to list 24 hours to CoinGecko and 72 hours to Etherscan, not telling about CoinMarketCap. No of this wasn't done. We ask about 50% refund twice to close questions from us.
100% refund we asking only now (its not more, than we sent). Because their work completely ineffective and after two 50% refund rejects we spend time on this topic.

Regarding main chain of Green Token. When we tell in our Telegram Group about Polygon is main chain we meant, that there most exchanges count at that moment and even now. In same time Ethereum network ERC-20 token never stops working. Main reason, why it has no activity, that is 100$ fee for simple transfer or exchange is a little bit insane for any user, that use token of not so huge project as ours.
To Polygon any user can at any time deposit their ERC-20 tokens (Trade there with ~$0.01 fee) and withdraw back to Ethereum and trade on it also.
Hope its clear

By the way we never ask about supporting Polygon network on Tokpie, the ask was only add contract address of GREEN to Coingecko, while list, what was accessible from the beginning and its not confusion for Coincgecko (as a lot of tokens support both chains and Coingecko track it). Anyway even Ethereums contract was not added to CG. Polygon should be second step.

This might be a misunderstanding between the two parties. I explored some of the ones you both present.

About the Green token main chain. If we refer to token trackers, what we can see together is that the ERC-20 network runs first than the polygon network which means the ERC-20 network is first the GREEN main chain.

ERC20 network - 1st transfer is 11 may 2018
Polygon network - 1st transfer is April 14, 2021

Tokpie's claim in this case makes more sense to me. Based on one of the screenshots of the conversation in this post, a deal was struck on April 6th to be listed on Tokpie and other services before the polygon chain GREEN was created. And the GREEN Team also can't insist that Tokpie has to support polygon networks, although technically your reason is justified but you don't list your token to support 2 different networks in Tokpie.

---

About being listed on Coingecko (CG), I don't know how experienced Tokpie is with this. I think you are too confident to give listed offers only 24 hours. Even more so if you only make your exchange only as data preference. The Green team should also realize this is too easy to be true for (sorry to say) a low quality project and you should ask for a money back guarantee on the initial agreement if it doesn't work out in time.

It will be a CG confusion, when the main network is changed to polygon, on the other hand the Tokpie team might just add market list of GREEN with their own exchange which doesn't support polygon network. That's why GREEN is hard to be listed there.

---

As a suggestion to solve the problem for both of you, then consider these things:

Firstly, @Tokkie however you have failed to list this coin on CG, even after 24 since the April 6 email was sent. You should return the money immediately consciously at that time if you are a professional.

Second, @GREEN you can't actually claim a refund because there's no agreement about it, instead you're asking for more than the original agreement.

Although this attempt at listing was not successful, there is a process that must be rewarded with money even if it will be lower than what was originally agreed. I don't agree if the return has to be 100% and I don't agree if there is no return at all. At least a few percent, depending on how far the process was.

I don't know before purchase what exactly they planned to do.
Volume was not our order.
Our order was listing to CG, CMC and etherscan.
"Volume Assistance" they provide for free, and I don't know what exactly it is before purchase.
In same way we understand what is liqudity and its normal practice as in CEX as in DEX. Trading bots is also normal practice.
Fake volume not ethical, if its not covered by, at least, bots. No?
So if bots trading between each other is also not ethical?

Anyway I don't think before about "Volume Assistance" definition, so can't recognize my behavior as unethical. Especially, if I don't order it.

I didn’t say you used a fake team but both of your behaviors, characters are kinda unethical. You have planned tokpie exchange to get volume? Don't you think it's unethical? That's why I have said both of you are unethical, shady.

I think examplens question is sufficient, if answered, to put some weight into the scale, which is why I didn't comments further, to wait for your response regarding it. However, since you keep ignoring their questions, I could only assume that the answers are not favoring you, that if you answered, you'll only show people that you did a misconduct and breaching contract.

You keep insisting that you've done your part, where one of it were listing om coingecko, and that they refuse to list GREEN because of insufficient points from GREEN's side, namely a poor website design and no team details. Thus, it is not your fault.

However, have you been aware of these lack of requirements when you offered GREEN your service and promised them the listing? If your answer is yes, then why do you still promising them the listing although you are fully aware that the chance is very slim? If your answer is no, don't you study a project prior to offering them your service? At least studying the basics like if their project is "doable".

And please at least tell us that you've warned GREEN prior to the agreement that there will be some difficulties in listing due to the lack of certain requirements. Because if you didn't, you're rather misleading them by giving an impression that all GREEN need is to pay and everything will goes smoothly.


This sounds awfully like an evasion, like you know you're the wrong side and you can't prove otherwise, hence you want to leave before making much more damage --like the shocking revelation how you encourage your client to fake team members. I think it is quite fair to say that, up to this point, people here are giving you benefits of doubt by refraining from tagging with negative trust until there is enough evidence to conclude who is at fault here. If you decided to walk away --disregarding what't the real motive behind it-- how should we know what's your defense will be against them?

Last, no response regarding advise of fake team? I think we can safely put a decision regarding this.

You measure your work with hours. We not order hours - we order result. Result should be after 24 hours.
Our part with work was not required on their proposal.
You ask to post fake team.
We reject it and ask refund.
Your fairy tail about 24 hours equals tons also not true.

The work not done. Result not met. About improving web quality by our part with our team or fake team members was not in your starter proposal.
This is your decision - last post or no.
Our communication with you and loss of 0.343ETH and this topic now part of Bitcointalk community, after rejection of 50% refund twice and 100% after all.

Now I may conclude for myself:
Tokpie = Lie
Tokpie = Scam

Beware to work with Tokpie.
-1 Rep added only now.

again you have the wrong approach. Can you be more unprofessional?
Do you have in your TOS somewhere that it is clearly indicated "if some unsatisfied customers publicly complain to your work, his token will be delisted immediately"?
Also, I find on your blog where you just dragged the sentence "this exchange is a scam, blah, blah..." a couple of times (source)

you need to present clear evidence that it is a scam because otherwise, it will probably turn against you.

From our side, the work was done and we continue to support your ERC20 token. Moreover, we give you as much time as you need to improve your project web quality to satisfy CG requirements.
But, If you will not close these proceedings in the next 10 days we keep the right to delist you forever because of your bestial attitude to all work that we provided to you.

P.S.
This is my last post in this thread.

What do you mean both parties? We never post fake team and don't agreed to do that.
Or I understand something wrong? Do you read whole thread?

Holy crap! This guy is suggesting creating a fake team. What the hell is going here? How come a service asks to do such an unethical job? If I understood perfectly, I guess both of the guys are unethical & both deserve a negative tag for practicing such unethical activities. Both parties are dishonest which I would more comfortable with to say scammer as indirectly it's the same as a scam.

You posted the wrong imgbb link, the one with referenced email is this one: https://ibb.co/sySrtWM. You might want to change the link on that post via edit to avoid confusion from future readers.

---

Sweety, I am sure you completely understand what they talked about and which email they're referencing to, it took almost zero brain power to understand what he talked about, really. But in case you failed to understand it due to the wrong link --I mentioned above-- here, I'll post them side by side for a better understanding for everyone.

The original email, according to GREEN


The email version of TOKPIE


Please explain this matter.

---

I have to say I am very disturbed when I reached this part of --crazy and chaotic-- quote-pyramid that my jaw is literally dropped followed by an involuntary whistle of amazement.

One of the main purpose of this board on bitcointalk is to fight against scammers with their fake team etc. and here TOKPIE casually suggest a project to add fake team to be accepted by CoinGecko. Only Satan knows how many projects were suggested by them to do this to pass a crypto platform, it brings a big perspective to the legitimacy of projects supported and marketed by TOKPIE.

I think, if TOKPIE can't provide a very reasonable and acceptable reason behind this corrupted suggestion --which, I have to say, from where we stood right now I don't think there will be any acceptable reason--, even if this scam accusation is resolved, there is still this issue that worth a whole different flag and red trust.

We are not interested on pairs from the start. The main reason why we start work is Coingecko listing, what wasn't done nor in 24 hours nor in 72 hours.
Now you say all work done, CoinGecko is our troubles, that it still not listed.
No, its not.

We are not order trading volume assistance, not order promotion and also not order guidance on what to do to pass Coingecko...
The quality of project you have seen on the start when write proposal (24 hours listing to coingecko), and do not tell that needed team section or other modification.
Than took money.
Than we wait more than 24(and 72) hours. Coingecko not passed (with it not passed Etherscan and CoinMarketCap)
After that you propose to post fake team - we not do that.
Games with volume assistance - not effective to pass Coingecko
after you rejected volume.
We ask about 50% refund twice - you reject it.
Now you tell, that is "our troubles"

Now I'm ask about 100% refund. Business with you not interested after all.

Behaviour
a lot of lie
fail Coingecko
fail Etherscan
fail CoinMarketCap
games with volume until rejection
spended time on whole discussion and this topic

What you propose now? What should we post for completition?
I will close this proceedings, if two from this three things will be met (Coingecko, Etherscan, CoinMarketCap) in next ten days.

In other case - 100% refund in ETH.

Thanks for your reply. It makes sense. Maybe you are right but if we look at your offer, it was not like OP has to do things. You were responsible to do everything according to your offer. All the details you are talking about regarding listing on coingecko are available on the internet. So, basically, you sold all of them? Or what was the deal? If you just directed how to do which is available on coingecko itself even, what was your part with coingecko in the deal?

To pass Coingecko we provided them with trading, vol assistance, promotion, Coinpaprika, blog post, and guidance on what to do to pass Coingecko. But Coingecko doesn't accept them because of their low web/project quality.

That doesn't matter as long as he is right about the accusation. Is it true that you couldn't provide coingecko, cmc listing? If that's true, you have broken a contract and deserve a big red flag. Please share the information exactly here. Otherwise, you are not going to help yourself.

The offer also said you will ensure coingecko listing after 24 hours your exchange list them? Where's coingecko? Why didn't you list them on coingecko?

1. Please look at the offer: https://ibb.co/LzkZMPd. It's clearly said "Listing on CMC after traction turning on." CMC has not yet enabled the traction. That's why we said it in the offer.
2. To pass Coingecko we provided them with trading, vol assistance, promotion, Coinpaprika, blog post, and guidance on what to do to pass Coingecko. But Coingecko doesn't accept them because of their low web/project quality.
3. Also, we instructed them how to get Etherscan update: https://ibb.co/JyKT5ZJ. Only token owners can submit such requests on Etherscan.

 

I have to praise the reaction to restore their trading pairs. it is much better than blackmailing and responding negatively


you still haven't given me clear answers. If you promise them listing on CMC, CoinGecko and whatever, have you done that part of the deal?


no, you don't need to fix their infrastructure, but you should pay attention when accepting similar projects. acceptance of everything only degrades the quality of your service, I guess now you understand why some projects will never come to a bigger exchange, even if they want to pay.

After your web started to refer to the ERC20 token (that was agreed to list), the trade was restored.
Check the links:
https://tokpie.com/view_exchange/GREEN-ETH/
https://tokpie.com/view_exchange/GREEN-WBTC/
https://tokpie.com/view_exchange/GREEN-USDT/
That's not our fault that your project doesn't meet the tracker's requirements in full. From our side, everything was done to help you appear there. So we stop calling you blackmailer when you stop blaming us for all your troubles.

---

Tons of hours were spent to provide them with agreed services. Everything was done from our side (trading, vol assistance, promotion, and guidance on what to do to pass trackers). Might be you think we should re-develop their web, find team members for them and do all other development staff. Appearing on trackers is mutual co-working. We did our part, they did not. So, what refund they are asking for now!

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

if we are already talking about blackmail, do you understand that this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58659962 is the most obvious form of blackmail and coming on your part?
is that really the way you run your business?

About accusations against Tokpie here, you ^{BTCITA187 or whoever it represents here} need to give some simple answers
Did you promise them all of this stuff like listing on CMC, CG etc... and you take money for that?
Do you have any refund policy, what if you do not meet all of these requirements?
Are you delisted their token much before the end of the contract date? If yes, it is quite legitimate to ask for part of the money back, because you did not deliver the complete service.

Here is request about exactly this Matic address
https://i.ibb.co/MDPhHM4/Screenshot-2021-12-14-at-05-47-25-GREEN-price-market-cap-on-Etherscan-CMC-Coin-Gecko-Trading-View-an.png
Response
https://i.ibb.co/BV60PCM/Screenshot-2021-12-14-at-05-24-45-GREEN-price-market-cap-on-Etherscan-CMC-Coin-Gecko-Trading-View-an.png
After that on your blog, mentioning Matic and original contract address on Matic 0x8a4001fd666be272605c56bb956d11a46200db81
https://i.ibb.co/F4XLTjv/Screenshot-2021-12-13-at-22-59-35-Tokpie-Green-Exchange-is-SCAM-and-Grandpa-Green-Token-is-SCAM.png
Link on post: https://tokpie.io/blog/trade-green-exchange-token/


https://greencoin.online/token_status/
you may see that address there.

Its our official token address on ethereum mainnet! Mainpage edited

Don't try to use name "blackmail" and "fake accusation" of our ask to make 50% refund of your fail with:
CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, Etherscan
reject trading volume
and delisting token after that

1. Where is the screenshot proving that we promised you to list your MATIC TOKEN on our exchange? The deal was about only your ERC20 token 0x5e68801a5dda8671051006eb2920ffe9cd553544.
2. Where are any references on your website to the ERC20 token 0x5e68801a5dda8671051006eb2920ffe9cd553544 that we listed as was agreed with you?

Clearly state on your website https://greencoin.online/ that your official token is ERC20 token: 0x5e68801a5dda8671051006eb2920ffe9cd553544 and we restore your token trading.
Of course, if your goal is just to blackmail us and threaten us, you can continue making your fake accusation.  

Lie.
You are not provided service! And know about Matic (and its absolutely different address) from the start, and mentioned on your blog - is not an argument.
Fact - you not provided CG, CMC, Etherscan.

You delist token from Tokpie - True - Please make refund

Lie.
Its token ALIVE, man, and you can find places, where it mentioned.
No mention: https://ibb.co/WtPJnXW - On the first screenshot, you provided you may see huge green button that follows to page, that entire related to token.
The reason why its not traded on eth, because of crazy commissions for gas in Ethereum. You trying abandon any ERC-20 token on Ethereum.
Its tradable and alive! And its not old!
You have captured different part of site, where token not mentioned, its not an argument to stop service.
You complete delist token - refund, please!

Lie.
I provide both screenshots to see your deleted lines.

Lie.
It's not ok! It's you abandon our token.
Sir, sorry that I'm again trying to focus you on whole post. There is absolutely no arguments on each lie that we post and again generated new lie.