Topic: Trust flags - page 12. (Read 12939 times)

You can only use a Newbie warning flag.
If a victim shows up, he can use a stronger flag which can be supported by others. I think this can easily be abused though, anyone can create a Newbie account and say he's a victim just to create a flag.

How do we apply a flag to someone who is clearly involved in fraudulent activity but has not defrauded us personally ?

For instance this guy:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--4679939

Who is attached to multiple alts - is a criminal facing extradition and uses false identities to promote questionable projects ?


I want to get my head around the flag system before using it.

Only theymos (maybe Cyrus too, I don't know) can remove spammy Trust ratings. Maybe they missed your post or thread, send theymos a PM then.


I think he meant 'good', as in it was good for their wallets, they made easy money by stealing from their users.

There was never an issue with support not replying, the issue is what support replied (multiple times). They continually ignored the fact that I refused to agree with the Terms of service but would provide all KYC ( spelled this out in plain English in multiple emails)  and all they did in response was repeat "Do KYC from this link to unlock your account" over and over. The first thing that link did was make you agree to not hold them liable. That is called extortion, waiving my civil rights to sue is harmful and therefor fits the definition. I refused to waive my rights by agreeing to their terms and therefore have my funds held hostage. And yes as others have stated that was after they publicly announced that all funds would be allowed to be withdrawn if a person did not want to do KYC, they reneged on that promise.



You apparently decided to waive your rights to sue them, well I have evidence of them manipulating the margin trading and may one day exercise my rights therefore I will not waive them.


True


I'm not sure I agree that was a positive as it gave them the ammo for the shady shit they have pulled since then, like clams from all the wallets that were unclaimed. I had no Idea they even had that shitcoin listed, If I cared I would go back and see if they added it later just so they could pull this move.

*Sorry about the derail guys, I hadn't planned this and it's not like anything can be done in this context as they have no presence that I am aware of on this forum.
** Also I apologize for typo's the last few days as I drenched my keyboard in coffee and have alot of sticky keys ATM (which I've noticed the spell checker seems to like to change words as opposed to fixing spelling). 

I've posted about it months ago. No admin or moderator even bothered with it. There is this idiot, Buzzlieve1992 who have literally spammed THOUSANDS of negative feedback lines to legit people, yet nothing happened to him, nor was the trade rating spam removed. So I can tell you from personal experience ( with proof ) that nothing will be fixed.

Poloniex users were also given the affirmation that after the grace period, you could still withdraw funds. Just not trade.
Poloniex users were also given the affirmation that the grace period would be x amount of time, right until it suddenly was y amount of time (0).

The positive thing about implementing KYC was that every minor, anyone from a 3rd world country no longer had access to their funds, potentially forever.

I think it is acceptable with support tickets. I am not sure about average time of responses of all Poloniex support tickets but I guess the pace has been faster and more acceptable after Circle steps in.

---

KYC on Poloniex, if I remembered correctly, announced officially and Poloniex users were given weeks to finish their KYCs back in early of 2018. Additionally, it mainly implemented by Poloniex because US government requirements, not solely from Poloniex team. The positive thing with their new KYC verification procedure, after that is all users (including new registered users) don't have to wait for weeks or months to increase their level of daily withdrawal limits to $25,000.

Trust ratings aren't moderated, and afaik currently there is no policy of removing ratings of nuked accounts, but if someone is literally spamming you can contact theymos to have the spam removed.

As much as I hated them asking KYC, I do recall receiving warnings about lowering withdrawal limits. Then after a while, they suddenly reduced it to 0 until I sent them an angry looking selfie.

I received a response in 8 hours yesterday.

Wow, I have like 2500 pages of polo lending earnings and even wrote a few times about how to game the polo lending bot, which they have fixed/changed since.. Never have I heard of any losses from polo lending..
He says "some random shitcoin (CLAM) I haven't even heard of". He must not have been around all that long.. Isn't clam coin dooglus's or something related to that casino?

https://medium.com/circle-trader/overview-of-btc-margin-lending-pool-losses-a2f0905aaa56

I've traded clams for a long time too, loaned on polo for a long time, and saw cryptsy pull some stuff but more like disable wallets to let a pump run but have never been much into APIs..

If you were a clam whale you could put some clams on polo and use them to borrow a margin position against, use that and all your BTC to pump clam, then dump all your clam and withdraw all the BTC you could immediately.. If you wrecked polo's bot you might make off with some BTC of lenders funds..

You could do this with 2 accounts..
One to deposit clam and use to borrow BTC against and use the btc to pump clam and place huge buy orders on clam.
2nd account to deposit clam and dump onto the pump and to dump onto your other account which is just clams you used to borrow BTC to dump onto..

I can verify both the lies about KYC as well as the margin lending losses. Regarding margin trading, it is a WELL KNOWN tool of market manipulation (read fraud) used to control precious metals prices for example. Also I am very familiar with the Clamcoin market, and it was well known to have a lack of liquidity. This was not an accident it was a setup. This is exactly the type of behavior Cryptsy was exhibiting, in fact point by point. If I remember right Cryptsy didn't have margin trading, but they played similar games with liquidity and other processes. For example they would let people drive up a coin's price then disable the front end so they could scalp the order books via the API which was still active.

I know for a fact that Poloniex lied to customers about KYC verification, but i’m not sure when exactly that happend anymore.

Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/8mizvf/dear_poloniex_you_specifically_said_you_wont_hold/
They cant be held to their word and due to that i find them extremely untrustworthy. Imo they deserve to be tagged for this alone.

Also more recently all the people margin trading lost 16% of their margin funds due to sudden liquidations of a single low-cap shitcoin.

Quick maths shows this is nearly impossible and likely some sort of scam
https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/bxknrf/poloniex_btc_margin_lending_pool_losses/

It's not just about being behind on support tickets. Some people had withdrawals that were pending for months, causing them to lose a lot of money. Poloniex failed to respond to their tickets and never covered any of the damages caused by their lack of service.

Oh yea, I definitely agree, being behind on support tickets is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no proof beyond any doubt, that the exchange is scamming its users.

Speaking of trust flags and nuked users, is there a way to get their absurd 200 lines long, abusive (like "I hope your mother burns in hell") fake "untrusted trust" removed?  Maybe a nuked user should have all  left trust removed since they technically no longer exist anyway especially if they are these serial-scammer alts who only had 1 or 2 posts to begin with.   I know "untrusted trust" isn't harmful but it's just annoying.

Yes, this is after Busoni sold, while he was owner I think all he was guilty of was some insider manipulation which no one is proving without the books. All in all I was pretty happy with Polo until Circle acquired them.


We are at a stalemate with them holding my coins as I refuse to do KYC because they will not allow me to do it without agreeing to their "terms and conditions" (which have me agreeing to waive my rights to hold them liable) which I will not do, so my coins are in limbo unless and until I sue them. I tried governmental legal channels to no avail. Goldmann Ballsacks is not going to allow some district attorney to go after one of their subsidiaries. And for such a small amount its not really worth the effort to pursue currently.

Polo was way behind on their support tickets at the time. They also had taken down their trollbox at the same time. I can see where people were getting leery that another exit scam was looming. Polo has since changed ownership, anyway. So the tags should probably be revised. Unfortunately, Zepher can't revise his.  

The negative trust by these two seems pretty shady to me. I don't think there was any credible evidence of polo scamming in 2017.

Looks good enough to me, no one really has to 'prove' anything, an honor affirmation checkbox is sufficient. If others think they're wrong or lying, they can always oppose a given flag, distrust them, and in the worst cases theymos can have them removed from DT (I assume only from DT1).

And I'd definitely flag exchanges engaging in KYC withdrawal denial scams (type-1 flag, type-2 or -3 flag if you were victimized by the exchange).

True, but apparently he is still part of the company (possible still as the CEO) - at least according to his Linkedin profile[1].


I can't say how accurate that is tho.

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/tristan-d-agosta-0a4529172/