Topic: XCavator - Multiple Red Flags - Plagiarism, Fake Credential, Worrisome Tokenomy (Read 154 times)

As you do not seem to understand what plagiarism means, here is a little reading material for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism


Anyways, I am just amazed that you and the rest of your team did not bothered to read what the "external agency" prepared before you gave the final approval to the content. The fact that you went ahead and published it clearly shows that you do not actually care about your project or its reputation. I mean, that is basic!

External agency you mean someone from Fiverr or freelance sites if that freelancer knows his stuff he should have done the right thing and noted or mention the reference, and why you did not notice this error it's too easy to check this simple error if you know what a whitepaper looks like and you are professional in all your details the plagiarism and unprofessional is a big red flag for many projects here, in the first place the community should not be the one to correct your error it should be the whole team if the community corrected it then its already red flag.

For the whitepaper, what I wanted to say is exactly what Rikafip wrote. As for the other two points, the QR and the fact that the multisig didn't even crossed your consideration, IMO, it just strengthen the questionability of you, like you couldn't care less about any details and nooks and crannies of your project. It appeared to me --as the certificate and the QR within it is issued by the auditor-- that you couldn't bother yourself to check something as simple as the QR, which literally took mere seconds, it is arguably not the trait of a project that seek for a long term goals. Same thing with the multisig, you seems didn't plan thoroughly for the benefits of your investors.

With those said, can you please inform us how should your holders still believe in you that you'll actually be here long term and didn't rug-pull, especially with the entire supply in your possession? Because, let's face it, those signs are not good.

We do not intend to ask for apology. If you are pointing some mistake you came across then it is good for the community. It was just our thought.


The white paper was prepared by an external agency and we will contact them for this surely and get the matter amended. Thanks for pointing out.

We are in no way related to the other project mentioned. The certificates are issued by auditrate.tech and the QR code is also placed by them. The same can be verified from them.

You are right on this that most of the projects take the path you have mentioned. It depends on the project model and business policy. We will surely pass the points raised by you to the upper management for the needful decision.

Honestly, the fact that you hired someone else to write your whitepaper doesn't make this any better as it just shows that you were not capable of writing something as important as a whitepaper by yourself and what's even worse, you haven't checked the material before publishing and instead relied on some "agency" that are known for half-assed jobs.

Now, since you were so negligent with something as important, how can any potential investor trust you with their own money? I am sure that even you wouldn't invest in something like that.

Thanks for the nice suggestion. The white paper was prepared by an external agency and we will contact them for this surely and get the matter amended.

Tomato tomahto. If it's any consolation though, the title of this board is scam ACCUSATION, thus it is not too far from the realm of logic that the subject labelled as "scammers" on this board is on the status of accused. It is also widely known that being "labelled" as scammers doesn't directly means you are. The forum is open for your defense and if you're proven to be correct, the thread will be locked with clarification, even an apology if you deemed necessary. I am more than willing to apologiz if I am proven to be wrong and you can defended all of the points raised.

Speaking of...


And it is also widely know that it is an acceptable action to took the essence of someone's idea of something and describe them with your own words. With. Your. Own. Words. This is even a widely known practice in academic field. It is, however, not acceptable to take the entire idea and directly copy them, let alone without crediting the original author.

What's more interesting, though, you said more than once that there might be more plagiarism on your WP, like you didn't know it yourself. Were you not the one who wrote it? Let me guess, you freelanced it to a content creator?


So it's a harmless mistake, then? You, or them, just somehow wrongly placed the QR code for Mocking Metaverse on your certificate? Two questions: did you not check the QR code before releasing the document to public? It is a rather crucial factor to be checked, IMO. I would check every single milimeters of my certificate if I were you. It's called the commitment to project. Two, were your projects related, or share the same owner? It is, by far, the most logical explanation I can pull to understand the error in barcode placement, like: you scanned the barcode and it redirects you to Mocking Metaverse and you're ok with it because it is also your project and you didn't realize that the the QR code you scanned is actually for XCavator and not Mocking.


Yes, not all release the entire supply altogether, but most of those projects you mentioned as your defense will at least has a locking mechanism where the rest of the total supply and the gradual release is done by smart contract, not manually where the entire total supply is being in control of the token owner --which its fate relies completely on the pureness of the dev's heart.

The rest of the other projects, those that have to take the path where they control the tokens in their hand due to specific reason, even took a "smart" route to assure their investors that there will be no foul play by utilizing multisig method. Have you never heard of them, or is it not even crossed your mind? And to claim yourself to be on this field since 2018 and survived the winter...

Moderators of this forum don't meddle into scam accusations and that scam report format is not official at all but just a guideline one may follow or not so don't expect that any of these things change.


It doesn't matter that is just a general info, you should still provide reference to all the copied material, which you didn't do. I just don't get it, is that so hard thing to do, to share couple of links, did you guys never read Bitcoin whitepaper and noticed the reference at the bottom? That's how its supposed to be done, especially if you expect from people to invest their money into your project.

Firstly we would request the moderator to kindly consider changing one thing in the Scam Report Format and that is the labelling of ‘Scammer’ in ‘Scammers Profile Link’ unless until proved. It will be better to mention ‘Accused’ instead of ‘Scammer’ as all the law system in the world doesn’t label the accused ‘Guilty’ unless proved. We would apologise if we are wrong for this.


First Red Flag: Plagiarism
Reply- For the first red flag we would like to mention that the matter which are accused as Plagiarism are research material and provides general information which doesn’t relates to our project. 

With reference to the Screenshot No. [1] and [2] we would like to say that if we have to define Ethereum, Litecoin or Monero then we would only define the true facts of Ethereum, Litecoin or Monero which is already mentioned on 100’s of website. We cannot make our own definition of the same.

With reference to the Screenshot No. [3] we would like to say that the topic covered is a general topic and in no way describes anything about our project. It is just stating a general scenario which of course might be copied from different websites during research. We guess most of the research material are prepared by collecting information from different websites unless until it is copyright protected.

There might be more Plagiarism matter of research in our White Paper as we have got the same prepared after collecting information from different websites.


Second Red Flag: Faking credentials, owning other project’s KYB –Know Your Business—as their own
Reply- Our Know Your Business (KYB) is genuine and the certificate is provided to us by https://auditrate.tech
The same can be verified through the link below:
https://auditrate.tech/certificate/certificate_Xcavator.html
Please find below the link from auditrate.tech where all the KYB done by them is updated. Our KYB completion dated 04.20.2022 is also showing there:
https://auditrate.tech/kyc.html
Also our Smart Contract Audit Report can be verified through the link below:
https://auditrate.tech/images/pdf/Xcavator_0xBd20F9B0DbeED33FC4436F0aE7a34eedEFdA2878.pdf
Please find below the link from auditrate.tech where all the Audit done by them is updated. Our Audit completion dated 04.20.2022 is also showing there:
https://auditrate.tech/audit.html

Both our KYB and Smart Contract Audit is genuine and can be verified on the website of auditrate.tech


Third Red Flag: Holding and have control of the rest of the token “to be sold manually when the market condition is suitable”
Reply- Not all projects release all the tokens together. If it is so then we would like to get the literature or guidelines for the same. Also please understand that our project requires mining farm setup and we cannot procure mining equipments at our will due to the limited supply. As we have said that all the funds from the sale of tokens will be used for setting up mining farms and if the project releases the tokens and sells them at suitable market conditions then the infrastructure will be bigger which will generate more profits and we don’t see any harm in this. Moreover every project have plans to list on multiple exchanges and have to provide token liquidity for it, and so we also will be doing that as our token is not a mineable token and is a fixed supply token which cannot be increased. Our concept and working is at par with any good business policy and as every new project is successful only on the faith of the project community we also are expecting the same. We have disclosed our concept and working clearly to our community.

What happened: The project raises several red flags, as listed on the thread title and which will be described in more details in sections below

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/xcavatorinternational-3461862
Scammers Website: https://xcavator.co/ | archived
Scammers ANN thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-xcavator-a-crypto-utility-token-for-crypto-mining-5392519 | archived

---

---

First Red Flag: Plagiarism
Plagiarized Documents: Whitepaper | archived
Original source: Several, as listed below, but kindly check section 4, the image section for easier view
[1] http://enkwallet.com/ and https://cryptonmr.com/?page_id=280/
[2] https://support.nominex.io/en-us/article/47-what-is-monero
[3] https://genesisdigitalassets.com/the-challenges-of-industrial-scale-bitcoin-mining/

---

---

Second Red Flag: Faking credentials, owning other project's KYB --Know Your Business-- as their own

[archived]

Alleged Document: Project KYB Report | archived

If you actually checked at the document, though --see appendix [4] on section 4, it looks like a very poorly made "official certificate" with a QR that will redirect you to this link --edit: the link automatically redirect to the certificate, so I'll paste the link manually, https://me-qr.com/d4NLr as well as adding appendix [5] to maintain fairness-- I've tried both with my phone's QR code reader and online QR code reader, just to be sure, and both bring us to the same page, so it is safe to say the QR code --nor the certificate-- belongs to them. The link itself will redirect us to a detailed certificate issued by Smart Contract Security Audit for Mocking Metaverse additional note: I didn't check both the certificate issuer or the mockingmetaverse project as both are not the points of interests here.

---

---

Third Red Flag: Holding and have control of the rest of the token "to be sold manually when the market condition is suitable"

---

---

Some screenshot for easy view:

[1]



[2]




[3]



[4]


[5]

---

---

Notifying and inviting the accused to answer and defend themselves here