Quote from: thehun on May 11, 2018, 01:19:46 PM

Quote from: favelle75 on May 11, 2018, 12:52:56 PM

It matters to identify victims of this case. This answer shows that you are not a victim here. Can you please roll back to beginning of this project.
Who were you in in contact with repux-joytoken teams. ?
Who is @novatron (Telegram) David Siu (I am not sure his real name is David Siu)
Do you know that same person was the "CEO" (As he introduces himself on Telegram) of both projects?

If a person comes to you and says we are running 2 ICOs same time and going to raise millions of dollars and you are going to be paid upfront and run our bounty campaign. What do you think?.
I am not an idiot person and i will be sure that they are going to scam people.

so in this case David Siu contacted you for 2 ICOs in same time or not? Please tell your long story from beginning.

Ok, we never said we were the victims. The bounty hunters are the ones taking the hit.

David Siu (CEO of Novatron Capital) is real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKosBKBiy_s

He is an advisor for both RepuX and Joytoken but the CEO is a different person. Marcin Welner in the case of RepuX and Andrew MacDonald at Joytoken.

Both projects came to us from the hand of David Siu and at the same time, the onboarding procedure was standard, and at the time there were no signs of what was going to happen afterwards. The projects raised less than expected, largely because of the bear market (that affected many other ICOs at the same time), and at the end of the ICO they decided that the amount allocated was too high to be paid out in full.

I believe its safe to say both the project teams and David Siu are not competent as they claim to be. A lot of crypto projects devised means to reach their goals even in the bear market, with airdrops and referral campaigns that were funded from the marketing budget..

I applaud amazix for the swift action they took by notifying the public of developments as soon as they can.

If I may suggest however, I would suggest Amazix make contractual agreements with projects in the future because of avoiding repetition of cases like this.

Also a project can include conditional clauses in their bounty terms like: "In a case where the hardcap is not reached, bounty rewards will be paid in proportion to the raised funds"... I'm sure a message like this will prepare bounty hunters in advance for the eventuality of the situation.

Thats why most projects allocate a percentage of their funds raised for the bounty projects