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.