Because you are reading out of context, I am not discussing CM per se, I was simply implying that if someone thinks that those who participated in WW are remotely responsible for users' loss -- they should think the same in regard to any other service including CM, I used CM as an example since the person I was discussing with was advertising CM.

You may come up with all kinds of differences between the two services, but the end result is the same, a large failure which resulted in lost funds and possibly a lot of data leaked.

So, if advertising for WW was wrong -- then advertising for CM was also wrong, it's also wrong to advertise any other services now since all services without exception could fail or exit scam and thus result in lost funds.


I understand that coming from someone who never advertised any service before, but as soon as you start advertising something it automatically puts you in the same boat as everyone else who promotes a service that isn't an obvious scam like Ponzi, so it makes no sense to say "I am better than you because I am advertising this service which I so happen not to guarantee".

I have nothing against n0nce, but the main takeaway of his post was

1- WW was as obvious a scam as Bitconnect.
2- Everyone who participated in WW did it for the $/post despite knowing it was a scam

I respect his decision for not feeling comfortable advertising WW or any other service he doesn't like, but those claims make it seem like every one of us was advertising an obvious scam just for money, maybe he didn't mean it that way, but his post implies exactly that.