Looking for truth, obviously. The roasting part was done several posts ago. Try to keep up.


Me? Why me? I am just an amateur with zero experience in scam busting. Why don't you? You're the professional here. I thought you like to see yourself as the last force protecting the cryptocommunity?

[gasp]
The highest level of moral principles and honesty is accepting payment to remove negative facts from a review site and hiring and considering people who spent 48 hours on an app, platform, or the likes as someone with real user experience?

Hmm.. this is interesting. Can you ask her for me, if she's not in any way involved, at any degree with BKS, then why'd she retweeted their tweet about her being their advisor? I am aware I can ask her myself, but certainly we can agree that two people poking her tg with questions will rather put her on an inconvenient situation.

And for the last time, CryptoViking and BKS are not my friend, just like --I am sure-- they're also not friends with the DT who left you feedback. The feedback and "defense" --though I prefer to use the word "inquiries-- happens here is not because we know CV and friend with him. I have not even heard of his name before this thread. So it'll be very much appreciated if you can stop throwing the "you're friend with xxx" or "your friend xxx" or "the admins bla-bla-bla" like its a Black Friday.


I am sure you're well aware that your answer is not covering what I asked. Allow me to make it simpler: does the 1,000-3,000 USD and the 5-10% you charge to your "client" is outside the fee charged by the law firms?

Yes, I got the answer, as well as, I believe, everybody who read this thread. Though a bit implicitly explained, the nature of your site and the ethic you followed, your definition of honesty, can be summed up in that sentence. When people did not pay you, i.e.: using your free service, you'll tell all positive and negative facts. You'll have a lengthy dialog with the potential buyer like CryptoViking, inquiring about so many things --borderline grasping at straws, if I may add my personal amateur opinion-- while actually collecting more and more materials for your article and offering the paid service. When they pay, they can rest assured. When they opt to use your free service, though, they'll have a potential to [check note], ahh... deserved to be "shut down"

I think the tag is well proven and justified now.

Moving on to next topic. Though, at this point, I don't see why its necessary anymore, given the dark side of your service is already well-founded. Nonetheless...

Ms. Valge.
I can see that you're quite well versed on crafting sentences to drive certain opinion. "consultant", "work with them", "working on". The announcement made by BKS was that she's one of the advisors, as she acknowledged and confirmed on the last part of her chat with you.

Flying overseas to help solve problems... and whatnot.
Your explanation on the earlier part here, just in case I was wrongly understand it, I'd like to confirm, so you're pretty much brokering a lawyer? You're reviewing a case, if it can be solved by yourself, virtually, much like what we did here, it's free. But if it require a lawyer, you'll look for a lawyer in that area, charge the customer an extra 1,000-3,000 USD outside the lawyer's fee, non-refundable, and when they win the case, you'll charge another 5-10% of the amount won. All that for finding a lawyer for the customer? Or do I understand that scheme of yours wrongly?

I am sorry if I sound rude, that's a bit intentional, but I think you have a trouble on addressing all the matters being discussed. This will the third time it being asked, so I'll just snip everything and focus solely on this matter below, to help with your short attention span, until it's cleared.

I can't be the only one aware that you conveniently left out the part about stars and supportive comments? What about them? They're made by people who truly using the platform in subject, and all of them has to be extremely satisfied? 5 stars. Does it mean suppose there are 60 reviewers, legit reviewers from which I have no idea where you get them from, 10 of them leave a 4 stars review, which doesn't met your service agreement, so you'll have to ask them to not publish it? Quite sure cherry picking is not fair in the world of reviewing a service or platform. Is this honesty? How about if you only have 30 out of those 60 who gave 5 stars? You'll ask the other 30 to not post their review while hunting for more reviewers --again, not sure where you get the legit people who reviewed a platform for the sole purpose of reviewing it instead of getting paid for it-- and so on and so on until you achieve 50? Again, is this honesty?


So now you're no longer "the last force", but one of "the last" person and one of the last sites. Falling down pretty quick from the initial position of your statement, eh? Curious about one thing, how much will it cost for someone to solve a case to the court of India or Pakistan? Free? I have specific someone in mind that is in trouble and last i check --haven't open their thread for days now-- they're looking for a lawyer to help them. Also have another one in mind with significantly less amount of money, but currently in an indisputable situation against a platform, care to mediate them and fly back and forth between their countries? You can fly there and help them both? Pro bono? Or will it cost tens of thousands of dollars?

Interesting. I'd really love if I could verify that you're indeed talking with Ms. Valge and not talking to each other with yourself or one of your team. Care to show us the profile box that shows her username with that chat on the background? I am sure a scam buster know what I mean and how to provide it.

It does not negate the fact that you asked some sum of money for some rating boost. In fact, anyone reading that conversation in full will very likely understand that you removed the word "FAKE" is simply as a bargaining chip, a gesture of good will that will turn sour when your request got denied.

The chat is filled with implied threat every now and then.

Be focused on your service please, I'm not talking about other services.

I mean the content of the review, I don't care if you stick it on your windshield. So will it be the same or not?

$1k will be billed before the article is published right? You previously prepared a draft and showed it to the project team and it won't be found archived.

I just uploaded the chat log as html file and also as PDF file, so you can choose whatever you prefer.

HTML file link: https://ufile.io/7fsbxupe

PDF file link: https://ufile.io/wbzjlh9w

[holydarkness said: the explanation, in summary, was that the OP, -CryptoViking- has deleted all of the chat]

As a professional, from where I stood, you should have understand and well-adept on the rule to archive everything for future reference, this practices even also applied in real world business. But let's not dwell on that. Earlier today I've contacted OP via telegram and reinvited him to this thread to perhaps add further info. And unlike you, I archive it, alongside with a prior notice to the counterparty that I am doing so. Let's just wait for OP to come here.

[I saw that OP has replied here in between me composing this wall of text and confirmed the deletion. OP, do you mind sharing those archived conversations?]

Meanwhile, let's talk about this interesting part of paid service you offered, shown below. From the perspective of a professional, as you claimed to be, from 1 to 10, how low do you think these practices I mark in red squares in term of ethical business, personal invasion, and/or honest review site?

Do those private investors know and you have their consent on their email being shared to a third party paying you? How about the 5 stars comment and 50 supportive comments? These were made with honesty too?

[...]
But honestly, BitcoinTalk admins NEVER helped us in these 3 years, and now that there is a misunderstanding, they ignore all our efforts and destroy us. While we are the last forces standing on this dirty market and helping people.

Can I kindly, very kindly, ask you to please don't self-overpraise yourself? If you can? I believe you're not the last force standing on this dirty market and helping people, especially given that you involve yourself on that dirty market by offering positive reviews on several sites. Lovesmayfamilis can probably single handedly --or even single fingerly-- topped your self-proclaimed last force against dirty market and helping people, and he's just one of dozens of the prominent scam-busters on this forum who actively hunting not only projects but also individuals who threaten the poor and vulnerable citizen of crypto, I was just too lazy to dig their profile link. If you have been around the scam busting field for so long, I am more than sure you can mention several names yourself. And they do that completely for free. So yeah, I doubt the "last force" statement is quite correct.

Thanks buddy for your kind words.
I'm not stressed, I'm just upset that 20 admins stand in front of AntiDolos to defend their friend.  

[...]

No admins involved on this case by standing in front of you to defend "their friend". So far, only the DTs, and they're not even 20, just... 5, hmmm... you must be bad at math. And they --or dare I say "we" as I am there too-- are not friends with cryptoviking or backstage. For a professional in scam busting and crypto reviewing who doesn't take screenshots for what I assume would be privacy reason, you seems a bit trigger happy on baseless statements, don't you agree?

But enough roasting. Now let's move back to the topic. I'd like to address the concern of your depth of capability to conduct research as... the last force. Let's focus on this project and the article you published [archived here].

You believe Ms. Valge's involvement on the project is, at the very least, questionable because you can't confirm her involvement. No mention of this project on her LinkedIn. Thus you marked it with fake on your page. If only you dive deeper, far deeper than an amateur like me did, you'll find a fact that she retweeted the announcement of those 56 partners.


I doubt she'll be retweeting it if she did not involved at any degree and backstage only borrowed her name without consent.

Thought?

You have very long arguments with all of us but you are not showing any part of these conversations since the start of the accusation to refute OP, and I did not judge you right away I go to the extent of checking your site
look for a disclaimer to see what are the parameters and requirements for a project to avail of your service but there is none, go check the other marketing managers here and you'll see that they impose requirements for projects that would like to avail of their service.

Now you're telling me this when it's not even on your website my impression is even a low-score project based on your assessment can avail of your service and that's why you are offering your service to OP even if you told him that he has a low score.

 

Mate, I see your stress but do not forget the sayings that says "a clear conscience fears no accusations" So if you think you have nothing in the secret to hide then you should not be afraid or worried of mere propaganda because nothing is hidden beneath the sun. As long as you have a strong point and facts to defend yourself than that should not bother you in anyways.

As a professional, can you show a little respect to the interlocutors and write in normal text size? There are no idiots here and everyone can read. Also, constant and persistent repetition^paste of your views does not help and it is really hard to try to follow what you are presenting here. At least to me.

We all encourage you here to refute the OP's claims and provide a screenshot that will do so. It's about your reputation here and your service, so it's completely justified that you present evidence.

The fact is that if you are really neutral and objective, then at no time can you say "for $1,000 we are ready to 8+ score your project and fully promote your article on sites and forums." You are not talking about fixing bugs or whatever here, it is blackmail at its most obvious.

---

At the moment you have 5 negative tags, how would it look if you got an offer to get 8+ positive feedback instead of -5 for only $2000?

Some of my questions:

• Was the offer of $1k valid (assuming only a friendly offer, no extortion at all)?
• (if you answered yes to the question above) In the title of the published article^[1]  of course this sounds bad for readers in general, but is it okay for you to still offer marketing services to projects that you mark yourself as a risk?
  
• What will you do if BKS hires marketing services, I mean will you still publish the same article^[1] on your site? Or will you speak differently elsewhere?
  
  1. https://antidolos.com/backstage-bks-blockchain-is-a-high-potential-on-the-downslide/
  

Beside not doing a very good job at scambusting (not providing proper evidence for your claims), my main problem with you is that you simply don't understand how wrong it is to increase the rating just because someone paid you $1000.

Care to explain how is that possible, how caan some project immediately get better because they paid what you asked for?

I take it that, as you've been here for couple of years and been busting scammers a lot, you are aware that providing evidences can be made from both sides? That is one of the purpose of this thread as well as my invitation on the other thread, to let you answer and defend yourself here.

You are more than welcome to give the screenshots from your side, and... uhh... what's the words? Ahhh... speak with proof and let the audience decide for themselves..

Maybe it's the wrong choice of words that you've used because however I read it based on the screenshot of JeromeTash you sound like you are trying to convince the admin to try your service for $1000 to increase the rating of the project, there's nothing wrong offering a premium marketing service but offering to give a good score on your review for a fee is questionable.
If you have a review site and offer premium marketing services, you should know who can avail of that service will you let a project with a very low rating avail of your premium service?
So if I have a low rating in your reviews can I avail of your marketing service?

I don't see qualifications on what kind of project you are willing to promote, there is no Disclaimer and requirement either
https://antidolos.com/digital-marketing-services/

So you are correct and these people that tag you are all wrong based on how you defend yourself
you seem to be good in English but it is easy to understand even for a none native English member that you are extorting people because you are offering $1000 and you're also offering to give it a good score

I don't care if the project is fraudulent or not, but the fact that you are willing to up the score for a fee says something about you. It simply means even if the project was truly fraudulent, for a price, you will turn a blind eye to the red flags and convince your audience that the project is legitimate

You can not be trusted

We also know how to read and comprehend. Read your reply again

Everything is good until this was posted



And until now you haven't addressed this issue, there is extortion on this screenshot and we all have that impression, now tell us if this is not extorting $1000 for a good rate what is it?

What happened: AntiDolos tried to extort me by publishing bullshit review of a project where I am Co-Founder and if I pay $1000 they would give us a much higher rating. In his review that is not public yet he made a lot of false accusations, from having fake team members to faking partnerships which is just not true. Article is not yet published on their website and we got preview version of it and I guess they wanted to wait and see whether we gonna give them $1000.

Website: https://antidolos.com/
User: AntiDolos

Backstage website https://bksbackstage.io/

One of his claims is that we (Backstage) are falsely advertising partnerships with parties that we have no connections whatsoever and that's simply not true.




For example, this is a tweet from Haash verified official account with 5.6 million followers where they mention Backstage as a place where you can buy VIP Meet & Greet tickets for their North America tour.

Backstage marketplace https://www.bkstage.io/


https://twitter.com/haashoficial/status/1643048481836212228?t=tnXS_HRgy33HPC8QbDgtTg&s=19


In the top right corner you can see Backstage logo as we are partners with Aspendos which is an ancient theater in Turkey that hosts shows of top world stars like Placido Domingo.


https://www.aspendos.live/


Professional UFC fighter Kelvin Gastelum published on his official Instagram account with more than 500k followers about being Backstage ambassador.


https://www.instagram.com/p/CerdfsiPj3a/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=


Telegram message where AntiDolos asks $1000 for higher rating


His telegram username @Antidolos_admin


One of the more ridiculous claims is that we "don't have token yet" while we actually wanted to fully develop business before launching the token and that's exactly why so many tokens failed-they have nothing behind it while we have a real business that is already bringing revenue and we are not in hurry to publish token and dump it on investors like majority of others are doing.




I could go on but I think that this is enough to prove that AntiDolos has no clue what he is talking about, didn't make a proper research and has no honest intention to protect the community.
I couldn't even care less about his review if he didn't try to actually extort me and that's when I decided to publish this so the same thing won't happen to others.

If you want to do your own research about Backstage, you can start here:

https://t.co/7165whXYbL

I think it's still on point. I mean, can even a legitimate project be beaten by a less influential review company? If they only need $1k not to post bullshit reviews, at least you have a bigger allocation than that to pay for other ad services that drive your project's visibility faster. In the end, they fell far behind and catching up was a waste of time.
On my side, they'renot a big bully tbh. I had never even heard of their site.

Problem is that you didn't just offer marketing services but instead you offered higher rating in case they paid $1k dollars. Care to explain how project can automatically get higher rating in case they paid you that fee and go from 6.1 to 8+?

By the way, its against forum rules to post consecutive posts like you did. On top of that, you just copy/pasted one answer to all of those that asked you questions.

That's it for me

So he was playing a tricky game. Reporting projects as scam and then extorting them funds in exchange for a better review while at the same time trying to falsely gain reputation from the forum as someone trying to legitimately expose scam

I will leave my tag as well.

And trust flag - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3160

If they've been doing this for a long period of time and on many projects then they are just busted with OP's revelation, other projects should come here to support OP's allegations, scammers are willing to pay that amount if they are going to get more money from these reviews.
They are guilty of supporting scammers if positive reviews are being paid, they even fooled people by posting on their site that they do not receive payment, they deserve a negative tag and a flag.

They need to be honest because they are risking losing followers and about where they are going to get funds to maintain and make a profit from their reviews, there is such a thing as an affiliate, take the case of gambling reviews if the operators of these gambling review sites are honest, they are likely to get more active referrals from casinos, people first look on how honest the reviews are before joining, in the case of ICO or NFT they should still honesty and factual in their reviews and just put a disclaimer that they are putting honest reviews whether they pay to get a listing or not.

I see that he did something similar in the past with the Ideaology project in this thread: Is Ideaology.io scam or a great opportunity? [archive]

First, he published a very negative review claiming that the project was too risky and worthless, with an amateur and inexperienced team.

However, after just under a month, he completely changed his story and deleted (or denied) almost all of his claims from the original review, ultimately giving the project a high 8.5/10 rating. Now, I don't know if the owners of the Ideaology project paid for a positive review, and that will be hard to prove unless they publicly admit it themselves, but realistically, what could cause such a drastic change of opinion in such a short time? If you're going to write reviews, at least try to be objective and free of personal biases so you don't have to contradict your own words.


And, according to the date stated, that update was made only a week after Amar Kovacevic from Ideaology publicly accused them of abuse and blackmail.