At this time, only those that purchased within that timeframe will receive a response. If you wish to provide information, you're welcome to do so via email: rich@cipherblade.com -- but due to volume of data such an open door may result in, I can't promise a response beyond acknowledging receipt.

Requiring a Gmail account makes it harder for the same individual to submit the Form multiple times, mitigating pest responses substantially. Requiring a Google account to log in to a Google domain isn't sketchy, though I understand your apprehension about a Google account being asked for as a login to anything linked in a cryptocurrency forum.

That said, if you don't own or wish to create a Google account, you may email rich@cipherblade.com and we'll take it from there.

Actually, you'll need to enable DMs for that.

Or you can contact rich@cipherblade.com and we'll verify from there.

I'll DM you an email address right now.

Bumping this up, as responses are still being sought.

Potential victims of the Oyster Pearl smart contract manipulation incident (https://bitsonline.com/oyster-protocol-founder-exit-scam/) are being sought.

Specifically, individuals who purchased PRL between 10/29/18 16:20 (UTC) and 10/30/18 16:20 (UTC), who are willing to be contacted, are sought.

No promises of restitution or action are made in return for completion of this form, however, information you provide will identify you as a victim of this incident and may assist in further assessment of this matter and potential future action.

If the above criteria is met, the Form is here.

They've been wounded, but let's make sure it is the death blow.

74 BTC and dwindling. More trading pairs going offline.

SPREAD THIS.

If you think this isn't resulting in anything, you're wrong: https://twitter.com/Raindropactual/status/1206413497925390337

HitBTC's BTC wallets have continually drained over the past days, currently under 90 BTC collectively. There has also been a huge uptick in selective scam reports from people on Twitter, Reddit, and their own Telegram channel. Also, some trading pairs have mysteriously "gone down for maintenance" -- AKA, HitBTC liquidating those shitcoins to get a little more BTC to pretend to be operational.

With a strong push from the community, we could make HitBTC too insolvent to even pretend to be functional.

Strike now.

None of the exchanges you cited are more scammy than HitBTC.

I'm not doubting your commentary on Yobot, but Bittrex is far from "scammy." Provide anything to dispute that and I'll review it. Same for Poloniex -- and I have my disagreements with some of their recent decisions, but if "scammy" is defined as insolvent/selective scamming, no.

Apathy of others isn't an excuse for yours. Make people not blind to the warnings. I seem to have more faith in your abilities than you do.

The amount that participate depends upon the amount that care enough to spur such participation. If I had to guess, if 10% of the wider industry/cryptocurrency users were aware enough to participate, it'd be the end of HitBTC. It's totally achievable. This isn't isolated to Proof of Keys, either. If more people were warned about Bitconnect (and heeded those warnings earlier,) the fraud wouldn't have gone on as long and less people would've been burned.

It sounds like you disagree with some elements regarding Proof of Keys, which would be a whole other debate. However, if you can't get behind folks running the hell away from HitBTC, well... oof.

Over/under on "partners" of HitBTC bailing over the next month? 

Nobody is saying to stop trading completely, or to disavow from all exchanges.

Proof of Keys suggests to withdraw from exchanges, sure -- but does not say to do so permanently, nor to stop trading.

The particular undertaking I'm advocating for is a lot more specific.

The fact "nobody cares" (which isn't true -- this has gotten a fair bit of traction, but perhaps you're remarking on the ratio of interest on this topic relative to moonlamboprice talk) is a problem in the industry.

Your analogy has zero foundation.

More and more people on Twitter have had fraud prevented by many people (possibly including some of you) sharing this piece.

Let's keep up the momentum. This is our moment to demonstrate our industry is no longer in infancy. Take the 30 seconds and do something for our industry that will echo in eternity.

Fair observations about the apathy demonstrated by many cryptocurrency users in past years. Why not change it this year, though? HitBTC is likely at a level of insolvency where an adequate amount of action could be the final nail in their coffin.

This.

At this point, it's not just on HitBTC -- but as the publication discusses, the entire industry.

If a blockchain project (ICO or otherwise) lists on HitBTC, now that this is public knowledge, they're essentially saying "we don't care about the risks to users of our coin/token, nor the problems HitBTC poses to the industry."

There are numerous other listing options, some of which are cheaper. It's fairly likely, at this point, if a project can only get listed on HitBTC, it's because they failed/would fail due diligence of reputable exchanges. A red flag in and of itself.

Picking up traction and getting reposted elsewhere: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/e9z11e/hitbtc_do_not_respond_to_tickets_frozen_a_huge/

If you're suggesting that it's less damaging to the industry to permit HitBTC to continue to selectively scam (or exchanges to continue to operate insolvenet) because of "FUD" -- you're thinking (generously) short-term, and more accurately, you're missing gaps of context.

If anything, the industry self-policing would instill more confidence.

Stop thinking of price in a one week timeframe. Start thinking 3-5 years.

I think you should read the blog post: https:/[Suspicious link removed]/ZxJSZ3RuH0?amp=1 -- no offense intended (in fact, it seems you and I see eye-to-eye on some things like banks) but I think you're missing some context.

Proof of Keys is not just an exercise against fractional reserve. In fact, fractional reserve really isn't the most appropriate terminology -- it'd be "solvency." Exchanges, by premise of being a custodial service, are evaluated on solvency. If exchanges were permitted/expected to run on fractional reserve, man, we'd be in a way worse spot with the industry right now, lol. The point is that exchanges shouldn't be on fractional reserve at all (under the model of most centralized exchanges) and if they can't prove that (via solvency) than... it should speak for itself.

You are correct in that it will require a ton of elbow grease. Warning their current customers and preventing future customers is, indeed, a hell of an undertaking; hence the call to arms on this. I agree with you -- Bitcointalk constitutes a slice demographic of HitBTC users, hence why this has been shared on varied platforms --  let alone, as you mentioned, the language barrier, which is why the blog post encourages translation and sharing. Ultimately, the goal is to get this information in front of as many people as possible -- less victims of HitBTC's scheme is a good thing for the industry.

The best case? So many people (existing HitBTC users) withdraw, and so few people (would-be HitBTC users) deposit, that HitBTC is forced into the 'scandal' you describe. This ultimate goal is described in the blog post. So, in reality, we're on the same sheet of music, friend 

The point is, every time you make a trade on HitBTC: you take a risk for yourself and finance a fraudulent operation. The article discusses this.

It's not just "suspicion" about HitBTC. The facts are all there. It's not just "bad experiences." It's data. And it's about things bigger than that trade you want to make: the health of our industry.

When you say 'banks have been doing this' what do you mean? Fractional reserve is one thing. Selective scamming ran by an anonymous team pretending to be conducting AML? Very weak analogy. I see the direction you're trying to go here, but it's apples and oranges -- and I'm critical of banks, too.

This year. we can make HitBTC fail. I concur such efforts should not be isolated to Proof of Keys, but how fitting would it be to have that be the time HitBTC is too insolvent to even pretend to function?