1 August 2019
R
20:21
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
Hi Bloc8
B
20:21
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Hello Sir.
R
20:21
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
I have to share some frustrations I have. May I?
B
20:22
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Go ahead.
R
20:35
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
I find you to often be a brilliant & talented community member & developer. I'm deeply frustrated by the state of this relationship between you, the ICON team, and the community.

Your brilliance is often interrupted by statements that are rather ridiculous such as the one in the image below, or by over-the-top sensationalism that leads to fear, uncertainty and doubt.

There's a type of person we see in every crypto community - the kinds of people who are overly paranoid and always assume the worst in every scenario, despite being proven incorrect time and time again. Every time something doesn't look exactly the way they think it should look, they cry foul, tell everyone else they should also believe the sky is falling, and then even after we find out the sky isn't falling, these individuals continue to run around screaming the sky is falling, which severely damages their reputation.

I hate to see this happening, especially since the issues that happened during the TX challenge may have been legitimate.

Obviously, something in the TX challenge went south. You could have easily obtained the community's support and we could have demanded answers from the ICON team. Instead, it became a bit of a tinfoil hat sort of situations, where the guy that was wearing a tinfoil hat demanded everyone grab a pitchfork, and those who don't are idiots.

Hard to want to help someone that is constantly negative, bashing the team, bashing community members, and thinking very highly of themselves. The way you've gone about doing several things may seem right in your mind, but I'll kindly ask you to grab a mirror and reflect on where you're at. You've effectively been banned from every ICON channel that is of any significance. This is a shame, because it didn't need to be this way.

I'm not sure why I'm initiating this conversation. I'm just very disappointed and frustrated that someone I think could be such a great community member is essentially banned from every channel that matters.

Personally, I hate to see this. I think the other mods to as well. I don't think any of us like censorship, but full dislosure, we've got a problem with people from other communities that have a strong desire to burn this project to the ground. As a result, we've had to be, perhaps overly cautious, with removing people that throw out shady assumptions, and other items difficult to prove or disprove, that damage ICON's reputation.

We're not going to constantly be on our heels to defend things that aren't factual. Like this post on Reddit we're discussing.

Essentially, we just found out that those are 2 binance wallets and not the foundations wallet. Yet, there's the post, showing 3 kangaroos fucking over coin holders with wild assumptions that are nearly impossible to disprove. How is that helpful, effective, positive, or building a culture that is pleasant for people to be a part of?

Again, I'm not sure why I'm initiating this conversation other than to share my frustration with how things have gone. I wish I could have personally been more involved earlier in order to try to help to be proactive and helpful for whatever happened in the TX challenge that has led to this gloomy sort of demeanor that is so unpleasant, that it's essentially led to your removal in the quality channels where we could use all the brilliant minds we can get leading the way.

If there is ever anything I may be able to personally do in order to try to help make things right and mend this relationship I'd love to help. I just don't get the vibe that there is truly any interest on your behalf though. I get the vibe that your goal is to make sure no one ever trusts anyone, that ICON is shady in everything they do because one TX challenge went south, and that it's better to create an atmosphere of fear and distrust than one of collaboration and productivity.

If I'm wrong, I'm always happy to admit it. But I want to be helpful and try to rebuild this bridge between you, the team, and the community, rather than burning that bridge.

Ok, sorry for the length...I jus
20:35
t am very frustrated about all of this and like to try to lead things in a positive direction rather than a negative, unproductive one.
20:36
B
20:41
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
ICON sent 0.02 ICX to the BLOC8 team today but they owe 6800 ICX. Ask them why.
R
20:42
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
I think I already have an general understanding of why.

Didn't you guys have some sort of an agreement with them where you would generate X amount of transactions during the contest and they would pay you Y amount of ICX for the effort?
B
20:43
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Yes 12000 ICX but only 5200 ICX received.
R
20:43
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
And was the 12,000 ICX predetermined via an agreement? Like - is this in writing or a verbal agreement anywhere?
B
20:44
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
In writing per the terms ICON published on the internet.
R
20:44
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
Because it should be this simple.

1) Show evidence of agreement to pay BLOC8 12,000 ICX if they do X
2) Show that BLOC8 did X
3) Show that ICON didn't pay 12,000 ICX

It's that simple
20:45
Instead we're just repetitively told to "Look at the blockchain"
B
20:45
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Correct. Ask ICON to send 6800 ICX.
R
20:46
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
No, because it's not my fight (yet). I still don't see why they owe it to you with clarity. I'm trying to - very hard. If I can connect these dots I'm given, I'll be happy to take up your cause.
B
20:46
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Did you see terms published by ICON?
R
20:47
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
Did you guys generate 20,000 TX/Day for 31 days and at any point were you DQ'd for anything?
20:47
In reply to this message
Yes
B
20:48
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
No we were never DQed as evidenced by the 0.02 ICX received today and 1000 ICX received last week. Don't believe what you read on the internet.
R
20:50
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
No - I will believe some things I read everywhere, and not believe some things I read.

I'm not down with blanket statements.

So, I should be able to lookup the 20,000 TX/Day you guys generated and create some quality evidence of this that people can see. Can you point me to where I can see that? I'd be happy to put together a visual that supports you so we can get you some answers and get you what you're owed.
B
20:53
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Did you see all our posts over the internet when we told ICON they were in breach of the agreed terms? Month before last Ricky's AMA where he said he was DQing contractors but ICON still gave 216,000 ICX to 2 teams. These 2 teams should have had no ICX. We emailed ICON about 10 times and had a private Telegram with Daeki Lee and Spl3en about the breach of contract before we went public.
R
20:55
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
No, I am not familiar and was not a part of these specific discussions.

Ok, so we're saying contractors gave 216,000 to 2 teams.

No more than 30 minutes ago we mistakenly accused a foundation address of sending ICX to Binance.

Is it at all possible...ANYWHERE in the realm of possibility that a mistake was made here on who sent and received those 216,000 ICX? Because a mistake was just made and cleared up very quickly in the Ubik group.
B
20:57
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
ICON have online schedule for their contractors that showed teams associated with the 216K ICX had been DQ'ed BEFORE ICON sent the 216K ICX. Shocker?
20:59
Our SCORE is at row 17
cxbdda1241313c0113f8ebf4b974239b145558513a and not DQ'ed.
21:00
Check Tracker for that SCORE and you will see about 540,000 TX we processed.
R
21:01
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
Ok - Thanks. Investigating.

Early math...

31 days x 20,000 TX/day = 620,000 TX

Not important, but wouldn't there need to be 620,000 TX on that at 20,000/day to earn the full $6,200? Nevertheless - that's not too important right now. One step at a time - I'm checking out the link you sent.
B
21:04
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
BLOC8 earned between 199 and 200 ICX per day with 200 being the maximum during the challenge. Contract was not for 31 days it was for 60 days or until 600K ICX had been paid out (max 12K ICX per team).
R
21:04
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
Got it - Thx (June 3 - July 31) - I see it now. Thx
B
21:05
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Because ICON broke the terms by giving 2 teams a total of 216K ICX the work finished prematurely.
21:07
Even a 12 year old kid could see that over 100 of the "240" teams were not genuine. One team used GitHub to generate 50 numerically consecutive folders with a SCORE in each folder.
R
21:07
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
Got it.

Were these 2 teams provided with that ICX in 2 different transactions? Do you have those TX's identified where that happened?
B
21:09
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Most annoying was Spl3en and Daeki Lee agreed there was a scam but that it was ok to continue i.e. it was a mission critical stress test.
R
21:09
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
Right, but aren't your TX also "not genuine", so to speak?

So, I don't know how hung up I'm going to get on that part. TX's are TX's...I'm pretty sure I understand that their goal was a stress test here, which resulted in that additional activity.
21:09
But yes, to be clear, I see the frustrations.
21:09
Where can I find that 216,000 was sent to 2 teams?
21:10
(If you happen to have it. If not, I can go looking)
B
21:11
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
The 100 teams that were DQ'ed received weekly payments like all of us. They then sent their ICX to 2 wallets. I have posted details on the internet, let me dig it out.
R
21:13
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
If you already have done so, please don't worry about it. I am the one investigating here and do not intend to create more work for you.
21:13
The burden is on me here
B
21:14
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
R
21:14
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
Thx
B
21:15
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Wallet addresses for the 216K are shown in the comments and from there you can trace it all back to the SCORE address as per the ICON schedule I linked to earlier.
R
21:15
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
👍 Got it - reviewing now. Appreciate the links and info
B
21:24
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
In reply to this message
This is not me bigging up the BLOC8 team. It's me confirming that Daeki Lee and others wrote that the stress test was critical. They even published comments from businesses that said they wanted to see huge tx numbers before committing to the chain. Then ICON gives 216K ICX to teams KNOWING it was part of 1 or 2 teams so were not elligible for any ICX.
21:27
Further frustration was that they DQ'ed 100 teams of the 240 and then immediately published an article stating "240+ blockchain services" had been identified from the TX challenge. As you can see from ICON's got talent there are only 20 services and several of them didn't even take part in the TX part of the challenge.
21:37
I know the difference between marketing and outright lies.
R
21:39
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
Right - I see it.

So it's like - 240+ Blockchain services have been identified*

*But many of these services were disqualified for not being legitimate or for being duplicate entries.

Additionally, many of the illegitimate entrants were paid, which cut into the earnings of the legitimate entrants
B
21:39
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Exactly sir.
21:40
I am "New2Waves" on Reddit. I wrote "ICON set a maximum token payment of 12,000 ICX to each contractor working on the mission critical stress test project. Your blockchain shows that 2 contractors received over 216,000 ICX in total.

In your last AMA (13th June) you were asked to clarify the situation regarding contractors that were not eligible for ICX as they were in breach of your published terms and conditions.

You replied "Yes, ICON is reviewing applicants and fielding complaints. As you mentioned below, a number have been disqualified thus far and more could be disqualified going forward."

Why were you still paying hundreds of thousands of ICX to contractors as late as the 25th June when your online schedule of contractors showed they had already been disqualified?"
21:40
Ricky replied "I don't have full intel on the transaction challenge (ie the dates you reference, scheduled payments etc) as I wasn't involved.

That said, it's my understanding that the challenge had some mishaps. But it was re-initiated a few days back and additional rewards were paid out to teams."
R
21:41
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
Yep - Saw those and figured that was you.
B
21:42
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Ricky saying he didn't have the dates is misleading as some of the dates relate to the previous AMA which he made the comments about DQ etc.
R
21:42
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
So, what is the resolution here, short of burying the entire project for a TX contest that went horribly south?
B
21:43
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Also AMA is not an on the spot Q&A session. Q's are locked several days before A's are provided.
21:44
I have asked for Min to apologise and hand over what he owes to the team. I am not one person and the ICX we receive are automatically given away for free in our DAPP.
R
21:44
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
Right.

Frankly, I don't care. It's an opportunity for people to ask Ricky questions, and locking it a few days in advance gives him a chance to prep for it
21:44
In reply to this message
Have you heard back from the team at all on this?
21:44
Or have they consistently just ignored you?
B
21:45
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
In reply to this message
This exactly, despite numerous additional follow up emails sent to ICON. Never any response.
21:46
Ricky sent me a DM once, can't remember now what he said but he quickly deleted the chat.
21:47
6800 ICX is nothing to the Foundation.
21:48
In reply to this message
You seem to know their modus operandi very well.
R
21:49
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
Ok, thank you.

I serve both the team and the community and try to have no bias. Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

After our discussion today I have no doubt things went south during the TX challenge. I think, where I may not quite be convinced, is that the entire project and everyone involved is shady, or that everyone who doesn't care is just a dumb "fanboy" or whatever other names we've used to describe anyone not interested in picking up a pitchfork over this.

I intend to take this up with team members and do what I can to help. Thank you for taking the time to review this with me today, I do appreciate it.

I will support you unless it is demonstrated and I am convinced otherwise. I still have some research to do here to be sure, but I think there's enough evidence to show that some teams that shouldn't have received ICX may have received ICX, and that ICX they received may have cut into the rewards other teams should have received for genuinely participating.
21:50
In reply to this message
Yes, I also know the modus operandi of several people out there who have no interest other than constantly putting the team or community representatives on their heels.
21:51
Forgive me, but there's been far more nonsense put forth by the community to this point then their has the team. As a result, it wasn't difficult for me to ignore some of this.

Having said that, you've provided information here that I think can be helpful at continuing this investigation, and I intend to help.
21:51
I'll do what I can and will be in touch with any updates I can get.
B
21:51
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Thank you sir.
R
21:52
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
And thank you
2 August 2019
R
17:13
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
Good morning, or I believe afternoon to you sir.

I have had a chance to investigate the issue further. Thanks again for the information yesterday. Here's my conclusion.

My conclusion is that the rules for this contest were poorly written and enforced and lacked the important necessity of running a KYC process for all entrants.

You and others who played (mostly) within the spirit of the rules were hurt by other team(s) that did not. One of the main group(s) in question, for example, being that "blockchain club" that appears to really be 1 entrant, but poses as multiple entrants. Since there was no KYC it wasn't proven one way or another whether or not these were multiple entrants, or just 1 who found a loophole in the contest.

So, in the sense of fair play and what's right, I conclude your argument has validity and that additional investigations likely could have concluded that there were dishonest actors in the contest - some of which were DQ'd and others which were not.

However, the way the contest was set up and policed resulted in this not happening. The rules missed the important step of requiring a true KYC to prevent the loophole found by the "blockchain club", for example. Because of this, I can see why it was difficult to police and not policed the way entrants playing by the rules would expect.

So, we have a tough situation here. It's clear why you have the stance that you do. It's a tough pill to swallow knowing that some entrants "cheated" (even though they technically just found loopholes through loosely written rules) and were rewarded for it. However, it's also clear that the issue was identified and that the decision was made that there was no legitimate way to police this, leading to these contestants remaining as valid contestant(s) that were eligible for rewards.

I believe I understand the premise of your argument and that I don't necessarily think you're wrong regarding bad actors being rewarded, but that I think we'd lose in a court of law scenario here. I think the biggest problem was that the rules were loosely written, resulting in a scenario that was tricky for the ICON team to police, resulting in team(s) that didn't play within the spirit of the rules being rewarded, which impacted the rewards collected by those playing within the spirit of the rules.

As a result, I see the perspectives of both sides, but am not entirely sure yet how to proceed. At the moment, I think this is one of those annoying scenarios in life where we have a tough pill to swallow, knowing that others who didn't play by the same rules we thought existed received rewards for doing so. I'm sure all of us in life have experienced this in one way or another and can understand the frustrations that come along with eating a "shit sandwich".

I can't help but wonder if the results would have been different if there would have been ongoing dialogue with the ICON team rather than heading straight to "I'm going to expose and attack all of you for this injustice". But, we are where we are now, and everyone loses.

I wish I could have been more helpful from the beginning. I did not put enough effort and attention into this when it all came about and wish I could have helped to act as a bit of a mediator to possibly lead towards a positive solution prior to everything sort of spiraling in a really negative direction. I sincerely apologize for that and hate to know that a good developer and quality community member has been spurned by a poorly written/run contest.

If I've misunderstood anything I'm always open to being corrected and assisting with contacting the ICON team to attempt to find a resolution. I will always support community members and do what I can to help them, within reason. I know I have not been helpful with this, but am happy to change course if a stronger case can be built that will result in correcting any issues that may have happened in the TX challenge.
B
17:19
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
We gave ICON ample opportunity to resolve the issue before we went public and you know they just choose to ignore community members when they want to.
17:24
Ricky Dodds emailed BLOC8 before any rewards were paid and we told him about the problem. We also had lengthy Telegram chat with Daeki Lee. As shown by the 100+ teams that were ultimately DQ'ed it was obvious they weren't entitled to the rewards.
R
17:25
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
Yes - I am aware of all of this via my investigation.
B
17:26
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Our campaign to educate ICONists will continue.
R
17:26
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
I think it would have been impossible for them to introduce a KYC process at that point of the contest though.

This, imo, was the point of failure.
17:26
In reply to this message
Understood.
17:26
If I can ever help in a way that is productive, please let me know.
B
17:38
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
How were the 100 teams disqualified AFTER 95% of the rewards had been paid and the mission critical stress test completed? You state KYC was the problem but the teams that were disqualified breached other terms too which lead to their disqualification. ICON could have disqualified the teams when we raised the issue. Biggest concern to the community will be why did ICON pay rewards to these teams AFTER they had disqualified them.
R
17:57
Radiofriendly123 - ICONation
In reply to this message
Hmm, so I have not investigated that, in particular.

To do so, I would need to track all payments made and the time/date and also know the time/date they were disqualified. That's a larger scope than I dove into. If teams were paid AFTER they were officially disqualified, that certainly is an open question that needs to be addressed.
B
18:03
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Yes they were paid AFTER being disqualified. ICON only took the issue seriously after we published the details on the internet.
18:13
In reply to this message
All the details you require are at https://buycryptonewsarticles.com/icx-con-tx-challenge/
B
18:30
BLOC8 owed ICX by ICON
Drug testing in sport, doping test for first 3 in each event, fail test but still give them medals.