Supreme Scam Report @0xtxn

[68]

@MXXM do you have any proof that the guide is public?

Yes, I have proof, and I’ve now sent you the full explanation in PM. @Alex

[39]

You should've colected proof before you even opened a scam report.

Good luck having time to fabricate it now after weeks with this non sense.

What joke!

[68]

@MXXM do you have any proof that the guide is public?

Yes, I have proof, and I’ve now sent you the full explanation in PM. @Alex

Please @Alex, I would really appreciate it if you could make a decision on this. Also, from the beginning of this scam report, I have genuinely handled everything respectfully, but this user keeps replying with toxic messages. All proofs have already been submitted.
Another proof about method is also public has been sent to PM. please check

[39]

what a pussy lol.

Stay away from this!

[68]

@Alex sir, its almost 2 weeks.

[39]

@Alex sir, its almost 2 weeks.

Maybe because your report is a classic case of buyers remorse and this is pure bs?

[39]

What a joke.

[4.213]

@MXXM, after reviewing everything, I do not see enough proof to say that @0xtxn sold a fully public/copied guide. Most of the proof shown only proves that the target was already public/used before, but that alone does not prove that the full guide, workflow, setup, files, or package from @0xtxn was public before the sale.

However, there is a valid issue with how the package was represented before purchase. @0xtxn stated that the tool/method was proxiless, but inside the package there are parts that require residential proxies, mail access/checker setup, combos, and other extra costs. Even if @0xtxn says these are separate parts of the method, this should have been clearly explained before the sale. A buyer should not be left with the impression that the package is proxiless or simple to run, and then find out after purchase that important parts require paid resources.

The extra costs alone would not normally justify a refund, and @MXXM also opened the report very quickly without showing strong proof that the full method was attempted or that support was requested first. So I do not think a full refund is fair here.

That being said, because the proxy/cost requirements were not clear enough before the sale, @0xtxn is responsible for a partial refund.

@0xtxn, you need to issue a partial refund to @MXXM. A fair amount would be 50% of the payment, meaning $65. You have 24 hours to do so.

Top Ad by @SonicRefs | Ends in 30/05


Bottom ad by @Refunding | Ends in 15/06