Supreme Scam Report @0xtxn

[39]

I'd like to make a few things clear after carefully reading your decision and ask you to reconsider. Here are the facts:

The method is proxiless at its core.

It works completely without proxies. This is not marketing spin. It is 100% functional proxiless. I recommended residential proxies inside the guide only for better results. I never claimed it was mandatory. The buyer was not misled.
Costs were not hidden.

In the sales thread I stated I would show all tools and resources inside the guide. The guide does exactly that. Expecting someone to spend roughly $10 on proxies for better performance is completely normal in this space. If a buyer cannot afford $10 to run a method properly, then he should not be buying methods in the first place. That is not grounds for a 50% refund.

Clear evidence of collusion / leak

Only one copy of this guide was ever sold — to @MXXM.

Yet a completely unrelated third user (who was never part of this report) suddenly appeared in the sales thread, claimed he “only took 5 minutes to read the guide,” called it trash and public, and gave a very detailed negative opinion.

This is highly suspicious. The only way this third person could have seen the full guide is if @MXXM leaked or shared it with him. This strongly suggests the buyer never had any real intention of using the method and instead bought it to leak and then dispute.

Zero good faith effort from the buyer

As you already noted, @MXXM opened the report extremely quickly without any proof that he:

• Ran the proxiless tool;
  
• Followed the guide;
  
• Contacted me for support.
  

Combined with the fact that he apparently leaked the material to a third party, leaked parts of the method in here as well. This looks like a deliberate scam report, not a legitimate dispute.

Final position:

I delivered exactly what was advertised: a working proxiless method with full supporting resources shown inside the guide. The buyer received the product, appears to have leaked it, made zero effort to use it, and then filed a report.
 
A partial refund in this situation would be completely unjustified IMO and will discourage me to continue selling in this forum.
 
I am willing to provide support to any legitimate buyer, but I will not reward someone who leaks the product and then tries to get money back.

@Alex I ask you to reconsider your ruling based on this new information about the leak and the third party’s suspicious involvement.

[72]

@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.

Hello @Alex, and thank you for your response. I am not looking to write a long message, and my response is only directed to you.
I already told you that the target being public clearly shows what the method is, and the method he mentioned is simply password resetting through mail access, which nowadays has to be done on almost all accounts anyway. But I will not interfere further with your judgment regarding that matter, Thanks.
@0xtxn, first of all, stop tagging me so much, and you can use “MXXM” instead of ““@MXXM”econd, regarding the alleged leak, I have no information about it and I did nothing. You are being very foolish for accusing me of this, and if you really think someone leaked it, then go open a scam report against that user!!!!!!!!!
my BTC : bc1qg9aq6xyxg48he6lsq3kaaqshf9ad468pkfwl2w

[4.230]

@0xtxn, I reviewed your response.
The claim about a third party possibly having access to the guide is noted, but right now there is no direct proof that @MXXM leaked or shared the package with that user. Suspicion alone is not enough to hold @MXXM responsible for leaking the guide. If you have actual proof that @MXXM shared or leaked the product, you can open a separate report or send that proof to staff privately.
 
Regarding the method itself, I still do not see enough proof from @MXXM to say that the full guide/package was public or copied. The proof provided mostly shows that the target was already public/used before, but that is not the same as proving that @0xtxn exact guide, workflow, setup, files, or package was public before the sale.
 
However, the issue here remains the way the package was represented before purchase. @0xtxn stated that the method/tool was proxiless, but inside the guide there are mentions of residential proxies and other paid resources being needed or recommended for better results. Even if @0xtxn now explains that the core method is proxiless and proxies are only for better performance, this should have been made clear before the sale. A buyer should know beforehand if running the method properly or getting realistic results may require extra paid resources.
 
This is not enough for a full refund, especially since @MXXM opened the report quickly and did not provide strong proof that he fully attempted the method or contacted @0xtxn for support first. But it is enough for a partial refund due to unclear/misleading information before purchase.
The previous decision stands.
 
@0xtxn, you need to partially refund @MXXM $65, which is 50% of the payment. You have 24 hours to do so.

Top Ad by @SonicRefs | Ends in 30/05


Bottom ad by @Refunding | Ends in 15/06

[72]

@0xtxn, I reviewed your response.
The claim about a third party possibly having access to the guide is noted, but right now there is no direct proof that @MXXM leaked or shared the package with that user. Suspicion alone is not enough to hold @MXXM responsible for leaking the guide. If you have actual proof that @MXXM shared or leaked the product, you can open a separate report or send that proof to staff privately.
 
Regarding the method itself, I still do not see enough proof from @MXXM to say that the full guide/package was public or copied. The proof provided mostly shows that the target was already public/used before, but that is not the same as proving that @0xtxn exact guide, workflow, setup, files, or package was public before the sale.
 
However, the issue here remains the way the package was represented before purchase. @0xtxn stated that the method/tool was proxiless, but inside the guide there are mentions of residential proxies and other paid resources being needed or recommended for better results. Even if @0xtxn now explains that the core method is proxiless and proxies are only for better performance, this should have been made clear before the sale. A buyer should know beforehand if running the method properly or getting realistic results may require extra paid resources.
 
This is not enough for a full refund, especially since @MXXM opened the report quickly and did not provide strong proof that he fully attempted the method or contacted @0xtxn for support first. But it is enough for a partial refund due to unclear/misleading information before purchase.
The previous decision stands.
 
@0xtxn, you need to partially refund @MXXM $65, which is 50% of the payment. You have 24 hours to do so.

Hello @Alex, thank you for replying, but I think this user is just buying time for himself by extending the payment deadline. Regarding the user who made those claims, once again I want to say that I have absolutely no information about that, and I’m not stupid enough that if I had shared the method, I would come and reply to my own scam report lol. Unless he himself did something with fake documents and now wants to put the blame on me.
my BTC : bc1qg9aq6xyxg48he6lsq3kaaqshf9ad468pkfwl2w    @0xtxn

[39]

@Alex that`s too bad that your decision is to chose to ride for that cum-guzzling sewer rat @MXXM just because I said drop a measly $10 on proxies. That’s cheaper than a fucking McDonald’s dollar menu cheeseburger.

No wonder Cracked is turning into a rotting, AIDS-infested corpse. Y’all are actually speedrunning the death of this forum.

@MXXM Just shut your fucking mouth, prick. The only thing I’m buying right now is your dirty whore mother’s asshole   with your own money @MXXM  you fucking clown!

Spitting facts is not the same as buying time. Regardless, I can tag you whatever and whenever I want, you fucking turd. And theres nothing you can do about it.

Like this, @MXXM:

@MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM @MXXM

how does that sound @MXXM scum?

Cry harder for that refund you’ll never get, you disgusting fucking parasite @MXXM

[4.230]

User has been banned. Sorry for your loss.

Top Ad by @SonicRefs | Ends in 30/05


Bottom ad by @Refunding | Ends in 15/06