Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Out of cycle Update Tis. As I said, we really need to redefine scam cryptotalk fm. My name is Leister, I am your host. Binance Stuff did an update and he was talking about the Zach XBT post in response to the L Bank post from May 1st. I'm not sure why the post from May all of a sudden is getting newfound attention because that was back in May.
[00:00:26] They were transparent about that post back then and all of a sudden now that is starting to get more hits. I don't know if LBank's doing something to, you know, broaden its reach because LBank I believe has the gold check mark. So they might be doing something to broaden its reach on X. I don't know. But again, that's like months ago.
[00:00:44] Like that's been known. LBank did it. I think Bitmart was the other one that did it.
[00:00:49] So what's changed? I don't know.
[00:00:52] According to Zach xbt, people asked him to speak about Block Dag. They asked for his thoughts. I wish they hadn't done that because although Zach XBT is credible in his analysis, this time he took a half assed shortcut that I think is to his detriment in my personal opinion, where I don't really listen to what he's saying because a lot of what he's saying is circumstantial at best.
[00:01:17] And that's the flaw is in the past he came with receipts, so claims he made.
[00:01:24] Okay, come with receipts of what you're talking about because you're talking about something that could very well be the case. Right? So come with receipts. Come with receipts of showing wallet addresses doing these transfers and showing they're going to the exchanges and then I'll talk about that in a second. But the summary of what he was saying in this post is he was telling L Bank, you know, essentially this is a scam, folks.
[00:01:50] It's and talking about the endless pre sale, everybody knows that one. But he made a claim that they're quote, regularly transferring investor funds to various exchange accounts.
[00:01:59] That's claim one. Claim two is quote, marketing fake numbers to increase retail fomo. Claim two is strongly probable.
[00:02:07] I'm not going to dismiss claim two at all because that's strongly probable.
[00:02:12] It is strongly probable. We can't prove it because they don't give the full wallet address for these buys that are happening. And even if they did, all we could really do is look and see for that wallet. Did they transfer the amount of, you know, whatever token to some other account. The reason they don't give that full address is because if they did so you'd be able to see the destination address. Now of course I am going to because I can, I am going to do a little bit of Tracy myself because that second one I think is fair and accurate to as a claim.
[00:02:46] But my question for Zach XBT is why he didn't produce receipts if he knows that to be a fact.
[00:02:52] If you can't, don't state it to be a fact because you lose credibility, that's all. And there are people out there who rely on people, technical people like that to tell them something and not do their own due diligence.
[00:03:04] But he didn't produce anything of any substance. Now let's talk about the first claim, this transferring of funds to exchange accounts.
[00:03:11] He says various exchange accounts which would imply that he's seeing some data. Again, I challenge why he did not produce this information. Apparently at some point in the past ZachxBT got frustrated with crypto Twitter and decided to back off a little bit and wasn't doing as much as he was used to doing.
[00:03:27] So I don't know if that's part of it. I don't know why then this one got targeted. But he is responding on stuff but he's not doing anywhere near the level of deep dive that he used to do way back in the yonders. So I don't. Again, it's not an attack I'm questioning, it's a valid question. Why then aren't you producing receipts? Because it seems like you know something. Why don't you produce receipts? Let's assume that they are transferring funds to exchange accounts. Well why would you do that? Because you want the money out of there.
[00:03:55] If you want the money out of there, let's look at what's going on. You got a aggressive piss poor marketing strategy that's gotta be paid for.
[00:04:03] So we know that there has to be that money's not coming out thin air. They're not using, they're not using angel funding.
[00:04:09] So obviously they're going to need to be selling the investor funds for that. They never said at any time that they were not going to spend the money. They said that they, the money was collected and obviously the money was going to be used for three main things. Marketing for sure. Look at the, how aggressive it is and it's backed off. It's nowhere near as aggressive as it used to be. They don't have that other guy doing the automated stuff. They're not doing a lot of those AI Moon stuffs anymore. So it seems like they've cut back. Even despite the aggressive marketing, they've cut back on some of that. Perhaps that's why is because they're getting less money. And so they decided to cut and trim in places. And then you got Anthony Turner talking about, you know, we're not going to hit 600 million, but that their site claims that they are going to hit 600 million. I don't know what to think about that. I'm saying it would not surprise me that they're selling for marketing. Obviously, number one. Number two is the miners.
[00:05:01] They showed something, so something was created by someone. They had to pay that person. So we know that's. We know that's a real thing. Hundred percent.
[00:05:09] Number three is. There is a. There is a blockchain. It's a test net, right? There's a. There's a primordial test net for this thing that exists. There's the certic. All that had to be paid for. There's the hacking. All that had to be paid for. Everything that they're doing has to be paid for. So I wasn't surprised to think that they might be selling what they collected. You gave it to them, so obviously they're going to cash it out. That's. To me, though, that's. Let's say it is happening again. Show receipts so that we could see what. How much of that is happening and then based on how much of that, we can correlate that to how much is reasonable for the sale. Like we, like I did with the car salesman on Seifu, it's like, okay, the amount of money that you have sold out is excessive compared to what we think you need.
[00:05:52] Let's do that here. If you've got that data, why don't you share it? Don't just make a claim and then don't just attack lbank about it. Because lbank, as he later acknowledged buried down instead of up front, that it might simply have been that Blockback paid lbank. Well, they obviously paid for the listing. We know that that's what lbank does. Lbank takes anything. As long as you pay them the money, they don't care and they're there to make money. And then somebody's like, there's nothing on the side. It's like there's a link right on the post and it takes you straight to an article that says, we're listing block that gets L Bank has put themselves on record that they're going to list something. We don't know what that something is. We don't know when that something is. We know something exists. That's all we know. I'm going to tell you though, I'm not questioning Zach XCT's credibility in this regard. I'm questioning why he didn't produce the receipts that it seems like he has about the project to support the claims that he made. That's all. I have a theory.
[00:06:48] In January, Zach XBT got a whole bunch of a mean garbage token that was created in his name. He got a whole bunch of it and then he rug pulled it. I know some people have put semantics around this, but he rug pulled it. Once he was given the tokens, he dumped off the project and never recovered. I get it. The mean token was created for his benefit and to help him. They didn't expect him to dump all of it out at once. But you gave it to him. That's what he's going to do and that's what he did. So I question why it is that it's okay for him to dump off of a project and sell out of it that was given to him, but it's not okay for Block DAG to sell out of whatever it is that was given to them. We need to be consistent, right? If you've done that and you've dumped out of it, you understand the game money was given to you, you are now entitled to sell it. That's how this works. If people gave Block that money, blockdac is entitled to sell out of it. That's the truth. Black DAC has made no assertion about what you are not going to get other than the blockchain and a target price. And the target price I've said is bullshit. It's not. There's no way they're going to get it. But that's what they've said. So now that's what we have to test.
[00:07:55] We have to test. Okay, let's see what you deliver. Let's see you deliver something. Right? But it's already after the fact you've given them money.
[00:08:02] It is what it is. There are people, real people that notable people that have put their name on the damn thing. And I think, I maintain this is a piss poor marketing group, evident by the one that reached out to Zach XBT talking about let's do a partnership with you.
[00:08:18] That's, that's piss poor marketing people. That's marketing people that don't understand. They don't follow this stuff. They don't follow social media. They don't follow the other scams. They're just going. It's like a, you know, a conveyor belt. They're just going. They're just doing. They're just doing whatever it takes, whatever opportunity. They see somebody with a blue check mark and they say, okay, let's reach out to them. Screw it, they don't care. That's what I'm saying. How can it be, you know, somebody like Vandenberg is not going to be doing reach outs to ZachxBT to ask him to market the project. These people have not done that. And then there was another person. They put a screenshot showing what said Anthony Turner Block Dag with a blue check mark and said, this account's been suspended. The name of the first name was misspelled. His name is Antony. There's no H. And yet the one on Twitter that got suspended, rightfully so, had an H. So it probably was a scam account.
[00:09:07] My point is, I am not defending Black Dag. I'm saying that if you make those claims, produce the receipts. Dude, you apparently have something, so produce the receipts. If you claim to want to help people, produce the receipts. If you're just talking out of your ass, that's going to make you look bad. If they do produce something. This is what I said to crypto mother, father at idiot who responded on Zach xbt, by the way, and to Vos Coin. I have never once said it's a legit project. I said, these are real people. I said, there's a. There's a blockchain, there's a test net, primordial. It works. I've run it. It works. I've run the node. I've done all that. So I know that part is a thing. They created something.
[00:09:43] They're doing videos, the mining x10. That's a something. It's a something. That's all we know. That's all we know. We don't know anything else. The claims, okay, I'm sure that they did sell off what they got because they got various tokens and I'm sure that they did trade those for cash so that they could pay some people to do all the aggressive marketing and the things that they're doing. I'm sure that they did do that. What else the do you think that they're doing with the money?
[00:10:06] Why? What's the purpose of collecting money if not to use it to financially back a thing? Because they're not using angel funding again.
[00:10:14] I am not. None of what he said changes my mind. In what I see a block bag is that it's incompetent marketing numb nuts that don't know what the f they're doing and screwing the project over. That's. I maintain, that's what I say it is. The people, okay, they're talking block deck, they're mentioning block deck, they're wearing block deck stuff. If they're not associated at all with the project and they're just fronting it artificially again, Dr. Hurley, he'd be Persona non grata. And he's MIT, he's Harvard, he's Cambridge, he's all over the place. He'd be Persona non grata. That is fascinating to me. And that's why I'm observing it from a distance and watching what the f they're doing. And it's clear it's just piss poor marketing of people who don't know what they're doing, probably from another country that don't understand how idiot, idiotic they look with their piss poor marketing strategy. And I maintain that's what it is. So I'm not going to tell you what to do. I can't. I won't. I refuse. It's whatever you feel. I'm saying that Zach XPT has a little bit of a question that he should answer if he has this receipt evidence once you produce it. Number two, you dumped off of a project when you were given tokens. And I didn't hear anybody smoke on you about that. But that's what happened. You did the same thing you're accusing them of doing. So are you saying that you're a scammer since you did the same thing that they're doing and you would say that wasn't a pre sale. Deep, deep. It doesn't matter. You were given tokens, you dumped off the tokens, they were given tokens, they dumped off the tokens. Allegedly. What's the difference? None. It's the same thing because everybody in crypto does it. Because everybody in crypto is greedy. Because when you're given that much money, the temptation is too great even for somebody like Zach xpt.
