[resolved]

Hello @Huvudaxlarkna

Can you please describe the situation in more detail?
What was the matter of trade, how much did you pay, which crypto and to which address?
If you could also provide screenshots of your Discord conversation, e.g. "I sent [crypto] to this address [image]".

 

Hello again @Huvudaxlarkna,

Thank you for that.
I'm investigation the issue and have an idea what caused this problem.
I will reply shorty.

-BB

 

@Huvudaxlarkna,

From the screen shots that you provided, it looks like you agreed to BTC.

You did not send BTC, but rather a "Coinbase Wrapped BTC".

- https://www.coinbase.com/price/wrapped-bitcoin

In other words, Bitcoin uses only 1 chain, and what you sent is another token on Ethereum's layer 2 network, Base.

Another thing I will think about and consider in this report is that @FIRE RSPS GP did not provide you with a Bitcoin address for the Bitcoin blockchain, but rather an address for a different token representing Bitcoin on a different chain, Binance Smart Chain, BSC, with a 0x prefix.

To my knowledge, Binance (not Binance-US) does not support Coinbase's Base network.
If I recall correctly, there was either no way to retrieve funds sent to Base, or there was, but Binance charged money to do so, and if I recall correctly, that amount exceeded the amount of money lost in this particular transaction.

I'll look into this further and see who is at fault and what can be done.

If anyone from the community has any valuable input on this matter, such as up-to-date information about Base on Binance, I would appreciate it if you would let me know.

-BB

 

Hello,

Could you please elaborate on your recent posts, @Huvudaxlarkna and @FIRE RSPS GP? Did you resolve the issue yourselves, with @FIRE RSPS GP offering @Huvudaxlarkna a $10 USD discount on his next trade?

Is @Huvudaxlarkna disputing the next trade because the agreed-upon terms were not upheld? Is that correct? Could you please provide a screenshot of your full conversation regarding this next trade?

 

1) Please let me remind you once again, that the evidence must be posted in the report, @FIRE RSPS GP. No DMs, please.

2) Please show me where it says this second trade should serve as a settlement for the first. @FIRE RSPS GP @Huvudaxlarkna. Post a screen shot of this part of your conversation. Was this ever agreed upon?

 

This is far from a sufficient enough agreement even for Sythe's standards.

Back to the originally reported transaction:

- @Huvudaxlarkna and @FIRE RSPS GP agreed to a $20 payment for an RSPS GP. [1]
- @FIRE RSPS GP asked for USDT. @Huvudaxlarkna replied that he only had BTC. @FIRE RSPS GP then posted an address with a 0x prefix and a screenshot where is says BTC, BNB Smart Chain (BEP20), and the said address [1]

Spoiler: Image 1

- This is not a Bitcoin address, and the BNB Smart Chain is not the Bitcoin blockchain. Rather, it is a token representing Bitcoin on a different blockchain.
- @Huvudaxlarkna used the address but sent a token representing Bitcoin on Base, a third blockchain and L2 on Ethereum.
- @FIRE RSPS GP uses Binance, as the screenshots show. Binance does not currently support BTC deposits on Base.
- From my research, it appears that Binance can assist with situations like this, but it charges a fee. According to this source, the fee is $200: https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/1322585.


In order to understand the screenshot displaying Binance Smart Chain that @FIRE RSPS GP sent to @Huvudaxlarkna, along with the address, one must be familiar with the different chains. This was certainly not communicated clearly enough by @FIRE RSPS GP.
@Huvudaxlarkna used the address during the withdrawal process on his exchange, Coinbase, even though it was not a BTC address. He could not send BTC to that address because it is not a BTC address. Not knowing this, he sent what he believed to be BTC but which was actually a token representing BTC on Base, a different blockchain than the one @FIRE RSPS GP has access to and the one Coinbase supports.

In this case, two people with limited knowledge of the cryptocurrency they use met, while they both use different competing exchanges.

I'm unable to pinpoint who is at fault. Ultimately, I think both @FIRE RSPS GP and @Huvudaxlarkna failed, so I will split the liability.

@FIRE RSPS GP should refund half of the lost money, i.e., $10, to @Huvudaxlarkna.
Huvudaxlarkna, please provide FIRE RSPS GP with an address. Make sure it's clear what you're requesting/sending so we don't end up disputing another transaction. see post below


Note: similar situation with a 1/2 split ruling Secnx

 

I had not seen this image before posting.

I consider it good enough, and the situation is settled. There is no debt.

I will make another post shortly.

@FIRE RSPS GP @Huvudaxlarkna

Thank you

 

For the settlement, you decided to purchase GP at a $10 discount from FIRE RSPS GP.
You were told that at least some of the GP would come from a third party, i.e., outsourced gold.
We cannot know whether you traded with a staff member, as you claim, or with a legitimate seller using a relatively new mule. From what I've seen in RSPS reports, a ban is almost guaranteed when RWTing on certain servers. This does not mean that the staff is involved; it could just be that some servers are monitored for this activity.
Lastly, we cannot determine what happened to the gold after the trade.

I consider this report resolved.

One last note: I'm issuing a TWC to @FIRE RSPS GP for the following, combined with this report.

@FIRE RSPS GP telling his customer @Huvudaxlarkna that is is him playing on the account.

Spoiler

@FIRE RSPS GP talking to his supplier. Screen shot was DM'd to me BY @FIRE RSPS GP

Spoiler

Thank you.

BlackBlasses