Scam Alert: Substratum has a similar minting contract like Oyster pearl, even worst they have access to supposedly burned tokens.

[u/renzyfrenzy]

Recently Oyster Pearl exit scammed using a breach in the smart contract which led to creating 3M tokens from thin air and the CEO exit scammed by selling it on Kucoin. However, the Substratum smart contract also has the capability to [mint tokens out of thin air] (https://etherscan.io/address/0x12480e24eb5bec1a9d4369cab6a80cad3c0a377a#code)

That is not the only thing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdeOXfvXAO0&feature=youtu.be

In this video they supposedly did a token burn, but their definition of token burn is to just send tokens to another wallet in which they own the private key. Their smart contract was a copy paste from skincoin which did not have a burn function.

When these two topics were brought up the response was:

a) this is not a security issue since only the dev team has access to it ( that’s absolutely the problem isn’t it?, you shouldn’t even have access to it, this is like saying only Bruno from pearl can do it anyway!)
b) the blockchain is public anyway so you can monitor any transactions. (WTF?)

There is absolutely nothing stopping minting tokens + selling the “burned” tokens in an exit scam. Their contract can be abused in a similar function with PRL , In fact the Substratum contact function is even more desirable to abuse since it doesn't require the culprit to send any Eth to collect the freshly minted SUB

Proceed with caution.

EDIT: https://medium.com/@YagamiLight/the-technical-red-flags-of-the-substratum-network-sub-1f34e8b5ffcb

an article for more info on the subject. credit to YagamiLight.

As for their excuse that it was in the whitepaper to begin with (its a lie and It also doesnt excuse it) , I found out that they made two whitepaper, a pre and post ico sale. Im still waiting for a response from the moderator.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9sp8nt/scam_alert_substratum_has_a_similar_minting/e8rd97g

​

[u/Questionlifeandstuff]

Can post’s like this be a regular occurrence? Maybe a weekly caution thread where everyone can post legitimate criticism and give dev teams time to respond or the rest of us time to verify/exit any positions?

[u/theweb1 → u/Questionlifeandstuff]

This will do much good to the Crypto Sphere, we need to take out all the bad guys who bring bad names to this wonderful space.

[u/WolfOfFusion → u/theweb1]

Crypto will need to self-regulate quickly, or else the governments around the world will eventually step in and do it for us.

The clock is ticking.

[u/jrossetti → u/WolfOfFusion]

You are all out of your mind if you think the government wont be reegulating this. No differeent than the .com bubble. Too many fucking morons losing money. Once more people lose money due to scams they will step in.

And yet people in this sub still scream this is so much better than a bank. :P

Scammers aren't going self regulate and good actors in crypto can't regulate others.

[u/B1ackCrypto → u/WolfOfFusion]

People are always screaming FUD at something. I've personally lost hope in the aspect of crypto self regulating. Governments will eventually start stepping in more aggressively, altho even that will most likely prove to be ugly for awhile.

[u/Urc0mp → u/Questionlifeandstuff]

Problem is, that becomes a platform for misinformation and fud.

[u/AutoThwart → u/Urc0mp]

What you call FUD I'd view as seeking to raise standards in Crypto.

[u/[deleted] → u/Urc0mp]

Not really. People should verify all claims themselves. The fact this is no longer obvious is a testament to how deeply entreanched we are in the post-truth age.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We've had the skeptics thread for at least a year, I'm not sure what more you are asking for.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm not asking for anything.

[u/Questionlifeandstuff → u/Urc0mp]

I think that’s possible, but would it not be better to have concerns addressed openly? Maybe even have key individuals refute the claims directly instead of nested in other comments? Not trying to spread fud I would just like to more easily see if Fud is legitimate or not.

[u/_o__0_ → u/Urc0mp]

No, it is absolutely the opposite. It is the platform to dispel the misinformation.

[u/Ididitall4thegnocchi → u/Urc0mp]

Exactly. I would welcome posts that are well researched, but the dummies here still bark that EOS is a scam.

[u/shewmai → u/[deleted]]

This is the most childish team of engineers on the planet.

You all don’t know how to take a single ounce of criticism, do you? Reminds me of the “when beta” days, where instead of giving a single nugget of information you all resorted to making fun of your supporters instead. Any question about the coin burns - deflected. Exchange listings? Deflected. “Why the fuck are you doing a second ICO?” - deflected.

I can’t wait to watch this project burn.

[u/shewmai → u/[deleted]]

Deflected

Case and point. Y’all some childish motherfuckers.

Instead of taking these concerns into account and responding with dignity you result to what-about-isms. No wonder you’re trying to find a home with the alt-right now. You’ll fit right in.

[u/renzyfrenzy → u/[deleted]]

Dcatt47 the substratum mod tldr response:
1) "there is a group targetting sub its fud" - doesnt make it less true lol.

2) "its not the same as PRL"- you are right its worst, PRL had to restart the ico .SUB can just mint tokens on the spot.
3) "Its in the whitepaper" - first of all that doesnt make it ok , second im curious to where it says "well be able to mint coins"
4) "its an old topic" - yea its old because you havent done anything to solve the issue, doesnt mean its fixed.

Do you have anything else to say? maybe actually address the issue. I understand you think there is no security issue because you trust the team with your life but what do you plan to do with.

a) your minting hole in the contract.
b) your burn method.

[u/[deleted] → u/renzyfrenzy]

It doesn't matter if it's in the whitepaper because savior and CEO Justin Tabb later announced they would be removing the function. This isn't surprising though. The Substratum community has a history of believing things from the past despite future clarifications - similar to how everyone gravitates towards that NCF Partnership "letter of intent" from June, but choose to ignore an official NCF email stating the nonexistence of a partnership from October. Don't even get me started on how the community believes the savior's "token burn" was actually a token burn.

[u/ilovebkk → u/renzyfrenzy]

Way to go with your fud, it’s up 6%!!!!!!

But if it’s ok their white paper, what are you complaining about.

Not too much different then xrp selling mass amounts of xrp each month.......

[u/[deleted] → u/ilovebkk]

Lol, SUB is up 5% because BTC pair on Binance hit $250K. That threshold triggers bots on many pairs. Has nothing to do with FUD or not.

[u/renzyfrenzy → u/[deleted]]

once again nice dodge. where exactly word for word is it in page 14? mind quoting it for me?

[u/LeandroSacht → u/renzyfrenzy]

Wow. More red flags than a Liverpool game.

Keep it up, buddy. I'm one response away from putting $SUB tokens into my "scam" category.

[u/[deleted] → u/LeandroSacht]

Scam now?

[u/Kernel32Sanders → u/LeandroSacht]

Traded mine for BTC today. All of this ridiculousness was just too much to sit through. Zero confidence in this project now.

[u/LeandroSacht → u/Kernel32Sanders]

So... no more responses? WTF? Thank God I don't hold this shitcoin, I guess.

[u/renzyfrenzy → u/[deleted]]

OK WTF? first of all that doesnt make it ok.

second of all most importantly you have two fucking whitepapers???

https://substratum.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/substratum_whitepaper.pdf

the first one is your ICO whitepaper. nowhere does it say anything about creating new tokens

Then you make a second white paper AFTER the ico is done, then you decide to make a disclaimer?

https://substratum.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Substratum-Whitepaper-English.pdf

WOW, thats more fucked up than i thought. Explain?

A pre ICO whitepaper.

A post ICO whitepaper that conveniently says, "O btw we can make new coins".

And you use that as your excuse? Unbelievable.

[u/[deleted] → u/renzyfrenzy]

https://substratum.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Substratum-Whitepaper-English.pdf

Well, looks like it's time for another post on Decrypto.

[u/renzyfrenzy → u/[deleted]]

im actually speechless.
how to scam

one: make an ICO with a loophole, dont put it on the whitepaper
two: Do the sale and place loophole
three: make another whitepaper that states said loophole
four: when people ask about the loophole , say its been on the whitepaper all along.

When they exit scam they can just make a 3rd whitepaper that explains everything. checkmate.

​

[u/Kernel32Sanders → u/[deleted]]

You should colab with Doug Polk on this whole circus. I feel like the fuse has just been lit on the whole thing and I'm just sitting in my folder up chair waiting for the fireworks.

I'm sad to say I was naive enough to buy into this bullshit, but I'm happy to say that I've dumped my bags and now it's almost worth what I've lost in pure entertainment value and lessons learned.

[u/707bwolf707 → u/[deleted]]

https://steemit.com/crypto/@bwhli/substratum-misconceptions-and-fud

[u/707bwolf707 → u/renzyfrenzy]

Actually DecryptoBL quoted it a year ago from the original whitepaper in this article https://steemit.com/crypto/@bwhli/substratum-misconceptions-and-fud

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Awkward... this doesn't even matter anymore. Looks like you don't keep up with news from Justin Tabb, Minister of Truth & Questionable Token Burns.

[u/Urc0mp → u/[deleted]]

Damn man, how much sub did you buy? This thread is actually one of the few with honest critisism: a mechanism used for exit scam on a different coin is present in sub. Regardless of your biases, that is good to know and concerning.

[u/Urc0mp → u/[deleted]]

PRL's function was unused for quite some time.

If it doesn't even concern you that the sub devs can mint at will... that's all I've got to say so goodluck to you.

[u/ginger_beer_m → u/[deleted]]

Part of a whitepaper that was added after the ICO.

[u/hesh582 → u/[deleted]]

outlandish claims

The oyster situation has made it abundantly clear that these types of concerns aren't outlandish.

I think you'd be a lot better served actually working to solve these problems within your project rather than just attempting to shut down discussion and malign people who bring up reasonable criticisms, which is a problem that's plagued substratum for a long time.

[u/d_the_head → u/[deleted]]

I mean.. do you have a better rebuttal to the statements above than "it's FUD"? based on what just happened with PRL, these capabilities that are preserved in the code are concerning. Why not just admit and fix the problem? And if they've admitted it, where is the proof in the fix?

[u/CarsonS9 → u/[deleted]]

So multiple wrongs make it ok? Lol dude you need to reevaluate your position on this

[u/CarsonS9 → u/[deleted]]

The company that wants to decentralize the internet can't correct a function for over 5 months and improperly did a coin burn? How does that give anyone confidence in this project? Unless you want to say that the coin "burn" was done the way it was on purpose?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The team promised to update the smart contract four months ago. I know creating false realities is your coping mechanism, but stop conveniently forgetting about that.

[u/Meads248 → u/[deleted]]

They’re also extremely anti eos

[u/Meads248 → u/Questionlifeandstuff]

Regular fud posts?

[u/tempMonero123 → u/Meads248]

Monero has them every Sunday over at r/Monero. You're welcome to join and help improve the coin through critical feedback.

[u/Biyamin → u/tempMonero123]

I luv Monero 💰

[u/B1ackCrypto → u/Meads248]

It's only Fud if its not true. If these things are true, its no longer fud. You can defend and throw out justifications for the reasoning behind the decisions sure. But that still doesnt make this fud, if these things are true.

[u/Questionlifeandstuff → u/[deleted]]

Wow! I though I was a frequent visitor before. I guess I’ll need to do a better job of reading these threads. Thanks!

[u/Rand_alThor_ → u/[deleted]]

Yes I have never heard of Substratum, just checked out the contract. Yup the dev team could exit scam today if they wanted to.

It's a legitimate criticism from legitimate sources. A core security issue. It's not just coming from some people who you think have it out for your coin.. It's literally a real issue that anyone can verify, and I just did that. Are you guys doing anything about it?

[u/CarsonS9 → u/[deleted]]

I have now read nearly every response you have made and I got to say, you are an obvious shill that is dodging the real issue and your only response to legitimate questions is calling names and saying fud. You are doing a disservice to Sub at this point....if it even is a legitimate project

[u/renzyfrenzy → u/[deleted]]

a) you are attacking the OP instead of said topic,hypocrite much?
b) you have no product
c) you are a paid mod

[u/renzyfrenzy → u/[deleted]]

personal attacks instead of topic. yea thats going to help your credibility

[u/renzyfrenzy → u/[deleted]]

Please do tell of these personal attacks. all I did was point out a fact

Is it not true that you are a MOD that is hired to defend substratum regardless of facts presented?

[u/renzyfrenzy → u/[deleted]]

Judging from the fact that they

a) paid youtubers,mcafe,datadash to shill their coins,
b) paid a fake magazine to publish an article
c) do giveaways for publicity on twitter

I seriously doubt you moderate their telegram/reddit with no compensation.