FEBRUARY 16TH, 2022

Do we really know who we’re dealing with in this brave-new, anonymous world of Web3? 

To bring you up to speed: In stupid Web2- the Big Brother Internet companies had access to all our data. Now, Web3’s mission is (say it with me) to create a decentralized, transparent, ubiquitous, open, and socially responsible internet experience. 

In the utopian movie version of Web3, people control their own data - and operate in a decentralized, quasi-anonymous manner. 

(Here comes the Spiderman cliche line…) But with great power comes great responsibility... 

So, what happens when one faceless account launches a witch-hunt and doxing campaign against another faceless account - and in the process, tries to tear down the anonymous walls of Web3? 

Let’s dive in; the massively long Twitter thread begins:

“We will disclose the identity of one of the (currently) most (in)famous NFT influencers. But before we do that, we first explain our (philosophical) justifications and provide some important disclaimers.” 

1/ In this thread we will disclose the identity of one of the (currently) most (in)famous NFT influencers. But before we do that, we first explain our (philosophical) justifications and provide some important disclaimers.

— NFT Ethics (@NFTethics) January 17, 2022

Sounds like we are about to jump into something meaty here.

What follows is a 71-part, deep-dive thread - from the Twitter account of NFT Ethics. And, all I know about NFT Ethics’ identity is from their one line mission statement: Uncovering inconvenient truths about this digital kingdom and its most influential players.

(Sure, it sounds like they are fighting the good fight by calling out scammers - but who the hell are these anonymous crusaders)? 

The long thread’s attempt is to: make a connection between the digital and physical reality, and allow anyone to make a judgement themselves regarding this individual.

 In other words, in the world of Web3 transparency an ‘assumed’ (legalese word needed) crypto ‘assumed’ scam artist is about to doxed hard - and the anonymous account NFT Ethics - is going to take on the dual role of judge and jury. 

NFT Ethics continues: “It is therefore no surprise that some of the big(gest) anonymous influencers in this space have behaved in ways that they would never have behaved or been able to behave if they were not anonymous.” 

Additionally: “In Web2 the big influencers benefit from everything they know about us. In Web3, the big (anonymous) influencers benefit from everything we do not know about them. But they both (try to) influence our behavior for profit and capitalize on it for their own benefit.”

Here’s an abridged version on the manner and content NFT Ethics is presenting in their 71-part Twitter thread case. 

The person in question goes by the name: Beanie (that’s not the bad part).

A video is provided of Beanie - who stands on a beach and is cropped from the neck down. 

In the spirit of Web3- NFT Ethics discovered Beanie’s identity from a project called Monkey Bet DAO (MBD)  – where Beanie has said he invested a "very small" amount in.

The plot thickens: NFT Ethics points out that those in the Monkey Bet DAO Discord noticed that the name RGT (Royal Gaming Technology) was mentioned in the T&Cs of various MBD sites. Further, the Company Registration number and slot designs were identical to the ones from RGT.

NFT Ethics backs this up with a series of screenshots - and another video they provide - where it is pointed out the man on the video has the same voice as the man on the beach - so therefore it must be the same man. 

And here comes the Hitchcockian plot twist: As NFT Ethics claims (now get this), it turns out that he (Beanie) is…the owner of RGT!!! (Note several exclamation points.)

Now we move into Act Two: When ChimpBet was launched, people noticed a resemblance with another RGT project called: CryptoBet (the site is currently down because it says it’s transforming into a Web3 platform). 

NFT Ethics’ further proof of tomfoolery: They point out numerous complaints on message boards about CryptoBet; where it's frequently mentioned that once you win a jackpot, they flag your account as “high risk” (without explanation) and you are not able to withdraw anything.

The publicly announced director of ChimpBet was identified as a Sales Director of RGT.

NFT Ethics detective work unraveled that the guy on CryptoBet’s YouTube video  - features a man with the exact same voice as the MBD project lead: Owlman.   

Further dot connecting: On LinkedIn - Owlman is mentioned as General Manager of RGT.

So why is this all bad? 

According to NFT Ethics’ findings, Owlman is associated with deploying CBET i.e. a scam token – which is associated with such scam projects as TokenPay – which was transferred to RGT. NFT Ethics tracked down that the same person behind CBET and TokenPay was also the person behind RGT.  

M. Night Shyamalan couldn’t have written a better twist.

When the Corporation Registration Number status, associated with RGT, was checked - it showed that registration was discontinued on 15 April 2020, even though the casinos have been operational after that and still are to this date.

NFT Ethics hypothesizes that this was probably meant to create the illusion that CryptoBet/ChimpBet have a proper gambling license. But when they did a check on the status - it seemed to be a sub-license of another company, of which there is no trace.

NFT Ethics - tries to back up their findings with a series of screenshots, comparison videos (“the voice on these two videos sound alike”) - and links- to help prove their case that this has been an ongoing pattern for the (‘assumed infamous’) Beanie.

The anonymous NFT Ethics overall conclusion: “We want to emphasize that we don’t want to cast a shadow over the NFT space itself, which provides a much-needed pillar in the battle against (further) centralization and will be instrumental in continuing to gradually evolve into the future metaverse.”

Let’s bring in the final recap: If people like Beanie, are actually doing the things they are being accused of doing, then they should be called out for being (“assumed”) scammers. But doxing doesn’t seem like a good solution to being scammed. To me, doxing is the tactic deployed by white supremacist hate groups (I say that because I’ve been doxed by a white supremacist hate group; trust me, it’s not fun.)

But in Web3 -  why are people willing to ‘like’ and trust an anonymous account which bothered to take a few screenshots - as they take sides against another anonymous account.

At the core, this is about ethics, trusting people, accountability, sticking up for the little guy and calling out scammers. 

A larger issue: Why do we trust influencers - and is doxing people and mob mentality the right way to handle scams?

In an anonymous world, it all comes down to who you can trust in this space.

Web3 was supposed to be about removing Big Brother tech companies, such as Facebook, from the equation. Now - we’ve evolved into the Big Brother tactic of anonymously doxing people.