BUSTED & Wrong Again Lbank; When you Encounter aVicious Scorpion & You’re in the Wrong you Either Deliver a Fatal Blow or you Tuck Your Tail in & Run Away!
To start this off, and albeit the weakness of Lbank’s response, we are extremely happy to have gotten one. It means that we are hitting where it hurts. It also means that that what we said is the truth, otherwise we wouldn’t have gotten a response.
Moving on, we will deliver on our promise, the deadline we have set lbank has now expired and we now leave it to our legal counsel from here. This will be our last response for two reasons; a. the quality of their release is absolutely abysmal and b. we are focused on pukkamex.
In all fairness every story has three sides, and this is no different; there’s our side of the story, there’s lbank’s and then there’s what actually happened. We cannot deny that there is some element of subjectivity and bias in both our stories, no matter how hard we tried to keep our release based on facts and backed up evidence; however we wholeheartedly believe that the contract tells the actual story, and as promised we will be making this contract public so we can prove once and for all, with all objectivity, that lbank literally scammed us, stole our money and attempted to trick Lbank users into purchasing fake discounts.
Before moving on to pinpoint the inaccuracies and inadequacies of Lbank’s release it is worth noting that, even if, and that is hypothetically speaking of course, everything Lbank claims in their release is true, this would potentially give them the right to cancel the sale and to halt the listing, but under NO circumstances would that entitle you to withhold our 10 million PUX and our hefty listing fee.
Essentially you are admitting to withholding 10 million PUX and the fee paid because we made an offer for a discounted sale? If your intention is solely to protect your users simply stop the listing, refund your users and refund us.
In our original release we made the following statements about lbank, and backed every single one of them with proof;
1- Lbank has no respect whatsoever to the law, they also have no belief in legally binding contracts.
2- We agreed to raise funds in USDT, they then switched to LBK tokens.
3- The agreed IEO price is 0.05, this was changed last second by lbank to 0.1 to trick their users into believing that they are purchasing PUX at a discount, furthermore;
4- Lbank actively tried to hide the real PUX price of 0.05 from their users.
5- Lbank promised us that the raised funds could be withdrawn at any time and that these funds would not be subject to any form of lockup whatsoever, ultimately afterall the purpose of an IEO is to raise funds!
6- Lbank does not conduct any due diligence whatsoever. They found out that pukkamex is an exchange 2 days before the IEO.
7- The entire lbank team and staff is utterly incompetent and cannot even execute the simplest of day to day operations.
8- Lbank raised the required collateral to 200k then 500k and finally 1 million before trying to trick us into believing that they would agree to a 150k collateral, only for us to receive a screenshot of their CEO’s plans to the contrary.
9- Lbank claims that the reason for delisting was cheaper private sale deals, the real reason however was our refusal to deposit and lockup a total of 1 million dollars.
10- 1 day before listing lbank added a condition that the pux token price is maintained at 2x IEO price for 3 months before they would allow us to withdraw any of our funds or the raised funds.
11- The identity of every member of staff was confirmed, some of these members went on to claim they are not working for lbank?!
12- Lbank run fake IEOs and manipulate the progress bar, by their own confession.
13- pukkamex attempted to resolve the issue amicably and literally begged to get on a phone call with Eric He to no avail.
Instead of addressing the above, Lbank made the following claims:
1
After we reached to an exclusive IEO sales agreement with the PUX team with a certain fixed price, PUX team members continued to sell PUX tokens over the counter with a price lower. We at least spot such behavior in LBank community such as LBank wechat group;
We did not reach an “exclusive” sales agreement, please release a copy of the contract to back up this claim. We did not mention any exclusive rights whether formally through a contract or informally via discussion.
Additionally as we have proved the price agreed was 0.05, you proceeded to increase that to 0.1 to trick your users into believing they were getting a fake 50% discount.
Nowhere in our agreement, formal or otherwise did you forbid us from selling PUX via private allocations.
2
The consensus between PUX team and LBank of its token price is 0.05USDT, while the PUX team were trying to dump PUX token over the the counter at half the price(0.025USDT) while the sales event are on going at the same time;
Again we are extremely confused first of you claimed the token price to be 0.1 and that you were offering an exclusive 50% discount? Make up your minds.
But moving on to the price we offered at a true 50% discount;
The screenshots lbank shared are missing a pivotal piece of information, as you can see below this offer was made with a condition that the tokens remain locked up for 3 months, and there’s more;
Pygo, the user we made this offer to is what we consider a strategic investor, pygo is both an industry influencer and a quant trader, he also requested a discount for a 200k USD investment; as you can see below pygo has an annual trading volume on okex alone worth 1 billion USD.
The point we are trying to make is that having pygo as an investor adds to the pukkamex community. 1 billion USD in trading volume generates revenue for the exchange and by return revenue for the token holders.
Since the get go we had 25 million tokens allocated for strategic partners. Pygo, by all means, qualifies as a strategic partner.
Also since the get go, our mission is to maximize wealth for token holders, as such;
Instead of handing out free tokens to potential strategic partners we offered them a higher discount rate by utilising the allocation we had reserved for them. So in pygos case, what we technically did is sell him tokens at 0.05 USDT/ PUX but applied a 100% bonus from the strategic partners allocation. This would arrive at a net price of 0.025 or a 50% discount.
By doing so we benefit pukkamex and the token holder; instead of giving out free tokens, the tokens are given out at a discounted rate. Additionally, we gain a strategic partner who markets the project and contributes to the trading volume and hence the exchange’s revenue which is all ultimately in the best interest of the token holder.
Once again, we would like to stress that all this was subject to a lock up and that offering any private sale allocations was never forbidden by lbank in the contract or any time before the IEO. In fact, we hereby challenge lbank to make the contract public and officially wave any rights against breach of the confidentiality terms therein. But of course, they won’t self-incriminate themselves.
To know the REAL reason behind the cancellation of the listing read our initial release.
Finally, Lbank posted a screenshot of our CEO telling Chuck that under no circumstance are they allowed to provide a 50% discount on the IEO price of 0.05, we used this screenshot to prove to you how they proceeded to increasing the price to 0.1 to trick their users into believing that 0.05 is a 50% discount on PUX price. They posted the same screenshot in their response, thank you for confirming the authenticity of the screenshot and our claim against you.
3
In the initial stage of this cooperation, LBank and PUX team finalized the margin for ensuring the smooth progress of the cooperation, it was repeatedly changed by the PUX team. LBank have paid a huge cost to maintain this cooperation until LBank has fulfilled most of the obligations of this cooperation, The margin still has not been done transferred yet.
