LBANK.info Scams us; Timeline of the PUX LBank IEO, Listing Fiasco & The REAL REASON behind Cancelling the Listing

Word of caution to LBANK.info and Their Supporters

It seems obvious from your dealings and our research that such dealings are not foreign on your part, but this time you have screwed the wrong people; we are a real company backed by a real community and real investors.

We will pursue you till the ends of the earth by any means legally available to us to ensure that the best interests of pukkamex and its token holders are met.

Should a full refund of our tokens and our payment not be processed by Tuesday 3rd September then you shall be hearing from our lawyers who have assured us that we have an iron clad case against you despite what you believe to be true about contracts and the law in China.

preamble

To start this off we are not making excuses and we are not using this as a way to delay our roadmap; the pukkamex platform continues to run on the roadmap we set ourselves in our whitepaper despite taking a big financial hit from LBANK.info.

In fact the reason we ran the IEO in the first place is twofold; providing liquidity to our token holders and early investors to keep in line with our mission of maximising wealth for The PUX Token holder, in addition to raising funds and marketing the project from and in a region and a user base that has otherwise proved to be beyond reach for us.

To be clear the following release is a statement of absolute fact that can be backed up by irrefutable evidence. We are in the business of making money, not in the business of making press releases or filing lawsuits and have made this clear to Lbank; we simply demand that they go ahead and execute the terms stipulated in the contract or to refund us. To be clear, we gave Lbank the chance to avoid a potential upcoming lawsuit and save face by showing them this article before we release it, if you are reading this now, it simply means they chose to ignore it.

Moving on, screenshots will be provided to make our points and back up our claims and the identities of those involved will also be established to prove the accuracy of our assertions.

The only piece of evidence we withhold is the contract; we are pending advice from our legal counsel on the matter. We need to ascertain that releasing the contract will not breach the confidentiality clause and by extension our rights outlined in the contract.

The terms set out in the contract are complete and governs our entire relationship.

We have absolute respect for the rule of law and trust the contract between us to govern our agreement past, present and future. Unfortunately, the same cannot be told about LBANK.info, but we will let you be the judge of that before moving on;

Here is “Chuck” happy to lean on the contract when he thought it was going his way, he was wrong;

Below you can see Chuck stating clearly LBANK.info’s feelings towards contracts;

Introduction and Overview

As had been publicly announced; pukkamex entered into an agreement with Lbank to conduct an IEO of 10,000,000.00 PUX tokens at the token price of USD0.05 as well as list our native token (“PUX”) on their exchange against a USDT trading pair. This was in return for a fee which pukkamex paid Lbank.

Initially LBANK.info agreed that the proceeds of the token sale were not subject to any lock up or collateralization and ought to have been withdrawable immediately upon conclusion of the sale and deposited by Lbank into pukkamex’s account, it is worth noting that pukkamex waived this term willingly and of its own accord after the successful conclusion of the sale; we agreed to lock up the raised funds in full to be used to support The PUX token price which is in the best interest of Lbank users and PUX Token Holders. This was done at the request of Lbank which came one day after the IEO ended.

Throughout the period of the pukkamex Lbank collaboration, beginning in early July, the pukkamex team had to endure the constant struggle of dealing with the utter incompetence and mind-boggling inconsistency of the Lbank team.

Agreed upon matters were consistently and suddenly varied, altered or entirely dismissed and new arrangements and terms would be actioned by the Lbank team all too frequently. However; in the interests of executing a fruitful collaboration as we had always intended, and most importantly in order to fulfill our promise to our community and token holders, we were able to power through and re-explain time and time again, as well as compromise here and there until IEO day finally arrived.

The terms altered did not affect pukkamex solely, in fact they also affected LBK holders and LBANK users directly; At some point LBANK demanded a 50% discount which we were unable to comply with since we had to maintain the best interests of our token holders. Lbank’s response to that was to increase our token price from 0.05 to 0.1 USDT and made false promises to its users that they were getting a 50% discount by purchasing the PUX token at 0.05.

Of course, the story ended with Lbank ultimately demanding that pukkamex deposit an additional 500,000.00USDT on top of what was paid and the funds raised during the IEO, a term which due to the events and buildup of actions of the Lbank team over the previous month pukkamex refused to comply with, not only because it, like many of the actions undertaken by Lbank had been in total breach of our agreement, but due to the history of deceit and bad-faith behavior which led pukkamex to realize that Lbank could not be trusted. Thankfully our token holders have been spared the listing of our token on such a shady platform.

In their announcement Lbank claim that the reason for not listing PUX is that private sale information was leaked; this is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts; while we cannot deny the conclusion of private sale deals, we can prove without any shadow of a doubt that the sole reason for not listing PUX is our refusal to increase the collateral to 1 million USD, additionally concluding any private sale deals does NOT cause a breach of contract by our side in any form.

Identity Confirmation

pukkamex began dealing with Lbank through the introduction of a mutual contact. This enabled us to be confident that we were dealing with the right people from the outset, we began our negotiations with their team.

Of course, precautions were taken to ensure that the identity of the team was accurate and that both companies were in fact dealing with the right people, correspondence and information was shared through official email channels and we were also able to ascertain that those dealing with us had the authority to negotiate terms and represent Lbank.

Enter Chuck

Chuck is a Director at Lbank, apparently. When it started becoming official, he was our highest level contact, and for the most part continued to be throughout our relationship to the very end.

Chuck introduced us to Lbank’s Co-founder and director, Eric He who informed us that Chuck was in charge of business and held him out as our primary contact at Lbank. Dealing with him was pleasant and professional initially, a good sign of things to come, or so we thought…

It transpired when we informed them that we would put this article out, that Chuck suddenly became an outsider, Chuck who coordinated with us through official Lbank emails and channels and was vouched for by Eric He… Is an outsider??

We would then have a face-to-face conversation with Eric before moving forward with the negotiations, a final confirmation of the identities of those we were dealing with, as well as verification of what we had agreed to begin to plan together.

Needless to say everything discussed and agreed upon was also done through official email; all paperwork was also duly signed by authorized Lbank signatories.

LBANK.info is Literally Scamming Lbank Users and LBK Holders

Lbank.info is conducting shady operations, we will not be discussing any dealings unrelated to pukkamex, but by the end of this section we will prove, beyond any doubt, that Lbank literally and intentionally tried to scam its users into believing that they are purchasing discounted PUX tokens; we believe their intention is to increase demand for their LBK token and hence its price which would explain why they insisted on raising the IEO funds using the LBK token instead of USDT as initially announced.

Furthermore Lbank does not run any kind of due diligence on their IEO’s, forgive us if we are mistaken, but the benefit of an IEO for the investors is to rest assured that their tokens would have liquidity right away in addition to being assured that the tokens they are buying have been extensively vetted?

The following email was sent to lbank on 13th July 2019, as part of our listing application, it contains a detailed breakdown of what pukkamex is, development updates, media releases, important links and an invitation to test our MVP, essentially a fully functional trading platform.

We then spent about 40 days discussing our project, providing updates and new media releases. To our surprise the following question was asked on Wednesday 21st august, two days before our IEO and by none other than chuck, our primary and first point of contact who was verified by Eric He, the LBANK CEO and cofounder. What kind of exchange doesn’t even know what kind of business the IEO they are running is engaged in?

It is thus easy to conclude that LBANK is running these token sales as a quick money grab in an attempt to scam as many projects as they can of their money, but what is more dangerous is that the lbank userbase enters these sales fully believing that these projects have been vetted with sufficient due diligence.

If they so much as read our email, whitepaper, website or read any single one of our messages, let alone test our MVP, they would have known what pukkamex is; so the question that you ask yourselves as a project do you really want to list there? And more importantly perhaps as an investor; is LBANK really conducting any kind of due diligence on the projects they are listing for token sales? The answer is a very resounding NO!

Most worrying for LBK holders and LBANK users though is the fact that Lbank are convincing them that they are running discounted sales. This is in fact a right out lie in pukkamex’s case. Let us first establish the facts backed and back it by evidence;

As announced publicly by pukkamex and Lbank, the PUX token price is 0.05 USDT/ PUX;

Out of nowhere lbank demanded a 50% discount for Lbank users during the token sale, which we refused to maintain the best interests of our investors, community members and token holders;

Lbanks solution was to change our token price to 0.1 to convince their users and LBK holders that they are getting a 50% discount by purchasing PUX at 0.05 which is not the case; lbank even straight up asked us the “shiled”/hide this information from their users;

Adding insult to injury for the Lbank exchange and more worrying yet for the LBK holder and LBANK user, here below you can view evidence of Lbank admitting to the fact that they run fake and manipulated IEOs;

We believe that these practices are extremely misleading and affect the lbank platform and user adversely, this industry needs more exchanges like pukkamex.

Incompetence and Inconsistency

Over the next couple of days the Lbank team began the first in a series of confusing U-turns and narrative changes.

They went back and forth on conducting the IEO as planned until we finally re-agreed once more that we would be conducting an IEO on their platform.

The inconsistencies continued over time however, as we struggled with the Lbank team at every junction;

We struggled with the announcement information and we were asked to fill in the same form over and over (which we had filled and sent over at the beginning of our collaboration)

And after much more back and forth;

A few days in, a breakthrough perhaps??

What would prove to be typical;

Unfortunately, this sort of behavior, which we continued to mistake for incompetence and misunderstandings, would turn out to be malice and attempts by Lbank to go ahead with their own plans and agenda regardless of whatever is agreed with pukkamex

The issues of the announcement were compounded when Lbank also couldn’t figure out the proper dimensions for the banners they requested of us, over and over, until 2 days before the IEO date;

The banners were sent perhaps 20 times over the course of the month before the issue was finally resolved (by pukkamex)

Finally a solution to… banners….

We had to reiterate over and over how we did not wish to conduct a sale of the token during the IEO

But ultimately they did things their way anyway…

We attempted to put a stop to all the inconsistencies and back and forth, however Lbank it seems have a style of their own;

These issues were all eventually left behind as we pressed through with an outlook towards finally completing the IEO and successfully listing, however closer to the IEO date, things took a dire turn for the worse when the inconsistency and incompetence were merged with rude statements and scam behavior.

For instance, on the day of the IEO, suddenly the funds became subject to a one month lockup as Lbank would not allow us to withdraw.

Despite this Lbank team member later stating that our funds, which ought not be subject to a lockup will be held for 3 months, and including a caveat that the token price must be held at DOUBLE the sale price for that duration.

This same member also became combative and rude after the IEO was completed as the Lbank team attempted to pressure pukkamex into depositing a further 500,000.00USDT

His ancient child hacker homage profile picture and poor colloquial English didn’t do him credit in this instance though, no one took him seriously…

Market Making Funds, collateral and THE REAL reason for cancellation of listing

To clarify off the bat; private sales had nothing to do with ceasing the listing process and this section will prove this in fact nowhere in our agreement was this mentioned nor was it ever discussed in our negotiations or ongoing communications.

We have confirmed the following information time and again;

- Listing price and ieo price are the same.

-We agreed to maintain the IEO price for a minimum of 90 days in the best interest of our community and investors, but nowehere did we ever agree to maintain the token price at 2x! This was a bombshell LBANK threw our way on IEO day.

Now that these facts have been established let’s consider a full time line of the events leading to Lbank taking our money and ceasing the listing;

1- We entered an agreement with Lbank for the listing and token sale that requires no collateral. It was also agreed that the raised funds can be withdrawn at any time right after the conclusion of the sale. A copy of the contract governing our relationship will be released as soon as our legal counsel gives us the go ahead. For now the screenshot below should prove it;

2- a week or so before the IEO date a new requirement of market making with 200k USDT popped up;

3- we eventually settled on a 100k USDT market making fund, until IEO date arrived and the real problems started.

4- To our surprise LBANK now required that we do the market making with 500k USDT and that we would not be able to withdraw any funds unless the token price is maintained at 0.1 USD (2x) for 1 month or 3 months (we will never know the duration since as you will see below you will find conflicting information), during this time we kept asking when and how we can withdraw funds but the question was avoided altogether. Furthermore we agreed to comply with 500k market making/collateral they required and they agreed that we can use the raised funds to conduct the market making (by placing withdrawal bans on our account) and insure token price remains at 0.05 which was then raised to 0.1. Finally the ultimate surprise came after they now required us to market make with 1 million USDT; that’s is, they would give us the 500k, place it in an account, lock withdrawals but we also had to add 500k USDT more for a total of 1 million and to guarantee a price of 0.1 for 1 (or 3) month(s).

5- finally Chuck informs us that the lbank CEO agreed for us to deposit 250k only. We proceed to telling him that we only have 150k in free funds. He then changes his mind and says 150 would be ok. What makes us suspicious is the screenshot he provided form the LBANK CEO has been translated by a community member who warned us that they are going to ask for more money later on after transferring the 150k;

6- Since we obviously had no trust left anymore due to all the reasons mentioned in this piece we refused to transfer any more money to LBANK and this is THE REAL reason why lbank cancelled the listing and currently owe us our listing fee + 10 million PUX tokens.

Lbank proceeded to make an announcement citing private sale discounts as the reason behind the cancellation of the listing. This is a BLATANT LIE!

pukkamex seeks to resolve the issue amicably

Upon conclusion of the IEO pukkamex still gave Lbank the benefit of the doubt and considered that their new ludacris change of terms and odd demands may just be an extension of the incompetence and inconstancy we had become accustomed to over the past month of dealing with their team, it often appeared to us that the superiors did not communicate terms to the junior staff, though it always transpired that ultimately they just wanted to use the pukkamex token sale to peddle an ulterior agenda.

We attempted first to determine if this was a miscommunication, or an outright change of terms;

The trap was sprung however, and no amount of requests for communication or settlement would be accepted by Lbank anymore.

We were unable to reach Eric until the evening before the listing date, we had attempted to reach a settlement, negotiations arrived at pukkamex agreeing to deposit an additional 150,000.00USDT instead of the demanded 500,000.00USDT.

But our trust had been completely shaken, and we found new evidence showing Lbank’s true intentions behind this settlement; Lbank was conspiring to get pukkamex to deposit an additional 150,000.00USDT as a manner of entrapment, they planned to then force us to deposit further funds in the same manner they had previously attempted. pukkamex would not take the bait.

Lbank senior staff such as Eric He were not interested requests for negotiation or discussions, the interests of the token holders were not their concern, honoring the agreement between Lbank and pukkamex was never an option.

Shortly afterwards the Lbank narrative turned into silence and veiled threats and lies.