the exit scam question that gets asked weekly, answered properly
The title is the argument: the exit scam question that gets asked weekly, answered properly. Here is the rest of it. Reported something here with dates and screenshots and was asked for the document trail. Fair challenge, and it made the report worth reading. Lost money once, years ago, to a shop that pushed hard for…
Never name an individual. The sidebar rule exists because the cost of being wrong falls on a person and the benefit of being right falls on nobody in particular.
Cloned storefronts copy assets, layout and testimonial text. What they cannot easily copy is a batch-specific document that ties to a lot you can then have tested independently.
Do you have anything in writing from before the payment?
ask for a batch-specific document before you send anything
Group buys concentrate custody, payment and communication in one person with no structure behind it. That is not an accusation about anyone — it is a description of the risk shape.
That is a report count, not a test count, and it changes how thin the evidence base actually is.
Is there any independent testing on file for this name anywhere?
This. Anything urging you to decide today is doing so for its own reasons.
Correction: that domain is one character different from the one you posted, which is rather the point of this thread.
What dates are we talking about — order, payment, last contact?
Yes. The thin-evidence names in the directory are thin because nobody has anything on them, which is a different statement from a warning.
the review page nobody can find on any other site is a warning
What did the storefront say the lead time was?
Correcting my own post: the payment date was the 14th, not the 4th. The gap is smaller than I made it sound.
Is this a shop, a group buy, or an individual reseller? They fail in different ways.
Disagree with naming anyone on that basis. One person’s bad month is not a pattern and the sidebar exists for this exact reason.