Agree, was only suggesting besides the onus is with the person who wants to prove his/her trustworthiness, asking 3 NFTs first and audios and only after that s/he will send NFT will need that person to bring a person who can vouch for him/her else it is easier to be safe than sorry.
If the person turns out to be scamster then the person brought as arbiter is a potential scamster as well.
thank you so much, I am reading it now!
If anyone asks for telegram or whatsapp during trade or any such talks, immediately add them to list of suspicious people. They are likely going to ask to send audios or do something nefarious of that nature through the outside chats. That doesn’t 100% confirm that they will and sure it could be innocent but a good percentage of the time, it’s to do something shady. So I am just letting the forum know now, that asking to speak outside the forum during financial talks, brands you as a suspicious user.
Or even if you are a new user and jsut asking to talk privately in whatsapp or telegram.
“think of me too when you lucid dream” 
@anon24540511 is 100% a scammer.
Please be cautious about new users.
They seem to be using uploaded audios/NFTs as bait. But they don’t actually have a wallet to transfer the NFTs so that’s when things go sideways for them.
He posted screenshots of his “audios” which perfectly match the illegally uploaded audios from a certain youtube channel (they’re named in a specific way) as his “proof” of ownership.
Don’t waste your time.
yes, it is better not to waste time answering random users whose questions are not logical and instantly questionable
as recommended - a link to informative resources will be given
yes and i just checked… project mental health isnt there yet. What a “coincidence”!
I think from now on, no audio should be sent, unless they can prove their purchase or trade
The sheer volume of new users that come straight to the NFT threads looking for audio.
Guys please dont forget to link this report thread and / or the NFT guidelines (depending on if it’s NFT related or Gumroad) as some people are honestly misinformed or misled and may have not done their research.
It’s a good idea not to be so quick in assumptions / judgement on labeling and still stand your ground on informing with reference no matter what situation they claim to be in. 'Guilt tripping’ should not be tolerated.
Especially when they feel that it seems right -because it appears to be done in good faith - to see sites with ‘free’ (it’s actually pirated. And originally is not free, so it won’t work.) uploads and then downloading from them to share.
Downloading content ‘for free’ off of ‘pirated content’ then attempting to trade or sell or freely share such things is not right / fair for everyone else who have put in honest work / money to earn them. That is considered a form of blackmarketing (prices rather than taxes) / bootlegging
Hmm, I have an idea and we can discuss to see if its fair or not.
Only users at the member level can do trades. I know some of you have been here a while and done many trades and are reliable without being ‘member’ and you can message me privately and I can perhaps raise you to member.
As for selling, I’d prefer not to limit new users from buying. I know that sometimes you got what you needed from an NFT and would like to sell and being limited to only members would limit customer potential. But perhaps new NFTs can only be sold to members.
It’s very likely that some of the people that are doing these nefarious things are unactive ulor new users that sre just popping up to buy or trade. It’s not always the case of course as we certainly have lurkers who are just trying to get NFTs. But there’s also the possiblity that it’s a trusted member who is spreading around these things. And I certainly have that in mind.
It’s very possible these counterfeit groups are all chipping in to buy high priced NFTs to then upload them/share them around.
Yes, please do that first. Give that courtesy. Not everyone knows our rules and it’s not safe to outrightly assume that someone is doing some nefarious when they might just not know how these things work.
I think we should not tie the level of trustworthiness to the member status only. Because there are some suspicious folks here who have the member status and have been long time forum members, e.g. the mentioned person above: Profile - youknowwhattimeitis - Sapien Medicine
I really like the “people vouch for people” voting idea that @Divine_Lotus suggested:
With that, everyone can see who vouched for whom.
Then everyone can make up their own mind whom they are going to trust by how much.
@Divine_Lotus
I don’t think we need any special integration for that.
Just a thread and one post per user.
In their posts everyone will list the usernames (tagging them) of those users whom they consider trustworthy, suspicious or scammers.
For example:
< JAAJ’s post >
According to my experience:
Trustworthy Trading Partners: @Divine_Lotus @SammyG etc.
Suspicious Forum Users: @youknowwhattimeitis
Scammers: @Spritualplayboy
One such post per user.
Then people can user the search function to check the whole thread and see how many and how vouched for whom.
Update:
The file size and audio length is info that is not needed when doing transactions and the field having an effect for you. When bought from an authentic source this is not something to be concerned about, so it is irrelevant. You must buy it from our official websites and from people who truly own it and bought fair and square.
Brandondave. This user i quoted has a similar username as the user that got banned (“Brandondave835”) btw @Baya
Idk why the user copied that if it’s not the same person. But yeah be careful for impersonations
I can promise you we’re not the same person 
I have no intention to scam anyone, I wouldn’t gain anything from it.
Many thanks
Reminder
It’s like a big promotion for them unless we’re encouraged otherwise by admins
