Some people say, "What does someone's fake donation have to do with you? Why are you pointing fingers?"
I really don't agree with this logic.
Using disasters as personal branding props and faking donation data—this is not a private matter at all; it's a public issue. What does it harm? The entire trust system of the charity sector. In the future, people who genuinely want to do good will hesitate, and ordinary people who want to donate will think three times before acting.
What's more crucial is that this directly damages the reputation of the crypto community. The industry's trust level is already fragile—pulling a stunt like this only makes it worse. Who would dare trust charity projects in this field anymore?
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
fren.eth
· 3h ago
To be honest, this kind of blame-shifting logic is the most disgusting. If it's a donation scam, just admit it—why do decent people have to step in and stop it?
Ruining credibility over this kind of thing, when Web3 is already under fire, just makes it even worse.
Faking charity in this way can seriously destroy trust in the entire ecosystem.
Why are the big players so short-sighted...
View OriginalReply0
ShamedApeSeller
· 3h ago
You're absolutely right, fake donations should be exposed no matter who does it.
The crypto space already has a bad enough reputation, and something like this is just suicide marketing.
Wait, isn’t this guy the one who got exposed before? No wonder he’s in such a rush to clear his name.
I just want to know, how do those people who fake donation data even have the nerve?
This move has honestly reset the entire industry’s credibility to zero.
View OriginalReply0
GasWrangler
· 3h ago
nah see, this is where people get it wrong—fake donation metrics aren't some victimless thing you just ignore. if you actually analyze the data flow, it's demonstrably poisoning the entire credibility layer. like, empirically speaking, this erodes confidence in *every* crypto philanthropic initiative that comes after it. that's just how trust operates at base layer, no way around it.
Some people say, "What does someone's fake donation have to do with you? Why are you pointing fingers?"
I really don't agree with this logic.
Using disasters as personal branding props and faking donation data—this is not a private matter at all; it's a public issue. What does it harm? The entire trust system of the charity sector. In the future, people who genuinely want to do good will hesitate, and ordinary people who want to donate will think three times before acting.
What's more crucial is that this directly damages the reputation of the crypto community. The industry's trust level is already fragile—pulling a stunt like this only makes it worse. Who would dare trust charity projects in this field anymore?