How to Tell a First-Hand Account From a Case File on ScamMarketCap

Not every entry on ScamMarketCap is the same kind of record, and treating them as interchangeable is one of the easiest ways to misjudge a report. Before you act on anything you read here, look at the label attached to it. The label tells you where the information came from, and that matters as much as the information itself.

Two kinds of records

The first kind is a first-hand account. A member describes something that happened to them: a payment they sent, a promise that was made, a withdrawal that never arrived. These accounts are valuable because they capture detail that rarely appears in official documents, such as the exact wording of a message, the timeline of how trust was built, or the moment a warning sign was ignored. They are also, by nature, one person's experience. Their strength is specificity. Their limit is that the writer's memory, perspective, and incentives are all part of the story.

The second kind is a case file. These are compiled from public records, and each one lists its sources. Court filings, regulator notices, government enforcement actions, and published reporting are the raw material. A case file is closer to a research summary than a testimony. You can check its claims by following the sources it cites, and that checkability is the reason to prefer it when you need to confirm what is documented versus what is alleged.

Neither type is automatically more reliable. A first-hand account can be accurate and detailed while still missing context that only the other side possesses. A case file can be well sourced while the sources themselves are incomplete, dated, or later revised. The label does not grade the truth of the content; it describes the method behind it.

Why the right to respond matters

Anyone named in a report can respond to it, and verified responses are published on the report itself. This is a deliberate part of how the site works. A named party who disputes a claim, supplies a correction, or provides context gets a place alongside the original entry, so readers see the disagreement rather than a single voice. When you read a report, check whether there is a verified response attached. Its presence or absence is information in its own right, though an absence does not prove the report is wrong, since some parties choose not to respond or cannot be reached.

A short checklist before you rely on an entry

Start with the label. Ask whether it is a first-hand account or a case file, and adjust how much weight you give the specific claims accordingly.

For a case file, follow at least one of the listed sources. Confirm that it says what the report says it says, and note the date, since situations change.

For a first-hand account, look for internal consistency: does the timeline hold together, and do the details match what could reasonably be verified elsewhere?

Check for a verified response. Read it as carefully as the original.

Then consider your own position. The reports on this site are only as complete as the people who contribute to them. If something happened to you that resembles an entry you have read, adding your own account helps the next person who searches for it. A pattern that appears in several first-hand accounts, and is then confirmed in a case file, is far more useful to a reader than any single story on its own.

The goal is not to believe everything here or to dismiss it. It is to know, for each entry, what kind of evidence stands behind it, and to make your decisions with that in view.