Recently, James Edwards aka “ProofofResearch” has been on a tear, releasing several claims that are backed by non-objective and unsubstantiated conclusions. These statements issued are coming from a self-proclaimed “MiniGod” and individual who has reportedly raised “$500,000” for an equity offering. While the third rate manner of which this has been conducted does not fit the nature of someone who has raised $500,000, let’s use this post to debunk some of these outlandish claims, nevertheless.

Malfeasance and Lies

The first of many statements issued by Edwards revolves around “malfeasance and lies” regarding myself and fellow blockchain enthusiast, Brian Li, who’s actually one of the most down to earth guys I’ve come across in crypto.

James Edwards:

The Tragedy of Brian Li and William McKinley: Crypto Conmen – If you do not recognize the names of these two individuals, then hopefully you become extremely familiar with them in the next few minutes as we detail the series of crazy events that have enveloped them (mainly Brian) as well as the extreme malfeasance by community leadership, namely Brian Li himself.

So, after misspelling my name, according to Mr. Edwards, me and Brian Li are true “crypto conmen” and we’ve been involved in “extreme malfeasance”.

A few points:

  • I’ve never “conned” anyone in crypto nor have I solicited funds from the public in any shape or form whatsoever. Mr. Edwards is in fact in the process of currently soliciting funds from investors in the form of an “equity offering” at the moment and has been involved with numerous shady practices. One of these, a clothing and hat brand, “Thou Art Clothing” had numerous individuals that were allegedly conned and not refunded for their purchase on Mr. Edwards site.
  • I and neither Brian Li have never been involved in “extreme malfeasance”, contrary to Mr. Edwards third rate claims. Once again, Mr. Edwards should examine his past history before making claims about others that are simply, well, untrue.

Offering to “Dox” Justin Tabb

The second statement issued by Edwards revolves around an offering of myself to “dox Justin Tabb”, who is the CEO of the blockchain internet project, Substratum.

James Edwards:

“William McKenzie Offered to Dox Justin Tabb – This unfortunate saga begins with William McKinley (partner in crime with Brian Li) openly admitting taht he had doxxed Justin Tabb. Specifically, Justin told the CEO of Zerononcense that: “Also, we have found conclusive evidence that Justin Tabb sold ETH to buy himself a home.. this will be made public soon. it will be released anonymously with other things we’ve discovered.” This is just one of the many reasons for why Zerononcense decided to keep its distance“.

Once again, through Edwards extensive “research” he manages to consistently misspell my name.

A few points:

  • I never “offered to dox Justin Tabb”, in fact, Mr. Edwards himself participated in bashing Substratum on his own accord, which we call in the real world, hypocritical. Mr. Edwards has sent the following statements to me on Twitter, below.
  • Secondly, Mr. Edwards has openly engaged in taunting other substratum supporters, once again, on his own accord. The nature of his claim in the Substratum telegram at 1:45 am CDT today, “These people are bad actors in the community, I’m going to do my duty and warn the community“, is not only hypocritical in nature as he was constantly tweeting about SUB for months, but show his underlying intentions to defame and spread slander about two cryptocurrency researchers. Everything that I ever posted on Substratum, is indeed factual and was met with constant scrutiny and attention to detail.

Invitation to a Private Chat

The third statement issued by Mr. Edwards revolves around the invitation to a private chat to “undermine Substratum”.

James Edwards:

“William then proceeded to invite the CEO of Zerononcense into a “private group” where further plans to undermine and destroy the $SUB project would be discussed. The offer was duly refused”.

Well, at least he finally got my name right.

A point on this:

  • No one was trying to “destroy $SUB”, in fact, I have offered on several occasions to speak to Justin Tabb of Substratum on a podcast and hear his side of the story in a private message, all to no avail. Below, is provided proof of that.

Message to Justin Tabb (March 14, 2019):

“I’ve offered on several occasions for you to talk about many things and clear them up on the Crypto Basic Podcast and I’m still happy to oblige to it. You’ve ignored it, so maybe I’ll have better luck just asking you here. So, of the questions, I feel this is particularly relevant at this point in time. Recently, you stated this: “Amen. Pure and simple the article was written long before we converted LTC and XRP to pay attorney fees and a few other expenses. I’ll be writing an article and having our PR team review it for publication. All the best and back to work!” That article in question was posted onMarch 10, 2019 and subsequently, another one was posted the very next day. It says it clear as day within the article. 1. Why are you saying this was written before the XRP and LTC transfers which took place on February 27, 2019?They were sold weeks before it was published? 2. Clearly the “hedging” as indicated by your whitepaper is false. As there were indeed XRP and LTC funds that were still around. According to Substratum’s WP, all ICO funds would be hedged with 25% each in BTC, ETH, USD, USDT. Can you clarify that? You also recently said this: “Having to explain why we are using funds that were specifically contributed to run this company and build this product is sort of exhausting but we will do it one more time. A smear campaign is just that but whether they like it or not we are STILL HERE. Two years later. Delivering product every week. Many projects have come, raised way more than we did and are LONG GONE”. 1. In what world is explaining something you said was “in cold storage” not something you should do? Especially when it was found out that these funds were sold before you stated that comment in the recent article on influencive? The blockchain is open and can be traced. Did you just assume no one would fact check you? Furthermore, by saying there is “a smear campaign”, you are ignoring these by default. I’ve offered several times in the past to talk to you in the past and it seems clearing these kinds of things up is not a top priority. Anyhow, would appreciate clarification. If you can show that these things are indeed false, I’ll be happy to update it. Thanks”.

Shady P-Rep Application Practices

The fourth statement from the deranged Edwards revolves around “shaky P-Rep application practices” that I and fellow P-Rep team member Brian Li have been involved in, allegedly.

James Edwards:

Shaky and Shady “PRep” Application Practices– As some may know, both Brian Li and William McKenzie are both going for “PRep” on the $ICX protocol. Their specific project is called “Rhizone”. Zerononcense uncovered the chat where Brian Li took on the responsibilities of recruiting individuals to promote $ICX. There were less than 80 people in this chat and they included: -CryptoVigilante, Winston (from WolfCrypto), AutisticDog, Several $ICX Admins from the main chat, Confirmed members of the “Sam Smith” army. As proof, Zerononcense downloaded the entire chat (as an archive) and also took a video.

I sometimes wonder if Mr. Edwards has any formal education as he is constantly misspelling words and/or any understanding of blockchain technology, in general. As it seems he hasn’t even bothered to research what a P-Rep for ICON actually entails and quite frankly, is. Nevertheless, let’s debunk his defamatory accusations, again.

A few points:

  • Firstly, our P-Rep team is “RHIZOME”, not “Rhizone”. If you’re going to take the time to make a third rate hit piece, at least do your research, “ProofofResearch”.
  • Secondly, Brian has not “recruited people to promote $ICX”. These are people who have willingly, on their own accord, joined our telegram chat to discuss our plans for our P-Rep campaign and what we plan to contribute to the ICON ecosystem following the election in September.
  • Thirdly, If you actually understood the P-Rep campaign process, you would know that ICONists and P-Reps are incentivized to “contribute” to the ICON ecosystem as per ICON’s consensus algorithm, which is Delegated Proof-of-Contribution (DPoC). This is clear in the yellow paper on governance, and a medium post by Ricky Dodds of the ICON Foundation. Once again, do your “research”.

Conclusion

James Edwards is actively seeking attention, something of which I’m not going to provide. With the bull market around the corner and an already tarnished reputation as a “clown”, I expect no one to care/nor take his channel serious. However, this post is meant as a public response to his silly, nonsensical claims about myself and fellow blockchain enthusiast, Brian Li.