Talk:StormPay

Stormpay.io

Stormpay is a London-based fintech company that provides embedded financial services for both business and personal customers.

What StormPay believe isthat embedding finance into people’s lifestyles means creating the next generation of financial services. Because of this belief, they’re building solutions for a future where finance will be embedded into non-financial services to make them faster, safer, and better connected.

Stormpay website.

Should all these changes not be reflected on the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.115.222 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inital comments

List of recent events.. anyone wikify?

StormPay creates sister company, NetIBA, and says their bank will now give them a break on rates, which they will pass on to members who receive "third party verification".

StormPay collects $5 million in NetIBA fees almost overnight.

FBI raids e-gold.

12DP denounces e-gold and forms partnership with EMO to keep an alternative easy to transfer funds into from e-gold.

12DP tries to withdraw large amount of money from StormPay to transfer into EMO to pay EMO users.

StormPay delays and eventually says "only by check or direct deposit". 12DP users (includes many other autosurf sites) agitated, extend payment deadlines.

Several HYIP sites using GoldCoders script (Zendcoded) are hacked, perhaps using GoldCoders own backdoor, or because they were non-licensed scripts, or because the MySQLs were easily compromised and tables dropped. Other HYIPs use the same or similar pretexts to shut down.

Autosurf and HYIP investors issue many chargebacks through StormPay.

StormPay has private conference with 12DP and informs them of Jan 31 new terms.

12DP agrees but still no funds.

StormPay posts new terms but still doesn't pay.

12DP's StormPay account is disabled, and they cannot be contacted.

StormPay's forum is turned off. They disable other accounts of program owners on pretext that owners refused to prove they were not ponzis. However StormPay violates its own Terms by continuing to accept adverts for HYIPs/Autosurfs on Clix.

Theory 1: StormPay raided by FBI. Etc.

Theory 2: StormPay has insufficient funds to pay 12DP, so stalls. Etc. Ramifications extend to entire autosurf/hyip industry.

I don't know exactly were to put it, so I'll just put it here. I just read this article and saw the following line: "StormPay is not like a bank, where the money in ones account is actually backed by real money". This is actually not true. Also "real banks" dont have all the money in all the accounts backed by real money. Normally there is a percentage of the accounts outstanding that should be backed by real money, but never all the money. This is also one of the reasons of the credit banking crisis in the US right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.3.225 (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute

I'm not privey to the details as I have not had experience with StormPay the company but I can tell that there's some serious edit warring going on with people removing information and others adding information about accusations that this company has ripped people off. I already warned one guy thrice about adding broad accusations into the article and now it looks like another person is trying to move the article the opposite way. - Damicatz 07:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this gem added by a third user : More recently, StormPay has switched to a "no-withdrawl" model, whereby they pocket all funds in your account. - Damicatz 07:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damicatz, those 3 edits ere indeed factual. Come here to here whats going on with this SCAM company.

http://talkgold.com/forum/f447-StormPay.html

And that third user is right. I dont know who is putting it in the "opposite way" but they probably are a scamployee for Mr. Grinchky.

- 68.42.60.157 11 February 2006 (Added by damicatz, Anon did not sign)

Who started this ScamPay article anyways?

Want to see something funny? Use Google Earth and enter these two addresses:

Netiba Inc.

2115 Old Ashland City Rd.

Clarksville, TN 37043

StormPay Inc.

1690 Golf Club Ln

Clarksville, TN 37043

- 209.142.12.122 11 February 2006 (Added by damicatz, Anon did not sign)

Added the evidence for this below Gigitrix 14:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The point is that calling it a scam in a Wikipedia article or other types of libel are not acceptable. If you wish to rewrite your claims as a neutral point of view and cite it under controversy or criticism, that's fine. But in doing so,you must also add their point of view as well. - Damicatz 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of speculation and conspiracy theories, I feel the entry for stormpay needs to be protected for a short while till the actual facts are available to all. Not just someones version of them User just logged in and Gail username is taken so fixing my post

 (A Gail 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I dont think the actual facts will ever be available unless there is a public lawsuit. And stormpays version of the events will be wildly different from "our" perspective (ie those who lost money, or lost the potential to make money with SP) 218.102.78.49 16:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormpay has posted a copy of an order freezing all of the assets of Charis Johnson, LifeClicks and 12DP (including those held by Stormpay) in the matter of SEC vs. Johnson et al. http://stormpay.com/SEC_v_Johnson_etal.pdf PeggyK 21:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

83.131.0.0/16 - repeated vandalising

Somebody from this range has been vandalising this page 25 times. Isn't it about time to do something serious about this like protecting the page or blocking the full range? Kasperd 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy's from Croatia. I'm wondering if I create a page on AlertPay will it become another target for referral linkspam, just like this page was BEFORE February? Meandmyself 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the page could be semi-protected, so that it couldn't be edited except by named users? John Broughton 16:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, semi-protection would probably suffice to stop the current problem. Kasperd 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now requested semi-protection of the page. Kasperd 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just requested the IP address be blocked, but of course that works only briefly. John Broughton 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is StormPay (just) an auction site?

Here's a scrape off the front page:

FREE StormPay.com Membership Includes Get Paid to click on advertisers links. Learn More Free Affiliate Program. Get paid to refer others. Learn More Free Hosted Home Pages. Build your own homepages. Free "yourname@stormpaymember.com" email address. Reserve yours now StormClix traffic generator. Get your website seen by millions! Learn More FREE Online Auction Listings. Buy or sell Safeguard your financial information. Webmaster Tools and Resources. Chat rooms, Games, News, and more!

And here's from the "About Us" page:

StormPay Inc. is an online payment system, which allows anyone with an email address to send or receive payments. Founded in October, 2002, StormPay Inc. has quickly become an Internet leader in online payment processing by offering customers and vendors alike, a safe and secure method to do financial transactions across the Internet, while reducing the risk of exposing your financial information.

John Broughton 14:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormpay IS NOW an auction site. You guys are looking in the wrong place. [1] 203.218.91.57 15:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I appreciate your putting more information in the article, along with the link, so that folks can see exactly why the change was being made, rather than making what appears to be an unsubstantiated change to a controversial article, as did 168.103.106.147. John Broughton 17:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the change mady by 168.103.106.147 was pretty clear and correct. Maybe whoever disagreed with them should've done their research.

The change made by 168.103.106.147 did NOT include any link to the March 23rd article. If someone makes a change to a controversial article, they should be the one to provide a supporting citation. It's not enough just to be "right" in these situations.

I did the revert simply because of the lack of the citation. And I'd do it again under the same circumstances. John Broughton 20:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Me too. People should think. Haakon 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does NOT have a neutral viewpoint, it has a pro-StormPay agenda.

The StormPay article on Wikipedia does NOT have a neutral viewpoint. Rather, it is pro-StormPay propaganda.

The article presents StormPay in a biased way as if it is a perfectly legitimate company despite a unanimous consensus from tens of thousands of former Stormpay who say that it is a fraudulent company who ripped them off.

In addition, this article fails to address numerous fraudulent and illegal acts on the part of StormPay in addition, it also fails to outline all the details of the situations it talks about thus giving a skewed, biased perspective to the unknowing reader.

Why is it that Wikipedia is censoring anti-StormPay points of view in this article, whilst at the same time allowing pro-StormPay points of view to dominate the article?

For example, in the References section, StormPay is given two links to promote it's inaccurate, untruthful, incomplete versions of what happened, yet any links to an opposing viewpoint which use facts to state what actually happened in the same situation are deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepthefactsinwikiplease (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia articles are not collections of viewpoints, but of facts. Facts have to have citeable sources referenced in the article. This article has on many occations had users adding uncited and very opinionated and often poorly spelled verbage. This will naturally be removed, and is not part of an "agenda". If there are important citeable facts missing from the article, it's in everyone's interest that this situation is fixed. --Haakon 11:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that people are angry at StormPay for stealing their money. I do not dispute that StormPay did steal. But the people who lost money were using StormPay for "grey" services. They were investing in Ponzis which are illegal almost everywhere. If people just used StormPay for auctions they would only have the same problems that happen on eBay (i.e. dishonest sellers). StormPay might not help out but in my experience neither does eBay.

Interesting opinion, but even a quick Google search proves otherwise. The references show many people did nothing illegal or 'grey', yet had unexplained negative changes to their account balance. Sumguy2 05:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't people sue StormPay?

This needs to be discussed in the article, perhaps in a separate section for legal matters. 87.59.76.222 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is StormPay alive at all?

Their site is "nullified", is it time to check and add corresponding comments to the article?

For those interested:

$ host stormpay.com
stormpay.com has address 127.0.0.1
stormpay.com mail is handled by 10 mxin.name-services.com.

Boyandin (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on StormPay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060202023328/http://www.stormpay.com:80/ to http://www.stormpay.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]