VEGA CODING AKA RUSTICUS ON TELEGRAM 290$ NEW EVIDENCE OF HIS SCAM [MUST WATCH}

[4.043]

@Bad_King send @VEGA your video.

---

If you want I can also send the link, in case it's a different video.

Top Ad by @SonicRefs | Ends in 30/05


Bottom ad by @Refunding | Ends in 15/06

[227]

@VEGA after a thorough review. And due to lack of evidence, you have to partial refund the amount of 250$ to the user. This due to the fact that @VEGA indeed changed the code. But can't prove me that the code is working when it was delivered.

@Bad_King already sent me a video of the old software working.

Where is lack of evidence? 
I completly disagree, user didnt changed the code as I requested, he changed it as he wanted.
What lack of evidence is that? I can just send you the whole files of the code and check by yourself the code.
If I request make apless, and seller gives me strawberrys, I want a full refund, not a partial refund because its still a "fruit".  
Seller didnt changed functions names as I requested, so I want a full refund, he could just warn before the money sent that but he didnt.
What is so hard to understand?

---

@VEGA didnt provided any evidence of the software working requested, I DID, he is completly avoiding any lack of evidence by his side.

---

Wallet  provided to @VEGA And its 290$ not 250$.

[227]

@Alex do you want the source code or not?

[1.285]

@Alex This is what he's provided. 
https://ibb.co/DgYnLnh7
Why is he so scared to send me the evidence he sent you? 
He sends me the payment addy instead of the video he faked for evidence.
I'm not agreeing to any kind of refund unless he sends me that.
Since he's avoiding it, can you share the link instead.

[227]

@Alex This is what he's provided. 
https://ibb.co/DgYnLnh7
Why is he so scared to send me the evidence he sent you? 
He sends me the payment addy instead of the video he faked for evidence.
I'm not agreeing to any kind of refund unless he sends me that.
Since he's avoiding it, can you share the link instead.

Alex can just send you the video lol, but its kinda useless it not proven any aditional point.

---

@VEGA why you are scared to send me the refund requested and video by @Alex ? Do what the admins says

[1.285]

@Alex
I and my team have analyzed the Client's video frame-by-frame. We have found conclusive proof that the Client is using a different, newer version of the software than the one provided to me.
1. Forensic Analysis: The Version Mismatch (The "2 Names" Error)
Please look closely at the Client's own evidence.

• The Original Source (Readme): In the video, the Readme.txt
  (from the original 2024 folder structure) lists only ONE developer name.
  
• The Executable Output: When he runs the .exe and it sends the message to Telegram, the message footer lists TWO developer names.
  

The Conclusion: The .exe he is running was NOT built from the source code in that folder.

• If he built it from the original code (with the old Readme), the output would match.
  
• The fact that the .exe spits out a different signature (2 names) proves it is a newer/different version he obtained recently (likely when he mentioned he could "contact the dev"). https://ibb.co/hFrxKsJq
  

2. Forensic Analysis: The Timeline of Fabrication
The Timeline "Smoking Gun":

• Dec 20, 2025: The previous dispute was closed (See Screenshot: https://ibb.co/sv3s92FJ).
  
• Jan 01, 2026: The executable (.exe) in the Client's video was created/compiled.
  
• Jan 17, 2026: Today.
  

The Conclusion: The Client compiled this new version on Jan 1, 11 days after the first dispute closed. He did not have this evidence when he hired me; he manufactured it specifically for this new claim.

3. Visual Inconsistencies (Old Screenshot vs. New Video)
In the First Dispute, the Client posted a screenshot of the folder to "prove" it worked. https://ibb.co/mrMc6mvS

• Comparison: The files and folder structure in that old screenshot DO NOT MATCH the files shown in this new video. ( https://ibb.co/mrMc6mvS )
  
• Logic: He is using a completely different set of files now to create this video. ( https://ibb.co/5gPhgynS )
  

4. The Logical Fallacy: "Why 3 Disputes?"
If the Client had a working video, why are we in Dispute #3?

• If he was sure it worked, he would have posted this video in Dispute #1 and won immediately.
  
• Instead, he claimed "working or not doesn't matter" ( https://ibb.co/Hp72PR4D ) and admitted he was "lazy."
  
• The Truth: He didn't have a working version then. He spent the last few weeks getting a new version (with the "2 Names" signature) to stage this video.
  

5. The "Build Challenge" (The Only Valid Proof)
The Client claims he can "send the source code." I reject this. He has proven he has a newer version (2 names) vs the old version (1 name).
To prove the Original Software (the actual subject of this dispute) works, I demand the Client perform the "Build Challenge" on video.
The Procedure:

1. Source: The Client must scroll up in the chat history to the Original .ZIP attachment sent at the start of the deal.
   
2. Download: He must download that specific file on camera.
   
3. Extract & Build: He must extract and BUILD it on camera in Visual Studio.
   
4. Run: He must run the newly created debug executable.
   

The Trap:

• If the output has 2 names: It proves the chat attachment was already different from the Readme (broken integrity).
  
• If the output has 1 name: It proves his current video (with 2 names) is fake.
  
• If it fails to build: It proves he sent me broken code.
  

6. Summary for the Moderator

1. Version Mismatch: Readme says 1 Dev, Exe Output says 2 Devs. The Exe is a fake/newer version.
   
2. Date Manipulation: The Exe is dated Jan 1, 2026.
   
3. File Mismatch: The files in the video do not match his own screenshots from Dispute #1.
   
4. Abusive Conduct: The Client continues to use slurs ("shit face").
   

The video is a fabrication using a different software version. I request the "Build Challenge" on the ORIGINAL attachment or immediate closure.

[3.276]

I see no harm in this. Conduct the outlined procedure that @VEGA has provided, or provide a satisfactory reason as to why not.

 

 paid ad - 05/15/2026

   [Selling Signature Ad Space - DM Me]

 

[Ping's PGP Key]

Before conducting any form of business confirm my identity through onsite PM.

[227]

I see no harm in this. Conduct the outlined procedure that @VEGA has provided, or provide a satisfactory reason as to why not.

 His point makes no sense.
@VEGA
The .exe was compiled by me recently so I could make the PoC video.
The stealer DOES NOT come with a .exe. You have to compile it YOURSELF.
@VEGA How the fuck do you expect to run the stealer if you don’t compile it? Where is your forensic logic? Fuck off.
That’s a stupid point.
Also, the user claims that the code was made by only one coder, WHICH IS FALSE.
@VEGA THE CODE WAS MADE BY TWO CODERS, and BOTH CODERS ARE IN THE README.txt. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Are you blind? Do you only read a few words and then stop? Then go put on some goddamn glasses and don’t fuck other people over.
Also, the procedure is impossible. My Telegram account got banned, and I don’t have any chat with that user anymore. This was one year ago, and the account now says “deleted account.” @VEGA is making requests that are impossible to make.
How  do you expect someone to go back to chat history from a deleted account? I don’t even think @VEGA still has the original chat.
I request that someone from the forum who is actually a coder checks the screenshots of the code and gives an opinion, because this user clearly doesn’t have any basic knowledge about coding.
He uses the bullshit fallacy of “oh, I am a coder, my team looked at it.” What team, dude? You were the only guy involved, and you are a designer, not a CODER.
Even an AI can prove my point.