It is alleged that Sparkster has soaked up millions of dollars of investment capital and returned nothing in the way of a viable product. Almost a year after their inception and ICO, Sparkster have allegedly pocketed the money drawn from eager investors and haven’t even released their token to the market.

Reports suggest that their original proposal was unrealistic and hasn’t ever been accomplished even in testing. The management team for Sparkster engage regularly in AMAs but investors allege the team have nothing to offer in ways of serious announcements or a definite confirmation of progress.

It has been alleged that their premise was founded on the claim they were building a ”no-code platform” potentially running with tens of millions of TPS. It has been alleged that they only produced a website poorly developed and based on a copy of the open-source code downloadable from the MIT platform; investors alleged that their promises were merely a tool to allure and fool tokens buyers.

It is also allegedly reported that the underpinning idea of scaling up TPS by using a protocol diverse from proof of work is still a doubtful and unproven scheme, requiring much higher credibility than what Sparkster has to offer.

Allegations have surfaced that Sparkster’s initial goals were laughable and unrealistic, promising items such as:

• The fastest Blockchain Cloud network, to rival Amazon AWS and Azure.
• Enable ‘everyone in the world’ to build software via pre- or no-code toolkits.
• Build a platform in which users can provide services or sell to other Sparkster platform users.

These promises were allegedly proved as not delivered.

It has also been alleged that they relied heavily on their promise of “tens of millions of TPS” but weren’t ever able to prove the viability of this, reaching only tens of thousands of TPS in live testing. Reports suggest that the most fundamental part of their promise was a complete sham and existed only to stoke hype.

Most importantly, it has been reported that the token hasn’t been unlocked for more than a year, preventing tokens holders from the ability to dispose of their holdings and hence allegedly buying unaccountable time for the team. The token eventually went allegedly listed on two minor exchanges and after plunging 98% it was delisted and allegedly labelled as a possible scam.

Social media is said crying out for information but the organisation behind Sparkster has been reported as not divulging anything.

Consumers have reported that Sparkster has reaped funding from their investors, accepting payment for a currency that has an invented value.

It has been alleged that the original roadmap they released is far-outdated and isn’t in line with any of their current operations. Investors reported that there is no sign of what the White paper and the road map stated, claiming that the super hyped partnerships with ARM and Libellium did not result in any viable product and even were not proved real. Investors reported that these claims of partnerships were among the fundamentals of the token value at the time of the ICO. 

It is alleged that Sparkster received around 5+25m USD in ICO funding and pre-sale, and have nothing to show for it.

Reports suggest that funds have not been allocated as stated in the white paper and in particular they claim there is no sign of marketing expenditure whereas the development of the platform has been described by the media as poor and incomplete. 

It is alleged that the token was only created to alure investors into a money-grabbing scheme, and there was no need of creating a new token as a method of payment of a non-existing platform.

It is alleged that Sparkster has allured hundreds of investors into a money-grabbing scheme which did not return any viable product to tokens holders. 

Investors also reported that the project was misrepresented at the time of the ICO: the team was allegedly presented with a high level of expertise, but an investigation on Linkedin showed that some profiles were non-existing, others did not list Sparkster in their curriculum and others displayed a career well below what was hyped in the white paper.

it is also alleged that the white paper presented the promised platform as almost functional, whereas one year later not a single promise was still delivered.