Recently, I have seen a rant on CMTE in a blogpost that, in my opinion, is mostly noise.
It states what is a Scam Sham Shill coin but does not show any evidence of CMTE being a SSS coin. Let’s look at each of the points one by one.

Undisclosed Promotions (Shilling):
If a project is heavily promoted by influencers who do not disclose they are being paid, this is a red flag.


I have not been offered anything to promote CMTE other than standard referral rewards mentioned openly on each site. Nothing unusual.


Guaranteed Returns:
Scammers often promise big payouts or guaranteed returns.


I have not seen any admin promise guaranteed returns.


Pump-and-Dump Schemes:
A token may be artificially promoted to inflate price before dumping holdings.


This happens even in organized financial markets.
I do not see how CMTE qualifies as pump-and-dump at these small volumes.


Fake Websites:
Be wary of sites designed to steal funds or data.


I’m not even going to comment here.
Many TE sites could be loosely categorized this way if stretched far enough.





I cannot determine whether the writer feels cheated, as I see no evidence of loss. It may simply be an attempt to discredit CMTE.





As someone who has promoted CMTE from day one, I feel it is my responsibility to evaluate the criticism
and clearly explain why I continue to collect and promote it.





Reward:
CMTE is collected as part of normal surfing.
No extra effort required.


Whether I am a free or upgraded member, it is simply part of activity.
Yes, I purchase another token to sell CMTE, but that cost is negligible and absorbed into profits.
I see it as the cost of operating on the KASPA network.


No Coercion:
No one forces me to collect CMTE.
No admin has denied payouts for not collecting it.
Experience:
Years in business do not automatically guarantee integrity.
Many experienced admins have disappeared and returned.
Trust is built on delivery, not on years claimed.


I focus on results. CMTE delivers small results for me, and I am satisfied with that.




No one is forced to participate.
It remains a personal choice.
5 comments - add a comment


You must Login to add a comment.

Feb 14th 2026 at 4:53 AM by Clare Bowen Hi Mona Thank you for taking the time to write this. I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful and measured way you approached the topic. It is refreshing to see a response grounded in evaluation rather than emotion. Your willingness to look at the points objectively and explain your own reasoning speaks for itself. I've seen the blogpost as a login spotlight taken out by the author of it in another TE, and I want to address this personally, because my motives in supporting CMTE have been questioned. The individual behind the recent critical blog was, at one point, in discussion about being involved with CMTE. During that time, there were conversations about possible directions for the project, including a suggestion to create a separate “baby” version of CMTE under a different structure and domain. I did not fully understand the need for introducing a parallel version of the token, and it did not align with how I wanted the project to develop. Although there may not have been a single formal declaration rejecting that proposal in one moment, my position was consistently communicated. I would not support any structure that compromised, diluted, or could be perceived as a departure from the original vision of CMTE. Consistency and integrity of structure matter to me. If something risks fragmenting that foundation, I will not move forward with it. What ultimately led me to disengage from that collaboration was not simply a difference of ideas, but the tone of the discussions. The in fighting and lack of respect toward another person involved made it clear to me that this was not a healthy or stable environment to build something long term. I will not participate in projects where professional boundaries and mutual respect break down. That is a standard I hold consistently. There was no financial loss involved. He did not invest capital into CMTE that was withheld or taken. The disagreement was about direction and conduct, not money. There has also been a suggestion that I attempted to bribe him with CMTE. That is not accurate. First of all, I never approached him. He approached me with suggestions and ideas. At one point, I offered to allocate a portion of my own personally held CMTE in support of a collaborative project vision. This was not a payment, a secret incentive, or an attempt to influence anyone improperly, and it certainly wasn't 1 million CMTE. It was a proposal to contribute tokens I already held toward shared development efforts, should we move forward together. The proposal was never executed and no transfer occurred. After these discussions ended and the collaboration did not move forward, the public criticism began. Separately, due to conduct that violated our platform policies, his accounts were suspended from my sites. This decision was made in accordance with our published Terms of Service, which allow us to deny access in cases of harassment or behavior that disrupts the safety and stability of the platform. Those standards are applied consistently, regardless of who the member is. It should be noted, that he had already approached another owner regarding CMTE and had a fallout with them, and been suspended on that owner's sites. And after that, has threatened yet another owner over something unrelated and been suspended there too. There have also been suggestions that Koen took a back seat in a questionable way. That characterization is not accurate. From the beginning, Koen has been transparent about his level of involvement and priorities. Like many entrepreneurs, he has responsibilities outside of this project. CMTE has never been presented as his sole source of income. He has every right to focus on his primary business and the stability of his family. That is responsible decision making. Importantly, he has not disappeared. He remains reachable, involved, and informed. I am working with him currently. Speculation about someone’s level of public visibility should not be confused with evidence of wrongdoing. Building something experimental in a niche space does not require constant public presence. It requires structure, transparency, and accountability, and those remain in place. I am not interested in attacking anyone personally. People are free to disagree with me or with CMTE. That is normal. However, it is important to understand that this situation stems from a breakdown in collaboration and differing visions, not from fraud, loss, or deception. CMTE remains what it has always been, an experimental reward token within a niche ecosystem. Participation is optional. There are no guaranteed returns. No one is forced to collect it, promote it, or buy it. Individuals are free to evaluate it and make their own decisions. My support for CMTE is based on my belief in the concept, the work being done, and the long term potential of building something unique within our space. That has been my position from the beginning and it remains unchanged. I will continue focusing on building, improving, and maintaining stability rather than engaging in personal disputes. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions.

Feb 14th 2026 at 5:33 AM by Mona Menezes Thank you Clare for the clarification. Now some part makes sense ... especially that i saw it being promoted by the same individual couple of months ago. Whatever is said in that post is not new or specific to CMTE as the author would like to make it out to be. It is applicable to all the altcoins and tokens out there. It takes years for a token to gain traction. Once again thank you for the indepth clarification and instilling confidence in CMTE.

Feb 14th 2026 at 10:49 PM by Lorian Garrett Thank you for posting this Mona. I'd like to also point out that the coward who is circulating this does not identify himself anywhere on it. So I'm letting everyone know that the author is Neil Bennett.

Feb 14th 2026 at 10:50 PM by Lorian Garrett I'd also like to point out, just like Mona did, that CMTE is free, fun and entirely optional. And what members do with it is entirely up to them.

Mar 18th 2026 at 9:12 PM by David Ade Great summary of the FACTS, Mona !!! Thank you for being considered enough to take the time to set the record straight.