Best Forex robots and signals for automated trading ...

Answers to the straight questions to the GV Team

Hi all! Recently we had a bunch of great questions that were asked in the Reddit, right over here: https://www.reddit.com/genesisvision/comments/bbtolk/straight_questions_to_the_gv_team_ten_so_fa
We took some time to prepare a reply and here it is!


Hello.
I am Ruslan Kamenskiy, the person responsible for the GV products in our team.
Thank you for the many questions. I will try to answer them as fully as possible, but before answering, I would like to make a small introduction so that members of the community understand more why things are happening anyway.
- Development of any project is always a series of trade-offs. Resources are always limited and the need to choose where to send them is always present. Our task is to distribute our resources optimally considering short-term missions and long-term objectives.
- We have a very active and large community. It consists of many different representatives. Everyone has their own needs, expectations, problems and pains. And often in some decisions, you need to look for a middle ground, and you can not please everyone. Investors want maximum security, minimum commissions and maximum profits. Managers want huge investments, minimum responsibility and maximum opportunities. Brokers and exchanges want maximum trading volumes from us. And many requirements of different market participants contradict each other. Therefore, we must always look for optimal solutions.
- As I said, we have a vast and active community. And as a result, we have a tremendous amount of feedback and suggestions. Every day they come to us from all channels (feedback portal, social networks, Reddit, support mail, and even private messages in telegram). Right now in our task tracker in backlog 160 feedbacks are hanging for implementation. We appreciate the feedback of our users, but unfortunately, due to limited resources, we cannot implement everything at the same time, so we prioritise requests and suggestions. It is excruciating for us to receive messages from our users stating "I suggested this a month ago, but this has not been implemented yet," but we hope for understanding. We are trying.
- Investors want the maximum possible profit with minimal risk. But this is impossible. If we go the route of the maximum of investors' safety (for example, we prohibit trading with leverage, we make maximum stop-outs, etc.), this will minimise the potential investor's profit and make the platform uninteresting for managers. We try to find the right balance between protecting investors from rogue managers and allowing investors to make informed on their decisions based on the analytical tools we provide to create transparency in the managers’ trading strategies. However, we do not believe that restricting managers too much is the best path forward for the ecosystem. We view our job as creating a fully transparent system that allows participants to make highly educated decisions => it is then up to them to take ownership of said decision.
- Almost every day we get the questions "When exactly this will be." We have internal deadlines for the implementation of various functions, but to make public statements about the exact date of the implementation of some functionality is not always the best idea, because there are many factors affecting the real state of affairs. And the delay, even for a couple of hours, is always perceived by the community as extremely negative. But we do not refuse to share information about our current work and immediate plans.
Why do you allow numerous programs by the same manager? Do you intend to curtail it to a limited number? If yes, how many? When will you implement?
Allowing managers to have several programs is necessary for the following reasons:
All information on the number and performance of all programs is public and available to investors.
Do you intend to pose restrictions on entry and success fees to prevent exploitative fees? If yes, what restrictions and when will you implement?
Restrictions on maximum fees are already present. At the same time, this information is available in the program details, which allows the investor to evaluate all the sizes of the commissions before making a decision on investing. Additionally, in order to avoid exploitative fees, the entry fee is charged only for programs that have reached level 3. All this together provides, in our opinion, a fairly transparent system of commissions, in which the investor has all the necessary information to make an educated decision. However, if you have any specific constructive suggestions for improving the system, we are always happy to listen and take them into account.
Do you intend to start adopting some form of intervention when a trader goes on downward money losing spiral? Some form of trading floor manager action after x% losses? If yes, how and when? If not, why not?
We have introduced the Stop-out functionality, just designed to limit the loss of investors. This is an industry standard solution that helps solve the problem described.
Do you intend to impose a cool-down time limit or even fee increase limit to prevent managers to close a program and immediately reopen another one? If yes, what/when will you implement?
Managers close and open new programs for various reasons, which is a normal workflow, and we do not want to artificially limit them in this. At the same time, information about the number of manager’s programs, as well as their performance, is public and available to investors for analysis. This information, in our opinion, should be sufficient to determine how honest a particular manager acts.
Do you intend to implement some form of deletion? In which way? When?
The level system is currently being analyzed and re-thought. At the same time, our community takes an active part in this process. Actual information can be obtained in our telegram (work on this is going right now).
Do you intend to return entree fees when a program that is announced for a period of X days terminates the program before the end of the period? When?
Entry fee is charged starting from 3rd level programs. This means that this is not a new program, but already having a certain history of successful trading.
However, your proposal is absolutely reasonable, and in some situations, returning an entry fee may be a fair decision. We are currently working on this issue and are considering how to improve the current situation.
Do you intend to implement a policy so that entry fees only vest if the manager makes more profit, net of success fees, than what was charged in the entry fee? When?
If you think about it, then this is quite a delicate issue, and we cannot count everything only by profit. I will give a specific example - in the first case, the investor invests 1 BTC in the Forex program, according to the results of the period, the manager does not show a substantial profit (say, he does not cover the entry fee minus the success fee), but during this time the whole crypto market has fallen by 50% (and we all know that this happens). Formally, the conditions for obtaining the entry fee you described are not met, but the manager has helped the investor save (and even multiply) his BTC holdings.
Here’s another situation - the investor invests the same 1 BTC in the ETH program, the manager shows a profit sufficient to pay the entry fee according to your policy, but due to a significant drop in the cost of the ETH, the investor is still in the red.
So who of these managers really deserves the entry fee? We believe both. Entry Fee is available to programs only from level 3, which means that the manager has successful trading experience, although even with many programs this value is set to zero. A performance-based fee is a success fee, and the entry fee, taking into account all factors, is wiser to leave unconditional, in order to observe the interests of all categories of users.
Do you intend to review the way the GVT token is used in the platform to actually create demand for the token? What are the ideas that you have recently been discussing? When are any of those ideas likely to be implemented?
Yes, we are constantly working on this issue. Some ideas have been described in recent blog posts (GVT burning, profit distribution in GVT, payment of a subscription for copying in GVT)
Nowadays, while the platform have programs with not too much capital, the amount of GVT required to get a discount does not make economic sense. Would you consider a temporary reduction in the number of GVT one needs to hold to get discounts on fees, in the same vein that Binance had very friendly reduced fees in its first year?
We have a discount for GVT holders selling on GM in the same way asBinance has discounts for holding BNB on their exchange. And you need to understand that Binance had very friendly fees during a completely different state of the crypto market. The capitalization of all cryptocurrency grew and was much easier to keep them low then it is now.
But we are working in this direction.
We already know you are planning a new level system. What are some additional concrete investor protection actions the GV team plans to implement? When can we expect them to be implemented?
The system of levels is now being revised with the participation of the community. Actual information can be obtained in our telegram (i.e., work on this is underway right now)
Will you rethink the functionality and design of the reinvestment toggle, and add clear labels so that users do not have their money tied up in funds that they do not wish to invest in? If yes, when?
The reinvest button has already been renamed to “Reinvest profit” for better understanding.
When and how will the UI be revamped (The dashboard, so it is clearer how investments are performing; More filters; Display of overall manager performance across all their programs)?
Regarding the question “how”, I can not answer shortly. For the answer, you would need to write a whole article, but you can be sure that we are constantly working on improving the UI based on your feedback. If you have been following the development of the platform for a long time, you might notice that with each major update, the UI changes significantly. This is due to the fact that Genesis Vision is a complex system with a lot of information, so it is often possible to find the right balance between informational content and convenience only through trial and error and only with the active participation of product users.
Will there be a way to withdraw everything at the next ending of a period? When/how are you going to implement this?
Yes, it is already being worked on, but we cannot point to an exact date at the moment.
Could you study a way to enable investors to withdraw invested money before the end of the reporting period, in particular if there is money not currently allocated to a trade? What is your thinking about alternative ways to implement this?
This issue is not so obvious. If you withdraw funds during the trading period, this can disrupt the manager's trading strategy. Even if these funds are now free, they can be used to maintain margins when trading with leverage. And if you take the money, then Margin Call will happen (and then Stop out) and all investors will lose money, because funds are not enough to maintain the position.
submitted by genesis-vision to genesisvision [link] [comments]

FUD Slaying: Why “DYOR” is More Important Than YouTube Videos and Internet FUD

Hello everyone,
I am here to discuss the recent FUD presented by a relatively unknown YouTube reviewer. I intend to discuss his methodology and the actual points themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=1hH5_FAEzyo
This is his YouTube video based on the document in question. He wrote the document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XQlAGIDPjDoQNHtzEWGdbO9i8MUkc4lZFKYLTZzMpYU/edit
First, to get this out of the way, the reviewer has only been around on the social media scene for a short while. The views of his videos are only in the hundreds and his twitter was created a week ago. He is basically a "nobody" at this point. I don't mean that to be disparaging. He literally came out of nowhere. He is unproven and his methodology is inconsistent and extremely questionable.
With that said, just because he came out of nowhere doesn't mean he might not have a point, so let's look at his rating methodology to get a better idea of his process.
Oh and if you do not want to read all this, here is the TL:DR: The guy doesn't know what he is talking about. He doesn't has much idea of what he is doing when writing reviews. His research is lazy. I actually feel I wasted my time responding to this, but I am going to do it anyway.
When rating a project, he uses the following categories: MVP (minimum viable product), ease of research, team, roadmap, community (bonus), solving a problem, does it need blockchain, token use, red flags, competition, presentation, token vesting, demand/value, scarcity, customer service, best in field (bonus), active use, size of market, development (bonus)
These are pretty good things to look at, but he failed to look at GitHub contributions (or other source code related sites), so he can't really tell if a project is scammy or not. So, how well did he check this stuff out?
Rating the team:
When looking at his review of GVT, the only way to get an idea of this person's methodology is to look at his reviews of other projects. When rating the team there are basically two basic routes a person can take. You can analyze the team itself, or you can bundle the team and the advisors together and rate the project as a whole.
The reviewer is inconsistent in his reviews. In this category he bundles the entire team and advisors on some projects whereas he just looks solely at the team in other reviews.
His research is absolutely lazy. He gave Polymath a 0 rating for their team, but their website links to their company LinkedIn page and lists all 26 employees. It was not hard to find this. Even if it weren't on the site, a simple google search would have revealed who the team is. Polymath has a great team with some decent “stars” on it. It makes no sense to give them a 0. The reviewer doesn't know what he is doing.
Difficulty in finding the team deserves docking points in "ease of research", and it does not deserve giving the entire category a 0. The point of this category should be to evaluate the merits of the team members, which is something he does not do in most of his reviews.
He gave Selfkey a perfect score stating: "Team: 20 Points - Superstar team and advisors" This means he is bundling the team and advisors together. If so, any issues with advisors deserves docking points from that category, not docking at additional 20 points because of one advisor.
Looking at Selfkey, I don't know where the he gets the idea that they have a "superstar team". What does that even mean? I checked their profiles. Some of them only came onto the project recently and their LinkedIn pages are nothing to write home about. Some of them don't even have LinkedIn pages.
He gave the GVT team 13 points, but then docked 20 points because he didn't like Charlie Shrem.
Do you realize the ridiculousness of this? The GV team category effectively gets -7/20 points because the reviewer does not like Charlie Shrem. That is worse than giving the team 0/20. Charlie is only one advisor with no actual power over the GVT team's operations. He cannot execute any commands over the GV team or force them to do anything. The GV team can fire Charlie. Charlie cannot dismantle the GV team. That power balance is important. The rating makes no sense at all. Also, he docked the Changelly advisor because his company has bad customer service? Really? What does that have to do with his ability to advise the GV team on the things they need from him? Fact of the matter is his business is still running. The same cannot be said for advisors of other projects (more on that soon).
If you are going to rate the team and include the advisors, the value should be 3:1 or even 2:1. Even if you gave the advisors a score of 0, the category score should not be that low. GVT's advisors are absolutely amazing. To call them weak is ridiculous.
With regard to Nuls: "Asian team, isn’t on LinkedIn. No way to research." They get 0 points because they are Asian and don't use the sites you like to use? The language used allows that statement to be interpreted in a very negative way. There are non-Asians on that team as well. There is a way to research them. There are bios of each team member if you scroll over the pictures. You can then use that information to do more research on them. You are just too lazy.
Looking at The Key, their members are definitely not "all-stars". Their team is unknown and they have 3 relatively unknown advisors, only one of which has a LinkedIn page. Love him or hate him, Charlie Shrem is a crypto superstar compared to these people. Interestingly they are more of an "Asian team" than Nuls. That didn't seem to affect the score much though.
He gave the Bounty0x team a perfect score, but he obvious didn't bother to research every member of the team or their advisors with much effort. As an example, Terry Li is the Bounty0x solidity developer. If you check his LinkedIn page you will find a few serious red flags. He hasn't held a job for over a year. He has no visible programming experience. He has been a solidity developer for 10 months with no prior history or proof that he can program well. I cannot stress this enough: you do not want your solidity developer to be a programming newbie. This will spell disaster for your project.
When you look at their advisors there are some serious red flags as well. I picked two advisors to research and I found out that both of them have had their companies fail. One of them even declared themselves unsuccessful in a Facebook post. I don't want a project to be advised by people with a bunch of failed startups. Changelly having bad customer service pales in comparison to advisors whose project's failed. Bounty0x's advisor team is filled with failed entrepreneurs and members of their team lack experience in the jobs they are assigned. Also, their "Backend and Solidity engineer" has only been with the project for a month, and his blockchain programming experience is nonexistent. They do not deserve a perfect score in this category.
GVT has a team with years of programming experience, but more importantly, they have years of experience programming financial software. These are exactly the type of people you need on your team.
To the reviewer: Either bundle the advisors into the team rating or give them a separate category. Do not be inconsistent in this category. Do not bring a team's ethnicity into play as a factor for anything. Please do actual research on all the members, and please define what it means to be a "superstar". Please learn to navigate websites. Polymath's team is there. Your inconsistency and lack of research in this makes you appear incapable of judging a team. There is no clear methodology here. All your reviews are questionable because of this.
Roadmap:
He gave 0 points to GVT for their roadmap being hard to read. But the key point is this: They have a roadmap. There is no reason to give 0 points in this category. Not only that, the roadmap is decently detailed with many goals and objectives. The roadmap isn't some simple points on a line like Enigma's roadmap. Speaking of which...
He gave Enigma 0 points for not having a roadmap at all.... But they do have a roadmap. The guy didn't do his research.
https://en.decentral.news/2017/12/27/ico-analysis-enigma-catalyst-realm-crypto-trading-machines/
It can be found here.
MVP:
Having a minimum viable product be worth only 10 points is ludicrous. Any project that has an MVP basically utterly destroys a project that doesn't. More importantly, the reviewer didn't actually bother to use the MVP on what he reviews.
He gave Polymath 0 points for their demo, but gave GVT 10 points for theirs.
I am going to be blunt about this. GVT's demo is a non-functional interface demo. GVT's MVP comes on April 1. Polymath does not deserve a 0, and GVT does not (as of 3/21) deserve a 10. They both deserve a 5. He didn't bother to actually check out GVT's demo, which goes to show he doesn't actually research things properly.
He gave Enigma a 3 for an MVP not available to the public and Selfkey a 5 for an MVP not used by the public. Eh?
He gave the Authorship a 10 for their MVP but claims he cannot find any info about them. How is that supposed to work?
He gave Po.Et 0 points for their MVP because he couldn't find it.
Here you go buddy: https://github.com/poetapp/wordpress-plugin
It's right there. You just failed to find it. It isn't their fault your research is bad.
Ease of Research:
The reviewer either needs to dock points for research being difficult in their respective categories or dock research being difficult in this category. Do not "double dip" and dock points in both categories. This category is irrelevant since the reviewer already docks points in their respective categories. Also, this category is subjective because it is based on the reviewer's research skillset.
Community:
He uses coingecko's score or numbers from their telegram channel but there isn’t much evidence that he actually bothered to check out their communities much. Reeks of laziness and has nothing to do with the quality of a community. This really shouldn't even be a category if he is going to give points based on this. High telegram channel members has little meaning.
Solving a problem:
The reviewer’s inability to understand the problem that a project solves should not be held against it. Polymath is quite clear in the problem it solves.
He gives projects that solve problems of identifying people a 10, but gives projects that solve problems of identifying intellectual property a 3. That makes no sense. Those are both problems that need to be solved by the blockchain. The idea that he finds one more important than the other is clear bias.
Token Use:
The author does not understand the GV product. GV is platform agnostic, and more importantly GVT needs as little outside influence as possible. There is a very specific reason why GVT has to be used in place of ETH. ETH would technically be a middleman in this sense. GV's success is not meant the be tied to ETH's success or ETH token price manipulation. GV's success isn't even meant to be tied to crypto's success. GV is designed to succeed even if ETH or crypto fails.
GVT actually deserves a 10 in this category. GVT is needed to use the platform. Money is transferred using GVT. Profit is returned using GVT. Other services such as GV Markets will also function using GVT as gas. The utility of GVT is needed in all aspects of the platform. This gives the token great utility and investment value. If 1 Billion is invested through the GV platform, GV's market cap includes that 1 billion because the token is needed to transfer that 1 Billion around. This provides great incentive to invest in the platform and a great reason for the token price to grow in value. No other project that this much incentive or ways to bring value to their token as much as GVT. I am surprised the reviewer cannot see this.
GVT is also market agnostic. The entire crypto market can fail and GVT can still maintain value through profits brought in from the Forex and stock markets. This will make it extremely resilient over time.
Presentation:
The purpose of GVT is quite clear. It is broken down on the website and the presentation clearly explains why it is needed as all levels of trust management including the brokers, customers and managers. All that info is very clear on the front page of the site. 0/10? GVT presentation isn't the problem here. It seems the reviewer only watched the video which is just one part of the presentation. Everything is on the site and in the whitepaper, which the reviewer apparently didn't even fully read.
Token vesting:
He colors it yellow for GVT but green for other projects that also get 5 points... visual bias is apparent. He gave one project a 10 for an 18 month vesting period and a 6 to another project for the same period with little justification for such a disparity.
Supply/Scarcity:
GVT receives 3 points because 44M tokens were available during ICO but only sold about 4M. This makes him believe that they didn’t create much demand. “Everyone who wanted GVT got it.” The US and Singapore could not participate. Also, Bounty0x failed to reach their soft cap, but the reviewer didn’t dock any points for that. If everyone who wanted GVT got it then the marketcap wouldn’t be where it is today. What a terrible assumption he made.
Competition: He gave GV a 5/10, but his reasoning made little sense. “Covesting and coindash are used to trade cryptocurrencies while GVT is for cryptocurrency AND non-crypto trading. They will still compete for a portion of the same market. People will have only so much fiat to invest.” You do not use fiat to invest in Covesting or Coindash. Also, GV will allow people who are into stocks or forex to bring their money into crypto. No other coin is doing what GVT does. Covesting and coindash, arguably, are projects that try to compete against just one part of the entire GV platform. GVT is more than that and should have a higher score because there is basically no competition. There is competition for some of its features, but not for the platform as a whole. He gave Bounty0x a 20-point bonus for "Best in Field"... but they are the best because they have no competition. As a matter of fact, there is no reason for a 20 point "best in field category" when you already have a competition category worth 10 points.
He gave Funfair a 5/10 even though he states "No competition in FunFair’s niche"... That would automatically make it the best in its field if it has no competition as well.
Why does a project that has no competition effectively get 30 points (10/10 + 20), while another project with no competition get only 5 (5/10 + 0)? I will tell you why. It's because the author doesn't know what he is doing.
Guy's I am going to be honest. I am tired of doing this. You get my point. His reviews are an inconsistent and poorly researched mess. I've written around 8 pages worth of content covering this. If there is anything else you need me to compare, please write it in the comment section.
submitted by novadaemon to genesisvision [link] [comments]

Transcript of George Webb Video Series Part 101: "Hillary's Leakers, Hackers, and Henchmen" [@Georgwebb / #HRCRatlne]

submitted by browneyeofprovidence to TruthLeaks [link] [comments]

Forex Trading for Beginners - YouTube Drennan Red Range 8m Carp Margin Pole Review - YouTube FOREX  WHEN TO ENTER AND EXIT A TRADE  90% ACCURATE ... First time trading on MT4? - YouTube PREVIEW ONLY: Sophia Smith reviews A2Rsales red tie side ... Review 6cm Skinny Tie Silk Men Ties Narrow Neckties for ... Average Directional Movement Index - Forex Indicator ⏫Review Fashion Tie For Men Polyester Jacquard Red Necktie ... Riedel Performance Range Red Wine Glasses Review - YouTube Forex Trading: How to Trade Red News

Forex Brokers Reviews, Ratings, Rank, information provided here about different Forex Reviews which are suitable all over the internet on different websites. Topfxbrokersreview.com is a top online Forex Broker Review platform and we provide great trading experience for CFD and forex traders across the world. Red Star Forex is without doubt a very professional and well-organised company and will become one of the best Forex companies out there that is for certain. Red Star Forex and Siby have always been totally upfront and very helpful. They never ever let me down and ALWAYS make me fantastic returns on my investments without fail. Red Star Forex has without doubt a very bright future indeed ... In this post I will be reviewing the DNA Scalper manual forex scalping system that generates buy and sell signals on the MetaTrader 4 platform. The DNA Scalper is another forex trading system from the Our Reviews Methodology. Updated on September 10, 2020 by Sara Patterson. At DailyForex, we have assembled a team of expert traders who have experience in trading their own money with retail online Forex / CFD brokers to conduct an overall assessment of what is on offer in this space. Since automated Forex trading is a potentially highly profitable area, it's not surprising that there is a huge amount of Forex robots and signals out there. Literally every day many new Forex trading systems appear on the Forex EA marketplaces. That’s why sometimes it's hard to find out which Forex robot is going to bring you profit and which one is going to cause you to lose money. In such ... "Better Stop with Forex trading" "You will never be successful" Yes, I am not joking, that was what he/she said. So think twice before investing for this signal, I promise you there are better ones with good service. I avoid the bad reviews here and still paid for it, I end up regret so that is why the title of the review is AVOID. forex.com is just another fraud site forex.com is just another fraud site. They will put you in spending most of your money and will fade away in the end. However, thanks to ( WwW BTCArbitrage .live‬) who are legitimate and best cryptocurrency guys. Everyone must check out them. Videforex offers Forex, CFD and Options trading with more than 100 assets available for trading. The broker guarantees the clients are able to trade from any device, any time, with a highest level of security, wide range of funding and withdrawals methods, 100% secured trading with the data protection. Forex Signals are always at the best… Forex Signals are always at the best trade setup. I like the way forexgdp explain the analysis and reason for buying and selling each trades in the forex market. Wonderful job GDP. I'm learning a lot and making a lot of money from your service. You are an eye-opener for many traders like me. How to Avoid the Forex Scams: There are many red flags you should be aware of. The first one would be when you are guaranteed a profit. There are no guarantee profits in Forex. Use your computer and search reviews featuring the broker, or the system, or the signal seller. Make sure the testimonials are genuine and do not come from their own websites. Check all the forex forums and google the ...

[index] [16101] [23836] [24836] [9712] [13761] [19985] [23808] [12289] [3424] [14769]

Forex Trading for Beginners - YouTube

What do i do on MT4? Did i just place an order on MT4? How do i put in a stop-loss on MT4? How do i cancel my order on MT4? How do i place a sell on MT4?-begin... Average directional movement indicator tells you how strong the trend is. It won't tell you whether the trend is bullish or bearish. It consists of three lines. Actual ADX line which is ... Forex Trade With Us http://bit.ly/2EYIbgIEmail: [email protected] I use https://bit.ly/35kgYkcP.S MY INSTAGRAM IS GONE NOW SO IF SOMEBODY WRITES ... Late in 2018, in London, we had the privilege (that we paid for!) of joining Maximillian Riedel for the launch of their latest varietal-specific wine glasses... Welcome to Lingerie Lowdown® We inspire, delight and inform Come and join the website: https://www.lingerielowdown.com/join/ Wondering what lingerie, hosiery... 6cm Skinny Tie Silk Men Ties Narrow Neckties for Men Slim 2.36" Guest Gift Wedding Red Blue Green Solid Check Here : https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_9xRE... Fashion Tie For Men Polyester Jacquard Red Necktie for Wedding Business Suits 7.5cm Skinny Wide Neck Ties Slim Gravatas Check Here : https://s.click.aliexp... Too often new traders come into the market without getting to know the most fundamental components of foreign exchange and how currencies work. So we decided... Forex Trading 2020Daily Forex Market Review #forextrading2020 #priceactiontrading - Duration: 3 ... How I trade High Impact Red Forex News 2019 - Duration: 22:15. Kou Success Lee FX 3,371 views ... Today session is at oaks lakes sessay testing the Drennan Red Range 8m Carp Margin Pole

http://binaryoptiontrade.schulizsneak.tk