> crypto scam medium post

Could you expand on that? I've only skimmed the article, but I don't see any "crypto scams" pushed in the article. The article is just about something the author seems to know about (algorithmic trading), applied to the cryptocurrency market. It does promote the authors project (why else would you write a Medium post), but in the worst case, that would be a normal scam and not a crypto scam.

The whole article just seems like an attempt to steal money from uninformed people. He starts by giving vague information about trading strategies in general, then linking to an article about Renaissance Technologies as an example for successful algorithmic trading, then stating that most trading bots aren't successful and that the crucial differentiator for deciding whose bots to trust is the person's professional experience, which is obviously a reasonable thing to do, however the picture at the beginning of the article of him at a trading desk and him repeatedly mentioning his 7 year experience as a trader combined with the complete lack of any actual proof that his bots are actually profitable, make it seem as if he just tries to profit off his previous experience.

He ends the article writing this:

"All you’ll need to get started is: 1. $1000 2. To press a single button to get the bots started"

Furthermore in the reddit comments in response to the following question: "130 papers re-implemented in 7 months? I'm blown away. Write a software engineering book about how you did it so quickly. Then write a self-help book about having enough motivation to see it through." he writes:

"100-hour weeks and a desire for a better life for the ones you love will get you there pretty quickly"

This guy seems like a complete fraud, I find it sort of sad that this has landed on the frontpage of HN with that money upvotes.

Oh don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trust the guy farther than I can throw him either. I just wanted to be a bit pedantic about "normal fraud" vs. "crypto fraud" (= ICO or similar).

As long as he's not even willing to publish the list of those 130 papers, I think it's OK to be a bit skeptical, yes.