Talk:SkyWay Group/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about SkyWay Group. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for verifiable references of 'SkyWay Group' marketing techniques

In the future we should include a new heading on the evaluation of the marketing techniques used by this group of companies. These are some of the issues which have been suggested. Any references you may find would be appreciated. They will be translated, made accessible for analysis and eventually used in the article.

The SkyWay Group has no 'product' to sell in the way that 'herbalife' does. Companies like this which are involved in Multi-level management and pyramid schemes, can promote selling an actual product to someone (and encourage them to find friends and families to invest and further sell these products). The Skyway Group, however, has nothing concrete to sell. What they do have is an idea which is sold in the form of the 'SkyWay' technology. Using this concept they are able to make money. How do they do it? And how do they distribute these funds? Here are some ideas which should be included in a carefully worded description to verifiable sources:

Yunitskiy and his technology as marketing tools

Anatoly Yunitskiy invented the technology. He founded the companies. He appears to be the primary shareholder. He is present at all SkyWay events. Sometimes he is presented as a business-man. Sometimes as an engineer. Sometimes as a brilliant inventor. Sometimes as a wildly independent genius. Sometimes as a hero who has the answers for all world problems thanks to his SkyWay technology. He attends international events and speaks there. His name is on many contracts. They claim he did all sorts of things like work on united nations projects. He apparently received an international peace prize in Bratislave. Some of this are obvious fabrications (there is no such peace prize awarded to anyone else) and some so ridiculous they are amusing. But that is irrevelant here. Yunitskiy is without a doubt a complex construction designed to support the aggressive marketing of a business. Questions that need to be answered here and that we can still only speculate about include the following: How complicit is Yunitskiy himself in this complex marketing construction? Is he a figure-head or an instigator? Is he a wildly devious and clever marketeer? Or was his work co-opted by business interests and is his work being used by scammers? Or are these both true? Some people have suggested that the MLM investment scheme is unconnected to Yunitsky. This is obviously untrue and is often an attempt at obfuscation. His technology really does exist. He really does exist and seems involved in most of the companies in some way and his technology is the closest you get to the companies having 'something' to sell to clients. This is how they convince people to buy shares. The actual processes they apply to sell these shares are included as additional sub-headings below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sale of company shares/stocks

The companies are selling shares. In some places this is illegal. People from around the world are still being convinced to buy these shares. Where is it illegal?

References to "buying shares" show extensively in marketing materials related to SkyWay, however it is also said that they do not "sell shares". The first reason for this can be found in the investment memorandum:

https://skyway.capital/assets/5290e534/img/documents/invest_memorandum_en.pdf

Simply put, investors in SkyWay purchase rights to buy SkyWay shares at fixed price at some point in the future. What they have now are non-tradable stock options. The share certificates from ERSSH II Limited state the following:

“

This is to Certify that [name] of [address] is the Registered Holder of [number of shares] ordinary Shares of par value USD 1.00 each numbered from [number] to [number] inclusive in the above named Company, subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the said Company. Given under the Common Seal of the Company this [number] day of [month] [year]

”

- Thanks to user:Kmarinas86 for this information. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• It should be noted here that in order to legally sell shares of a company, you have to be recognized by a market authority in the country which you are selling them. Although the warnings from countries against the activities of these companies confirms this, it does not by means of exclusion legitimize the sale of shares anywhere else. The warnings are just an alarm bell. It appears that none of the SkyWay companies have ever received official permission to sell shares anywhere. Do you disagree? Please only argument this point with references to second party confirmations of instances where the sale of shares has been permitted by a marketing authority. All unsupported lofty claims about what you can get when you buy these shares will be immediately removed; there are enough of such claims already in the text above.

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sale of shares to everyday individuals

The companies somehow encourage sale of the shares to motivated individuals who become encouraged during motivational gatherings to part with their money. Such meetings were held in Belgium and people were convinced to part with their money after hearing complex motivational explanations about investment plans which they would eventually receive returns on if they waited long enough. How on earth do they get people to do this in foreign countries outside of Russia?

At the festival held in the EcoTechnoPark in 2018 there were investors at the event from all over the world, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand. These people were without exception everyday individuals who had been convinced to invest their money in the project. They were all unwavering in their conviction to the project despite being unqualified to know anything about it. This article from the popular Belarusian newsfeed 'TUT.BY'

https://42.tut.by/603396

Here's a quote on this particular aspect of funding from the "ONLINER.BY" commentary released August 2018:

• "Money for everything is collected from ordinary people who, in return for their contributions, are promised either shares, or stakes in the company, and someday - wealth, happiness and a bright future for their grandchildren."
• V. Zylev, advisor to the Russian Academy of Architecture & Construction Sciences is not sure when, if ever, simple gullible people will see their money again.

https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

The company does not hide this aspect of its marketing. It's not actually illegal. But receiving funding from everyday people for large-scale technological projects is extremely irregular. But how are the SkyWay Group making use of the internet to sell shares to investors?

Multi-level marketing

We know that the company adopts policies which involve investors being encouraged to find other investors so that they will receive return on their own investments. Anecdotal accounts demonstrate how dynamic individuals encourage groups of people, often friends and families, to encourage others to invest. How does this work?

Sale of Educational Services/Courses

To avoid some of the regulation restricting the sale of company shares, it has been suggested that these companies are attempting to sell educational courses. How do they do this?

International negotiations

These companies attempt to organize negotiations with international players. They manage to involve themselves in the signing of contracts and are always seen to be actively involved in negotiating. But they've never realized a project. Do they actually intend to? How do they profit from this?

Corruption

We know from verifiable sources that financial payments were made during the Lithuania scandal. Financial impropriety was also suggested in the Indian and Italian scandals. How does this receive expression in their business plan?

Tax havens

They make use of an unregulated financial system by having companies registered in tax havens like Saint-Lucia and the British Virigin Islands. How do they profit from this?

Use of investments

How do they make use of the money they receive from investors? How is it redistributed among investors and management? How much is actually returned to investors?

• According to Pavel, who worked as an engineer on the SkyWay project in Belarus, 'gullible people' work for the company but these people may actually believe in the projects: "I got the impression that for the money of investors they try to create projects like the ones in their commercials... All to take more money from people." Often they only try to 'depict the work' rather than questioning the validity of the engineering concepts.

https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Crypto-currency

Recent postings have suggested that new forms of funding are encouraging investment in cryptocurrencies. A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions, control the creation of additional units, and verify the transfer of assets. This is still speculation, but it was suggested that recent efforts have included discussions of the cryptocurrencies once the pyramid model natural imploded and they need new forms of financing to prop up the MLM. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• It so early to discuss it. There is even not too much information about it from Skyway related sources. They even don't have a white paper for their planned crypto currency. This is an official site of the ICO of their crypto currency but it wasn't updated since last year: . Dron007 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Conclusions

It's important that any drawn conclusions be included from verifiable sources. Include any links you may have or ideas below. Please don't fill this talk page with information; provide a link to a source of your own talk page. Any ideas will be considered and sources analysed. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest when there are more references collected, even anecdotal ones, we should start experimenting with this in the sandbox. It may never bear fruit, but when it can be more than speculation it should become a part of a complete description of the 'SkyWay Group'. There should probably be more information about Yunitskiy as well. In discussion threads there is some confusion about the extent of involvement of Yunitskiy in the SkyWay affair. Although I fear this is deliberate obfuscation by sock puppets - who on the one hand say the technology is unconnected to the crowdfunding efforts and therefore deserve ... more funding, and on the other argue vociferously for an intimate connection between the two - this needs to be clarified as it is one of the reasons that is being used to argue for the deletion of this article. There are so many unanswered questions posed on MLM discussion sites and what we really need is a financial crimes specialist to investigate this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposals for CONSTRUCTION content and references

After the section on "Safety and Evaluation" there was a description of the 'Construction' of the 'SkyWay Group' technology as it was constructed in Russia (Moscow) and is still apparently being constructed in Belarus. Unfortunately all of the references were to instagram posts, youtube films, maps, pdfs of images uploaded to commons and propaganda articles so we had to completely remove it.

But we do want to learn about the construction of the EcoTechnoPark in Marina Gorka (about 70km from Minsk) and possibly the deconstructed project in Moscow as well that was negatively assessed and taken apart. But only references that are verifiable can be considered. Being in existence is not reason enough to include it an article just because, well, Google maps says it exists and so do you. Someone has to have written about it objectively.

Please don't make proposals that include YouTube films, photos or contracts. Verifiable third-party links will be translated and assessed and new sections to the page will be included once there is consensus among users that the information is valid. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

New section on construction was removed because the following string theory article in a 'stringer' publication was unverifiable as far as I can see. Please make concise proposals which include third-party references which can be translated and assessed by informed users. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

http://stringer-news.com/publication.mhtml?Part=46&PubID=12796

I checked and translated most of the text of the 'stringer' article: it doesn't actually mean anything. The article addresses itself as an opinion column. The title translates to something like "clowns or modernizers?". It's filled with flowery language which talks about the joy of invention and the great Russian spirit fighting against the odds. And that despite everything Yunitksiy's 'string transport' has a chance of conquering the market. This doesn't turn up until later in the article. It doesn't actually try to prove or demonstrate anything in particular. Why anyone would use this as an academic reference remains a mystery to me. Are they just hoping that no one will actually read it? −Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

String transport→SkyWay (name change): introduction adjustments and fact-check

It seems now pretty sure that the name of the article will be changing to "SkyWay Group". The wording, especially in the first paragraph will have to be changed. It's important that every setence is correct and verifiably reference. I was sure to fact-check every claim with individual references. Any suggestions you may have would be welcome at the end of the article to avoid confusion about the references and to assess your suggesstions.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander

SkyWay Group refers to a wide range of companies established and owned by the Russian inventor Anatoly Yunitskiy.[1] These companies are registered under business names like "SkyWay Capital Ltd." [2] and "Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd."[3] in London, Minsk and the Virgin Islands.[4] The companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors; they make lofty claims about the potential of their light rail transportation system [1] called 'SkyWay' (also referred to by Kunitskiy as 'String Transport').[5] Potential investors are promised enormous returns on tax-free investments.[1] Unfortunately none of the Skyway group has ever realised a project [4] and various national banks have released warnings about financial irregularities.[2]

[changes by user:Zaxander—Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A prototype of the technology promoted by the Skyway Group was assessed by the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering. They concluded that "the technology is filled with a large number of system defects" and that the system is "associated with great risk". In 2016, a Russian government panel that evaluated the technology called it, "innovative, but only in theory".[5]

Although in various countries proceedings were started to initiate SkyWay Group projects - including India, Italy, the United Arab Emirates[7] and Lithuania - no projects have been realised; Memorandum of Understanding contracts were apparently signed but projects in Lithuania and India have been stalled due to concerns about safety and viability of the technology [6] as well as financial irregularity.[5] The Italian government has banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay group company shares.[4]

The SkyWay Group is financing itself using suspicious marketing techniques [1] and crowdfunding.[4] However, financial regulators in multiple countries including Belgium, Estonia,[2] Germany [8], Greece] [9] Italy [4], Lithuania [2] and New Zealand [10] have issued warnings about the scheme and accused the promoters of not complying with legal requirements when seeking investment.[5] The FSMA (Belgium) warned that such financial schemes exhibit "the characteristics of a pyramid scheme".[2]

references

[1] https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/verslas/lietuvos-bankas-oro-traukinius-zadancio-a-junickio-veikloje-sukciavimo-pozymiai.d?id=65880462

[2] FSMA Belgium reference

[3] "«Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ldt.», «American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.», « African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. », «Australian&Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd » and, set purposely to Lithuania, «Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.» are a few to be mentioned." https://bnn-news.com/genuine-investment-project-boondoggle-scheme-lithuania-national-security-threat-119828

[4] "Sky Way, l'azienda del "tram volante" che non ha mai realizzato un progetto". letteraemme.it.

[5] http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/transport/?doc=96284

[6] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/doubts-raised-over-belarus-company-credential-for-rs-250-crore-skyway-transport-project-in-dharamshala/articleshow/59568813.cms

[7] https://www.rta.ae/wps/portal/rta/ae/home/news-and-media/all-news/NewsDetails/mou-with-skyway-greentech-to-develop-sky-pod-network

[8]https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Verbrauchermitteilung/weitere/2018/vm_181108_first_skyway_invest_group.html

[9] https://economynews247.ibhs.gr/epixeiriseis/17219-epitropi-kefalaiagoras-choris-egkrisi-oi-diafimiseis-tis-skyway-invest-group

[10] https://www.fma.govt.nz/news-and-resources/warnings-and-alerts/skyway-capitalskyway-group/

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

SENTENCE: "The companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors..."

User Dron007 made a valid query about this sentence in the opening paragraph. I will discuss it here. Here is the link to the actual article I used:

https://www.lb.lt/en/news/bank-of-lithuania-warns-skyway-activities-in-lithuania-illegal

The Lithuanian Bank warning article (in English) states the following: "The Bank of Lithuania has recently noticed intensified activities of the SkyWay group, encouraging investing in this group’s project" and furthermore that "representatives keep issuing invitations, in various ways, to finance unclear projects, promising 'quick and easy benefits' ". It states clearly that "they have no permits to sale shares in Lithuania" and that the reader is warned because they "may lose their money". I suggest we change the sentence to "The companies encourage risky investment in unclear projects". I hope this sounds more neutral and is better representative of the material. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a phrase "Unfortunately none of the Skyway Group has ever realised a project outside of Belarus and various national banks have released warnings about financial irregularities." The problem with it is that it is 1) Not neutral and looks like a personal opinion. 2) You cannot proof absense of anything, right? So it is not possible to support this statement. "Financial irregularities" part is ok but it is repeated 2 sentences below: "As a result, financial regulators in many countries... have issued warnings...". The phrase "no projects have been realized" is also repeated so I think that sentence could be safely omitted.Dron007 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

After all changes we still don't have anything about essense of the technology. I added a link on Skyway_(disambiguation) page and I had to give very short text describing this article so I used "а group of companies claiming the invention of a new transport technology" (BTW please fix grammar if incorrect). We don't have even this short description in the preamble. There is nothing about rails or suspension railway or even transport. Reader nowing nothing about Skyway have to guess it from companys' names, or from categories. There should be some descriptive text about the area of work of these companies. Dron007 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dron007 (talk · contribs) I'll check the disambiguation link. I think it's right to include information about what it is the companies are promoting. At the moment it says only that they 'promote' this technology and nothing else. I'll see what I can do but I'm worried that I will make the situation even worse. At the moment, they are trying to have it all deleted. I wonder whose interest that would serve? Not the interest of people who want to have an objective view of collected data, in any case. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Dron007 (talk · contribs)The disambiguation link sounds great. I've included the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph. In this way, we mention Yunitskiy and his technology and we don't make unfounded suppositions about it either: "This technology was invented by Anatoly Yunitskiy and it is presented as a new type of light rail transportation system". Maybe 'elevated light right' would be even better? Please add something to support NOT deleting the article on the deletion request page. I know it's not perfect but silencing people isn't going to help anyone.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, this is nice for start. I think it should be extended more as the next question of any curious reader will be "how it differs from any other railway system or monorail?" I surely add my thoughts against deletion.Dron007 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The ONLINER.BY SkyWay Articles - Claims & Controversies

A number of articles were published on the internet by the popular and well-known Belarusian publisher ONLINER.BY about SkyWay after they interviewed Yunitskiy in 2016 and researched the claims he made about his technology and the testing facility he was building in Marjina Horka at the time. They were written by Constantin Sidorovich and made a series of bold statements about the inventor of SkyWay technology, the exaggerated claims made by the SkyWay Group about this technology, the questionable scientific validity of both this technology its new Belarusian testing facility, and the marketing techniques adopted by these companies to fund themselves. The most recent article is from 22 February 2019 but the original article from September 2016 viewable here resulted in legal action being taken by Yunitskiy against ONLINER.BY. He was unsuccessful and ONLINER.BY kept updating their articles and publishing new facts. Arthur Van Burren recently translated and published one of the more recent articles on the Van Burrenblog. You can view his translation here:. An unidentified 'Sino-English law firm' in Hong Kong is currently reviewing the contents of this and other postings critical of SkyWay. Summaries of the conclusions drawn in these articles and translations will follow with specific information about facts which could be used to update this article. Include your comments about the CONTENTS of these articles and possibly legal actions taken by Yunitskiy against Onliner.by or the Van Burrenblog below. You can address any specific concerns you have about the validity of the claims made in these articles and their translations here. Please include only valid criticism or commentary on the CONTENTS of these articles by demonstrating why in other verifiable sources and not your personal opinions or attacks at the writers or translators as these will be removed immediately.

5 September 2016 - "Elon Musk is nonsense - give me money instead..."

Илон Маск — чушь собачья, несите деньги мне. Белорус основал «компанию на $400 млрд» и строит под Минском «сверхскоростной» Sky Way

Elon Musk is hogwash - just give me the money. A Belarusian founded "a company worth $400 billion" and is building a "superfast" SkyWay near Minsk

• https://tech.onliner.by/2016/09/05/sky-way

A translation from the popular Belarusian newsfeed 'Onliner.by' can now be viewed at the Zaxander (talk · contribs) talk page. It is the first article on SkyWay that later resulted in legal action by Yunitskiy and his associates for libel. These legal proceedings were unsuccessful. This article doesn't have a lot of information about the EcoTechnoPark (it was still quite new when this article was published; they'd only started working on it a year before) - but it was published while they were still building it and is largely in reaction to their return to Belarus after the unsuccessful projects in Australia and Lithuania. But the more recent articles make more sense if you read this one first. Two of the other Onliner.by articles appear to be transcriptions of actual interviews some of which were made for this article. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Here follows a summary of the original SkyWay article Sidorovich wrote for the popular Belarusian newsfeed ONLINER.BY. Although Yunitskiy was unsuccessful in suing him for the contents of this very article, this doesn't necessarily mean that each and every conclusion he made was true. If you have real proof that the claims that were made in this article were untrue, please post them here. In the following summary, quotes are used from the article. But I encourage you to read the whole translation or consult the original before using it to change the article.

SUMMARY:

• This article was written in reaction to the ‘Kairos Technologies’ pyramid scheme which attracted gullible people to “high-tech technology projects”. SkyWay seemed very similar.

• The technology of ‘string transport’ known as SkyWay dates back to the eighties. In general terms it refers to a railway system where the rails are elevated above the ground on concrete supports: “A string rail is a bundle of pre-stressed tensioned steel wires placed in a concrete-filled body.” It was invented by Anatoly Yunitskiy.

• The main claims of Yunitskiy about his technology are as follows: “String transport is safer, more environmentally friendly, faster (emphasis is placed on speeds up to 500 km per hour) and is ten times cheaper than everything that exists.”

• Yunitskiy complains about the underfinancing of his projects. But it is this aspect of his endeavours that “cause the most controversy and suspicion”: “Money is collected from ordinary people, in return, they receive ‘shares’ from Euroasian Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd, registered in the British Virgin Islands (about 40% of offshore companies in the world are based here).” Apparently if you pay a dollar for a ‘share’, “you are promised a profit of over 1000%” in the future.

• According to Yunitskiy his company had been appraised as being worth 400 billion – approximately the same as Apple computers, despite there not being any real results when this article was written.

• SkyWay appears to have two locations. An office in Minsk and the test site in Marjina Horka. At the offices “dozens of young people work” and there is also a workshop there. In 2015 SkyWay rented a 35-hectare plot near Marina Horka to test SkyWay technology. The test-site which is called EcoTechnoPark has a field of hundreds of apple trees. A tree is planted for every investor who donated at least a thousand dollars. According to Yunitskiy “80 thousand people from 78 countries invest in us” (mostly 100-300 dollars).

• According to Yunitskiy, his projects have been plagued by unfortunate setbacks. He almost completes a project, competitors or governments intervene and he is chased out, and after that he chooses another country and he starts again. This happened first in Russia, where he worked with Lebed (the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory). In 2011 he went to Australia. After that Lithuania but they called him an international fraudster and arrested him.

• Although Yunitskiy claimed he was treated unfairly in Lithuania, the Central Bank there accused him of selling "worthless shares” and the Prosecutor General’s Office started an investigation “into fraud, illegal economic, commercial, financial activities and the legalization of funds acquired by criminal means."

• According to Yunitskiy Elon Musk (responsible for Tesla, SpaceX and Hyperloop) is a fraud and his work is utter nonsense whereas he himself has ready-made solutions “to all major world problems.”

• Yunitskiy complains a lot about underfunding. And when you run out of money “you need to actively finance”. Yunitskiy decided to collect this money from private investors and crowdfunding as part of complex schemes. It is the pyramid structure of these investment schemes that creates the most controversy. This ‘referral system’ where investors receive a percentage of the money they get from other people they encourage to invest is well-known in the example of Kairos Technologies.

• According to the economist Kovalkin this a significant way of extracting money from people. But products like Apple depended on a usable model which could afterwards attract investors to help send the product “to mass production at the factory”. In the case of SkyWay you need a working sample that meets all the “declared parameters” like speed, safety and economic viability.

• The conclusion of this article is that although SkyWay could be a technological breakthrough, it looks like just “another fraudulent pyramid scheme”.

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

3 February 2017 - "The author of SkyWay took Onliner.by to court..."

Автор проекта SkyWay Юницкий подал в суд на Onliner.by и открестился от группы компаний SkyWay

The author of SkyWay Yunitskiy took Onliner.by to court and disowned the SkyWay Group"

• https://tech.onliner.by/2017/02/03/sud-skyway

A translation of this article still hasn't been published. It seems to document the fact that the case was going to trial and contains further elucidation about the SkyWay company. A transltion will follow. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is interesting because it's a clear documentation of Yunitskiy denying that he is connected to the SkyWay Group of companies in court. He claims on the one hand that the President of the SkyWay Group is just a 'virtual' position, and on the other that he has nothing to do with them. During the court prceedings, his business card is brought into the discussion by the defending council of Onliner.by: it clearly states that his email address is the one connected to the SkyWay companies. His answer to the defendant's question is that "he doesn't know why it's there". Onliner.by author Sidorivich who was taken to court by Yunitskiy for alleged false claims about the SkyWay Company Group, emphasizes the fact that he always used this email address to contact Yunitskiy. It's no wonder they threw this case out of court. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A translation has now been made of this article. It contains a lot of confusing answers from Yunitskiy about how his '400 billion' intellectual property was shifted in ownership to his offshore companies. He refuses to provide a clear answer in this court transcript. Defense suggests that his refusal to answer this question relates to the fact that he lacked permission from the regulatory agencies to start the company he refuses to discuss (probably in Belarus), but he gives as a s reason he was a Russian citizen when this took place and he would only answer these questions in Russia. Yunitskiy demanded a full refutation and the removal of the preceding Onliner.by article from the internet, and also 200 thousand rubles as compensation. The results of the court case were still pending when this article was published. Although this translation is still unpublished anywhere, I can send anyone a copy curious enough to read it. A summary of the details will eventually follow. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this information from Onliner is that they are taking part in the trial and we need to look for another independent source. Otherwise we will have to refer to another side of the trial too and make own synthesis which is wrong.Dron007 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:According to Wikipedia court-case transcripts, like legislation, are primary sources. Secondary sources, which quote them, however are usable. If this is true, we could use the dialogue but not the opinions about the dialogue. The transcripts are actually of the defendant's lawyer, a witness (Sibiryakov) and a linguist but not Sidorovich himself who published the article. I'm not sure about how much of the transcripts are usable. This article also contains additional information but not so many verifiable sources as the other articles. The transcripts of the dialogue between Yunitskiy and the Onliner.by's defense certainly seem highly questionable. In any case, the court-case was rejected. And there's a lot of interesting comments on Yunitskiy's qualifications following the second court-case article. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:I think the question is: are these transcripts publicly available or were they transcried by Sidorovich himself? If they are just transcripts that Sidorovich made then they are not usable. But this is different if anyone can access this material, even if they have to apply for it in person. I'm not sure of Belarusian policy on court transcripts but if these are public documents then I imagine these sources are usable. Looking forward to advice on this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander:Yes, that's what I mean. It seems these materials are not publicly available.Dron007 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:So Sidorovich transcribed them himself and we can't verify his transcriptions with the original even if we travel to the courts ourselves and apply to see them there? That is not so good. Thanks for this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

8 June 2017 - "The court refused to file a complaint by Yunitskiy against Onliner.by"

Суд отказал академику РАЕН Юницкому в исковых претензиях к Onliner.by

The counrt refused to file a complaint against Onliner.by the RAEN academic Yunitskiy

• https://tech.onliner.by/2017/06/08/sud-skyway-2

There is still no translation of this article, but it appears to include transcriptions of the proceedings of the court-case. This is what the first paragraph says:

• Today, the trial ended between SkyWay author Anatoly Yunitsky on the one hand, and Onliner.by, as well as a journalist who wrote the article “Elon Musk - bullshit..." [5 September 2016], on the other. The plaintiff was confident that this material contains information discrediting his “honor, dignity and business reputation.” The court found otherwise.

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A translation has been made of this article. The origins of the court transcripts remain unverified and are probably unusable. Anyone curious enough to read this translation, however, is welcome to request it on the Zaxander (talk · contribs) talk page. The outcome of the court case are verified, however, by other sources. This is a translation of what they have to say about this in the article:

• Today, the court rejected all the claimant’s claims, concluding that the controversial article does not tarnish its “honor, dignity and business reputation”. Also, Anatoly Yunitskiy will incur costs associated with the cost of Onliner.by for legal services.

According to this article Yunitskiy is an academic of the RAEN. This is what Wikipedia has to say about RAEN (the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences): The Russian Academy of Natural Sciences does not have any association with the Russian Academy of Sciences and has come under criticism for the fact that many of its members do not have any scientific credentials and because some of its members peddle pseudoscience." Until we have confirmation of this, however, it remains a claim about Yunitskiy's qualifications. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yunitskiy claims to have a PhD of Transport. One of the comments in this article claims that such a degree does not exist. Any confirmation on this? Note that Yunitskiy himself appears rather vague when talking about his qualifications. Sometimes they call him an engineer; sometimes a scientist; sometimes a doctor. Mostly, however, just an inventor. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

11 September 2017 - "I am leeching from pyramid schemes..."

«Паразитирую на финансовых пирамидах», «перспективы развития — виртуальные». Что происходит со SkyWay Юницкого

"I am leeching from financial pyramids", "development prospects are virtual" - What is happening to Yunitskiy's SkyWay?

• https://tech.onliner.by/2017/09/11/skyway

This article was translated into German on the Burrenblog which can be viewed here:. The title of thë page concerning this translation is "Is it the Fantasy Land of Dreamers and the Gullible?". A Summary of its contents follows with actual useable quotes from this article. We want to hear any criticism but only include verifiable counter-claims that are not from self-published sources and not baseless accusations and personal attacks as they will be removed.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments placed by Dron007 (talk · contribs)

@Zaxander: I have analyzed German translation and see that it has statements which don't exist in original Onliner article including answers from National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (4-page document) and answer from Belorussian State University of Transport (3-page document). For example there is no anything after "Notes:" (I used English translation of German blog article made with Google Translate). I mean this quote: "Note: Eco-Park is far removed from real-life conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds, nor does it have safety parameters in place.) Eco-Park is designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string at low speed and nothing else. Quasi a small recreational park for Skyway disciples without aha experience." Maybe they used another materials but we cannot rely on incorrect translation/synthesis. I also couldn't find anything about "not situated realistically far from the ground and is in the country and nowhere near any other buildings" neither in Onliner (original and German versions) nor in Italian article. Could you please give sources/quotes for these statements? Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander:You have mentioned that "The scientific facts in the articles suggest it would be physically impossible for them to get faster than 80km per hour, and that if they did they could vibrate and cause an accident. An accident is actually documented. And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour." I'll comment these statements one by one. 1) The statement in the documents says that the theoretical research done by scientists showed that is was possible to minimize the frequency of vibrations of 5 ton module only at 80 km/h speed using short distance between piers. At the same time there is a statement in 4-page document that declared speeds (500 km/h) are theoretically reachable but there are technical problems. That is not the same as "impossible". We probably need to do en exact translation of the origingal 3-page and 4-page documents not to quote them (primary source) but to check whether they were correctly used by the secondary sources. 2) Accident was not mentioned directly in any source but is implied in statements about max speed. What accident do you mean by "an accident is actually documented"? Is it the fact that I added some time ago when unibike hit the loader? It was removed later as not important. If so it is not connected in any way with the problems which appear in high speeds. It is more about overall safety of the system and low height of the railroad in EcoTechnoPark. I added it to show that despite the declared high safety standards there are obvious problems. 3) "And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour". Although it is a real fact during the EcoFest when there are many visitors in EcoTechnoPark there is no any evidence it is the maximum of speed ever reached. I haven't seen anything about this speed in any of the discussed articles.Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:The 'April Fool's Day' article from 18 September 2018 has more information about the EcoTechnoPark and reasons for questioning the science and the possible speeds reached. But I can't find a specific place either that refers to the distance of the tracks from the ground or the exact speed of the vehicles while passengers are in them. And these factors certainly don't add to the 'amusement park' aspect of the EcoTechnoPark. After all, roller-coasters (staple events at amusement parks) fly by at high apparent speeds and at dangerously precipice-like distances from the ground. The accident actually used to be part of the article but the only reference at the time was to a SkyWay website (so it was removed). I recently noticed that it was the 'April Fool's Day' article which also documented an accident. Hopefully having the contents of these articles side-by-side it'll be easier to fact-check such claims in the future. I didn't mean to create the impression that these were the only reasons why the EcoTechnoPark was considered an amusement park; these were the reasons I could directly recite without having the articles immediately in front of me to check. Luckily there are other people to fact-check such claims to make sure they aren't published prematurely. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander:So as we see the following is not quite correct at least for the discussed articles: "These articles document the fact that as a 'testing' site it doesn't really do a very good job and suggest that it is not really designed to perform this function." So what facts from articles can be included? Re-reading 4-page document I have to say that it is rather unspecific. It can be used both as positive and negative resolution depending on which statements are choosen. Maybe we can mention that scientists recommended to launch additional tests and scientific research and also perform an independent expertise. We can take facts about unrealistic promises e.g. about the road in Mogilev as there is a document about it. Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:I'll use these ideas to come up with an additional sentence for a description of testing with something like "scientists have recommended, however, that independent testing be peformed by accredited organisations" based on your contribution and my recent summary, although I'm not sure how to include the road in Mogiliev. Do you mean somewhere else in the article? The Mogiliev claims are included in the summary below. I really tried in my summary to not synthesize any new arguments and use actual quotes from the article for problematic claims. When you have a chance to read it let me know if there are any problems. The intention is to summarise the contents but it's always possible I misinterpreted the facts or skipped important information which makes the summary sound more negative than the original article is. I ask this especially considering you have checked the translation so recently. Thanks again for helping me with this. It is really hard to summarise a lot of commentary into a single sentence.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander:Yes, I mean that claim. That is typical for Skyway partners to inform potential investors about non-existing facts like this one, about Mogilev. As this one is well-documented it probably can be mentioned. Among other facts there is for example information about preorders with total value of $100 bln ready to be paid by some unknown investor after demonstration of the technology. Yunitskiy said it at a conference several years ago. In the early stages of fund raising they used Simex croudfunding platrom (created by Ruben Meylumyan mentioned above, known manager of MMM Ponzy and creator of his own Ponzy Scheme projects). On the Skyway page there was information about planned tracks between cities with total length of thousands km. It created feeling that these projects are approved by government and it just needs to perform a demonstration of the technology which was almost ready. Many years passed since then, still no orders. So Mogilev is typical. To be more specific here is an article which has Yunitskiy's quote: "we have preorders for billions of dollars there (in India)". That could be a paid article but it is not evidently specified and doesn't matter in this context. Using such statements Skyway has been involving investors in their project.

Dron007 (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible addition to 'testing' heading describing the EcoTechnoPark:

• ...Scientists in Belarus, however, have recommended that independent testing of this technology needs to be performed by accredited organisations.[Onliner.by reference]

-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dron007:I'll check out the reference to fabricated claims made by Yunitskiy in this article from 2017. The title translates to "The Ministry of Transport and Communications did not support the 'transport of the future' project' (it seens unlikely SkyWay would have paid anyone for this). Regarding the examples of the Mogiliev and Indian fabrications, we could conceivably add a sentence to the overview and the marketing on these dishonest and/or misleading practices. The Mogiliev example seems particularly egregious. This could, however, create discord and its important we get it exactly right. Here's a first suggestion at least for the overview. This can be expanded upon the marketing section.

OVERVIEW: The SkyWay Group is using business practices like crowdfunding and multi-level marketing. It has also been documented that they make misleading claims about their negotiations.[onliner/burren reference]. Many countries have warned the public about the activities of these companies.

Any suggestions on better wording appreciated.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks good to me. In the Onliner's article there is a direct link (still active) to the Skyway site where they say that they have got the order to design city road of string transport in Mogilev and that they had already received advance payment. I remembered they excuses though. They said later that they hadn't written about the city administration of Mogilev. They didn't say at all from whom this request was from. At the same time in the same article they have the phrase that administration of Mogilev had recently visited EcoTechnoPark making feeling that it was the administration who paid for the work. Dron007 (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this is only the proposal for a possible addition to the 'Marketing' heading. The best adjective I could think of was 'misleading' because the example used is of a fabrication. A fabrication is more than an 'unsupported' claim; but a blatant lie can still be considered misleading. Any other ideas for better wording appreciated. It should also be noted that these claims are fabricated at the office in Minsk by dedicated staff employed for this purpose who have a history in network marketing. SkyWay claim that lies are peddled in their name either by other companies or 'over-zealous referral participants' but the documented evidence proves otherwise. They all work at the same place and are employed by the same company. Counter-claims to this are from self-published company policies.

MARKETING: It has been documented that the SkyWay Group use misleading information about their technology to promote investment. They claimed, for example, that a SkyWay project “was supported by the authorities in Mogilev” (a city in Belarus) but actual documentation from the city prove this to be untrue.[Onliner.by reference]

-–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

SUMMARY :

• Konstantin Sidorovich wrote this article. Arthur Van Burren posted a translation with additional commentary. The authenticity of the documentation used in the article has been positively verified by the issuing authorities in Belarus.
• Yunitskiy attempted to sue Onliner.by for earlier articles but they lost the case. Nonetheless they kept an eye on this company.
• SkyWay often uses promotional materials about itself on domestic media which are presented as facts.
• They make lofty promises to ordinary people who they attempt to convince to become SkyWay “sponsors” (who they prefer to call “investors”).
• Ruben Meylumyan (aka Ruben Fischer), Sergei Semenov, Mikhail Kirichecko and Sergei Sibiryakov are Belarusians involved in pyramid marketing on the internet and the creation of SkyWay “pseudo-videos”. Ruben himself was appointed the head of the department for attracting investment.
• Vasily Pavlovsky is the Deputy Direcor of Biotechnology and Agricultural Engineering. He received a UN grant for SkyWay. Cooperation between the UN and SkyWay was short-lived and the grant had to be given up. No one knows what happened to the money.
• The SkyWay news service loves to attract sponsors to invest more by commenting on “colossal deals with big business and government officials from different countries”. Particular claims made about SkyWay in India and the Belarusian city of Mogiliev are mentioned. According to the executive committee of Mogiliev these claims are entirely fabricated: “The resulting answer leaves no doubt that no string road will be built by SkyWay in Mogiliev…”
• Scientific sources were consulted while writing this article, in particular the Belarusian State University of Transportation (BelGUT) and the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (NASB). Here follows a brief summary of their conclusions.
• BelGUT: SkyWay “remains untested so far… At the moment, no track construction elements declared by SkyWay are certified…” Furthermore “the technology for creating pre-stressed reinforcement is not innovative” because it’s been used in the large-scale construction of beams for bridge spans for years.
• NASB: Yunitskiy claims that his string transport will reach speeds of up to 500 km per hour, yet “theoretical research carried out by the scientists… could only be confirmed at speeds up to 80 km and not beyond.” A project study performed by Yunitskiy himself is rated as “insufficient by the scientists”. The NASB believes Yunitskiy’s team “should set up an on-site demonstration facility… as close to reality as possible on the basis of real conditions”. NASB representatives further add that the viability of string technologies is only testable “with the help of a pilot project involving state accredited bodies in the field of testing”.
• According to the editors of this article, the EcoTechnoPark is “far removed from real-world conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds” and is “designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string [transport] at low speed and is nothing more than a small recreational park for SkyWay disciplines with no experience”. Furthermore, this test site lacks any official accreditation.
• Financing of SkyWay projects involves the accumulation of funds to a complex network of offshore companies such as GTI Inc. and ERSSH Ltd. registered in the British Virgin Islands. This fundraising involves “collecting cash from citizens across the globe through a variety of tools” such as crowdfunding, the sale of ‘certificates’ allegedly to “the right to shares” for SkyWay Group companies and “recruiting new investors, thereby encouraging commission payments to intermediaries.”
• Yunitskiy and other representatives of the company have claimed that by investing money, “investors receive shares in the company” and that they “have the right to own some of the technology”. The legal fund of limited companies cannot, however, be divided into shares but into bearer prescriptions and cannot be sold to anyone (see Wikipedia article Limited company). They are, in fact, “no more than a bunch of worthless notes”. Although the only instances of this technology have appeared in Belarus, shares to the Belarusian SkyWay company ZAO String Technologies are not sold by anyone and investors “have no rights to the developments that arise in the territory of Belarus, as the investors acquire the certificates of other companies”. Furthermore “it is forbidden among the citizens of Belarus to sell such shares.”

1)"The legal fund of limited companies cannot, however, be divided into shares but into bearer prescriptions and cannot be sold to anyone (see Wikipedia article Limited company)." - not true. The procedure the company uses is officially called "transferring" shares, not selling. This procedure is not unusual and it is legal for any ltd company. , . 2) The company is transferring shares of the root company, which owns all the others, including the one that deals with construction in Belarus. Therefore, investors are co-owners of all projects and all property owned by the company. See their investment memorandum page 11. 3) "They are, in fact, “no more than a bunch of worthless notes” - this is only someone's opinion, from a legal point of view all investors are co-owners of all companies in SkyWay group. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:The user Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs) will probably be able to confirm this suspicion. But it is still ultimately only what is claimed in the article. It's for us to decide whether it's true or not. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

See the following article for further confirmation on the potential value of SkyWay company shares: Here's a quotation from this article: "Swedbank Chief Economist Nerijus Mačiulis, having become familiar with the investment model, said that the 'shares' offered to residents of Lithuania and other countries are just worthless paperwork. His allegations were confirmed by the Bank of Lithuania, stating that 'no documents from the United Kingdom Financial Market Authority or any other competent authority of a Member State of the European Union have been issued that would entitle the public to offer shares in Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd in Lithuania'."

@Andrew-Postelniak:SkyWay is has not applied has not applied for the legally required prospectus to sell their shares. The ahares of options or educational packages they are selling you, however, have no value because their company's assets are all made-up. $400 billion intellectual? Please spin me another one. These are more lofty promises that don't actually mean anything. You apparently get a piece of paper signed by Yunitskiy. It may seem to mean something; and if you don't need your money maybe you'd like to on believing it despite that facts listed above stating that the company connected to the technology have nothing to do with the Shell companies like ERHSS you actually get 'stock option certificates' of some kind for.. I can't start stop your from believing in unicorns. I may doubt the possibility that unicorns will suddenly start existing just if you keep believing, but that's not my problem.

@Zaxander: "...and if you don't need your money maybe you'd like to on believing...", "I can't start stop your from believing in unicorns. I may doubt the possibility that unicorns will suddenly start existing just if you keep believing, but that's not my problem." - and this is the one who writes about "personal attacks" and "to comment only content". You continue to violate the rules of Wikipedia and comment on the author, not the content WP:BLACKMAIL. All of your "facts" is just your personal opinion, NOT confirmed by any real facts. And as you said, "please keep your personal opinions to yourself". By the way, why didn't you sign this paragraph? I see in the history that this is you who wrote this stuff, so no need to hide. I am no longer going to respond to such personal insults, and if they are repeated, I will contact the administrators who should explain to you about the inadmissibility of such comments. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I didn't realize you had actually invested money in SkyWay as I wasn't referring to 'you' in particular but in general to people. I'm sorry that you misunderstood my language use as being personal when it clearly wasn't intended like that, but if you have invested money in this company yourself (which I couldn't possibly know anything about) and you took offence, then I'm sorry, but maybe you should think twice before posting personal information which would clearly make any opinions you make seem biased. You've already accused me of working for the competitors and being corrupt so what next? I'm just a volunteer in Belgium with no business interests whatsoever. I hope, in any case, that you don't have SkyWay shares and I really hope if you do that you make money on them in the future. That would be the best outcome for everyone; I may doubt doubt it from the extensive research I've done on this subject. The article below "I invested $1600..." tells the story of Olga who actually managed to get her initial investment back. No one should give up hope. It just seems to me that these shares are worthless and illegal as they have no permission to sell them anywhere. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:It has also been documented in this article that the SkyWay Group uses dishonest practices to promote investment. They employ staff to post misleading claims about projects that will never be built such as the entirely fictional string road in Mogiliev. These staff members were involved in network marketing in the past which have since proved fraudulent. This is not just an opinion - it is clearly stated in this article. You can disagree with that but you have yet to actually come up with any new sources to backup your objections. I look forward to reviewing any real verifiable references on people who have actually made money from SkyWay. Primary sources and vague policy guidelines about possible future outcomes are obviously unusable. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's important to note here the difference between a Public limited company (PLC) and a Private Limited company (abbreviated to 'Limited' or 'LTD'). Although every country defines these terms in slightly different ways, generally a PLC can sell its shares on a stock exchange to anyone, whereas the shares of a Limited company are generally "sold to close friends and others and that can only be done if all the shareholders agree". See this link for a discussion of this issue: This is what they mean in this article when they say that it is irregular for a Limited company to offer its shares to anyone on the open market. If they were selling their shares on the open market via a stock exchange, they would not be a Limited company but a PLC. But they haven't applied anywhere to legally sell their shares anywhere. This suggests that the problem with this company is not only that this company is offering their shares to anyone on the open market and are thus misnaming themselves a 'limited company', but they have not applied for the permission anywhere to be a PLC either. I hope this makes this point clearer. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• An accounting and consultancy firm in Moscow estimated the value of Yunitskiy’s intellectual property to be $400 billion. If you look at the original documentation, this sum is made up of assets in more than 100 countries. According to the attorney Sergei Zikratsky, “considering that the string transport does not actually exist at the moment, the actual value of these intangibles is zero”.
• The court’s ruling in favour of ONLINER.BY greatly upset SkyWay who published insults and threats all across the internet.
• The Burrenblog translation includes an analysis of the contents of the article. Here follows a summary of his findings: “If, according to available original documents, scientists of the National Academy of Sciences consider the Skyway project to be impractical and that further research with new data is necessary… if ominous people are involved connected to Ponzi-Schemes… and if Skyway representatives are not afraid to use other means to silence critics, then Skyway is as transparent as a dead man.” He further confirms that the company is worth exactly $0.00.

How can the company be worth "exactly $0.00" if it owns at least one computer or one chair that obviously costs more than $0.00? And if you sell all the already built vehicles in EcoTechnoPark (theoretically even for scrap), it will also be $ 0.00? Again, this statement is obviously not true. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Arthur Van Burren is referring to the collective value of the shares that are sold; the shares are not worth anything. That doesn't mean they don't have any money. They obviously do. The shares they sell are worth about as much as the paper they're printed on, at least according to Sidorovich and Van Burren. I'll dheck however to make sure this is exactly what he claims. Thanks for this observation.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:This is the claim made in the German article in the additional annotations after the actual translation: "Wie der russische Artikel schon anmerkte ist die ganze Firma exakt 0,00 US $ Wert" which translates to "As already noted in the Russian article, the whole business is worth exactly $0.00 US." -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The point being made here is that if this company went bankrupt and all its assets were sold off, none of the 'shareholders' would have any right to compensation because their shares were not sold via an officially regulated stock exchange like most PLCs sell shares. It doesn't matter if they have assets and they are worth anything if their shares aren't sold in a way that can be regulated. On buying shares in this company, all you have is SkyWay's word that you will make money and their shares have value which they based on an impossibly inflated figure of 400 billion which is to say the least unrealistic. Believing you will make money is like believing in unicorns. I can tell you they don't exist but I can't stop you from believing in them. But your faith and what they tell you is all you've got. They haven't applied anywhere to legally sell their shares and they have no legal obligation to pay anyone anything. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

18 September 2018 - "Is it an April Fool's Day Joke?"

«Это прикол на День дураков?» Что происходит со SkyWay Юницкого

"Is it an April Fool's Day Joke?" What is happening to Yunitskiy's SkyWay"

• https://tech.onliner.by/2018/09/18/skyway-2

No translation is currently available for this article but it has nonetheless been translated. It contains a lot of information about the EcoTechnoPark as it had been documented prior this article's publication but it basically confirms a lot of the claims made in previous articles. It actually makes a lot more sense if you are familiar with the other articles and I'm happy to send this English translation to anyone curious enough to read it –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

22 February 2019 - "I invested 6,600 dollars in SkyWay..."

Вложила в SkyWay около $6600. Ищем на карте мира ржавые струны Юницкого

I invested 6,600 dollars in SkyWay. We are looking for rusty Yunitskiy strings on the world map

• https://tech.onliner.by/2019/02/22/skyway-3

You can view an English translation of the article here:. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC) This article tells, among other things, the valiant story of the lady who actually managed to eventually get the money back she initially invested in SkyWay. This is the first and only time I've actually read something about someone actually getting returns even if it is only the initial investment. It should be noted here that this person didn't make any additional money, but after a lot of complaints to official organisations, SkyWay was finally convinced to return what she had invested. So you shouldn't give up hope if you've invested money and are unhappy with your investment. Maybe if you cause enough trouble too they will also be willing to return your money to stop you from causing them more misery. This lady had to shake a lot of trees to get results. And I still haven't read a story about anyone actually making money, which is sort of surprising for a self-confessed MLM company. Usually the first thing you hear at sales meetings is about the people there who recount tales of how much money they were making. I haven't even read stories that SkyWay made-up. Lots and lots of outlandish promises, however.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay business management and marketing practices

The SkyWay group article needs another section after the introduction which discusses in a little more detail the actual techniques used by the SkyWay companies to fund their projects. There are already lots of descriptions of them in the references we have now, particularly the Lithuanian and Italian article which is mentioned above and the complete translation of which can found at the user:Zaxander talk page..

• [1] negotiation and planning - where MoU are signed; no technology has been actually built anwhere
• [2] Crowdfunding - sales made usually through selling shares via the internet.
• [3] Other forms of marketing - stocks are sold by getting a groups of enthusiastic everyday people to buy empty assets which they are promised to get lofty returns sometime in the future. In fact in a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme they can only get money if they find other investors, which seems to be clearly the way SkyWay companies works. It is certainly the business model they adopt.
• [4]

Many of these questions can be answered with the verifiable references we already have. But we are left with a couple of unresolved questions which could be described in a conclusion. For example: Where does the money actually go? They haven't built anything yet. Do they actually ever intend to build anything? All or most of the money is used to pay management and then pay the investors (if they manage to find other investors). Sometimes they say the intention is to use the money on the EcoTechPark in Belarus but we need verifiable references to prove this. From the Indian and Lithuanian example, corruption has taken place where government officials are paid to start negotiations (which perhaps are never intended to take place). If they make it appear like they are making arrangements, clients would more easily part with their money. It seems from the Lithuanian example that they paid out bribes to get the governments of different to start negotiating with them. I don't actually think it matters – as long as it appears they are doing something. Of course at the moment these are all suppositions based on what it appears from the information we already have. Now we just need to collect what we have together and find new references which can help us describe this aspect of the SkyWay group. Include any ideas or links below to verifiable references Introduction Negotiation and financial management Crowdfunding Marketing techniques Conclusion

Include any references you can find or ideas about changing these titles or including different ones.

'Comment' “Empty assets” is incorrect and unjustified claim violating NPOV WP policy. Total cost, number of shares and their nominal value were defined by the intellectual property assessment realized by certified intellectual property evaluator Hold Invest Audit Consulting Company with No.0-905/2 dd 20/05/2013 in compliance with International Valuation Standards https://hi-audit.ru/ Other incorrect statement is about Ponzi / Pyramid scheme and getting money from other investors finding only. Partnership program is additional and optional introduced just to encourage the crowdinvesting of the technology innovation start up. There can be none verifiable source defeating this fact. Nor tenable are assertions that nothing have been built. On EcoFest 2018 https://ikbesteedhetbeter.nl/skyway-nieuwsblog/item/27-ecofest-2018-rapport-algemeen-ontwerper-uitvinder-skyway-dr-anatoly-yunitskiy investors could take a ride on already well-functionning transport models in EcoTechnoPark test polygon in Belarus and that were presented at Innotrans international transport exhibition in Berlin https://naked-science.ru/article/concept/kompaniya-iz-belarusi-predstavila. https://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/suburban/skyway-technologies/pressreleases/high-speed-skyway-premiere-innotrans/ New research and test site is currently building in UAE.PVO777 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVO777 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

These comments were made when we didn't know much about the EcoTechnoPark (because there are very few published verifiable sources) but we were trying to collect information on the marketing techniques adopted by this group of companies. Although these comments are outdated by recent discussions, most of the things being claimed are still true. The only moving models are still the prototypes in Belarusian fields. The 'ikbesteedhetbeter' reference is a self-published, self-referencing, self-aggrandizing SkyWay site. The instances of the company exhibiting itself at trade fairs are of static, immobile models of the vehicles and nothing has been built to this day at the Sharjah site in the United Arab Emirates. Claims about SkyWay offering empty assets are unfortunately true for the people who went to the trouble of investing money in SkyWay. In no country have they legally applied for the required prospectus to sell shares. I fear that SkyWay shares are actually worth less than the paper they are printed on: nothing. Who knows: maybe if you believe hard enough in unicorns they will start spontaneously existing? I may doubt it, but I can hardly stop your from believing in them.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

And just to be clear: the talk page is designed to check claims for credibility, verifiability notability and neutral point of view. Things can be checked here before they become part of the article. None of the included links, however, are verifiable and all of the claims do not actually question anything that has not been verifiably claimed in the article.

Please why are you insisting on “empty assets” and some other “true” statements without any link to reliable proven fact giving? Wikipedia is not of a place of “fears”, “warning” , “doubts” and “believes”. WP:COPO include WP:NPOV and WP:V, The only moving models are still the prototypes in Belarusian fields only because the stretch of string rail has been still built in Maryiva Gorka for the moment. How do you imagine the models to be shown in move anywhere else? As for share selling – the company officially declares to use convertible loan without selling smth. And finally: there are many other coverages pointing to active project development in UAE 1 2 3 4 and others.. George Marshal (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

All of these links are to static displays of the technology in Dubai. None of the claims actually make any sense. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Your recent reaction is just confirming non-substantiation of your a priori negative statements as well as of the article in question and is important reason for its deletion. The approach demonstrates initially disreputable intention of the article author together with a couple of ready-to-attack “commentators” who began just from finding few doubter (in the absence of evidentiary) sources and from inflating the suspicions till a kind of “voice of truth” without having looked into things. This suggests a work of a group of committed people completing their adverse publicity mission. If I was involved with SkyWay project I’d sue these “truth-seekers” for company image endamagement.

Having no more arguments you’re trying to ground your critics just on blaming the company for self publicity and on your own assumptionPVO777 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC).

No sorry; this talk page and the article itself contains multiple secondary sources of actual instances of the fraudulent practices of this company. These are not opinions. They are documented facts. Warnings have been released about these practices by the regulatory agencies of a large number of countries. Yunitskiy was kicked out of Lithuania and he was unsuccessful at suing the Lithuanian government for lost money. His company has been unsuccessful in suing other people such as the Onliner.by journalists. The company is documented employing people with a history in internet marketing to post false claims about project in India and Mogiliev (Belarus). Please stop posting information to this talk page that you cannot support with verifiable references. I checked all of the ones you did include, and they were either self-published, involved promotional events or made outright false claims about the company. It's important to backup claims you make with verifiable sources. You haven't provided us with any.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't confuse warnings with proven facts. I saw none of the last. All the “criticism” is built on few warnings and multiple repeated “scam”, “ponzi” and “fraud” troll like claims. Btw several independent articles in favor of project have been cited above. PVO777 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

An extended amount of documented articles exist discussing legal action brought by or against the SkyWay Group , dishonest pyramid marketing techniques in the Belarusian central location and questionable funding tactics adopted in international operations . These are just a few of the documented articles containing evidence actually used in the article. These exist in addition to the warnings from financial regulatory agencies which are far too numerous to list. The 'ikbesteedhetbeter' link is to a self-published SkyWay promotional site in Dutch . The second and third sites are press releases documenting the InnoTrans exhibition to which the SkyWay group presented static models of their technology. Press releases don't document anything about the technology and the event itself was a static marketing exercise. These links are neither independent nor do they contain any useful verifiable information that is not self-promotional.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

But even the most negative ones confirm the existing of transport models and cannot cite any proof of the technology inefficiency. Only doubts related to investment procedure bureaucracy and fears of partnership program. That cannot be a ground for WP article blaming the project to be fraud. There is none fraud evidence. George Marshal (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

SPA George Marshal who didn't exist until today and has made only two directed attacks at this webpage has not supported any of his flowery accusations with verifiable references to support them. Please stop posting at inappropriate old discussions that are no longer extent unverified information which doesn't mean anything. Please participate in current discussions that actually mean something and become a registered user so asministrators can check if you of PVO777 is a sock puppet.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zaxander , composer, artist and writer, whose education, occupation, interests and competences were far cry from transport technologies and technologies at all as well from economics, finance, investments, whose account since the last year suddenly began to be very actively used to troll SkyWay project 1 , judging by number and frequency of SkyWay related “contributions” seeming to have become your new full time job started from User_talk:Zaxander#The_Italian_SkyWay_scandal_article_-_a_comprehensive_translation Scandal article translation, please stop to Hoax and let other people to add their contributions based on obvious facts. --George Marshal (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually started contributing by requesting that scientific experts question the content which at the time only referenced the SkyWay promotion sites with unsupported self-referencing pseudo-science; all of my concerns are included in the discussion below. People have been making claims and accusations since then that they cannot support. These need to be checked to ensure that pseudo-science isn't returned to the article presented as fact. Anyone is obviously welcome to improve the article by providing facts that can be checked with verifiable references; but baseless accusations don't really help anyone. Actual references and ideas for improvement do. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Attention has to be paid to the fact that SkyWay have a staff of at least four dedicated network marketers working for their company at the central Belarusian offices in Minsk who have a history of posting misleading claims. You can read about them here: . The interests of legitimate contributors to this page serve the purpose of representing verified published sources on given subjects. I have no reason to believe that anyone who is willing to identify themselves and who posts here is doing otherwise. But people who make groundless attacks without actually providing valid counter-claims or in fact any references that are not to self-published sources are bound to look suspicious. Anyone would be willing to consider legitimate research on the SkyWay company or the technology. I can only repeat requests for valid information. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You’re even contradicting to yourself by mentioning that baseless accusations don't really help anyone and I agree absolutely with you at this point. But unfornutately the recent edition of the article as well as all your contributions are powdered by such baseless accusations being far from a kind of so called self promoting attenuation being obvious WP:G10 Btw your “7” link remaining not opening brings to a wordpress blog that is in direct contradiction with WP:NOR--George Marshal (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

So which accusations are made in the article that are baseless? You still haven't provided any actual links to backup your claims. Just copying Wikipedia accusations and imagining that by showing you know what they are will actually make them mean something without actually providing any arguments or links so we can check them is to put it lightly unhelpful. Maybe you should read the whole talk page and contribute to a more recent discussion by checking and reading all the existing references.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The link is also to a German translation of a verified published article in a popular and well-known Belarusian newsfeed article 'Oliner.by' dated 11 September 2017 entitled "I leech from pyramid schemes". A summary is included of its contents below in the sub-heading on the ONLINER.BY articles: claims and controversies and links are included to both the article and the translation, You can see the original article here:. The Belarusian scientific commentary has been verified by multiple sources and the article has been translated into German and English. You can inform yourself about them by actually reading the contents of this talk page. Please stop making uninformed claims without checking the references you are commenting on. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Any accusations made in such articles are baseless because first of all accusations are the responsibility of investigative authorities and courts and can be made on the grounds of proven facts only. They can in no way be made by a priori negatively lighted puff pieces in online yellow publications whose editors release them contrary to principles of journalism. Presumption of innocence in view I find inappropriate to require any excusable articles citing to “satisfy” this hoax. --George Marshal (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Advice request for Dharamsala project: is it really 'abandoned'

Recent changes to article structure have resulted in creation of 'abandoned projects' and 'future projects' headings. This may create problems. India used to belong to an 'unrealized projects' category. These headings were changed by user:Britishfinance to make clear the difference between projects like the one in the United Arab Emirates which are still in planning and the rest which have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely. This was a good faith change to improve the article, but unfortunately the Dharamsala project has now ended up under a heading entitled 'abandoned projects'. We have 2 verifiable articles on India/SkyWay negotiations from 2017: and . Neither of them seem to say that the project has been 'abandoned'. They do question its validity and the Economic Times article is highly crtical. The Norwegian article, however, suggests that this project is still planned in 2020. So has it been abandoned? Can we find another reference which specifically refers to this project being stopped or something? I propose we do the following to remedy this problem:

• Until we have confirmation otherwise suggesting this Dharamsala project has been cancelled we move India to 'Future projects';
• We follow the Norwegian model and rename the section 'planned projects' not 'future projects'. Planned projects happen in the future but 'future projects' could mean a lot of things.
• We rename "abandoned" as something less negative like "cancelled" or "postponed"

Alternatively, you could also put them all back in a single category "unrealized projects" but I can see the point of the differentiating the projects that are still planned and the ones that have been cancelled. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The former suggestion seems to make sense to me. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

These changes have been introduced. Any suggestions are welcome to alternative better names for 'postponed projects' and 'planned projects'. Please note that the Norwegian 'SkyWay' article says specifically that the Dharamsala project is planned in 2020. The two verifiable references don't claim this. They do say that the project will be realized 'in three years'; this seems an insufficiently verified reason for actually stating 2020 until we have a verified source which discusses their exact arrangements. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

the project in India is inactive now (there are no active negotiations, construction etc.), so it is ok to call it "Postponed". The project in the UAE is active or "planned" in the meaning that it can be implemented in the future. However, "planned" can also mean that something was planned but was not implemented afterwards. It is true for India but not for the UAE. If you put projects in India and the UAE in one section, there may be the impression that some active work/negotiations are underway in India to implement the project in the future, although this is not the case.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I agree but the two references to the Indian affair don't actually state that the project has been postponed. The Norwegian article actually says the project is planned for 2020! We need more verifiable references that states exactly what happened. Is it really postponed? Who postponed it? Publish them here if you find any and we can update the article later. You happy with 'planned projects'? Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

definition of "postpone" in Cambridge Dictionary: "to delay an event and plan or decide that it should happen at a later date or time". Is the project in India active now? If not, then it is postponed. Or you can create and a new section - "Cancelled projects", and include there Australia, Lithuania, and Indonesia. "Postponed projects" - India, and "Planned projects" - the UAE.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:That sounds like a good idea to me that could fix ambiguity. If you want to make this change, it has consensus with me. If they ever cancel (or continue) the Indian project in the future we can always move it to another heading. This seems far better. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind such a classification (canceled, postponed and planned projects), but the current classification also suits me.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:I also changed the wording of the background to beter reflect this. Check my changes and let me know what you think.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not have enough time this week to check this article regularly, but I will review it from time to time. I still think that the article should be reviewed by other more experienced contributors, and check for neutrality word combinations like these ones: "these companies have been accused by regulators and other media" - the media is not a court to accuse someone; the whole "Marketing" section ("...SkyWay attempts to sell the shares...", "Although SkyWay has exhibited.. they are yet to realize an actual project" etc. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks. I agree. Hopefully we'll fix these problems soon. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SkyWay on Wikipedia - Czech, Hungarian & Norwegian

You can still find Czech and Norwegian language Wikipedia articles on ‘SkyWay’. The Hungarian article, mentioned above, was deleted on 9 August 2018 and the reason for it being removed was 'doubtful legitimate use'. The Czech language version seems really terrible. In structure it is sort of similar to what we used to have before November 2018. What makes it terrible is the fact that there are absolutely no references at all to any source material, verified or unverified as far as I could tell. It seems after looking in its history that it was started in April 2018. There have been about 10 changes to it in its 10 month history and the first posting is very similar to what it is now. We certainly don't want to emulate that one and I hope they get some sense and take it down soon. You can see it here:

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyWay

The Norwegian SkyWay, however, is much better clearer and unambiguous in its display and language use. You can see it here:

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyWay

What's good about it? Take a look. It's short, concise and has a great list of references. I should note here that it uses regulatory warnings - a lot of the same ones as in the English article - as verifiable references. Maybe the rules are different in Norway but we’ve been roasted for doing this in the recent deletion request.

The Norwegians actually started working on it in September 2017. The article has changed a lot since then. This was the opening paragraph:

"SkyWay Capital (also called Yunitskiy String Transport, Rail Sky Way and RSW Systems) is a finance concept which has as its face the British company Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. The model is a combination of public finance and network marketing."

At this time the article was clearly about a specific business. The article was probably actually called ‘SkyWay Capital’ then. The article today is now completely different. It’s more about the technology. Although this may seem problematic, nonetheless the new article is short, concise and looks well researched with a great list of references some of which I’ve already included above.

The thing that does unite these articles (even the Hungarian one which has been removed) is that they are all called simply ‘SkyWay’. Maybe we should also consider simplifying the name of this article from ‘SkyWay Group’ to ‘SkyWay’ since we're having problems with the fact that very few references actually use terms like the ‘SkyWay Group’ to refer to these companies. We’d be able to include links to the foreign articles as well. The English article, after all, already touches on a variety of concepts – the group of companies, its marketing of the skyway technology, assessment and testing of this technology as well as Yutniskiy’s involvement. Would all these things be better summed up with simple use of ‘SkyWay’ rather than ‘SkyWay Group’ which suggests only a plural of companies? Maybe just ‘SkyWay’ would do this better? Just putting the idea out there to see what others think. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• HOW ARE THE NORWEGIAN AND ENGLISH ARTICLES DIFFERENT? I translated whole sections of the Norwegian article. Below is list of the Norwegian headings and a summary of their contents which helps to explain why the English and the Norwegian articles are so different. SKYWAY in Norwegian structures the article and classifies the information in a different way and according to different categories. Here's how they do it:

KONSEPT ('concept'): The technology as an idea of an elevated transportation system is proposed in a few sentences.

UTTESTING ('testing'): A few concise sentences describe proposed test sites. It starts with the deconstructed test-site Oziory (Moscow area) in 2001 (I've requested their resource for this so we can include it too). This is followed by a brief description of the proposed test-site in Lithuania which was cancelled in 2014. They finish with a brief description on the construction of the EcoTechnoPark in Belarus without actually naming it.

PLANLAGTE PROSJEKTER ('planned projects'): This starts with a brief description of the projects planned in India and Indonesia. Here they are quoting an article which discusses arrangments in made in Jakarta at the 'Universitas Indonesia'; they don't mention Jorong. They don't mention the United Arab Emirates either. They also mention a test project planned at university in Melbourne, Australia, but don't mention the fact that it was cancelled. I imagine however that this is because their article is out-of-date but nonetheless we have to verify our Indonesian source and to ask why it differs to what the Norwegians claim.

SKYWAY CAPITAL : This section is on the activities of the fundraiser company who sell the shares of specific companies. More recent research suggests that the information in the Norwegian article is incomplete although it should be said here that it' claims are of specific relation to activities in Norway.

I've come to the conclusion that although the two articles are different this can be largely explained by the fact that these differences are related to country specific factors and the fact that their article is now out-of-date. I suggest, however, that we update our reference to the project at Flinders University in Melbourned and check the Indonesian reference.

Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)