How do you say "Thank You" in Russian? - Spersibia (I spelt it how I pronounce it🌝) After a 2 day trip with long flight hours, ladies and gentlemen @BitsaveProtocol just arrived Vladivostok, Russia 🇷🇺 for the Eastern Economic Forum. Let's talk RWAs and Onchain Finance.

Dear @blockaid_, @base, @Based_Africa, @jessepollak Our users are being shown a scam warning in MetaMask when trying to create a savings contract with @BitsaveProtocol This is affecting real people trying to use a legitimate, live protocol. We'd like a straight answer: What specific signal triggered this flag on our contract addresses? What review process did you run before applying it, and what's the process to get it corrected? Our contracts are not like every other DeFi protocol, this is a savings protocol not a DeFi protocol so I 'might' be able to understand where the issue could be with your architecture flagging updates. Flagging infrastructure that real users depend on has real consequences we're asking for accountability and a fast resolution. Our devs have done some checkins and found out that our Parent-Child Contract structure might be one of the reasons for the flagging. We're not sure yet, but I'm adding our docs and contract addresses and links in the comments for more deep dives. Bitsave Protocol has been live on Base for over a year. We have over 300 active savings contracts, 1,000+ users, and over $500,000 in TVS across 5 EVM chains. Not a single incident. Yet your security tool is flagging our contract addresses as "scams" when users try to create savings via MetaMask. What data are you testing? What checks did you run? Is this another False Positive happening with you preferiring to err on the side of caution? This is more than an inconvenience, it's a a reputational attack on a legitimate protocol. Users see your warning and they walk away. So I'm asking publicly: Did you test our contract? Did you find something we don't know about? Or did you flag us because we have multiple child contracts a design pattern that is common, secure, and transparent? If there is a legitimate issue, we want to fix it. If this is a false positive (as it clearly is) please fix your data. You've prevented $4 billion in losses, and that's great. But if you're also blocking legitimate protocols without due process, you're doing more harm than good. We're ready to provide any data, any access, any verification you need. 📌 To be clear; we take security seriously and understand why tools like this exist. That's exactly why we expect them to be accurate and to have a real appeals process when they're wrong. Our contracts are live, verified, internally audited and have not recorded any incident of hacks or users losing their funds. If there's a specific reason this address was flagged, we want to know it and fix it. If it was an error, we want it corrected publicly, not quietly. Until then, users trying to create savings on Bitsave are seeing a "scam" warning for interacting with a protocol that's operating exactly as documented. That's a real cost to real people, and it deserves a real response. @blockaid_ @base @Based_Africa @jessepollak tagging you directly 🙏🏽 Happy to provide whatever verification you need on our end. Please tell us what to send and who to talk to.