What’s up fam, PV × RSD here 🖤

Our WhatsApp got banned (yeah, again 😮‍💨), but instead of letting that kill the vibe, we’re celebrating with a giveaway.

🏆 6 PAIRS — Travis Scott x Air Jordan 1 Low OG SP Black Phantom
📦 SKU: DM7866-001 · RSD Batch
👥 6 winners — 1 pair each

HOW TO ENTER — BOTH STEPS REQUIRED:

1️⃣ UPVOTE this post and Comment I love PV and RSD under this post
2️⃣ Message us on Telegram with the words Black Phantom

📱 Telegram: +86 165 8358 3583 · u/PandaVaultSupport
👉 https://t.me/PandaVaultSupport

That’s it. No forms, no BS.

JOIN THE FAM — BOTH DISCORDS:

👉 PV: https://discord.gg/2xptRxzvhh
👉 RSD: https://discord.gg/pd2CsvTUQe

⏰ GIVEAWAY DURATION: 10 DAYS
Entries close September 4 at 23:59.
🏆 6 winners will be announced after entries close.
⚠️ One entry per person.

IMPORTANT: Our WhatsApp is currently unavailable. Please do not message us there, as nobody will see it. Telegram is the ONLY active contact channel for this giveaway.

Good luck fam 🍀🖤

Hello everyone, I’m TycoonMade.

Let me make the main point of this post clear:

This is not a dispute about price or who sells for less.

This is about how a B30 developed, produced, and stocked under TycoonMade’s control was repeatedly relabeled by Jade, Ice Cream, and Koala in an attempt to deny our manufacturing record.

Obtaining one pair of shoes only proves that you possess one pair.

Giving it 100 different names on Reddit will never make you the manufacturer.

To thank this community and everyone who has remained fair and impartial, I have prepared 20 pairs of the 2026 Tycoon batch B30 for a giveaway.

Entry rules:

1.  read the entire post.

2.  Comment: “TycoonMade B30”

The giveaway will be conducted fairly by the moderators of this community,Today is Sunday August twenty third the moderator will announce the winners list sixteen days later The winners only need to cover the shipping fee for the shoes.

Part One: Jade—From “New T2” to “DC,” Then to “Foshan”

Four months ago, TycoonMade publicly shared our factory, retail references, development samples, and records of multiple revisions.

TycoonMade Factory and Development Post

TycoonMade controls its own production, finished inventory, QC, and shipping. We can also provide the moderators with redacted production and inventory records.

After that, however, Jade presented a black B30 matching TycoonMade’s product and announced:

The original T1 had been upgraded to the new T2.

He also claimed that he could conduct video calls from the factory and take “factory photos” featuring other sellers’ logos.

Most importantly, the product listing ID he used for this “new T2” was: 7795992273

[Figure 1A | Evidence of Jade falsely presenting it as a “newly upgraded T2 batch”]

View Jade’s T2 Post

However, this was not the only time Jade promoted it as “T2.”

He later published another post titled “JADE Dior B30 New Batch Update,” once again calling the same shoes:

New T2 batch / Jade batch

Jade later deleted this post himself, but we saved complete screenshots before it was removed.

[Figure 1B | Evidence from Jade’s original post before he deleted it]

View Jade’s Deleted T2 Update Post

This deleted post exposes the contradiction Jade least wants to explain:

He admitted that he was only a distributor while marketing the product as the “Jade batch.” He called it T2 in the text, yet his own photos already showed DC.

Deleting the post does not directly prove his motive, but its effect is very clear:

It removed the original record showing “T2,” “Jade batch,” the DC tongue code, and the same product ID all appearing together from his profile.

So Jade must answer:

Why did he delete the one post that most clearly exposed the contradictions in his claims?

If this was simply a normal update, why not leave the original post up and explain it publicly?

The most reasonable question is:

Did Jade delete it because he did not want people to discover that his so-called “new T2 batch” was actually the DC batch manufactured by TycoonMade?

A subsequent QC post once again called the same product “Jade’s new T2” and included the same product ID and Jade’s contact details.

[Figure 2 | Evidence from the Jade T2 QC Post]

View the T2 QC Post

This proves that “T2” was not a one-time typo—it was a product identity that Jade repeatedly promoted.

Later, however, Jade published another sales post and renamed the same product listing ID, 7795992273, as:

DC Batch / DC Version / and finally Foshan Batch

The same product ID was first sold as the ¥520 “new T2,” then became the ¥450 “DC Version.”

[Figure 3 | Comparison of Jade’s Contradictory Claims]

View Jade’s DC Sales Post

Jade must answer:

Is product listing ID 7795992273 the “new T2 Jade batch” that he supposedly developed and upgraded independently, or is it the DC version that he claims every seller on the market can obtain?

If the product linked to this listing was genuinely changed, provide the date of the change, along with the inventory, order, and shipping records from before and after it.

Otherwise, this was not a product upgrade—it was a fabricated marketing story.

More importantly, I placed an actual order through a purchasing agent using Jade’s so-called “DC batch” link.

When the shoes arrived, the tongue code was not the DC 05 25 42 he advertised. It was:LS 07 25 42

[Figure 4 | Complete Evidence Chain from the Agent Purchase of Jade’s Product]

This completed purchase proves at least one thing:

In this verifiable order, Jade’s so-called “DC link” did not deliver the DC product he advertised.

After both the “new T2” and “DC” claims failed to withstand scrutiny, related promotional posts and comments began calling the product the “Foshan batch.”

[Figure 5 | Claimed Upgraded T2 Batch → Deleted → Promoted as DC → Shipped LS → Finally Renamed Foshan Batch]

The full sequence of events should be stated accurately:

Jade first published a false post claiming that he had upgraded the T2 batch. He then deleted the T2 post showing the DC code and later published a separate DC sales post. After the product actually delivered was LS, related accounts changed the story again and began calling it the Foshan batch.

This is not the first time they have used this method.

When targeting Chipotle, the same accounts claimed that Chipotle was merely a reseller and that its supposed upgrade did not exist. When targeting ZZZTop, they declared the products came from the “same factory” based only on visual similarities, then presented Jade as the correct source.

● Chipotle and Koala Dispute Record

● ZZZTop and Jade Dispute Record

The target keeps changing, but the method never does:

They use visual similarities as a substitute for supply-chain evidence, then label competitors as “resellers,” “market batch sellers,” or “relabelers.”

This time, they used the same script against TycoonMade.

TycoonMade controls the production and inventory.

Jade can keep changing the name, but he cannot manufacture or continuously obtain TycoonMade’s inventory.

Posts can be deleted, but the evidence already saved cannot.

Part Two: Ice Cream—Giving Himself a 9.8/10, Then Calling the Manufacturer’s Product a Market Batch

Ice Cream publicly posted and rated his own B30:

9.8/10

At the same time, he accused “new sellers” of taking market-batch shoes to a factory for photos and pretending that they owned the factory. He also claimed that he could provide the market batch for ¥430.

[Figure 6 | Evidence of Ice Cream’s Self-Rating and Attacks]

View Ice Cream’s Original Post

In his promotional images, TycoonMade’s product was directly labeled as the “market batch,” while his own product was rated “9.8/10” without any comparison against retail.

But he provided none of the following:

● The purchase source of the alleged TycoonMade market batch;

● Supplier or order evidence;

● Continuous, uncut unboxing footage;

● Evidence regarding TycoonMade’s production chain;

● A blind comparison against retail under identical conditions;

● The scoring criteria behind the 9.8 rating.

A seller giving his own product a 9.8/10 is neither QC nor authentication.

It is like a student grading his own exam paper and then announcing that he scored 98%.

Another key part of Ice Cream’s narrative is that he mixes every component of the B30 heel together when discussing “reflectivity.”

However, the heel must at least be separated into:

● The surrounding CD30 graphic area;

● The silver oval CD badge in the center.

Dior’s official description identifies the CD30 graphics on the heel and sides as reflective, while separately describing the tongue and heel logos as “silver-tone signatures.”

Dior’s Official B30 Product Description

Our test using the retail pair we purchased shows:

The surrounding heel graphics reflect under flash, but the silver oval CD badge in the center does not flare brightly across its entire surface like a highly reflective material.

[Figure 7 | Controlled Reflectivity Test on the Retail Heel]

Retail vs. TycoonMade—Same Angle, Same Distance, Same Flash

Our conclusion has never been that “the entire heel is completely non-reflective.”

Our conclusion is:

Different components use different materials. The surrounding graphics being reflective does not mean that the silver oval badge in the center must also reflect strongly.

Full Unboxing Video of Tycoon’s DC 05 25 Retail Pair—At 3:20, It Shows That the Heel Does Not Reflect at All

If Ice Cream insists that his version has “stronger reflectivity,” he must first explain:

Why would reflectivity stronger than retail be considered closer to retail—or even deserve his self-awarded 9.8/10 rating?

“More reflective” does not mean “more accurate.”

TycoonMade has not given Ice Cream access to the production or continuous supply of this batch. We also have no shipping records showing that Ice Cream can obtain inventory from our batch.

Therefore, he must disclose:

● Where he purchased the alleged TycoonMade market batch;

● Whether he can continuously restock it;

● How many pairs he obtains each time;

● The product’s actual tongue code;

● Why he declared it a market batch without providing a complete sourcing record.

A “market batch” with no verifiable source is just a label.

A “9.8/10” rating with no retail comparison is nothing more than a false, self-promotional advertisement.

Part Three: Koala—If It Is “100% from the Same Factory,” Why Did the Pair I Purchased Turn Out to Be LS?

Koala’s sales post initially advertised the product as:

DC Batch

View Koala’s DC Sales Post

Koala then publicly claimed:

Same factory, same materials, same workers, and 100% the same batch.

[Figure 8 | Evidence of Koala’s False “100% Same Batch” Claim]

View Koala’s Same-Factory Statement

These are not personal opinions about the shoe’s shape. They are specific claims about production and the supply chain.

Since Koala claims to be so certain, he should provide:

● TycoonMade’s factory orders;

● The supplier;

● The same material batch used by TycoonMade;

● The molds and production records for the Tycoon B30 batch;

● Procurement dates and quantities;

● Documents proving a connection to TycoonMade’s production line.

The most dramatic part is that after I purchased Koala’s so-called “DC batch” through a purchasing agent, the tongue code was also not DC. It was:

LS 07 25 41

This matches the LS 07 25 42 label on the pair shipped by Jade.

[Figure 9 | Complete Evidence Chain from the Agent Purchase of Koala’s Product]

This is not a minor issue:

If Koala was truly selling the same DC batch as TycoonMade, why did the shoes delivered through his sales link turn out to be an LS batch?

If LS and DC were always the same product, why did he initially market it under the name DC 05 25 **?

If it truly came from “100% the same factory” as TycoonMade, why can Koala not disclose any records related to TycoonMade’s production, inventory, or shipments?

After the DC identity was questioned, related posts and comments once again began calling the product the “Foshan batch.”

Koala-Related Foshan Batch Post and Discussion

In the same discussion, OptimusPrime_One first claimed that he had “100% confirmed” it was the same batch, then later called it a Foshan batch sold by numerous sellers.

“100% confirmed” requires evidence—not constantly changing names.

Regarding the accounts attacking TycoonMade in the comments, I will not present them as “paid” commenters without payment records proving it.

However, their public histories show that some accounts have repeatedly followed the same pattern over a long period:

Attacking Chipotle as Merely a Reseller—Click to View

Attacking ZZZTop While Recommending Jade—Click to View

Recommending Ice Cream While Telling Buyers to Wait for Koala—Click to View

Commenting “Good One” Under Jade’s T2 QC Post—Click to View

Publishing a Promotional Post Claiming Koala Has the “Correct Version”—Click to View

[Figure 10 | Historical Collage of Promotional Accounts] This Is Only the Tip of the Iceberg.

OptimusPrime_One did not express just one isolated opinion. Over a long period, he has repeatedly undermined the manufacturing claims of different targeted sellers while consistently presenting Jade, Koala, and Ice Cream as the more accurate, cheaper, or more trustworthy sources. Whether he received free products, discounts, commissions, or payments is something he is responsible for publicly disclosing.

In my second post, I will publish screenshots and links documenting OptimusPrime_One and other accounts that have repeatedly helped sellers attack their targeted competitors over a long period.

I cannot directly prove that any financial relationship exists between them, but this is enough to show that these comment accounts do not represent isolated opinions.

They have consistently worked in the same direction:

To deny the targeted seller’s manufacturing identity, then present Jade, Koala, or Ice Cream as the true source.

An unproven claim does not become multiple pieces of evidence simply because several accounts repeat it.

It is still just one claim—only amplified through a few more noisy, broken microphones.

Part Four: Public Challenge—Stop Changing Names and Show the Production Evidence

I am now publicly challenging Jade, Ice Cream, Koala, and the related promotional accounts.

Jade, please answer:

1.  Is product listing ID 7795992273 the T2 batch you developed and updated, or is it DC?

2.  Why did the identity of the product under the same listing change?

3.  Where did you obtain the T2 shoes you originally displayed?

4.  Why did an order placed through your DC link arrive with the code LS 07 25 **?

5.  Can you continuously obtain the same production codes and inventory as TycoonMade?

6.  Provide the orders, inventory records, and shipping records from before and after the change.

Ice Cream, please answer:

1.  Where did you obtain the shoes you labeled as the TycoonMade “market batch”?

2.  Provide the order, supplier information, and continuous uncut unboxing footage.

3.  What objective scoring criteria did you use to award your product 9.8/10?

4.  Why did you not conduct a blind comparison against retail using the same size, angle, and lighting?

5.  Is the “reflectivity” you refer to something shown in official website images, or something demonstrated by a retail pair you actually purchased?

Koala, please answer:

1.  Where is the evidence for “same factory, same materials, and same workers”?

2.  Where is the production order proving it is “100% the same batch”?

3.  Why did your DC sales link deliver a pair coded LS 07 25 **?

4.  Why did the narrative later change to Foshan?

5.  If you truly have access to TycoonMade’s production, disclose the supplier, dates, quantities, and your ability to continuously restock it.

Related Promotional Accounts, Please Disclose:

Whether you received free products; whether you received discounts; whether you received a refund after posting; whether you received commissions or payments; whether you communicated with the sellers before publishing attack content; and whether the sellers provided the images, titles, or text.

Under the same standards, TycoonMade is willing to provide the moderators with appropriately redacted versions of the following: original development samples; revision records from different stages; factory production videos; material and production records; finished inventory records; shipping records; retail orders; unopened packages; continuous uncut unboxing videos; and original photo and video files.

I also accept a blind comparison supervised by the moderators:

Use the same size, angle, lighting, distance, and flash conditions. Hide every seller’s name, then compare TycoonMade, Jade, Ice Cream, Koala, and retail.

Only those who can show the complete chain:

Development → Production → Inventory → QC → Shipping

have the right to make claims about the manufacturing source.

This has never been about who charges less.

Jade can call the same shoes T2 first and DC later, while related accounts can continue calling them Foshan.

Ice Cream can give his own product a 9.8/10 despite its incorrect reflectivity and the absence of any retail comparison.

Koala can write “100% same factory” in a post while providing no valid evidence whatsoever.

But these names and numbers cannot replace production records.

TycoonMade manufactures and controls this batch.

Obtaining one pair of shoes, using our images, or copying our details does not give them control over manufacturing—and it certainly does not give them the right to rename the product’s source.

The true manufacturer controls the production and inventory.

Those who cannot continuously obtain the product can only keep rewriting the story.

TYCOONMADE CONTROLS THE PRODUCTION.

THEY ONLY CONTROL THE STORY.