Certainly it seems like us looking to cash out was the abuse. I can’t think of anything else considering their TOS and the fact that they allowed and even encouraged at times multiple accounts.
Either way, companies rise and fall. Sure, it would be nice to hear from them, but the fact is that good moral values and ethics are not the standard for today’s society and thus businesses will reflect that. In short, we can’t expect business to run on high standards if we (as a society) do not do our part and treat others they way we would expect to be treated (e.g. with respect, fairly, putting our selves in others shoes, etc).
This reflects my personal opinion and it is not meant as an attack towards anyone. If you are offended, I sincerely apologize and encourage you to do some meditating on what triggered such a reaction.
Just my personal opinion on 'abuse'. based only on observations:
I don't think the 'abuse' comment originated with CellNuvo, and I don't think it was specifically targeted at CellNuvo users. (At least not targeted at specific CellNuvo users by Cellnuvo's own action......)
During that period was when I first started seeing lots of reports about ad-delivery abuse, mostly (but not entirely) via automated processes, and advertisers & middlemen pushing back against it.
To a middle-man ad supplier, CellNuvo swiping activity (or other similar apps) may have looked like low-grade, poorly executed, ad delivery fraud. (Quick repetitive clicks, fast ad closures, etc.) I suspect the 'abuse' statements, and the few account suspensions seen, may have been passed down from the middle-man, not originated by CellNuvo. (Among other things, I think rapidly developing an algorithm for detecting and acting on 'abuse' within CellNuvo's app was beyond their app-development skillset, and there was little reason to develop it unless pushed by ad suppliers.)
That said, there were some ways to sidestep the intent of the app design and ad delivery intent, and many of us did it to various extent-- VPN relocation wasn't ever explicitly prohibited, but was outside the intent of the app design, and outside the intent of the advertisers. Regularly resetting Google ID was also side-stepping the intent of offers, especially when combined with resetting the offer wall. I don't think that CellNuvo targeted these actions, though-- just because their responses to the few account suspensions never mentioned it. If it was a target of the middlemen, I'm not sure that CellNuvo understood that.
Multiple accounts was certainly not abuse within the framework of CellNuvo. It may have been viewed as less-than-desirable within the framework of the ad middlemen.
The abuse mentioned by cellnuvo was about users circumventing some rules of the phone installment program. It was vague but they didn't appear to be talking about swiping ads and earning points.
I'm disappointed with the way things are ending. As an early adopter I remember the good times when Tom actively engaged with us and incorporated ideas into the app. It was win win. Yes of course they want to make money and cared about themselves first but there was a time when customer happiness achieved that. I have moved on and I am sad I lost some money but would like some closure at least. They at least owe us that and costs them nothing.
People seem to want various actions from Cellnuvo (Tom) in order to close the book on this debacle, Some want to get paid what they are due (I'm in this group). Some want explanations for how we reached this point by rehashing each step along the way. Some simply want a definitive statement that the party's over.
Unless someone is determined enough to travel to Chicago, I can't see any way we can force Cellnuvo to communicate with us. If geting paid is that big a deal, take Cellnuvo to small claims court.