Classification: 🛑 Not Safe – liont1.cc shows no advertiser integration, no client- or server-confirmed rewards for rating trailers, relies on invite trees, and hard-brands “Lionsgate” in public config. ❌ Failed Neil Yanto Review Standard.

All technical proof below is taken only from the code and network responses you provided. I did not add any code that isn’t in your files.

---

Domains under review

• Primary / mail domains: liont1.cc, m.liont1.cc
• Connected domains: wap.torinvista.net, torinvista.net, m.torinvista.com, torinvista.com, torinvista.cc, video.torinvista.cc

These domains share the same playbook (identical or near-identical templates, plans, and flows), indicating a multi-domain cloning scheme.

---

What a legitimate advertiser-backed “rate/watch-to-earn” system looks like

A real ad-funded or research-funded task model will exhibit all (or most) of the following:

1. Ad/Survey SDKs present – e.g., VAST/VPAID/Google IMA for video ads (quartile beacons: start/25/50/75/complete), or verified survey network SDKs with study IDs and anti-fraud checks.
2. Deterministic reward JSON – after a task, the server returns { reward: ..., balance: ... } (plus a ledger entry).
3. Transparent rate card – clear and consistent “price per task/view/rating,” visible in UI strings or API.
4. Earnings ledger – a task history: Task → Reward → Balance (with timestamps).
5. Brand/sponsor proof – configuration keys, campaign tags, or dashboards that tie to real advertisers/surveys (not just a brand name printed in a theme file).

Reality check: Mainstream advertisers don’t pay for arbitrary “star ratings” on trailers. They pay for ad impressions/completions or survey completions via official SDKs/platforms. If a site claims “rate trailers = get paid,” you should see verifiable ad/survey integrations and server responses that credit rewards.

---

Code & network proof (from your files) — and why each part is a red flag

Per your request, I won’t mention the specific filename for the user JSON snippet. For all snippets below, I’ll also explain exactly why each is a scam/suspicious signal.

1) “Rate a trailer” = submit only, no reward math on the client

t.ajax({
  type:"POST",
  url: $url_post_json + "/movie/score",
  async: !0,
  dataType: "json",
  contentType: "application/json;charset=utf-8",
  data: o()({
    movieId: e.$route.query.id,
    userLevel: e.$route.query.level,
    score: e.rateValue,
    content: e.commentValue
  }),
  success: function(t){ /* ... */ }
})

Why this is a red flag: A real earn flow either previews how much you’ll earn or returns a reward in the server response. Here, the client just sends a star score and comment. There’s no earnings formula in the UI and no rate card bound to this action.

---

2) “Watch” endpoint = activity log, not earnings

t.ajax({
  type:"POST",
  url: $url_post_json + "/movie/watch",
  async: !0,
  dataType: "json",
  contentType: "application/json;charset=utf-8",
  data: o()({ movieId: e.$route.query.id })
})

Why this is a red flag: It only records that you watched something. There’s no computation of any reward tied to the event. A genuine watch-to-earn will correlate watch events with ad beacons and then credit the account.

---

3) “Find tasks” = list retrieval, not valuation

t.ajax({
  type:"POST",
  url: $url_post_json + "/movie/findTask",
  async: !0,
  dataType: "json",
  contentType: "application/json;charset=utf-8",
  data: i()({ userLevel: a /* ... */ }),
  success: function(e){ /* ... */ }
})

Why this is a red flag: Listing tasks isn’t the problem; it’s the complete absence of a rate card or reward schema per task in both client strings and returned JSON.

---

4) Core movie endpoints fail (500) in the captured responses

{"status":500,"message":"System error, please contact customer service","timestamp":"1758428921544"}

{"status":500,"message":"System error, please contact customer service","timestamp":"1758428932880"}

{"status":500,"message":"System error, please contact customer service","timestamp":"1758428970903"}

Why this is a red flag: In any legitimate earn flow, the server would reliably return success with a reward and balance update after a rating or completed view. Here, every core endpoint for the “movie” feature returns 500 — meaning no actual crediting happens.

---

5) Withdrawal policy veneer without upstream earnings

{"status":100,"message":"SUCCESS","data":[{"content":"<h2><strong>Withdrawal Policy</strong> ... processed within <strong>2 to 96 hours</strong> ... ₱100–₱1,999: <strong>5%</strong> ... ₱80,000 and above: <strong>No fee</strong> ..."}]}

Why this is a red flag: Fake task sites often polish the withdraw page and policy to look legitimate. But a glossy withdrawal policy is meaningless if the system never proves where earnings come from or credits rewards from tasks.

---

6) Withdrawal UI net display math (not earnings math)

t.$Ftofixeds(
  t.amount - Number(t.indexShowLevelData.withdrawFeeRate),
  2
)

Why this is a red flag: This is cosmetic math for showing a net amount after a fee. It is not a “per-rating reward formula.” Scam sites commonly implement fee displays while omitting real ad/research monetization code.

---

7) Hard-coded “Lionsgate” branding in public config

var $server_terrace_name='Lionsgate';
var $server_terrace_names='Lionsgate';
var $oss_url='//down.liont.net/web/lionsgate';

Why this is a red flag: Real partnerships show up as SDK keys, campaign tags, or official advertiser integrations—not just a brand name hard-coded into a public JS config. This looks like brand impersonation rather than sponsorship.

---

8) Invite tree and points = 0 despite the “tasks”

{
  "parentId": 593282,
  "useridPath": "602|543890|544806|588053|591169|593065|593282|789370|",
  "usernamePath": "PH001008|wilsvaron|Kielle.⁠｡⁠*⁠♡|Lany|Kenkenpottt|Kineah|Clyxza|haromusika|",
  "inviteCode": "uNoRU63F",
  "points": 0,
  "balance": "24.00"
}

Why this is a red flag: That hierarchical path and invite code indicate a recruitment-centric model (MLM-like). Meanwhile, points: 0 contradicts the promise that rating/watching earns something. This is consistent with Ponzi-style funnels where money flows from new recruits, not advertisers.

---

9) What’s missing everywhere (the biggest red flags of all)

• No ad SDKs at all: no googletag, adsbygoogle, ima3, vast, vpaid, VAST URLs, quartile beacons, survey SDKs, or study IDs.
• No rate card strings: nothing like “₱X per rating/view.”
• No reward JSON: no server response that returns { reward, balance } after tasks.
• No ledger: no credible task-to-reward history.

These absences torpedo the entire “rate trailers, get paid” claim.

---

Side-by-side: Legit advertiser rate/watch-to-earn vs liont1.cc

Aspect	Legit Advertiser/Survey Model	liont1.cc Pattern
Monetization hooks	Ad/Survey SDKs, VAST/IMA beacons, verified study IDs	None (no SDKs, no beacons)
Reward confirmation	Server JSON returns {reward, balance} + ledger	500 errors on core movie endpoints
Rate transparency	Clear per-task/view pricing	No rate card or pricing strings
Earnings history	Task → Reward → Balance with timestamps	Absent
Brand relationship	SDK keys/campaign tags in code	Hard-coded “Lionsgate” string only
Growth model	Advertiser/sponsor budgets	Invite tree / recruitment pattern

---

About the connected torinvista domains

You flagged that media and pages are served via torinvista domains (torinvista.cc, video.torinvista.cc, etc.), and that these sites share the same template/plan/flow. That’s consistent with multi-domain cloning used to keep funnels running when one domain is blocked or reported. Changing logos or colors doesn’t create a real advertiser integration—and we still see no ad SDKs, no reward JSONs, and no ledger.

---

Risk assessment

• Brand impersonation & cybersquatting: The “Lionsgate” name is surfaced in public config without any supporting advertiser SDKs or campaign keys.
• Ponzi/MLM posture: Invite tree fields + missing ad revenue mechanics.
• Withdrawal façade: Policy text and net-after-fee math with no upstream task-based earnings to justify withdrawals.
• Operational failure: Core endpoints for the “movie” feature return 500 in your captures—no path to actual reward crediting.

---

Conclusion — Is liont1.cc a scam?

Yes. Based solely on the code and network responses you supplied, liont1.cc (and its connected domains) operate a fake “rate-to-earn” façade:

• No advertiser or survey integrations,
• No client reward logic,
• No server reward confirmations (instead, 500 errors),
• Invite tree focus rather than ad-funded economics,
• Hard-coded “Lionsgate” brand string in public config (impersonation veneer).

🛑 Not Safe. ❌ Failed Neil Yanto Review Standard.
Avoid depositing funds, sharing IDs, or linking wallets/banks. If needed, cite the code/JSON evidence above to warn others.

---

Extra snippets with why they’re suspicious

A. Rating submit (no reward fields)

url:$url_post_json+"/movie/score",
contentType:"application/json;charset=utf-8",
data:o()({ movieId:e.$route.query.id, userLevel:e.$route.query.level, score:e.rateValue, content:e.commentValue })

Why suspicious: Sends a rating, not a reward. A real flow would reflect a paid event and confirm it server-side.

B. Watch log (no earnings linkage)

url:$url_post_json+"/movie/watch",
contentType:"application/json;charset=utf-8",
data:o()({ movieId:this.$route.query.id })

Why suspicious: Logs a watch, but no ad beacons or crediting logic.

C. System errors on core movie endpoints

{"status":500,"message":"System error, please contact customer service"}

Why suspicious: If earnings were real, these endpoints would consistently return success + reward.

D. Withdrawal policy JSON (veneer)

{"status":100,"message":"SUCCESS","data":[{"content":"<h2><strong>Withdrawal Policy</strong> ...</h2>"}]}

Why suspicious: Policy text without any verifiable upstream earnings is classic façade behavior.

E. Invite tree with points still 0

{ "parentId":593282, "useridPath":"602|...|789370|", "inviteCode":"uNoRU63F", "points":0, "balance":"24.00" }

Why suspicious: Recruitment structure + no points earned from “tasks” ⇒ Ponzi-style posture.

F. Hard-coded “Lionsgate” label

var $server_terrace_name='Lionsgate';

Why suspicious: Label-only branding without real advertiser integration—hallmark of brand impersonation.