BITLTDPRO.com & Frida Mar Investigation: Cryptocurrency Investment Warning and Suspected Template Network
Case Type: Cryptocurrency Scam / Investment Fraud / Unlicensed Investment Activity / Digital Investigation
Case ID: CASE-2026-012
Investigation Status: Open
Published: August 2026
Investigated By: Cyb3rsect
Executive Summary
Cyb3rsect has opened an investigation into BITLTDPRO.com and an individual identified as Frida Mar, following an official warning issued by the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI).
On July 8, 2026, Washington State DFI published an alert titled:
“Alleged investment company BITLTDPRO.com may be fraudulent.”
DFI states that it received a complaint from a Washington resident concerning BITLTDPRO.com and reports a loss of:
$25,000
DFI categorizes the matter as a:
Cryptocurrency Scam
According to DFI, BITLTDPRO describes itself as an investment company offering flexible investment plans and Bitcoin investment opportunities.
The website reportedly advertised investment plans ranging from $100 to $5,000 and claimed investors could earn up to 200% on their first investment, described as 100% guaranteed.
DFI also identified a highly significant issue involving the site’s claimed regulatory status.
BITLTDPRO reportedly claimed to hold an “AFS license” issued by a supposed U.S. “Securities & Investments Commission.”
DFI states that:
The United States does not have an agency called the Securities & Investments Commission.
DFI further states that an AFS License is not a recognized U.S. securities-industry license and that BITLTDPRO did not appear to hold securities-industry licenses.
The complaint also identifies Frida Mar as the person operating the WhatsApp group through which the investor communicated with the company.
The investor reportedly deposited:
$25,000
and was unable to withdraw any funds.
Perhaps most significantly, DFI says its review of BITLTDPRO identified hundreds of other websites using the same template, with early versions consistently referencing “Remedy AI” and “Remedy Invest” and using the email address:
This creates a much broader digital-forensics question:
Was BITLTDPRO part of a larger network of similarly structured investment websites?
DFI’s findings provide a strong basis for investigating that question.
1. Official Regulatory Warning
The principal source for this investigation is the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions.
DFI published its warning on:
July 8, 2026
The subjects are:
BITLTDPRO.com
Frida Mar
The reported loss is:
$25,000
The scam category is:
Cryptocurrency Scams
DFI explicitly states that the factual details and losses reported in the complaint have not been verified by DFI.
That qualification is important and is retained throughout this investigation.
2. What BITLTDPRO Claimed
According to DFI, BITLTDPRO described itself as a:
“distinctive investment company”
offering:
- Flexible investment plans.
- Bitcoin investment opportunities.
- Cryptocurrency-related investment services.
The website reportedly promoted investment plans ranging from:
$100 to $5,000
and claimed investors could earn:
up to 200% on their first investment
with the return described as:
100% guaranteed.
Claims of guaranteed investment returns deserve particular scrutiny.
No investment can be assumed to be risk-free merely because a website describes a return as guaranteed.
3. The Claimed AFS License
One of the most significant findings concerns BITLTDPRO’s claimed regulatory credentials.
DFI states that BITLTDPRO claimed to possess an:
“AFS license”
issued by a supposed:
“Securities & Investments Commission”
in the United States.
DFI specifically states that the United States does not have an agency called the Securities & Investments Commission.
The regulator further states that an AFS License is not a recognized license in the U.S. securities industry.
This is an important distinction.
The term AFS licence is associated with Australian financial regulation, where an Australian Financial Services Licence is issued by ASIC.
That does not make an “AFS license” a U.S. securities licence.
Consequently, an investigation should determine exactly what document BITLTDPRO displayed, where it originated, and whether any legitimate regulator actually issued it.
4. Regulatory Verification
The regulatory claim should be treated as a specific forensic evidence item.
Investigators should preserve:
- Screenshots of the claimed licence.
- The licence number.
- Claimed issuing authority.
- Date of issue.
- Company name appearing on the document.
- Address appearing on the document.
- Any regulator logo.
- Any downloadable PDF.
- Any registration link.
The alleged licence should then be compared against official regulatory databases.
The investigation should answer:
Did the claimed licence exist?
Was it issued by a real regulator?
Did it belong to BITLTDPRO?
Did it authorize the services being offered?
5. The Frida Mar Connection
According to the Washington State DFI complaint, the investor learned about the investment opportunity and subsequently communicated with the company through:
The person operating the WhatsApp group was identified as:
Frida Mar
The investor reportedly invested:
$25,000
and was unable to withdraw funds from BITLTDPRO.
This information originates from the complaint described by DFI and should therefore be classified as:
Reported
rather than independently established.
6. The Reported $25,000 Loss
The DFI scam tracker records:
Loss Reported: $25,000
The investor reportedly deposited this amount into BITLTDPRO but was unable to withdraw any funds.
A proper financial investigation should reconstruct the payment history.
Investigators should obtain:
- Deposit dates.
- Payment methods.
- Cryptocurrency used.
- Receiving wallet addresses.
- Bank information.
- Exchange records.
- Transaction hashes.
- Withdrawal attempts.
- Customer-support communications.
The objective is to establish where the reported $25,000 went.
7. The WhatsApp Investigation
The use of WhatsApp is an important investigative lead.
The investigator should preserve the complete conversation rather than only individual screenshots.
Evidence should include:
- Original messages.
- Phone numbers.
- Profile names.
- Profile photographs.
- Group names.
- Group administrators.
- Dates and times.
- Voice messages.
- Documents.
- Images.
- Links.
- Cryptocurrency addresses.
- Payment instructions.
The full communication history may reveal whether the person identified as Frida Mar was acting alone or as part of a broader operation.
8. The Template Network Discovery
This is arguably the most important technical finding in the DFI alert.
During its review of BITLTDPRO, DFI identified:
Hundreds of other websites
that were utilizing the same website template.
DFI reports that early versions of these websites consistently contained references to:
“Remedy AI”
and
“Remedy Invest”
They also consistently used the email address:
This creates a potentially valuable digital-forensics trail.
A common website template does not automatically prove common ownership.
However, the repeated use of:
- Identical page structures.
- Identical language.
- Identical branding.
- Identical email infrastructure.
- Identical investment-plan structures.
- Identical code.
- Identical analytics identifiers.
can provide strong investigative leads.
9. Examples of Similar Websites
DFI lists numerous examples of potentially fraudulent websites resembling BITLTDPRO.
Among those identified are:
- Orbitfinancetradeplc.live
- Primeactivetrade.org
- Realstockhome.com
- Spaceprimetrade.com
- Alphafxmarket.us
- Bestonlinecryptotrade.com
- Standardmarketstrategy.live
- Stockmarketx.live
- Reliableicmarket.com
- Primelumina-gold.com
- Octatradex.com
- Litromarket.net
- Goldflix-trade.com
- Finiteplans.com
- Cadrefxmarket.live
- Trustbridgetrade.com
- Prostockindustrytt.com
- Bmxctrades.com
- Equinoxxmint.com
- Bit4buyer.com
- Greenvillemarket.org
- Swiift-trade.us
- Americapitalfirm.com
- Capitalsbasepro.com
- Dynamicfxmarket.com
DFI describes these as examples of potentially fraudulent websites resembling BITLTDPRO.
They should not automatically be described as being operated by the same people.
That connection requires additional evidence.
10. Why the Template Evidence Matters
From a digital-investigation perspective, template reuse can be extremely valuable.
Investigators can compare:
Website Code
Look for identical HTML, JavaScript and CSS.
Images
Determine whether the same logos and graphics were reused.
Text
Compare investment descriptions, disclaimers and terms.
Email Addresses
Identify repeated contact addresses.
Analytics
Search for common Google Analytics or Tag Manager identifiers.
Hosting
Compare IP addresses and hosting providers.
DNS
Identify shared nameservers and historical infrastructure.
Cryptocurrency Addresses
Compare wallet addresses appearing across websites.
Registration Data
Compare domain-registration dates and registrars.
One common feature may be coincidence.
A large combination of matching technical identifiers can provide a much stronger basis for further investigation.
11. Historical “Remedy AI” References
DFI’s finding that early versions of these websites repeatedly referenced:
Remedy AI
and
Remedy Invest
deserves particular attention.
If the same underlying template was repeatedly rebranded, the investigation should examine whether the websites were created as variations of a common investment-site framework.
The critical question is:
Was the template being licensed legitimately, copied independently, or operated by a coordinated group?
Technical evidence is required before making that determination.
12. The Cryptocurrency Investigation
Because the case is categorized as a cryptocurrency scam, blockchain analysis should be a major component of the investigation.
Investigators should collect every:
- Wallet address.
- Transaction hash.
- Blockchain network.
- Deposit address.
- Payment instruction.
- Exchange account.
- Cryptocurrency amount.
The transactions can then be reconstructed.
For example:
Victim
↓
Exchange
↓
Deposit wallet
↓
Intermediate wallet
↓
Exchange / service
The objective is to determine where the funds moved.
Blockchain evidence can establish transaction movement, but wallet ownership normally requires additional attribution evidence.
13. Website Infrastructure Investigation
The BITLTDPRO domain should be investigated at the infrastructure level.
Current third-party domain records show BITLTDPRO.com was registered on:
October 21, 2024
and uses privacy-protected registration information.
Historical technical data also identifies infrastructure associated with the domain, including:
- IP address.
- Nameservers.
- Hosting infrastructure.
- Registrar.
These records can change over time, so investigators should preserve historical records rather than relying solely on current DNS information.
14. Third-Party Reputation Evidence
ScamAdviser currently gives BITLTDPRO.com a very low trust assessment and identifies several risk indicators, including high-risk financial services, cryptocurrency-related activity and other suspicious sites on the same server.
However, this should be treated as supporting intelligence rather than primary evidence.
Automated reputation services can generate false positives.
The official DFI warning and original financial/technical records are much stronger evidence.
15. Additional Broker Research
A third-party broker research service, WikiFX, reports that BITLTDPRO has no identified forex trading licence and describes the platform as unregulated. It also reports that the site claimed to offer forex, cryptocurrency, CFD stocks and indices.
Again, this is supporting evidence.
The strongest regulatory evidence remains the Washington State DFI finding concerning BITLTDPRO’s claimed licensing status.
16. Evidence Classification
VERIFIED
- Washington State DFI issued an official BITLTDPRO warning on July 8, 2026.
- DFI identifies BITLTDPRO.com and Frida Mar.
- DFI records a reported loss of $25,000.
- DFI categorizes the case as a cryptocurrency scam.
- DFI states BITLTDPRO claimed to offer Bitcoin investment opportunities.
- DFI states the website advertised returns of up to 200% and described the first investment return as guaranteed.
- DFI states BITLTDPRO claimed an “AFS license” from a supposed U.S. “Securities & Investments Commission.”
- DFI states that no U.S. agency by that name exists.
- DFI states that an AFS license is not a recognized U.S. securities-industry license.
- DFI states BITLTDPRO did not appear to hold securities-industry licenses.
- DFI reports that hundreds of other websites used the same template.
- DFI reports that earlier versions consistently referenced “Remedy AI” and “Remedy Invest.”
- DFI reports that the template used support@remedyfinance.online.
- DFI identifies Frida Mar as the person operating the WhatsApp group in the complaint.
REPORTED / ALLEGED
- A Washington resident invested $25,000.
- The investor was unable to withdraw funds.
- Frida Mar operated the relevant WhatsApp group.
- The investment opportunity was promoted through WhatsApp.
UNVERIFIED
- The true identity of Frida Mar.
- Whether Frida Mar is a real name or alias.
- The identity of the BITLTDPRO operators.
- Whether all websites using the template are controlled by the same group.
- Whether cryptocurrency wallets associated with the different websites are connected.
- The ultimate destination of investor funds.
- Whether the alleged licence document was fabricated.
- Whether “Remedy AI” and “Remedy Invest” were brands controlled by the same operators.
17. Key Warning Signs
The case contains several significant warning indicators:
- Claims of extraordinarily high investment returns.
- Guaranteed returns.
- Cryptocurrency investment opportunities.
- Unverifiable regulatory claims.
- A supposedly U.S. “Securities & Investments Commission.”
- An alleged “AFS license” that DFI says is not a recognized U.S. securities licence.
- Communication through WhatsApp.
- Reported inability to withdraw funds.
- A $25,000 reported loss.
- Hundreds of apparently similar investment websites.
- Repeated “Remedy AI” and “Remedy Invest” references.
The combination warrants extreme caution.
18. What Investors Should Preserve
Anyone who interacted with BITLTDPRO.com or Frida Mar should preserve:
- WhatsApp conversations.
- Group information.
- Phone numbers.
- Website screenshots.
- Account dashboards.
- Investment-plan pages.
- Claimed licence documents.
- Deposit instructions.
- Cryptocurrency wallet addresses.
- Transaction hashes.
- Bank records.
- Exchange records.
- Withdrawal requests.
- Emails.
- Social-media accounts.
Preserve original files whenever possible.
Never provide investigators with passwords, seed phrases, private keys or authentication codes.
19. Investigation Priorities
Priority 1 — Preserve the BITLTDPRO Evidence
Capture the website, investment plans, regulatory claims and contact information.
Priority 2 — Identify Frida Mar
Establish whether this is a genuine identity, alias or fabricated persona.
Priority 3 — Reconstruct the $25,000 Loss
Trace every payment from the investor to its destination.
Priority 4 — Investigate the Template Network
Compare BITLTDPRO with the hundreds of related websites identified by DFI.
Priority 5 — Follow the “Remedy AI” Trail
Search historical versions of the template for common branding, emails and infrastructure.
Priority 6 — Blockchain Analysis
Identify and trace cryptocurrency wallets associated with the investment operation.
Priority 7 — Infrastructure Attribution
Compare hosting, DNS, code, analytics and domain-registration evidence across related sites.
20. The Bigger Question
The BITLTDPRO case may be more significant than a single website.
The DFI finding that hundreds of other websites used the same template creates the possibility of a broader ecosystem of similarly structured investment websites.
However, a professional investigation must distinguish between:
Similarity
and
Common control.
A shared template alone does not prove that one organization operated every website.
The strongest evidence would come from multiple independent technical overlaps, such as:
- Common cryptocurrency wallets.
- Common email infrastructure.
- Common administrator accounts.
- Common analytics identifiers.
- Common hosting accounts.
- Common source code.
- Common payment processors.
- Common contact numbers.
- Common corporate identities.
The more independent identifiers that converge, the stronger the attribution becomes.
21. Investigator’s Assessment
BITLTDPRO.com warrants substantial further investigation.
The strongest evidence is the official Washington State DFI alert identifying:
BITLTDPRO.com
Frida Mar
and a:
$25,000 reported loss.
The regulatory representation is particularly concerning because DFI states that BITLTDPRO claimed an “AFS license” from a U.S. “Securities & Investments Commission,” while the regulator states that no such U.S. agency exists and that BITLTDPRO did not appear to hold securities-industry licences.
But the most valuable investigative lead may be the template network.
DFI’s identification of hundreds of similar websites, combined with repeated historical references to Remedy AI, Remedy Invest and support@remedyfinance.online, creates an opportunity for a much broader technical investigation.
The next step should therefore be to determine whether these websites share:
Code
Infrastructure
Wallets
Administrators
Contact information
Payment systems
or
Corporate identities
If those independent indicators converge, the evidence could establish connections between websites that otherwise appear unrelated.
Investigation Status: OPEN
PRIMARY INVESTIGATIVE CLASSIFICATION: CRYPTOCURRENCY INVESTMENT SCHEME / POTENTIAL TEMPLATE-BASED WEBSITE NETWORK
22. Have You Encountered BITLTDPRO?
If you interacted with BITLTDPRO.com, Frida Mar or another website using the same investment template, you may submit information to our investigation team.
Useful evidence includes:
- WhatsApp messages.
- Website screenshots.
- Investment documents.
- Claimed regulatory certificates.
- Account statements.
- Cryptocurrency wallet addresses.
- Transaction hashes.
- Bank records.
- Exchange records.
- Withdrawal requests.
- Names and aliases.
- Phone numbers.
- Email addresses.
- Social-media accounts.
Do not send passwords, seed phrases, private keys or authentication codes.
Official Source
Washington State Department of Financial Institutions — BITLTDPRO Alert
DFI published its official warning on July 8, 2026 and identifies BITLTDPRO.com and Frida Mar, a reported $25,000 loss, the claimed AFS licence, and the discovery of hundreds of similarly templated websites.
Washington State Investment Scam Tracker
The DFI tracker records BITLTDPRO.com; Frida Mar as a cryptocurrency scam with a reported loss of $25,000.
Investigation Notice
This report is based on publicly available information and regulatory material reviewed by cyb3rsect.com at the time of publication.
The allegations concerning the investor’s loss and the role of Frida Mar originate from the complaint described by Washington State DFI and have not been independently verified by DFI.
The existence of similar website templates does not, by itself, establish that all such websites were operated by the same individuals.
Technical similarities are treated as investigative leads unless supported by additional evidence.
The inclusion of a person, company, website, domain or platform in this investigation does not by itself establish criminal conduct or fraud.
Where information could not be independently established, it has been identified as reported, alleged or unverified.
Investigation Status: OPEN
CASE ID: CASE-2026-012
