Just before I went on holiday, the peptide vendor chats decided to give us their latest episode of drama. What started as a simple customer question inside the SQ Peptide group quickly turned into a full vendor beef over customer-review photos, missing watermarks, and accusations of AI editing.
The conversation kicked off when someone asked:
“Has anyone ordered from SQ before?”
That question didn’t stay innocent for long.
First Alina, the TR Peptide rep came swinging in;
“Everyone should watch out for this company, SQ Peptide; they steal customer feedback from others and slap their own label on it, such behavior is absolutely disgusting.👆”
This was immediately followed by the other TR rep, Ella
“Don’t you even have feedback from your own customers? Do you still need to steal someone else’s?
Don’t buy from SQ? All their pictures are fake and have been stolen from others. Don’t buy from SQ? All their pictures are fake and stolen from others. This is a fraud company”
Alina then tagged me and posted a screenshot of an SQ customer-review image. Her claim was direct:
“They used AI tools to remove the company’s original watermark.👇”
The red boxed area appears to say “Generated by Doubao AI”
Then a 3rd rep, Su Leah, joined in; “The logo of AI still exists in the picture. Did you forget to remove this logo? 👎🤣🤣🤣”
At that point, the chat went from ordinary vendor argument to full peptide CSI. SQ pushed back by posting screenshots of its own customer-review channel and replying:
“I need to steal yours?”
Ella was not impressed and responded:
“Where did you steal this from again?”
She then told SQ:
“Delete the photos you stole from others before as soon as possible”
Su Leah also jumped back in, tagging SQ directly:
“Don’t you have eyes?”
SQ Scon replied:
“Can’t stand to see others do well”
That only made things worse. Su Leah fired back:
“Yes, that’s you. You can’t stand other companies doing better than you”
SQ then told the accusers:
“Please go to your own group and do the promotion”
But Ella kept pressing. She told them:
“Delete these pictures as soon as possible”
Then came a run of repeated messages:
“Please delete it as soon as possible”
and:
“Please delete the photos you stole from others as soon as possible”
Ella then added:
“As soon as you delete it, I’ll leave your group immediately”
By this point, even the bystanders knew they were watching something special. One summed it up perfectly:
“Is this vendor beef?!!!”
Another person reacted:
“Oh my! Y’all have really good tea here! This is my first time seeing Vendors beef!”
Another gave the whole situation its soap-opera title:
“Vendors pages has been wild the last few days!! As the peps turn!! New series coming out 😂”
Eventually, Ella said the disputed pictures had been removed and wrote:
“I saw that you have deleted it. YOU ARE a fraud company. Please don’t do such things again in the future”
SQ Scon responded
“Time will tell all the rumors”
The accusation didn’t stop there. Later, Alina gave a clearer explanation of what she claimed happened:
“Yes, this company, SQ peptide stole our images. My images were posted in my groups and also had our company’s watermark. They used AI technology to remove the watermark and added their own company name.”
She followed that with:
“The company has removed the stolen images from us, but they haven’t offered any explanation or apology.”
Then she warned buyers:
“Please be careful and avoid being scammed.🙏”
Ella also gave more detail in direct messages to me. She said:
“Sq used our positive reviews and used AI to remove the watermarks”
She later explained where the original pictures allegedly came from:
“We posted these pictures to the customer comment channel in our group on May 28th. SQ stole our pictures in June and even used AI to remove the watermark, but their pictures still had the words ‘Generated by Doubao AI’ on them”
That is one of the more important claims because it gives a timeline: Tanran says the original images were posted in its customer-comment channel on May 28, and that SQ allegedly used edited versions in June. The original images shown in the screenshots also carry repeated “Tanran Peptide” watermarks, while the SQ versions appear to show similar review material under SQ branding.
Then the discussion took another turn. Another member raised the possibility that SQ and other “two-letter” vendors may be connected through shared suppliers, COAs, or backend resources. He wrote:
“It’s worth noting that SQ was one of the vendors sharing COA’s with other ‘Two letter’ named vendors here”
He then added:
“Looking at their pages, you can see same style vial caps/crimps and prices lists, although prices vary a bit between them.”
His theory wasn’t that SQ necessarily had fake product, it was that these vendors might be linked behind the scenes:
“Seems like different sales companies for a larger distributor?”
He also said:
“I’ve dealt with another of these companies in the past and have had good experience and it looks like SQ is selling the same style vials to me. So I suspect SQ product is legit, although pricing is interestingly more competitive than the others.”
Then he pointed out the awkward part:
“Interestingly, the fight is between SQ and TR, both ‘Two letter’ vendors..”
When another user said:
“They stole other vendor’s feedback pics and removed their watermark lol”
The member replied:
“‘Stole’ assumes they are different entities..”
That comment opened up a second angle: what if this wasn’t just one vendor stealing from another, but a fight between sales reps connected to the same larger supply chain? He later expanded on that:
“Both SQ and TR have similar style prices lists and see my posts above. I’m inclined to believe this is a fight between sales reps working on some kind of commission style system for a larger common vendor/producer.”
He added:
“Just like the common COA’s from @Krysia0430’s older Twitter post above. These sales companies are sharing sources and resources to some extent, but it’s clear there is fighting and competition over customer acquisition.”
That theory would explain why the packaging, COAs, shipping materials, and even promotional content may look similar. But it still doesn’t solve the review-photo problem. Shared sourcing is one thing. Taking another page’s customer feedback, removing the watermark, and reposting it as your own is something else.
The group also discussed SQ’s manufacturing video. The member said:
“Their manufacturing facility video was quite interesting and seems legit with nameplate paper shown at the beginning. It seems likely to me they have legit access to high-end peptide manufacturing or finishing facilities.”
Another user was less impressed and replied:
“Then order! Godspeed”
The member later added:
“Also, my dealings with one of the other ‘Two letter’ vendors linked to SQ through the common COAs above had highly similar photographs of the shipping materials with handwritten labels. Seems clear they are sourcing from a common shipping warehouse.”
He then made clear that his interest was more about how these vendors are connected:
“It’s less about the order and more interesting to me to flesh out the underlying business structure!”
In another screenshot, someone compared facility-video stills from three different vendors and wrote:
“Here are stills from videos posted by 3 different members of the letter gang vendors ( APM, FW and SQ). Note the two on the left are clearly the exact same room proving they are linked, while the third shows what looks like a different part of the same facility as matched by the floor pattern and stainless equipment benches.”
The discussion later shifted from the stolen-review-photo accusation to whether SQ might be connected to other vendors behind the scenes. When asked if they shared a factory with several others, SQ denied it, saying they were independent and had nothing to do with anyone else. However, several members questioned that, pointing out that SQ appeared to be linked to the same wider network of vendors, factories, or suppliers.
Some people suggested the products may still be legitimate, but said the real issue was honesty and transparency. One member argued that customers would care less about shared sourcing, sales reps, or even fake-looking avatars if vendors were simply upfront about who they are and where the products come from. Others speculated that the salespeople may be separate from the fulfilment side, possibly working on commission, or that multiple vendors may simply be sourcing from the same manufacturer.
SQ pushed back against the speculation, saying that getting real product at a discounted price was more important than guessing about the business structure. Another member responded that SQ may be a good vendor, but still needed to be honest with customers.
So where does that leave things?
Maybe this is a case of one vendor copying another. Maybe it’s a fight between connected sales reps under a larger supply chain. Either way, the screenshots raise a fair question: were buyers looking at genuine SQ customer feedback, or recycled Tanran reviews with a new label slapped on top?
Because in this round of vendor beef, the watermark may have vanished, but the receipts have not.
Comments