I'm not voting. I have no interest in this package. However, I'd like to know whether it's being called a scam because it's just a copy of another browser, or because the way it makes money is fraudulent in some way.
That's important because the freedom of FOSS is at stake. If people are going to imply it's unethical to fork software or just distribute it under a different name, or to adapt it a little and make money out of it, they need to understand they're buying into the proprietary Intellectual Property mindset. The whole point of FOSS is that we are free to adapt it, redistribute it, use it in any way we can and even make money out of it. The only thing we can't do is curtail others' freedom to do the same. That's what it's all about, so to call someone a scammer when they do that is a serious slur not just against them, but against the whole FOSS philosophy.
On the other hand, if the browser were modified to send requests to simulate ad clicks on sites the user isn't seeing, in order to generate pay-per-click revenue for the author, that could justly be called a scam.