|
Silly thread. The lead dev for Crypti is known (meaning his real name), it's right on the first page of the coin's announcement. That doesn't also count the fact that the code for the coins are nothing alike in the least.
Wulfcastle had problems setting up his node and asked the devs questions... that seems to be the extent of his involvement, if you can call it that.
|
|
|
|
I think everyone is overlooking a key reason why regulatory intervention hasnt occured/will not occur. Governments and the financial industry have no interest/reason to protect crypto currency and the investors who invest in it. Crypto challenges both systems fundementally and their involvement would counter their interests.
NYS may say otherwise. Although the motives behind their proposed regulations may not be to protect investors, exactly. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not a big hype person, even for coins I own, so I think people should downplay the debit card stuff for now. That's most likely for down the road... a long road, if it comes to fruition at all. They'd have to overcome some hurdles first, including volume issues, for it to even be feasible really.
The marketplace and new wallet on the other hand are more doable targets.
|
|
|
|
You're missing the point entirely, that what you and I believe is rapidly becoming immaterial. Syscoin Mintpal and Moolah launched the coin as a partnership. Just google it to find the press releases and videos. The launch was a fiasco, and now Moolah are holding millions of dollars worth of escrow funds. It's no longer a small scale scam.
Moolah are a registered financial services provider, and subject to investigation when there's the merest suggestion of impropriety. They can't hold the funds indefinitely or release them without incurring the wrath of two warring factions. So the scene is set for an investigation that will lead the authorities to the heart of the altcoin world. And unlike the usecoin devs, Moolah and Mintpal can't just up sticks and vanish. But investors can and will disappear as they see their investments about to go up in smoke. Including funds held in exchanges. And if the exchanges go bust then the whole altcoin scene goes up in smoke.
It may sound alarmist, but if Moolah pay the devs the aftershock will be nothing more than spectacular. And nobody now in their right minds will consider buying sys. With Moolah on board and millions at stake, the financial regulators would be derelict in their duty if they failed to investigate. And they are perfectly entitled to call in the fraud squad if there's any suggestion that the product released was not Fit For Purpose. The fraud squad in turn will coordinate their activities US and other foreign authorities. Leaving Moolah and Mintpal struggling to escape the grip of a heavily publicised partnership.
Interesting times ahead.
Well, my point was, for what are commonly referred to as 'scams' here -- devs walking away after a coin is released -- even on an exchange run ico, it may not be considered fraud, at least from a criminal sense. I am using bittex/polo icos as an example there. Even though I believe exchanges should use tighter rules, I do not see how they can be held responsible for what a dev does weeks after a coin is released. That assumes the coin is functioning properly before all btc is paid to the devs. Sys may be an exception because moolah was so closely tied to the ipo, and of course they now run mintpal. Again, I haven't followed the coin that closely at all, since I have nothing invested there. Have they released a functioning wallet yet? Is the wallet different than described by the ipo terms? If there are major discrepancies between what they stated they would release and what investors received... yeah, it does sound fraudulent. |
|
|
|
I look at syscoin and see an obvious scam based on promises that the devs had no intention of keeping. But this time it's hand in glove with major exchange... and a regulated financial services operative left holding a Huge amount of escrow. So Moolah have the problem that if they release the escrow they could be accused of participating in a criminal fraud. The devs are claiming that without the funds they can't continue development of the coin. And the intitial investors are wanting their money back. If this one plays out as I think it will then Moolah will be served with an injunction preventing them from distributing the escrow. Mintpal (a moolah subsidiary) will loose a substantial amount of their already dwindling market, and because of the sums involved the fiasco will proceed to a court case, and possibly a criminal investigation.
Moolah should have returned the funds (I wasn't an investor) as soon as the launch went tits up. It wasn't just misfortune. The original wallet was an obsolete buggy version of litecoin with some extra bolt-on features that didn't work. There was no effort went into the project (unlike many alts launched without IPO) and no more intention for it to succeed than Usecoin. But with millions at stake, it won't just be written off to experience, and the aftershock will rock the whole altcoin community. The claim that the devs need the funds to 'get it right' don't match up with any previous alt.
So there's a very good case for bringing charges of fraud, even if they don't make it to trial. And you might get an answer to your question much sooner than you anticipated.
BTW I wasn't a sys investor. I lost a small amount on the launch and dumped my holdings. But Mintpal have lost half their trading volume since the launch, so I fancy I'm not alone in my assessment. A cold launch might be hard to prove as a scam... but an IPO makes it so much easier.
I haven't followed sys very closely, so can't make any informed comments really. I believe there was no cap in place for the ipo, which scared me away early on. The problem when we throw around the term 'fraud' is first even defining fraud. If an exchange releases funds to a dev before a working wallet is out, and their terms clearly state they wouldn't do so... then yeah, it seems like fraudulent behavior to me (whether it's a criminal case is another matter). But the shady areas are where wallets work fine, and the dev provides a working product as claimed. Most of the Bittrex run ICOs didn't fail because the devs didn't release working wallets. More often it was because the devs bailed... they didn't use any of the funds on the coins themselves and in some cases just walked away entirely. People will scream 'scam' and such, but is it fraud on an exchange's part in any way? How could they know a dev would bail beforehand? Even knowing their identities is of limited help (although better than nothing). |
|
|
|
It should be the minimum for any coin, not just IPOs. And it's pointless claiming that nobody wants That. At the current level of fraud it won't be long before exchanges find themselves being targeted for investigation by the authorities. And if they decide on criminal investigation, then it's warrents search and siezure... which will effectively destroy the alts.
My point about a trade association is that members will abide by a common code of conduct. Which will do away with the objection that those adopting the code will lose out. If the major players adopt common codes then the scamcoins can be marginalised to the rogue exchanges. And legitimate coins will have greater freedom to flourish. Good practice by consensus and mutual agreement is the way forward. It's been an essential component of commerce throughout history. Even the Mafia owes it's success to that model.
I don't see it happening for all coins. People can also claim they want regulation, but if they truly did, they wouldn't be investing in so many shadier coins to begin with. People are generally fine with scams/shady coins and such... if they make money. If they get cheated, then it's a problem and they want regulation. It does bring up an interesting point though. If an exchange lists a coin where a dev bails or dumps a premine, are they partaking in any form of fraud necessarily? They aren't the ones committing fraud, and in many cases, it's sort of a gray area if the devs themselves are even breaking any laws. |
|
|
|
Yes, just looking through the list of recent Bittrex launches, a lacklustre string of pump and dump, now giving way to the pre-dumped. It's like a factory churning out new coins, wringing out every ounce of value from eager punters, then ditching the worthless remains. Fifteen pages of (mostly) shitcoins.
Do you wonder that I have grave doubts about the future of these exchanges, and altcoins? The writing's on the wall, and the exchanges need to up their game. Codes of conduct, complaints procedures, and a self-regulating trade association. Before the FBI step in and call the shots.
Bittrex should make changes to their ICO model, but haven't shown any inclination to do so as of yet. The reason being... people are still buying the things. They should institute stronger rules for all ICO coins, require dev identification and hold funds until they are used for what they are supposed to be used for, with a full ledger. Again, it comes down to money. I expect they are hesitant to do this, with the idea that other exchanges will then eat up all the trading fees. Although right now it appears only c-cex is embracing the ico model, so not so sure they have much to worry about. I'm sort of surprised people paid into usecoin to begin with, to be honest. I looked at it briefly, signed up for the freebie coins, then passed on it as it looked too sketchy. A minimal requirement for any ico should at least be some form of dev identification, be it pod or coinssource's trust rating, through an exchange checking ID, or just announcing who they are. At least that should be the min. requirement folks should use when thinking about investing in any ipos. |
|
|
|
So the dev opens a regular account on the day of the launch, deposits a million and a half coins, out of five million total (just less than a third of the ipo), and nobody at Bittrex bats an eye. This must be a landmark in the history of due diligence. Are there any more surplus coins lurking in Bittrex accounts waiting to drop on unsuspecting punters? There's one ipo (neoscoin) trading even though the wallet's not due 'til September. That should be a laff.
Apparently so. If their system has no safeguards in the code for sneaky behavior, it's not necessarily unexpected that something like this could occur. They don't just sit there and watch every transaction manually. It probably would have been a lot safer if the coin was a Bittrex ico, as I assume the dev wouldn't have been paid until the premine was destroyed, and it'd be more likely it'd be under Bittrex control the entire time. They really shouldn't have offered to destroy coins for an ico/ipo not under their control. Nor even list the coin for trading until the premine was destroyed, which was their main mistake. I realize people here look at Bittrex as a key culprit, but in many ways they are sort of bystanders involved due to negligence (in my opinion). They should take blame, but in the end, people would have been cheated regardless. If Bittrex didn't list the coin, the dev would have dumped on c-cex and any other exchanges that took the coin. And even if he didn't dump, he obviously had no plans to develop the coin, so he would walk away sooner or later... resulting in a crash as well. People were doomed regardless, just with the premine dump, it came sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
|
Millions upon millions of dollars you say? How could I pass that up!
Unless of course you may not exactly be on the level there... but new accounts here are noted for their honesty, so I'm sure you aren't spreading false hype.
|
|
|
|
Which still doesn't answer the question of how a million and a half unsold coins wound up in a trading account on the day of the launch. Or why the developer should have claimed that Bittrex had agreed to destroy those coins. If they were held for destruction then why were they held in a trading account?
Can of worms anybody?
I do not know if Bittrex had even been given the coins to destroy yet. If so, they would have typically went to a locked account that Bittrex was in charge of. They stated they agreed to destroy the coins as a courtesy, which after this debacle, they no longer will extend. If the coins weren't sent to be destroyed yet, which is what I assume, all the dev had to to was use a regular account, send the coins there, and sell them like any regular investor. All people had was the word of the dev that the coins were to be destroyed. I am not aware of any proof that they were held anywhere safely. |
|
|
|
\
You know this how? Did Bittrex not undertake the initial distribution of the pre-sold coins?
So Bittrex had a million and a half unsold use sat in a trading account on the day of the launch and nobody thought to ask why?
The hole just got deeper. I strongly advise you to stop digging. Perhaps a little due diligence would be in order.
I am saying that Bittrex did not offer escrow on the coin, so it wasn't one of their ICOs. That is all I am saying. And I know this as it's obvious how the IPO was set up. Bittrex listed the coin on their exchange for trading before they should have. That is where they are guilty. |
|
|
|
Volume is present for trading on Cryptsy, and Crypti no longer visible on bittrex. I take it they decided to remove it for the time being? Will they relist it after the issues are settled?
Remove it from Bittrex? Since when was it ever listed on Bittrex? |
|
|
|
Wasn't involved in this mess, thank goodness, but amid a growing number of questions about the extent of Bittrex's involvement in these failed ICOs, I'm curious, came across this Bittrex message from earlier this year and asked the following question. We're looking for IPO coins to partner with. If you are interested, please let me know.
Could you explain the original intent of this message? Looking forward to Bittrex's answer. Bittrex obviously has been offering ICOs on their exchange, basically as a form of escrow. That would be the logical answer. Usecoin was not one of them, by the way. |
|
|
|
Buy on the rumours sell on the news,
And people sometimes take that to the extreme, even when it makes no logical sense. Like even here .... the rumor of the coin's release = pump, then sell when it was actually released. |
|
|
|
So, that means that none of the tiers have been filled because we have not yet started accepting applications.
Volume is a legitimate concern, but we are the ones running the marketplace, so we will be the ones receiving the GreenBacks. What we can confirm is that we won't do anything to kill the market such as dumping. We are also hoping that by then, volume and marketcap will be higher, though this is not a guarantee.
Thanks for the response. If you get a lot of applicants, any chance of increasing the available spots available, or perhaps creating a different tier? Just wondering what occurs if you get like double the number of folks applying as there are spots... or more... would probably result in a pretty major dump if too many folks apply, as only so many would get accepted. So long as you keep some of the ipo funds tucked away for a rainy day, you can handle marketplace volume most likely. I suggest looking at how Noble has handled it, as I wondered how they took in sales... they don't automatically turn noble back into btc with each sale. So long as marketplace sales are capped or on the small side, you can get away with that. |
|
|
|
|
I asked several questions earlier that probably got overlooked, but will ask them again.
As for the loyalty program, what is the approx. valuation for reward pts in fiat or buying power?
Rewards are fine, but without some valuation ahead of time, there may not be a point to accumulating in order to even join the loyalty program.
Have the top two tiers already been filled?
What is paying for the 'rewards'? Meaning are vendors eating the cost, or do you plan to simply take it from your own marketplace profits? It has to come from somewhere.
What sorts of items do you plan for the marketplace, and do you have vendors signed up already?
And if volume isn't especially high, how do you plan for the marketplace to work, or that debit card idea? Without volume, the coin couldn't sustain a whole lot of purchases on the marketplace nor that debit card, as it'd naturally kill the price of the coin if people spent it as planned.
|
|
|
|
Bter still has 10,000 Withdrawal limit. Any information as to when I can withdraw all my balance at once?
Bter will lift this limitation onwards. Fees going to be reduced soon too? It's a little pricey simply to move the coin about at all. And any timetable for installable win wallets? I'm not especially fond of web wallets. |
|
|
|
Dont think Mintpal are accepting new coins... Havent seen many if any new coins being added... Would say Mintpal is worse for pump and dump... But at least there is volume on there...
Mintpal used to be worse for pump/dump... until they had their own security issues. A lot of the pump/dump stuff on MP was due to their voting system too. Dead coins would get voted in, have one last day in the sun, then collapse into nothingness. I think most of the pump/dump groups have migrated to bittrex, as they tend to get pretty much any new coin. Although of course it can happen with any exchange. Cryptsy was a good 'get', as they can sometimes be pickier than other exchanges as far as new coins go. |
|
|
|
I disagree many coins that have good feature like this one do really well on Bittrex...
Until they don't... and people do their typical pump/dump dance. I see no need for it at this point in time. I'd rather see MintPal next and leave Bittrex for some time in the future. |
|
|
|
Can everyone please tweet Bittrex to get this coin on there this will give more volume to the price... I have tweeted several times. I also see one other person doing this. We need more...
Dev please consider paying 1BTC to get coin onto Bittrex... need more volume on this coin..
Personally I see no giant rush to get on Bittrex. They should make sure all the withdrawals issues have been ironed out first. They have Bter/Polo/Cryptsy .... that's fine for now anyway. Cryptsy + Bter are the exchanges usually harder to get on too. Slow growth is better than the typical Bittrex pump/dump stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
