Haven't people explained to you that all cryptos are the same. Do you think everyone with bitcoin could sell it in one day for anywhere near the price now? Only takes a few percent to sell to massacre the price.

Why do people buy bitcoin if it's not to profit at the expense of others? There is no money that is created so is a Ponzi from what you are saying. At least the lending platforms prevent dumping (the company owns most of the coins and needs the price to stay high) and also generate profits so the crypto can be marketed.

They had been reducing the interest and many days they paid zero interest. Obviously, they couldn't carry on paying 1% per day unless they thought their coin would get to $5k in a year. You can't say they collapsed since their price was still at $260 or so when they cancelled the lending. It could have carried on fine especially since the profits generated allowed them to market the coin (the lending profits didn't entail taking money from new investors so it's a bit of a stretch saying they were a Ponzi - the good thing about the system is they couldn't sell their BCC and dump the price as it would be counterproductive).

The thing is they were paying less interest than the growth of the coin. If bitconnect paid the interest at the end of the term instead of all through the holding period, would they still be a Ponzi? If the coin price stayed the same they would simply pay the same amount of coins back but normally the coin would go up a lot. Would it be a Ponzi for them to pay back LESS BCC even if it was worth 200% MORE than they initially invested? The lending was actually the reverse of staking coins as instead of inflating the supply, it actually reduced it as long as the coin price went up lol.

Trevon live on youtube talking about the lawsuit....apparently he also gave out his hotel address and room number for some reason but not been watching it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLw-mIY-Pmk

Regarding the other posts, are people that dense? Anyone heard of confirmation bias? If BCC went up 1000X (100,000%) in a year (considering it was at 16cents or less at one point and was in the hundreds of dollars even when it cancelled the lending) but was only paying lenders 100% EVERY THREE MONTHS (or just over two months to double the investment when compounded which most people didn't consistently do) to suggest bitconnect was paying too much interest in the lending is stupid. They were paying far less than they could have done to still profit from it! How could it be a Ponzi lol

Bitcoin is more of a Ponzi as there is no wealth generation at all. Regarding the backing with assets, money was always backed with gold until recently but the supply is still controlled for a reason. The total supply is still meant to be tied to assets and that should be obvious to anyone as how else can someone put a value to anything they own etc (it is backed by the governments issuing the fiat in any case):

Well if you were talking about BCC, then the coin was still at $260 or so before the announcement. So what would have destroyed it other then the market crashing? Any coin can crash and the lending system wasn't at fault for the crash, rather the people complaining to authorities etc probably caused them to cancel the lending.

Fiat is obviously not a Ponzi lol as the money supply is meant to be tied to the total assets. A house is not going to zero value so will always be worth something. Nowadays due to the supply being hard to control world-wide it tends to inflate and go in boom and bust cycles so it is more similar to a Ponzi now than before. That doesn't change the fact it has always had assets backing it. Actually, it was found that having slightly more supply than assets allowed businesses to grow faster (business loans etc). The financial system may not make much sense nowadays but the only thing it is meant to do is encourage business, which is what it does. People generate wealth but creating things of value that other people buy. Bitcoin doesn't generate any wealth and is just a speculative asset and you can't deny it can easily go to almost zero value (it doesn't take more than a few percent to be sold to lose half its value either). Whales can dump it any time they like once they've decided they have profited enough. You must know by now that all the winners of bitcoin will be balanced by the losers and it is zero sum and totally Ponzi-like in that way.

Yeah, I also noticed they didn't really know what staking was. They use ERC20 so in the whitepaper they said it was just holding the coin lol. With lending platforms they will obviously tend to increase in value, anyway, otherwise the lending won't work.

There are hundreds of these lending platforms now. They use the profits from the lending to market the coin so they can't really lose. Even BCC was about $250+ when it cancelled the lending so it was nothing to do with the value of the coin plummeting but other issues (will be interesting to see if the lawsuits get thrown out or not).

Remember that when you buy bitcoin or ethereum you hope for it to rise in value but it doesn't actually have a real value and can go to almost zero (no money is generated so it's just like a Ponzi where new buyers pay for the profits of older buyers - a zero sum game in other words). Lending platforms, however, are actually less of a Ponzi because the lending generates profits for the company but at the same time the users don't mind lending and giving some of the profits because they also get some of it too!

"ADDICTED TO LENDING PLATFORMS | I NEED HELP!"

Trevon is always using LOW security on all the platforms shown in his videos....baffles the mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPDE-9f2KHY


That was a recent one but he hasn't mentioned any lawsuits. (actually he does mention it at 12m50s - he doesn't sound worried)

Buy orders increasing? I bought more at $7 but hasn't gone up much since then.

BTW what is merit?? Can you see who gave it???

I asked about UcoinCash as that was the only one that was still operational. It's still going now sort of (I think the coin is about $12). All the others were scams but if they were based in UK they weren't breaking any laws there. Like I said, cryptos like bitcoin are ponzis anyway with no wealth generation so it's a zero sum game. Winners will be balanced by losers (excluding any exchange fees which the exchanges take as profit). There is a guy on youtube called Sean Walters (American btw) who said he used to run a Ponzi etc and many people get into them knowing what they are but they are usually very deceptively marketed (many people still seem to think they are legit and are surprised when they run off with millions of dollars of BTC). Bitconnect and lending platforms are actually less of a Ponzi than bitcoin because they generate profits for the company from the lending (not just from the internal exchange fees).

Just checked and bitconnectX is not selling out any more since they stopped accepting BCC. Half way through the day and they seem to have only sold about 1k coins an hour but I suppose they can't change the $50 price or other investors will not be happy. I'm sure they used to always sell out so it's a bit suprising but trying to raise half a billion dollars is a bit optimistic.
Total sold today : 12,254.49830973   Total available for sell : 249,078.50169027

Coinmarketcap.com isn't that based in USA? They always promoted the obvious ponzis like bitpetite and laser.online etc and it's one the world's top websites now in terms of traffic. I wonder if they could get in trouble for advertising them in USA especially some ICOs that could be classed as securities (nowadays ICOs have to get legal opinions from lots of countries like Singapore and France etc if they want to do things correctly and be sure they won't be classed as securities in these jurisdictions)??


EDIT (just noticed Sean Walters the ex ponzi owner put a video up lately about the bitconnect lawsuit - remember he was also promoting lending platforms lately including Davor and raked in lots of referral money but stopped after taking legal advice - he doesn't really believe in these platforms btw) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQRMhxgOXIY

Strange this was your first post? Are you sure you are not affiliated with them in some ironic way? By the way, there are plenty of lending platforms and they always used to perform really well from ICO onwards but lately there has been less interest. I still believe they are a better model than normal cryptos but others will disagree.

http://icoreview.site   are even suggesting not to buy at the ICOs any more and wait until they hit the exchange..... this wouldn't have been good advice just a month ago but now it seems there is a lot of bad press about these things.

It's up to people to decide whether they think it's a ponzi or not. All cryptos like bitcoin are also ponzis as there is no wealth created. Anyone making a gain is balanced equally by people making a loss (excluding the profit for the broker or the exchange - which bitconnect also received on their exchange btw) and it's purely by sheer volume and buying activity being greater than selling that the price goes up (through marketing as the price is not based on anything other than speculation from buyers and sellers - i.e. no wealth is generated). People can't all cash it out at that price, everyone should know that by now, and it doesn't take much selling to crash the market (only a few percent needs to sell to completely annihilate the market).

I know for sure these are not regulated or illegal in the UK and no courts in the USA have ever decided they would be classed as a security in terms of any case law, unless you know of any? Bitconnect were already complying with the Texas cease and desist before closing and people from certain states weren't able to make new loans (from what was said on youtube videos the day after they received it they'd already implemented a check for people signing in to confirm their location). It doesn't mean they were actually doing anything illegal as most states didn't bother, and I'm sure it wasn't the people in bitconnect complaining to those states to take action.

It seems like people want to go after certain cryptos they don't like the marketing of instead of allowing them to be unregulated like they always have been before. At least bitconnect lending generated the company profits (the lender didn't mind giving it to bitconnect either as long as they still profited so it's not as if they were defrauded). The coin was still around $300 when they closed the lending (and also still when they reopened their exchange) so it wasn't as if they closed after the market crashed. If there wasn't so much misunderstanding about their platform and so many complaints from outsiders, bitconnect lending would have been fine for a while longer and probably would have just slowly reduced their interest rates and thought of some other incentive for their coin.

So I don't know why people keep putting out so much misinformation about them breaking any securities or money issuing laws etc when it wasn't the case for UK at least.

Are you serious? You were only lending BCC tokens and were only entitled to the same value of BCC tokens in return. There is no fiat in crypto. Lots of people call things scams but there are loads of these sites. Coinmarketcap.com is one of the largest websites and makes millions from advertising these and real ponzis like laser.online and betpetite etc.

I will leave with this (this was on the last link) for people who keep going on about bitconnect being a Ponzi:

"“Contrary to a widely-held opinion, Bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi. And there is little to learn by treating it as such. The main value of Bitcoin may, in retrospect, turn out to be the lessons it offers to central banks on the prospects of electronic currency, and on how to enhance efficiency and cut transactions cost.”"

If everyone converted the interest or lending wallet amount at the same time, they would all get the same rate. Doesn't mean they can cash it all out without crashing the price. That's the same with any crypto. The value of a coin won't hold above half the value if just a small percentage is sold. To cancel the lending would obviously cause a crash so not sure what else they could have done. Because they made profits, they probably could compensate the recent loaners.

Remember the marketing for bitconnect said people were loaning them BCC not USD but it was actually the value of the coins at the time of the loan rather than the coins themselves (as I suppose all loans must have some value).

They returned BCC tokens to them so I think the users would first need to send the same amount back before they would sort out anything. I think those in the last two months would only have got back less than half so they could probably be compensated in BTC. You have to remember they are getting legal letters at the mo so can't do too much even if they wanted to. People are being advised to sell their coins (by the class action lawyers).

Yeah that only makes sense if they don't release all the USD at the same time, which they did when they cancelled the lending. Obviously they didn't leave it in the lending wallet as that would have been even worse for the coin. In a normal crash, though, the lending would still continue so there was no real way to lose if you were in the lending rather than just holding the coin. Holding the coin would give better returns but more risk. I think the company should probably buy back all the coins cheap if it crashed as it will stop the interest giving out too many coins and flooding the market as there would be no buyers of the coin at a certain point.

You have to understand many people made a lot of money with bitconnect while the lending was operational. I think bitconnect was supposed to do something about the people who only joined in the last couple of months but again this assumes the BCC coin won't go back up. Some people have even suggested (and got hated for it) that people buy back more BCC at the lower price as the averaging down will be immense. So if they were owed $10k at BCC=$363 (and got about 30 tokens) but bought another 100 at $10 now, the BCC price would only need to reach about $80 for them to get all their money back etc.

I keep trying to explain they didn't run out of anything and had made lots of profits by sharing the growth of the coin with the lenders (who didn't mind because they also made money). They only paid in BCC tokens and had loads of them. They only accepted BCC tokens too. They didn't need to have a BTC wallet on the site as people could even buy BCC with ETH on another exchange and send them BCC to the BCC web-wallet. I think these sites need to start using external exchanges and also only accept their own coin as this will stop people thinking they are stealing BTC (how is it possible they stole BTC if they didn't use it for anything or accept it as payment??).

About cryptos, I'm sure there are some companies that do buy-backs of the coin they issued when they profit etc as that would make them not a Ponzi but all others would be just a bubble as nothing really is backing up the price. Also, they can usually be cloned if they are open source so they aren't unique either. They just depend on a community to support them etc.

Oh that just made me realise that bitconnect probably did do buy-backs!! So obviously they wouldn't be a Ponzi...the buying of their own token (maybe with ICO funds or with profits) was probably why the coin rose so much. If they kept some of the extra BCC they were accumulating from their lending, just the fact they took it out of circulation would increase the price..so it is almost the same as buying back their token from profits (but to profit they would need to sell the extra BCC so maybe they could have just sold some and kept the rest out of circulation?).

Why am I getting so much negative trust comments? Crestington (I think he put me on ignore) has just shown how bitconnect lending wasn't a real Ponzi as the lending was profitable (not many people compounded it but that was even covered even if everyone did). You can't say bitcoin and other cryptos are not non-deliberate ponzis as there is nothing unique about them or anything backing up their price so they are all a bubble, anyway. I am in no way associated with any of these sites but just realised how good an idea they were because they generate profits (the people lending the coin would have got more holding but they were still happy and didn't mind bitconnect taking some of the profits from them - assuming bitconnect sold most of the extra BCC they gained from the lending).

These profits could then be used to market the coin and increase the amount of buyers (this is the only way any crypto gains value btw before you say that's a bad thing). So I can see why people didn't like it but they had no reason to stop as long as they adjusted the interest so that it didn't exceed their growth.

Anyway, BCCX is on now.. I've never managed to buy any yet. I suppose they will need half a billion now to overcome all this bad press haaha  but I think they'd make everyone go mental if they became successful again (I mean all these people saying they are a scam will need therapy- there was something else I was going to ramble on about but forgot )

OH shit I'm not buying BCCX now they have stopped the $150 promotion......  it's at just over $10 now   (just logged in)

It said $150 before instead the real price:



Just found this (which also uses my non-deliberate Ponzi term): https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/world-bank-bitcoin-a-bubble-not-a-deliberate-ponzi/

"The 15-page paper, authored by economist Kaushik Basu, explores the science and mechanics behind various forms of Ponzi schemes. Included is a class of “non-deliberate” or naturally occurring Ponzi schemes, which are really just asset bubbles. Explained by others under what’s referred to as the “Greater Fool Theory”, people buy into these assets unaware of their fundamental value and only because it is expected that others will drive their price even higher through speculation. “This kind of a spiral, which has nothing more to it than people’s expectations feeding into more expectations, can cause huge price rises.”"

I missed this post before but would just like to point out that the premine is a good thing for these platforms (as obviously it is counterproductive for the coin to be dumped as it would cost them more in interest payments the less value it has). I don't recall how many were sold in the ICO but probably not too much but the other 3-4million was kept as a reserve but never put into circulating supply as far as I can tell (I think there is closer to 10million money supply now btw not 6.3). They may have had to use some of the reserve at the end as they paid everyone out at the same time, but I don't think they did (remember this reserve would have more than doubled if they staked it but not sure they staked all of it as it would have competed with the customer stakes). As a comparison, DavorCoin had a 10million premine and only offered 6million in the ICO. BTW, obviously it is not a good idea for the reserve to be put in supply as it usually would decrease the coin price from inflation but at least it is available if needed and would act as a warning sign that interest rates would need to be reduced (if the company weren't that clever about calculating things). In bitconnect's case they just kept accumulating more and more BCC as their lending was so profitable for them (so I can't see how they got anywhere near using their reserves).

Anyway I digress. For your amusement, I put together a small compilation of responses when coinexchange announced its BCC wallet was back online :



HEY HEY HEY


BTW just noticed something I forgot to take out that seemed to be from bitconnect but @teambitconnectx is a fake account

There was a new company formed with all the promoters (who now deny being directors?) ....interesting info I just heard about Glenn Arcaro (this was a week before the lending ended):

Listen at this time: https://youtu.be/saLPS6WKMAA?t=316