Bitconnect was only about cryptocurrency and the USD was just denoting the value of the BCC coins they would receive when they got around to converting them to BCC (you didn't have to convert the interest immediately as it was left in the lending wallet). Crypto companies can never deal in fiat currency without a lot more regulations and KYC etc.

Anyway, the truth is there are many of these types of websites coming out now with lending platforms. I suppose most don't allow US in the ICOs any more (bitconnectX excludes USA too).

That bit of large text (which I didn't quote here) was quoted from someone else but it was just trying to also explain how there is no real value to the stocks unless the profits of the company really affect the price. In actual fact, they do, but only because another company can acquire the stocks at a higher price if the company is successful (assuming no dividends or buy backs etc). If you imagine it's talking about cryptos, then it would be true most of the time that the company profits do not actually affect the price. They would be called a bubble or non-deliberate Ponzi so all winners will be matched by losers (no extra wealth is generated so it's a zero-sum game).

I don't know what that was trying to show except prove that the volumes are really low and bitconnect didn't ever in their history seem to dump their BCC (how scam coins profit). They are even taking it as worth $150 in the new ICO. Also, aren't they raising $13million worth of cryptos every day? Not sure what your "U$.250M" figure was about. Assuming they aren't making it up, they could have made about $12million more each day if they didn't accept BCC for $150.

Many people think bitcoin is a bubble or 'non-deliberate' Ponzi (https://businesstech.co.za/news/finance/202958/what-bitcoin-has-in-common-with-the-mmm-ponzi-scheme-according-to-russia/  and https://news.bitcoin.com/professor-sec-bitcoin-penny-stock-ponzi/) and going by the history of the fiat currency and the lack of controls globally on money supply it has to be said it operates in a similar way with repeated boom and busts.

A scam Ponzi coin would collapse when the devs or owners dump the coins. The lending system actually offers protections against this to investors (now that you understand how all these cryptos are ponzis in the sense of being zero-sum). Even Amazon never offered dividends on its stocks and the price has risen at absurd rates from inception. The argument with stocks with no profit share or buy backs is that the company can be acquired at a premium if they are successful and this will obviously mean the shareholders could benefit in the future when companies make profit, unlike cryptos which don't need to be bought back when a company is acquired and don't act like normal shares. Even non-scam cryptos for the most-part including bitcoin are simply speculation and a zero sum game which most people should be aware of when investing (i.e. they are a non-deliberate Ponzi or speculative bubble).

I think if you look at it outside its marketing (their terms are pretty clear though that they can change the lending rates) BitConnect were never a Ponzi and they only paid rates sustainable compared to the growth of the coin. They generated wealth with the lending rates but the coin price still increased dramatically despite up to 100% per year staking inflation. There was no reason for this not to continue (probably with more sustainable interest rates) and they could have carried on generating profits for a while. I'm assuming they sold their extra BCC from the lending rates as profit to further grow, otherwise it would still act similarly to a share buy back by reducing the circulation of the coin. The bottom line is that the lending was profitable and also made lenders happy with their share of the return. They had been reducing their rates already so they never even got into their BCC reserves - something else that should make holders optimistic of the future.

So on the surface the marketing seemed deceptive but the massive returns were always paid on time so there was no real fraud perpetrated, especially considering 'all' cryptos are non-deliberate ponzis. The bitconnect system generated the company profits which they could use to invest and generate more income and coin growth. Many legitimate stocks end up at almost zero value due to people selling and companies failing but that doesn't make them a ponzi. On the other hand, bitconnect generated lots of income from the lending rates and so to call them a ponzi (when nearly all cryptos are already non-deliberate ponzis) is a bit far-fetched. They found a system which allowed them to grow their coin value while still generating huge profits (almost no other coin generates profits like that). The competition didn't help, but bitconnect was the first and should have been able to carry on if it wasn't for the bad press and legal issues.

I don't think many people know much about it other than it is going to launch an exchange (which I suppose the X stands for)

https://thebitcoinnews.com/bitconnect-faces-lawsuit-for-operating-wide-reaching-ponzi-scheme/

Even the story is saying bitconnect made millions from the lending and trading platform (so the returns they paid were never excessive compared to the growth of the coin). A mistake in the lawsuit seems to be this 'promise' of 1% a day which was never true. There was no guaranteed daily percentage and often they paid 0% (only the largest investments, not any reinvests, would guarantee a smaller percentage bonus on top of at least 0.1% to 0.25%).

By the way, why aren't people more interested in laser.online (Some actor known as Anthony Garley appeared towards the end of its life) which was a complete Ponzi scheme and stole everyone's BTC? It's because these are known to be HYIP and often people get into them knowing they will collapse. There are no laws against these crypto sites in UK at least, especially as most cryptos are just unbacked speculative assets even the top ones like bitcoin.

The reason I posted on this thread was that people like you kept saying bitconnect 'collapsed' when it is blatantly false. They profited hugely from the lending and were not in any financial troubles. So they didn't 'collapse' in the way most people think and could have carried on fine if it wasn't for all the 'scam' complaints and getting authorities interested. They never scammed anyone before they were forced to close the lending and still paid everyone back their loans early at the 15 day average market price.

Well obviously the people who say the truth are often hated. So you are telling me that they are making up all the BCCX they sell each day? So even before they closed the lending they didn't receive $13million each day in BTC or equivalent assets? They are losing if they did always sell out because they are taking BCC tokens worth less than 10% of the price they are accepting for them and limited liquidity too at the moment.

So when you invest in any ICO, why is that not a Ponzi if the value of the token isn't really based on the success of the company as profits are not shared (at least with most stocks there is some eventual hope of a profit share or acquisition later on but someone buying a company that issued these crypto tokens in the past does not need to buy these tokens back)? Aren't these tokens usually a zero sum game so if the price goes up there has to be losers when people sell (i.e. all gains are from bringing in new people to buy the token at the expense of others)??

This is so obvious I never had to look any of this up to find these answers but I have now done a bit of digging and ask you to ponder this from someone (didn't bitconnect not only generate profits as the 'broker' but also from the lending too? This is unlike almost all other cryptos which are totally Ponzi-like):

"When you buy a stock, your money goes to the last person(s) that previously owned your shares – and to pay a fee for the transaction. The only generation of wealth comes from the transaction fees and that goes to the brokerage. The direction of the stock price is determined by the balance of people buying vs. selling the stock – a net buying forces the price up and a net selling forces it down. The degree depends on transaction volume and rate. The point being that not everyone who holds the stock in question can cash out at a net gain.
If you accept the fact that the activity of trading stocks has no way in itself of generating wealth, then it it is a short path to the conclusion that trading stocks can only transfer wealth (to the brokerage and to people who sell at a gain – all from people who sell at a loss)."

How many times can you say pyramid and scam in one short post - must be a record. They are accepting BCC tokens for their new ICO BitconnectX and BCC markets have such low comparative volumes that it would be worthless for them to dump and also counterproductive (they already lose well over $10million a day from the initial panic-selling taking BCC for $150 as they would have raised $13million a day instead taking BTC and other coins)?

If it's about visibility (who all these forum naysayers go after for promoting 'scams') what about one of the largest websites in the world :
(around the top 100 now in the world and 38th in USA according to Alexa, a big rise even from recent months)



The crazy thing is they were promoting obvious and unsustainable ponzi scams such as bitpetite and laser.online and raking in millions of dollars in commission payments (the @bccponzi twitter guy showed how much commission they made from bitpetite I believe: https://twitter.com/bccponzi/status/923611568151113728 - millions of dollars of referrals each month!). Obviously, they also promoted bitconnect.

Are you suggesting the ICO only sold out after bitconnect closed the lending?? They were selling out $13million every day before they closed the lending. They are in fact taking a hit of over $10million a day accepting BCC tokens at the current price (assuming most people buy with BCC now - obviously the ICO is very hard to buy but so are many that sell out quickly).

Saw this on icoreview.site (this site only promotes these 'evil' but often profitable lending cryptos so why aren't people trying to shut them down??):
"Please help to share our website to your local cryptocurrency community.
Thank you.
I made myself into a millionaire with bitcoins and cryptocurrencies, and I will make you into one too. Even with the recent debacles in TEX and ARC, still believe in me."

I'm starting to wonder if people really understand how crypto or even ICOs work. Yes many stocks and securities are the same and don't pay dividends etc but in this unregulated space, ICOs are just a way to raise funds. The underlying asset people buy is not linked to the profitability of the company issuing the tokens/coins. It is just one big Ponzi scheme (as people like to call it) and nobody will be able to cash it all in at anything like the same average value paid. The company already has all the funds and just gave you tokens in exchange. The only reason they hold value is people are reluctant to sell at less than they paid unless some bad news hits. Are people really this delusional and think any sort of crypto has any underlying value related to the company they just sent free money too? When to avoid any similarities to securities in USA, they have to be careful about sharing profits (although this hasn't stopped many and no court cases have resolved this issue as it's mainly unregulated everywhere).

Saying that, as people like to go after all these 'scams' that seem to be more profitable to the average crypto investor than most others, here is a long list of portals that specialise in promoting 'lending platforms', the new 'evil' that makes everyone a lot more money on average than most other ICOs.

Also, I keep seeing messages on this forum of how bitconnect has no value but people don't seem to write about how their BitconnectX ICO raises $13million each day (or at least a couple of million if people are paying in BCC tokens mostly now - before they allowed BCC at $150 value they were scertainly making over $13million each day). Doesn't this suggest they have a much brighter future than most other companies out there?


Lending Platform portal sites (let's all get them shut down   and get the owners jailed   )  :
(by the way, people orchestrating this hate on these good crypto models, whether deliberately or otherwise, are harming people whilst at the same time galvanising support for cryptos in general in an unhealthy and corrupting way - this is how governments and societies have always controlled people and I'm sure some people understand how it works and it's not all been a random occurrence - and do you think the people orchestrating this corruption are good people ??)

http://icoreview.site (one of the most popular and dedicated only to these bitconnect clones)
https://www.ffffffico.com/
http://cryptolendingreview.com
http://lendingICOs.com
https://ico-verifiedlist.com/lending-icos/
http://cryptolendingcompare.com/
https://www.topbitcoinlendingsites.com/
https://cryptolending.review/
https://www.cryptolendingico.com/
https://www.cryptolendingprograms.com/

Those are just 10 but there are many more. Lets all get them shut down and jailed !!  

WOW DavorCoin is truly going to be the best lending platform now.

They've found a great new way to encourage lending. They allow people to get their capital release anytime they choose. They just have to pay back the interest (only up to the first month and half of month two's). This should stop all the Ponzi accusations as this proves they don't have any trouble returning these loans whenever anyone wants them back and also keeps customers in control of their own money. Genius.

Others are also going to copy this.

Everyone has to get into this platform now:

I had a look at the ICO. You are saying these people are more legit than people in the Far East for what reasons?

I noticed some very non-legit marketing methods. Firstly, you must know that the value of the any token (unless somehow linked to the profitability of the business) has no relation to how well a company does. The main factor in the price is the starting price in the ICO (simply because investors prefer not to sell at a loss). Now you understand that, do you not think offering a FIFTY PERCENT (50%) discount for early investors is a bit of a red flag? They will be encouraged by this 50% potential gain in the price. There are no promises, but bitconnect didn't promise anything either for most loan amounts. The lending had the desired effect, though, and the coin increased enough that bitconnect could share the gains in this way without ever being a Ponzi scheme.


Now that you understand that your tokens are not linked to the profitability of the company in any real way, you should also understand if the coin appreciates in value not everyone can win. Try getting everyone to cash out at the value they want. It will never happen in the markets. It's a zero sum game as it is not backed by any company profits (remember, bitconnect's lending generated profits for the company and also its users - just at a lower rate of profit than if users simply held the coin instead). Are you sure this ICO is not a Ponzi? It can't be a security, remember, like normal stocks (or they lose the USA market). Their claims that they will bring cryptos to a billion people from a measly 5 million is a bit overblown too.



Look at how their legal team tries to wriggle out of saying it could be classed as a security and thus not authorised in the USA (granted there have been no court cases to date so that could mean no ICO token is a security, but the SEC doesn't stop warning people about it - TokenPay had to refund Americans half way through their ICO):
"However, the Platform is designed in a manner that would fail if SCR tokens are simply held with the intention of reselling at an appreciated value. To clarify, the Platform is an interactive mediadriven platform. SCR tokens are held and used to interact on the Platform. No other tokens or currency may be used therefore, and non-use of the Platform will drive down the market price of the Tokens. Thus, if the general public’s primary objective is to hold an SCR token for investment (I focus on SCR tokens, because SP may not be traded on the secondary market), then the entire Platform will lose value due to non-use. This will render the Tokens worthless. Thus, any primary intent in holding the Tokens solely for investment purposes makes no sense."

I hope you are not invested in it to make money (or hope that most other 'investors' aren't trying to make money), going by the above.

At least bitconnect's model had no problems with price appreciation!

Anyone seen this @bccponzi twitter guy (if you think I have a lot of free time, then he is on another level talking about scams and ponzis haha):

I am probably not following you correctly but did you really mean that it's a Ponzi if you don't have control of the money and they don't pay it back? Bitconnect gave everyone their investments back (at the 15 day average value) and the value only went down because many sold them at the same time. The same would happen with any coin if a lot was dumped in one day. Like I said before, bitcoin has almost double the supply so should be half the value of bitconnect, all other things being equal. So a valuation of a few hundred dollars for bitconnect wasn't excessive. Everyone who spread the misinformation are more to blame for the current value than the investors of the coin. The site is still up and running, so the coin should increase again once they figure out what to do next.

Remember the BitconnectX ICO sells out every day almost immediately and takes in $13million worth of funds each time (although they value BCC at $150 since bitconnect closed the lending). How are so many people investing in it still if everyone thinks it's a scam??? All the people saying it's a scam are probably in the minority.

LOL you are not rewarded by the fees. A coin can choose any random staking reward they want in the code. Some like BuzzCoin pay 160% per month compounded (100% per month if you only get one reward a month but as long as you get it every few days it will compound to 160%). It hasn't done too bad. I actually sold too early or would have made about 10 more BTC. Obviously, BuzzCoin is more of a Ponzi than bitconnect as it didn't really have the value of guaranteeing the investment amount when you lend (as long as it was allowed to continue without being a Ponzi - remember the interest and capital release was always less BCC than was lent so it was never operating as a Ponzi or inflating the amount of BCC in circulation like staking does, it was actually deflating the supply and allowing the coin to grow faster).

Everyone knows sites like cloudmining (almost all) and Bitpetite type HYIP are ponzis. Bitconnect and lending platforms are nothing like these (the trick is they have their own coin). Everyone must know about the real ponzis by now and get into them knowing what they actually are (it's hard to think anyone who knows about crypto believe they are legit).

I'm sure lots of people are subscribing to him to see how it ends up lol   UUUPPPPP!!!




The remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btSAi4wzsvU

"It's the right time to buy bitconnect" haha  : https://youtu.be/-c0kBqnCzxc?t=1490