Another nutty one. I already showed you the volume from coinmarketcap (which includes EVERY exchange combined). There was barely a few million $ in volume (meaning less than a million BCC was sold). They were all just panic sellers thinking the price would go to nothing. There was no volume before it to suggest any insider trading either.

Remember also that their internal exchange opened a couple of days later at the normal $200+ price. Many people who were waiting for it to open again sold for $200 instead of $30 at other exchanges.

The BitConnectX ICO is clearly selling out within seconds every day. The fact they were raking in $13million before on each round (selling 260k BCCX at $50 each) then the BCC offer (of $150 per BCC) means that on current prices they are losing well over $10 million each day if buyers are using BCC instead now (which shows how stupid your argument is that they were the ones dumping for a measly few million dollars and it's not as if they could do it secretly on the blockchain either).

On the day Bitconnect closed the lending they still were only offering to exchange BCC at $22 or whatever the market price was for the BitConnectX ICO but the next day they upped it to $150. So if they hadn't offered that price, they would be making over $10million more each day in the ICO (assuming most people don't use BTC any more for the ICO - as it would be pretty stupid to). They must know the BCC will go up to previous levels again. Don't you see how your argument doesn't make  sense (I know I haven't explained it very well but it seems obvious they haven't cheated anyone - they can't control users dumping the coins after releasing them all)

Don't know if they have a blockchain yet, but do you not think they are actually selling that much? They were selling out before the BCC offer so that would have been $13million they were raising each day (it's actually over 260k they seem to sell each day)??

I just addressed the Texan thing in the above post but are you now doing your own lending platform (your signature):

"The cryptoverse is now populated with neophyte enthusiasts, many who were first introduced to crypto via stumbling upon the likes of BitConnect with their jury's-still-out lending programs, regarded by some as being unsustainable over the long haul. Regardless if the sentiment is accurate or not, the truth of the matter is that there are now countless folks acclimated with the lending platform model as a means to [hopefully] enrich themselves in the crypto space.

After the quasi-success of BitConnect, myriad clones of the model sprung up, many of which immediately vanished at their ICOs' end, leaving some participates spooked while others sought out, then enrolled into yet another pseudo-promising lending platform clone, both groups possessing lighter pocketbooks after participating in rogue entities.

What makes this LendFunding endeavor sound is that the person behind it is well-known in the space, i.e. not hiding his vitals, and the entity of which initial funding is sought - YuTü.Co.in - has a solid foundation business model, primed for long-term growth in tokenizing YouTuber channels of opted-in YouTubers."

I thought you were from USA too and didn't you scare another lending platform off and made them close down with everyone's money (Elektra)? If you hadn't exposed them they would have probably made many people lots of money unless it was their intention all along to disappear.

What's this $110? I think someone else mentioned it but it's $150 per BCC for bitconnectx.  I also pointed out that the Cease and Desist order didn't understand what staking was (it seemed to want to know what company was responsible for paying the staked funds lol) and said it was a security. So how can you take what they say about the lending seriously?

Also, you must see that the ICO limit on bitconnectx gets sold every day?? Over a quarter of a million BitconnectX.  Have you tried buying in some of these lending ICOs (bitconnect-clones) lately?? They all are almost impossible to buy usually. I was never able to get any UnixCoin or UcoinCash as it was always too many buyers even though you usually get many days/rounds to try and buy (incidentally, they are both now worth a lot more than the ICO price).



So they know what staking is (the coins appear automatically in the wallet - started at 10% a month with BCC but reduced by 2% every six months) but are then asking for the source of the funds lol

Are you serious? I already pointed out the factually incorrect statements from some of those stories (about them running off with bitcoins etc). All they had left when they closed the lending were the same BCC tokens some people are saying are now worthless - the same ones they left all the investors with as that was the only currency the lending platform used (although they were paid in relation to the USD value of the coins when they were lent or when they are withdrawn from the lending wallet). Why would they want their millions of BCC to be worthless (which they stake hundreds of thousands of each month)? I also showed they didn't dump them either (they were more than likely buying them cheap the other day). Actually if I look on the rich list, there has basically been no recent activity on many addresses and I don't think they stake from those largest wallets either.

There are hundreds of these coins and BCC is nowhere near as bad as most of the coins on exchanges. A lot of them are pure scams that get dumped on by the devs and you say you know a lot about crypto? There are no laws about these coins in most countries and bitconnect lending wasn't operating as a ponzi when they stopped it.


I am not posting for any particular reason other than to try to correct people's prejudices (which seldom works anyway due to the little understood 'backfire effect'). I just tend to go on a bit sometimes  

So what part don't you agree with?? Bitconnect always profited in BCC from the lending system and didn't need to take BCC from new lenders to pay old ones. So it wasn't a ponzi. When someone lent 1BCC for example, by the end of the term the capital release would only cost bitconnect say 0.1BCC if the coin had gone up 10 times in that 8 months or whatever (in practice it only took a few months to go 10X) and the interest paid was also far lower than the gain in the coin price. They could have easily paid 50% higher interest rates (I'm guessing but a lot higher than 1%) and still been in profit!!! They didn't have a guaranteed percentage for reinvests or lower amounts so could have easily carried on without even changing the terms of the loans!

Regarding the fees, my wallet lets me choose and I didn't choose the fastest, but low/medium. I set it also to dynamic fees so it can tell how much is needed for certain speeds. I would have paid even more if I wanted it to be faster but any slower wasn't much cheaper so I set it to medium speed.

EDIT: Just did the calculation and at 1.5% per day that is about 56% per month and 200X in a year. The coin was initially valued at sub-$1 in the ICO and I think fell to 16cents early on but went up to near $500 all in a year so the 1% wasn't excessive at all. 1% daily is only 35X in a year!!!

What I don't like, is idiots saying the scam 'collapsed' when they never collapsed. They always paid less BCC in interest than was lent to them in the lending system. It would have carried on fine without all these people saying it was a Ponzi etc. It is obvious to any sane person who isn't traumatised enough to have to believe these Ponzi stories to psychologically survive.

Also, as I explained before, to send just 6BTC from my wallet at a normal fee range (few hundreds satoshis per byte) I had to pay hundreds of dollars. My wallet wouldn't have charged me more than I needed to pay but obviously most wallets like electrum generate lots of inputs etc so the more you send the more the fee would be.

Oh I seem to deleted what I wrote before but basically those were normal charges for sending that amount of BTC from my wallet, in the last few days I gave examples to before.

Instead of just typing it I will copy and paste the images from electrum below from a couple of transactions in the last two days:

hmmm are you sure you were able to send multiple bitcoins for $2 haha  I don't think that's possible. I know I always end up paying hundreds of dollars when sending more than a few BTC. Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I doubt it.


Also, I've heard of tether but many people are sceptical about it really being backed by real money. They also have very predatory terms which means they reserve the right to confiscate funds for no real reason.


Also, the last point you made says it all. Investors haven't lost any money yet unless they sell their tokens cheap. If there wasn't so much backlash against the company (which always paid people the advertised daily interest) then they would still be open today and everyone would be making 30% per month etc. Don't you feel guilty about making everyone lose so much? Many people in bitconnect became very wealthy too as it was very easy. They may have got better investments in other ways but the bitconnect model would have carried on fine without the bad press.

You might have noticed that many of the promoters of bitconnect got together to form a new UK company recently (in the last 6 months I think, can't remember when). If it was illegal, I'm sure they wouldn't have been putting their names down (literally dozens of people were listed in the company filing).

Obviously, bitconnect lending wasn't a Ponzi as they were profiting from the lending system and didn't need to use BCC tokens from new members to pay old ones (since they always profited, they didn't even need to start using their vast BCC reserves which staked millions). Remember the lending was only in BCC tokens and that is all it involved. Bitconnect didn't even need to have an exchange or BTC wallet to operate their lending. Some lending platforms only started on external exchanges but I suppose an internal exchange gives you more control on the price.

Of course it wasn't illegal or they wouldn't be operating. The UK financial conduct authority (FCA) do not care about these cryptos and have told me they have no control and do not even seem concerned. In UK law they are simply software utilities people are buying. The fact that people buy and sell them in a market is irrelevant. FCA have warned people against investing into bitcoin but what else do you expect them to do over something they don't control.

Bitconnect were no ponzi scheme and the lending could have carried on for much longer as they were sharing the profits of the coin price gain. The price of the coin would have kept going up until the bubble burst, a bit like the housing market. It could have continued still after that. What do you think bitcoin is going to do when it crashes? It will go back up again. The difference is the housing market can't go down to zero as there are actual unique uses for houses. Bitcoin has thousands of competitors that do the same thing and often a lot better.

Maybe you should tell this website they are promoting illegal ponzis if you really believe it: http://icoreview.site (they only promote lending platforms and not other ICOs)

I'm losing so far but nevermind it was with money I made when it went up last time.

Bitconnect is about $18 again.... I bought another 100 lol

No I already showed there was no massive volume on the exchanges in the dump. It's gone down again now but very low volume again if you look on coinmarketcap. Some people are probably selling their coins still as it was only a few days ago the lending ended.


On the other thing about refunds, I've heard three different youtubers (including Craig and Trevon) talk about this refund for people coming in late and I don't really watch anything on youtube so I'm thinking there is something to it

You mean this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-yLGFuu2dc  (he's saying Trump is a 'VERY STABLE GENIUS' btw haha)



I think he's misunderstood due to his personality type.

I did borrow a phrase for bitconnect earlier that people used for Trump though (Trump Derangement Syndrome and Bitconnect Derangement Syndrome). In other words they both make people go crazy.

Here is the bit where he mentions Trump Derangement Syndrome: https://youtu.be/u-yLGFuu2dc?t=890

So if a PoS coin registered with that state they would be legal? I don't know how it works but assumed they wouldn't be able to register or wouldn't be accepted.
Obviously it's just the opinion of that state and probably doesn't apply to other states.

Bitconnect coin (BCC) is a lot faster and cheaper to transact than bitcoin.......so bitcoin should be technically worse unless I'm mistaken?

Well  have you seen how fast BitconnectX sell out the ICO each day? I don't think BCC will be that low for long.

According to the Texan Cease and Desist, staking coins are a security lol. Not just the lending haha.  Are PoS coins illegal now in USA? I thought Ethereum moved to that?

I'm pretty sure people are holding onto bitcoins because they think it is going to go up in value. It's not as if it can be used for anything else other than some sort of speculative asset with nothing backing it. All tokens don't really have any other backing other than supply and demand. At least bitconnect's model always worked despite all the bad press and made many people very rich. I didn't invest much in it. Most of mine is in DavorCoin as they started by paying 2% a day and that only opened at the end of November (4 times as much as I ever invested in bitconnect but I still got all my investment back from them overall).

By the way, they obviously could always change terms for new loans instead of guaranteeing 0.25% at least for $10k plus forever but do you really think that is excessive? If you work it out it's less than 2.5 times the investment amount a year. I'm pretty sure people who hold bitcoin expect it to go up more than that each year, some speculating it will go up to a millions dollars!  As already mentioned, the bitconnect model also gave value by guaranteeing the investment amount in USD so people could invest in cryptos without worrying about their portfolio going down in value (that doesn't even include the extra interest they also paid). Any sane person would prefer the bitconnect model than the bitcoin model. They shut down due to all the idiots saying they were a Ponzi. Look at the housing market and how many idiots also believe it always goes up. Bitconnect's model wouldn't have failed as there was no reason for the price not to go up all the time until something forced them to end it. Coin holders may have lost out in the end when the bubble burst but that's just the same as the current economy which goes in cycles of boom and bust. The difference is bitconnect would have had enough collateral to refund the guaranteed investments if they were allowed to run normally (remember that they wouldn't necessarily need to refund them all at once and the coin would probably rise again slowly after a crash - in the long term the lending could still just carry on after a BCC crash if they didn't face any legal issues). Obviously all coin holders take the risk of a crash but the investments would have been easily guaranteed if it wasn't made to shut down.


I forgot to mention that apparently bitconnect are working on refunding those who came in the last couple of months and didn't have enough time to get their investment back... not sure what they will do but they certainly have enough profit to do that.

No, they didn't need bitcoin to go up. The only thing they needed was their coin value to increase more than the interest they paid (over any time period they chose), or it would start costing them more in BCC than was lent to them and this would in time eat into their reserves (they were profitable so obviously never even had to use their BCC reserves and could easily have carried on). They hopefully also had bitcoin reserves from the ICO but the lending was profitable so didn't really need it once they'd used the ICO funds for development and marketing etc.

I've been trying to explain all this is incorrect and they didn't need any bitcoins or money coming in (they profited from the lending system). Look at the volumes when the price went down and you can see they didn't dump any coins.

Also, other people have shown that their exchange still was $220 when it reopened. In fact, some people managed to sell there at that price when it was $40 on other exchanges.