|
I have no idea how this is going to work legally. It'll be pretty much unprecedented when it comes to proving to the court that the tokens represent actual holdings of the mortgage used to back the house.
Theoretically, it may be able to work given that the house is used as collateral. However, even with that said I would highly doubt you'll be able to find backers of this kind of magnitude internationally, as I said there is just too much of a legal risk.
Also, I'd say that 4% per annum seems a bit on the low side. Houses are much less liquid than cryptos despite them being somewhat more stable in value in certain instances, making it less attractive as a collateral. All of these risks that the banks isn't willing to take will apply to the funder of your security as well.
|
|
|
|
Well, if Marco's scheme involved going long, Magneto may be in good shape. If it involved going short, not so much. I'd like to see how it all plays out too. Better get some needed supplies ready.
Im sorry, but what do you think giving him more negative trust is going to accomplish? He already has multiple negative ratings warning others about him being late on loans and that his behavior is indicative of trying to pull an exit scam. I can’t imagine what additional negative ratings could possibly say that would get someone to change their mind about trusting him. Because 3 different defaults on three different occasions is worse than 2 defaults on 2 occasions. We will see. If Magneto doesn't complain, then I won't chime in. I probably won't chime in if someone else new joins in the red paint party either. Get your facts straight if you're going to keep up with the Marco. I haven't defaulted 3x on loans.. Um, if you look at the whole context, I haven't accused you of defaulting on 3x loans at this time. I was only responding to why I would leave more negative trust if and when you do. As long as I don't see evidence of Magneto complaining, I will assume that you two are working it out in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. We have been communicating on telegram. Marco stated that he needed an extension and I did allow it. Due date is now end of the week. |
|
|
|
Nevertheless, the upside push looked attractive only from the intraday perspective, for it lacked the volume required to declare a breakout action. We covered our view elaboratively here, discussing three converging bearish factors that could withhold bitcoin gains from flourishing any further.
This article really aged badly, didn't it? I fail to see any serious problem mentioned at all through the article. In fact, the only problem that they mentioned was the fact that this rally may not be long lasting, which isn't even a problem considering that nobody expects a prolonged bull market at this stage yet. I thought at first they were talking about some fundamental issue about the network judging from the title. I somewhat echo the still bearish sentiment presented by the article though. I still think that there is a possibility that bitcoin could correct down to $4k, once this short term volatility comes to an end. That said though, expect the second half of the year to be much more bullish as we are already seeing signs of a trend reversal. |
|
|
|
Now that the bottom is done and the bull market is back, get ready for lots of people to come out and tell people not to buy it.
I already had two articles pop up in my feed saying how people shouldn't buy bitcoin and how it isn't a good investment and how it will just keep going down. I guess the nocoiners feel the need to come out and speak against it now that the market is once again proving them wrong. It's gonna be a rough couple of years for these people haha!
I'm personally looking forward to seeing my coworker's reaction from here on out. Every couple of days he'll talk about how stupid cryptocurrencies and blockchain in general is, and make some joke about me buying bitcoin. I wonder if it will only intensify during this long bull run (doubling down on dumb) or if he'll just stop talking about it haha.
I actually think the opposite. Once the bull market goes in full swing, it's very likely that mainstream media will take the chance to jump on the wagon and project completely unsustainable predictions, much like how media did back in 2017. Mainstream media always reflects the market sentiment of the time, because that's what's most popular and creates the most buzz. We've seen negative articles during the bear market, because of the fear and uncertainty within the market. That's just how things work. Of course, I wouldn't expect everything to be positive even when we're in a bull market because there are certain bitcoin perma-bears that simply will reject anything that you tell them, even if the fundamentals may be improving. But the majority of institutions I think that have entered the crypto market like JP Morgan are opportunistic, and will likely not speak negatively of bitcoin in a bull market, since it involves a vested interest. |
|
|
|
Hi, I got convinced by someone to invest in what I now think is a Crypto Ponzi Scheme Platform that said it could earn 10%+ a month in ROI. The person who convinced me didn't own the platform/company, they were simply a "Referral Marketer" that used that platform's "Referral Link" as apart of their Referral Program. The person would gain 5% of my daily profits from the Platform for referring me.
The platform has locked my money in there (which is allowed according to their T&C) + my profits have dwindled to 1% a month.
---
I want to sue the person who referred me to this platform, but they think otherwise:
Their Argument
- They don't own the platform and are simply "affiliate marketers" for it by using the referral link
- They left the country and live elsewhere (but promoted this platform to me in my country)
My Argument
- They didn't have a financial services license (but Bitcoin in my country is not considered a financial product)
- They didn't have a registered company
Does this mean I could sue the person who referred me too? Or Could I only sue the company behind the actual ponzi platform?
Please let me know if I can sue this person + the costs, process, etc. And if it's worth it at all. I've invested $40,000 and my money is stuck on this platform.
You could argue that he's acting maliciously to mislead you into investing into a ponzi scheme. And since he's receiving a portion of what you invest, and he admits to being an affiliate, you could possibly be able to use that argument to your advantage to establish the concrete link between him and the ponzi in question. Although, we have no idea what jurisdiction you are in, or what the legal system is like within that jurisdiction. So whether this is actually an offense or not is unknown. I've heard of in the US lawsuits following the exit scam of Bitconnect, when a bunch of youtubers that were promoting the scheme apparently got sued (Trevon James, for example). I haven't heard much about the proceedings apart from the fact that a lawsuit was pending, though. I personally would say that your chances of success is slim, and you'll need to invest high amounts of energy and funds into this (again, concrete numbers are unknown since we don't know what country you are in). So unless it's a big amount involved, I wouldn't bother, but rather try settle this privately. |
|
|
|
|
Firstly, the bears were never fully out in the first place. I'd say that if there was some sort of measure of traders sentiment, it's still swinging towards the bearish side. Investors don't expect this rally to be taking prices up anywhere close to an all time high when we've just gotten past the period of sideways movement at the price floor.
Thus, a correction can and will occur as soon as there is resistance, and this time it seems to be at $5k. It's nothing out of the ordinary - in fact it was a matter of time.
I wouldn't panic at all. I think that there may still be some more time to go before this rally ends and a real correction comes, but if one does com, it's simply another opportunity to dollar cost average and accumulate BTC at sub-$5k prices, which I think is extremely cheap in the long run. I don't believe that we'll see anything lower than $3k, even if a big adjustment comes.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
I don't think the response time plays a big role on being at the first page because I have experience with many trader never responded for hours until the trade automatically cancel but still they managed to be on first page every time while I am logging in. Just because someone has a green rating for their response time doesn't mean that they'll always respond in time 100%, because it's based on historical figures. You may be right though. I'm just saying that personally, I've never seen anyone with below a yellow response rating (<30 mins on avg) have their ads listed at the front. On a side note, if you think that the payment method you are selling with is hindering your exposure, perhaps labelling it as "other online payment" instead will help. WU, Neteller, and gift cards seems to be omitted but it doesn't seem to apply to the "other online payment" category. I don't think the response time plays a big role on being at the first page because I have experience with many trader never responded for hours until the trade automatically cancel but still they managed to be on first page every time while I am logging in.
That's true response time doesn' make a difference. Anyway, LBC's have messed up response time algorithms. They never get it right. I've had instances where the traders called and told me they are still in the bed while LBC showed them as online. That has more to do with the last online stat, as opposed to the typical response time. |
|
|
|
To be fair, or just as unimpressed, they've been having problems with this when it was quiet too.
But it does make me wonder about how desperate it's going to become if there's another proper bubble. Last time it nearly finished off even the biggest operations and I've seen little mention of them making plans if it happens again.
There's no time to recruit and train enough people as it occurs and I doubt anyone would be willing to employ vast numbers on the off chance there's a few weeks of madness again.
A future bubble would be way more muscular and the millions of people who boned themselves up the posterior on the last one would be very fast to jump back in, let alone new arrivals.
Do you reckon the exchanges have secret fire power hidden away or are they going to wilt until the whole thing keels over?
With 2x the excitement it would be a massive undertaking to handle, 5-10x and your computer might vomit into your lap when you try to log in to an exchange. I certainly do hope that they've prepared themselves better for it this time. It should be common sense that customer demand and load on the service will be at an all time high in a bull market, when market activity is booming. They have the duty to ensure that the quality of service doesn't deteriorate as bull markets emerge, especially when it concerns the funds of customers. But from an exchange's perspective, it's certainly no easy task to call up temporary employees just for the same of responding to a short term boom in demand, and then laying them off as the bear market approaches. I guess all a regular person can do is sort their verification rubbish during quiet periods and hope there isn't a problem during the busy ones.
That's a good idea, though you're likely not going to be able to tackle the other issues that come with heightened demand, like slow support times, and website lags. There is really nothing you can do, but to pick an exchange/service that is at least somewhat reputable for their work ethic. On a side note, it also seemed like that in 2017, exchanges like Coinbase were more focused on developing new products rather than resolving existing issues with overflooding of their support system. |
|
|
|
I believe this would be very healthy, it would give enough time for BTC ecosystem to develop further, give sense of stability to institutional investors etc... without euphoria...
I agree with this part. Price stability seems to be a major part in determining the confidence of certain investors. I personally wouldn't care as much about what short term price movements are though, simply because of the fact that I'm a long term investor, and fundamentals in the long run is what will drive growth. That includes the actual network and its developments, adoption rates, institutional adoption, etc. that are completely unrelated to how prices move in the span of months or even years. So I really don't care whether or not prices go up by x% in a certain amount of time. However, your model likely won't pan out in the real world. People don't look at fundamentals when trading in the short term, rather, emotions play an extremely big role. That's why you see pumps like the one that we saw that took BTC from $4k to $5k, due to FOMO. You're going to see cycles of rallies and corrections, instead of steady growth. |
|
|
|
|
It makes no sense for some company that is seemingly affiliated with EOS to be distributing XLM tokens in an airdrop. I think that's as far as you need to go to tell that this is not legit.
You really don't need to even run any virustotal scans, even though that could help confirm things. Also, just because VirusTotal doesn't return a positive result for malicious content doesn't mean that there are potentially viruses that even them can't recognise at this time, or the scam is more sophisticated than just a simple infected file.
But I can assure you that no legit company will a) send mail requesting you to download something from a yahoo mail address, b) be conducting giveaways/handing out bonuses without any promotion on their official site and c) be using google forms and random file hosting sites to distribute their application. I agree with HCP here, this is concrete enough evidence that this should be avoided.
|
|
|
|
Hey Guys
I need your help and opinion here
I've made an exchange through Cahngelly Float (Dynamic), and they are holding my coins for KYC
What are my options here?
And giving the fact that I choose Changelly Float (No Fixed Rate), and the process may take some time, will my transaction get affected because of the rise of bitcoin price, in another word wil I get less coins?!
I have seen previous cases that were exactly like yours. IIRC the guy who sent the funds to Changelly ended up getting a lower rate on his exchange than when he sent the funds. I'd suggest asking them why KYC is needed, and also if sending back the funds to the sending address is an option instead of going through verification. Especially for larger amounts, it is possible that Changelly is selectively scamming users given their previous reputation through using KYC as an excuse to hold onto funds for longer. If that's not an option, unfortunately all you can do is probably negotiate with support whether or not a price lock-in can be done. But if they don't agree to that, then you're pretty much stuck with having to accept whatever rates you get when the verification passes. It's a reason why I don't like Changelly. |
|
|
|
|
I'm actually quite surprised with how nicely Binance has avoided having to change their policy on KYC thus far. It's a big reason why they've been able to capture a huge percentage of the market share in crypto exchanges in recent years, as other exchanges like Bittrex and Poloniex have already been pressured into putting in strict verification protocols.
Whether they can keep this up, especially through the next bull market is questionable.
It's clear that it's a matter of time before regulatory authorities around the world will attempt to force them into either ceasing to offer their service to their jurisdiction, or have them force their users into submitting KYC, and this article is a reflection of that. How long more can Binance keep this up is a question to ask, and it's a reason why I wouldn't blindly trust their reputation and track record, and keep my coins off their platform whenever it's not being used in actual transactions.
|
|
|
|
I have been fully expecting the bottom to last until at least late Summer, if not into the Fall.
But here we find ourselves with BTC holding $3700 and up for like 6+ weeks now I think and gradually increasing week after week with it now right at the top to the bottom range at just under $4200 and still continuing to steadily push on up from $4000 to $4100 to right now high $4100s.
Will it dump back to $3000s or are we gonna see it just keep gradually building steam or a big squeeze and watch it shoot way up, and if it does shoot up will that signal the start of the bull market like Oct 2015 or is it a trap and we've still got months of bottom to watch?
I'm actually leaning towards a correction down to the low $4k level. I don't think that the bottom will change any time soon though, as I've said before. If prices do ever go down to near $3k at this point, which I don't think it will, the institutional demand that has increased within the bear market I think will simply take advantage and will most likely stop it from falling much further. Sentiment within the market has kind of shifted from completely bearish, fear and uncertainty to bullish and people seeking for quick profits. We're simply not at a stage where we can say we're already in a bull market, which means that corrections like this that lead to sideways movement and consolidation at a lower level will be common. |
|
|
|
Before the second peak bitcoin took the world by storm and suddenly everyone was talking about this new found gold/oil in form of digital crypto currency. The gold rush before that peak such powerful that investments from all over the world was pouring in from all walks of society globally. Unfortunately the correction happened after that peak was so brutal that many lost their hopes towards bitcoin forever. However those who were regular or familiar with the bitcoin world were aware of such volatility and somewhat prepared for it as well. Thus those veteran did not lose their hope. Bitcoin peaked somewhere around 17k USD to 20k USD and now it is somewhere around 3.5k USD - 5k USD. Many investors have lost huge amount of money who were not considering potential loss due to uncertainty.
What is your opinion and observations, about hurdles faced regarding raising funds, by someone who wants to establish business based on bitcoin? How difficult it has became to convince investors to put their money in bitcoin or alt-crypto based project?
I think that the major hurdle here is still in terms of trust. The fact that you're funding someone internationally, who you may have never heard of before, while taking a huge counter party risk whenever you send funds through a irreversible payment method that cannot be recovered if the other party goes rogue means that people tend to be more cautious, and credit/investments thus becomes scarce. This may be less of an issue nowadays with a lot of projects being more transparent with the team and all that, but that doesn't lessen the fact that there are still plenty of rogue projects that use fake team profiles etc. to raise funds. The fact that international legal recourse is difficult also sort of limits the sovereignty of what investors can do. But at the end of the day, the benefits of raising funds through BTC compared to traditional IPOs are obvious, and these hurdles I think are only a matter of time before they are overcome. |
|
|
|
Given the fact that they are airdropping tokens, it doesn't seem like they're even going to bother with sustaining the ponzi scheme by paying the first few investors. It's much more likely that they'll just pull an outright scam as soon as their ICO ends, because of the tokens that they're giving away for free. Anyhow, ponzi schemes hidden in the form of crypto/tokens are nothing new. It's kind of a throwback to the days when lending coins were popular and the next big thing... Until every single one collapsed eventually and people were brought to their senses.  Could they be reported to mods for constantly creating new ANN threads, btw, or is that not against forum rules? |
|
|
|
What is the reason for the recent bullrun? Was there any news because I didn't hear of anything or did a big whale invest?
You have to understand that there doesn't need to be any reasons for a short term price hike like this. It's bound to have happened given the fact that we've hung around the $3-4k region and moved mostly sideways for so long. I think that the major driving force behind this particular pump is probably a combination of the fomo in traders, as well as the liquidation of short positions that some people were in that may have caused a short squeeze. If you are a long term holder, don't bother to look for justifications. Market movement like this is normal and it happens. Instead, focus on what the long term fundamentals are like, and how they've developed, like adoption rates. These are the aspects that will fuel actual bull markets and drive sustainable growth in the long run. |
|
|
|
Mind well everyone, I have smelled this pump incoming.
You know how? I watch the network congestion every now and then. And guess what, I had been seeing unnecessary high fee payers once again which gave me a signal of an assured rise in the price of Bitcoins. Either way, it goes like this or opposite as sometimes, when price of BTC rises, fee starts to rise and chase its previous higher highs. Is $5000 showing a possibility of BTC transaction fees to be rising to newer highs too?
With Segwit I don't think that there will be a much of a transaction fee hike as we saw back in 2017. But it's my observation as well that transaction fees and market activity (which can be reflected through bitcoin price) has a direct correlation, probably because traders are more likely to move coins around during periods of volatility, and since prices fluctuates so much during high market activity periods, more people are willing to pay higher fees which push the overall fees up so that they're not exposed to temporary exchange rate risks when their coins are unconfirmed. It's an interesting correlation. Whether or not this can actually be used as a TA method is debatable, since it's unclear which is the independent and the dependent variable. |
|
|
|
Hello,
Bittrex is trying to force me to submit my passport. Otherwise they will lock my account, they say.
What is the worst case that can happen if I submit my passport? Isn't this extremely dangerous? For example, if any employee or a hacker or whoever uses my passport to register with any other exchange and does some shady shit like money laundering there, I can't prove that it isn't me, because authorities will say, that I provided my documents. Or let's say somebody creates an account with my documents on another exchange and my tax authorities come to know from this account, they will say I have to pay taxes for all trades with this account. Do I exaggerate this or can it ruin me in the worst case if I submit my passport to any exchange?
I hope I can get my funds out before they lock my account. But in case they lock it before, I don't know what to do at the moment.
And another question. Can I verify with my driver's license on Bittrex? I think the risk mentioned above would be lower, but I still don't wanna do this, because authorities could say the same, even if it's "only" a driver's license.
Identity fraud is obviously the worst case scenario. You could have fake bank accounts opened in your name, your info being sold on markets or whatnot, you name it. Though with somewhat more trusted exchanges, the risk of this may be less. If Bittrex is asking you for identification then there is really nothing that you are able to do. They have sole discretion over your funds at this point, and they are going to continue to cite this KYC issue when you try to get funds out of your account. You should have realised this sooner though, since legacy Bittrex accounts have been long removed from being valid. Perhaps you could timestamp and watermark the images that you are submitting, although I'm not sure if Bittrex will accept a version that has been marked like that. This is the reason why I prefer using anonymous exchanges, even if it means switching exchanges from time to time. There is less hassle when it comes to this. Also, I don't think that drivers license will be less prone to abuse, given that they are usually listed in the same category as passports in terms of weighting in verification. |
|
|
|
The admin of the site isn't claiming this, but rather the fact that OP had various alts with which he had played with, double spending funds when he loses and withdrawing when he wins. Unless 'Jake' can provide concrete proof that this has happened, I think that it makes more sense for the admin to pay out his dues. I'm fairly sure that there are previous cases of similar nature, I mean that's what happens when you've got 0 confirmation deposits. Though, this site has been exposed previously as a scam various times, and even though they are still running and may be paying out some users, it doesn't mean that they are safe to use. The fact that they have .1% house edge in the first place is extremely sketchy, as reflected by their bitcointalk reputation. |
|
|
|
Hello friends
I invested 0.9995 btc on 28.11.2018.
but suddenly the bitcoins in my wallet disappeared.
In my past address there is no investox or yobicode
they do not respond to customer service.
How do I solve my problem?
Dig up your old deposit/withdrawal history if you can, and include the txids of your deposits/withdrawals. Without proof, I doubt that yobit support will bat an eye at this case, though they're likely not going to respond in any helpful way even if you do have proof. Just saying that the amount vanished from your account is simply not enough to hold them accountable. Also, make your case clearer - did you have your funds in investbox, or did you have it in your BTC balance when it disappeared? Just so that you know in the future though, this kind of scam doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. The whole InvestBox concept is extremely sketchy, since it's basically offering ponzi-like returns. And yobit is renowned for their support, in a negative way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
