Can someone explain this to me like I'm a dummy? How can you possibly earn a guaranteed 45% APY over any period of time? All conventional wisdom says anything like this is a ponzi scheme, so I must be missing something.
You need to read the term and conditions for the 45% APY savings. It is 45% APY for only 14 days locked savings. That break downs to 0.123% per day so total of 1.72% for 14 days. Individual cap of 100,000 FUN Token and total cap of 2M FUN Token so even if someone put in 100k token that would be an extra of 1720 FUN after 14 days This is only to incentive people to stop trading their FUN Token and save it instead, not to give free money to everyone else The true percentage over 14 days doesn't matter because it's expressed as 45% APY. Expressing it in APY standardizes the percent so it is comparable to other percentage yields of different durations. Nothing else pays that high and anything that guarantees yields like that are usually scams. That's what I'm trying to reconcile, why they can afford to pay such a high interest rate and why I shouldn't regard this as something fundamentally broken, because everything about it screams "red flag." |
|
|
|
FUN Token Listed on Binance Savings - Earn Up To 45% APY!
2. Locked Savings: Tokens are locked in for a fixed period of time. You earn a higher rate of interest with Locked Savings.
With the Locked Savings program, you can earn up to 45% APY on your holdings! Subscriptions to Locked Savings are capped and on a first-come, first-served basis.
Can someone explain this to me like I'm a dummy? How can you possibly earn a guaranteed 45% APY over any period of time? All conventional wisdom says anything like this is a ponzi scheme, so I must be missing something. |
|
|
|
Here is the latest news: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57582805The two brothers have claims that they have received death threats from investors in South Africa. This is classic style of how financial criminals work. If they can claim that their lives are under threat in South Africa, then the British courts will never deport them back to SA. And the British system takes the case favorably, unless some of the British nationals have lost money. Since it is the South Africans who have been scammed, the British government is going to tolerate their presence in UK. In the past, dozens of financial criminals have migrated to the UK from countries such as India, Greece and Russia, to take advantage of the "open doors" policy meted out by the British government. That's kind of a racist or exclusionist of a law if I say so myself, I think that they still should arrest them though because these are financial criminals and that the threats should be investigated because they might be fabricated so the government can't extradite them. This is probably another one of their con, they might go to another place again if UK doesn't do anything about these two criminals. I believe that is not racist at all. Why? Because British government only cares about money, and money of others, so if you steal money from Greek people and bring it to UK? That is a good thing for UK, if you steal from South Africans and bring it to UK? That is a good thing for UK, if you steal from British and take it somewhere else? That is bad for UK. So long story short UK do not care if you are a bad person or a good person, they only care about you being fair or not and as long as you are fair that means you are going to be fine. I do not really care if you are African or British, if someone stole 3+ billion dollars worth of money and then came to my nation? I would be thrilled and not look to jail them or send them back, I would make them put that money in one of my nations bank and tell them to live happily ever after, they technically do not own the money itself since it will be in the bank, and they would just slowly spend it and die. That is how nations grow big, you need a lot of people who are super rich. This is dumb post and definitely not how it works in the least. Even the theory that this is how it should work is stupid. Because the one thing that undermines society the most is arbitrary law. And you can prove it doesn't work this way because it never happens. If all someone had to do to keep their stolen money was flee to a different country, you would see this constantly and you don't because it's just not a real thing. No society wants to keep a bunch of thieves and criminals on the streets, that serves literally nobody. |
|
|
|
Why people still buy stocks?
If with crypto much bigger profits *
3% daily gain is nothing If you can get 100% profit with Good coins pump.
How the Hell people Even get rich with stocks with so small profits?
Classic example of someone who doesn’t understand how stocks work or frankly investing at large. Stocks represent a legal share of the ownership of a business. That’s why they have value, you’re literally an owner of the profits the company produces. Crypto is just driven by a bunch of people who are speculating that the price of crypto will go up. There’s no real reason in goes up other than mass agreement, and because that’s arbitrary there’s also no reason it can’t go down for the same reason. Expecting to make profit trading crypto in pumps is nothing more than buying a lottery ticket, and that’s the opposite of investing. While it is tough to refute your argument logically, I would say buying Bitcoin is like buying a lottery ticket goes several steps too far. Once Bitcoin progresses technologically, the network gets monetized inherently through the frictions it solves that alternative systems inevitably bring about. Facebook is monetized through it advertisement, but when Facebook started out it didn't earn any money yet I wouldn't deem an investment a lottery ticket. There was quality talent and a vision involved, but sure the monetization mechanism is more obvious. Bitcoin internalizes externalities that, for example banks impose upon us. Does that make sense? Happy to have your feedback here. None of that though goes to holders of bitcoin, it goes to miners, so you're still just buying an asset and hoping it's worth more in the future for no other reason than luck. That's exactly how it's the same as a lottery ticket. And further, mining fees another barrier for bitcoin over fee-less transfer cryptos, so assuming that's the "big appeal" to bitcoin, it's also going to be its downfall. Because if the world needs frictionless value transfers, there are no shortage of cryptocurrencies that function immeasurably better than bitcoin does. |
|
|
|
I think bubbles is good for the market until you are caught on the wrong side of the pump.  Newbies don't stay glued to the market the way we all do here 247, hence the moment they hear or observe that the crypto maket has captured the attention of the public, that's when most of them remove their money from savings and push them into bitcoin, the moment they all realise that the market is already over bought or the hype began to fade away, they tend to sell back and cahsout out their capital and profit which always lead to heavy fall and huge volatility. Bubbles definitely aren't good for a market. A bubble is an unsupportable price for an asset that does not reflect real world utility or value, so when they form it distorts the market and interrupts meaningful information about price from being discerned. In an efficient market, bubbles don't form, but to the point of this study, amateur traders are not efficient and their lack of knowledge is what drives bubbles and distorts the market, with bad consequences for the overall market through the knock on effects of their distortion. |
|
|
|
The title is misleading, because this site is not an exchange.. but rather one of those scam investment companies that are using Bitcoin (Crypto currencies) as the investment option. This AfriCrypt fraud has been compared to the Mirror Trading International scam. (Ponzi Scheme) ==> Africrypt boasted returns of 2-11% a month  Go read more at https://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-crypto/africrypt-hack-of-nearly-r54bn-dwarfs-mirror-trading/ and also see that Raees and Ameer Cajee – reportedly disappeared to the UK (A country from where they can be extradited to South Africa)  The title of the thread mirrors the title of the article from Endgadget, I just used their reporting. It's possible it was both an exchange and a ponzi scheme, they're not mutually exclusive, and it would still render the title correct. |
|
|
|
The example of Bill Gates was given in one of the previous posts. He never paid a penny in tax, despite owning around $100 billion worth of MSFT shares. The shares were transferred to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and that means that these shares will never be taxed (because the foundation is classified as a charitable trust). The case of Bill Gates is known to everyone because it was publicized a lot. Other billionaires keep such transactions as secret. Nowadays charity trusts are one of the loopholes used to avoid tax.
These are the loopholes used by the super-rich to avoid taxes:
That also means that if the shares were transferred without Bill Gates ever selling them, then they were never income and never subject to income tax. And because they're now owned by a charity, Bill Gates doesn't have that as part of his personal wealth anymore. So there's literally nothing wrong with the example you used yourself. |
|
|
|
I haven't yet heard of a single regulator that has endorsed BTC, apart from perhaps El Salvador.
But you're absolutely right. They should be embracing BTC for the fact that it is able to hedge against the hyperinflation that is so rampant within countries in Africa historically.
But there is absolutely a conflict of interest between the central bank/authorities and the decentralisation that crypto brings to the table. Not surprising whatsoever that such a statement was made.
Imagine your domestic currency being is so volatile, cryptocurrency is less volatile and a better store of value. Because as much as everyone around here circlejerks to what a great "investment" bitcoin is, the fact remains that it regularly loses 50% of its value in a matter of days (the most recent instance barely a month out from today). The vast majority of fiat currencies are still a better store of value because they're less volatile, and the point of savings is not to be at risk that you don't know how much money you have saved because you can't predict the value of the underlying currency. |
|
|
|
ETH and BNB are, unlike BTC, realy already used to pay for goods and services, and not only for goods and services in DeFi and NFT, but also in the real world.
And this happens due to the presence in them of the monetary policy inherent in the fiat currencies of the real world, which makes them convenient in terms of the speed of operations, commissions, accrued interest on the deposit ...
I'm about the furthest thing to a bitcoin maximalist, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that ETH or BNB have a higher utility for actual commerce in the real world. In reality, no cryptocurrency is currently particularly useful as a currency because of the volatility that plagues them all, but of those extremely limited use cases where crypto is used for commerce, I have to believe the Bitcoin is the preferred medium of exchange, even though technologically it's far from ideal and there are many better mediums of transfer in the crypto space. |
|
|
|
Some people are born rich or moderately rich, some are born middle class and some are born poor or extremely poor. All these conditions come along with a set of survival guides that the parents, relatives and even teachers will pass along as a map of life. For example, in a school of a country that does not give opportunity to its people, where most of the students are poor, it is unlikely that the teachers will induce them to think big or have big dreams...more likely they will aim to keep them apart from drugs, avoid problems with the government and try to imbue some basic skill for life. The ultra-poor do not even get that - which actually may be better.
In a preppy school, where most of the students are rich-born, the conversation is quite different. Culture, life, opportunity, spirit-de-corps and class mentality are imbued in the same manner, so the kids will somehow justify in their minds that they have the right to be rich even if they have not done anything for anyone in their lives - perhaps not even for themselves - because of some Darwinian property of cosmos.
As a result, the poor and even middle class have to jump over one real barrier, their lack of funds, and more importantly, like the Elephant that learns young that he cannot break the chains and never tries again, over their own state of mind, their own prison set by the terms of those who trying to help taught them to avoid anything but doing the same that keeps them poor.
Your middle paragraph is what I agree with the most and you can expand on that. People who are born into a higher classes see nothing but opportunities and tend to blame those born without such opportunities as the cause of their own lack of success, so the conversations they have about wealth are much different than the conversations about wealth the poorer classes have. When you're born into privilege, you don't see all the barriers that prevent the lower classes from having the same opportunities because they're literally invisible to you and don't impact you. When born into the lower classes, it's far easier to see how much better the upper classes have it and see the barriers that prevent you from moving up as intentionally designed, whether they were or not (but let's be honest, most of the time they were). Even the middle class has far more opportunities than someone who was born poor. |
|
|
|
Very unfortunate that it reaches this point, even though Mcafee has a bad side he is one of the early promoters of Bitcoin adoption, he made headlines when he told the world that Bitcoin will reach $1 million, it's very unfortunate to read that he commit suicide maybe because of loneliness, he never gets to spend his remaining years in a good way.
Dude, you don't know what you are talking about. John McAfee was not one of the early promoters of Bitcoin. He jumped in to the cryptocurrency bandwagon, only after Bitcoin became popular. And he did more harm than good, by promoting altcoins instead of Bitcoin. And although his $1 million prediction attracted some attention, it actually made cryptocurrency users a laughing stock in front of others. He just pulled out a random number, and gave no justification to his prediction. It actually made a lot of people to think that cryptocurrency is a scam. Pretty much nailed it. It didn't help that he was literally scamming people by taking payments to pump garbage projects and created his own garbage coin and was relentlessly pumping it to people who didn't know better. The constant scamming is what ultimately led to his downfall, since he wasn't paying taxes on his scam earnings and that's why the government finally caught up to him for tax evasion. |
|
|
|
Nothing announces you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about like trying to claim Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos are ultra-leftist, lmao. I mean, Zuckerberg is such an obvious leftist, Facebook's political action committee has given more money to republicans than democrats in every election cycle since 2012. What a classic ultra-leftist move to give more money to the party that is the exact opposite of what you supposedly believe in! And who can forget Bezos' ultra-leftist power move of seeking to minimize union efforts at all costs at Amazon? You take the clown makeup off before posting your deranged conspiracy nonsense, or nah? The beauty of socialism is that a lot of people support it, as long as it doesn't affect them. Bezos support higher taxes for the middle class and other leftist initiatives, but when it comes to his own business he would like to keep socialism at an arms distance. The same can be said about taxation as well. Bezos support high taxes, but using various loopholes, both him and his company (Amazon) have paid tax at a rate which is much lower than the others. Zuckerberg's political leanings are very clear, and you just need to take the list of group and individual pages banned by Facebook before the POTUS elections of 2020. Zuckerberg's political donations are a much more convincing indication of what his political beliefs are than shutting down a bunch of malicious groups that are breaking the Facebook TOS and spreading vaccine and election misinformation. Any reasonable person would expect malicious groups formed to purposefully misinform to be banned. But you have no answer to the fact that Zuckerberg gives more money to republicans than democrats, and there's no possible way to spin that as an ultra-leftist. You can't reason with people who want to believe in the delusion. |
|
|
|
The stock market being a centralized market has a bunch of rules that reduce the volatility, its volume is higher and there are so many good stocks that the market does not depend on a single one, this market is the complete opposite of that and while this is great this has the effect of creating way more volatility, however the newbies do not realize the profits they dream about are caused by that volatility and that just as they can earn money with it they can also lose it. Anyone who is an active trader in the stock market would be scared when they see the volatility in the cryptocurrency market and there is a probability that they will sell off their coins at a loss and basically these panic sell off happens if they are not doing their proper homework before investment and if you are willing to take the risk without the proper homework then you are bound to end up in a loss because the volatility in the cryptocurrency market is nothing new. If you're a net buyer (of stocks or crypto) then volatility is your friend. You want the ability to opportunistically add to your position when volatility drags the price down. This requires you to have a longer term horizon and not care what happens in the short term day to day. But if you're adding to your position, you want the volatility and the shaking out of weak hands because it benefits you directly. |
|
|
|
Venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz is looking to raise a fund of as much as $1 billion to invest in cryptocurrencies and crypto start-ups, the Financial Times reported on Friday. April 30, 2021The new fund is aiming to raise between $800 million and $1 billion from investors, the report said, citing people familiar with the matter. Andreessen Horowitz did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The news of the development comes as cryptocurrencies surge in value this year, with a clutch of top-tier firms including Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) diving into the space. https://www.reuters.com/business/andreessen-horowitz-plans-1-bln-cryptocurrency-vc-fund-ft-2021-04-30/.... It seems investment firms are still raising billions in capital to buy BTC and crypto. We may not yet have seen the ceiling.What is key here is the motive behind it. Will they hold bitcoin as an inflation protected asset. Invest in less known crypto assets in the hope of generating revenue via growth. Is speculation a primary concern. Or are there other reasons. Whatever the motive, I don't think anyone can deny crypto is exploding atm and everyone wants a piece of the action. Perhaps this will turn into a dream scenario where everyone that plays the crypto game will walk out a winner. Wouldn't that be great. Everyone in crypto wins. No one loses. No, this is incorrect. AH is a venture capital adviser, in order to qualify under the venture capital exemption under the Investment Company Act, there are strict criteria the fund has to meet. Investing in cryptocurrency would not satisfy the exemption. AH is investing in crypto-related businesses, not crypto itself. |
|
|
|
Again a wrong Argument. I hope you understand activities known as Ancilliary activities. These are the activities done to achieve the primary goal of the institution and in every law around the world, these get the same status as that of the core activitiy. OK.. so you don't have any issue, if these "ancilliary activities" are being used for tax evasion or bribing. The justification is that some of this money is being used for charity in Africa or other regions and therefore we should tolerate this. See I am not a conspiracy theorist. Ancillary activities like confrence etc. Are perfectly fine but talking about bribery Is there any proof of that? Just a few conspiracy theorist article? If they have so much of proof why not drag him down to the courts? Power of masses has always been more than any business tycoon. If we are believing every conspiracy theory then illuminati are everything, what can us government do? No, of course there is no evidence. People with low IQ just hate the rich because they themselves are not rich and they think the only reason someone could be rich then is because of corruption and not because they built a company that has become dominant in a major part of the economy. So they make up a lot of excuses and crazy conspiracy theories about why someone like Bill Gates could be rich while they are poor. And the simple answer they don't want to believe is that instead of spending their time believing crazy nonsense, Bill Gates built a valuable company. |
|
|
|
Saylor will always be remembered for his fake promises during the dot-com bubble period. He marketed MSTR as equivalent to Oracle and Microsoft and the fake promises came to light when the stock dumped from $330 ATH to $4  Saylor could probably be using the same practice to gain the investors attention this time and now the company has shifted to a bitcoin holding company rather than a software company. Din't know about that but looking at a chart is was even worse. From 3330$ to 4$. As far as I know Oracle and Microsoft are companies that do something completely different nevertheless dotcom bubble was accompanied by the entry of a breakthrough technology, the impact of which was difficult to quantify. I am not surprised that someone might have overestimated their abilities. Same we see now during crypto bubble. Hope we will not see -99.9% on btc too  The MSTR stock crash was actually because of fraud. Saylor and other company executives were fraudulently reporting huge profits when the company was actually losing money. It's a miracle they didn't go to prison for cooking the books, but this problematic past is also why I'm not a fan of Saylor now. He's not some bitcoin savior here to show us the way, he's just a guy looking for the easiest way to make himself rich again. He's identified a way to use his company to make easy money as the underlying business continues to get weaker and he leverages the business up to load up on bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
There are some progressive members of congress who are pushing Modern Monetary Theory which states that governments should print as much money as is required to fund all government functions without worrying about deficits because the government can't go bankrupt. It flies in the face of everything we've known about government spending and fiat currency thus far. With inflation starting to be felt, they're going to have to answer how MMT could possibly work where smaller doses of what MMT would unleash are already causing inflation.
|
|
|
|
All non-backed fiat currencies will eventually experience some level of hyperinflation because the incentives to keep printing are just too high. Imagine having the ability to create money out of thin air with minimal restriction, oversight and effort. Wouldn't you keep printing? Especially when faced with economic distress as seen with the covid19. In other words we will see bigger bank notes in the near future.
This isn't true at all. If anything, the incentive not to enter hyperinflation would outweigh printing money just because you can. Despite what you must think, the federal reserve isn't run by people with zero economic knowledge who just can't resist creating money for the sake of it. |
|
|
|
For stock investing I haven't learned or bought stocks, so for now cryptocurrency investing for me is still superior to stock investing, since bitcoin and altcoin prices have gone up like crazy, many stock investors have started to switch to investing in the cryptocurrency.
Pretty much agreed with this. Stocks are for boomers. Crypto has the real gains. The world is not what it used to be anymore. The time has changed. Stocks gain how much at best? %7? These are rookie numbers. Dogecoin went up by like what? 10000%? Now that's what I am talking about. That's how you make money. Now defi is also a thing, the whole stocks market will probably operate on ETH anyway. Why resist the tech? Those stubborn boomers have to die because they are going nuts on crypto lately. We won't have a crypto based economy any time soon unless the retarded boomers disappear. Wow, you've got some pretty skewed views about investing. Thinking that crypto can only go up is pure folly. Expecting crypto to always return like the few exceptions that break the mold is even worse. These returns aren't typical, and crypto isn't really investing because the valuations are based on nothing but group think. Because the values are arbitrary, you're just gambling. Also, stocks average 10% annual compound returns, but there are always stocks that fly far higher. Berkshire has returned more than 390,000% since 1976. There are periods in 2020 where certain tech stocks have blown bitcoin out of the water over the same period, especially with bitcoin's current pullback. Saying that stocks are for boomers is just admitting how much you don't know about the financial system or how it actually works, and it's attitudes like this that cause actual investors not to take the crypto world seriously. They're not wrong to have the perception that crypto is mostly a bunch of unsophisticates who got lucky. You sound a lot like a no-coiner mate. Crypto is the best thing that has ever happened to the investment world. Nobody has any time to do all those researches, examining ratios, debts and such crap. Just buy bitcoin and it only goes up. Why can't it go up only? BTC has been going only up since its inception. Don't believe me? Just see the BTC/USD chart. Berkshire lol. Bitcoin returned 9999999999% since 2008. Not a no-coiner, just someone who has investments across all assets classes (including crypto) and understands hype when he sees it. Crypto is not the best thing that's ever happened to the investment world. That's pure hype. Just because you don't understand the stock market means it's a bad investment. Lol, you provided the perfect example of why someone shouldn't take your arguments seriously when you cited 2008 (a time when nobody was invested in bitcoin) as the starting point of your comparison. Why not just go full hack and cite the infinite return bitcoin has had since it the white paper, since it was technically started at 0? OMG everyone in bitcoin has made infinite money!!! The fact that you have to try so hard to validate your belief isn't a good look. How is me citing Bitcoin of 2008 any different than you citing Berkshire of 1976? You say nobody knew bitcoin in 2008. How many people that live today knew Berkshire in 1976? Not many I suppose. Bitcoin is not a hype. It is a life changing asset that is built upon blockchain technology. While your inner no-coiner is leaking, Cathie Wood (Warren Buffett of the future) and ARKK (Berkshire of the future) are buying BTC with her both hands. Have fun staying poor.  Well for one, Bitcoin was released in 2008 and nobody knew what it was. Berkshire has been a public company since 1839, and Buffet had been getting involved around 1964, so yeah, by 1976 a lot more people would have had the ability to know what it was than bitcoin in 2008. And lol, your inability to recognize hype while hyping is funny. "Bitcoin is life changing asset..." That's the epitome of hype. You maximalists get your panties in a bunch any time someone doesn't parrot the same bullshit back to you. You're so fragile that people having different views is a mortal threat to your own belief system, that's why you react so negatively when you come across it and say something stupid like "MuSt Be a nO cOiNeR!" This is obviously going to be hard for you to comprehend, but people can own bitcoin and also not be maximalists who live in a fantasy world where bitcoin is the greatest thing that ever happened and will solve all the problems in the world. |
|
|
|
I feel somehow sad despite the fact of what he did.
His $WHACKD post really makes me confused.
His shitcoin is called WHACKD, he was just trying to drum up publicity about it so he could defraud more people out of money by selling it to them. Not really that confusing, his life over the last bunch of years was devoted to fraud and schemes centered around crypto. He made the tweet long before he was ever in danger of going to prison, it was just a publicity stunt to sell shitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
