Thank you for the making that clear. But it would also be important to call upon the investors who feel that they were scammed and let them speak in the thread.
Also after betking, will you investigate bitdice next?
I think after the warm feed back I received from the community exposing the manner in which Dean Nolan and Betking do business, I might try to expose more underhanded operations and scams but not sure right now. What I achieved in highlighting scams is a sense of satisfaction. When community members join in it shows them they are allowed to voice thier views and communicate with others who feel they have been scammed. Just because a service might be operating "properly" does not mean much if the ICO whitepaper proposals were not followed through with. In the case of Betking and Dean Nolan it is clear that he cannot provide details of expenditure. In the end the onus is on Dean Nolan to prove he followed through with the whitepaper. To many people it seems he had closed down the Betking website in December 2016, then re-opened a near identical site in late 2017 after an ICO when there simply was not one needed. To many people it seems he siphoned off large chunks of the ICO funds to his own pockets from the clause where 30% of the ICO funds could go towards "developement". Also to many people it seems he did not put any funds in a cold wallet and to many people it seems he did not use 50% of the ICO funds to bankroll but that was the main point of the ICO whitepaper. Dean Nolan even insulted investors by saying they should have shown "due-diligence" before parting with their monmey because they did not read the small print about the Betking token valuation when the large print was promoting "7400 BTC in profits" and all that nonsense. Since then Dean Nolan seems to have edited his post and removed those words but nevertheless he wrote them. Add to that what people are calling "scam" because he advertised a 50 BTC Jackpot Dice Game only for that not to happen in the way that he advertised it. My opinion is not important but that is what people say, they call Betking and Dean Nolan scam and scammer. Thank you for this public service. I hope you will work on other ICO scams in the altcoin announcement subforum. Also, do you have plans to take your case from the witchhunt, FUD, angry user phase to a full working lawsuit to have the authorities do their job? |
|
|
|
Funny question, but serious. It will be September in less than 2 weeks from now, if someone was to ask Tom Lee if his $25,000 target on December is still possible, what would his answer be? hehehe
he didn't really change his ridiculous prediction when the bear market started and it became clear that the big rise of 2017 has come to an end, so i don't think he is going to change it now either. if he wanted to do it then he would have made a more reasonable one like reaching $15k or something like that by the end of the year  Someone should remind Tom Lee on social media that December is now only 4 months away hehehe. He has also been telling people in CNBC to not sell their stocks because the Dow Jones will make one big move this year. I reckon Tom likes to buy into bubbles hehehe. |
|
|
|
|
@Belmyl. Agreed. But no one is interested to contribute in a small opensource project other than the present members of the community. Aeon is lucky to borrow stoffu from the Monero Research Labs. But it would be better if he stays.
|
|
|
|
[...]
It is not a good thing to be comparing banks and bitcoin, this will only provoke fights or unnecessary war, people will need banks to buy bitcoins, banks can also benefit from making deals with exchanges. That's why I see no reason to make comparisons of what is better, whether banks are better than bitcoin or whether and bitcoin better than banks. both are important. banks and bitcoin has its advantages and disadvantages. So let's use the two People should be careful in simplifying such observations because taking away the banks will have a much more negative economic and political impact on the world than taking away bitcoin. people do not think much about it and do not realize that banks will not end Agreed. That article might also be paid for by some bitcoin bagholders who are now very desperate to keep the price on $6000 and above hehehe. |
|
|
|
|
@Jollygood. What is your plan besides making scam accusation threads? You are doing a good public service but if nothing will happen after your hard work then all it will be is FUD from just another forum member
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the making that clear. But it would also be important to call upon the investors who feel that they were scammed and let them speak in the thread.
Also after betking, will you investigate bitdice next?
|
|
|
|
|
I received my payment. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
@smooth. Would it have been better if the Aeon community just welcomed and embraced Asics in hindsight? I reckon the community might have acted in too much haste and fear to reject the Asic mining companies, that might bring Aeon to the moon.
|
|
|
|
|
@Jollygood. What is your personal motivation for your attempt to expose betking and Dean for what might be another ICO scam? Is this from the concern you have for the investors? Have those investors asked help from you to expose Dean? Did you invest in betking's ICO?
|
|
|
|
|
But what is the argument? Should banks go away tomorrow because they waste more electricity than bitcoin? People should be careful in simplifying such observations because taking away the banks will have a much more negative economic and political impact on the world than taking away bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
@hatshepsut93. What? Way too many? But I have not noticed any newbies praising the petrodollar or the Venezuelan government for creating it. I reckon the newbies are too busy searching for the next 1000x Ethereum token to be bothered in a NEM token hehehe.
|
|
|
|
I agree. Certainly in 2010 and 2011, it felt like the internet in 1992 and 1993. It seems more like the late 1990s right now, but that was still a great time to be involved.
Absolutely. In fact, we are in a funny situation when some people still don't know that there's no future without crypto, while others, who know this, think it's too late to jump in. I remember talking to a guy in May 2017, when Bitcoin was $1,700+, and he said to me that he would definitely buy if BTC was below $1k but not when it was at its "peak price". Well, it was the peak price at the time, but we all know what happened next. The people with that type of attitude are the ones who look to buy something else to speculate in. I also had the same type of thinking towards bitcoin when I invested in Aeon for the first time. I thought bitcoin was overpriced and looked at altcoins. What a mistake hehehe. |
|
|
|
|
@cr1776. Hehe you do not reckon that the cryptospace will have an image of legitimacy on the mainstream in the years coming? How would you compare the beginnings of the internet to the cryptospace? Are the scams more wodespread in our community?
|
|
|
|
|
@gentlemand. Hehehe then I reckon those shite ETFs that are based on bitcoin futures are worse than the ICO scams that have widely caused losses among retail investors in the cryptospace.
In any case, good luck to its victims.
|
|
|
|
|
I reckon it will begin to be good to invest in the cryptospace again when it removes the scammers and starts replacing them with the real engineers, developers and computer scientists like Woz.
|
|
|
|
The Winklevoss rejection should be the guideline of how this VanEck ETF will be handled by the SEC. There is nothing in this application that would persuade the committee to make a different ruling and if I can be blunt, I do not think they would want to risk their reputation on the "insurance component" of this proposal.  I am also of the opinion that their real reason for the denial of all Bitcoin ETFs are not in their hand, their real mandate is to think of some excuses not to approve these ETFs.  Wrong. Winklevoss ETF was not backed. It was supposed to be a derivative of a derivative. That's a first major red flag. Also, it was supposed to be based on the value on Gemini exchange, which was a second red flag. Te exchange is rather small and could be easily manipulated. The ETF being owned by the people running the exchange on which it depends on is a big no no. Can you give us the source of that information? I have always assumed that all ETFs that were and are trying for approval are backed by real bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
@jeremypwr. I had 5 or 6 of my posts deleted for this week, all from 1 or 2 threads. I'll try to make it, but if I don't, can you consider me to continue on the last round? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
@jeremypwr. Thank you for the payment.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny question, but serious. It will be September in less than 2 weeks from now, if someone was to ask Tom Lee if his $25,000 target on December is still possible, what would his answer be? hehehe
|
|
|
|
Seriously, if the SEC isn't in the mood to approve the VanEck ETF (which by far is the most solid proposal), others stand no chance at all.
It's time to say goodbye to the ETF speculation and focus on other things. We'll definitely get an ETF at some point, but not in the coming few years, that's clear. It seems that the SEC for now just can't handle the fact that the majority of the trading volumes, and directly the main source of demand, is coming from Asian exchanges not being complient with US laws.
We need the market to calm down and let it bottom out properly, because there clearly is still way too much bull run speculation.
Agreed. It will be another disappointment to those people who want the ETF approved. But the absence of market movement on the issue might also show that no one cares anymore on what the SEC decision is on Thursday. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
