I just checked the graph again and it only reached $300 2 months before it closed and $200 was the all time high 3 months before it closed. It also had peaks of around $450 so was nowhere near any death spiral. Even when bitcoin fell from $20k to $12k in a few days around 18th December, BCC went from $450 to $220 but then went back to over $400 almost immediately despite bitcoin being worth around $15k (still a 25% fall for bitcoin but not BCC). Bitcoin then went from $15k to around $10k in the few days before bitconnect closed the lending, but the BCC coin was still in no trouble in the $200 to $300 range (which were recent all time highs only reached in the previous three months). Obviously the bad press wouldn't have helped but they were doing at least as well as bitcoin.
Dude, I have the reasons to believe that you are suffering form a paranoid or hebephrenic schizophrenia. I strongly recommend you to visit your doctor a.s.a.p. I warned you about that a long time ago in this tread, when you were actively promoting this ponzi scam, but you did not listen. Why did you quote that section? It's completely true and not 'delusional'. It was mostly in the $450 range from mid-December (except for during the bitcoin fall) and in mid-November it had only just reached $300 for the first time and only reached $200 four weeks before that. Remember that even including the DDOS period (with bitconnect down for maintenance at times) just before it closed lending, the two week average they valued the coin at was more than $360 and that is how they refunded users. Contrast that to Davor who refunded users with the same exact number of coins they lent despite the coin plummeting for two weeks after bitconnect closed the lending. By the way, more bad news for bitcoin: https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2018/02/11/is-bitcoin-heading-to-zero/#7c9347fa58c2 |
|
|
|
All that happens is that they may have to pay more coins instead of less for the interest and capital release. They don't lose money as these coins are free to them and they have a large reserve (which they never even needed to use). The problem when the coin value doesn't rise enough (they can obviously adjust interest rates) is that it will cause inflation.
You're on the right track. When the price of their token starts going down, the company has to pay out more of the token to achieve the desired USD value. This causes the price to drop faster, which causes them to have to pay out even more of the token, and so on in a vicious circle until the token is worth very little and the company runs out of its reserves. Your use of the term "inflation" is a little confusing, but I guess you're talking here about price inflation rather than monetary inflation. What you call "inflation" is presumably the same as what I mean when I say the price of their token falls. It's not a problem if at times it isn't deflationary as they don't actually lose any profits. Do you understand now why it's a good model as it prevents the company from dumping the coins as if they did that it means they have to pay more coins for the same amount of daily interest?
Once the price enters its death spiral it will tend to stay in it until it hits the floor. That's why this isn't a good model. They're promising to generate steady USD returns while not having any source of income with which to actually back up that promise other than interest from new suckers buying in. The use of an intermediate token to obfuscate what is happening was clever, but doesn't change the fact that there's no real activity generating the promised returns. While the token price goes up they can pay their promised returns and when it falls they quickly find that they can't. You make statements such as 'death spiral' as if you definitely know what was going on with bitconnect. The evidence was there to be seen. There was no death spiral, just they didn't want to get into legal issues. The day after the Cease and Desists they had some sign in question about where customers were from and blocked new loans for people in those states but allowed people to carry on receiving interest. They had told their promoters to stop promoting for weeks too before they closed the lending. However, did you see that their price was not going down? It was still near its recent $300 all time high and was even higher than this for a while (even the 14 day average was 20% higher). Remember that this interest was easy for them to pay since most of the BCC in the lending was always locked up and the interest they did pay was far less than they could have paid. They used the massive profits to market the coin and even created lots of music videos to promote it. Even if the price was falling (which it wasn't) it would never actually inflate the circulating supply for a long time as it took about 300 days for lenders to get their capital back and about 3 months even at 1% per day to even get back the same number of coins they put in lending (assuming the price didn't go up at all in those three months, which we all know it did). There was no real way the model could fail without people who didn't understand it complaining to authorities. I just checked the graph again and it only reached $300 2 months before it closed and $200 was the all time high 3 months before it closed. It also had peaks of around $450 so was nowhere near any death spiral. Even when bitcoin fell from $20k to $12k in a few days around 18th December, BCC went from $450 to $220 but then went back to over $400 almost immediately despite bitcoin being worth around $15k (still a 25% fall for bitcoin but not BCC). Bitcoin then went from $15k to around $10k in the few days before bitconnect closed the lending, but the BCC coin was still in no trouble in the $200 to $300 range (which were recent all time highs only reached in the previous three months). Obviously the bad press wouldn't have helped but they were doing at least as well as bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis and they should be able to control the gain in the coin price (rising too fast is not good and that was what happened with Davor - although they did a lot of things that were scammy in the end).
That's where you're wrong, and what you should focus on. The model only works if their token keeps increasing in value faster than the interest payments accrue. When the token price stops rising fast enough the scammers have to decide whether to start taking a loss or doing an exit scam. Which of the two do you think they choose?
Actually, that's where you are wrong. All that happens is that they may have to pay more coins instead of less for the interest and capital release. They don't lose money as these coins are free to them and they have a large reserve (which they never even needed to use). The problem when the coin value doesn't rise enough (they can obviously adjust interest rates) is that it will cause inflation. In these situations they also can't take any profits without stealing from other investors by dumping more coins even though they would be stupid to do this as the coin would further lose value (Davor probably did this). Remember that the coin inflates organically with mining and staking at a predictable rate but the lending would normally be deflationary (they can then sell some of the extra coins at some point) It's not a problem if at times it isn't deflationary as they don't actually lose any profits. Do you understand now why it's a good model as it prevents the company from dumping the coins as if they did that it means they have to pay more coins for the same amount of daily interest? If such an excellent business model, then why did they close up shop with its promoters headin' for the hills? Well bitconnect could have carried on for a while. DAV probably was stealing by creating fake DAV coins and selling them on the internal exchange. You still can't withdraw them to coinexchange which doesn't make sense if they are real lol. Also, even when their internal exchange was pumping, it was very hard to sell your tokens sometimes. They probably were just scamming people in the end. It was probably the people complaining to the authorities (not the people actually in the program) that caused the problems. The lending platforms used to get lots of people lending but since bitconnect closed the lending, they are all struggling. What they probably need to do is allow capital release at any point with a fee depending on the amount of interest that was paid already. |
|
|
|
The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis and they should be able to control the gain in the coin price (rising too fast is not good and that was what happened with Davor - although they did a lot of things that were scammy in the end).
That's where you're wrong, and what you should focus on. The model only works if their token keeps increasing in value faster than the interest payments accrue. When the token price stops rising fast enough the scammers have to decide whether to start taking a loss or doing an exit scam. Which of the two do you think they choose?
Actually, that's where you are wrong. All that happens is that they may have to pay more coins instead of less for the interest and capital release. They don't lose money as these coins are free to them and they have a large reserve (which they never even needed to use). The problem when the coin value doesn't rise enough (they can obviously adjust interest rates) is that it will cause inflation. In these situations they also can't take any profits without stealing from other investors by dumping more coins even though they would be stupid to do this as the coin would further lose value (Davor probably did this). Remember that the coin inflates organically with mining and staking at a predictable rate but the lending would normally be deflationary (they can then sell some of the extra coins at some point) It's not a problem if at times it isn't deflationary as they don't actually lose any profits. Do you understand now why it's a good model as it prevents the company from dumping the coins as if they did that it means they have to pay more coins for the same amount of daily interest? |
|
|
|
This site is calling lending 'staking' and it only pays in coins. Obviously, this is normally done automatically with PoS coins when held in desktop wallets, but this is hosted on the website. So all the bitconnect haters, would you call these 'ponzis' too (obviously bitcoin wouldn't be, though  ) as they pay variable interest each day? This time they pay in coins so it doesn't depend on the value of the coins at the time of the lend either. Anyone care to explain how this 'staking' is better than lending when lending actually pays less coins back (in bitconnect's case) and makes the company and the lender actual profits ! !  It seems this 'staking' is far worse for the investor as it means constant inflation. |
|
|
|
|
Oh it's already on Tradesatoshi lol it might be the only one left soon.
|
|
|
|
Of course it has a future.
A blockchain does not just DIE on its own. You technically cant get rid of it.
All these CRYBABIES neglect to mention they got so RICH off of BCC.
November of 2016 BCC ran the ICO and these CRYBABIES got 1400 BCC for a mere $750 (1 BTC at the time). That is a mere 50 cents for 1 BCC and they could EASILY sell it for over $300 just a month ago. And they probably did.
Now they say crap about BCC to buy it all back in millions.
I am going to HODL my BCC for a very long time.
People forget. Bad news die. Blockchains dont die.
WOW ..... LOL It's at $2 now ... Looks like Hitbtc delisted it a while ago. Writing is on the wall my friend. Pretty soon it will be worth ZERO when no exchanges will sell it anymore. Have you looked at the chart? Bitconnneeeeect  Well we have to hope bitconnectx have their exchange ready soon or someone gets it listed on tradesatoshi.com for a bitcoin or so haha |
|
|
|
I understand the Bitconnect thing was a SCAM and its over.
But BCC as a coin, with block explorer and millions of users, isn't that valuable? With a tiny market cap of only $20M, huge name, POS mining still profitable, why isnt this coin trading UP at this point?
Who the F cares at this point about the original scam?
BCC is now a token that can be traded with lots of software development and huge branding already behind it.
Its much better than ZCash with 20% developer TAX from EVERY COIN MINED ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET. Why isnt ZCash a scam?
Or ZCL which claims no premine but now forking into BTCP and taxing everyone trying to take their ZCL giving them bogus BTCP worth nothing. And this is from the core developers! Why osnt ZCL a scam?
Or HUSH which is now forking into BTCH. WTF is that? IT was premined like 264 BTC and made the copy/paste developers crapload of money. Why isnt HUSH a scam?
Or VOT which has 4.5% premine, isnt that a scam? Why not? The copy/paste developers just copied the github and sold their own token.
BCC was used by a company to scam people. I get that. But the BCC token itself is MASSIVELY valuable. IF we lose coinexchange as one of the last exchanges then it could mean abandonment.
I am personally buying as much as I can. People will forget about the bitconnect scam and BCC will be valuable because of all the software developments and all the wallets that are so fast and useful!
(disclaimer: I own ZCL, BCC and HUSH! and I prefer BCC to all of them)
I don't know half of those coins you mentioned but I just doubled my BCC to 1000 coins. They might be getting delisted on coinexchange and livecoin (they haven't really disclosed the reasons - it's a bit fishy that it was almost at the same time) but they will be on BCCX exchange. The exchange better open as they sell out the ICO every day. I don't believe they fake it either, there is a 100BCCX daily limit so it must need thousands of users each day to fill the quota. It seems like they really will raise many hundreds of millions in the ICO. I also don't really believe they scammed anyone. Davor didn't let anyone profit in the lending (even the ones at the start only came out even unless they got an extra bonus) but many people made a lot of money with the bitconnect lending. The promoters such as Yuris etc signed some sort of agreement in a bitconnect conference held on the 28th Jan somewhere (not sure if it was in Indonesia now) so apparently they are thinking of a better solution than just waiting for it to be sorted out when BCCX starts (as they claimed was going to happen in the meeting). Remember that the BCCX accounts use the same login information as bitconnect so they will know whose accounts need refunding. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the enlightenment, bud. Now I fully see how lenders made a profit off BitConnect. They loaned X BCC to them, whereupon they paid back X - Y. Granted, I'm still a tad confused as to how BitConnect made their money, probably having something to do with the Z-factor, but unfortunately equations containing more than two variables or constants is (or is it 'are') beyond my prowess, albeit back in the 70's I would've been able to perform such equations in my head like I did for ALL the questions on the SAT, earning a perfect 800 in its math section and the first one in the room to complete said portion of the SAT taken at IU, then went fishing with my dad at Brown County Forest Preserve, but I digress.
Yeah, lenders would get less coins but bitconnect or whoever the company was would profit by selling the extra coins at some point without adding to the circulating supply and thus the lending would not increase inflation (it might make sense not to sell the extra coins immediately to increase profits if the value was growing). Obviously, if the coin value was decreasing the interest rates should be low or there should be some other methods used to prevent the market being flooded with cheap coins from the interest conversion (such as limits in converting the interest until the coin gets back to a certain level). The point is that the lenders know the profits they give the company in the lending are necessary to increase the value (even if it's just by reducing the supply). It doesn't necessarily involve marketing the coin or bringing in new users but that would probably be the best use of the profits. The coin value would still grow just from a reduction of supply if the buying and selling volumes didn't change so the lending is definitely not a Ponzi like other cryptos that generate no wealth. I see in the future that lending platforms would allow users to cancel the lending at any point in time. They should forfeit all their interest if they want their money before the capital release date (plus a fee for the service as this will give the company at least some profit from the lending). In that way, it will truly be a service to guarantee the value of the investment from fluctuations in the market price and lenders can ask for their money back at any time. Regarding BCC, I'm a bit concerned that two exchanges (LiveCoin and Coinexchange) will be delisting it and they both happened at the same time. |
|
|
|
Anyway, maybe all these deluded complainers will get something they didn't wish for :
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/08/ecb-official-backs-bitcoin-clampdownYves Mersch, a member of the ECB’s executive board, said the central bank shared the views voiced by Agustín Carstens, the head of the Bank for International Settlements, who on Monday condemned bitcoin as “a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster”.
“We at the ECB are fully in line with his views and we have similar worries,” he told Bloomberg TV.
Goldman Sachs’ global head of investment research, Steve Strongin, also warned this week that most, if not all, of today’s digital currencies were unlikely to survive in their current form. “The high correlation between the different cryptocurrencies worries me,” he said. “Because of the lack of intrinsic value, the currencies that don’t survive will most likely trade to zero.”
|
|
|
|
didn't you notice all the adverts and commissions coinmarketcap make from real ponzis like laser.online and bitpetite (their advertising is not cheap but they must also receive referral commissions as they were listed as referring millions of dollars weekly to bitpetite TL;DR: Coinmarketcap likely does not control the ads on their site. They're based on your Google profile and site content. This is how advertising on Coinmarketcap works: Coinmarketcap says to Google, hey I got a guy here about to browse this page, and we have 4 ad slots available on the page. So Google goes, ok, you're a cryptocurrency site, here's 4 ads that we think your visitors are likely to click on. Oh wait, this guy, AGM76 that's about to read that page, we know he's been to other sites, sites like bitpetite. So let's serve him some related ads. Every person who comes to Coinmarketcap sees ads tailored on what the site is about, and also to match whatever Google knows about you. So if you go to a lot of crypto "lending" sites, Google will serve you ads for those sites, or sites like that. Most people will go to Coinmarketcap and never see an ad for a crooked site. So if you're trying to insinuate anything and make connections between advertising that's served uniquely to you and some grander scheme, you're going to need to come up with some solid proof. Did you not read what I said that they were affiliates of Bitpetite and were referring $1million sales PER WEEK!!! Click on their advertising link (which states $10000 minimum order) and you will see they don't just use google ads: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSesk19wQostGxR3VTSXcsyvzIAK9bcsITyKLjsAR-bJjYB33Q/viewformFinally this shows the listing for coinmarketcap affiliate performance on bitpetite (actually half a million dollars weekly but this probably varied): https://twitter.com/bccponzi/status/923611568151113728 |
|
|
|
... skipping the fallacies ...
The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis
Generating profit for scammers doesn't mean it's not a ponzi. In fact the whole reason for the scammers to take the risk to run such illegal scheme would be to generate a profit. These are not "lending platforms". The borrowed funds are not used for any other purpose other than to perpetuate the scam, which ends when there aren't enough suckers bringing in new money. You are really dense to keep repeating your own erroneous views. You probably noticed I stopped responding to you before because of this. How many times have I explained how the actual 'lending' part is profitable for the company and also the lender. The company while it runs smoothly, pays back less coins than are lent, so it's like the reverse of staking coins since people get back less coins but are still happy due to the marketing and increase in coin price (they can afford this marketing due to their profits). It is deflationary as long as the company don't sell all these extra coins and just keep some out of circulation, but even if at times the coin didn't increase in price, they would just need to use their reserves of the coins (you probably noticed most have large premines for this reason, although ERC20 tokens can have unlimited supply if they wanted) and this would cause inflation and possibly a lack of buyers at some point (inflation is also what happens with all staking coins but lending when operating well is deflationary - lending doesn't even guarantee any return). So as long as the coin doesn't fall to ridiculous levels and remains stable in price, the lending platform can continue. You might have noticed that Bitconnect, unlike Davor, had a very stable price that tended to increase a lot so that means the company was actually making profits. If the coin wasn't going up, the lending would still function but the company couldn't take any profits without stealing from investors and harming the platform. The company are not stealing from investors with the lending because the lenders are happy with the reduced profits as long as the company uses their profits to increase the coin value with buy back or marketing etc so the lenders accept this is how they make money. They also bring value by guaranteeing the investment value amount from fluctuations in the market. That is why it's a good model for cryptocurrencies. Basically, you have never shown one iota of understanding about the lending platform model so it's no use even responding to your comments until you show you have listened and have at least some understanding. |
|
|
|
By the way, what about the responsability of coinmarketcap ? What did they list this coin in the top ten ? How many did they receive to do that ?
Coinmarketcap lists the coins with the highest market caps. BitConnect coin had a high market cap for a while when idiots were clamoring to buy it so they could buy into the BitConnect lending Ponzi scam. Coinmarketcap wasn't telling you that the lending program was legit, just that it was popular. They didn't mislead anyone. It was popular. Then BitConnect exit scammed and the price collapsed. After that, Coinmarketcap's listing reflected the new (much) lower market cap. What about the responsibility of the idiots who participated in the obvious Ponzi scam even though everyone was posting warnings here all along letting them know it was an obvious Ponzi scam? How many times have you said Ponzi in that haha... didn't you notice all the adverts and commissions coinmarketcap make from real ponzis like laser.online and bitpetite (their advertising is not cheap but they must also receive referral commissions as they were listed as referring millions of dollars weekly to bitpetite). With Bitconnect, at one point they were around 6th place and overtaking Dash so Dash posted something on their twitter about bitconnect (you can guess what) and coinmarketcap recalculated the circulating supply and they went down to around 16th (I don't know if they guessed the supply or not or how they figured it out). I'm sure some of the less blatant scammers feel it is justified since they realise bitcoin is a Ponzi and people shouldn't be fooled by marketing. The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis and they should be able to control the gain in the coin price (rising too fast is not good and that was what happened with Davor - although they did a lot of things that were scammy in the end). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-07/bitcoin-may-evolve-into-what-everyone-fears-mathematicians-say"The cryptocurrencies may simply be a mechanism for a transfer of wealth from the late-comers to the early entrants and nimble traders," the authors, Carey Caginalp and Gunduz Caginalp, said in the paper published Wednesday. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxBOWCVQO0SEC is on the case. Craig Grant and Trevon James and all the other US based faggots are going to jail. And if anyone is still taking part in these lending platform crap, you deserve to lose your fucking arses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxBOWCVQO0Dude lost U$142K, prudent in not investing more. The second half of the vid is him promoting his LottOdds site based on lotto balls having memory, thus knowing when and by whom cupped them. Did someone just say LottoConnect (LODDS)? OMG does that mean the lawsuit is toast? He is misleading people about lotto now lol how can he have any credibility ? By the way, can't he be sued for that? |
|
|
|
Open letter to the Lending Community
Again we see the collapse of yet another high profile lending platform that not only 2 weeks ago was claiming the #1 position in the market.
Weeks ago, I publicly ousted their behaviour and threw up the red flags to my community of 40,000+ members and to ICO review sites to warn customers of the internal exchange manipulation and other tactics used to artificially moon the coin.
Investors and promoters play such a big part in this failure also because they jump on the rocket that seems to be headed to the moon with little to know research at all. These red flags could be seen a mile away yet everyone closed their eyes and thought it didn’t matter. I actually had conversation with admins from Davor that came out and admitted they manipulated the exchange but it’s okay, as long as the price goes up no one cares.
Here’s the reality, Davor Coin exit SCAMED its members. They did this by falsely manipulating their internal exchange numbers creating interest in the coin while dumping their coins to the market.
Once the pump was over the coin price corrected and landed in the cents a couple of weeks later. Davor Coin continued on with a number of “hope” tactics to put as much time between them and the rise of their exchange blaming everything else along the way.
Unfortunately for the investors of these platforms you place a huge amount of blind trust in them, trust takes time to build and I caution investors globally to do your research and build a relationship with the community backing the Crypto business you are thinking about investing in.
When I started Falcon Coin I did it to change so many things I hated about the industry, I run a tight ship that’s focused on building trust in the community and it’s going to take us months if not years to regain the trust of so many other people’s actions.
To the investors of Davor Coin, I feel your pain and I hope you one day regain trust in the industry that I believe can be successful long term.
My top 5 tips for investors when looking to invest into a lending platform:
1) Do your research, spend at least 1-2 weeks reading up and talking to that coins community.
2) Invest with a strategy and stick to it. Investing in a company is both risky and takes up a huge amount of time. Get behind a team, a business you believe in.
3) Stop worrying about the share price or the promotions, they’ll be there tomorrow.
4) Build relationships within that Coin’s community and sit back and think about the value they offer you. I have done this many times over the past year and thought to myself “this guy is a complete idiot” – I don’t invest in idiots.
5) Look for signs of manipulation or control of key things; exchange, BTC withdrawals, limits selling etc. This is why the first tip is so important.
I wish you all luck and I hope you find success and financial freedom in 2018 and beyond.
To all the haters and cowboys in the industry, get a life and stop acting like children.
Will McMaster
CEO – Falcon Coin
|
|
|
|
Still not sure about the delistings but might be due to BCCx, when is that opening? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-07/bitcoin-may-evolve-into-what-everyone-fears-mathematicians-say some bad news to balance the good Prices of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin may never stabilize, and digital tokens risk simply ending up being the equivalent of Ponzi schemes.
Using mathematical modeling and experimental economics, two University of Pittsburgh researchers tried to determine Bitcoin’s value, and concluded that it’s "an asset which has no value by traditional measures" and may be in a bubble. Its price is largely driven by the opinion of fringe buyers, often holding erroneous views. As these fringe buyers run for cover, worried that their investment is not as secure as they thought, the price plummets. It goes up when the fringe buyers feel safe enough to step back in, they wrote.
"The cryptocurrencies may simply be a mechanism for a transfer of wealth from the late-comers to the early entrants and nimble traders," the authors, Carey Caginalp and Gunduz Caginalp, said in the paper published Wednesday.
|
|
|
|
|
Hashflare is a definite SCAM
Do you really think they have all this hash rate??? I can't reveal my sources but I wouldn't say it if I wasn't certain. In other words, it's a Ponzi, and far worse than supposed 'Ponzis' like bitconnect.
|
|
|
|
Yeah that was one of the videos I was thinking about spreading disinformation like bitconnect 'ran out of money' blah blah. That guy is obviously a bit mental from hating bitconnect. |
|
|
|
On a good note, Monyx is still holding a good price of near 50cents and they have a buy back plan (so their profits organically increase the price other than just using it on marketing): Dear Monyx Members,
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:
We have now finally successfully launched our internal exchange. The price was initially pegged to 1.80 USD - the main reason for this was to have a safe and smooth launch. The price was later de-pegged after 24 hours and set free. That’s the reason why the price has been highly volatile since then. We’re not manipulating the price, and we haven’t sold any tokens, we have in fact bought more. The market currently decides the price, not Monyx. Volume: over 120 BTC since launch.
We’ve been working hard behind the scenes and can proudly say that the following things are now done and working:
The coin has been released, and the source code is available on our GitHub.
Wallets for Mac OS, Linux and Windows has been released.
Deposits and withdrawals of MYX will be enabled today.
Staking and Mining is active.
Upcoming:
The proposed buy-back plan will be in force 20th February.
Listing on Coinexchange.io, Coinmarketcap (CMC) and Cryptopia in the coming weeks.
Due to uncertain regulatory landscape in some countries, and changed market conditions and situations, we’ve decided to NOT launch the lending/investment platform at this stage. We’re considering taking the project in a different more profitable direction. This should however be seen as great news for Monyx, and especially for all that are currently holding MYX tokens.
We expect the price to recover fast and rise over the next couple of weeks due to continuous development of the project, and better market sentiment. Expected price target is $2-$5 the coming weeks.
Some users have also reported stolen or missing funds. We HIGHLY recommend everyone to enable 2FA on your user accounts, it’s extremely important in order to keep your funds safe.
Thank you for your continuous support!
Stay tuned for more updates soon.
Monyx Team There needs to be a new decent lending platform as people have almost given up now on the model even though it's a good one. BUT they say they are thinking of not doing any lending. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
