Check this site out: ltcgear.com

After using their 1 year discount code (check through the announcements page) and the 8% discount from paying with BTC, it puts the price at ~$5/MH

The cloud mining shares are lifetime with a TBD maintenance fee at 5-20% of the original purchase price. The first year of maintenance costs is included in your initial purchase.

I have one of their FPGA miners and I purchased a number of their ASIC shares ~4 weeks ago. After this weeks payout, I will be at ~90% of my ROI.

Also for more information regarding the credibility of this site, refer to:
https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=6401.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759743.0

Once the payout comes this weekend; I'll pretty much have my ROI coin-wise.

Failure to understand context of a phrase and moving goal posts now?

Perhaps you've never heard of the saying "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck"? Given sufficient observable evidence to arrive at a conclusion with almost certainty, it is no longer up to me to prove the conclusion with absolute certainty, but for you to refute my arguments.

Again, Jasin has taken money, failed to meet contractual obligations (not just by a little bit, but by a huge margin), failed to produce proof of any work done to meet contractual obligations, removed/concealed financial transaction data, and has disappeared for the past week and a half. A rational person, court, etc. would see these chain of actions as a scam. I am no longer obligated to provide further arguments. Rather it is up to Jasin, or rather you to refute the arguments.

Here is the tally so far:
Jasin has taken money: You have admitted that he has.
Failed to meet contractual obligations: Your argument is that because delivery is late does not mean it is a scam. This is a weak argument since you could extend the delay out indefinitely and nothing would ever be considered a scam. Again, it's not just a few times or a small delay, it has been every time, indefinite delay.
Failed to  produce proof of work done to meet contractual obligations: Jasin has refused to provide information of foundry for order verification because the foundry does not like crypto-currencies...
Removed/concealed financial transaction data: Removed user login and reworked Fibonaci.io. Promises to have it restored by last weekend. Has not delivered or addressed the issue. Again, I suppose if you give him till the end of time, he will eventually deliver right?

It is not my responsibility inform anyone of Jasin's condition. In fact, I don't give much credence to the statement given that work seems to have been done on the Fibonaci.io site in the mean time. Also, it has somehow escaped the conversation where his unresponsiveness was a major driving point in the complaints until now.

a) But we're not talking about XC are we? I know it's a set of experience you draw on, but I have my own set of experiences I draw on as well. Which leads to the next point...
b) Delayed payment alone does not constitute a scam. Perpetual delayed payment, with non-verifiable excuses, followed by the removal/concealment of financial transaction history (i.e. Fibonacci.io database), and zero responsiveness of the person with all the money most certainly smells like a scam.

If Jasin is truly unable to respond due to a personal issue, then it's advisable that he communicates it. Either himself, or through someone else. I am sure he is aware of the anxiousness of the people who's money he has and he is only inviting more trouble for himself by waiting.

Perhaps you can point to a direct quote where I am attacking XC members and XC?

Other than the one sentence of "FUD: You are either very naive, stupid, or being paid very well. Take your pick." because some bloke is wasting my time by posting illogical arguments and parroting back the same invalid arguments over and over? But really it's more of a satire.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Or perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip?

I only chimed in because someone here is insistent that Jasin is not scamming people. That he took money from imaginary people, and that hundreds of pages of posts is not substantive.

Perhaps the title of the thread wasn't the most subtle approach, but you as a PR person should probably know why major companies tend to distance themselves from prominent employees that get involved in scandals?

Facts:

-Hundreds of pages of complaints of posts from forum members who have not received what was promised for their payment.
-Members who are voicing their complaints have wide range of registration dates, posting patterns and times.
-Jasin has not posted a response in the thread in a week and a half since his last post.
-Site that had all of users orders is no longer available.

FUD:
You are either very naive, stupid, or being paid very well. Take your pick.

In all courts: taking people's money, failing to deliver a product, failing to prove that you've taken steps to try to fulfill contractual obligations, and destruction or concealment of financial records would very much scream scam.

Again, perhaps you would like to address the hundreds of pages in the threads on failure to do any of what was mentioned above as pure hearsay? That everyone is just out to get Jasin?

Oh please stop with the mis-direction.

First:
When a project blows up, sentiments and accusations start flying in addition to valid complaints.

You're just sweeping everything said here as false accusations when in fact:

1. Money was taken for a product.
2. Said product was not delivered.
3. Requests for explanations are met with nebulous / non-verifiable excuses.
3. An entire website filled with data on customer orders was taken down and has not been put back up well after the promised date.
4. No explanations are offered for the delay.
5. Jasin has not answered any further questions and has been MIA for the past week and a half.

Second
You're trying to confound the meaning of tangible proof and the use case. Your example is the use of fabricated proof to attempt to back an accusation. In this case tangible proof constitutes verifiable proof to prove a point; that work was done. Again, the refusal to allow someone to contact a foundry to verify dealings with Fibonaci is a red flag.

Well that sucks  . I was around last year when the inital offering came out, but I ran when I found out my money would be going towards salaries. I've been following the discussion of the project for a while and I empathize with the people who have had their money taken. I hope this guy gets what he deserves.

You ask for proof then stick your fingers in your ear when pointed to the various threads. I suppose you take all of it as hearsay... hundreds of pages of posts by people with sock puppet accounts out to get Jasin?

Or are you so dense to think that these people don't have receipts of their orders and probably don't care to make sensitive information public?

This is much more than just a project blowing up. This is someone taking money for a project and failing to even produce any tangible proof that the money received was indeed going towards work of the project.

In addition to that... giving special treatment for Cachecoin on your product orders while partnered as a heavy investor/contributor to Cachecoin itself is a blatant conflict of interest. There's a reason this sort of thing is illegal for businesses in countries with regulated economies.

Jasin has taken many people's money and has failed to deliver any sort of product.

Jasin has made excuse after excuse on why a product has not been delivered. These excuses were always obscure and meaningless. There were even a few that was just plain unbelievable.

Example of such an excuse: not providing the name of the foundry for people to verify because the company does not like crypto-currency mining and he would be taken out of the queue if the foundry found out. This does not make sense on so many levels. Why would a foundry care about the use of an ASIC as long as they're not violating export regulations? Even if the foundry did, why would one take such an unnecessary risk? There are contract terms that can protect you from a foundry deciding to pull you out of queue on the fly; are there not these sort of terms in the initial contract agreement? If not, then why?

Now in the past couple weeks, another promised deadline was missed and not one single word from Jasin. He, at this point, has all but disappeared with people's money.

These are much more than allegations. The poster of this thread has linked a forum post that spans 600+ pages, of which at least the past 100+ pages are filled with people who have had their money taken from them. There are even a number of lawsuits being filed.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to any of the threads going on in here. Coinbase will not honor the transactions at the original rate.

They do one here and there for a bit of good PR, but if you browse over the forums, you'll see that the majority are met with no response or declined.

There's a significant difference in waiting for something that you will receive in the case of Gox, vs. someone borrowing assets from you with no intention to honor the original transaction.

They make huge promises and lure people into a false sense of security with their instant verification and promise of easily obtaining BTC. But when market price increases heavily, they can't keep up with their promises, don't bother notifying customers, and cancel orders for personal benefit or to cover losses.

The biggest lie is right inside there TOS in that they state you purchase BTC directly from Coinbase which is clearly not the case as their prices/tickers revolve around a margin to BitStamps prices, stops working when BitStamp goes down, and the blog post about cancelled order clearly states that they go out and buy BTC once they receive a batch of orders from customers.

Sorry to dampen your hopes, but the answer will be no.

They make themselves out to be a reliable way to obtain BTC, but can't actually fulfill that role. They make posts here saying that they regularly review cancelled transactions and push them through at the original rate, but rarely ever do, unless it seems it's for a bit of PR.

They role out a failed system and sucker people into using it all the while benefiting from their own mistakes.

Update it really looks like contrary to what has been posted in these forums, Coinbase has no interest in fixing their own errors.

I have no doubt that they are benefiting from these errors.

Oh well, fair warning to anyone else thinking about using them.

Anyone else who has had their orders cancelled and has had support refuse to honor them, PM me.

Between me and my wife's accounts, we have had 1 successful buy out of 3.

My first order was cancelled and support threw the TOS in my face.

My wife's first order went. Second was cancelled AFTER the promised fulfillment date. We've started contacting support. Depending on the response, I may be interested in getting a form of legal mediation going. So far the TOS is full of contradictions from actual practices.

In general the responses I have gotten were within a week, but They were the generic response that everyone has been copy and pasting into the forums.

When I made the second request, I waited 8 days (6 business days) before sending a followup of saying I would wait for 4 more days for a response. Perhaps this rubbed support the wrong way to result in the TOS shoved in my face. This seems really unprofessional since I was requesting some sort of indication that they were willing to look into it. From the outset 3 weeks prior, my impression from support was that they had no intention to honor the order.

As of today, between me and my wife's accounts, we have had one successful buy order out of three. Reading through these forums, the impression is that Coinbase is still willing to review these transactions manually and push them through.

First Issue
My experience thus far has been that Coinbase is unwilling to try to resolve these mistakenly cancelled orders. My responses from support have been mostly the generic "we are sorry" response or been ignored completely.

Finally, my last round of interaction with support went along these lines:
1. I sent an email asking for the transaction to be reviewed.
2. I waited 8 days and did not get a response.
3. I sent a notice that I would wait 4 more days before attempting to resolve this through a third party.
4. Two days later I get a response along the lines of "this is the TOS and we can do whatever we want with the transaction".

This back and froth between me and support happened over a span of 3 weeks. I have been patient. I gave 5 business days between expecting responses. The strongest worded email had the word "demand" and a few capitalized words to express frustration and even then I apologized for the tone of the email. I never swore or wrote anything derogatory to your support team. Yet, it seems like Coinbase had absolutely no interest with resolving the transaction.

Second Issue
My wife placed a second order with Coinbase a week ago. Her order was cancelled today well after the promised delivery time of the BTC. I will reserve my judgement on this issue for now since it just happened today and we've just begun the process of contacting support. However, this is extremely odd as she had already made a successful buy and successful sell order and it has been 30 days since.

Perhaps I have been going about this the wrong way since it seems people who post in this section openly have better luck having their transaction resolved.

Olaf,

I have sent you a PM about my transaction and again I am reserving judgement at this point to see what happens with the order my wife placed. I can give you those transaction details as well if you have any interest to look into it.

I will leave it here as is for now, but I would ultimately prefer to find a compromise that we can all agree on.


Update 1 11/16/2013

Well, we received an email this morning saying that they cannot guarantee any transactions. They have no intention of inspecting the order and pushing it through at the original rate contrary to posts on this forum.

The order was supposed to be fulfilled Thursday 11/14/2013 7:29 AM. It was not, in fact it stayed in the pending state for ~4 more hours. Instead it was cancelled at Thursday 11/14/2013 11:27 AM.

Coinbase abuses their TOS. Makes misleading statements here and in their blog that contradicts elements of their TOS.

Did you know university accreditation costs money? Mostly because the people that do the audits need to be paid? *Gasp* such a scam.

Trying to divert the topic.

The OP was clearly complaining about the practice itself.

I do not care if CoinBase is aggressive towards flagging transactions as fraudulent and cancels the transaction and/or returns funds in reasonable time.

You and every other white knight of CoinBase so conveniently skip over why it takes automated software 1 week to determine a transaction is fraudulent or why accounts that are flagged as "high risk" are even allowed to place transactions without additional verification. This would in fact go very much against the grain of KYC/AML. If they were to allow this and not give customers their instant gratification of purchase after instant linking bank accounts, they know it would shrink the growth of their customer base. So... they chose not to. This doesn't seem to be acting in good faith of KYC/AML does it?

There is a serious issue that CoinBase accepts transaction from accounts they flagged and then holds funds for one week or longer before notifying customer and the refusal to even attempt to work out transactions with the customer.


They are doing one of the following:
- Decided your account is high risk and accepted the transaction only to cancel 1 week later. Again holding your funds for 1 week + without the intention to even sell.
- Decided right off the bat that a transaction is high risk and NOT obtain any BTC from exchange for resell. Again, they hold your funds for 1 week + without intention to sell.
- Decided later on in the transaction AFTER the BTC was already obtained to flag the transaction as high risk. Absolutely no reason in this case as to why they cannot settle on the original transaction rate with the customer. This one in particular reeks of fractional lending for themselves against their own TOS.
- Could not obtain BTC off exchange at agreed upon rate + premium and hold your funds for 1 week +. In this case, "You will obtain your BTC by..." is patently false.

None of what I stated above, has anything to do with CoinBase' action in good faith to comply with KYC/AML/BSA legistlation. NONE whatsoever.

In fact, if they were truly attempting to comply with KYC/AML/BSA, they would not even be accepting transactions on flagged accounts. But they obviously are not.

They did take his money. Even if they do not take your money, your money is still tied for the entire transaction as credit towards the transaction.

Also, in what world is adding and deleting bank accounts under the SAME NAME high risk.

I don't know of any company that has fraud management where, if an account is flagged, they will hold the transaction and customer funds for an entire week after they decided it's "high risk", refuse to attempt to resolve it, or even accept the transaction in the first place.

Edit: At least I don't know of any non-shady ones.