 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
|
I am surprised at the level inaccuracies by the dev team here. Please get your facts straight before asserting them as fact. We have great reward for exchanges daily %100 PoS coins. Usually they don't share these coins with you. the longer they keep coins in their exchange more they can produce coins.
I am afraid we may have to interrupt the relation ship with these current 4 exchanges in our OP. Because they not answer back we don't know what's with them. I cant hold in my OP not working exchanges so long.
And we may have to find new one and continue from there. I am watching the issue.
1) This coin is not 100% PoS daily nor is it for us. 2) Exchanges never stake hot wallets. It's not feasible. So no, we are not producing coins. I hope you understand why. 3) We have contacted you and told you what we needed to move forward. You basically told us to go away. To be completely transparent to the community: a) We monitor blockchains very closely for our deposits/withdrawals. Problem is, when we use the official blockexplorer which is incorrect, and we were lead to follow a bad fork until it was too late. All this without a single notification. b) When we tried to move to the "new" fork, we had 110 deposits that were orphaned which equated to approximately 700k of SUPER coins. c) We have asked that you mint the coins caused by the forks to cover the difference in the forks. We are happy to work with the community on solving this, and we don't even mind covering some of the losses, like we have in many other forks, but the number of coins here is over 30% of our wallet size and not practical. If we cannot come to a solution, we will just close the market and leave the wallet open on the old for for people to withdraw. We have not heard back from Mintpal yet, but wanted to get ahead of this. Thanks, Richie Thanks for the update. I'm not sure how 'minting' coins would work to cover losses. It would seem undesirable for developers to be able to mint coins at will. But perhaps a relaunch would work, with a reduced pos scheme for everyone, to cover losses, and maintain confidence in the coin. That would entail a hard fork with the whole community plus exchanges on board. The details could be thrashed out with input from experienced independent developers. If the price of a stable coin is a massive reduction in pos rewards, then in my own view it would be worth it. |
|
|
|
Can some third party translate me from english to english?
I am non-native english speaker , so there is slight chance i didn't understand well...
Exchanges had terms like this: Today 100 coins, tomorrow 200 coins, the day after tomorrow 400 coins... 100% daily is that?
It is no different that a usual wallet staking... Super has %100 yearly PoS rewards for the first year then it will drop to %50 and the following years %1. In your previous post you claimed that Exchanges have a DAILY 100% pos scheme. Now you are saying that they're no different to Investors, who have a YEARLY 100%pos scheme. Which is it? You are not helping the situation with this confusion. It will be better for all concerned if this is cleared up immediately. |
|
|
|
We have great reward for exchanges daily %100 PoS coins. Usually they don't share these coins with you. the longer they keep coins in their exchange more they can produce coins.
I am afraid we may have to interrupt the relation ship with these current 4 exchanges in our OP. Because they not answer back we don't know what's with them. I cant hold in my OP not working exchanges so long.
And we may have to find new one and continue from there. I am watching the issue.
I have almost got an heart attack. Is this true? Yes exchanges are no different than usual wallets. Like you can stake they can do as well unless they close staking in conf file. Get it right at least. Exchanges ARE different. They get 100% proof of stake to undermine investors with their own product. |
|
|
|
We have great reward for exchanges daily %100 PoS coins. Usually they don't share these coins with you. the longer they keep coins in their exchange more they can produce coins.
I am afraid we may have to interrupt the relation ship with these current 4 exchanges in our OP. Because they not answer back we don't know what's with them. I cant hold in my OP not working exchanges so long.
And we may have to find new one and continue from there. I am watching the issue.
So investors get ripped off as exchanges (and developers?) get to pump out more coin and dump on the market driving the price down. I've shut down my wallets and cancelled my buy orders, and I'm dumping my coin unless this ripoff is ended. We should have been told of this scam from day one. I am sorry if you think that way. We were target by others especially hype oriented coins. Also this is not the first time an exchange attack us. We are still here and supporting the plan. Super was doing pretty well before fork issue happened. It will be sorted out we will do whatever. Nobody forced you to issue or allow 'special' coins for a ripoff elite... or keep genuine investors in the dark about the scam. There's ZERO chance of this coin ever taking off now it's out in the open. Nobody will trust a coin that extra weight to a controlling clique. How many of these coins are there? What are the addresses? You might as well come clean with the rest of this shameful fiasco. |
|
|
|
We have great reward for exchanges daily %100 PoS coins. Usually they don't share these coins with you. the longer they keep coins in their exchange more they can produce coins.
I am afraid we may have to interrupt the relation ship with these current 4 exchanges in our OP. Because they not answer back we don't know what's with them. I cant hold in my OP not working exchanges so long.
And we may have to find new one and continue from there. I am watching the issue.
So investors get ripped off as exchanges (and developers?) get to pump out more coin and dump on the market driving the price down. I've shut down my wallets and cancelled my buy orders, and I'm dumping my coin unless this ripoff is ended. We should have been told of this scam from day one. |
|
|
|
|
The first problem with this coin is the name. I stumbled of a reference to the tech, with no link, and when I googled it I was led to a seemingly defunct scamcoin. It would appear that there are Two Supercoins, or this is a relaunch of another Supercoin, but the confusion doesn't generate any confidence. And then to add to the confusion there seems to be a Mammothcoin with a much lower value using the same tech.
This might irrelevant to the community but if you want to expand you need to improve your google profile and clarify matters for outsiders. Just a small point, but a clear statement of the coin's Unique Identifier (Super) would help. I tried in vain to find it on the first page of this announcement. At least with That information confirmed, I'd know that I was looking at the right supercoin on the exchanges. And if Super and Mamm are hand-in-glove then some explanation of the price differential would be helpful.
And yes I am making efforts to answer these questions for myself, but how many pass on by because they skim over and see super=scam?
|
|
|
|
I look at syscoin and see an obvious scam based on promises that the devs had no intention of keeping. But this time it's hand in glove with major exchange... and a regulated financial services operative left holding a Huge amount of escrow. So Moolah have the problem that if they release the escrow they could be accused of participating in a criminal fraud. The devs are claiming that without the funds they can't continue development of the coin. And the intitial investors are wanting their money back. If this one plays out as I think it will then Moolah will be served with an injunction preventing them from distributing the escrow. Mintpal (a moolah subsidiary) will loose a substantial amount of their already dwindling market, and because of the sums involved the fiasco will proceed to a court case, and possibly a criminal investigation.
Moolah should have returned the funds (I wasn't an investor) as soon as the launch went tits up. It wasn't just misfortune. The original wallet was an obsolete buggy version of litecoin with some extra bolt-on features that didn't work. There was no effort went into the project (unlike many alts launched without IPO) and no more intention for it to succeed than Usecoin. But with millions at stake, it won't just be written off to experience, and the aftershock will rock the whole altcoin community. The claim that the devs need the funds to 'get it right' don't match up with any previous alt.
So there's a very good case for bringing charges of fraud, even if they don't make it to trial. And you might get an answer to your question much sooner than you anticipated.
BTW I wasn't a sys investor. I lost a small amount on the launch and dumped my holdings. But Mintpal have lost half their trading volume since the launch, so I fancy I'm not alone in my assessment. A cold launch might be hard to prove as a scam... but an IPO makes it so much easier.
I haven't followed sys very closely, so can't make any informed comments really. I believe there was no cap in place for the ipo, which scared me away early on. The problem when we throw around the term 'fraud' is first even defining fraud. If an exchange releases funds to a dev before a working wallet is out, and their terms clearly state they wouldn't do so... then yeah, it seems like fraudulent behavior to me (whether it's a criminal case is another matter). But the shady areas are where wallets work fine, and the dev provides a working product as claimed. Most of the Bittrex run ICOs didn't fail because the devs didn't release working wallets. More often it was because the devs bailed... they didn't use any of the funds on the coins themselves and in some cases just walked away entirely. People will scream 'scam' and such, but is it fraud on an exchange's part in any way? How could they know a dev would bail beforehand? Even knowing their identities is of limited help (although better than nothing). You're missing the point entirely, that what you and I believe is rapidly becoming immaterial. Syscoin Mintpal and Moolah launched the coin as a partnership. Just google it to find the press releases and videos. The launch was a fiasco, and now Moolah are holding millions of dollars worth of escrow funds. It's no longer a small scale scam. Moolah are a registered financial services provider, and subject to investigation when there's the merest suggestion of impropriety. They can't hold the funds indefinitely or release them without incurring the wrath of two warring factions. So the scene is set for an investigation that will lead the authorities to the heart of the altcoin world. And unlike the usecoin devs, Moolah and Mintpal can't just up sticks and vanish. But investors can and will disappear as they see their investments about to go up in smoke. Including funds held in exchanges. And if the exchanges go bust then the whole altcoin scene goes up in smoke. It may sound alarmist, but if Moolah pay the devs the aftershock will be nothing more than spectacular. And nobody now in their right minds will consider buying sys. With Moolah on board and millions at stake, the financial regulators would be derelict in their duty if they failed to investigate. And they are perfectly entitled to call in the fraud squad if there's any suggestion that the product released was not Fit For Purpose. The fraud squad in turn will coordinate their activities US and other foreign authorities. Leaving Moolah and Mintpal struggling to escape the grip of a heavily publicised partnership. Interesting times ahead. |
|
|
|
It should be the minimum for any coin, not just IPOs. And it's pointless claiming that nobody wants That. At the current level of fraud it won't be long before exchanges find themselves being targeted for investigation by the authorities. And if they decide on criminal investigation, then it's warrents search and siezure... which will effectively destroy the alts.
My point about a trade association is that members will abide by a common code of conduct. Which will do away with the objection that those adopting the code will lose out. If the major players adopt common codes then the scamcoins can be marginalised to the rogue exchanges. And legitimate coins will have greater freedom to flourish. Good practice by consensus and mutual agreement is the way forward. It's been an essential component of commerce throughout history. Even the Mafia owes it's success to that model.
I don't see it happening for all coins. People can also claim they want regulation, but if they truly did, they wouldn't be investing in so many shadier coins to begin with. People are generally fine with scams/shady coins and such... if they make money. If they get cheated, then it's a problem and they want regulation. It does bring up an interesting point though. If an exchange lists a coin where a dev bails or dumps a premine, are they partaking in any form of fraud necessarily? They aren't the ones committing fraud, and in many cases, it's sort of a gray area if the devs themselves are even breaking any laws. I look at syscoin and see an obvious scam based on promises that the devs had no intention of keeping. But this time it's hand in glove with major exchange... and a regulated financial services operative left holding a Huge amount of escrow. So Moolah have the problem that if they release the escrow they could be accused of participating in a criminal fraud. The devs are claiming that without the funds they can't continue development of the coin. And the intitial investors are wanting their money back. If this one plays out as I think it will then Moolah will be served with an injunction preventing them from distributing the escrow. Mintpal (a moolah subsidiary) will loose a substantial amount of their already dwindling market, and because of the sums involved the fiasco will proceed to a court case, and possibly a criminal investigation. Moolah should have returned the funds (I wasn't an investor) as soon as the launch went tits up. It wasn't just misfortune. The original wallet was an obsolete buggy version of litecoin with some extra bolt-on features that didn't work. There was no effort went into the project (unlike many alts launched without IPO) and no more intention for it to succeed than Usecoin. But with millions at stake, it won't just be written off to experience, and the aftershock will rock the whole altcoin community. The claim that the devs need the funds to 'get it right' don't match up with any previous alt. So there's a very good case for bringing charges of fraud, even if they don't make it to trial. And you might get an answer to your question much sooner than you anticipated. BTW I wasn't a sys investor. I lost a small amount on the launch and dumped my holdings. But Mintpal have lost half their trading volume since the launch, so I fancy I'm not alone in my assessment. A cold launch might be hard to prove as a scam... but an IPO makes it so much easier. |
|
|
|
Yes, just looking through the list of recent Bittrex launches, a lacklustre string of pump and dump, now giving way to the pre-dumped. It's like a factory churning out new coins, wringing out every ounce of value from eager punters, then ditching the worthless remains. Fifteen pages of (mostly) shitcoins.
Do you wonder that I have grave doubts about the future of these exchanges, and altcoins? The writing's on the wall, and the exchanges need to up their game. Codes of conduct, complaints procedures, and a self-regulating trade association. Before the FBI step in and call the shots.
Bittrex should make changes to their ICO model, but haven't shown any inclination to do so as of yet. The reason being... people are still buying the things. They should institute stronger rules for all ICO coins, require dev identification and hold funds until they are used for what they are supposed to be used for, with a full ledger. Again, it comes down to money. I expect they are hesitant to do this, with the idea that other exchanges will then eat up all the trading fees. Although right now it appears only c-cex is embracing the ico model, so not so sure they have much to worry about. I'm sort of surprised people paid into usecoin to begin with, to be honest. I looked at it briefly, signed up for the freebie coins, then passed on it as it looked too sketchy. A minimal requirement for any ico should at least be some form of dev identification, be it pod or coinssource's trust rating, through an exchange checking ID, or just announcing who they are. At least that should be the min. requirement folks should use when thinking about investing in any ipos. It should be the minimum for any coin, not just IPOs. And it's pointless claiming that nobody wants That. At the current level of fraud it won't be long before exchanges find themselves being targeted for investigation by the authorities. And if they decide on criminal investigation, then it's warrents search and siezure... which will effectively destroy the alts. My point about a trade association is that members will abide by a common code of conduct. Which will do away with the objection that those adopting the code will lose out. If the major players adopt common codes then the scamcoins can be marginalised to the rogue exchanges. And legitimate coins will have greater freedom to flourish. Good practice by consensus and mutual agreement is the way forward. It's been an essential component of commerce throughout history. Even the Mafia owes it's success to that model. |
|
|
|
So the dev opens a regular account on the day of the launch, deposits a million and a half coins, out of five million total (just less than a third of the ipo), and nobody at Bittrex bats an eye. This must be a landmark in the history of due diligence. Are there any more surplus coins lurking in Bittrex accounts waiting to drop on unsuspecting punters? There's one ipo (neoscoin) trading even though the wallet's not due 'til September. That should be a laff.
Apparently so. If their system has no safeguards in the code for sneaky behavior, it's not necessarily unexpected that something like this could occur. They don't just sit there and watch every transaction manually. It probably would have been a lot safer if the coin was a Bittrex ico, as I assume the dev wouldn't have been paid until the premine was destroyed, and it'd be more likely it'd be under Bittrex control the entire time. They really shouldn't have offered to destroy coins for an ico/ipo not under their control. Nor even list the coin for trading until the premine was destroyed, which was their main mistake. I realize people here look at Bittrex as a key culprit, but in many ways they are sort of bystanders involved due to negligence (in my opinion). They should take blame, but in the end, people would have been cheated regardless. If Bittrex didn't list the coin, the dev would have dumped on c-cex and any other exchanges that took the coin. And even if he didn't dump, he obviously had no plans to develop the coin, so he would walk away sooner or later... resulting in a crash as well. People were doomed regardless, just with the premine dump, it came sooner rather than later. Yes, just looking through the list of recent Bittrex launches, a lacklustre string of pump and dump, now giving way to the pre-dumped. It's like a factory churning out new coins, wringing out every ounce of value from eager punters, then ditching the worthless remains. Fifteen pages of (mostly) shitcoins. Do you wonder that I have grave doubts about the future of these exchanges, and altcoins? The writing's on the wall, and the exchanges need to up their game. Codes of conduct, complaints procedures, and a self-regulating trade association. Before the FBI step in and call the shots. |
|
|
|
Which still doesn't answer the question of how a million and a half unsold coins wound up in a trading account on the day of the launch. Or why the developer should have claimed that Bittrex had agreed to destroy those coins. If they were held for destruction then why were they held in a trading account?
Can of worms anybody?
I do not know if Bittrex had even been given the coins to destroy yet. If so, they would have typically went to a locked account that Bittrex was in charge of. They stated they agreed to destroy the coins as a courtesy, which after this debacle, they no longer will extend. If the coins weren't sent to be destroyed yet, which is what I assume, all the dev had to to was use a regular account, send the coins there, and sell them like any regular investor. All people had was the word of the dev that the coins were to be destroyed. I am not aware of any proof that they were held anywhere safely. So the dev opens a regular account on the day of the launch, deposits a million and a half coins, out of five million total (just less than a third of the ipo), and nobody at Bittrex bats an eye. This must be a landmark in the history of due diligence. Are there any more surplus coins lurking in Bittrex accounts waiting to drop on unsuspecting punters? There's one ipo (neoscoin) trading even though the wallet's not due 'til September. That should be a laff. |
|
|
|
\
You know this how? Did Bittrex not undertake the initial distribution of the pre-sold coins?
So Bittrex had a million and a half unsold use sat in a trading account on the day of the launch and nobody thought to ask why?
The hole just got deeper. I strongly advise you to stop digging. Perhaps a little due diligence would be in order.
I am saying that Bittrex did not offer escrow on the coin, so it wasn't one of their ICOs. That is all I am saying. And I know this as it's obvious how the IPO was set up. Bittrex listed the coin on their exchange for trading before they should have. That is where they are guilty. Which still doesn't answer the question of how a million and a half unsold coins wound up in a trading account on the day of the launch. Or why the developer should have claimed that Bittrex had agreed to destroy those coins. If they were held for destruction then why were they held in a trading account? Can of worms anybody? |
|
|
|
Wasn't involved in this mess, thank goodness, but amid a growing number of questions about the extent of Bittrex's involvement in these failed ICOs, I'm curious, came across this Bittrex message from earlier this year and asked the following question. We're looking for IPO coins to partner with. If you are interested, please let me know.
Could you explain the original intent of this message? Looking forward to Bittrex's answer. Bittrex obviously has been offering ICOs on their exchange, basically as a form of escrow. That would be the logical answer. Usecoin was not one of them, by the way. You know this how? Did Bittrex not undertake the initial distribution of the pre-sold coins? So Bittrex had a million and a half unsold use sat in a trading account on the day of the launch and nobody thought to ask why? The hole just got deeper. I strongly advise you to stop digging. Perhaps a little due diligence would be in order. |
|
|
|
Tell it to silk road. These altcoin scams are becoming more frequent and audacious, so they're bound to attract the attention of the authorities. They're enacted with the tacit cooperation of Exchanges and other online service providers, who are vulnerable to having their premises raided, their servers seized, their businesses disrupted, and their clients financially inconvenienced. Thgey're no longer sole traders or small gangs operating independently behind a wall of pseudo-anonymity.
Take Syscoin, for example. I had my fingers slightly singed when trading opened on Mintpal, but I managed to bail out with most of my funds intact. Many others have lost substantial amounts. The coin was released with a laughably dysfunctional wallet, by any altcoin standards, because the developers had no intention of delivering a working product. Moolah handled the escrow, and the developers claimed to have returned the released funds. So now Moolah are holding the spoils and the developers are screaming that they need the funds to deliver a working product. Moolah have offered their support in this endeavour, and meanwhile the price has tanked and the volume has dried up. Mintpal supported the release, and they've taken a big hit on volume as a consequence. Moolah operate out of London as a legitimate financial services provider. So if the Serious Fraud Office come knocking on their doors demanding to know the whereabouts of the 'Devs' and the escrowed funds, Moolah will turn them in without batting an eye.
In the meanwhile the 'investors' are growing more angry because the escrowed funds are neither being returned nor used to develop a working coin. And the whole sorry tale is documented in the pages of Bitcoin Forum. You may think it's all a storm in a teacup, and the 'devs' broke no laws. But people are being conned to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, which makes it a matter for the authorities; and investigations could destroy the whole altcoin scene, by targeting the exchanges. Shouldn't surprise me if one or two of the big players are MtGoxed before the end of the year if this continues.
Of course the best time to begin investigating these scams is when the coins are first announced, and the 'devs' are active online. So mark my words, there are fun times ahead.
And with it will go BTC, and everything you love about it. BTC has been quite weak all year - perhaps in anticipation of this. It will certainly be devastating to the alts world if it happens. This is a scary - and plausible - scenario. And we're all collectively to blame. We had a chance to make the most of a true free market (one of the few left in this world) and really botched it. That's why we have regulation. People who resent government, regulation, and the police don't do so because they support anarchy. It's because they want to impose rules that work to their own personal advantage. In the 'alt' world freedom has come to mean being free to prey on the weakest and least advantaged. |
|
|
|
And with it will go BTC, and everything you love about it.
No BTC's too big to go down with the alts. But the alts are dead without the exchanges. the scam could have been easily caught out if bittrex was online. i think the problem here was that we were misunderstanding that the coins had been destroyed. we should have cleared that first before the ipo being released. we just need to make sure the next ipo we need to make sure that any remaining coins are destroyed. i think dev got greedy because he saw the coins were worth shit loads Bittrex should have been aware of the volume of Use being deposited to their exchange. It wasn't an insignificant amount. They should also have launched an investigation before releasing the BTC (if they have indeed been released). And for better or worse they still have a lot of documentation that could be used to trace the scammers. They also have the wallet addresses for the withdrawal of the scammed funds. So Bittrex might have been caught napping, but they also chose to nothing for the protection of their clients. I shan't be back. |
|
|
|
Seriously though, everything is just turning into a scam it's unbelievable. If ethereum turns out to be a scam (which it probably is) that might just be enough to actually end crypto for good.
There are many well known ppl behind Ethereum, so I donīt believe its a scam. But there still can something go wrong badly. Ethereum isn't a scam - the problem is that their ICO isn't structured like an investment where you can expect much of an ROI. It's set up more like a donation. You mean a registered charity? Because it's illegal to solicit donations without being a registered charity. Well, they're set up like a non-profit foundation, no? And they have good lawyers - they've made it look like an ICO (and sound like one), when the reality of how it's set up makes it a virtual donation. A non-profit foundation is a charity if it solicits donations. And charities have to be registered as such. Looking at their website, they're raising funds by selling a coin like any other, based on a new technology. Whether that technology is delivered or not remains to be seen. If it is genuine then it will be traded with the same risks as any other coin. But scam IPOs could still damage the success of it's launch. I'm surprised that major platforms like Cryptsy and Mintpal are even touching these anonymous IPOs. They should be left to flounder in the marginal exchanges. But then Mintpal and Cryptsy have lost 75% of their volumes in the last few months. Still taking around $125,000 dollars a day each though. Which is reason enough to exercise restraint and due diligence before accepting coins on their platforms. |
|
|
|
And with it will go BTC, and everything you love about it.
No BTC's too big to go down with the alts. But the alts are dead without the exchanges. |
|
|
|
Seriously though, everything is just turning into a scam it's unbelievable. If ethereum turns out to be a scam (which it probably is) that might just be enough to actually end crypto for good.
There are many well known ppl behind Ethereum, so I donīt believe its a scam. But there still can something go wrong badly. Ethereum isn't a scam - the problem is that their ICO isn't structured like an investment where you can expect much of an ROI. It's set up more like a donation. You mean a registered charity? Because it's illegal to solicit donations without being a registered charity. |
|
|
|
On the subject of UseD... it occurs to me that they had a website which must have been hosted... and paid for... probably in fiat. A few bribes might jog a few memories. Perhaps a reward fund for information leading to the discovery of the perpetrators (I'm sure Moolah would handle the excrow to guarantee honesty). All information to be delivered to the appropriate authorities, of course.
BTW an anyone confirm the transfer of the proceeds from Bittrex? I'm not much good with block explorers. Shouldn't be too hard, unless the coins are being siphoned off slowly to avoid scrutiny... in which case Bittrex still have time to launch an investigation.
Lets see
Emails
BitcoinForum
Pools
CCEx
Bittrex
Web hosting
Escrow
Maidak will be escrowing the IPO/Pre-sale for UseCoin, see instructions below!
ip addresses
there must be enough breadcrumbs to follow.
No, none of that will work. Servers can be purchased with BTC, IP addresses can be masked behind VPN's and botnets. You would totally be wasting energy for NOTHING. I seriously doubt any real crime has been committed and that no authority would even take on the case. Why? You are trading a non-regulated currency system on an exchange where the TOS state no one is responsible for your money except yourself. Seriously, I'm out around .12 BTC roughly a tank of gas on this scam. I can afford that, having invested in other coins and made money on the IPO upswing. I would have made .3 or .4 BTC on this upswing had I set my sell orders a little bit lower. Greed struck me this time. My sells were at 4000 sat, setting them to 3500 or so would have gotten me out and put some BTC in my wallet. Lesson learned. Tell it to silk road. These altcoin scams are becoming more frequent and audacious, so they're bound to attract the attention of the authorities. They're enacted with the tacit cooperation of Exchanges and other online service providers, who are vulnerable to having their premises raided, their servers seized, their businesses disrupted, and their clients financially inconvenienced. Thgey're no longer sole traders or small gangs operating independently behind a wall of pseudo-anonymity. Take Syscoin, for example. I had my fingers slightly singed when trading opened on Mintpal, but I managed to bail out with most of my funds intact. Many others have lost substantial amounts. The coin was released with a laughably dysfunctional wallet, by any altcoin standards, because the developers had no intention of delivering a working product. Moolah handled the escrow, and the developers claimed to have returned the released funds. So now Moolah are holding the spoils and the developers are screaming that they need the funds to deliver a working product. Moolah have offered their support in this endeavour, and meanwhile the price has tanked and the volume has dried up. Mintpal supported the release, and they've taken a big hit on volume as a consequence. Moolah operate out of London as a legitimate financial services provider. So if the Serious Fraud Office come knocking on their doors demanding to know the whereabouts of the 'Devs' and the escrowed funds, Moolah will turn them in without batting an eye. In the meanwhile the 'investors' are growing more angry because the escrowed funds are neither being returned nor used to develop a working coin. And the whole sorry tale is documented in the pages of Bitcoin Forum. You may think it's all a storm in a teacup, and the 'devs' broke no laws. But people are being conned to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, which makes it a matter for the authorities; and investigations could destroy the whole altcoin scene, by targeting the exchanges. Shouldn't surprise me if one or two of the big players are MtGoxed before the end of the year if this continues. Of course the best time to begin investigating these scams is when the coins are first announced, and the 'devs' are active online. So mark my words, there are fun times ahead. |
|
|
|
|
On the subject of UseD... it occurs to me that they had a website which must have been hosted... and paid for... probably in fiat. A few bribes might jog a few memories. Perhaps a reward fund for information leading to the discovery of the perpetrators (I'm sure Moolah would handle the excrow to guarantee honesty). All information to be delivered to the appropriate authorities, of course.
BTW an anyone confirm the transfer of the proceeds from Bittrex? I'm not much good with block explorers. Shouldn't be too hard, unless the coins are being siphoned off slowly to avoid scrutiny... in which case Bittrex still have time to launch an investigation.
Lets see
Emails
BitcoinForum
Pools
CCEx
Bittrex
Web hosting
Escrow
Maidak will be escrowing the IPO/Pre-sale for UseCoin, see instructions below!
ip addresses
there must be enough breadcrumbs to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
