Twenty dollars was a prediction, said Garza, not a promise, based on “reasonable” assumptions. Still, he never corrected users' expectations that GAW would enforce a price floor of $20.
“There are variables we never saw and we didn’t factor in. The one that matters most is the organized effort to see Paycoin fail,” he said.
That conspiracy would be no small effort: amassing substantial amounts of coins at a rate that didn’t arouse suspicion and precisely coordinating sales to thwart buying momentum.
I know that was Josh's story about a coordinated effort etc., but is there any actual evidence of a conspiracy for "amassing substantial amounts of coins at a rate that didn’t arouse suspicion and precisely coordinating sales to thwart buying momentum"? |
|
|
|
oh shit they named the SEC source
Confirming that there actually is an SEC investigation is a two-edged sword for the HT faithful who were convinced coinfire made the whole thing up. |
|
|
|
I have a question. When coinfire released the SEC investigation article HT was basically calling for Josh to sue them on the basis of making false claims and posting forged documents of GAW doing illegal trading and so on. Now for Josh to sue coinfire wouldn't he have to prove for his lawsuit against coinfire that he not doing anything illegal to say that coinfire was making false claims and it has hurt his business. In theory if Josh does not sue coinfire he is probably doing something illegal and a lawsuit would prove that or am I just pulling this out my ass and it means nothing. I know almost nothing about the law.
The most telling thing here is that Josh really wanted to sue us. Now that we are a bit further in the shit on things I'm just going to tell you guys this... Josh's lawyers have dropped everything (for now). It took about one minute of pre-discovery to show we were reporting the truth and suddenly they aren't coming at us anymore. That is VERY telling. What else was required to get them to drop everything beyond proving that you actually got a file from the SEC, and your article accurately reported what it said? There was never any real reason to doubt that, but it was probably worth it to Josh to find out more detail on what you had. Beyond that, how is this "very telling"? If there's a smoking gun in the file, why did your source say that without more information than what they've got so far, "more resources won't be spent on this"? That makes it sound like a dud, at least as far as the SEC is concerned. |
|
|
|
I have a question. When coinfire released the SEC investigation article HT was basically calling for Josh to sue them on the basis of making false claims and posting forged documents of GAW doing illegal trading and so on. Now for Josh to sue coinfire wouldn't he have to prove for his lawsuit against coinfire that he not doing anything illegal to say that coinfire was making false claims and it has hurt his business. In theory if Josh does not sue coinfire he is probably doing something illegal and a lawsuit would prove that or am I just pulling this out my ass and it means nothing. I know almost nothing about the law.
Yup. Part of a libel/slander lawsuit is proving that the person you are suing is lying. If they are telling the truth, you have no case. My old prof in college used to put it this way: "Truth is the ultimate defense for a slander case." In theory in the following months if Josh doesn't show he is going to sue CoinFire then he is more than likely doing something illegal. We all know how Josh loves to send cease and desists to news outlets with opposing view points. All Coinfire said was that they got a file about an "active" investigation. But here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.msg10212034#msg10212034he clarifies that at this point it's just a preliminary investigation, "to determine if it warrants any sort of major investigation." And furthermore: One of our sources even ended with a remark that now is the time to submit information or else more resources won't be spent on this.
In other words, out of that thousand pages ("the bulk of it is just things people have sent in") the SEC hasn't found enough to justify spending more resources on the investigation. If all of the material available, plus whatever was submitted privately, isn't enough to justify spending the resources to give it a closer look then the prospects are dim, at least from an SEC point of view. |
|
|
|
Be careful, as we get closer to feb more people will realize that the "buyback" doesn't actually start till march, and that they will not get their actual 20 for a while.
It doesn't even start in March. The enrollment ends March 2, and buybacks are on the first of the month, so the earliest possible date for the first payment is April 1. The buyback as they've described it is a seriously stupid idea. It gives them a short-term boost at best, for a long-term liability that costs them real money. Plus, after it's started, if they make the payments month after month it's not news after a while, so they get little good PR out of it. But if they ever miss or reduce the payments it's bad PR. |
|
|
|
Ask if a ban was justified? That's a bannin'.   |
|
|
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (breathe) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! So he managed to chicken out of the speech/Q&A that the conference offered him, AND the Q&A session he said he wanted instead, AND the meet-and-greet with his fans, AND the mining panel. And still found time to oversee the botched launch of poorly-tested software that turned out to be nothing but a wrapper around someone else's web site. |
|
|
|
So the story is that he had planned to speak earlier today, and to announce PayFlash at that time. Then the event was cancelled because PayFlash hadn't passed QA, and "we will not release software that does not pass QA." As if he couldn't hold a Q&A if PayFlash wasn't live. Then a few hours later PayFlash is released. It conveniently passed QA very shortly after it gave Josh an excuse to chicken out. Then PayFlash causes a flash crash of XPY on the paybase site. And PayFlash turns out just to just be a facade round Gyft. GAW sells XPY (at a bad exchange rate) for BTC. And obviously GAW has no bots that balance demand between Paybase and other exchanges, or else the PayFlash crash wouldn't have happened. XPY was $0.09 a minute or two ago on paybase. Now paybase is down (Cloudflare error 520). Awesome QA as always from GAW. All in all, quite a day for Josh. EDIT: https://hashtalk.org/topic/29491GAWCEO writes: "The market is being manipulated. We are tracking it down." Because what's the point in buying an exchange if not to be able to halt trading when it isn't doing what you want? |
|
|
|
some will win n some will wish they had more faith
the trick is buy under 20
"the trick is buy under 20 satoshis" FTFY you can try but you could be in danger of being too late for the party all aboard You might be right but I guess that's a risk I'll have to take. I think what's holding me back is that there's not even one aspect of paycoin/paybase so far that hasn't been massively screwed up, their absurd pre-launch promises and hype all came up empty, and the new promises that haven't failed yet wouldn't come close to justifying a $20 price even under the most naive and rosy of assumptions. |
|
|
|
some will win n some will wish they had more faith
the trick is buy under 20
"the trick is buy under 20 satoshis" FTFY |
|
|
|
The nice thing about it is that the Ars Technica article is getting publicity before even being published. Mr. Garza must be really concerned if he's having his creative writer do these rebuttals for something that doesn't even exist. This one is probably related too, not sure if this is about the same reporter or not: https://hashtalk.org/topic/28975Despite my best efforts to explain the increasingly important role Paycoin™ enjoys, in addition to my defense of cryptocurrencies in general, I quickly recognized that the reporter's adversarial approach – his disbelief that there is even a market for digital currencies, followed by an almost contemptuous attitude about some very straightforward numbers – left me with one of two options, fight or flight.
I could have thrown a combination of air punches, or I could have not so much fled as I could – and did – state my case with evidence . . . and politely conclude the "conversation." If it's the same reporter it would explain why he's making preemptive strikes against ars technica. Incoming! He's also got to be frustrated that even many of the HT faithful saw the "$20 buyback" program for what it really was. I'll bet he was expecting a good pre-conference bounce. |
|
|
|
@ bananafana - keep dreaming and buying into the hype at your own detriment.
I'll do that, if you'll practice your reading skills. Deal? :-) |
|
|
|
https://hashtalk.org/topic/28929/why-merchants-will-love-paycoin-and-paybase/3"Why Merchants Will Love PayCoin and Paybase" Followed by very little agreement and a surprising amount of healthy skepticism. It's a good sign. No processing fees? I've paid a fee every time I made a transaction. Merchants that do accept this outside of the crypto space will dump it for fiat. So who gives the merchant the $20... Show me the bucket of cash to do this. A merchant sure as hell will not lock a coin up for an infinite time escrow to get $20... I'm always amazed at people who think big business will hold any crypto currency as an "investment". Your point number 1... Where is the money.... Show me 110 million dollars from the CAF... I dont see it, i see no one that invested stand and back the coin... Every time I bought from paybase I paid a fee. Every time I sold at paybase I paid a fee. Every time I transfered money I paid a fee. There is nothing in the xpy ecosystem that was free. There is literally no way to move paycoin around without paying fees. Even buying merchandise has a transaction fee. (A small one, but still a fee.)
|
|
|
|
The market reads this perfectly. There is no incentive to bid the coin up.
The lower the price the greater the return of those turning in their coins.
What? If people believe gaw will go through with this, they should be willing to pay a high price for the coin now. Wishing the price was lower does not mean you won't do something that makes it higher. Am I misunderstanding you? GAW isn't promising to buy your coins for $20. They're promising you a share in payouts that add up to $20 per coin over years if not decades. Factor in inflation over those years or decades and the payments don't even have a present value of $20. Factor in the probability of GAW not staying in business for that many years and it looks even worse. If you pay $5, and a million coins are put into the buyback program, your ROI is over four years. Four years just to get the five dollars back. If GAW goes bankrupt or defaults on the payments in less than four years you lose money. Even at $3 you need GAW to stay in business for 2.5 years, and stay profitable enough to keep making the payments, just to break even. What probability do you give them of being able to keep paycoin/paybase going that long? |
|
|
|
Not waking up very fast if he thinks "your CAF is big enough to go $1 million or a few million a month." |
|
|
|
It's obviously bullshit because it doesn't make sense. Now that the $20 price will be "honored" it doesn't make sense for GAW to let the price sit at 5. Every coin they buy at $5 puts $15 back in their pocket. What is the plan to earn that $15 between now and march?
"Every coin they buy at $5 puts $15 back in their pocket." Who buys? Whose pocket? If you buy that coin from GAW at $5, then GAW gets $5 in cash from you right now, in exchange for agreeing to pay you ten cents per month for 17 years (assuming a million coins go into the vault). Exactly. Its so simple that is why it is missed.. all that amazon wallmart lot when they throw the final switch you will be able to go to amazon/wallmart and they will give you 20 worth of gear and you give them 1 paycoin hey presto every paycoin is worth 20 .l  I assume you're joking. They're no longer promising anything like that. And just to put the buyback thing in terms the HT crowd would understand, if your average price per coin is $5, and a million coins go into the vault, your ROI is about four years. That's just to get your $5 per coin back. |
|
|
|
It's obviously bullshit because it doesn't make sense. Now that the $20 price will be "honored" it doesn't make sense for GAW to let the price sit at 5. Every coin they buy at $5 puts $15 back in their pocket. What is the plan to earn that $15 between now and march?
Every coin who buys at $5 puts $15 back into whose pocket? If you buy that coin from GAW at $5, then GAW gets i$5 in cash from you right now, in exchange for agreeing to pay you ten cents per month for 17 years (assuming a million coins go into the vault). If GAW buys a coin from you at 5 dollars, they have 15 dollars that they budgeted to exchange for that coin to do whatever the fuck they feel like. That's why this $20 dollars later is obvious bullshit when the price is so far below 20. That doesn't make any sense. They have all the XPY they need from the premine. More than they could ever sell. If they buy a coin from you at XPY they have more XPY and less cash. If you sell them an XPY on paybase you sell it below the market rate so they can turn around and dump it on the exchange. They aren't budgeting $15 for "that coin" or any coin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
