Hi all,
I just wanted to ask: is Hashing24 still considered a scam or not in 2025? Any updates from people who have experience with them recently would be very helpful.
Thanks!
This is a very old thread and I don't expect to get replies from the previous members as many of them have been inactive for long periods. Personally, I completely refuse to deal with any cloud mining platform, no matter how long it has been in the field.
For you, you should do your own research to decide whether to use it. As for me, given that there have been accusations of fraud directed at this platform for years, I cannot trust them over time. All such accusations are warning signs to avoid it..
Also, I found a topic that was published on Reddit about a year ago titled [
Hashing24 scamming me...], you can check it out.
I confirm the connection between the companies Weltrade.com and Hashing24.com, these entities are affiliated. I am attaching a screenshot from Google Analytics that is linked to the Systemgates Limited account (704-911-3166). I was an employee of Weltrade, where for more than 15 years I managed advertising campaigns and supervised the Ukrainian market direction.
With regard to your Reddit post stating that a person was unable to withdraw 100 euros, I believe the issue is not that the funds were deliberately withheld, but rather that the individual may have entered into a contract that ultimately resulted in a loss. At the same time, I agree with Gleb that, in general, any cloud mining companies, forex brokers, or crypto exchanges that do not publish reports comparable to U.S. banking standards, hedge fund disclosure requirements, or regulated crypto exchange reporting frameworks should not be permitted to operate.
I am not accusing Hashing24 or any other company. This post is published strictly as a forensic analysis of technical and structural vulnerabilities that exist within such business models.
I am confident that the individual who lost 100 euros did so not because of a direct scam, but due to non-transparent contractual conditions similar to those previously used in binary options schemes and similar to the mechanisms through which cloud mining structures can generate profit today. Let us examine this in technical terms.
First, any cloud-based Bitcoin mining operation today is structurally unprofitable when real costs are taken into account, particularly electricity costs. This remains true even in countries where electricity prices are relatively low. Alternative energy sources do not eliminate this issue, as they remain capital-intensive, require ongoing maintenance, and involve equipment depreciation.
Second, where does profit originate in such models? Consider the following structure. An individual deposits 100 euros at a time when Bitcoin is priced at 100,000. The individual receives a contract with a fixed expiration period of three months. Subsequently, the Bitcoin market undergoes a correction and trades at approximately 60,000. After three months, the individual requests a withdrawal. Due to the decline in market price, the total value of the Bitcoin attributed to their mining contract is now lower. In effect, the individual obtained synthetic mining exposure at a Bitcoin price of 100,000, while the current market valuation is 60,000, resulting in a drawdown.
Third, if a company does not publish verifiable reports and does not confirm via blockchain evidence whether client funds were actually allocated to real mining hardware, such as ASICs or other equipment, including hardware identifiers, serial numbers, and physical locations, then all such claims remain purely declarative. It may be stated that funds are allocated to mining infrastructure, while in practice this may not occur. As a result, when Bitcoin prices decline, many clients psychologically wait for a market recovery. However, contracts expire and are settled according to their predefined terms, while the company retains the price differential created by the market decline. I reiterate that I am not accusing any specific entity, this is a purely technical and structural possibility.
For this reason, it is critically important that cloud mining operations which do not publish public reports comparable to U.S. banking and financial disclosure standards should not be permitted to conduct shadow or unregulated business activities, particularly in jurisdictions where regulatory frameworks are weak or absent. This includes regions in Asia, Latin America, India, Africa, and other markets where such structures have the technical capacity to operate with limited oversight. Often, access is restricted for Europe or the United States, while local-language or regional versions of websites remain accessible in more vulnerable jurisdictions.
From a purely technical perspective, the following scenario is possible. In such jurisdictions, advertising campaigns are launched, partners are recruited, and capital is extracted from local participants. Subsequently, through these same partners, market entry into Europe or the United States can occur. These partners may already be financially intertwined with such capital flows, allowing the structure to function as a Trojan horse. From there, funds can be introduced into religious institutions, political activities, business ventures, real estate acquisitions, and other sectors. While source-of-funds checks formally exist and numerous mechanisms are available to legitimize capital through local business structures, the systemic risk remains.
I am describing a technical possibility that can, in principle, be applied. I am not accusing any company or individual. My objective is to highlight the necessity of prohibiting cloud mining, MLM, forex, or similar schemes that lack public reporting, regulatory oversight, and transparent operational verification, particularly when such structures rely on offshore jurisdictions. These entities can technically pose risks to national interests and may function as Trojan horses within financial and social systems.
I am publishing this analysis in order to protect ordinary, inexperienced investors, as well as to protect legitimate companies that operate transparently, are properly regulated in major jurisdictions, and publish detailed public reports in line with established standards, such as those followed by U.S.-regulated financial and technology companies.
Scan from gmail:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MU5Eb100ZjfyfkT4BsAZsWfwRZmHZGsn/view?usp=drivesdkPDF copy:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/139fWKFnl6gHitJS3pue8gBHCzH1uCa-r/view?usp=drivesdk
