[ANN][BCC] Bitconnect Coin - Decentralized Cryptocurrency

[soulcancer]

people still defending this shit....with actual sentences...there is absolutely no way that a human being can be so dumb and still be able to form sentences....therefore, I tend to believe that they are bcc shills hoping to screw one more idiot out of their life savings....sad thing is...it will probably work....however, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just dangerously stupid...let's see if they are so stupid as to be a danger to themselves....ATTENTION: a new lending platform (that actually works) has been created...I have placed it in the bottom of your bag of bread in the kitchen...remove the bread...place your head in the bag....and wait for 6000% returns

[fleer]

where is carlos everybody?

[YuTü.Co.in]

people still defending this shit....with actual sentences...there is absolutely no way that a human being can be so dumb and still be able to form sentences....therefore, I tend to believe that they are bcc shills hoping to screw one more idiot out of their life savings....sad thing is...it will probably work....however, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just dangerously stupid...let's see if they are so stupid as to be a danger to themselves....ATTENTION: a new lending platform (that actually works) has been created...I have placed it in the bottom of your bag of bread in the kitchen...remove the bread...place your head in the bag....and wait for 6000% returns

Investard: I'm not stupid! If you take the bread outta the bag, then where will the air for breathing come from since we all know that bread is made up of mostly air akin to humans being made up of mostly water since naturally buoyant? Back on topic, I bought thousands of pounds worth of BCC at ~U$3.00 knowing full well that I'll be able to purchase another thousands of pounds more at ~U$2.00, and even a slew more once it reaches ~U$1.00, thus having a handsome portfolio that'll someday moon, whereupon once leaving the workforce, I'll be able to enjoy my retardedment to its fullest.

[soulcancer]

people still defending this shit....with actual sentences...there is absolutely no way that a human being can be so dumb and still be able to form sentences....therefore, I tend to believe that they are bcc shills hoping to screw one more idiot out of their life savings....sad thing is...it will probably work....however, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just dangerously stupid...let's see if they are so stupid as to be a danger to themselves....ATTENTION: a new lending platform (that actually works) has been created...I have placed it in the bottom of your bag of bread in the kitchen...remove the bread...place your head in the bag....and wait for 6000% returns

Investard: I'm not stupid! If you take the bread outta the bag, then where will the air for breathing come from since we all know that bread is made up of mostly air akin to humans being made up of mostly water since naturally buoyant? Back on topic, I bought thousands of pounds worth of BCC at ~U$3.00 knowing full well that I'll be able to purchase another thousands of pounds more at ~U$2.00, and even a slew more once it reaches ~U$1.00, thus having a handsome portfolio that'll someday moon, whereupon once leaving the workforce, I'll be able to enjoy my retardedment to its fullest.

the previous investor will lend you the air....you cant lose!!!

[YuTü.Co.in]

people still defending this shit....with actual sentences...there is absolutely no way that a human being can be so dumb and still be able to form sentences....therefore, I tend to believe that they are bcc shills hoping to screw one more idiot out of their life savings....sad thing is...it will probably work....however, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are just dangerously stupid...let's see if they are so stupid as to be a danger to themselves....ATTENTION: a new lending platform (that actually works) has been created...I have placed it in the bottom of your bag of bread in the kitchen...remove the bread...place your head in the bag....and wait for 6000% returns

Investard: I'm not stupid! If you take the bread outta the bag, then where will the air for breathing come from since we all know that bread is made up of mostly air akin to humans being made up of mostly water since naturally buoyant? Back on topic, I bought thousands of pounds worth of BCC at ~U$3.00 knowing full well that I'll be able to purchase another thousands of pounds more at ~U$2.00, and even a slew more once it reaches ~U$1.00, thus having a handsome portfolio that'll someday moon, whereupon once leaving the workforce, I'll be able to enjoy my retardedment to its fullest.

the previous investor will lend you the air....you cant lose!!!

"First, I was yanked out of a comfy plastic bag and placed into this open-air paper bag. What I witnessed next prior to being shipped here, you're not gonna believe. Some Investard wrapped the bag around his head, then proceeded to die. Wait, it gets better. Then, another Investard, seeing an opportunity, took the bag and placed it over his head so to breathe the air left behind by the previous Investard who consumed the air I left behind, producing the same results.
What's your story?"

[AGM76]

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.

[YuTü.Co.in]

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.

Check out YuTü.Co.in (sse sig) where there's no re real way for our model to fail.

For U$100, you not only receive 40000 YTC which should easily quadruple in price (at the very least) once on the exchanges, but you'll also receive a PAQ (virtual miner/hasher) capable of mining/hashing no less than U$2,628 worth of YouTubers' yAltcoin shares (yaltz) per year - EVERY YEAR - with that figured calculated on the exchange rate of a minimum U$0.01 per yaltz, thus if mining/hashing a venerable YouTubers' yAltcoin with its yaltz trading at U$0.10 each, that equates to U$26,280/year. Of course, a select few highly renown YouTubers will have their yAltcoin yaltz trading beyond U$1.00 each, with apologies for not providing the maths, for our calculator doesn't read out large figures.  

Again, there's no way for the YuTü.Co.in business model to fail.  

So, what are you waiting for, AGM76? Support the cause by outlaying U$100 or U$500 max, whereupon if the latter, you'll receive 10 PAQs instead of only 1 PAQ per U$100 purchase.

What better way is there to recoup moneys lost in them lending programs that set sail to places unknown either long ago and ready to unmoor?

Bruno

[Islapdonkey]

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.

Right the bad press killed Bitconnect. lol. can we get a few more neg trust on this donkey's acct. gotta appreciate the dedication though. i wonder if you running out of plug for that sinking ship yet

[mosprognoz]

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.

[anmoskvin]

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.

so why the F did they shut it down then?

[suchmoon]

There was no real way the model could fail without people who didn't understand it complaining to authorities.

Yes, there is a very real way for every ponzi to fail - when their cashflow turns negative. Scammers typically shut it off as soon as the influx of new money isn't sufficient to sustain the scheme, which is what happened with Bitconnect. People can complain about anything. Legit businesses don't use that as a reason to screw over their customers or investors.

[AGM76]

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

[AGM76]

There was no real way the model could fail without people who didn't understand it complaining to authorities.

Yes, there is a very real way for every ponzi to fail - when their cashflow turns negative. Scammers typically shut it off as soon as the influx of new money isn't sufficient to sustain the scheme, which is what happened with Bitconnect. People can complain about anything. Legit businesses don't use that as a reason to screw over their customers or investors.

Are you suggesting they dumped their BCC tokens or was it the users panic selling? I already showed before they didn't dump. Are you also one of the ones who believe they are faking their $13million BCCX sales every day too? They would also be stupid to dump their own BCC. They were even accepting them as payment for a while at a higher price for the BCCX ICO at a cost to them of $11million per day in price difference (much higher than any BCC exchange volumes). Are you trying to say the thousands of people buying the ICO (there is a miniscule 100BCCX a day limit) are stupid for buying over 260k BCCX each day of the ICO? I didn't buy it but it seems many people did.

[suchmoon]

There was no real way the model could fail without people who didn't understand it complaining to authorities.

Yes, there is a very real way for every ponzi to fail - when their cashflow turns negative. Scammers typically shut it off as soon as the influx of new money isn't sufficient to sustain the scheme, which is what happened with Bitconnect. People can complain about anything. Legit businesses don't use that as a reason to screw over their customers or investors.

Are you suggesting they dumped their BCC tokens or was it the users panic selling? I already showed before they didn't dump. Are you also one of the ones who believe they are faking their $13million BCCX sales every day too? They would also be stupid to dump their own BCC. They were even accepting them as payment for a while at a higher price for the BCCX ICO at a cost to them of $11million per day in price difference (much higher than any BCC exchange volumes). Are you trying to say the thousands of people buying the ICO (there is a miniscule 100BCCX a day limit) are stupid for buying over 260k BCCX each day of the ICO? I didn't buy it but it seems many people did.

Are you unable to read? I didn't say anything of the sort, and your response, like most of your posts, is an incoherent ramble with no relevance to my post.

So why did Bitconnect screw over its "lenders"? Why didn't they wind it down in an orderly manner if it was so profitable and the only problem was complaints? Can you stay on this simple topic for a sentence or two?

[Saisher]

Now that Bitconnewctcoin is out of investors radar, will there be a new roadmap, or new team to adopt this coin, I believe the bulk of this coin is still in the hands of their team, and they will do everything to pump this coin by creating a new roadmap.

[suchmoon]

Now that Bitconnewctcoin is out of investors radar, will there be a new roadmap, or new team to adopt this coin, I believe the bulk of this coin is still in the hands of their team, and they will do everything to pump this coin by creating a new roadmap.

Why would "they" do anything? They have already moved on to their next scam, Bitconnect X. They will keep dumping their BCC premine at any opportunity, if they still have any coins remaining.

[AGM76]

There was no real way the model could fail without people who didn't understand it complaining to authorities.

Yes, there is a very real way for every ponzi to fail - when their cashflow turns negative. Scammers typically shut it off as soon as the influx of new money isn't sufficient to sustain the scheme, which is what happened with Bitconnect. People can complain about anything. Legit businesses don't use that as a reason to screw over their customers or investors.

Are you suggesting they dumped their BCC tokens or was it the users panic selling? I already showed before they didn't dump. Are you also one of the ones who believe they are faking their $13million BCCX sales every day too? They would also be stupid to dump their own BCC. They were even accepting them as payment for a while at a higher price for the BCCX ICO at a cost to them of $11million per day in price difference (much higher than any BCC exchange volumes). Are you trying to say the thousands of people buying the ICO (there is a miniscule 100BCCX a day limit) are stupid for buying over 260k BCCX each day of the ICO? I didn't buy it but it seems many people did.

Are you unable to read? I didn't say anything of the sort, and your response, like most of your posts, is an incoherent ramble with no relevance to my post.

So why did Bitconnect screw over its "lenders"? Why didn't they wind it down in an orderly manner if it was so profitable and the only problem was complaints? Can you stay on this simple topic for a sentence or two?

Well, there was no way for bitconnect 'cashflow' to 'turn negative' as their platform didn't cost them any BTC. They could profit by selling their BCC tokens but they never did that to any great degree which is evident from looking at the BCC price. It was growing far greater than the interest they paid to lenders. They could legitimately sell the remaining coins they received from the lending as profit whenever they wanted.

There are nearly 10million in supply now and many are still held by bitconnect so they haven't dumped their premine: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcc/#!rich
About 2million coins are with the top 10 holders (obviously, only bitconnect can have that many). I'm not sure how many coins they had after refunding everyone as I wasn't keeping track.

[suchmoon]

So why did Bitconnect screw over its "lenders"? Why didn't they wind it down in an orderly manner if it was so profitable and the only problem was complaints? Can you stay on this simple topic for a sentence or two?

Well, there was no way for bitconnect 'cashflow' to 'turn negative' as their platform didn't cost them any BTC. They could profit by selling their BCC tokens but they never did that to any great degree which is evident from looking at the BCC price. It was growing far greater than the interest they paid to lenders. They could legitimately sell the remaining coins as profit.

So why did Bitconnect screw over its "lenders"? Why didn't they wind it down in an orderly manner if it was so profitable and the only problem was complaints?

[AGM76]

So why did Bitconnect screw over its "lenders"? Why didn't they wind it down in an orderly manner if it was so profitable and the only problem was complaints? Can you stay on this simple topic for a sentence or two?

Well, there was no way for bitconnect 'cashflow' to 'turn negative' as their platform didn't cost them any BTC. They could profit by selling their BCC tokens but they never did that to any great degree which is evident from looking at the BCC price. It was growing far greater than the interest they paid to lenders. They could legitimately sell the remaining coins as profit.

So why did Bitconnect screw over its "lenders"? Why didn't they wind it down in an orderly manner if it was so profitable and the only problem was complaints?

Well what do you think would happen if people panic sold bitcoin? Only a few percent of the bitcoins need to be sold for the price to be almost nothing. Too many people sold at the same time but they are still thinking of refunding some of the newer people from what I've heard.

[suchmoon]

So why did Bitconnect screw over its "lenders"? Why didn't they wind it down in an orderly manner if it was so profitable and the only problem was complaints?

Well what do you think would happen if people panic sold bitcoin? Only a few percent of the bitcoins need to be sold for the price to be almost nothing. Too many people sold at the same time but they are still thinking of refunding some of the newer people from what I've heard.

This has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Bitconnect deliberately repaid everyone at once using their useless shitcoin at an exchange rate that resulted in a 90% loss. And they are not refunding anyone.

If this was a legit profitable business like you're trying to portray, it would have communicated a clear and fair plan to wind down the lending. There has been no communication whatsoever.