[ANN][BCC] Bitconnect Coin - Decentralized Cryptocurrency

[Gleb Gamow]

<snip>

lol, he's never going to make it off my ignore list.

People still supporting this are really a special kind of stupid. Remember PayCoin? What kind of memories does it envoke? Is it worth $20 per Coin yet?

This thing is dead in the water, tainted by scam accusations and lawsuits, with no actual use for it.

The only thing keeping this alive is the trolling, and desperate people hoping for it to go up so they can break even. It's true bottom will be about 2-3 months from now at less than 1$ when everyone gets bored of it and posting stops, some special people who own a ton will try to resurrect it but you can never get rid of the taint.

"Jveron Tames is Specialpeople!!!"

[1715504113]

1715504113

[1715504113]

1715504113

[1715504113]

1715504113

[1715504113]

1715504113

[1715504113]

1715504113

[1715504113]

1715504113

[alevlaslo]

BCC need to buy, same big falling apear only when supervisors disappear. No problems with it I don't see, a marketing policy makers first raised the rate for its own funds, and now just returned invested by lowering. The coin was in the TOP 10, it very good coin, the developers are not lost

[AGM76]

Trevon live on youtube talking about the lawsuit....apparently he also gave out his hotel address and room number for some reason but not been watching it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLw-mIY-Pmk

Regarding the other posts, are people that dense? Anyone heard of confirmation bias? If BCC went up 1000X (100,000%) in a year (considering it was at 16cents or less at one point and was in the hundreds of dollars even when it cancelled the lending) but was only paying lenders 100% EVERY THREE MONTHS (or just over two months to double the investment when compounded which most people didn't consistently do) to suggest bitconnect was paying too much interest in the lending is stupid. They were paying far less than they could have done to still profit from it! How could it be a Ponzi lol

Bitcoin is more of a Ponzi as there is no wealth generation at all. Regarding the backing with assets, money was always backed with gold until recently but the supply is still controlled for a reason. The total supply is still meant to be tied to assets and that should be obvious to anyone as how else can someone put a value to anything they own etc (it is backed by the governments issuing the fiat in any case):

[alevlaslo]

The dollar drops, bitcoin drops, BCC drops, what to do?))

[TingCoin]

The dollar drops, bitcoin drops, BCC drops, what to do?))

I think, the whole of February we will see such a picture on the market. As for the Bitconnect, we can forget about it, the cost is already below $ 6 and, probably, will soon be zero. The pyramid collapsed, people who naively believed the scammers had lost all their money.

[suchmoon]

BCC need to buy, same big falling apear only when supervisors disappear. No problems with it I don't see, a marketing policy makers first raised the rate for its own funds, and now just returned invested by lowering. The coin was in the TOP 10, it very good coin, the developers are not lost

You should use Google Translate instead, would sound far more convincing.

Regarding the other posts, are people that dense? Anyone heard of confirmation bias? If BCC went up 1000X (100,000%) in a year (considering it was at 16cents or less at one point and was in the hundreds of dollars even when it cancelled the lending) but was only paying lenders 100% EVERY THREE MONTHS (or just over two months to double the investment when compounded which most people didn't consistently do) to suggest bitconnect was paying too much interest in the lending is stupid. They were paying far less than they could have done to still profit from it! How could it be a Ponzi lol

Read the ponzi definition I provided a few posts back. Bitconnect ticks all boxes.

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Bitconnect did that.

Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. Bitconnect did that.

In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business. Bitconnect did that.

With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out. Bitconnect did that.

Red flags:

High investment returns with little or no risk. Check.

Overly consistent returns. Check.

Unregistered investments. Check.

Unlicensed sellers. Check.

Issues with paperwork. No paperwork to speak of. Check.

Difficulty receiving payments. Be suspicious if you do not receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out your investment. Keep in mind that Ponzi scheme promoters routinely encourage participants to "roll over" investments and sometimes promise returns offering even higher returns on the amount rolled over. <-- Bitconnect X. Check.

Bitcoin is more of a Ponzi as there is no wealth generation at all. Regarding the backing with assets, money was always backed with gold until recently but the supply is still controlled for a reason. The total supply is still meant to be tied to assets and that should be obvious to anyone as how else can someone put a value to anything they own etc (it is backed by the governments issuing the fiat in any case):

But but but... Bitcoin!!!! Except it's not a ponzi, and completely irrelevant to Bitconnect scam, but don't let these minor details get in the way of your shilling.

[AGM76]

BCC need to buy, same big falling apear only when supervisors disappear. No problems with it I don't see, a marketing policy makers first raised the rate for its own funds, and now just returned invested by lowering. The coin was in the TOP 10, it very good coin, the developers are not lost

You should use Google Translate instead, would sound far more convincing.

Regarding the other posts, are people that dense? Anyone heard of confirmation bias? If BCC went up 1000X (100,000%) in a year (considering it was at 16cents or less at one point and was in the hundreds of dollars even when it cancelled the lending) but was only paying lenders 100% EVERY THREE MONTHS (or just over two months to double the investment when compounded which most people didn't consistently do) to suggest bitconnect was paying too much interest in the lending is stupid. They were paying far less than they could have done to still profit from it! How could it be a Ponzi lol

Read the ponzi definition I provided a few posts back. Bitconnect ticks all boxes.

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Bitconnect did that.

Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. Bitconnect did that.

In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business. Bitconnect did that.

With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out. Bitconnect did that.

Red flags:

High investment returns with little or no risk. Check.

Overly consistent returns. Check.

Unregistered investments. Check.

Unlicensed sellers. Check.

Issues with paperwork. No paperwork to speak of. Check.

Difficulty receiving payments. Be suspicious if you do not receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out your investment. Keep in mind that Ponzi scheme promoters routinely encourage participants to "roll over" investments and sometimes promise returns offering even higher returns on the amount rolled over. <-- Bitconnect X. Check.

Bitcoin is more of a Ponzi as there is no wealth generation at all. Regarding the backing with assets, money was always backed with gold until recently but the supply is still controlled for a reason. The total supply is still meant to be tied to assets and that should be obvious to anyone as how else can someone put a value to anything they own etc (it is backed by the governments issuing the fiat in any case):

But but but... Bitcoin!!!! Except it's not a ponzi, and completely irrelevant to Bitconnect scam, but don't let these minor details get in the way of your shilling.

The thing is they were paying less interest than the growth of the coin. If bitconnect paid the interest at the end of the term instead of all through the holding period, would they still be a Ponzi? If the coin price stayed the same they would simply pay the same amount of coins back but normally the coin would go up a lot. Would it be a Ponzi for them to pay back LESS BCC even if it was worth 200% MORE than they initially invested? The lending was actually the reverse of staking coins as instead of inflating the supply, it actually reduced it as long as the coin price went up lol.

[suchmoon]

The thing is they were paying less interest than the growth of the coin. If bitconnect paid the interest at the end of the term instead of all through the holding period, would they still be a Ponzi? If the coin price stayed the same they would simply pay the same amount of coins back but normally the coin would go up a lot. Would it be a Ponzi for them to pay back LESS BCC even if it was worth 200% MORE than they initially invested? The lending was actually the reverse of staking coins as instead of inflating the supply, it actually reduced it as long as the coin price went up lol.

What are you still yapping about? It doesn't matter what the "growth" of their made-up token was. This feedback loop was fueled by the nature of the ponzi. It doesn't matter when the "interest" was paid. They promised unsustainable returns and collapsed when the influx of new money dried out. Doesn't get any more ponzi than that.

[AGM76]

The thing is they were paying less interest than the growth of the coin. If bitconnect paid the interest at the end of the term instead of all through the holding period, would they still be a Ponzi? If the coin price stayed the same they would simply pay the same amount of coins back but normally the coin would go up a lot. Would it be a Ponzi for them to pay back LESS BCC even if it was worth 200% MORE than they initially invested? The lending was actually the reverse of staking coins as instead of inflating the supply, it actually reduced it as long as the coin price went up lol.

What are you still yapping about? It doesn't matter what the "growth" of their made-up token was. This feedback loop was fueled by the nature of the ponzi. It doesn't matter when the "interest" was paid. They promised unsustainable returns and collapsed when the influx of new money dried out. Doesn't get any more ponzi than that.

They had been reducing the interest and many days they paid zero interest. Obviously, they couldn't carry on paying 1% per day unless they thought their coin would get to $5k in a year. You can't say they collapsed since their price was still at $260 or so when they cancelled the lending. It could have carried on fine especially since the profits generated allowed them to market the coin (the lending profits didn't entail taking money from new investors so it's a bit of a stretch saying they were a Ponzi - the good thing about the system is they couldn't sell their BCC and dump the price as it would be counterproductive).

[suchmoon]

Hey, what do you guys think of [...]? 2.9% return weekly.

Read the whitepaper; looks legit, but wanted to hear from BCC ponzi experts.

Thanks!

You don't have to be an expert to see the idiocy of that. I have a feeling that you're just spamming your scheme looking for gullible marks. Go away, use your own thread.

They had been reducing the interest and many days they paid zero interest. Obviously, they couldn't carry on paying 1% per day unless they thought their coin would get to $5k in a year. You can't say they collapsed since their price was still at $260 or so when they cancelled the lending. It could have carried on fine especially since the profits generated allowed them to market the coin (the lending profits didn't entail taking money from new investors so it's a bit of a stretch saying they were a Ponzi - the good thing about the system is they couldn't sell their BCC and dump the price as it would be counterproductive).

Show me where in the SEC definition of a ponzi (or any reputable definition for that matter) does it say that using some sort of a token to masquerade the innards of the scheme makes it definitely not a ponzi.

And yes, it did collapse. Last bagholders didn't get what they were promised, or even their principal back.

It's like saying that if Madoff paid his investors back in Enron stock it would have made it all kosher.

[Chrmel612]

The thing is they were paying less interest than the growth of the coin. If bitconnect paid the interest at the end of the term instead of all through the holding period, would they still be a Ponzi? If the coin price stayed the same they would simply pay the same amount of coins back but normally the coin would go up a lot. Would it be a Ponzi for them to pay back LESS BCC even if it was worth 200% MORE than they initially invested? The lending was actually the reverse of staking coins as instead of inflating the supply, it actually reduced it as long as the coin price went up lol.

What are you still yapping about? It doesn't matter what the "growth" of their made-up token was. This feedback loop was fueled by the nature of the ponzi. It doesn't matter when the "interest" was paid. They promised unsustainable returns and collapsed when the influx of new money dried out. Doesn't get any more ponzi than that.

They had been reducing the interest and many days they paid zero interest. Obviously, they couldn't carry on paying 1% per day unless they thought their coin would get to $5k in a year. You can't say they collapsed since their price was still at $260 or so when they cancelled the lending. It could have carried on fine especially since the profits generated allowed them to market the coin (the lending profits didn't entail taking money from new investors so it's a bit of a stretch saying they were a Ponzi - the good thing about the system is they couldn't sell their BCC and dump the price as it would be counterproductive).

Who says they're not dumping? They are dumping the coin in form of LENDING. What do we get in exchange of BTC? Ofcourse, overvalued BCC tokens that has been generated through staking/own reserves.

[bitChipper]

another player in town, these guys made it pretty clear what the point of the coin is with the name "lendconnect"

in their whitepaper they explain staking as buying the coin and selling it for a higher price....that's what "staking" is to them....

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/lendconnect/

Yeah, I also noticed they didn't really know what staking was. They use ERC20 so in the whitepaper they said it was just holding the coin lol. With lending platforms they will obviously tend to increase in value, anyway, otherwise the lending won't work.

There are hundreds of these lending platforms now. They use the profits from the lending to market the coin so they can't really lose. Even BCC was about $250+ when it cancelled the lending so it was nothing to do with the value of the coin plummeting but other issues (will be interesting to see if the lawsuits get thrown out or not).

Remember that when you buy bitcoin or ethereum you hope for it to rise in value but it doesn't actually have a real value and can go to almost zero (no money is generated so it's just like a Ponzi where new buyers pay for the profits of older buyers - a zero sum game in other words). Lending platforms, however, are actually less of a Ponzi because the lending generates profits for the company but at the same time the users don't mind lending and giving some of the profits because they also get some of it too!

I am not prepared for this special kind of stupidity! This guy doesn't know how to face the music. This is a ponzi, was always a ponzi, and Bitcoin is not in any way similar to BCC. The value of a currency, whether fiat or crypto, is tied directly to how many people accept it and also how much trust there is in the system. BCC has lost the trust of the community so its value will continue to fall to nothing. Just to tell you but all Ponzi schemes are profitable for the one perpetrating and the early investors but it absolutely destroys the later investors that bought into the hype.  

I wouldn't even give him/her the time of day, they have been in here shilling lending platforms for a long time and still play that "everything in crypto is a ponzi" card.

[AGM76]

Hey, what do you guys think of [...]? 2.9% return weekly.

Read the whitepaper; looks legit, but wanted to hear from BCC ponzi experts.

Thanks!

You don't have to be an expert to see the idiocy of that. I have a feeling that you're just spamming your scheme looking for gullible marks. Go away, use your own thread.

They had been reducing the interest and many days they paid zero interest. Obviously, they couldn't carry on paying 1% per day unless they thought their coin would get to $5k in a year. You can't say they collapsed since their price was still at $260 or so when they cancelled the lending. It could have carried on fine especially since the profits generated allowed them to market the coin (the lending profits didn't entail taking money from new investors so it's a bit of a stretch saying they were a Ponzi - the good thing about the system is they couldn't sell their BCC and dump the price as it would be counterproductive).

Show me where in the SEC definition of a ponzi (or any reputable definition for that matter) does it say that using some sort of a token to masquerade the innards of the scheme makes it definitely not a ponzi.

And yes, it did collapse. Last bagholders didn't get what they were promised, or even their principal back.

It's like saying that if Madoff paid his investors back in Enron stock it would have made it all kosher.

Haven't people explained to you that all cryptos are the same. Do you think everyone with bitcoin could sell it in one day for anywhere near the price now? Only takes a few percent to sell to massacre the price.

Why do people buy bitcoin if it's not to profit at the expense of others? There is no money that is created so is a Ponzi from what you are saying. At least the lending platforms prevent dumping (the company owns most of the coins and needs the price to stay high) and also generate profits so the crypto can be marketed.

[AGM76]

The thing is they were paying less interest than the growth of the coin. If bitconnect paid the interest at the end of the term instead of all through the holding period, would they still be a Ponzi? If the coin price stayed the same they would simply pay the same amount of coins back but normally the coin would go up a lot. Would it be a Ponzi for them to pay back LESS BCC even if it was worth 200% MORE than they initially invested? The lending was actually the reverse of staking coins as instead of inflating the supply, it actually reduced it as long as the coin price went up lol.

What are you still yapping about? It doesn't matter what the "growth" of their made-up token was. This feedback loop was fueled by the nature of the ponzi. It doesn't matter when the "interest" was paid. They promised unsustainable returns and collapsed when the influx of new money dried out. Doesn't get any more ponzi than that.

They had been reducing the interest and many days they paid zero interest. Obviously, they couldn't carry on paying 1% per day unless they thought their coin would get to $5k in a year. You can't say they collapsed since their price was still at $260 or so when they cancelled the lending. It could have carried on fine especially since the profits generated allowed them to market the coin (the lending profits didn't entail taking money from new investors so it's a bit of a stretch saying they were a Ponzi - the good thing about the system is they couldn't sell their BCC and dump the price as it would be counterproductive).

Who says they're not dumping? They are dumping the coin in form of LENDING. What do we get in exchange of BTC? Ofcourse, overvalued BCC tokens that has been generated through staking/own reserves.

They don't take BTC, lenders sell their daily BCC interest on the exchanges to other lenders on the platform (some people are coming in and some people are going out). After the ICO, the platforms don't even need BTC wallets if there are external exchanges (that can sometimes use ETH not even BTC to buy the coins).

[gwestcot]

Hey, what do you guys think of [...]? 2.9% return weekly.

Read the whitepaper; looks legit, but wanted to hear from BCC ponzi experts.

Thanks!

You don't have to be an expert to see the idiocy of that. I have a feeling that you're just spamming your scheme looking for gullible marks. Go away, use your own thread.

They had been reducing the interest and many days they paid zero interest. Obviously, they couldn't carry on paying 1% per day unless they thought their coin would get to $5k in a year. You can't say they collapsed since their price was still at $260 or so when they cancelled the lending. It could have carried on fine especially since the profits generated allowed them to market the coin (the lending profits didn't entail taking money from new investors so it's a bit of a stretch saying they were a Ponzi - the good thing about the system is they couldn't sell their BCC and dump the price as it would be counterproductive).

Show me where in the SEC definition of a ponzi (or any reputable definition for that matter) does it say that using some sort of a token to masquerade the innards of the scheme makes it definitely not a ponzi.

And yes, it did collapse. Last bagholders didn't get what they were promised, or even their principal back.

It's like saying that if Madoff paid his investors back in Enron stock it would have made it all kosher.

Haven't people explained to you that all cryptos are the same. Do you think everyone with bitcoin could sell it in one day for anywhere near the price now? Only takes a few percent to sell to massacre the price.

Why do people buy bitcoin if it's not to profit at the expense of others? There is no money that is created so is a Ponzi from what you are saying. At least the lending platforms prevent dumping (the company owns most of the coins and needs the price to stay high) and also generate profits so the crypto can be marketed.

Well if you are a purist then it is not solely for profit but because our current financial system is the epitome of pure corruption and is simply a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Money can be created by algorithms just the same as it can through people using printing presses. The difference is that one day the algorithm isn't going to decided to increase the monetary supply by a substantial amount to pay back debts that were incurred from social programs that either nobody wants or needs.  

[coinmenace]

Did anyone know whatever happened to their trading bots which has been making them lots of profits? It it is very profitable - then how could bitconnect easily crumble and fall to disgrace.

If they've got a very profitable bot - they can just use that to trade other altcoins, get profits and pay back their "investors" in BTC - not BCC tokens.

I hope you're being sarcastic. There was no trading bot. It's a ponzi.

Friends don't let friends dump their BCC for pennies.

https://bcc-redemption.myshopify.com

Full information will be posted overnight. Referral program, help BCC losers put their coins back to work and get paid.

Absolutely not a ponzi or scheme of any kind. Will be obvious once information is posted.

Referral program - sounds like another harebrained scheme to bleed what little cash the ponzi victims still have remaining.

you got it right, it's a sarcastic comment. but you know, there's still a lot of fanboys for bitcoooonnnneeeecccccttttt. it's been shouting ponzi from the beginning and lots of known crypto personalities called it out before.

[Mister305]

lol

[suchmoon]

Haven't people explained to you that all cryptos are the same. Do you think everyone with bitcoin could sell it in one day for anywhere near the price now? Only takes a few percent to sell to massacre the price.

Why do people buy bitcoin if it's not to profit at the expense of others? There is no money that is created so is a Ponzi from what you are saying. At least the lending platforms prevent dumping (the company owns most of the coins and needs the price to stay high) and also generate profits so the crypto can be marketed.

No, not all cryptos are the same. There are plenty of scams for sure but there are also coins, such as Bitcoin, which are not dependent on a ponzi lending scheme. People buy BTC for reasons that far outnumber the only one reason why people bought BCC.

And again, that has no relevance whatsoever to Bitconnect scam. Even if every single cryptocurrency was a horrible scam, that still wouldn't make Bitconnect any less fraudulent. You should really give up on this fallacy, you're not very good at it.

They don't take BTC, lenders sell their daily BCC interest on the exchanges to other lenders on the platform (some people are coming in and some people are going out). After the ICO, the platforms don't even need BTC wallets if there are external exchanges (that can sometimes use ETH not even BTC to buy the coins).

Bitconnect ran their own exchange that was not listed on Coinmarketcap. They also had a massive premine. They could dump any number of coins they wanted. Sure, they maintained the price for a while. Until the ponzi ran its course.

[YuTü.Co.in]

Haven't people explained to you that all cryptos are the same. Do you think everyone with bitcoin could sell it in one day for anywhere near the price now? Only takes a few percent to sell to massacre the price.

Why do people buy bitcoin if it's not to profit at the expense of others? There is no money that is created so is a Ponzi from what you are saying. At least the lending platforms prevent dumping (the company owns most of the coins and needs the price to stay high) and also generate profits so the crypto can be marketed.

No, not all cryptos are the same. There are plenty of scams for sure but there are also coins, such as Bitcoin, which are not dependent on a ponzi lending scheme. People buy BTC for reasons that far outnumber the only one reason why people bought BCC.

And again, that has no relevance whatsoever to Bitconnect scam. Even if every single cryptocurrency was a horrible scam, that still wouldn't make Bitconnect any less fraudulent. You should really give up on this fallacy, you're not very good at it.

They don't take BTC, lenders sell their daily BCC interest on the exchanges to other lenders on the platform (some people are coming in and some people are going out). After the ICO, the platforms don't even need BTC wallets if there are external exchanges (that can sometimes use ETH not even BTC to buy the coins).

Bitconnect ran their own exchange that was not listed on Coinmarketcap. They also had a massive premine. They could dump any number of coins they wanted. Sure, they maintained the price for a while. Until the ponzi ran its course.

If you're referring to the exchange not listed on CMC's list of exchanges, then perhaps true, but if not linking to BitConnect's exchange, then yes they did from its dedicated BCC page.

[suchmoon]

If you're referring to the exchange not listed on CMC's list of exchanges, then perhaps true, but if not linking to BitConnect's exchange, then yes they did from its dedicated BCC page.

That's what I meant... BitConnect exchange volume and pricing was not reflected in Coinmarketcap charts, right?