|
YuTü.Co.in
|
 |
February 21, 2018, 06:13:58 PM |
|
*nonsense*
I am absolutely amazed at how one can keep on shilling for lending platforms when these are obviously schemes meant to defraud gullible investards. I really hope they find out who is behind this bought AGM76 account. One suspects it might be Trevon James himself perhaps?...  Would you call those who followed Trevon's advice a Trevonstry? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TalkImg was created especially for hosting images on bitcointalk.org: try it next time you want to post an image
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGM76
|
|
February 21, 2018, 07:12:13 PM |
|
The bitconnect website is still up and running. The exchange I'm pretty sure is running as you can see here: https://bitconnect.co/user/trade?Market=BCC (there was only a few bitcoins in 24hour volume so most people probably don't realise they can still use the exchange there - also this makes a mockery of how others thought they were inflating their volume before when now they only list $40k worth) It costs very little to leave a website up and running, but that doesn't change anything about whether Bitconnect's lending platform was a Ponzi or not. What point are you trying to make? The BCC token was only created for the purpose of running a Ponzi scheme. Now that the Ponzi has shut down there's no remaining use for the token. Sure you can still buy and sell it in various places. You can still trade Paycoin too if you want to. Their roadmap is still up. Are they going to abandon it now? Not heard anything about it. They haven't updated any news on the site since January 19th, I think.
I've no idea. I suspect they will do whatever they think will net them the biggest return from new victims. If they can find some way of extracting more value from idiots then I guess they'll do so. What I said about the devs not being able to dump their coin is true and not nonsense as they can only take profits from the lending rates as otherwise it is counterproductive to the whole system to take more profits.
They created a huge number of BCC tokens, and used them to create a Ponzi scheme. What makes you think that they didn't sell any of those tokens when the price was high? Why on earth would they create a massive Ponzi if the exit strategy was to end up with nothing but a bag of worthless BCC tokens? It makes no sense at all. Of course they sold some of their tokens. There was no evidence they dumped coins when they cancelled the lending either and they still had over 2million coins out of 10million last time I looked .
So they only dumped 80% of them? Such saints! It's very simple. The whole time bitconnect ran, the BCC price went up a lot faster than the interest they were paying. Including the capital releases, the lending was profitable for bitconnect as they were accumulating more and more BCC coins and paying out less BCC than the amount loaned to them. Assuming they had zero BCC reserves (although they actually had millions) they wouldn't need to use BCC from new investors to pay the interest so it wasn't a ponzi! The lending was like the reverse of staking coins in that people got back less BCC and not more for lending (including capital release) just because of the coin price growth. If they ever needed to use their reserves, it would mean that they'd be adding coins to the market and reducing the real value of BCC but this never happened! This proves all the coins they sold were legitimate profits from the lending system which they could use to market the coin ( NO DUMPING OR STEALING FROM INVESTORS). The lenders didn't mind paying this as they still made good interest on the investment. How anyone understanding this can think this was a Ponzi is beyond me. For example, if they had web staking (which they were going to have and not just in the desktop wallet), that would pay extra BCC coins and cause inflation... the lending didn't even get to that point and was the reverse of staking so was nowhere near a ponzi! Regarding affiliates, remember the BCC loaned to bitconnect could also be staked by them (8% a month or so). Affiliates could easily be paid with this without causing damage to investors. Remember that all coins investors bought could also be staked the same way so it's not like they are being disadvantaged by the inflation as they would get the same staking rate too. This doesn't even consider all the millions of BCC reserves that bitconnect could have staked, which I don't even think they did much as it probably would have made staking more difficult for coin holders. |
|
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
|
|
February 21, 2018, 07:30:46 PM |
|
It's very simple. The whole time bitconnect ran, the BCC price went up a lot faster than the interest they were paying. Including the capital releases, the lending was profitable for bitconnect as they were accumulating more and more BCC coins and paying out less BCC than the amount loaned to them. Assuming they had zero BCC reserves (although they actually had millions) they wouldn't need to use BCC from new investors to pay the interest so it wasn't a ponzi! The lending was like the reverse of staking coins in that people got back less BCC and not more for lending (including capital release) just because of the coin price growth. If they ever needed to use their reserves, it would mean that they'd be adding coins to the market and reducing the real value of BCC but this never happened! This proves all the coins they sold were legitimate profits from the lending system which they could use to market the coin (NO DUMPING OR STEALING FROM INVESTORS). The lenders didn't mind paying this as they still made good interest on the investment. How anyone understanding this can think this was a Ponzi is beyond me. For example, if they had web staking (which they were going to have and not just in the desktop wallet), that would pay extra BCC coins and cause inflation... the lending didn't even get to that point and was the reverse of staking so was nowhere near a ponzi!
The whole lending scheme was a sham designed to create artificial demand for their useless token. That was the reason BCC went up. Until it didn't and collapsed just like all ponzis do. It's an unsustainable and illegal scheme. |
|
|
|
|
|
YuTü.Co.in
|
|
February 21, 2018, 07:38:53 PM |
|
The bitconnect website is still up and running. The exchange I'm pretty sure is running as you can see here: https://bitconnect.co/user/trade?Market=BCC (there was only a few bitcoins in 24hour volume so most people probably don't realise they can still use the exchange there - also this makes a mockery of how others thought they were inflating their volume before when now they only list $40k worth) It costs very little to leave a website up and running, but that doesn't change anything about whether Bitconnect's lending platform was a Ponzi or not. What point are you trying to make? The BCC token was only created for the purpose of running a Ponzi scheme. Now that the Ponzi has shut down there's no remaining use for the token. Sure you can still buy and sell it in various places. You can still trade Paycoin too if you want to. Their roadmap is still up. Are they going to abandon it now? Not heard anything about it. They haven't updated any news on the site since January 19th, I think.
I've no idea. I suspect they will do whatever they think will net them the biggest return from new victims. If they can find some way of extracting more value from idiots then I guess they'll do so. What I said about the devs not being able to dump their coin is true and not nonsense as they can only take profits from the lending rates as otherwise it is counterproductive to the whole system to take more profits.
They created a huge number of BCC tokens, and used them to create a Ponzi scheme. What makes you think that they didn't sell any of those tokens when the price was high? Why on earth would they create a massive Ponzi if the exit strategy was to end up with nothing but a bag of worthless BCC tokens? It makes no sense at all. Of course they sold some of their tokens. There was no evidence they dumped coins when they cancelled the lending either and they still had over 2million coins out of 10million last time I looked .
So they only dumped 80% of them? Such saints! It's very simple. The whole time bitconnect ran, the BCC price went up a lot faster than the interest they were paying. Including the capital releases, the lending was profitable for bitconnect as they were accumulating more and more BCC coins and paying out less BCC than the amount loaned to them. Assuming they had zero BCC reserves (although they actually had millions) they wouldn't need to use BCC from new investors to pay the interest so it wasn't a ponzi! The lending was like the reverse of staking coins in that people got back less BCC and not more for lending (including capital release) just because of the coin price growth. If they ever needed to use their reserves, it would mean that they'd be adding coins to the market and reducing the real value of BCC but this never happened! This proves all the coins they sold were legitimate profits from the lending system which they could use to market the coin ( NO DUMPING OR STEALING FROM INVESTORS). The lenders didn't mind paying this as they still made good interest on the investment. How anyone understanding this at the SEC can think this was a Ponzi is beyond me. For example, if they had web staking (which they were going to have and not just in the desktop wallet), that would pay extra BCC coins and cause inflation... the lending didn't even get to that point and was the reverse of staking so was nowhere near a ponzi! Regarding affiliates, remember the BCC loaned to bitconnect could also be staked by them (8% a month or so). Affiliates could easily be paid with this without causing damage to investors. Remember that all coins investors bought could also be staked the same way so it's not like they are being disadvantaged by the inflation as they would get the same staking rate too. This doesn't even consider all the millions of BCC reserves that bitconnect could have staked, which I don't even think they did much as it probably would have made staking more difficult for coin holders. FTFY |
|
|
|
|
AGM76
|
|
February 21, 2018, 07:40:57 PM |
|
It's very simple. The whole time bitconnect ran, the BCC price went up a lot faster than the interest they were paying. Including the capital releases, the lending was profitable for bitconnect as they were accumulating more and more BCC coins and paying out less BCC than the amount loaned to them. Assuming they had zero BCC reserves (although they actually had millions) they wouldn't need to use BCC from new investors to pay the interest so it wasn't a ponzi! The lending was like the reverse of staking coins in that people got back less BCC and not more for lending (including capital release) just because of the coin price growth. If they ever needed to use their reserves, it would mean that they'd be adding coins to the market and reducing the real value of BCC but this never happened! This proves all the coins they sold were legitimate profits from the lending system which they could use to market the coin (NO DUMPING OR STEALING FROM INVESTORS). The lenders didn't mind paying this as they still made good interest on the investment. How anyone understanding this can think this was a Ponzi is beyond me. For example, if they had web staking (which they were going to have and not just in the desktop wallet), that would pay extra BCC coins and cause inflation... the lending didn't even get to that point and was the reverse of staking so was nowhere near a ponzi!
The whole lending scheme was a sham designed to create artificial demand for their useless token. That was the reason BCC went up. Until it didn't and collapsed just like all ponzis do. It's an unsustainable and illegal scheme. Yeah it generated demand because bitconnect had profits from it and could market the coin. If they didn't make any profits from it and just stole it from investors, then it would have been a Ponzi. It would only collapse if people didn't want to pay X amount for the BCC coin but there would be no reason for them not to. Lenders didn't mind what price the coin was. Only when people started getting nervous about lending, for example if they started going into reserves without reducing the interest rates, could it collapse. They could have easily found other ways to keep demand for the coin while they reduced the interest rates because most of the coins would be locked in lending and couldn't be sold. |
|
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
|
|
February 21, 2018, 07:57:55 PM |
|
Yeah it generated demand because bitconnect had profits from it and could market the coin. If they didn't make any profits from it and just stole it from investors, then it would have been a Ponzi. It would only collapse if people didn't want to pay X amount for the BCC coin but there would be no reason for them not to. Lenders didn't mind what price the coin was. Only when people started getting nervous about lending, for example if they started going into reserves without reducing the interest rates, could it collapse. They could have easily found other ways to keep demand for the coin while they reduced the interest rates because most of the coins would be locked in lending and couldn't be sold.
"Could have easily" but didn't? How is that not a scam even if you truly believe all that garbage that you're making up? Bitconnect didn't have any real business or any other kind of revenue to back the scheme so they relied on people bringing in more money. That can't last forever and it didn't. They closed their scheme once the amount of new money started tapering off. It's a classic ponzi scheme. Having profits and doing marketing is irrelevant. Of course scammers have profits and of course they want to market their scheme to make more money. It's still an illegal unsustainable scheme. |
|
|
|
|
|
AGM76
|
|
February 21, 2018, 08:12:21 PM |
|
Yeah it generated demand because bitconnect had profits from it and could market the coin. If they didn't make any profits from it and just stole it from investors, then it would have been a Ponzi. It would only collapse if people didn't want to pay X amount for the BCC coin but there would be no reason for them not to. Lenders didn't mind what price the coin was. Only when people started getting nervous about lending, for example if they started going into reserves without reducing the interest rates, could it collapse. They could have easily found other ways to keep demand for the coin while they reduced the interest rates because most of the coins would be locked in lending and couldn't be sold.
"Could have easily" but didn't? How is that not a scam even if you truly believe all that garbage that you're making up? Bitconnect didn't have any real business or any other kind of revenue to back the scheme so they relied on people bringing in more money. That can't last forever and it didn't. They closed their scheme once the amount of new money started tapering off. It's a classic ponzi scheme. Having profits and doing marketing is irrelevant. Of course scammers have profits and of course they want to market their scheme to make more money. It's still an illegal unsustainable scheme. The lending itself was profitable for them without them stealing from investors. The coin price is based on the demand for the coin which had a large community of people. Many didn't lend and just staked the coin as that normally paid quite a lot more than lending. If more people did lending, bitconnect would have been able to do more marketing with the extra profits. |
|
|
|
|
|
YuTü.Co.in
|
|
February 21, 2018, 08:20:43 PM |
|
It's very simple. The whole time bitconnect ran, the BCC price went up a lot faster than the interest they were paying. Including the capital releases, the lending was profitable for bitconnect as they were accumulating more and more BCC coins and paying out less BCC than the amount loaned to them. Assuming they had zero BCC reserves (although they actually had millions) they wouldn't need to use BCC from new investors to pay the interest so it wasn't a ponzi! The lending was like the reverse of staking coins in that people got back less BCC and not more for lending (including capital release) just because of the coin price growth. If they ever needed to use their reserves, it would mean that they'd be adding coins to the market and reducing the real value of BCC but this never happened! This proves all the coins they sold were legitimate profits from the lending system which they could use to market the coin (NO DUMPING OR STEALING FROM INVESTORS). The lenders didn't mind paying this as they still made good interest on the investment. How anyone understanding this can think this was a Ponzi is beyond me. For example, if they had web staking (which they were going to have and not just in the desktop wallet), that would pay extra BCC coins and cause inflation... the lending didn't even get to that point and was the reverse of staking so was nowhere near a ponzi!
The whole lending scheme was a sham designed to create artificial demand for their useless token. That was the reason BCC went up. Until it didn't and collapsed just like all ponzis do. It's an unsustainable and illegal scheme. Yeah it generated demand because bitconnect had profits from it and could market the coin. If they didn't make any profits from it and just stole it from investors, then it would have been a Ponzi. It would only collapse if people didn't want to pay X amount for the BCC coin but there would be no reason for them not to. Lenders didn't mind what price the coin was. Only when people started getting nervous about lending, for example if they started going into reserves without reducing the interest rates, could it collapse. They could have easily found other ways to keep demand for the coin while they reduced the interest rates because most of the coins would be locked in lending and couldn't be sold. To be fair, I forgot all about that part where Investards lent their BCC to BitConnect knowing full well that it would be utterly impossible for BitConnect to liquidate Investards' BCC in BitConnect's complete control because, perhaps, of some code thingy written in the blockchain like ... if lent != no touch {
log.Fatal(err if moved)
} |
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
|
|
February 21, 2018, 08:25:33 PM |
|
The lending itself was profitable for them without them stealing from investors. The coin price is based on the demand for the coin which had a large community of people. Many didn't lend and just staked the coin as that normally paid quite a lot more than lending. If more people did lending, bitconnect would have been able to do more marketing with the extra profits.
Yes, the scheme was profitable for the scammers. They probably wouldn't have done it if they didn't expect profit. The demand for the coin was fueled solely by the ponzi scheme. There was no other use for the coin. Marketing or no marketing, every such scheme eventually collapses. |
|
|
|
|
|
YuTü.Co.in
|
|
February 21, 2018, 08:28:39 PM |
|
Yeah it generated demand because bitconnect had profits from it and could market the coin. If they didn't make any profits from it and just stole it from investors, then it would have been a Ponzi. It would only collapse if people didn't want to pay X amount for the BCC coin but there would be no reason for them not to. Lenders didn't mind what price the coin was. Only when people started getting nervous about lending, for example if they started going into reserves without reducing the interest rates, could it collapse. They could have easily found other ways to keep demand for the coin while they reduced the interest rates because most of the coins would be locked in lending and couldn't be sold.
"Could have easily" but didn't? How is that not a scam even if you truly believe all that garbage that you're making up? Bitconnect didn't have any real business or any other kind of revenue to back the scheme so they relied on people bringing in more money. That can't last forever and it didn't. They closed their scheme once the amount of new money started tapering off. It's a classic ponzi scheme. Having profits and doing marketing is irrelevant. Of course scammers have profits and of course they want to market their scheme to make more money. It's still an illegal unsustainable scheme. The lending itself was profitable for them without them stealing from investors. The coin price is based on the demand for the coin which had a large community of people. Many didn't lend and just staked the coin as that normally paid quite a lot more than lending. If more people did lending, bitconnect would have been able to do more marketing with the extra profits.Lock the thread! It was just proven that BitConnect wasn't a Ponzi because if more people came onboard to lend back their BCC, they wouldn't have collapsed because they would've have more funds in their marketing coffer, thus not needing to consider dipping into their profits coffer consisting of tens of millions of dollars saved for a rainy day on some private beach, enjoying piña colada complete with tiny umbrellas. |
|
|
|
|
|
dooglus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330
|
|
February 21, 2018, 09:47:16 PM |
|
It's very simple. The whole time bitconnect ran, the BCC price went up a lot faster than the interest they were paying. Including the capital releases, the lending was profitable for bitconnect as they were accumulating more and more BCC coins and paying out less BCC than the amount loaned to them.
Nobody is disputing this. The people who run Ponzi scams make a profit from it. That's why they run them. Assuming they had zero BCC reserves (although they actually had millions) they wouldn't need to use BCC from new investors to pay the interest so it wasn't a ponzi!
That is only true if the price of the token keeps going up forever. Eventually the price stops going up. After that the scammers need to either start giving back some of their profits or close down the scam. From their point of view the most profitable thing to do is to close down the scam. That's what happened. While the price was high they didn't "need" to sell any of their tokens, but since selling their tokens was their only way of profiting from the scam, and since they knew the price of the tokens would drop massively as soon as they shut down their scam, of course they were selling their tokens. They didn't "need" to, unless they actually wanted to make a profit from running their Ponzi scam. Regarding affiliates, remember the BCC loaned to bitconnect could also be staked by them (8% a month or so).
Staking is a zero sum game. There is no reason it should increase market cap, and so it should tend to cause the price per unit to fall in proportion to the corresponding increase in money supply. |
| Just-Dice | ██
██████████
██████████████████
██████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████
██████ | Play or Invest | ██
██████████
██████████████████
██████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████
██████ | 1% House Edge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crypto Girl
|
|
February 22, 2018, 05:49:44 AM |
|
These fusking scammers will find their day later, they will pay for their crimes of stealing other's money. Let the DAVOR coin dev follow their fate and put them together in jail to serve the punishment for their crimes.
|
|
|
|
yianni
Member
Offline
Activity: 141
Merit: 18
BScEE, BScCS, MScCS
|
|
February 22, 2018, 05:56:17 AM |
|
These fusking scammers will find their day later, they will pay for their crimes of stealing other's money. Let the DAVOR coin dev follow their fate and put them together in jail to serve the punishment for their crimes.
Posting under this specific thread using the name Crypto Girl !!! Now that's gonna be interesting ... let me get my popcorn !!! :p |
|
|
|
|
|
YuTü.Co.in
|
|
February 22, 2018, 06:23:56 AM |
|
These fusking scammers will find their day later, they will pay for their crimes of stealing other's money. Let the DAVOR coin dev follow their fate and put them together in jail to serve the punishment for their crimes.
Posting under this specific thread using the name Crypto Girl !!! Now that's gonna be interesting ... let me get my popcorn !!! :p Dude, don't fuck with one of the most beautiful girls in the world who lives in the Philippines and speaks fluent Spanish. |
|
|
|
dooglus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1330
|
|
February 22, 2018, 09:47:39 AM |
|
These fusking scammers will find their day later, they will pay for their crimes of stealing other's money.
That seems unlikely to me. All we can do is to post in their threads and warn potential victims that it is a Ponzi. Prevention is better than a cure. |
| Just-Dice | ██
██████████
██████████████████
██████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████
██████ | Play or Invest | ██
██████████
██████████████████
██████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████
██████ | 1% House Edge |
|
|
|
|
Fidel007
|
|
February 22, 2018, 02:12:42 PM |
|
These fusking scammers will find their day later, they will pay for their crimes of stealing other's money.
That seems unlikely to me. All we can do is to post in their threads and warn potential victims that it is a Ponzi. Prevention is better than a cure. thing is, no matter how much you try to warn and save the idiots, there's always an abundance of lemmings that seem more than willing to jump to their deaths. And they'll argue with you that they ain't free falling to their doom while they are approaching terminal velocity. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
|
|
