[ANN][BCC] Bitconnect Coin - Decentralized Cryptocurrency

[True Spartan]

this place is just for the LULZ now...

[1714077047]

1714077047

[1714077047]

1714077047

[1714077047]

1714077047

[1714077047]

1714077047

[YuTü.Co.in]

All ponzi schemes tried to said that it was not real ponzi and that they were crushed due goverment attacks or other uncontrolled reasons. And that they have ability to recover business.

They now have the ability to recover business but didn't have ability to ward off FUD like every other viable entity on the planet. Did they finally get their copies of The Fine Art of Warding Off FUD from Amazon distributed to all upper management so that BCCX doesn't succumb to the same faith as BCC?

[byteberry]

Hello!

Its project very promising and interesting. Their team seems to be experienced enough. Good luck!

[vapourminer]

Hello!

Its project very promising and interesting. Their team seems to be experienced enough. Good luck!

yes this coin seems custom made for you. 

[dooglus]

You can exchange your BCC tokens at the current rate of $142.47 USD per token.

This sounds like a scam.

[panda111]

Hi , where can I download working  windows wallet or linux.? The wallet from orig.web is not syncing.
I like to keep all funny coins for fan as a collector.
Thank you.

[edhp]

So I'm holding a couple of BCC. Once its delisted do these become worthless?

Anyone think BCC can go up from here?

It would still be on the TradeSatoshi and Bitconnect website I think after Coinexchange and Livecoin delist it this month. Also the BitconnectX exchange is meant to have it, obviously. I hold quite a lot so hope it goes up again.

Do you seriously believe that bitconnectx will materialize after what happened to bcc?

[Crestington]

You can exchange your BCC tokens at the current rate of $142.47 USD per token.

This sounds like a scam.

Omg I can make like 5000% ROI, that is until they dump all BCC before exchanges close and left with empty promises.

[YuTü.Co.in]

So I'm holding a couple of BCC. Once its delisted do these become worthless?

Anyone think BCC can go up from here?

It would still be on the TradeSatoshi and Bitconnect website I think after Coinexchange and Livecoin delist it this month. Also the BitconnectX exchange is meant to have it, obviously. I hold quite a lot so hope it goes up again.

Do you seriously believe that bitconnectx will materialize after what happened to bcc?

[JohnDoe3490]

Oh god. How is this coin still alive? Holy crap. Bitconnect X is the next one huh

[AGM76]

Can you believe this guy from icoreview.site stating that lending coins are a Ponzi. They are not a Ponzi, though!! I've explained my reasoning. If lending is a Ponzi, then PoS staking must be also (but staking always inflates the supply whereas lending often doesn't and this profit can be used by the lending platform to get more users which increases the price - all coins need more users to increase the price so this doesn't mean it's a Ponzi). Most cryptocurrencies will also be ponzis as no wealth is generated unless profits are used to affect the coin price (which lending platforms can do as lending often generates profits for the company without stealing from anyone else).

I don't really understand how you still don't get it. Let me try again:

A Ponzi scheme is "a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors".

In the case of BitConnect, the nonexistent enterprise was the trading bot. They claimed that they had a trading bot which made a profit whenever the price of BTC went up or down, but they didn't. It was a "nonexistent enterprise". They obfuscated things a little by using their own token for deposits and payouts, but it didn't change anything. They claimed that they would pay returns denominated in US dollars using their token. Since they had no source of revenue with which to pay these profits, it was bound to end eventually. The only way they could continue paying out would be if the price of their token continued to rise forever, which is impossible. For the token price to rise forever they would need an ever increasing amount of new investment in their token to continue pumping the price up. If these new investors ever stop investing the price of the token falls and they run into trouble paying out the promised returns. Remember that the returns are denominated in dollars, and so as the token price falls they need ever increasing numbers of these tokens to pay out the promised returns. Those returns get dumped on the market, dropping the token price further, meaning they need even more tokens to pay out the next guy, and it spirals ever downwards until the token is worth nothing and they need an infinite number of them to make the next payment.

On the other hand, Proof of Stake coins don't make any such promise of dollar denominated returns. The deal is something like this: "stake some coins to help secure the network, and the network will create new coins out of thin air for you as payment". This creation of new coins debases the money supply, causing downwards pressure on the token price. Everyone understands this, and it can continue indefinitely. At no point does anyone need to find massive amounts of the tokens to pay off some promised returns. The returns are created on demand. There is no need of new investment in order to be able to make the payouts. A proof of stake coin could continue indefinitely with no new investors. The price would tank, but that doesn't matter since there are no dollar denominated liabilities that have to be met.

Do you see the difference? BitConnect and other lending coins inevitably end up insolvent. Proof of Stake coins never do.

Proof of Stake pays extra coins and so did Bitconnect (except they paid back less with the lending while it was profitable to them - like a reverse of staking). Bitconnect could have instead reduced the interest rates if the growth slowed if they hadn't had to close the lending. They just needed something else like Bitconnectx for a reason to buy the coins. Maybe BCC could be used to pay exchange fees on Bitconnectx. Anyway, no point arguing about it now as they didn't let the lending continue. It didn't collapse in the way most people think as they could have carried on paying and it wasn't costing them anything other than their BCC coins which they had plenty of. They could have carried on marketing the coin and their probably fictional trading bot with their massive profits  (and before you try to argue it's a Ponzi if it is only sustainable if more people buy it due to the possibly dubious marketing, what about BTC and how most people only buy and HODL because they think it's going to pay them good interest too even though it generates no wealth either but Bitconnect actually generated profits with the lending which they used to increase the price). The price was still very high before it was cancelled unlike all later lending platforms so they could easily have paid all the interest for many months. Lots of people were still using it despite all the other new ones and people complaining and they were still heavily marketed. I wouldn't be surprised if the lending platforms were behind the rise in BTC (don't look at BTC now btw unless you are shorting - might be the surest bet to short to almost nothing as it's not backed by anything).

Come to think of it, Bitconnect should restart the lending again now as there isn't much competition left. Could've have been their plan all along, to get people to be happy with half a percent a day instead 

[YuTü.Co.in]

Can you believe this guy from icoreview.site stating that lending coins are a Ponzi. They are not a Ponzi, though!! I've explained my reasoning. If lending is a Ponzi, then PoS staking must be also (but staking always inflates the supply whereas lending often doesn't and this profit can be used by the lending platform to get more users which increases the price - all coins need more users to increase the price so this doesn't mean it's a Ponzi). Most cryptocurrencies will also be ponzis as no wealth is generated unless profits are used to affect the coin price (which lending platforms can do as lending often generates profits for the company without stealing from anyone else).

I don't really understand how you still don't get it. Let me try again:

A Ponzi scheme is "a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors".

In the case of BitConnect, the nonexistent enterprise was the trading bot. They claimed that they had a trading bot which made a profit whenever the price of BTC went up or down, but they didn't. It was a "nonexistent enterprise". They obfuscated things a little by using their own token for deposits and payouts, but it didn't change anything. They claimed that they would pay returns denominated in US dollars using their token. Since they had no source of revenue with which to pay these profits, it was bound to end eventually. The only way they could continue paying out would be if the price of their token continued to rise forever, which is impossible. For the token price to rise forever they would need an ever increasing amount of new investment in their token to continue pumping the price up. If these new investors ever stop investing the price of the token falls and they run into trouble paying out the promised returns. Remember that the returns are denominated in dollars, and so as the token price falls they need ever increasing numbers of these tokens to pay out the promised returns. Those returns get dumped on the market, dropping the token price further, meaning they need even more tokens to pay out the next guy, and it spirals ever downwards until the token is worth nothing and they need an infinite number of them to make the next payment.

On the other hand, Proof of Stake coins don't make any such promise of dollar denominated returns. The deal is something like this: "stake some coins to help secure the network, and the network will create new coins out of thin air for you as payment". This creation of new coins debases the money supply, causing downwards pressure on the token price. Everyone understands this, and it can continue indefinitely. At no point does anyone need to find massive amounts of the tokens to pay off some promised returns. The returns are created on demand. There is no need of new investment in order to be able to make the payouts. A proof of stake coin could continue indefinitely with no new investors. The price would tank, but that doesn't matter since there are no dollar denominated liabilities that have to be met.

Do you see the difference? BitConnect and other lending coins inevitably end up insolvent. Proof of Stake coins never do.

Proof of Stake pays extra coins and so did Bitconnect (except they paid back less with the lending while it was profitable to them - like a reverse of staking). Bitconnect could have instead reduced the interest rates if the growth slowed if they hadn't had to close the lending. They just needed something else like Bitconnectx for a reason to buy the coins. Maybe BCC could be used to pay exchange fees on Bitconnectx. Anyway, no point arguing about it now as they didn't let the lending continue. It didn't collapse in the way most people think as they could have carried on paying and it wasn't costing them anything other than their BCC coins which they had plenty of. They could have carried on marketing the coin and their probably fictional trading bot with their massive profits  (and before you try to argue it's a Ponzi if it is only sustainable if more people buy it due to the possibly dubious marketing, what about BTC and how most people only buy and HODL because they think it's going to pay them good interest too even though it generates no wealth either but Bitconnect actually generated profits with the lending which they used to increase the price). The price was still very high before it was cancelled unlike all later lending platforms so they could easily have paid all the interest for many months. Lots of people were still using it despite all the other new ones and people complaining and they were still heavily marketed. I wouldn't be surprised if the lending platforms were behind the rise in BTC (don't look at BTC now btw unless you are shorting - might be the surest bet to short to almost nothing as it's not backed by anything).

Come to think of it, Bitconnect should restart the lending again now as there isn't much competition left. Could've have been their plan all along, to get people to be happy with half a percent a day instead 

Come to think of it, isn't that exactly what they're doing with BCCX?

[VuongDQ]

Does anyone have faith in BCC?

[suchmoon]

Proof of Stake pays extra coins and so did Bitconnect (except they paid back less with the lending while it was profitable to them - like a reverse of staking). Bitconnect could have instead reduced the interest rates if the growth slowed if they hadn't had to close the lending. They just needed something else like Bitconnectx for a reason to buy the coins. Maybe BCC could be used to pay exchange fees on Bitconnectx. Anyway, no point arguing about it now as they didn't let the lending continue. It didn't collapse in the way most people think as they could have carried on paying and it wasn't costing them anything other than their BCC coins which they had plenty of. They could have carried on marketing the coin and their probably fictional trading bot with their massive profits  (and before you try to argue it's a Ponzi if it is only sustainable if more people buy it due to the possibly dubious marketing, what about BTC and how most people only buy and HODL because they think it's going to pay them good interest too even though it generates no wealth either but Bitconnect actually generated profits with the lending which they used to increase the price). The price was still very high before it was cancelled unlike all later lending platforms so they could easily have paid all the interest for many months. Lots of people were still using it despite all the other new ones and people complaining and they were still heavily marketed. I wouldn't be surprised if the lending platforms were behind the rise in BTC (don't look at BTC now btw unless you are shorting - might be the surest bet to short to almost nothing as it's not backed by anything).

Come to think of it, Bitconnect should restart the lending again now as there isn't much competition left. Could've have been their plan all along, to get people to be happy with half a percent a day instead 

Bitconnect is a ponzi and meets the SEC definition of a ponzi. It ran out of new funds and therefore collapsed, because it was a fraudulent scheme that promised unsustainable returns.

[easyrimka]

Does anyone have faith in BCC?

yes we are, i want to loose my money !

[dooglus]

Proof of Stake pays extra coins and so did Bitconnect

Proof of Stake creates the extra coins it pays people. It doesn't promise that those coins are worth anything. If the price of the tokens goes to zero, Proof of Stake keeps working.

BitConnect promised to repay tokens worth a particular dollar amount. If the price of the tokens goes to zero, BitConnect doesn't have enough tokens to meet its liabilities. It becomes insolvent.

Understand the difference?

before you try to argue it's a Ponzi if it is only sustainable if more people buy it due to the possibly dubious marketing, what about BTC and how most people only buy and HODL because they think it's going to pay them good interest too even though it generates no wealth either but Bitconnect actually generated profits with the lending which they used to increase the price

What about BTC? If the price of BitConnect tokens went to zero, BitConnect (the company) would have been insolvent as it couldn't afford to repay its loans. They were holding assets in BCC tokens and liabilities in USD. That's a recipe for disaster.

If the price of BTC goes to zero it doesn't matter - there's not BTC (the company), so there are no loans or any other liabilities. BTC isn't debt based.

Understand the difference?

[AGM76]

Proof of Stake pays extra coins and so did Bitconnect

Proof of Stake creates the extra coins it pays people. It doesn't promise that those coins are worth anything. If the price of the tokens goes to zero, Proof of Stake keeps working.

BitConnect promised to repay tokens worth a particular dollar amount. If the price of the tokens goes to zero, BitConnect doesn't have enough tokens to meet its liabilities. It becomes insolvent.

Understand the difference?

before you try to argue it's a Ponzi if it is only sustainable if more people buy it due to the possibly dubious marketing, what about BTC and how most people only buy and HODL because they think it's going to pay them good interest too even though it generates no wealth either but Bitconnect actually generated profits with the lending which they used to increase the price

What about BTC? If the price of BitConnect tokens went to zero, BitConnect (the company) would have been insolvent as it couldn't afford to repay its loans. They were holding assets in BCC tokens and liabilities in USD. That's a recipe for disaster.

If the price of BTC goes to zero it doesn't matter - there's not BTC (the company), so there are no loans or any other liabilities. BTC isn't debt based.

Understand the difference?

The price can't really go to zero (even the lowest value coins are worth at least a fraction of a satoshi), it would just need a ridiculous amount of coins to pay the interest if the value was close to zero and there wouldn't be enough buyers for the coin if the growth slowed without reducing the interest rates so people wouldn't have been able to sell their interest into BTC after a while if they didn't manage it correctly (this is assuming an unlimited amount of coins but bitconnect actually had a limited reserve which they never needed to use but they could have done a fork of the coin -  also other lending platforms use ERC20 tokens which could probably generate coins at will in the smart contract etc). I don't think Bitconnect promised that there would be enough buyers for people to cash out the interest but they would obviously try to avoid this situation. This is not what actually happened, anyway, as they cancelled the lending. The difference between staking is that people can withdraw at any time but the lending kept most of the coins out of circulation for months so it didn't really need as much buying power to keep the price up. BitconnectX is meant to be an exchange but we have to see what they do first, if anything, but they supposedly raised hundreds of millions of dollars in the ICO.

They are down for maintenance now : https://twitter.com/bitconnectx/status/972087964078624768   (not sure what this would be as they don't have an exchange yet, I don't think  )

[MatrixMania]

Good job!

[swiftcoder]

Lol ! The irony of this whole thread

[Gleb Gamow]

Proof of Stake pays extra coins and so did Bitconnect

Proof of Stake creates the extra coins it pays people. It doesn't promise that those coins are worth anything. If the price of the tokens goes to zero, Proof of Stake keeps working.

BitConnect promised to repay tokens worth a particular dollar amount. If the price of the tokens goes to zero, BitConnect doesn't have enough tokens to meet its liabilities. It becomes insolvent.

Understand the difference?

before you try to argue it's a Ponzi if it is only sustainable if more people buy it due to the possibly dubious marketing, what about BTC and how most people only buy and HODL because they think it's going to pay them good interest too even though it generates no wealth either but Bitconnect actually generated profits with the lending which they used to increase the price

What about BTC? If the price of BitConnect tokens went to zero, BitConnect (the company) would have been insolvent as it couldn't afford to repay its loans. They were holding assets in BCC tokens and liabilities in USD. That's a recipe for disaster.

If the price of BTC goes to zero it doesn't matter - there's not BTC (the company), so there are no loans or any other liabilities. BTC isn't debt based.

Understand the difference?

dooglus, you quoted the wrong person. You should've quoted the venerable AGM76.

Proof of Stake pays extra coins and so did Bitconnect

Proof of Stake creates the extra coins it pays people. It doesn't promise that those coins are worth anything. If the price of the tokens goes to zero, Proof of Stake keeps working.

BitConnect promised to repay tokens worth a particular dollar amount. If the price of the tokens goes to zero, BitConnect doesn't have enough tokens to meet its liabilities. It becomes insolvent.

Understand the difference?

before you try to argue it's a Ponzi if it is only sustainable if more people buy it due to the possibly dubious marketing, what about BTC and how most people only buy and HODL because they think it's going to pay them good interest too even though it generates no wealth either but Bitconnect actually generated profits with the lending which they used to increase the price

What about BTC? If the price of BitConnect tokens went to zero, BitConnect (the company) would have been insolvent as it couldn't afford to repay its loans. They were holding assets in BCC tokens and liabilities in USD. That's a recipe for disaster.

If the price of BTC goes to zero it doesn't matter - there's not BTC (the company), so there are no loans or any other liabilities. BTC isn't debt based.

Understand the difference?

The price can't really go to zero (even the lowest value coins are worth at least a fraction of a satoshi), it would just need a ridiculous amount of coins to pay the interest if the value was close to zero and there wouldn't be enough buyers for the coin if the growth slowed without reducing the interest rates so people wouldn't have been able to sell their interest into BTC after a while if they didn't manage it correctly (this is assuming an unlimited amount of coins but bitconnect actually had a limited reserve which they never needed to use but they could have done a fork of the coin -  also other lending platforms use ERC20 tokens which could probably generate coins at will in the smart contract etc). I don't think Bitconnect promised that there would be enough buyers for people to cash out the interest but they would obviously try to avoid this situation. This is not what actually happened, anyway, as they cancelled the lending. The difference between staking is that people can withdraw at any time but the lending kept most of the coins out of circulation for months so it didn't really need as much buying power to keep the price up. BitconnectX is meant to be an exchange but we have to see what they do first, if anything, but they supposedly raised hundreds of millions of dollars in the ICO.

They are down for maintenance now : https://twitter.com/bitconnectx/status/972087964078624768   (not sure what this would be as they don't have an exchange yet, I don't think   )

Now that BCCX is in the black, there's no longer a need for them to make the platform live. Simply jump to a dog-and-pony show exclusively for the principals where they'll make it rain [100 dollar bills] on those attending, ending with Carlos Matos singing his greatest fit.