oh, I found PROOF that they are running a scam! I compared the minimums that I am getting to that of my associates, and to the terms in their own help pages.
Firstly, let's take a look at the mining reward between two different customers of theirs per 1 TH/s SHA:
This is mine:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nMcs19-6P5KtUM-LoKO5BHwQaesFMC9_
This is hers:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=16LMhgPIYkcdj7XjImdZQo2_FVXy9oJj-
Important Note: There is an odd offset, where the dates on her device don't completely match the dates on mine and clicking one date shows the details for another differently between devices (i.e, the date listed above doesn't match the date actually clicked on) so it is technically possible that my interpretation of the above is a mistake based on a fault in their system. I'd need to see more data points for that.
Both of us had the exact same pool distribution, but through each day there was variance in earnings. If they were running all hardware as a cloud pool, and then taking percentages onto another mining pool according to user preference, this variation shouldn't exist. Alongside the fact that the earnings they report here do not coincide with what is displayed in the mining pool records and it's fairly obvious that different customers get different hashrate, which goes along with the observations many have had that complaining results in a dramatic loss of hashrate. If this were a ponzi scheme they would be more interested in keeping those with more to invest happier, and in our scenario the customer who invested the most has the highest hashrate per TH, meaning more overall profitability.
Now, let's look at minimum withdrawals. This is their minimum withdrawal policy:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=15ZR05W_949fPJR12_wNOHp1kR0UfZSNX
However, a "system message" indicating a "temporary problem" significantly raised this. In my case, in my case, it's now 0.2 BTC minimum as you can see here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FpKs4mB143omRHo9GIAc13V34VgS1M2w
Which, given how much I am getting from my no longer unlimited contract means that I will NEVER get paid ANYTHING more IF they stick to this. In her case, her minimum is now 0.1 BTC, but she invested twice as much as I did so she'll be able to cash out in, maybe, 3 months.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tkN9r0EE7bZ_0K45bt1oBMDPY0F41r6x
There's no way to misinterpret that data. Both screenshots were taken at the same time, although the date of the message is different indicating that is at least possible that they just don't send the same message to all users all the time with the same timestamp. Either way it's a bad scenario. Naturally, I cropped the names out of each record because I fully expect them to hit our accounts if I didn't.
Of course, if there is anything wrong with my observation I'd happily be wrong on this. This is one matter I don't want to be right on. Unfortunately though, the warning signs of a ponzi scheme are all falling into place: contradictions in payout, increased minimums, increased fees, long delays in getting paid, breach of contract. Given the way they are handling system messages, I also expect that when they do run with the money they will give ALL of their customers an unrealistically high minimum just to sidestep the issue and to try and keep their site up without paying anyone for as long as possible before actually running off.
