bitcoin-trader.biz

[Grinder]

Did the Chinese team go on strike yesterday? They don't have bank holiday in China.

[1715091015]

1715091015

[1715091015]

1715091015

[1715091015]

1715091015

[btcm4n14c]

Posting this for the third time, as Thomas Opperman seems to be avoiding my question...

About this Audit, it was stated in the group it would be completed by the end of August. You also said that BT would have to set a weekday to not trade, meaning members wouldn't receive a payout... It was also said that an extra cut would be taken from our earnings to pay for this Audit.

With 8 days left of august (meaning one trading week left), I'm curious to know when BT is going to disclose which day they wont be trading, and how much this "extra cut" is going to be... and how long this extra cut is going to be taken out for... It's all being left rather last minute if you ask me...

what can an audit, proof? right, nothing! never, forget that!

depends who's making it, if it a reputable company, it means a lot, if its done by Audit Corp from Panama ... its ZERO

[alani123]

what can an audit, proof? right, nothing! never, forget that!

Normally an audit would be solid proof of a company's solvency but I can't vouch for this case in specific.

[ranlo]

I'd also like to reach out and say that an audit would only prove the business and funds they have. It does nothing in the case that they get so much money they decide to run. A business that is making $100k a month in profit may still take off when they get $100m in deposits. That's enough to account for 1000 months, or 80+ years of pure profit and not have to do the work.

So the push for audits is irrelevant I think.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

If they wanted to have an audit until now, they would have one. Don't be delusional. They are buying time, like all scammers do.

[btcm4n14c]

If they wanted to have an audit until now, they would have one. Don't be delusional. They are buying time, like all scammers do.

im afraid this might be correct, end of Aug is in 3 days, i bet they will come up with some excuse (again).

[Keyser Soze]

I'd also like to reach out and say that an audit would only prove the business and funds they have. It does nothing in the case that they get so much money they decide to run. A business that is making $100k a month in profit may still take off when they get $100m in deposits. That's enough to account for 1000 months, or 80+ years of pure profit and not have to do the work.

So the push for audits is irrelevant I think.

A proper audit from a reputable firm could show they are a legitimate business and have all client deposits on hand or in exchange accounts. Sure they could still take the money are run, with little recourse for depositors, but it would be proof they are not a ponzi.

Of course, if they are legitimate, they are raising capital in the most inefficient way possible. It does not seem logical that they have an extremely profitable, legitimate business, but are paying insane rates for capital.

I really only see two outcomes for this "audit". Either they give an excuse and stall indefinitely, or release useless audit findings.

[alani123]

I remember this thread being fully optimistic and flooded by new updates from the website. Oh how times have changed. Maybe after so many people got burned from other scams newcomers have decided to become more sceptical with where they put their money in.

[Illutian]

I'd also like to reach out and say that an audit would only prove the business and funds they have. It does nothing in the case that they get so much money they decide to run. A business that is making $100k a month in profit may still take off when they get $100m in deposits. That's enough to account for 1000 months, or 80+ years of pure profit and not have to do the work.

So the push for audits is irrelevant I think.

A proper audit from a reputable firm could show they are a legitimate business and have all client deposits on hand or in exchange accounts. Sure they could still take the money are run, with little recourse for depositors, but it would be proof they are not a ponzi.

Of course, if they are legitimate, they are raising capital in the most inefficient way possible. It does not seem logical that they have an extremely profitable, legitimate business, but are paying insane rates for capital.

I really only see two outcomes for this "audit". Either they give an excuse and stall indefinitely, or release useless audit findings.

Actually, what would likely happen is there would be a "delay" while the Audit Results are "compiled".

....and that could "take a month or more"


---

Hope they stick around for my August share block to mature.

[Keyser Soze]

To play Devil's advocate - there may be a possibility not yet considered. It is conceivable that they may not be trying to raise capital, as per their statement on the BTbiz site mentions:
"Bitcoin Trader was created by a group of Bitcoin geeks, with the vision to offer ordinary people the opportunity to earn a substantial and sustainable passive income."
It may be possible, and I hope it is, that they are simply sharing profit and not trying to raise funds for something else. They could simply be nice guys, who found a way to make some money, and are happy to share the wealth to whomever puts a little faith in their plan.
Again, just playing Devil's advocate - not being naive. I have money invested with them and stand to lose if it's a scam.

I have a really hard time believing that they have found this incredibly profitable business plan and then want to share the profits with random people on the internet who do nothing but collect the payments. Yes, these people have "invested" capital for BT to use, but for reasons explained earlier in this thread (and others) it is a completely illogical way to fund their business.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I have a really hard time believing that they have found this incredibly profitable business plan and then want to share the profits with random people on the internet who do nothing but collect the payments. Yes, these people have "invested" capital for BT to use, but for reasons explained earlier in this thread (and others) it is a completely illogical way to fund their business.

If you read their small print they could have a negative performance any number of days, so they could actually drive to zero gradually the locked capital of all investors without even breaching their contract. I don't think that any big investor could accept that, not to speak of giving his money to anons.

If it is not a Ponzi, an explanation of their business model could be that they ask for others' money to externalize risk on investors and gain more working money, so leverage to possibly try to manipulate the markets in their favor. Not to say that they earn more by their operations than what they pay to shareholders or so they said.

[Minerjoe]

Really no need to argue constantly about this topic. Only time will tell if they are legit or not.

[Keyser Soze]

If you read their small print they could have a negative performance any number of days, so they could actually drive to zero gradually the locked capital of all investors without even breaching their contract. I don't think that any big investor could accept that, not to speak of giving his money to anons.

I suppose they could use that as an exit strategy, but it would be hard to come up with a believable excuse to why they kept losing money day after day. If some exchange closes down without paying out, they could also claim a vast majority of their funds were lost at that exchange.

If it is not a Ponzi, an explanation of their business model could be that they ask for others' money to externalize risk on investors and gain more working money, so leverage to possibly try to manipulate the markets in their favor. Not to say that they earn more by their operations than what they pay to shareholders or so they said.

It still does not make sense to pay as much as they are for capital. If they really make as much as they say they do each day (keep in mind they have to make a profit for themselves too), they should have no problem finding funding for more attractive rates. In addition, they would no longer need to manage and support a site for mostly small investors.

you are funny. why dont you take for you a system with the same gain ratio, but keep all the funds at your account, but then you have to trade yourself using external signals. please, i want your really hard time to stop.

Not really sure what you are trying to say, but I never claimed to have a trading system of my own. All I am saying is they are most likely a ponzi, it is illogical (for many reasons previously discussed) for them to operate a legitimate business in the way they are claiming.

[StolenCoinSalesman]

My shares just matured. Had 3200 invested and made about 2k off of it via trading pool. Withdrew my original investment today and it went through. I would have invested again but I am going to wait and see how things pan out with the company.

[crazyivan]

My shares just matured. Had 3200 invested and made about 2k off of it via trading pool. Withdrew my original investment today and it went through. I would have invested again but I am going to wait and see how things pan out with the company.

Nice, I know at least 5 more people reaching ROI, including myself. A friend of mine had his $11k shares matured about a week ago.

[Illutian]

I have a really hard time believing that they have found this incredibly profitable business plan and then want to share the profits with random people on the internet who do nothing but collect the payments. Yes, these people have "invested" capital for BT to use, but for reasons explained earlier in this thread (and others) it is a completely illogical way to fund their business.

If you read their small print they could have a negative performance any number of days, so they could actually drive to zero gradually the locked capital of all investors without even breaching their contract. I don't think that any big investor could accept that, not to speak of giving his money to anons.

If it is not a Ponzi, an explanation of their business model could be that they ask for others' money to externalize risk on investors and gain more working money, so leverage to possibly try to manipulate the markets in their favor. Not to say that they earn more by their operations than what they pay to shareholders or so they said.

If you notice the BTC price drops on the weekends. This may be why they don't use bots, and only trade on weekdays; excluding holidays. They use the weekend to drop the price of BTC. So they can pump it up throughout the following week.


...On average, the price drops about $20 USD during the weekend; only to begin rising around Tuesday-ish.

[Illutian]

If you notice the BTC price drops on the weekends. This may be why they don't use bots, and only trade on weekdays; excluding holidays. They use the weekend to drop the price of BTC. So they can pump it up throughout the following week.


...On average, the price drops about $20 USD during the weekend; only to begin rising around Tuesday-ish.

I like the idea of a noticeable pattern, and I'm sure that everyone trading coin would love to take advantage of cyclical events, but looking at the last 3 months of bitstamp prices, I don't see what you see as far as a pattern goes. Please correct me if I am wrong.
NB: I modified, in Kolour, a chart I copied from bitcoincharts.com, to highlight the weekends vs weekdays.
[snipping photo so the Post Wall of Doom doesn't manifest!]

I was just going by what I notice using CoinWarz, defaults to Coinbase's price. Which I believe is Bitstamp's price. Because Coinbase is more like a PayPal with BTC service than an actual trading exchange.

But with your chart. You can see that at the start of the Weekend there's typically a sell off (red candle) and a rally starting around Tuesday into Wednesday (green candle). This is, of course, not true if there was a selloff during the Friday-ish day on this planet, meaning it can start as early as Thursday for 'negative' GMT countries (I'm 6hrs behind, myself).

It's not much of a change, but it is a noticeably predictable cycle. I emphasis cycle because the change is so small, that I usually see it go back up above the point I had initially looked at in the morning on CoinWarz.

Meaning: I get up, check. That becomes the 'high'. Refresh a few hours later and the new 'high' is ~15 - 25 USD below the previous. By the time I go to bed the 'high' is now above the high I remembered seeing when I first checked. However, this change doesn't seem to happen much during the Weekday, unless something panics the crowd (damn you China; stahp eet!); again with the same casual glances.


NOTE: I do not chart watch. But I do casually refresh every few hours to check the prices on alt coins and just curiosity of what's going on in BTC Land (ie: Large drop, "oh shit, what happened; let's check the news tab of Google for 'Bitcoin'").

So far I've done...6 cashouts; 4 of those were not reinvestment payments. However, all were requested on Saturday (on purpose). And I believe all by one resulted in my BTC deposit being worth more than when it had been requested. Believe the one happened on the coat-tail of the New York BitLicense thing being announced.

FYI: I'm in no way suggesting BT has the ability to do this (and not be in the middle of a collapse; a la MtGox style). But they may have seen the pattern that people tend to sell off their earnings on the weekends. So it's hard to justify running any trades when the overall trend of BTC Pricing is downwards....instead you'd want to be buying and waiting till about mid-week to sell off.

This might also explain why the rates are so consistent. What's the difference between being paid 1% per day and 7% per week? ...just the psychological mind game that you think you're being paid more.

So, you do the massive trading (per week) during the cyclical cycle of 'up' and 'down' per week and minor trading. Then, per day, use the massive trading (per week) to smooth over the per day trading results.

** It's an interesting theory. That could work. Really, ~1% per day isn't that hard to achieve if you're watching what you do and do get greedy. It's even easier if you have a buffer created at the start of each week, when you bought up a bunch of cheap BTC from the weekend. It also would sort of explain the reluctance to be audited as that would likely show the weekly in/out of money (in this case money being BTC).

--Remember, Google doesn't want to disclose how much power their Search Engine farms use because it would give insight into how their 'secret sauce' code indexes searches.**

[crazyivan]

My shares just matured. Had 3200 invested and made about 2k off of it via trading pool. Withdrew my original investment today and it went through. I would have invested again but I am going to wait and see how things pan out with the company.

Nice, I know at least 5 more people reaching ROI, including myself. A friend of mine had his $11k shares matured about a week ago.

Nice. Was he chewing his fingernails, wondering if it would come back?

Well, he reads this as well, don't want to speak for him.

[Minerjoe]

Any news about this audit? When is this going to take place?

[Grinder]

It's not much of a change, but it is a noticeably predictable cycle. I emphasis cycle because the change is so small, that I usually see it go back up above the point I had initially looked at in the morning on CoinWarz.

Unless you can prove it with numbers you are probably just seeing what you want to see. The mind is great at seeing patterns that aren't really there. This is just the kind of speculation that Pirateat40 encouraged among his followers. No need to explain what you're doing if they already think they know.