[ANN][STD] StandardCoin - BUILT-IN EXCHANGE - Permanently Rising Rate

[Rainer4256]

Is anyone investing in standard coin now a days?

I think everyone was chased off at this point. It's too bad.

Now this is weird, I though it was me who can't understand the system and the only one "crying" there, ranting and whatnot, while everybody else can see the light and the legitness of this coin.
Weird weird werd! I'm so totally surprised.

lol, exactly as I predicted few pages back. ghibly gives this guy negative trust for no reason at all, DEV has big red warning sings under his name, newcomers that come to the thread see that DEV has negative trust, they don't check details to see it is only because of one person. Then few days later ghibly comes back here to say he was right all the time because everyone stopped investing in the coin!
Yes, I am totally surprised also ghibly! Man, you must be so much fun at parties and have so many friends.

But to give you a serious answer Ghibly, read on. Italian is your native language, but your english is quite good so i am assuming you are an educated person that has a good job. So let's have a serious discussion instead of trolling. You are blaming DEV of running Ponzi scheme, right? Now let us look at the definition of Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme

DEV is not paying us from capital gained by new investors and DEV is also not the only place where we can get trade STD as on Bittrex I can trade my coins for BTC.
DEV did not promise any short-term returns, in fact on his homepage he is talking about years before we have profit
STD also doesn't need an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme. First round 16 BTC was invested, second round it could be that only 8 BTC is invested and third round only 4 BTC.

And most importantly, DEV could have just collected IPO money and ran away, he didnt and paid us the STD coins.
So DEV and STD do not comply to any of the main features that a Ponzi scheme has. Also atm your negative trust is not hurting the DEV, in fact one could think you are DEVs sockpuppet as you are now helping the DEV to dissappear with all the BTC. As he is tagged as scammer already he has nothing to lose.

So just be reasonable here, give this guy a chance and if he makes one mistake then leave a negative trust.
thanks!

So right!
But let me add another point: You didn't only accuse the dev of running a Ponzi scheme, you also disturb the development of this coin and harm the investors. There's no evidence of a fraudulent system so far.

[hucker]

Is anyone investing in standard coin now a days?

I think everyone was chased off at this point. It's too bad.

Now this is weird, I though it was me who can't understand the system and the only one "crying" there, ranting and whatnot, while everybody else can see the light and the legitness of this coin.
Weird weird werd! I'm so totally surprised.

lol, exactly as I predicted few pages back. ghibly gives this guy negative trust for no reason at all, DEV has big red warning sings under his name, newcomers that come to the thread see that DEV has negative trust, they don't check details to see it is only because of one person. Then few days later ghibly comes back here to say he was right all the time because everyone stopped investing in the coin!
Yes, I am totally surprised also ghibly! Man, you must be so much fun at parties and have so many friends.

But to give you a serious answer Ghibly, read on. Italian is your native language, but your english is quite good so i am assuming you are an educated person that has a good job. So let's have a serious discussion instead of trolling. You are blaming DEV of running Ponzi scheme, right? Now let us look at the definition of Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme

DEV is not paying us from capital gained by new investors and DEV is also not the only place where we can get trade STD as on Bittrex I can trade my coins for BTC.
DEV did not promise any short-term returns, in fact on his homepage he is talking about years before we have profit
STD also doesn't need an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme. First round 16 BTC was invested, second round it could be that only 8 BTC is invested and third round only 4 BTC.

And most importantly, DEV could have just collected IPO money and ran away, he didnt and paid us the STD coins.
So DEV and STD do not comply to any of the main features that a Ponzi scheme has. Also atm your negative trust is not hurting the DEV, in fact one could think you are DEVs sockpuppet as you are now helping the DEV to dissappear with all the BTC. As he is tagged as scammer already he has nothing to lose.

So just be reasonable here, give this guy a chance and if he makes one mistake then leave a negative trust.
thanks!

So right!
But let me add another point: You didn't only accuse the dev of running a Ponzi scheme, you also disturb the development of this coin and harm the investors. There's no evidence of a fraudulent system so far.

Destroying the coin by negative postings and abusing the feedback system is fraudulent.  You're not meant to give negative feedback unless you have TRADED with the other person and LOST COINS.  What we need is an admin to delete all of ghibly's posts.

[SweetLou]

he also said he wasn't coming back and yet he did.

[Rainer4256]

he also said he wasn't coming back and yet he did.

I never trusted him! 

[ghibly79]

Is anyone investing in standard coin now a days?

I think everyone was chased off at this point. It's too bad.

Now this is weird, I though it was me who can't understand the system and the only one "crying" there, ranting and whatnot, while everybody else can see the light and the legitness of this coin.
Weird weird werd! I'm so totally surprised.

lol, exactly as I predicted few pages back. ghibly gives this guy negative trust for no reason at all, DEV has big red warning sings under his name, newcomers that come to the thread see that DEV has negative trust, they don't check details to see it is only because of one person. Then few days later ghibly comes back here to say he was right all the time because everyone stopped investing in the coin!
Yes, I am totally surprised also ghibly! Man, you must be so much fun at parties and have so many friends.

But to give you a serious answer Ghibly, read on. Italian is your native language, but your english is quite good so i am assuming you are an educated person that has a good job. So let's have a serious discussion instead of trolling. You are blaming DEV of running Ponzi scheme, right? Now let us look at the definition of Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme

DEV is not paying us from capital gained by new investors and DEV is also not the only place where we can get trade STD as on Bittrex I can trade my coins for BTC.
DEV did not promise any short-term returns, in fact on his homepage he is talking about years before we have profit
STD also doesn't need an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme. First round 16 BTC was invested, second round it could be that only 8 BTC is invested and third round only 4 BTC.

And most importantly, DEV could have just collected IPO money and ran away, he didnt and paid us the STD coins.
So DEV and STD do not comply to any of the main features that a Ponzi scheme has. Also atm your negative trust is not hurting the DEV, in fact one could think you are DEVs sockpuppet as you are now helping the DEV to dissappear with all the BTC. As he is tagged as scammer already he has nothing to lose.

So just be reasonable here, give this guy a chance and if he makes one mistake then leave a negative trust.
thanks!

Short answer (for the long one, read my previous replies): he's not paying you returns directly now, he'll be using new investors' money to pay returns to whoever sells back first once value rises (if he does not run away with the money immediately ofc, which I doubt he'll do anyway, as already explained). There won't be enough btc to buy back all std at ger like he states (lie, to answer SweetLou). He'll need a constant flow of new investments to do that. So yes it IS a ponzi. Ofc he tried to mud things a bit (and it was effective it seems, on some of you). Ever increasing investment or not is a detail (depends on how rapidly people will be selling back).

Heck you don't even need to do the math, just use some logic: if you took X amount of btc during a period of time (this includes old and new investors. Just all the btc coming in, any source) and gave something in return (STD in this case), how can you pay back MORE btc when what you gave increased its value (since it CANNOT DROP by design) and people sell back all of it?

Yes you can buy/sell at an exchange but there the price can drop: you'll be using a coin conceived as a scam as a normal coin (will be just another clone scrypt with nothing else). You will be just circumventing his scam (as long as the price is higher than ger there), not canceling out the scam attempt.

He could have ran away already but that is not necessary to be a scammer, what he did is enough. Running away would be aggravating (I already said this in anothre reply too). Actually is counterproductive to run away from the start with this kind of scheme. He can wait and see if investors will send him more btc, maybe pay back some to keep the thing going and running away when he has enough (again, this is not necessary for the tag, running the ponzi itself is).

Anyway I already said all these things in other replies. It's not that I'm not reasonable, I just got tired of repeating over and over.

[trdiablo]

Is anyone investing in standard coin now a days?

I think everyone was chased off at this point. It's too bad.

Now this is weird, I though it was me who can't understand the system and the only one "crying" there, ranting and whatnot, while everybody else can see the light and the legitness of this coin.
Weird weird werd! I'm so totally surprised.

lol, exactly as I predicted few pages back. ghibly gives this guy negative trust for no reason at all, DEV has big red warning sings under his name, newcomers that come to the thread see that DEV has negative trust, they don't check details to see it is only because of one person. Then few days later ghibly comes back here to say he was right all the time because everyone stopped investing in the coin!
Yes, I am totally surprised also ghibly! Man, you must be so much fun at parties and have so many friends.

But to give you a serious answer Ghibly, read on. Italian is your native language, but your english is quite good so i am assuming you are an educated person that has a good job. So let's have a serious discussion instead of trolling. You are blaming DEV of running Ponzi scheme, right? Now let us look at the definition of Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme

DEV is not paying us from capital gained by new investors and DEV is also not the only place where we can get trade STD as on Bittrex I can trade my coins for BTC.
DEV did not promise any short-term returns, in fact on his homepage he is talking about years before we have profit
STD also doesn't need an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme. First round 16 BTC was invested, second round it could be that only 8 BTC is invested and third round only 4 BTC.

And most importantly, DEV could have just collected IPO money and ran away, he didnt and paid us the STD coins.
So DEV and STD do not comply to any of the main features that a Ponzi scheme has. Also atm your negative trust is not hurting the DEV, in fact one could think you are DEVs sockpuppet as you are now helping the DEV to dissappear with all the BTC. As he is tagged as scammer already he has nothing to lose.

So just be reasonable here, give this guy a chance and if he makes one mistake then leave a negative trust.
thanks!

Short answer (for the long one, read my previous replies): he's not paying you returns directly now, he'll be using new investors' money to pay returns to whoever sells back first once value rises (if he does not run away with the money immediately ofc, which I doubt he'll do anyway, as already explained). There won't be enough btc to buy back all std at ger like he states (lie, to answer SweetLou). He'll need a constant flow of new investments to do that. So yes it IS a ponzi. Ofc he tried to mud things a bit (and it was effective it seems, on some of you). Ever increasing investment or not is a detail (depends on how rapidly people will be selling back).

Heck you don't even need to do the math, just use some logic: if you took X amount of btc during a period of time (this includes old and new investors. Just all the btc coming in, any source) and gave something in return (STD in this case), how can you pay back MORE btc when what you gave increased its value (since it CANNOT DROP by design) and people sell back all of it?

Yes you can buy/sell at an exchange but there the price can drop: you'll be using a coin conceived as a scam as a normal coin (will be just another clone scrypt with nothing else). You will be just circumventing his scam (as long as the price is higher than ger there), not canceling out the scam attempt.

He could have ran away already but that is not necessary to be a scammer, what he did is enough. Running away would be aggravating (I already said this in anothre reply too). Actually is counterproductive to run away from the start with this kind of scheme. He can wait and see if investors will send him more btc, maybe pay back some to keep the thing going and running away when he has enough (again, this is not necessary for the tag, running the ponzi itself is).

Anyway I already said all these things in other replies. It's not that I'm not reasonable, I just got tired of repeating over and over.

So short summary of your not so short answer, you are using words that clearly describe your worries and not facts.
"He is not, If he does, he will be, there won't be" - So you are just guessing what he will or will not do.

You completely ignore the fact that it does not share any features of a ponzi scheme (or you don't understand it) but you defend that by saying "he tries to mud things a bit". Sure man.

Anyway, I am done with discussing this with you. If DEV flees I will hold you personally responsible for it.

[hucker]

So short summary of your not so short answer, you are using words that clearly describe your worries and not facts.
"He is not, If he does, he will be, there won't be" - So you are just guessing what he will or will not do.

You completely ignore the fact that it does not share any features of a ponzi scheme (or you don't understand it) but you defend that by saying "he tries to mud things a bit". Sure man.

Anyway, I am done with discussing this with you. If DEV flees I will hold you personally responsible for it.

+1

[ghibly79]

K.

[jomay]

I feel bad for people who invested in this and the owner if it turns out it all is legit.
I really feel bad for all of them, as 1 person can just destroy all this with a mouse click and a big ego.
Just because he did his trading here on a forum while others did a whole lot more trustful trading elsewhere.
Kinda feel more and more ashamed to be part of this BTC community latly and consider I should just better quit as it's filled with trolls and unhealthy amounts of ego who can't understand they should provide evidence before making accusations.

Very good description of ghastly ghibly. He must get some sick sense of pleasure "dominating" people on this forum with his stinky trust he got somehow. His life outside this forum must suck or be non-existent.

He also serves as a perfect warning sign not to trust people because they have 350 posts - posts devoid of relevant information and incredibly repetitive.

It's annoying that he did not (and probably still does not) understand the system, but still feels entitled to comment repetitively... worse than a bad politician.

Talking to yourself? All you did was attacking me on details over and over without denting the main point one bit. Was thinking you were genuine (maybe a bit of a detail obsessed nerd) at some point but you are turning out to be just another one of these trolls.

That's fine though, one less person to care replying to in the future.

Side note: it's not one person "destroying trust". Some 4 - 5 users dismissed this as a scam, including Tomatocage who is pretty experienced around there, more than me, and some other sr./hero members.
If someone has to stop and reflect that's maybe you.
You'll grow some experience eventually, don't worry. "That's how we learn!" cit.

P.s.: @Tekkerr, quitting may be wise, since you'll end up scammed here most likely anyway

ghibly, do you turn to stone at sunrise? Because you do tick all the other boxes of a troll.

I was very objective and very clear in my arguments and posts before. The person dragging it onto emotional levels is you. And from now on I'll feed the troll, hoping he'll choke on it or die from obesity. Is Treviglio a known Mountain Troll habitat in Italy?

You are stupid. Plain stupid. You are lacking IQ. You have no clue how the math behind this coin works. Like the last post where you stated there's not enough BTC to payout every one. You even change your posts when you find out you were wrong. Your previous posts proof that:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5941406#msg5941406

You are a liar. I don't know how many times you promised to "leave", but it probably exceed the number range you are comfortable with.

You hide behind "hero" members and believe in "authority by #posts". For all I know, Tomatocage could be a 21-year old college dropout spending too much time on this forum. I'd rather trust my own judgement, given my age and academic track record.

Finally, you distract from the real reasons why one might not want to invest in this coin. I've listed reasons and I've even made predictions on the future value of the coin. So far all my predictions were accurate.

[ghibly79]

K. No, you are wrong, it shares more than enough features if you spend few moments reasoning: if I steal your money promising you won't lose it and giving something to you in return promising it's value will only increase and I'll always be able to buy back any amount of it at the increased value, it's exactly the same as promising sure returns. Do what you said and quit this forum if you can't figure our even that, for your sake man, you'll be easily scammed over and over.

But oooook, free to disagree and ignore my ratings.


P.s.: Sure, if dev scams you it will be my fault. Nay: actually I am the dev (and your father too, Luke). I did all of this and then try to scare investors away so that I can have an excuse to run with the money. Reverse of reverse of reverse psychology and such.
Pure genius, isn't it ?

(delirious! ahhaah xD)

[lucienlu]

It is not difficult. Just click on the word "trust" below username TheRealStandard.
On this trust page scroll down, enter the risked amount of BTC, enter your comment and click submit.
That is all.

[jomay]

There won't be enough btc to buy back all std at ger like he states (lie, to answer SweetLou). He'll need a constant flow of new investments to do that. So yes it IS a ponzi.

There will be enough BTC to buy back all STD at GER. He does not need a constant flow of new investments. I might explain it in the next post. It's really quite simple.
=>
Oh ghibly oh ghibly. Trolling at its best. We've been there and discussed it - and you admitted that you didn't understand the math, that you were wrong. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5940664#msg5940664

Heck you don't even need to do the math, just use some logic: if you took X amount of btc during a period of time (this includes old and new investors. Just all the btc coming in, any source) and gave something in return (STD in this case), how can you pay back MORE btc when what you gave increased its value (since it CANNOT DROP by design) and people sell back all of it?

It all works out for Standardcoin because its exchange pays back LESS BTC than what it got in the first place.
=>
Yep, we've been there as well. Of course, gibly doesn't need math. Because ghibly can't do math, because his arguments are so flawed that he could proof anything. And logic is the foundation of math. Another field where ghibly doesn't shine.

He could have ran away already but that is not necessary to be a scammer, what he did is enough. Running away would be aggravating (I already said this in anothre reply too). Actually is counterproductive to run away from the start with this kind of scheme. He can wait and see if investors will send him more btc, maybe pay back some to keep the thing going and running away when he has enough

This is the only bit of your post that makes sense and I agree with

[ghibly79]

I feel bad for people who invested in this and the owner if it turns out it all is legit.
I really feel bad for all of them, as 1 person can just destroy all this with a mouse click and a big ego.
Just because he did his trading here on a forum while others did a whole lot more trustful trading elsewhere.
Kinda feel more and more ashamed to be part of this BTC community latly and consider I should just better quit as it's filled with trolls and unhealthy amounts of ego who can't understand they should provide evidence before making accusations.

Very good description of ghastly ghibly. He must get some sick sense of pleasure "dominating" people on this forum with his stinky trust he got somehow. His life outside this forum must suck or be non-existent.

He also serves as a perfect warning sign not to trust people because they have 350 posts - posts devoid of relevant information and incredibly repetitive.

It's annoying that he did not (and probably still does not) understand the system, but still feels entitled to comment repetitively... worse than a bad politician.

Talking to yourself? All you did was attacking me on details over and over without denting the main point one bit. Was thinking you were genuine (maybe a bit of a detail obsessed nerd) at some point but you are turning out to be just another one of these trolls.

That's fine though, one less person to care replying to in the future.

Side note: it's not one person "destroying trust". Some 4 - 5 users dismissed this as a scam, including Tomatocage who is pretty experienced around there, more than me, and some other sr./hero members.
If someone has to stop and reflect that's maybe you.
You'll grow some experience eventually, don't worry. "That's how we learn!" cit.

P.s.: @Tekkerr, quitting may be wise, since you'll end up scammed here most likely anyway

ghibly, do you turn to stone at sunrise? Because you do tick all the other boxes of a troll.

I was very objective and very clear in my arguments and posts before. The person dragging it onto emotional levels is you. And from now on I'll feed the troll, hoping he'll choke on it or die from obesity. Is Treviglio a known Mountain Troll habitat in Italy?

You are stupid. Plain stupid. You are lacking IQ. You have no clue how the math behind this coin works. Like the last post where you stated there's not enough BTC to payout every one. You even change your posts when you find out you were wrong. Your previous posts proof that:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522874.msg5941406#msg5941406

You are a liar. I don't know how many times you promised to "leave", but it probably exceed the number range you are comfortable with.

You hide behind "hero" members and believe in "authority by #posts". For all I know, Tomatocage could be a 21-year old college dropout spending too much time on this forum. I'd rather trust my own judgement, given my age and academic track record.

Finally, you distract from the real reasons why one might not want to invest in this coin. I've listed reasons and I've even made predictions on the future value of the coin. So far all my predictions were accurate.

K Jomay, yes Jomay.

You were very objective and I answered you very objectively too, agreeing to your points when they were right, but explaining to you they were details not modifying the main problem.

And it's true there won't be enough btc to buy back at ger all std because:

100 btc ipo thus ger= 100/400mil=25 sat. New investors come and buy 200 more millions at ssp=4*100/200mil = 400 btc. Amc is now 500 btc and ger = 500/400mil= 125 sat. Miners mine 100 mil and get 125 btc. Dev down to 375 btc. Ipo investors sell back 100 mil for another 125, dev down to 250. New investors want to sell back but OH only 250 btc left, they lost 150.

And so on, swap last sellers as you please and someone will lose money (dev will probably run with all 500 but ok, that's an assumption).

Now back to school and to your trollbox.

[ghibly79]

Heck you don't even need to do the math, just use some logic: if you took X amount of btc during a period of time (this includes old and new investors. Just all the btc coming in, any source) and gave something in return (STD in this case), how can you pay back MORE btc when what you gave increased its value (since it CANNOT DROP by design) and people sell back all of it?

It all works out for Standardcoin because its exchange pays back LESS BTC than what it got in the first place.

THUS people get less btc back, THUS someone is losing money. GENIUS.

[sameev29]

Heck you don't even need to do the math, just use some logic: if you took X amount of btc during a period of time (this includes old and new investors. Just all the btc coming in, any source) and gave something in return (STD in this case), how can you pay back MORE btc when what you gave increased its value (since it CANNOT DROP by design) and people sell back all of it?

It all works out for Standardcoin because its exchange pays back LESS BTC than what it got in the first place.

THUS people get less btc back, THUS someone is losing money. GENIUS.

Everyone loses money in crypto world. 

[ghibly79]

Heck you don't even need to do the math, just use some logic: if you took X amount of btc during a period of time (this includes old and new investors. Just all the btc coming in, any source) and gave something in return (STD in this case), how can you pay back MORE btc when what you gave increased its value (since it CANNOT DROP by design) and people sell back all of it?

It all works out for Standardcoin because its exchange pays back LESS BTC than what it got in the first place.

THUS people get less btc back, THUS someone is losing money. GENIUS.

Everyone loses money in crypto world. 

But no one guarantees you won't lose with legit cryptos (repeating myself ^^''').

[jomay]

And it's true there won't be enough btc to buy back at ger all std because:

100 btc ipo thus ger= 100/400mil=25 sat. New investors come and buy 200 more millions at ssp=4*100/200mil = 400 btc. Amc is now 500 btc and ger = 500/400mil= 125 sat. Miners mine 100 mil and get 125 btc. Dev down to 375 btc. Ipo investors sell back 100 mil for another 125, dev down to 250. New investors want to sell back but OH only 250 btc left, they lost 150.
Even if miners come after, new investors will get only 375 back out of 400. Or if they sell before ipoers, they'll get 400*125=500 btc and ipoers and miners will be screwed.

And so on, swap last sellers as you please and someone will lose money (dev will probably run with all 500 but ok, that's an assumption.

Mathematically spoken, softened for Troll-sized brains:

• GER = (total amount of BTC deposited) / (maximum number of STD). The BTC stored are exactly sufficient to pay GER for every STD currently existing or mined in the future.
• GER is monotonously increasing because the exchange sells STD for a price much larger than GER. (I believe that there are some subtleties regarding the multi-pool and hope the dev took care of them!)

Now, let's take your post apart. You realize that you contradict yourself. But you don't care because you Troll.

Your first and wrong statement "And it's true there won't be enough btc to buy back at ger all std" is a direct contradiction to your proof and second paragraph. All miners, IPO and later investors get GER for their STD in your example. So everybody gets the promised GER rate for their STD.

Obviously someone has gotten back less BTC than they had originally paid and effectively net a loss. The GER is a lower bound for the price, not a guarantee that you cannot lose. You'd have to be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.

[jomay]

And so on, swap last sellers as you please and someone will lose money (dev will probably run with all 500 but ok, that's an assumption.

You'd have to be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.

Edit - maybe I'm on to something here?

[Kay0r]

Any news on the STD multipool?
I'm already warming up my gridseeds.

[ghibly79]

Ok Jomay, as usual, yes you are right on the sophistic detail that the wording is right: "there will be enough btc to buy back at ger". In fact in my example, in the "new investors sell last" scenario, they own 200 mil STD at 125 satoshi ger and they'll sell back for 250 btc.

Main problem is, like you yourself are agreeing upon, they invested 400 so they are losing money. Or someone else will be in their stead if you swap last sellers around.

So, the fact is that the very reason to create a coin like this and wording the announcement like that is to suggest to investors they will at least be able to recover initial investment. Everything is arranged for that. Newbies and naives trap.

You are insisting over and over on language details, maybe for the sake of not losing the flame when you understood exactly what I meant and the scheme is evident. This coupled with the fact he'll be holding investors btc in his hands (while stating otherwise, now that I notice:

"Nobody is depositing anything. The exchange works like this:
If you are a buyer, you only need to enter your STD address to the exchange, a BTC address associated with that STD address is generated. You send BTC to that address and a calculated amount of STD will be sent to your STD address automatically.
And if you are a seller, you will have to enter your BTC address to the exchange, a STD address associated with that BTC address is generated. You send STD to that address and you will receive BTC to your BTC address at the GER.")

 is more than enough for the big fat warning.

As you can see I'm not dragging arguments on emotional waves. Hope I've made it clear once and for all now.