GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :)

[suchmoon]

dykask2 has also been shadowed banned.   Guess I'm not wanted there! 

Told you. Calling CEO a troll doesn't end well

[10BTCaDay]

Didn't see anyone bring this up. I recently looked at zenportals ToS. https://zenminer.com/cloud/terms.html Here's what I found.

4. Certain Risks Associated with HashStakers
4.1 Risk of Regulatory Action. Cryptocurrencies have been the subject of regulatory scrutiny by various regulatory bodies, both in the United States and internationally. HashStakers could by impacted by one or more regulatory inquiries or actions, which could (i) impede or limit the Company’s ability to continue to provide the HashStakers, or (ii) prevent the distribution, sale or use of Paycoin. 

"If we get looked at by SEC, dont get mad if we cant pay you"

4.2 Risk of Theft. Hackers or other groups or organizations may attempt to steal Paycoins staked in Prime Controllers and HashStakers. To account for this risk, the Company has and will continue to implement comprehensive security precautions to safeguard Prime Controllers and HashStakers.

How kind of you! Isn't that why we are paying you to host our hardware in the first place?


4.3 Risk that Paycoin May Never be Completed or Released. Purchaser understands that, while the Company will make reasonable efforts to complete the Paycoin software, it is possible that an official completed version of Paycoin may not be released and there may never be an operational Paycoin, Prime Controller, or HashStaker.

WTF?? Really? Ponzi Complete. Commencing Exit Strategy.


4.4 Paycoins May Have No Value. Paycoin is a new cryptocurrency and its value is determined by supply and demand. At any point after its release, it is possible that the market price of a Paycoin may be zero. Because the value of Paycoin may be zero, the value of a stake, in Paycoins, from a HashStaker may also be zero.
Zero huh? What about 20$ and fiat reserves for the floor?


4.5 No Liquidity. Because HashStakers and Prime Controllers are staking wallets, the Paycoins deposited at a HashStaker address will be locked for a length of time, which may be up to 6 months. During the staking period, Purchaser will not have the ability to withdraw or transfer those Paycoins.


This to me is total crap! How can they be allowed to do this? Why don't they allow early withdrawl with a penalty or something?


4.6 Volatility. During a staking period, the market value of locked Paycoins may fluctuate dramatically. The value of the deposited Paycoins after the staking period may be less than the value of the Paycoins before they were deposited. 

Makes sense... yet this simple fact is not understood by the community @ HT.


4.7 No Guaranteed Return. Because proof-of-stake networks award new coins based on the size of a stake relative to other stakes, the Company cannot guarantee that the Prime Controller, and thus a HashStaker, will receive a portion of new Paycoins released during any staking period. Prime Controllers stake against other nodes. Third parties may control nodes that have much larger stakes than Prime Controllers and therefore receive a higher portion of new Paycoins.

Decided now was the time to remove "always profitable" ? Maybe this is proof they aren't a ponzi 




TLDR; Very sketchy ToS that I dont think many people read but it gives us a glimpse of how GAW is currently being run

If that isn't the biggest red flag you've ever seen.. what is?
Someone should post this on hashtalk.

[gefafwisp]

Didn't see anyone bring this up. I recently looked at zenportals ToS. https://zenminer.com/cloud/terms.html Here's what I found.

4. Certain Risks Associated with HashStakers
4.1 Risk of Regulatory Action. Cryptocurrencies have been the subject of regulatory scrutiny by various regulatory bodies, both in the United States and internationally. HashStakers could by impacted by one or more regulatory inquiries or actions, which could (i) impede or limit the Company’s ability to continue to provide the HashStakers, or (ii) prevent the distribution, sale or use of Paycoin. 

"If we get looked at by SEC, dont get mad if we cant pay you"

4.2 Risk of Theft. Hackers or other groups or organizations may attempt to steal Paycoins staked in Prime Controllers and HashStakers. To account for this risk, the Company has and will continue to implement comprehensive security precautions to safeguard Prime Controllers and HashStakers.

How kind of you! Isn't that why we are paying you to host our hardware in the first place?


4.3 Risk that Paycoin May Never be Completed or Released. Purchaser understands that, while the Company will make reasonable efforts to complete the Paycoin software, it is possible that an official completed version of Paycoin may not be released and there may never be an operational Paycoin, Prime Controller, or HashStaker.

WTF?? Really? Ponzi Complete. Commencing Exit Strategy.


4.4 Paycoins May Have No Value. Paycoin is a new cryptocurrency and its value is determined by supply and demand. At any point after its release, it is possible that the market price of a Paycoin may be zero. Because the value of Paycoin may be zero, the value of a stake, in Paycoins, from a HashStaker may also be zero.
Zero huh? What about 20$ and fiat reserves for the floor?


4.5 No Liquidity. Because HashStakers and Prime Controllers are staking wallets, the Paycoins deposited at a HashStaker address will be locked for a length of time, which may be up to 6 months. During the staking period, Purchaser will not have the ability to withdraw or transfer those Paycoins.


This to me is total crap! How can they be allowed to do this? Why don't they allow early withdrawl with a penalty or something?


4.6 Volatility. During a staking period, the market value of locked Paycoins may fluctuate dramatically. The value of the deposited Paycoins after the staking period may be less than the value of the Paycoins before they were deposited. 

Makes sense... yet this simple fact is not understood by the community @ HT.


4.7 No Guaranteed Return. Because proof-of-stake networks award new coins based on the size of a stake relative to other stakes, the Company cannot guarantee that the Prime Controller, and thus a HashStaker, will receive a portion of new Paycoins released during any staking period. Prime Controllers stake against other nodes. Third parties may control nodes that have much larger stakes than Prime Controllers and therefore receive a higher portion of new Paycoins.

Decided now was the time to remove "always profitable" ? Maybe this is proof they aren't a ponzi 




TLDR; Very sketchy ToS that I dont think many people read but it gives us a glimpse of how GAW is currently being run

If that isn't the biggest red flag you've ever seen.. what is?
Someone should post this on hashtalk.

It's called covering your back... Read any corporate ToS where a paid service is being offered and you'll find the same 

[10BTCaDay]

Well their TOS won't protect them from the LAW.

[bumpershot]

So the "securities" that the SEC is most likely interested in would be:

(1) Paycoin,

(2) Hashtakers,

(3) Zen and Prime Hashlets,

(4) Other Hashlets

The first 3 of these are clearly securities under established laws (GAW might try to argue that the novel nature of cryptocurrency justifies an exception to existing law; but that does not change the fact that existing law would have these classified as securities without a doubt).  Other hashlets are very likely securities.

I get (3). That's been on my mind for a while. (1)'s kind of a bigger issue, but there's enough support now for bitcoin not being a security directly subject to SEC regulation that I don't think that's an issue.

How is (2) a SEC-scoped security? You're renting disk space, processing time, and software.

[jackbox]

Didn't see anyone bring this up. I recently looked at zenportals ToS. https://zenminer.com/cloud/terms.html Here's what I found.

4. Certain Risks Associated with HashStakers
4.1 Risk of Regulatory Action. Cryptocurrencies have been the subject of regulatory scrutiny by various regulatory bodies, both in the United States and internationally. HashStakers could by impacted by one or more regulatory inquiries or actions, which could (i) impede or limit the Company’s ability to continue to provide the HashStakers, or (ii) prevent the distribution, sale or use of Paycoin. 

"If we get looked at by SEC, dont get mad if we cant pay you"

4.2 Risk of Theft. Hackers or other groups or organizations may attempt to steal Paycoins staked in Prime Controllers and HashStakers. To account for this risk, the Company has and will continue to implement comprehensive security precautions to safeguard Prime Controllers and HashStakers.

How kind of you! Isn't that why we are paying you to host our hardware in the first place?


4.3 Risk that Paycoin May Never be Completed or Released. Purchaser understands that, while the Company will make reasonable efforts to complete the Paycoin software, it is possible that an official completed version of Paycoin may not be released and there may never be an operational Paycoin, Prime Controller, or HashStaker.

WTF?? Really? Ponzi Complete. Commencing Exit Strategy.


4.4 Paycoins May Have No Value. Paycoin is a new cryptocurrency and its value is determined by supply and demand. At any point after its release, it is possible that the market price of a Paycoin may be zero. Because the value of Paycoin may be zero, the value of a stake, in Paycoins, from a HashStaker may also be zero.
Zero huh? What about 20$ and fiat reserves for the floor?


4.5 No Liquidity. Because HashStakers and Prime Controllers are staking wallets, the Paycoins deposited at a HashStaker address will be locked for a length of time, which may be up to 6 months. During the staking period, Purchaser will not have the ability to withdraw or transfer those Paycoins.


This to me is total crap! How can they be allowed to do this? Why don't they allow early withdrawl with a penalty or something?


4.6 Volatility. During a staking period, the market value of locked Paycoins may fluctuate dramatically. The value of the deposited Paycoins after the staking period may be less than the value of the Paycoins before they were deposited. 

Makes sense... yet this simple fact is not understood by the community @ HT.


4.7 No Guaranteed Return. Because proof-of-stake networks award new coins based on the size of a stake relative to other stakes, the Company cannot guarantee that the Prime Controller, and thus a HashStaker, will receive a portion of new Paycoins released during any staking period. Prime Controllers stake against other nodes. Third parties may control nodes that have much larger stakes than Prime Controllers and therefore receive a higher portion of new Paycoins.

Decided now was the time to remove "always profitable" ? Maybe this is proof they aren't a ponzi 




TLDR; Very sketchy ToS that I dont think many people read but it gives us a glimpse of how GAW is currently being run

This is funny. PayCoins can be worthless. Well, no duh! CashTakers may return nothing to you but we will keep the coins locked up for six months. ROFL.

[crashoveride54902]

well sold off all primes/zen/clever/waffle/multi....Stuck in 9.2 btc got back 18 or so btc and have 80k hp's but i'm not to hopeful on that...but that would be around another 9btc @ 20 a coin...so  least i'm totally out from this nightmare with double my btc maybe triple if crapcoin actually gets converted and i can sell all those...I kept 5 stakers just for the hell of it lol doesn't matter if its all useless anyways...guess it only pays out if you got in early and i feel bad that all the suckers are gonna get gox'd/bfl'd but oh well if they have that much blind faith there is no stopping them

[10BTCaDay]

Why do hashtalkers want to 'kill us' and they call us trolls?

https://hashtalk.org/topic/22900/gaw-and-trolls/2

We are trying to help them by uncovering the truth and we are essentially re-insuring that their investment is actually safe.
Why do people on hashtalk care about what we say about gawminers?

[suchmoon]

So the "securities" that the SEC is most likely interested in would be:

(1) Paycoin,

(2) Hashtakers,

(3) Zen and Prime Hashlets,

(4) Other Hashlets

The first 3 of these are clearly securities under established laws (GAW might try to argue that the novel nature of cryptocurrency justifies an exception to existing law; but that does not change the fact that existing law would have these classified as securities without a doubt).  Other hashlets are very likely securities.

I get (3). That's been on my mind for a while. (1)'s kind of a bigger issue, but there's enough support now for bitcoin not being a security directly subject to SEC regulation that I don't think that's an issue.

How is (2) a SEC-scoped security? You're renting disk space, processing time, and software.

I don't know if it's a security as per SEC, but it is definitely a financial product such as a CD or a bond. The CEO confirmed this in his usual non-committal way when someone suggested that on HT. Nothing to do with hardware/software, just like your bank deposit is not about hardware/software.

[eightcylinders]

Plea for rational discourse regarding GAW...

I am **really** worried that GAW is going to impode, explode and otherwise send shrapnel every which way.  I know it is a blast to poke fun at some of the crazy things that are happening over there; the lies, mis-steps, religious-like ferver, etc.  I have impugned GAW several times harshly.

However, please consider that when GAW does go bust, it might take cryptocurrency with it for a long time.  Mt. Gox took about $300 per BTC out of the price of BTC.  The Chinese government probably did the rest.  Do we really need another major disaster in cryptocurrency?  Maybe it is for the best that GAW is moving to Paycoin so at least we can say "They had nothing to do with BTC"... but you know the media won't understand the distinction and BTC will be set back years possibly.

If the SEC gets involved, it is very likely that ICOs and cloud mining could be outlawed completely.  Maybe a good thing but it will have major impacts.

What I would like folks to consider is that we might still be able to have some kind of an impact on what is going on over there; but regardless what happens over there will impact us in some way.

Last point is regarding the religious stuff. 

Early in my career I worked with a top private equity firm on an investment that was being made in a technology company.  This company, we found out, was essentially a cult.  The 20 or so employees were all members of a church, headed by the President.  They all lived together in a large home, that also served as the church itself.  The members/employees gave up their life savings to the President/church/company.  It was creepy and made us seriously rethink the investment thesis.  We did the deal with great trepidation.    The cult members were so devoted that they would work 20 hour days, and there were no arguments over shares or profits.  They lacked the greed that often splits apart hugely successful small companies.  Five years or so later, the cult-company had quadrupled its EBITDA (net profits measure) and was sold for many times what we paid for it. 

I am not saying that the church connection is entirely irrelevant - it explains why some are so trusting without any objective bases and so might be a reason to largely disregard the litany of those who would elevate Josh to godlike (or Steve Jobs - like) status.  Just keep it in perspective.

[jackbox]

Why do hashtalkers want to 'kill us' and they call us trolls?

https://hashtalk.org/topic/22900/gaw-and-trolls/2

We are trying to help them by uncovering the truth and we are essentially re-insuring that their investment is actually safe.
Why do people on hashtalk care about what we say about gawminers?

Because people want to believe the lies. I was in a merchant account (credit card) sales business many years back (before PayPal existed). The competitors lied to people about the leases for credit card terminals being cancellable. We told the potential customers the truth but they argued with us and said so and so said they can be canceled. Well, low and behold they went with so and so and then later call us up and say so and so lied to me I cannot cancel the lease. I would say no duh, what the fuck do you want me to do about it? You bought the service from so and so, they lied to you just like I told you they were but you argued with me and told me I was wrong. No go fuck off you stupid shit. Of course, so and so is very rich now and I was shortly thereafter out of business. The moral of the story; liars do well in business. Honest people go out of business. Josh is a good liar and the people want to believe the lies because they are greedy fucks and eat the shit he spews right out of his mouth. They sort of deserve what is coming to them.

[eightcylinders]

I don't know if it's a security as per SEC, but it is definitely a financial product such as a CD or a bond. The CEO confirmed this in his usual non-committal way when someone suggested that on HT. Nothing to do with hardware/software, just like your bank deposit is not about hardware/software.

A bond is a security.

A CD is a bank deposit regulated even more than a security.  I think GAW would be better off staking it as a security versus a bank deposit.

[bumpershot]

I don't know if it's a security as per SEC, but it is definitely a financial product such as a CD or a bond. The CEO confirmed this in his usual non-committal way when someone suggested that on HT. Nothing to do with hardware/software, just like your bank deposit is not about hardware/software.

I don't think it's a financial instrument because crypto isn't "money" from a regulatory standpoint.

If I'm a physicist working on a hard problem that requires data from a hard problem I've already solved, so I rent space on a huge mainframe to do the calculations, is that like a CD or a bond? No, because that data isn't currency. It's an asset with value, but it's not currency. That's like saying planting seeds is like a CD or a bond. Or making widgets.

The more I think about it, the more (3) kind of stands out. There you're not renting anything because "mining" ZenPool involves things like taking money from renting hashpower to other companies, which pretty much sounds like a security under the scope of the SEC.

[eightcylinders]

So the "securities" that the SEC is most likely interested in would be:

(1) Paycoin,

(2) Hashtakers,

(3) Zen and Prime Hashlets,

(4) Other Hashlets

[snip]

I get (3). That's been on my mind for a while. (1)'s kind of a bigger issue, but there's enough support now for bitcoin not being a security directly subject to SEC regulation that I don't think that's an issue.

How is (2) a SEC-scoped security? You're renting disk space, processing time, and software.

As far as Paycoin (1) is concerned, I think its different than Bitcoin because of the staking and revenue from staking features which make it a security.  Bitcoin, Litecoin etc. do not have these profit generating features.

As far as cloud mining goes, read the Howey case I have cited both over at HT and here.  In that case, the argument was that they were just renting an orchard and orchard management time from the promoter.  The Supreme Court was not impressed with that argument and stated it very clearly: any interest in profits gained through purchase (without participation in the business) is a security.  Note that it would not be a security if the machines were owned by the buyer of the cloud mining service OR if there was participation such as in choosing pools.

[suchmoon]

I don't know if it's a security as per SEC, but it is definitely a financial product such as a CD or a bond. The CEO confirmed this in his usual non-committal way when someone suggested that on HT. Nothing to do with hardware/software, just like your bank deposit is not about hardware/software.

A bond is a security.

A CD is a bank deposit regulated even more than a security.  I think GAW would be better off staking it as a security versus a bank deposit.

Just in case someone wants to argue:

https://hashtalk.org/topic/20296


Edited 2020-11-28 to fix a broken image

[mmmeyers]

I have been reading everything Gaza writes recently and it struck me. He absolutely believes everything he is saying!
I had an old girl friend like this once.
Nothing she said was ever true so some people thought she was a pathological liar,
however she stated that they were completely wrong,
she just "changed her mind a lot".

The shills over on HT have gotten out of hand, they are desperate to keep prices pumped up while they bail out of their remaining investments.
For most of them that means paycoin launch and BTC conversion enabled so they can cash out against the "WALL".
The non-morons have all caught on now and they are pushing each other to greater and greater heights of idiocy trying to pump up the crapcoin in hopes of getting out with a profit.

[dekay]

I don't know if it's a security as per SEC, but it is definitely a financial product such as a CD or a bond. The CEO confirmed this in his usual non-committal way when someone suggested that on HT. Nothing to do with hardware/software, just like your bank deposit is not about hardware/software.

A bond is a security.

A CD is a bank deposit regulated even more than a security.  I think GAW would be better off staking it as a security versus a bank deposit.

on the 19th paybase will launch and josh will say you cant trade paycoin for btc yet but please stake

[bumpershot]

As far as cloud mining goes, read the Howey case I have cited both over at HT and here.  In that case, the argument was that they were just renting an orchard and orchard management time from the promoter.  The Supreme Court was not impressed with that argument and stated it very clearly: any interest in profits gained through purchase (without participation in the business) is a security.  Note that it would not be a security if the machines were owned by the buyer of the cloud mining service OR if there was participation such as in choosing pools.

I am familiar with the Howey case (and the Shavers case, which is where it came up). Buying a non-Zen solo hashlet is a different thing because what you're primarily buying is processing time. It's like buying time on a mainframe back in the 80s. Although there might be a small amount of maintenance, the computer is already set up, and you're renting timeslices on an item. In Howey and Shavers, the investors were primarily buying the efforts of people (harvesting, selling, etc.). Here, you're buying time with items.

Now, ZenPool is different because he's admitted that he does other activities that create the profits enjoyed by those "mining" the pool. That's where the Howey test scores big. For the other solos, I don't see it.

[demonz]

on the 19th paybase will launch and josh will say you cant trade paycoin for btc yet but please stake

This to me is insane. People put money in a CD to eventually see it again. Buying Paycoin and then staking it for 6 months and hope that it increases in value over 6 months? Look how zenpool ended up. And according to that TOS I posted above, you are "locked in" for 6 months. So at no point can you withdraw any of your earnings. Even with a CD you can withdraw at any time even if there is a slight penalty.

Can someone explain (who still believes in GAW) how that benefits the customer and not them? Isn't one of the main characteristics of a ponzi the inability/restriction to withdraw funds?

[siampumpkin]

I don't know if it's a security as per SEC, but it is definitely a financial product such as a CD or a bond. The CEO confirmed this in his usual non-committal way when someone suggested that on HT. Nothing to do with hardware/software, just like your bank deposit is not about hardware/software.

A bond is a security.

A CD is a bank deposit regulated even more than a security.  I think GAW would be better off staking it as a security versus a bank deposit.

on the 19th paybase will launch and josh will say you cant trade paycoin for btc yet but please stake

Doesn't matter. According to the TOS Paycoin has no value and staking will guarantee you exactly zero coins!   LOL!