[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Do you know what a Ponzi scheme is? The real reason China banned exchanges
The following post by nolimitnp is being replicated because the post has been silently greylisted(for 0.7 hours). (It was approved by the mods at: 2017-09-17T00:25:54.000Z) The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/70j4b5 The original post's content was as follows:
This is extremely important for your financial future so I ask you take this extremely seriously with an open mind. Firstly, KNOW AND UNDERSTAND front to back, top to bottom exactly what a Ponzi scheme is or don't even bother reading further. I recommend this video or if you don't click links, go to YouTube and search for "money week Ponzi scheme". If you can watch this entire video start to finish without thinking "holy shit, you have my attention" then you deserve to lose your money. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBGgHT2UT7o&t=18s Secondly, in absolutely zero way am I saying cryptocurrency is worthless. It clearly has real world value. In hindsight, mixing cryptocurrency with the very thing it was designed to replace (fiat) was a huge mistake. The overwhelming majority of Bitcoin in existence was obtained for essentially nothing by miners and early adopters for mere pennies. Until mid 2016, the price had remained mostly steady, although still volatile. In just the last year Bitcoins value has increased from $500 to almost $5000. But what is causing the price to rise so quickly to there incredible levels? You want to believe its because more people are entering the market, but that's not how it works. Cryptocurrency is unregulated, meaning it's completely possible for there not to be a market at all, but a market simulation. I'm telling you the market IS a simulation. People are seeing the consistent price increases in pretty much everything and don't want to miss out, so more and more people are buying in. We all have dreams of Bitcoin hitting $100,000 or higher. Then we've got people like Roger Ver, Jeff Berwick, Andreas M. Antonopoulos touting Bitcoin as the savior of humanity, which not only convinces more people to buy in, but also hold. And to be fair, maybe Berwick and Andreas are as naive as we are, but they were in early. This creates market liquidity. Meanwhile, they can sell their bitcoins obtained for mere pennies for ungodly profits. As long as the price continues to increase, people aren't converting back to fiat and new people will continue to buy in. Like on this recent dip, I always hear "buy on the dips". Suckers!! At some point, the "market" will decrease significantly causing millions of people to sell and attempt to convert back to fiat. But there won't be any liquidity left as the original investors have been cashing out. New investors giving their money to old investors. It's a classic ponzi scheme, the largest in history. So you have a $1,000,000 portfolio and understand it's a ponzi scheme. Oh shit, time to sell!! Well, good luck. Coinbase withdrawal limit is only $10k per day. There just isn't an easy way to convert large amounts, a fact that is always overlooked. The fact of the matter is most people have already lost most of their money. They just don't know it yet. Poloniex updated their ToS to include the inability to be involved in class action lawsuits the day before Bitcoin forked. Why, coincidence? If you went to sleep with 1 BTC @ $2800, you woke up with 1 BTC @ $2800 and 1 BCH @ $400. $400 of "free money". From where? Coinbase, one of the few exchanges that allows conversion back to fiat, refused to release their customers BCH until January. Why so long? Because that $400 doesn't exist, they don't want anyone selling, for obvious reasons. If Roger Ver is Satoshi Nakomoto he probably has more than 1,000,000 BTC, so he had a $400,000,000 pay day, just for owning it. Makes more sense as to why he'd push so hard for BCH now doesn't it? And you better believe he's already cashed out. But have any of you? Poloniex refused to release their BCH until August 14th, my best guess being they were waiting for someone to question where the $400 came from. Seriously, am I the only one questioning it? We dodged a bullet. And remember, that $400 from nowhere is also sloshing around in other cryptocurrencies. Ethereum will fork not once, but twice the end of this month. Why twice? Knowing what you know now about Bitcoin Cash, makes a little more sense doesn't it. Roger Ver has parts in Bitpay, BitStamp, Kraken, Shapeshift, Purse, Ripple...everything Bitcoin. He's, well, Bitcoin Jesus. But he'd be prosecuted and hung by his balls, right? Well, not exactly. https://qz.com/221598/marriott-is-helping-bitcoin-jesus-sell-cheap-citizenship-in-the-caribbean/ The only reason I know is because stole $17k that would be $250k today from me and I've been trying to prove it ever since. Yeah I went a little bigger, huh? We've been had fellas. Sure, laugh, but you better pray I'm wrong. BTC: 1NHmYxrnxiBkGjhEed3VPso3oY9mnbuqSx ETH: 0xb6F4a3974Da40Ba92377bF8E61C3E8323f1ba326 We still have until at least the Ethereum fork, unless word gets out sooner. Jmbullion.com accepts bitcoin for gold and silver. Nope, not accepting comments. Ya'll are mean as fuck. STOP SHOOTING THE MESSENGER, I did not cause this, I'm trying to help you.
Operation Mockingbird - remember that time when Bitcoin was peer-to-peer electronic cash?
Do you remember what it was like in 2013 and earlier when Satoshi / Gavin were running the project and the goal was more users, merchants and scaling? Do you remember that time when the exciting projects were getting merchants to accept Bitcoin for payments, wallet apps, and maps of businesses and people that used and accepted Bitcoin as money? Do you remember that time when the MIT digital currency initiative (sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein and his mysterious intelligence agency "investment money"), MasterCard, and Western Union all invested in Blockstream who suddenly consolidated control of the Bitcoin development group, smearing and attacking anyone who wouldn't get on board? Remember that time that Theymos, who had been pro-Bitcoin scaling suddenly had a personality change and started censoring and banning anyone who talked about scaling bitcoin from the two largest discussion platforms, bitcoin talk dot org and r\bitcoin? Remember that time when fake Bitcoin celebrities with marketing teams behind them started appearing out of nowhere with the view that we shouldn't increase the capacity of Bitcoin so more people can use it? Remember that time that countless NPC's changed the community's narrative from peer-to-peer electronic cash with the goal of merchant and user adoption to "digital gold" or some kind of digital tulip ponzi scheme that's too expensive to use for day-to-day currency? Remember that time when the miners, now consolidated in CCP controlled China, suddenly voted against their own best-interests, and decided to run software that rate-limits Bitcoin to 5 transactions per second, despite overwhelming community opposition? Pepperidge Farm remembers. This is Operation Mockingbird folks, just a 21st Century version of it. So was SegWit, BSV/CSW, and now this IFP bullshit from Amaury.
jp-ex.io : a bitcoin ponzi that is running in my home country. How can I report and stop this?
Throwaway for obvious reasons. During the past few years, there have been a number of bitcoin "gurus" popping up in my country (Hong Kong). While most of them are the run of the mill "online gurus" (follow me and I will teach you how to earn money type), some of them have recently started to promote an online service to "make easy money while doing nothing". The service that they are touting is jp-ex.io or Japan Exchange. This fake exchange has nothing to do with Japan or Japan Exchange Group (JPX). From my research, it is most likely based in Shenzhen China. Users have noted the poor japanese and english translations on the website, most likely coming from google translate. One of the services in jp-ex.io is called Arbitrage, which promises over 40% returns from bullshit arbitrage technologies. All you have to do is to just deposit the money and you will receive the returns daily. This is a classic ponzi scheme which has been replicated many times (plustoken/bitclub). To make things worse, most of the people currently invested in the service are making some form of returns. These returns are the "proof" that they hang onto and believe that this service is legit. In the "gurus" chat groups, any mention of the word ponzi or any doubts about the service will be subject to a torrent of verbal abuse. As much as I would like to just sit back and watch this whole thing implode from afar, I believe in Bitcoin and its future. When plustoken finally blew up, the dumping of btc by the scammers caused a sharp decline in its price. I believe there are currently hundreds, if not thousands of people invested in this ponzi, judging by the size of the chat groups. So how can we put a stop to this? jpex arbitrage screen iOS app store app Android app edit: typo fix
Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general
I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise. In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments: - BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags - BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash" It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit. My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags. Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community. The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321"The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners? As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis. The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now. Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to). But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure. Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off. Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship. Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto. Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe". EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
Stablecoins Are Not as Safe as You Think. How Your USDT, PAX, BUSD Get Frozen in a Moment
Being created on the basis of blockchain, stablecoins were considered to be a safe haven for investors… until recently. Why is their immunity elusive and how does the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) plan to control them? Established in 1989 by the G7, the FATF inter-governmental organization develops policies to resist money laundering and financing of terrorism. It sets standards and implements legal and regulatory measures to combat illegal financial transactions. They developed recommendations for the monitoring of money laundering and keep revising them regularly. In case of non-compliance, law enforcement is executed via regional financial organizations. As of 2019, there are 39 full members of FATF, including the USA, UK, Australia, most EU countries, Singapore, India and the Russian Federation. Since 1st July, the FATF organization has been headed by Marcus Pleyer. During the last FATF meeting, the new president expressed his concerns about global stablecoins and organizations that issue them. Although the organization had already dealt with these cryptocurrencies, it highlighted that, “it is essential to continue closely monitoring the ML/TF risks of so-called stablecoins, including anonymous peer-to-peer transactions via unhosted wallets”. Is it ever possible to control crypto wallets that are not hosted on online exchanges? – you’d ask. We’re used to the fact that cryptocurrencies are outside the reach of banks and governments. However, when it comes to stablecoins, things are different.
It’s in the code
What makes stablecoins special is that they are pegging to fiat currency, for example, 1 TUSD = $1 USD. This means that such assets should be backed up by real money stored in the bank accounts of the issuing organization. Consequently, stablecoin creators need to comply with the requirements of the SEC, FATF and other controlling agencies, if they are to operate in the cryptocurrency sphere and be authorised to sell stablecoins. Transparent reports are not the only requirement, stablecoins must also provide the possibility of account blocking. Surprisingly, this feature is implemented in each stablecoin. The experts from QDAO DeFi are covering several stablecoin protocols that enable this function.
Issued by Tether Limited, USDT is a stablecoin that was originally created to be worth $1 with each token backed by a $1 real fiat reserve. The currency was successfully promoted and added to major cryptocurrency exchanges but stayed a controversial asset. Despite the claims of Tether Limited, they failed to provide any contractual right or other legal claims to guarantee that USDT can be swapped for dollars or be redeemed. In April 2019, Tether’s lawyers explained that each USDT was backed by only $0.74 in cash or equivalent assets. No audit of dollar collateral was done. A month before that, it changed the backing to include loans to affiliate companies. The scandal also involved the Bitfinex exchange that was accused of using USDT funds to cover $850 million in funds lost since 2018. They were also accused of manipulating USDT to push the BTC price. Tether is available on five blockchains: Omni, Ehereum, EOS, Tron and Liquid. Only the latter does not have a freezing feature. Omni was the first protocol for USDT. Blocking of users’ accounts is possible, thanks to the following piece of code: https://preview.redd.it/uqho45l33om51.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0feebdae086b0deeccde05278eaf3cc760f9e2b Apparently, it’s used to blacklist addresses and contracts.
The concerns about PAX were centered around the notorious MMM BSC Ponzi scheme. Before the widespread adoption of DeFi services, it was the second-largest gas consumer after Ethereum. Out of 25,000 daily transactions, 5,000 were performed by MMM BSC. It was reported to be a scam but none of the accounts were frozen. Does it mean PAX lacked the resources to regulate illicit activities? Evidently, not. The protocol code has a LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONALITY function that allows for the freezing/unfreezing of contracts or burning assets on blacklisted accounts. It turns out, anyone risks having their PAX coins destroyed during an investigation process while their accounts stay blocked.
History of frozen accounts
In 2019, the ZCash Foundation and Eric Wall conducted research on the privacy of stablecoins and revealed several frozen addresses. It’s not clear why exactly they were blocked. Most probably, it happened shortly after the exchange withdrawal – users took this action after witnessing platforms being hacked. https://preview.redd.it/pkbruqm83om51.png?width=838&format=png&auto=webp&s=b068c5b8c5e5439892eaf5feefa3fbc93c694c8c USDT was implicated at least twice in scandals to do with freezing. In April 2019, about $850 million in Tether dollars sent by Crypto Capital Corp. were frozen by a New York court. Tether and Btfinex were accused of participating in a cover-up to hide about $850 million worth in clients’ funds. By July 2020, Tether had frozen 40 Ethereum addresses with millions of USDT (some of them are shown in the screenshot above). The Centre Consortium was the next to follow their lead; about a month ago, it blacklisted an address with USDC worth $100,000. That was done in response to law enforcement. Yet, it’s not only Europe and the USA imposing control over cryptocurrencies. Since June 2020, the Chinese government managed to block several thousands of users’ bank accounts. It was done to resist illicit activities, especially money laundering. On some of those accounts, no activity had been detected for several months. Meanwhile, prior to April 2020, Chinese residents moved over $50 billion worth of crypto outside the country borders – more than is officially allowed (a maximum of $50,000 per person). The authorities claim that USDT and other stablecoins are often used in illegal activities. Together with the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), they are developing new ways of investigating digital crimes and money laundering operations involving exchanges and crypto wallets. Local financial bureaus and police are working tight-lipped about investigating startups and crypto exchanges. And they are succeeding at it. In July 2020, Chinese authorities confiscated BTC, ETH and USDT worth $15 million from people who allegedly ran a fake cryptocurrency scheme. By the way, not only corporate accounts are being closed. One investor claims his account had been frozen after using yuan to purchase crypto. Also, users who transfer illegally obtained money outside of the mainland in large amounts are under suspicion. Does it mean the Chinese government has started tightening the screws on cryptocurrency users?
DAI, USDT on Liquid and USDQ are the main options for stablecoin deposits
So, where can you store your crypto assets? USDT on Liquid and DAI are not the only solutions available. Consider making a deposit in USDQ, the stablecoin of the QDAO ecosystem. Like other stablecoins, it’s 1-to-1 pegged to USD. However, it cannot be frozen by a government, financial organization or anyone from the QDAO team. You can check it yourself by reading our Smart contract and USDQ Audit. In QDAO, users’ accounts are never frozen by a single person – all account issues are solved by the entire QDAO community, with the help of a QDAO governance token. In case of blocking (the chances of which are almost non-existent), you can address the QDAO community and get timely help.
With FATF taking this new course of action, we might witness serious pressure on stablecoin providers. Some projects will resist it, but it’s still not safe to store your assets in popular stablecoins, especially USDT. Your account can be frozen by authorities for dozens of reasons without the possibility of retrieval. Yet, there are a number of reliable alternatives and USDQ stablecoin is one of them. QDAO DeFi platform users feel free to manage their crypto reserves and make profitable deposits. Want to be the first to hear QDAO DeFi news and updates? Visit our website and stay in touch with us on social media:Twitter,Facebook,TelegramandLINE(for the Japanese-speaking community).
The project loses its voice and how Forbes stands out
https://preview.redd.it/rstkulyt9f551.png?width=764&format=png&auto=webp&s=c29cc40bdb0a46f7d24d11d1cfb0334a29e1ce69 With the success of bitcoin, the currency circle has officially entered the "bull market cycle", but many friends are complaining that it is more and more difficult to earn money in the currency circle. Indeed, today's futures have been reduced to leek harvesters, and Shanzhai coins are half dead under the hard support of the project side, while the big model coins of the great fire of 19 years have disappeared. Many people will ask why the 17-year ICO, 18-year IEO and 19-year model currency will not be seen until 2020 without strong policy intervention. It's not hard to understand. The reasons are as follows: 1., after 17 years of super bull market, the past 3 years are in the bubble stage. After being cheated countless times, leek is more cautious about new projects. The era when a white paper and an official website can circle money is gone forever. 2. The blockchain project is difficult to land and has no physical support. In the currency circle, no matter what projects boast heaven, unlike industry, there is no sustained hematopoietic capacity, and ultimately only to end up with zero. 3. All model coins are Ponzi schemes. Not to mention model currencies, all models are pyramid pyramid schemes, which reward the first arrivals with the money of the latecomers. The bigger the bubble, the collapse is only a matter of time. Is it true that the currency circle is so dead that there is no hope? If you really want to start a new craze in the currency circle, the top 3 problems must be overcome. That is to say, if there is a project that can control risks without bubbles, there is physical support, without pyramid schemes, it will be a long and steady way to make money. Before that, there must be some people who say it's a dream. After the epidemic, the state vigorously supports the enterprises to revive the economy. However, in reality, it's very difficult for entities to do it, let alone blockchain projects. As a result, I noticed a project called Forbes. After studying the white paper, I suddenly felt that like discovering a new continent, unlike any project I have ever seen, this project has perfectly realized the above vision! Let's explore it with curiosity and see what kind of immortal project it is. https://preview.redd.it/j4p5cddgaf551.png?width=740&format=png&auto=webp&s=f380453bc8a63995ae15b7f32186dc34fa36e3ba 1、 0 raise funds, start the fund only by regular mining business First of all, Forbes project is 0 fund-raising. Note that there is no fund-raising at the beginning, which eliminates the possibility of encircling money. Before the introduction of Forbes project token GFS, only bitcoin mining business was started. This bitcoin mining seems to be impossible. What does this have to do with the project itself? Let's explain later. First of all, mining business. Forbes first launched the "miner Alliance Plan". If you want to participate in it, you only need to pledge the deposit to purchase computing power or mining machines, and you can continue to get mining profits. Note why the project risk is controllable. The key points are:
The deposit is returned daily for a period of one year through the smart contract.
The smart contract is deployed on Ethereum. The deposit usdt is returned every day. The smart contract is open-source, which ensures that the principal can be recovered 100% regardless of the outcome of the project.
Mining income can be withdrawn every day.
The income from bitcoin mining will also be automatically converted into stable currency, which can be withdrawn every day, so as to realize the stable earning.
Solid bitcoin ore pool support, which can be inspected on site.
The reason why the project is supported by entities is that 100% of the deposit mortgaged by users is used to purchase bitcoin mining machines. Forbes cooperates with bitcoin China, the global head mining pool, which can be visited at any time. In this way, in the early stage of Forbes project, users can participate in bitcoin mining through 100% deposit return, and earn mining profits with little risk. If it's just mining, Forbes can't make a big impact on the currency circle. After all, there are two problems. One is that the cycle is too long; the other is that there is no promotion model. Although the model coins of the 19-year fire are all the end of collapse, the reason for the fire is that there are models to see how Forbes breaks. https://preview.redd.it/ef7baf60bf551.png?width=1450&format=png&auto=webp&s=fab5db6ad76301bc14186ab9de199c58a4d4ae20 2、 Static and dynamic dual mode, the fuse is on fire As mentioned above, the return cycle of buying deposit for mining machine is as long as one year, which may deter many people. Forbes has designed two modes. If you don't do anything after buying the miner, you can only make money slowly through the deposit released every day and the income generated. At present, the annual income is about 180%, which is called static mode. If you want to make money quickly, Forbes has designed a dynamic model. In dynamic mode, there are three modules.
Promotion in wet season.
In the mining circle, if there is a high water period, the benefits of mining will increase, so Forbes will often launch this activity in the high water period. 10% of the deposit of the first single miner directly pushed by the users to the top 5 will be released immediately. For example, if I bought a 1000u miner, the deposit of 1000u would have been released in one year, but if I recommend five more people to buy the miner, and all the five people buy the 1000u miner, then 10% of the total amount of deposit, that is, 500U, can be released immediately. In this way, I can promote up to 5 people and get back half of the original immediately. In addition, it should be noted that the funds released here are the sum of deposit and income, not only the deposit!
Direct promotion increased release by 20%, indirect promotion increased release by 10%.
It's easy to understand. Let's take my purchase of 1000u mining machine as an example. When it is not promoted, the deposit plus mining revenue will release 7U in total every day. If one person is directly pushed, and this person purchases 1000u mining machine, I will increase the release money by 20%, i.e. 1.4u. If the person who is directly pushed also buys 1000u mining machine, it is indirect promotion. I can increase the release money by 10%, i.e. 0.7u, My daily release gold is 7U + 1.4u + 0.7u = 9.1u. The more you push, the faster you release, that's the mechanism.
Labor Union level release.
The so-called labor union refers to other performance areas beyond the maximum performance line under umbrella, because I am the recommender of all people under umbrella, so I am the president. In order to encourage users to join the trade union, the presidents of different levels of trade unions can get different levels of release rewards. For example, if I only need 50000 U of direct and indirect funds to become a V1 Union, then 12% of the total income of bitcoin dug out by the whole network will be equally distributed to the presidents of all V1 unions for release, and so on. In Forbes' promotion model, all these promotion rewards are only the release of your principal and income, not the money from your family. This is different from other MLM project core elements! In other words, it would take a year to release the principal and mining income without doing anything at all, but if I promote, it can greatly increase the speed of capital recovery and income generation. When the promotion reward reaches the sum of the deposit and income that should have been obtained, the promotion reward is no longer effective. Some may say that I have worked so hard to build such a large community. It is not worth it just for the principal and about 180% of the annual mining income. In fact, when the deposit and income are released completely, you can choose to re invest again, so that the promotion reward can be released all the time. Someone will ask again, the income of bitcoin mining is uncertain every day, why is the release associated with the expected future income? Forbes expects mining bitcoin's annual revenue to reach 180%, far higher than other mining pools. Where does the capital come from? It is very important to explain this problem, because Forbes is a pure entity, no bubble project, and there can be no Ponzi scheme.
As the project has its own promotion mode, once it is started, the ore pool will grow rapidly by fission, so the huge size of the ore pool will have a lot of base gas and ask for the price of the power plant. Generally, the cost of pool electricity may be more than 0.35, while Forbes can save a lot of electricity cost.
With the support of the world's top mining pools, the more mining machines are purchased, the less the marginal cost, so the cost of mining machines is actually lower than the average cost of all users, and this cost difference is also one of the benefits.
Forbes has set up a "mining pool fund", which uses 20% of the income from the mining output of the whole network to enter the fund pool. This fund is dedicated to the purpose of continuous purchase of mining machines to expand the income. Therefore, the project has the capacity of continuous hematopoiesis.
https://preview.redd.it/1hd299u9bf551.png?width=1434&format=png&auto=webp&s=b1db1e2a63ad6b8d38814e4f254a716dcb195850 3、 Forbes takes the overall situation and the final project vision is to realize distributed finance. have ulterior motives. It would be a mistake to think that Forbes is just a new exploration of the mining model. What the project really wants to achieve is the landing of cross chain technology and the first echelon of distributed finance. "Forbes miner alliance" is only the first step. With the launch of the main network, many node ecology gathered through mining will suddenly have a place to play, which to play, invincible. As we all know, the most popular concept of blockchain is difi (distributed Finance), which is also the field that Ethereum 2.0 will further explore in the future. What Forbes really wants to build in the future is to win the crown of decentralized finance and become the "UnionPay" of the currency circle. Then when the Forbes ore pool is mature, Forbes will launch the main network and token GFS, and the output of GFS can only be obtained by purchasing a special miner. Because participating in the early bitcoin mining is also equivalent to contributing to the node ecology, users can choose to convert the mining revenue into GFS vouchers during the miner alliance period, and after the main network line, they can map to the main network token one by one. If we are optimistic about the future of GFS, it is a good choice to exchange mining income into GFS voucher in advance. Of course, it is still the saying that the Forbes project is real, real landing, zero risk, no bubble. Unlike other deceptive projects, which will forcibly exchange the proceeds into the project token, the users can freely choose to exchange the mining proceeds for GFS, and they can also freely choose to purchase GFS mining machines in the future. It doesn't matter if you don't look forward to Forbes project. It's good to make bitcoin mining money in a safe and stable way. After all, everyone's cognition is different and their risk tolerance is different. For me, such a solid project is hard to see in the currency circle. Forbes is not only real, but also does not adhere to the traditional entity mining, and the innovative introduction of no foam promotion mode. It can be predicted that this mode is sustainable development, and even I look forward to challenging the top mines of bitcoin. The earlier I participate in the project, the more meat I can eat. This is the essence of my participation in many projects. My mining income has been converted into GFS certificate almost the first time. After all, Forbes project has just started, facing a vast ocean to be developed. 报错
Mirroring the stock markets, cryptocurrency markets have also been hit by lockdowns imposed by many governments worldwide to curb the spread of covid-19. Prices of bitcoin fell to below $4,000 in March from $10,000 in February. The hash rate dropped 15.95% on 26 March. Hash rate is the amount of computing power that bitcoin miners are using to validate transactions on the digital currency’s blockchain. Vincent Poon, vice president, Bithumb Global, a digital asset trading platform, said the “hashrate drop is due to the global turmoil similar to other assets". He said the crypto market still has a “handful" of Ponzi schemes where people are invited to invest in a certain amount of coin and promised high returns. Poon said there’s been a cash out of these Ponzi schemes as well, which also affected the price of a coin. “It’s (the impact) is not very different," said Raghu Mohan, co-founder of IBC Media, a marketing solutions company that works with blockchain firms. He said the need for liquidity has dropped due to the pandemic. “A lot of retail investors, who foresaw a lockdown, have liquidated," he said. Covid-19 is not only impacting the price of bitcoin or other currencies. Mining of cryptocurrency is a major offline process wherein mining farms are akin to data centres, requiring a lot of power and cooling systems for their machines. Mohan said servicing of these ‘mines’ has become difficult due to the lockdowns. He said China faced this issue too when it imposed lockdowns. Cryptocurrency mines do not qualify as essential services.
Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the 31st monthly Bitcoin news recap. For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month. You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com A recap of Bitcoin in July 2019 Adoption
Cluey Learning is a ponzi scheme - Australian investors and parents stay away!
I write this as a concerned investor who recently was approached to consider an investment in Cluey Learning. Cluey Learning is selling a dream equivalent to a Bitcoin Scam. I wrote this to ensure that Australian investors do their proper research before losing more money in this venture. If you want a copy of their investor presentation email us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) and we will send you a copy. https://www.clueylearningscam.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results Recently, Cluey Learning has been trying to raise capital at an approximately $45 million valuation with less than $1 million Aud in sales. This translates to a 45x sales multiple which is as high as companies like Zoom which are already profitable, at massive scale, with a disruptive technology advantage (the world’s number 1 beneficiary of the Coronavirus disruptions arguably). For some context, Kip McGrath has a valuation of $40 million and was founded 44 years ago and has revenue of $18 MM with $2.5 MM profit. Cluey Learning has been raising capital largely because of a lack of education technology expertise in the Australia market. This article should help to summarize why Cluey is a dangerous, speculative investment that will lose investors significant amount of money by only talking about their revenue and brushing over their growing operating losses. There are a number of fundamental issues with the Cluey Learning business that are not being accurately described to prospective investors. More info: https://www.clueylearningscam.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results
Smart Investors Don’t Believe in Pure Tutoring Marketplaces: Tutoring marketplaces are poor businesses which sophisticated investors have largely stayed away from. People have tried and failed to monetize purely 1-1 online tutoring like tutor.com and tutorspree which have all stopped operating. Companies like Eurekely in New Zealand have also tried and failed to monetize and have been unable to raise any external financing. Varsity Tutors, after raising much money, continues to be unprofitable with slowing growth rates and declines in investor confidence.
Tutoring Marketplaces Haven’t Been Profitable: There are no large, profitable 1-1 tutoring marketplace businesses in the world. The world’s profitable, successful education companies include New Oriental, Tal Education Group and Benesse rely on large class sizes and premium brands which enable them to avoid the business of just matching students and tutors up and trying to capture a spread between them. Fast growing education technology companies such as Byjus monetize video content which has limited direct service costs. VIPKids has burnt through hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital financing and is still not profitable and has had large issues fundraising in recent rounds despite the substantially more attractive backdrop of China which has more students with a higher willingness to pay and a much larger population and deeper adoption of tutoring and online learning offerings.
Commonly Cited Examples of Success in Tutoring Are Misrepresentations: Chegg, a Silicon Valley company, talks a lot about its tutoring business but it does no paid acquisition marketing because it knows this is unprofitable and upsells tutoring to its database of leads that use its subscription homework services and subscription textbook services.
Competition For Online Real Estate from Offline Players: Cluey Learning will, unless they dramatically change their advertised business, continue to lose money and lose progressively more money because the margin they can make from a student will continue to be less than they spend to acquire customers. Being online doesn’t give you any advantage acquiring students. KipMcGrath and other strong competitors continue to bid online for the same keywords that Cluey Learning is burning investor money on except Cluey has a far less economical business.
Unprofitable Unit Economics: KipMcGrath charges students approximately 55/hour for a class of 4 students and pays the teacher around 25/hour. This gives a revenue of 220 and a cost of 25 with a margin of 89%. Cluey Learning may charge around $50 and pay the tutors $30 and take a <50% gross margin which is virtually impossible to make any profits once you pay acquisition costs of customers (ignoring even the cost of salaries)
Huge Cashburn: Cluey Learning claims more than 160 employees on LinkedIn. If one assumes only 75 are full-time with an average salary of 100,000 the business is burning half a million or more a month. While Cluey can show more revenue by burning more money, this revenue is ultimately only being achieved by an unsustainable cash burn that the management team knows cannot easily change.
Dramatically Overestimated Target Market: Cluey, despite a focus on Australia, is already claiming a massive valuation citing a huge tutoring market. This market simply doesn’t exist anywhere like the scale being asserted. If you add up the tutoring revenue of major players across Kip McGrath, Matrix Education, NumberWorks, Dux College and private tutoring the market probably is $50 million or less per year annually across all of Australia. Players like Kip McGrath have been in the market for 40+ years and have had to leave Australia and go to the UK and NZ to find more growth because of caps in the domestic market. Cluey is talking to investors about a 1 billion+ market which overestimates the market size by 20x or more.
Cluey’s segment is particularly not growing fast: The highest spenders of tutoring tend to be from the Chinese-Australian community in Sydney at the competitive private schools. These students make up a significant amount of total revenue (Matrix alone is estimated to do $20 MM Aud of the revenue). These students prefer offline tutoring-in-general with highly specialized tutors. Cluey’s family centred, fun approach to learning targets a totally different demographic that is more akin to the students of Kip McGrath. As such they do miss and will continue to miss, the main segment of tutoring spending that is actually growing.
The macroeconomic environment for fundraising is collapsing: A business that is structurally unprofitable and relies on more and more rounds of funding burning cash to acquire revenue will not be able to continue indefinitely. Softbank’s portfolio of struggling companies like Oyo and WeWork show this clearly.
More info: https://www.clueylearningscam.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results Overall, Cluey Learning is not a fraudulent business by the definition of law. They can unknowingly make inaccurate claims about the market size. They can unknowingly have overly optimistic claims about their unit economics. Given the experience of the team at Cluey, it is unlikely they are unaware of how inaccurate some of these claims are but we can give them the benefit of the doubt. The key message for investors is beware. Cluey is charging 45x their revenue last year for a business with a small target market size that isn’t growing very quickly, with a structurally unprofitable business model that has failed in far more attractive geographies and depending on investors who haven’t done proper research into their model to write the cheques to fund their multi-million dollar cash burn. Investors beware. It doesn't take any skill to spend your hard earned $1 to buy $0.50 cents of revenue, show all the fast revenue growth to the next investors to keep the ponzi scheme going. Ask to see their profits, their unit economics, their operating expenses and the truth will be blindingly obvious. More info: https://www.clueylearningscam.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results
CNY - USD spread is completely due to MMM. The Russian Mavrodi is the only one who is evading capital controls via Bitcoin.
Chinese citizens have been duped into this MMM scheme. The Chinese buy Bitcoin on all the Chinese exchanges in order to participate in this 100% returns a month MMM ponzi. The operators of the ponzi are Russian. Him and his friends do not want CNY in a Chinese bank that is useless and stuck there. That is why the scammers move the Bitcoins to an exchange like Bitfinex and BTC-e who do not do proper KYC and sell into USD and withdraw it there. That is why BTC is 10% more expensive in CNY trading at $420 than it is in USD at Bitfinex / BTC-e where it's trading at $380. There is no mass wave of Chinese looking to escape capital controls through Bitcoin at a loss of 10%. Nor is there a ton of Chinese who suddenly wanted to HODL BTC. The only person moving money out of China is this one guy / group who are taking the ponzi profits out and couldn't not care less about losing 10%. The spread between CNY and USD has been increasing from 2% premium to 10% because the ponzi has been growing in China, while at the same time the guy cashing out has become more aggressive in selling on the USD exchanges known for soft KYC with his exit. You can't find these criminals on the Chinese exchanges. There, it's many people buying a little bit of bitcoin. But you can find these disgusting criminals by checking the wires out of the USD exchanges where he and his group are now cashing out. The reason the price rallied was because Chinese people kept buying Bitcoin during the day in order to enter the MMM. The coins went to these operators who HODL'ed. And now the price is collapsing is because these operators are dumping quickly as this scheme hits the media globally. So the whole Chinese people evading capital control thing? No there's nothing there. This is due to one guy who wants to avoid capital controls and because he's foreigner running a ponzi scheme in China and wants to get the money out in USD. The Chinese people probably quite enjoy living in China at 7% GDP growth, and are liking the country's rise in the world.
OKCoin Notice: Warning of Bitcoin based products and scams
OKCoin is reminding all users and the wider investment community: There has been recent growth in third party financial products in the form of social financial help which have advertised high-return, high yield using virtual currencies as a funding medium. OKCoin officially declares: OKCoin is a neutral exchange offering no assurances or advice on investments in virtual currencies. OKCoin has never cooperated with operators of MMM or any other similar financial schemes nor has OKCoin engaged in any advertising of such schemes. Any third party scheme operator using the OKCoin name in any material has not obtained the right to do so. OKCoin is a professional Bitcoin exchange, and we are dedicated to the security of our user assets. OKCoin also seeks to give users prompt warnings and information about matters related to the safety of user funds. We wish to remind investors to take caution of investments associated with multi-level marketing ponzi schemes based on Bitcoin, in order to avoid financial loss. OKCoin will always fulfill our obligation to follow government requirements pertaining to anti-money laundering and KYC to ensure market stability. Our customer service team as always is online 24/7 by phone, email, and live chat in both English and Chinese, ready to serve you. If you have any questions, please contact us. Customer service can be reached at [email protected]. Related links: OKCoin posted on October 8th, 2015 the first warning against fraudulent financial schemes based on Bitcoin. https://www.okcoin.cn/t-1009687.html. This announcement was posted only in Chinese at the time as the scheme targeted Chinese nationals.
NEO's SITUATION EXPLANATION FOR NEW INVESTORS. READ AND DON'T ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS OVER AGAIN.
I created this post as I cannot answer everybody via private message. The whole stir that you can observe for the last 24 hours was caused by misinformation of RedPulse Token being banned in China. Nothing could be further from the truth, as no government intervention was carried out. It was the developers who decided to secure themselves and the business long-term, as the new regulations won't be ready before 10th of September. Transparency, legal cooperation, government certificates and permits are at the core of the Smart Economy. It must be this way if you want to see the mass adoption of smart contracts in any country. Let me quote the Red Pulse's white paper and Da Hongfei's words: "Developers of Bitcoin and Ethereum have highlighted anonymity as one of their platforms’ main features. However, this comes with an inherent disadvantage, which is the integrity of transactions. NEO addresses this by adding digital identity to its capabilities. With its origins in China, observers believe that this particular feature is beneficial in wider adoption of the technology in the country. Moreover, NEO is said to have the support of regulatory agencies and the business community in general. Beyond China, the main potential is in how NEO can better integrate with real-world applications, particularly those that require confirmation of identity, such as smart contracts. “NEO aims to integrate itself better with the real economy. Only with the introduction of digital identity can we map offchain assets in a complaint manner" "Cryptocurrencies have been viewed as operating in a regulatory grey area in China. Recent developments are promising however. The People’s Bank of China (PBoC), China’s central bank as well as financial regulator, has been actively engaged in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space since 2014. PBoC also launched its own fintech committee in May 2017 to study the impact of cryptocurrency on monetary policies, financial stability, settlement and clearing, among others. In July 2017, a consortium of six Chinese blockchain institutes jointly released a document titled “Guiyang Initial Coin Offering (ICO) Consensus” in Guiyang city . The document outlines a plan to self-regulate initial coin offerings in China and prevent the outbreak of systemic financial risks. The proposal includes a pre-approval system for ICO applicants, clear investor requirements, and marketing and publicity rules. Red Pulse intends to comply with these directives, as appropriate and within our capabilities." Summing up. The whole situation is used to shake off the weak hands and stocking up cheap coins before the First ICO is released. All people that invested in Antshares definitely realized the goverment cooperation, they understood Chinese market potential and difficulties. Furthermore, that was the main reason they invested. You already have the pioneering smart contract network- Ethereum. What differentiates ether from neo and onchain is the business plan to implement it in the real world economies. While ethereum foundation ran away from responsibility to Switzerland, the guys on NEO and Onchain are legally operating at the biggest, fastest growing, and over-regulated market in the world. Kudos to them. Everone who knows at least a bit about China would understand that the Ethereum Foundation, having hundreds of ICOs (Dog Coins, Useless Ethereum Coin and dozens of other ponzi schemes) that are totally unregulated, does not stand a chance on Chinese market. Last, but not least. I do not advise anyone to invest in anything, just wanted to clarify some things so you can see the whole picture. Please remember that buying technological coins like NEO, you invest in technology. But the best technology can be worthless without mass market adoption. And this means fulfilling the plethora of legal restrictions, regulations and certificates. Looking at the ICOs history on ether smart contract network, or bitprotocol scam copies, one may be thankful for Onchain and NEO devs. Finally, we have the right, humble, hard working people at the right place, who understand the current limitations of blockchain. Disclaimer: I'm an early investor in NEO network, so the opinion might be biased. If you disagree with my logic, do not invest your money. Especially more than you are ready to lose. People ask me in private messages who I am and what I do for a living and if I have experience with crypto. Well, I'm unemployed, no-experience teenager wanting to pump the coin. No, wait. I'm a billionaire in store of value in BTC who invested in 2011 and just getting bored during summer in Taipei to give some advise out of good heart I have. Oh wait, I'm a... I think since you cannot verify anything about people writing on reddit under their nicks, use your own logic. Critical thinking and cold analysis never hurts. Especially in the era of investors looking for information from YouTube gurus, who started investing on the market 6 months ago, and posting moon prices on their videos. Be smarter. Best Regards.
According to Primitive founder, Dovey Wan, the latest Bitcoin sell-off is down to a major Chinese ponzi scheme. Little known outside of China, PlusToken scammed over 200k BTC and 800k ETH, which are now hitting exchanges in batches. Not Another Bitcoin Ponzi Scam. Started mid-2018, PlusToken was a classic Ponzi scheme offering high-yield investment return. There were four layers of membership ... In China, a new Ponzi scheme has picked up steam and is currently rolling over citizens in their droves. Per a new report from industry news source Decrypt, the scam shares an eerily similar ... Local police have busted Wotoken, China’s second ten-figure crypto Ponzi. The scam, Wotoken, took in roughly $1 billion worth of crypto at current prices from over 715,000 victims. One of the scam’s core operators is purportedly linked to PlusToken — a multi-billion Ponzi that is believed to have impacted the price trajectory of Bitcoin ( BTC ) on numerous occasions throughout 2019. China Ponzi Scheme PlusToken’s $185 Million Ethereum Stash is On The Move . Reading Time: 2 minutes by Shaurya Malwa on June 25, 2020 Ethereum. Ethereum funds to the tune of $185 million, tied to the now-infamous PlusToken scam, moved on June 24, sending the cryptocurrency market in a tizzy and moving ETH prices down by almost 5 percent at the time of writing. First Move Since December ... A new Plus Token-esque Ponzi scheme has surfaced in China. Antimatter Kingdom promises exponential returns for users who deposit bitcoin into its “special” mining program. The scheme, which has been growing in popularity in China, may have swindled as much as 1,800 Bitcoin from unaware “investors.” Ain’t no rest for the scammy—even in a time of crisis, a new Bitcoin-related Ponzi ...
How China will Kill the Bitcoin Cryptocurrency Scam.
In this video, I discuss whether or not Bitcoin is a Pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme. I conclude that it is neither, simply because: 1) Bitcoin is decentralized, not run by a corporation or ... How China will kill the Bitcoin Cryptocurrency scheme ! (Chinese Ban the Scam). Inside China's High-Tech Dystopia - Duration: 10:10. Bloomberg Recommended for you. 10:10 . Gold will be explosive, unlike anything we’ve seen says Canada’s billionaire Frank Giustra ... Plus Token is the Biggest ponzi scheme in China, with over 70,000 BTC ($700,000 Million USD). After missing payments on June 30th of this year, masterminds of this scheme out it out like bandits. Bitcoin price movements, analysis on China and leverage trading in the build up to the Bitcoin halvening. Richard Heart, Hex.win delivers his keynote during AIBC Summit. #Bitcoin #RichardHeart # ...