Um, I said it was the easiest scam. I probably should have said "one of the easiest" because I'm sure there are easier scams, but the ICO scam is pretty simple... setup a website conduct an ICO, get people to send crypto in.
Bitconnect was NOT easy but it made a lot more than an ICO. After all, they not only had an ICO, they followed through with developing a ponzi platform, marketing, promotions, etc. and ran it for over a year.
You're going to lose the argument all day long that an ICO scam like Facecoin is easier to pull off than a ponzi scam like Bitconnect, the level of effort cannot be compared.
Whether a scam is short-term or long-term depends on whether the founder wants to make the scheme last.
If they don't want to make it last, they will put least effort into it and then scheme will be quick to go.
Bitconnect founder wants to make the scheme last as long as possible.
Populous founders (Adeyemi and Jahigrant) wants to scheme to last as long as the 1 year lockup period.
Having the intention to hype the price up is an obvious dead giveaway.
Don't tell me that's not even obvious to you.
Update:
By right, you should ask yourself why Populous is not a scam despite the conviction, the hypes, etc.
Steve isn't even consistent in his statements in regard to his past conviction.
How can you even say such a person is trustworthy?
How can you even say such untrustworthy person is credible enough to manage a project that you are invested into?
If my argument doesn't make sense, then your argument is even more so.
You completely ignored the point of my reply. I said an ICO scam was the easiest scam and you disagreed and suggested that a ponzi Bitconnect scam is easier. Now you are changing the discussion to short and long term? Can't you even follow the discussion? Come on, please explain how a Bitconnect ponzi scam is easier/less effort than an ICO scam.
Regardless...
Your questions are fine and legitimate, but they don't answer anything with certainty. They are indicators but they are not evidence. People with criminal records are hard to trust but that doesn't mean they can't go and be legit. It also doesn't mean they can't run a project to success. Many great and legit ICOs have a lot of hype and conviction - that means nothing. Most ICO founders have attempted to hype or boost their price - this does not make an ICO a scam. You can choose to invest in companies with founders with these backgrounds - that is your choice. It makes the investment/company risky, but it does not automatically make it a scam.
You're a big fan of logic but you've chosen not to use it because if you did you'd have to look at the angle of, 'what is the goal and execution of the scam?'
The ICO generated $10M+ in funds and they could have generated more due to the fast sellout. I guess you would say that they 'only' raised $10M because they didn't expect the success so they set their sites low - that's plausible. Of course, $10M of ETH from then is worth about $30M today. To say that PPT is a scam is to suggest that the $10M in ICO funds was not sufficient for the founders and that they wanted more. So rather than take the $10M and disappear, they have decided to go through all of the extra effort to spend 8 months and considerable funds and effort to launch a platform while remaining very public during the process to make even more? Sure, $100M or more is better than $10M or $30M, but anyone running a scam like this needs to disappear forever. And if you're going to disappear and be low keey, any more than a few million dollars can't be used or it draws too much unwanted attention. Being rich is no fun if you can't enjoy it.
So I ask again - what is the angle of this PPT scam if the implied allegations are that $10M wasn't enough and they are pumping the scam for more?
