... skipping the fallacies ...
The lending platforms should work properly if the people running them know what they are doing and I still think they are a good model as they generate profits for the company with the lending so are not real ponzis
Generating profit for scammers doesn't mean it's not a ponzi. In fact the whole reason for the scammers to take the risk to run such illegal scheme would be to generate a profit.
These are not "lending platforms". The borrowed funds are not used for any other purpose other than to perpetuate the scam, which ends when there aren't enough suckers bringing in new money.
You are really dense to keep repeating your own erroneous views. You probably noticed I stopped responding to you before because of this.
How many times have I explained how the actual 'lending' part is profitable for the company and also the lender. The company while it runs smoothly, pays back less coins than are lent, so it's like the reverse of staking coins since people get back less coins but are still happy due to the marketing and increase in coin price (they can afford this marketing due to their profits). It is deflationary as long as the company don't sell all these extra coins and just keep some out of circulation, but even if at times the coin didn't increase in price, they would just need to use their reserves of the coins (you probably noticed most have large premines for this reason, although ERC20 tokens can have unlimited supply if they wanted) and this would cause inflation and possibly a lack of buyers at some point (inflation is also what happens with all staking coins but lending when operating well is deflationary - lending doesn't even guarantee any return).
So as long as the coin doesn't fall to ridiculous levels and remains stable in price, the lending platform can continue. You might have noticed that Bitconnect, unlike Davor, had a very stable price that tended to increase a lot so that means the company was actually making profits. If the coin wasn't going up, the lending would still function but the company couldn't take any profits without stealing from investors and harming the platform. The company are not stealing from investors with the lending because the lenders are happy with the reduced profits as long as the company uses their profits to increase the coin value with buy back or marketing etc so the lenders accept this is how they make money. They also bring value by guaranteeing the investment value amount from fluctuations in the market. That is why it's a good model for cryptocurrencies.
Basically, you have never shown one iota of understanding about the lending platform model so it's no use even responding to your comments until you show you have listened and have at least some understanding.
Thanks for the enlightenment, bud. Now I fully see how lenders made a profit off BitConnect. They loaned X BCC to them, whereupon they paid back X - Y. Granted, I'm still a tad confused as to how BitConnect made their money, probably having something to do with the Z-factor, but unfortunately equations containing more than two variables or constants is (or is it 'are') beyond my prowess, albeit back in the 70's I would've been able to perform such equations in my head like I did for ALL the questions on the SAT, earning a perfect 800 in its math section and the first one in the room to complete said portion of the SAT taken at IU, then went fishing with my dad at Brown County Forest Preserve, but I digress.
I've been following this thread closely after Bitconnects fall out last month. Its been a nightmarish ride, but somehow I held onto my coins and even got them into the QT wallet. I'm finally at the point where my BCC are staking. I'm resolved to just leave them in there and see what happens. I've already lost 99% value on them so whats another 1% when there is at least some potential to make some of it back on a pop.
One scenario thats popped in my head:
BCCX exchange could open listing BCC, but what if BCC gets rebranded to BCCX? Kind of like how AntShares got rebranded to NEO. It changed the whole look for the AntShares Crypto and I'm sure everyone has seen how well NEO is doing now. I'm not comparing NEO to BCC though. I'm merely just suggesting that a rebrand and color change of BCC to BCCX could be in the cards. If they can use the new BCCX exchange to legitimize BCC's use case and utility, then that could bring a significant amount of volume back to BCC. Of course they won't be bringing back lending services again since it provokes the ponzi scheme hunters to come out.
Another scenario is:
What if on their new BCCX exchange they create pairs that allow you to use BCC to buy other Cryptos other then Bitcoin. Like ETH/BCC or NEO/BCC which would bring volume to BCC because then people would be using it to buy other Cryptos. Of course this sound controversial just typing it because so many have convinced themselves that BCC is a scam coin even though its more decentralized then ever.
Bottom line: I've already mentally accepted this lost so if it goes to 0 then so be it. I'm going down with the ship or I'm going back up with it. But I do think Bitconnect has some moves left to possibly create BCC value again.
*I'm not promoting anyone buy BCC. I'm not giving financial advice. So save your comments and complaints about promoting a 'scam' coin and bla bla bla. I'm merely just sharing my thoughts and speculation on how BCC can create value again. If anyone is interesting in having a mature discussion about it, feel free to reply.
That's a brilliant idea! Allow BitConnect to operate their own exchange in restoring trust in them. Of course this would create a nightmare for its owners, for down the road they would have to devise another exit strategy, one not yet used AND believable, else they'll have to resort back to blaming the exchange's demise on the ye ol' standby - FUD and ... wait for it ... TEXAS.
