Topic: Any dev can say he was hacked, means cryptocoins are not good investments (Read 691 times)

Nice... I don't even have to look up inimical to understand what it means in this context.

There's a third crazy class of people that attempt to change things for the betterment of the masses while fully aware of the unpopularity of their actions with the systematized classes and what negative consequences they may bring upon themselves.


This is a good point that I think a lot of people take for granted when they shouldn't. They should fear every coin investment.

However, there are a few (so-far, relatively) honest coins out there backed by genuine people with positive intentions. Once their coins get distributed, hey you can only hope it was to people with similar intentions, but don't count on it!

Sometimes the coin is the problem, sometimes the traders are the problem... Their chart patterns definitely look different. Coin problem charts have the early peak and a slow drift into nothingness. Trader problem charts are chaotic but a good coin will shine through with a positive trendline.  

what is a good investment that can get returns I have achieved in the last 12months


as opposed to fiat and crypto


as for fiat

The Rothchilds are at the centre of designing the current banking system. They have designed it to be in their interest and not ours.

quote from Rothschilds regarding the banking system

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

cryptocoins are not a good investment, because any dev/creator of a coin,
can suddenly just say they were hacked, and the price of the coins
can suffer alot, which also means that investors lose alot of money too.



And dev gets away with all the money, and isn't held accountable to reimburse any of the investors?

People seem to take it for granted, that if a dev says he was hacked, then the
dev is not responsible for the losses of investors.


We would have to have laws to protect investors or buyers of the coin, and devs would have
to reimburse anyone for their losses.

We cant jut let devs get away with this. but if people are going to let devs get away with this,
then cryptocoins are not good investments then.


investors need protection from devs who say ' I was hacked ' as a way out of problems for the dev, or
maybe they were hacked. who knows, we dont really know if they truly were hacked or not.
But they can just say that any time.


But, how about, rather than force the losses onto investors, how about if we make laws that forces the losses onto the dev who says that? (then they wouldn't say that, huh )


isn't it, in fact, some kind of fault, or failure of the dev's if the dev gets hacked? Of course it is the devs fault and failure, but why should investors have to pay for the faults and failures of devs?