Topic: Are BanxShares as good as GAW Paycoin? - page 7. (Read 47095 times)

So he should shut it all down and us investors should be left with nothing?

What exactly do you suggest, other than childish name calling, should be done other than provide us investors a part of all his other businesses?

He has had nearly 18months to do the right thing, and he nearly did the right thing by ending this farce. But no, as you can see from his last post, Mark is still in complete denial of his own capabilities, as he still believes there is a business to run. The man is not fit to run a bath.   

It's too late to try to do the right thing?

@bizzyb, seriously you are wasting your time on these people. The point is there is nothing than De Martino and this crew would like more than for me to have closed banx down so they could say I told you so.

They don't care about the right thing. I care about the right thing so I'll carry on what I'm doing knowing I have done the right thing and concentrate on building this business.

I did a Q&A with JonnyBitcoin last night going through everything Banx related in case someone actually wants to watch it:

http://banxforum.com/index.php?threads/live-q-a-with-jonnybitcoin-from-bitshares-tonight-at-9-30pm-replay-now-available.327/

Onwards and upwards.

On the day he decided that he needs to employ fake and bullshit marketing tactics to sell the idea of Banx.....yes, he should have immediately shut down Banx and walked away. That time would have been around 18 months ago. Tooooo late now.

Mark should have shut down Banx and walked away?

How to run an honest operation.

You got it bad, bizzyb........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

The "right thing" is to not fake data when you seek funds from others, and continue to fake the (his) order book volume for many months. The man is fake, and a fail, and you are a victim of that.

Hey, at least you count as a 'real' friend on facebook, and not one of the thousands of fake ones. I mean, at least you havnt been bought...........oh!
    
How many nervous ticks, or touches to the face, at certain moments in his videos, do you need to watch before people realise Marks underlying/true motives?  


 

Unconvincing, totally.
I am a Banx investor and this page was to any reasonable person clearly a projections page.
The project was in funding round.

Like any other project before Banx, and any other project after Banx, when getting funding you provide projections.

This page had no impact on me investing.
In fact, this page didn't even exist when I invested.

So, if your main concern is "investors" then stop vilifying the only person who can potentially drive profits to give us a return.

Do you acknowledge that Mark could have closed Banx and walked away, but hasn't?

Do you understand that he has given his investors a "lifeline" because he wants to do the right thing?

You are acting like a bully, and bullies usually have been bullied. So, why not stop the cycle that doesn't have to be the inevitable conclusion.

Affected by the entire scheme which this page was a small part of? Yes.

All the people complaining about their investment evaporating were affected by this ONE single page only accessible through Google cache.

All of them?

You have evidence to back that up?

How many people?

Also, since you love the word so much, you should know it is puerile not purile.

All the people complaining about their investment evaporating into thin air were affected.

If it was an honest mistake, why is it down now, and why did mark accuse me of lying when he must have gone and taken it down?

I accessed it by going to banxshares.com and then clicking investors, not on the cache, but on the regular site, through my regular browser. You can see that on the screen I posted in this thread.

Unless you think I bothered to make a fake screenshot too, after  I convinced Larry Page to mess with Mark's cache.

See, purile

It's quite likely the root domain was forwarded but not any subdomains or pages, easy mistake to make actually and it's that sort of thing which would explain a few things.

Point is this, which you have inelegantly avoided.
Has anyone been affected by this?

Damn dude, you figured me out. I thought I was smart enough to trick you, but I see now that there is no pulling the wool over your eyes.

When I showed you the Google cache, I was certain it would convince you, but since it didn't, I may as well come clean.

The truth is, I conspired with Larry Page of Google to destroy Mark. You see, Page knows that Banx is a threat to his business because once Mark makes a banx-powered search engine, it will be game over for Google.

So Larry and I, I call him Larry since we are such good friends, went into the Google Servers last night and messed with banx's cache. Then, I photoshoped a picture of the old site into an image of my screen to make it look like it was new!

Then, assured that mine and Larry's plan was bullet proof, I staked my professional reputation on the lie.

I had hoped you would come to the reasonable conclusion that Mark had lied, but I know now that you are far too smart for that.

I guess I'll go call Larry, tell him that it's been a good run but we all knew this "Google" thing wouldn't last.

PS I'm glad you like the artwork!

There is still plenty of reason to question the data as something doesn't look right with it, like I said maybe something messed up with forwarding or DNS/cache, enough to at LEAST ask "hmmm what could be causing this, maybe I'll ask Mark for an official response before I write another hatchet piece of an article"...just sayin

Either way, forget about obsessing about that & lets concentrate on the implications.

IF someone invested based on that page WITHOUT realising they were projections then that would be an issue.
Why?
Because all private investors HAVE to speak to him to invest, and it would have to be made clear they are projections.

So, I suggest you find out IF
1) The page in question convinced someone to invest thinking it was anything other than "projections" (Not that any "reasonable" person would)
2) If 1 occurred and then they invested privately and were NOT told they were projections.

If both 1 & 2 have occurred, then you can carry on, if not, just leave it alone.

For me your purile "graphics" headers for each of your articles, in particular your latest article, speaks a thousand words wrt your bias.

I didn't need the cache or archive.org yesterday. It was up as a normal page. The only reason we need to use it now is because Mark took it down. Google last cached the site on March 16th. That can't be faked and means the site was up then. Mark may have taken it down in January, but he clearly decided to put it back up while he transitioned into his next scheme.


I'd like to point out, I don't control Google, so this can't be some grand conspiracy against Mark.


As to Mark's obligation, he has plenty of legal obligation. When you sell a security to people with the promise of profits, you can't misrepresent yourself. That is illegal and is its own charge in addition to the lesser charge of selling _any_ unregistered security.

If things just go sideways and the company collapses, that is one thing, but you have to show that the projections you made were reasonable and made in good faith. Seeing as half of the companies never launched and the other half barely launched and since there was no mining going on at all and since he knew all of that, well I'll let you come to your own conclusions on how that would work out for Mark in court.

Well I think something is screwed up with the Google Cache because I can't do a search on google and get any results for
http://banxcapital.com/investors/
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=http:%2F%2Fbanxcapital.com%2Finvestors%2F

While yes, your link does appear to show some content, the fonts and menu look messed up for some reason.

I don't "know" what the issue is, but I think it is some kind of DNS/Cache error or another kind of "technical" glitch.

You seemed to have massively latched onto this "evidence" without due diligence and equally there is contradictory evidence showing you that there were no projections listed on the site as far back as the 9th Jan 2016 web archive.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160109123320/http://banxshares.com/

That should be enough for a serious journalist to question the reliability of a single source of information.

I think given your article is dated today, and your "evidence" regarding the "projections" is clearly not present as of "today" it would only be reasonable and balanced, to edit/amend/delete your article appropriately and citing there is contradictory evidence.

That is what a serious, reasonable balanced journalist would do.

ps None of us are happy our investments have crashed, but Mark is acting in good faith to try to make things right for us.
That is his moral choice, and not his legal obligation.
Rather than wind up Banx and leave us with nothing, he is trying to give us the opportunities for a return with his other businesses.
That sounds like the actions of a serious, reasonable and balanced person.

Google Banxshares.com click the arrow to bring up cache.

If he truly isn't your boss, I suggest you file a claim with the relevant authorities.

Good luck.

http://imgur.com/Q1l2fhO

I'm an investor trying to protect my investment & support the project, he's not my boss.

Can you explain how you got that cached version, so I can try myself.