it's an endless talk.
We do not talk about the same thing.
I talk about the system and you talk about the system owner...
Of course nothing is risk free...
signature campaign are then in same way not risk free
you publish and it is not sure that you will be paid.
I have paid my hosting for 2 years and it is a risk that the host fall down.
I talk about my system.
My system is "risk free".
Why do you argument with a ponzi if my site is not a ponzi?
If you are not able to argument about my system then you are out of topic.
A ponzi is a risky system and i do not contest it.
if you find the single risk in my system I will send back all investment and profit and close my site.
Unfortubnately for you you will not find because it is impossible to find a risk with a "risk free" system.
Ok...I agree you take the risk that I'm a scammer.
But this has nothing to see with my system.
If I want scam I have no need to run a scam site.
I sell ad-space and close my sites and disappear...
Why should I start to scam after 20 years webmastering?
You make me laugh like many other ones before you.
See mellowads...
it is down and all the advisers risk to loose all the invested sach and all publishers risk never see their publisher cash.
And we can all admit that the system is "risk free"...
the risk is aside...it's a perfect exemple.
With my system it is exactly the same...
The risk is aside...
And if something bad would happen...
the "pain" would be bigger for me that for the investors...
If you are not able to understand what I mean about "risk free" then I can not help you more...
I hope my investors have understood...what means "risk free"
We are talking about the same thing - the system. You are a part of your system. You will recall that when we first discussed this the example I used was of the US government - even US government bonds can not be described as "risk free" because of the risk that the US government defaults.
You say that signature campaigns are not risk free - that is correct. It is also a red herring. Campaign managers running signature campaigns are not governments - why should they be less likely to default?
"Risk free" has a specific meaning. I understand what that meaning is. You do not appear to. At least, I assume that that is the explanation - it is possible you understand perfectly well what it means, but choose to pretend otherwise. I linked to a Wikipedia article that explains "risk free bond" when we first discussed this. You should read it. It describes a
theoretical investment used in modelling because actual risk free investments don't exist. Not even signature campaigns.
With your system there is a risk that
you default. Pretending otherwise is dishonest and scammy. You have a choice whether to misapply existing terms to deceive your "investors". I hope you choose instead to be honest.
Ok I will rename it differently:
My system is "risk free" but it is "not risk free" for investors because the sky can fall on our head...(refering to Asterix and Obelix)
I saw that your project is based on U2 miner.
To dispel any doubts, publish evidence that the miner works and you makes income from it. I think it can help many people to believe that really there is "something behind it".
Otherwise, you'll still be met with similar criticism.
Thanks very good example:(but has nothing to see with the "risk free" system...it has to see with the risky system
The site is based around the U2...and the free claiming...and the co-mining.
The profit from the U2 is dust or even perhaps nothing.
BZW the U2 is at this moment not working...Sometimes it works and sometimes not.
I have not yet found why.
About the co-mining...so far nobeddy is interested.
And above all this...the system makes profit...
The problem is not the dusty profit from the U2.
The problem is the success of the site and the future information about the U2 miner.
Why should information only come from here?