I'd like to ask following question (some could intepret things this way): If the owner of an exchange becomes aware of fraud, would it be acceptable to continue to allow it under his watch as long as he is earning fees from trading volume? would feigning ignorance or pointing to the 'it's just a game' disclaimer be a good enough excuse to get them off the hook?
That would be absolutely unacceptable. (and extremely unwise from an exchange perspective anyway) Proof of fraud will get issues de-listed after giving them time to explain and/or remedy the situation.
From an exchange perspective, you have to keep in mind that only one or two such instances would soil the good name of the exchange and hurt business long-term more than it would help short-term. I am having this struggle right now with MOO.COW.MINING. Dividends have stopped, but the operator has claimed they are going to catch up and make good. The whole situation around it stinks.
Cheers.
Operator of MOO.COW is and always has been a cheap scammer. That they took it over (from a different scammer) whilst already being in significant default on another security (and on their USD/LTC exchange website which they tried to launch as a security but failed to gain approval on and on a second mining pool) doesn't lessen that. When someone's miles behind on dividends (not to mention the loan they should have repaid the security by now) then the minimum action from the exchange should be to delist them until they catch up. Which won't happen here - 'emma' may be willing to pay the few LTC of missed dividends but totally lacks the cash to sort out the scammed funds from the USD/LTC exchange, the two mining pools he stole funds from and the outstanding balance owed for the loan from MOO.COW (yeah all the investors have forgotten about that but it still exists).
I pointed most of this out when the vote to allow him to take over went up - though in fairness investors couldn't do a lot as at that point the other scammer had shipped him the hardware and for practical purposes it was a done deal. All the change of owners did was muddy the waters over determining which scammer had stolen what - it in no way changed the fact that the security was issued by one scammer who gave it to another scammer and that investors were always shit out of luck.
There IS a non-zero chance that 'emma' isn't a scammer (and is just going for a world record in incompetence). In which case it's scary he has children as his genes will propagate. But scammer is the odds-on favourite by a mile.
Disclosure : I own nothing issued by 'emma' though I have made a profit trading them profitably for LTC-ATF in the past. Even when I traded them it was obvious he was a scammer (and I posted saying so) but the idiots around here are SO stupid that you can explain why something's a scam and then sell them it for a profit anyway. Which is either great or extremely depressing depending on how you look at it.
(I obviously had no previous trading experience back then).
