Topic: Coinect.com (ICO) - The Master of Illusions and Misleading Advertising (Read 1646 times)

It is totally inappropriate, try to imagine this,  every sections has different discussion, that is why they have designated names such as "local boards" and "scam accusations" i have chosen that two sections for you to ponder on to the title given. 

I know that you have concern to your co-turkish-citizens, but even thou you translate it to your language it will still be an scam accusation thread that should or must be posted from it's rightful designated section,  the "scam accusation". I hope you understand this well. 

However,  Nice catch OP,  and to Coolcryptovator.

initially very interested in this project especially the project is managed by wapinter, one of the BM I believe, but when I see Team COINECT I see one of its ICO Advisor


Krystelle Galano

is one of the Advisors of a previous project who committed fraud against me on the CIBUS project

They take advantage of the people who don't know what arbitrage is, and try to sell it as something new that is able to make you rich instantly just by investing in them.

The promise of guaranteed returns is going to lure a lot of investors in as a result, but it's also the primary tell-tale sign of all of these scams. Even if they do pay investors fat the start, they are still a ponzi scheme with a ponzi structure due to the fact that they claim such exuberant amounts of returns.

Team is obviously faked as exposed by coolcryptovator (kudos to him), and misleading advertising as regards to their partners.

Don't be greedy and don't invest in these claims of guaranteed high level profits, and you'll do much better off.

Saw this ICO myself. If 48% profits aren't enough to convince someone that it's a scam, then they shouldn't be looking to invest in anything.

When did I say managers should not take this responsibility.All I am trying to say that once a scam ICO is exposed,and IF a manager is ready to co-operate,we should not put all blame on him and keep posting threads one after other against him to an extent that even a scam thread against ICO (like this one) turns into manager bashing thread.I take full responsibility for not doing in depth research before accepting some bounty campaigns.

You're in the focus of those you were advertising/managing a campaign for. I think that's reasoned, since you have been connected to those.
I didn't see you being brought up in a scam accusation you were not involved with the project being accused.

Holding managers responsible forces them to research what they are advertising for.
Should they during that research find out the project that contacted them is a scam, they can start a scam accusation themselves, thus stop the scam ICO very early.
(ideally before a bounty is started/funds are being collected)
I do think that would help, yes.

I'm not putting the full blame on the manager, I'm saying they do hold some responsibility other than just counting posts and submitting payment information.
(I am a manager myself and I am ready to take a certain amount of responsibility for my actions and decisions, something you seem to try to evade whenever possible, well, evasion is your speciality, isn't it?)

Cross-posting from the other thread, since it explains my position:

I think the focus of every scam exposing thread is on me. Instead of finding ways to prevent scam ICOs just neg rate their manager.But will it stop scam ICOs?They will find just another guy to get their bounty posted.Should not we be concentrating more on finding ways to prevent scam ICOs instead of putting all blames on managers?

Wapinter told me in PM that the bounty thread is unlocked to give the Coinect team a chance to reply to accusations.

I am unsure why they cannot respond to eg this Scam Accusation thread if the bounty thread is locked.
Imo the thread should be locked and the bounty should be paused until all valid concerns are cleared (or be locked/stopped forever if they fail to do so).

Prolonging the bounty, continuing to lure people into advertising/investing while there is reasonable doubt about the service, with the sole reason of giving them a "chance to respond", is super reckless in my book.

I am 100% sure that they are aware of situation, I am not sure why they are ignoring facts.

Last two PM's from Wapinter:

So Wapinter once again has been caught in a scam accusation by managing the bounty campaign for such an obvious scam.
This is the second time within a week they missed to do any kind of research before starting a campaign and luring people into advertising/investing into such a clear scam.

More evidence about their fake team.

It's also confirmed that they are using at least one (or probably more that hasn't been found yet) team members. So yeah, I would definitely be confident in calling this a complete and utter scam now.

These ICOs usually will pose as legitimate investment businesses, but they rarely have any real business model, which is why they try to make the returns seem out of this world. Their strategy of making it seem like they have many big companies as their partner reminds me of another likely scam, arbitao, who uses the same strategy.

In this case, it's obvious from the get go that their returns are completely ponzi-like. Even big investment banks can't generate anything close to 30% p.a. consistently, let alone a random ICO that pops up and claims that it can do it on a monthly basis.

Thank you tmfp! I was careful with my words as it is incredibly shady, but not on the level where it is a confirmed scam. The team clearly know how to manipulate words so it isn't dodgy enough to call it a scam, but it is definitely not legitimate.

I agree!

As soon as a project promises 20 to 50 percent monthly profit you know it's trash.

I mean, if you knew your idea would return you 20 to 50 percent per month, why would you need investors? Just rollout your idea and print money for yourself. The sad thing is some people obviously still throw their money at these things otherwise they wouldn't bother creating these icos.

I agree with you about this cheaply made attempted scam ICO and it's unfortunate this thread hasn't been seen much.
One or two skeptics are currently ah 'interacting' with Coinect on their ANN thread.

Archived Version - http://archive.is/VwiD4

I was scrolling around the bounties section looking for a signature campaign when I found this project . Here's an introduction to the project and what it looks to do in the industry -

Introduction
Coinect is a new trading bot/tool/system that is able to implement on popular exchanges (binance, kucoin, bittrex, bitfinex) and uses AI to minimize a loss while making favorable trades that will profit. They claim that in 1 month, they are able to make a 48% profit, which sounds incredibly similar to popular ponzi schemes .

AI System for guaranteed profit
Coinect claims that they are able to implement a trading system that guarantees in average about 20-50% profit. From their whitepaper, they claim that they will have a system that will cover ~20 exchanges and will work in a way which is as follows -


They claim that they are able to calculate this, but how would this work from 20 exchanges? On popular exchanges like binance, the price of something is changing constantly and since you are making small trades and arbitraging, this might go wrong a lot of times. (This part is a bit messy, I am not very well versed in trading/arbitraging, if anyone has any better comments/analysis, feel free to comment).

False Advertising/Sloppiness
The entire website is very sloppily made and the details are often wrong, for example -

At first glance, it shows the profit is around 40-45% a month



Then in the section next to that, the text reads 20-50% profit a month.



Then if you try forecast your profit, it shows 48%?



You are also unable to change the slider from 1 month, it seems like that parts broken.

They also make it seem like they are going to be listed on popular exchanges, or at least know them and are connected with them shown in this picture -



I am unsure about other exchanges, but binance doesn't announce partnerships before the ico ends, so definitely dodgy at least. They are trying to mislead dumb investors here.

No experience
When you are looking to make a financial asset platform, especially if it is ai involved, you better have a lot of industry relationships and experience. This is the total opposite of the Coinect team, and the linkdelin profiles they provide are incredibly barren and they either have no experience or have some experience with some unknown company. They should have proven performance, social media presence, industry connections, instead, we are greeted with some possibly fake accounts that look like they were made 1 month ago.

The CEO/Team lead -  Dominic Hall
The CEO has made a total of 7 connections on linkedlin and has 1 past job at GFT, which I can't find anywhere. Definetly not fit to be running a million dollar finanical asset platform. I think these 7 connections are the fellow team members in coinect, as each of them have 7 connections each. 



Conclusion
Does not look like a very trustable ICO. I'd love to hear your thoughts though, thanks!