Topic: [FINISHED][Crowd Funding] [VIRAL] Results are in the reserved post. - page 6. (Read 22345 times)
May 05, 2015, 11:09:40 AM
I realize you said no more updates before the end but can you please reconsider, I think everyone would like an update. The GF won't let me put in more until she see' smy percentage. Sad but true. At least she takes an interest in my crypto, lol. Thanks.
May 05, 2015, 11:03:48 AM
Yet these people come in here - with zero evidence - assert that massive shennanigans are taking place.
It's because for a dev not to buy into his own IPO essentially refusing free money would require extraordinary honesty and dignity, which in these circles have been shown to be rare qualities. Maybe this time it's different, and those qualities can in fact be associated with Adam and Bob.
May 05, 2015, 11:03:45 AM
Hey there,
Is it too late to get a deposit address? I want to get in on Crowdfund before it ends. Gracias
Is it too late to get a deposit address? I want to get in on Crowdfund before it ends. Gracias
May 05, 2015, 11:02:44 AM
I have never seen an escrow released btc to dev when the presale still going on. This is the shadiest thing i ever witness on this forum and it sad we are deceived by a trusted member that acted as an escrow.
Right from the original post, BAC says "The Bitcoins you send to me will not be released to the developers until I have the 2.5 million VIRAL in hand." Hell, you quoted that right in the above response.
Where is the confusion? BAC has the Viral. The Devs get the BTC. This was pretty clear right from the beginning.
May 05, 2015, 11:02:08 AM
HAHAHAHA the fud is strong in this one!!!!!
Anyone want to take an escrowEd bet with me of the following:
1) If we can get the devs or BAC to release the whole list of addy requests & buys
2) I GUARENTEEE YOU THAT ONE OF MORE OF THESE SELF RIGHTEOUS ACCUSING VOICES SAYING oh! WHALES! cONsPIRACY! WILL BE ON THAT LIST!!!!!!
LATER FUDSTERS YOU LOSE!
GITCHER VIRAL B4 ITS GONE : -)
Anyone want to take an escrowEd bet with me of the following:
1) If we can get the devs or BAC to release the whole list of addy requests & buys
2) I GUARENTEEE YOU THAT ONE OF MORE OF THESE SELF RIGHTEOUS ACCUSING VOICES SAYING oh! WHALES! cONsPIRACY! WILL BE ON THAT LIST!!!!!!
LATER FUDSTERS YOU LOSE!
GITCHER VIRAL B4 ITS GONE : -)
May 05, 2015, 10:56:45 AM
AllYourAcid, for any shady dev running an ICO, it is risk free to buy coins with your own BTC. You get the coins, you get the BTC. Both. So that is what is so silly about all these theories about devs laundering BTC. That add completely unnecessary, complex, and high risk step to something they could do themselves, risk free. This is why these theories strike me as so silly.
As for your casual approach to requiring evidence before accusing people - well, that goes against basic decency. You joining the others in lumping Adam G with other shady devs - without any evidence - is unfortunate and sad. Your accusation that any BTC sent to the devs before crowdfunding end is automatically shady is simply absurd. Allow me to quote from the OP:
"The Bitcoins you send to me will not be released to the developers until I have the 2.5 million VIRAL in hand. "
The escrow states clearly that when BAC had the working wallet and Viral, the BTC was subject to release.
I fail to see anything in BAC's actions that does not follow the guidelines set out in the escrow. If you preferred a different sort of escrow, you could have said so, or invested in something else. But to accuse people of wrongdoing in this situation - when you have no evidence of anything of the sort -simply demeans you, after having demeaned others.
Please, read before you type. As for your casual approach to requiring evidence before accusing people - well, that goes against basic decency. You joining the others in lumping Adam G with other shady devs - without any evidence - is unfortunate and sad. Your accusation that any BTC sent to the devs before crowdfunding end is automatically shady is simply absurd. Allow me to quote from the OP:
"The Bitcoins you send to me will not be released to the developers until I have the 2.5 million VIRAL in hand. "
The escrow states clearly that when BAC had the working wallet and Viral, the BTC was subject to release.
I fail to see anything in BAC's actions that does not follow the guidelines set out in the escrow. If you preferred a different sort of escrow, you could have said so, or invested in something else. But to accuse people of wrongdoing in this situation - when you have no evidence of anything of the sort -simply demeans you, after having demeaned others.
I explicitly said (multiple !! times) that I don't accuse anybody of anything. I just realized that this model leaves room for shady business, which it does. I never said it's being used (I even explained why I didn't say that: because I just don't know and didn't take the time to research).
So please, take your time to finish reading my post thoroughly before hitting the reply button next time.
May 05, 2015, 10:55:56 AM
AllYourAcid, for any shady dev running an ICO, it is risk free to buy coins with your own BTC. You get the coins, you get the BTC. Both. So that is what is so silly about all these theories about devs laundering BTC. That add completely unnecessary, complex, and high risk step to something they could do themselves, risk free. This is why these theories strike me as so silly.
As for your casual approach to requiring evidence before accusing people - well, that goes against basic decency. You joining the others in lumping Adam G with other shady devs - without any evidence - is unfortunate and sad. Your accusation that any BTC sent to the devs before crowdfunding end is automatically shady is simply absurd. Allow me to quote from the OP:
"The Bitcoins you send to me will not be released to the developers until I have the 2.5 million VIRAL in hand. "
The escrow states clearly that when BAC had the working wallet and Viral, the BTC was subject to release.
I fail to see anything in BAC's actions that does not follow the guidelines set out in the escrow. If you preferred a different sort of escrow, you could have said so, or invested in something else. But to accuse people of wrongdoing in this situation - when you have no evidence of anything of the sort -simply demeans you, after having demeaned others.
As for your casual approach to requiring evidence before accusing people - well, that goes against basic decency. You joining the others in lumping Adam G with other shady devs - without any evidence - is unfortunate and sad. Your accusation that any BTC sent to the devs before crowdfunding end is automatically shady is simply absurd. Allow me to quote from the OP:
"The Bitcoins you send to me will not be released to the developers until I have the 2.5 million VIRAL in hand. "
The escrow states clearly that when BAC had the working wallet and Viral, the BTC was subject to release.
I fail to see anything in BAC's actions that does not follow the guidelines set out in the escrow. If you preferred a different sort of escrow, you could have said so, or invested in something else. But to accuse people of wrongdoing in this situation - when you have no evidence of anything of the sort -simply demeans you, after having demeaned others.
You can call it whatever you want, THIS IS MONEY LAUNDERING.
I have never seen an escrow released btc to dev when the presale still going on. This is the shadiest thing i ever witness on this forum and it sad we are deceived by a trusted member that acted as an escrow.
May 05, 2015, 10:53:25 AM
Is there anybody who cares to distribute BTC addresses to join the IPO?
Waiting since hours.
Waiting since hours.
This is a scam IPO.
The btc address listed in the OP transferred all btc to this address, im guessing the dev. He then transferred it out to exchange address then back to IPO address with escrow.
https://blockchain.info/address/16EcGJdVT1noArDBYJjHpphWRgWhcypYrB
Total Received 107.95293049 BTC
Final Balance 39.11776719 BTC
The btc collected are being used to buy back to inflate the price.
Funny thing, the so called whales are scammers .
Thanks for the final balance. I just wondered, because - scam or not - at the last day of an IPO, those running it should care to get as many people in as possible.
May 05, 2015, 10:52:14 AM
AllYourAcid, for any shady dev running an ICO, it is risk free to buy coins with your own BTC. You get the coins, you get the BTC. Both. So that is what is so silly about all these theories about devs laundering BTC. That add completely unnecessary, complex, and high risk step to something they could do themselves, risk free. This is why these theories strike me as so silly.
As for your casual approach to requiring evidence before accusing people - well, that goes against basic decency. You joining the others in lumping Adam G with other shady devs - without any evidence - is unfortunate and sad. Your accusation that any BTC sent to the devs before crowdfunding end is automatically shady is simply absurd. Allow me to quote from the OP:
"The Bitcoins you send to me will not be released to the developers until I have the 2.5 million VIRAL in hand. "
The escrow states clearly that when BAC had the working wallet and Viral, the BTC was subject to release.
I fail to see anything in BAC's actions that does not follow the guidelines set out in the escrow. If you preferred a different sort of escrow, you could have said so, or invested in something else. But to accuse people of wrongdoing in this situation - when you have no evidence of anything of the sort -simply demeans you, after having demeaned others.
As for your casual approach to requiring evidence before accusing people - well, that goes against basic decency. You joining the others in lumping Adam G with other shady devs - without any evidence - is unfortunate and sad. Your accusation that any BTC sent to the devs before crowdfunding end is automatically shady is simply absurd. Allow me to quote from the OP:
"The Bitcoins you send to me will not be released to the developers until I have the 2.5 million VIRAL in hand. "
The escrow states clearly that when BAC had the working wallet and Viral, the BTC was subject to release.
I fail to see anything in BAC's actions that does not follow the guidelines set out in the escrow. If you preferred a different sort of escrow, you could have said so, or invested in something else. But to accuse people of wrongdoing in this situation - when you have no evidence of anything of the sort -simply demeans you, after having demeaned others.
May 05, 2015, 10:48:17 AM
Is there anybody who cares to distribute BTC addresses to join the IPO?
Waiting since hours.
Waiting since hours.
This is a scam IPO.
The btc address listed in the OP transferred all btc to this address, im guessing the dev. He then transferred it out to exchange address then back to IPO address with escrow.
https://blockchain.info/address/16EcGJdVT1noArDBYJjHpphWRgWhcypYrB
Total Received 107.95293049 BTC
Final Balance 39.11776719 BTC
The btc collected are being used to buy back to inflate the price.
Funny thing, the so called whales are scammers .
May 05, 2015, 10:45:42 AM
Is there anybody who cares to distribute BTC addresses to join the IPO?
Waiting since hours.
Waiting since hours.
May 05, 2015, 10:40:57 AM
Can someone make a taint analysis of the btc used in the crowdfunding. They just used escrow to mask their scam, the purpose of escrow is to hold the fund until after the crowdfund ends.
Was this written before?
I now have the VIRAL in hand. The BTC are now being released as they come in.
Was this written before?
I now have the VIRAL in hand. The BTC are now being released as they come in.
If you're going to be this paranoid, why did you even put BTC in in the first place? Relax, you'll get your Viral's.
May 05, 2015, 10:37:03 AM
Pretty funny, they spent the first part of this thread attacking Adam, that did not get any traction at all, now they are saying there is a giant conspiracy to buy all coins. I got my Viral. Looking forward to the crowdfund ending to see my percentage!!!
May 05, 2015, 10:30:19 AM
I have refrained from posting in this thread and perhaps I should continue to do so. After all, the more fud that is sprayed out by nomoreheroes, illodin, dasource etc. supposedly the more people will refrain from buying, supposedly bettering my relative share.
However my training in economics gets the best of me when i see things like "Bob Surplus is going to buy 500 coins!" and other such drivel and "buyback" theories being posted.
The original amount of BTC apparently released according to what i saw from the totals in the first (deleted) thread was less than 50 btc. Hardly the sort of money one is going to 'take over' a crowdfunding with. And as an earlier poster pointed out, they could do the exact same thing with their own BTC, at zero risk, if they were thinking this way.
Yet these people come in here - with zero evidence - assert that massive shennanigans are taking place.
My partners and I have taken a satisfactory postion Viral. It suits our current RL network and we believe there is a a lot of potential in such a network, especially one that allows entities approaching DACs to eventually built out on it.
Whether large whales are buying in or not really makes little difference to us. A larger market cap lets Adam G and his team build out the back end of the project faster - and there are other projects with their eye on the prize. So this is a very good thing.
Anyhow, this thread was widely predicted to become a circus of fud as the crowdfunding drew to a close. One would hope that the fudders would take a shot at the actual business model, or the network structure of Viral, or some other relevant topic. But it seems to be just aimed at making large claims without any evidence. Throwing fud at the wall to see what sticks.
Hey,However my training in economics gets the best of me when i see things like "Bob Surplus is going to buy 500 coins!" and other such drivel and "buyback" theories being posted.
The original amount of BTC apparently released according to what i saw from the totals in the first (deleted) thread was less than 50 btc. Hardly the sort of money one is going to 'take over' a crowdfunding with. And as an earlier poster pointed out, they could do the exact same thing with their own BTC, at zero risk, if they were thinking this way.
Yet these people come in here - with zero evidence - assert that massive shennanigans are taking place.
My partners and I have taken a satisfactory postion Viral. It suits our current RL network and we believe there is a a lot of potential in such a network, especially one that allows entities approaching DACs to eventually built out on it.
Whether large whales are buying in or not really makes little difference to us. A larger market cap lets Adam G and his team build out the back end of the project faster - and there are other projects with their eye on the prize. So this is a very good thing.
Anyhow, this thread was widely predicted to become a circus of fud as the crowdfunding drew to a close. One would hope that the fudders would take a shot at the actual business model, or the network structure of Viral, or some other relevant topic. But it seems to be just aimed at making large claims without any evidence. Throwing fud at the wall to see what sticks.
I think the solution to this is pretty simple. But first, I'd like to point out the concerns. You said nothing would prevent people to use their own BTC to pull this through. Yes, there is: it basically poses the risk on themselves, and their amount of BTC (or the amount of risk they would be willing to put into this - if that theory applies) is limited.
When BTC which are put into the IPO are directly forwarded to the ones running the IPO, they could literally buy as many VIRAL as they'd like:
- send BTC to IPO address
- get an entry in the list of buyers
- BTC are sent back to the buyer
- buyer increases his position in the IPO
- rinse & repeat, over and over
Now, the solution would be simple: compile a list of the BTC addresses listed in the OP and note how many ingoing transactions show "spent". If nearly all do (or at least a significant amount), then at least the possibility exists that the BTC are already back with those who run the IPO.
Also, please don't always ride that old "without any evidence" horse. IF the funds are already released back to those running it, it would be shady. Nothing more to say here. Did you sleep under a rock in 2014? Didn't you see what happens to IPOs being run on e.g. Bter.com, this crappy shitbooth of an exchange?
That being said, I still don't know if any of all this applies. And I have no intention to check the BTC addresses myself. Can't be bothered to, right now.
May 05, 2015, 10:26:39 AM
Can someone make a taint analysis of the btc used in the crowdfunding. They just used escrow to mask their scam, the purpose of escrow is to hold the fund until after the crowdfund ends.
Was this written before?
I now have the VIRAL in hand. The BTC are now being released as they come in.
Was this written before?
I now have the VIRAL in hand. The BTC are now being released as they come in.
May 05, 2015, 10:18:38 AM
I have refrained from posting in this thread and perhaps I should continue to do so. After all, the more fud that is sprayed out by nomoreheroes, illodin, dasource etc. supposedly the more people will refrain from buying, supposedly bettering my relative share.
However my training in economics gets the best of me when i see things like "Bob Surplus is going to buy 500 coins!" and other such drivel and "buyback" theories being posted.
The original amount of BTC apparently released according to what i saw from the totals in the first (deleted) thread was less than 50 btc. Hardly the sort of money one is going to 'take over' a crowdfunding with. And as an earlier poster pointed out, they could do the exact same thing with their own BTC, at zero risk, if they were thinking this way.
Yet these people come in here - with zero evidence - assert that massive shennanigans are taking place.
My partners and I have taken a satisfactory postion Viral. It suits our current RL network and we believe there is a a lot of potential in such a network, especially one that allows entities approaching DACs to eventually built out on it.
Whether large whales are buying in or not really makes little difference to us. A larger market cap lets Adam G and his team build out the back end of the project faster - and there are other projects with their eye on the prize. So this is a very good thing.
Anyhow, this thread was widely predicted to become a circus of fud as the crowdfunding drew to a close. One would hope that the fudders would take a shot at the actual business model, or the network structure of Viral, or some other relevant topic. But it seems to be just aimed at making large claims without any evidence. Throwing fud at the wall to see what sticks.
However my training in economics gets the best of me when i see things like "Bob Surplus is going to buy 500 coins!" and other such drivel and "buyback" theories being posted.
The original amount of BTC apparently released according to what i saw from the totals in the first (deleted) thread was less than 50 btc. Hardly the sort of money one is going to 'take over' a crowdfunding with. And as an earlier poster pointed out, they could do the exact same thing with their own BTC, at zero risk, if they were thinking this way.
Yet these people come in here - with zero evidence - assert that massive shennanigans are taking place.
My partners and I have taken a satisfactory postion Viral. It suits our current RL network and we believe there is a a lot of potential in such a network, especially one that allows entities approaching DACs to eventually built out on it.
Whether large whales are buying in or not really makes little difference to us. A larger market cap lets Adam G and his team build out the back end of the project faster - and there are other projects with their eye on the prize. So this is a very good thing.
Anyhow, this thread was widely predicted to become a circus of fud as the crowdfunding drew to a close. One would hope that the fudders would take a shot at the actual business model, or the network structure of Viral, or some other relevant topic. But it seems to be just aimed at making large claims without any evidence. Throwing fud at the wall to see what sticks.
Thank you for this. It's so exhausting having to wade through the shit on this forum just to get to relevant and useful conversation. I hope my (now apparently measly) 1 BTC contribution helps bring this project to a healthy stance in the community.
May 05, 2015, 09:56:56 AM
I have refrained from posting in this thread and perhaps I should continue to do so. After all, the more fud that is sprayed out by nomoreheroes, illodin, dasource etc. supposedly the more people will refrain from buying, supposedly bettering my relative share.
However my training in economics gets the best of me when i see things like "Bob Surplus is going to buy 500 coins!" and other such drivel and "buyback" theories being posted.
The original amount of BTC apparently released according to what i saw from the totals in the first (deleted) thread was less than 50 btc. Hardly the sort of money one is going to 'take over' a crowdfunding with. And as an earlier poster pointed out, they could do the exact same thing with their own BTC, at zero risk, if they were thinking this way.
Yet these people come in here - with zero evidence - assert that massive shennanigans are taking place.
My partners and I have taken a satisfactory postion Viral. It suits our current RL network and we believe there is a a lot of potential in such a network, especially one that allows entities approaching DACs to eventually built out on it.
Whether large whales are buying in or not really makes little difference to us. A larger market cap lets Adam G and his team build out the back end of the project faster - and there are other projects with their eye on the prize. So this is a very good thing.
Anyhow, this thread was widely predicted to become a circus of fud as the crowdfunding drew to a close. One would hope that the fudders would take a shot at the actual business model, or the network structure of Viral, or some other relevant topic. But it seems to be just aimed at making large claims without any evidence. Throwing fud at the wall to see what sticks.
However my training in economics gets the best of me when i see things like "Bob Surplus is going to buy 500 coins!" and other such drivel and "buyback" theories being posted.
The original amount of BTC apparently released according to what i saw from the totals in the first (deleted) thread was less than 50 btc. Hardly the sort of money one is going to 'take over' a crowdfunding with. And as an earlier poster pointed out, they could do the exact same thing with their own BTC, at zero risk, if they were thinking this way.
Yet these people come in here - with zero evidence - assert that massive shennanigans are taking place.
My partners and I have taken a satisfactory postion Viral. It suits our current RL network and we believe there is a a lot of potential in such a network, especially one that allows entities approaching DACs to eventually built out on it.
Whether large whales are buying in or not really makes little difference to us. A larger market cap lets Adam G and his team build out the back end of the project faster - and there are other projects with their eye on the prize. So this is a very good thing.
Anyhow, this thread was widely predicted to become a circus of fud as the crowdfunding drew to a close. One would hope that the fudders would take a shot at the actual business model, or the network structure of Viral, or some other relevant topic. But it seems to be just aimed at making large claims without any evidence. Throwing fud at the wall to see what sticks.
May 05, 2015, 09:27:24 AM
It looks like the btc is not being held by BayAreaCoins until the end of ICO, please correct me if otherwise.
So how do we know that Viral team is not buying the majority of their own coin by reusing the btc over and over?
Some assurance on that part would be nice.
So how do we know that Viral team is not buying the majority of their own coin by reusing the btc over and over?
Some assurance on that part would be nice.
Correct, I'm not holding BTC until the end of the ICO. I released the Bitcoins once I received the 2.5 million VIRAL as agreed.
Only assurance I can offer is exactly what you can see on the Blockchain too.
I'm not Detective BAC this week or Dev BAC. I'm Escrow BAC
all I can assure people is that they will get their fair share of the 2.5 million coins I have.And why have you released the BTC before the crowdfunding ended? Does not make any sense to do that cause the swap of the Viral coins and BTC should have been made at the end of crowdfunding!!
So now who will guarantee us that Viral team did not inflate the price buying coins with our BTC?
Are you surprised? If you work with scammers, prepare to be scammed. I think everyone was warned plenty of times.
Also the wallet will be released after ICO, which means there can be plenty of hidden things in the code, hidden premine, trojan,... I wouldn't be surprised with any of those.
The one-two punch of BTC released to devs early and updates to the crowdfund ledger being behind a full day (on the very last and most important day no less) makes this entire project very, very dangerous. The devs could easily throw our 100+ bitcoin back at the crowdfund anytime today and we'd be none the wiser.
Don't be surprised to find out tonight that 500+ bitcoin ended up getting donated. The uncertainty in this whole thing makes it a perfect scam opportunity. Couple that with Adam Guerbuez, BobSurplus, a "super elite" club of early IPO investors that get first-mover knowledge of important developments (i.e., a self-implemented pump group), and a heavily moderated Ann thread (I've personally seen at least 15 legitimate criticism posts deleted within seconds right before my eyes) and you've got a recipe for scam of the century.
I would stay far, far away from all this. A guaranteed bite in the ass.
Just remember, Adam Guerbuez is the asshole who flat out lied about big bitcoin news that would "turn heads"...turns out he was just being an attention whore.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/adam-guerbuez-claims-some-very-big-news-is-coming-for-bitcoin-this-friday-924474
Don't be surprised to find out tonight that 500+ bitcoin ended up getting donated. The uncertainty in this whole thing makes it a perfect scam opportunity. Couple that with Adam Guerbuez, BobSurplus, a "super elite" club of early IPO investors that get first-mover knowledge of important developments (i.e., a self-implemented pump group), and a heavily moderated Ann thread (I've personally seen at least 15 legitimate criticism posts deleted within seconds right before my eyes) and you've got a recipe for scam of the century.
I would stay far, far away from all this. A guaranteed bite in the ass.
Just remember, Adam Guerbuez is the asshole who flat out lied about big bitcoin news that would "turn heads"...turns out he was just being an attention whore.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/adam-guerbuez-claims-some-very-big-news-is-coming-for-bitcoin-this-friday-924474
This.
Also would be funny to see PMs between Adam and Bobsurplus, I bet Bob is asking "I buy 500 BTC worth in the crowd fund send me back my BTC and me and my group will PUMP IT UP for you". The only question is, will Adam give in?
May 05, 2015, 09:16:33 AM
It looks like the btc is not being held by BayAreaCoins until the end of ICO, please correct me if otherwise.
So how do we know that Viral team is not buying the majority of their own coin by reusing the btc over and over?
Some assurance on that part would be nice.
So how do we know that Viral team is not buying the majority of their own coin by reusing the btc over and over?
Some assurance on that part would be nice.
Correct, I'm not holding BTC until the end of the ICO. I released the Bitcoins once I received the 2.5 million VIRAL as agreed.
Only assurance I can offer is exactly what you can see on the Blockchain too.
I'm not Detective BAC this week or Dev BAC. I'm Escrow BAC
all I can assure people is that they will get their fair share of the 2.5 million coins I have.And why have you released the BTC before the crowdfunding ended? Does not make any sense to do that cause the swap of the Viral coins and BTC should have been made at the end of crowdfunding!!
So now who will guarantee us that Viral team did not inflate the price buying coins with our BTC?
Are you surprised? If you work with scammers, prepare to be scammed. I think everyone was warned plenty of times.
Also the wallet will be released after ICO, which means there can be plenty of hidden things in the code, hidden premine, trojan,... I wouldn't be surprised with any of those.
The one-two punch of BTC released to devs early and updates to the crowdfund ledger being behind a full day (on the very last and most important day no less) makes this entire project very, very dangerous. The devs could easily throw our 100+ bitcoin back at the crowdfund anytime today and we'd be none the wiser.
Don't be surprised to find out tonight that 500+ bitcoin ended up getting donated. The uncertainty in this whole thing makes it a perfect scam opportunity. Couple that with Adam Guerbuez, BobSurplus, a "super elite" club of early IPO investors that get first-mover knowledge of important developments (i.e., a self-implemented pump group), and a heavily moderated Ann thread (I've personally seen at least 15 legitimate criticism posts deleted within seconds right before my eyes) and you've got a recipe for scam of the century.
I would stay far, far away from all this. A guaranteed bite in the ass.
Just remember, Adam Guerbuez is the asshole who flat out lied about big bitcoin news that would "turn heads"...turns out he was just being an attention whore.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/adam-guerbuez-claims-some-very-big-news-is-coming-for-bitcoin-this-friday-924474
Don't be surprised to find out tonight that 500+ bitcoin ended up getting donated. The uncertainty in this whole thing makes it a perfect scam opportunity. Couple that with Adam Guerbuez, BobSurplus, a "super elite" club of early IPO investors that get first-mover knowledge of important developments (i.e., a self-implemented pump group), and a heavily moderated Ann thread (I've personally seen at least 15 legitimate criticism posts deleted within seconds right before my eyes) and you've got a recipe for scam of the century.
I would stay far, far away from all this. A guaranteed bite in the ass.
Just remember, Adam Guerbuez is the asshole who flat out lied about big bitcoin news that would "turn heads"...turns out he was just being an attention whore.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/adam-guerbuez-claims-some-very-big-news-is-coming-for-bitcoin-this-friday-924474
This.
May 05, 2015, 09:05:51 AM
The one-two punch of BTC released to devs early and updates to the crowdfund ledger being behind a full day (on the very last and most important day no less) makes this entire project very, very dangerous. The devs could easily throw our 100+ bitcoin back at the crowdfund anytime today and we'd be none the wiser.
Don't be surprised to find out tonight that 500+ bitcoin ended up getting donated. The uncertainty in this whole thing makes it a perfect scam opportunity. Couple that with Adam Guerbuez, BobSurplus, a "super elite" club of early IPO investors that get first-mover knowledge of important developments (i.e., a self-implemented pump group), and a heavily moderated Ann thread (I've personally seen at least 15 legitimate criticism posts deleted within seconds right before my eyes) and you've got a recipe for scam of the century.
I would stay far, far away from all this. A guaranteed bite in the ass.
Just remember, Adam Guerbuez is the asshole who flat out lied about big bitcoin news that would "turn heads"...turns out he was just being an attention whore.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/adam-guerbuez-claims-some-very-big-news-is-coming-for-bitcoin-this-friday-924474
Don't be surprised to find out tonight that 500+ bitcoin ended up getting donated. The uncertainty in this whole thing makes it a perfect scam opportunity. Couple that with Adam Guerbuez, BobSurplus, a "super elite" club of early IPO investors that get first-mover knowledge of important developments (i.e., a self-implemented pump group), and a heavily moderated Ann thread (I've personally seen at least 15 legitimate criticism posts deleted within seconds right before my eyes) and you've got a recipe for scam of the century.
I would stay far, far away from all this. A guaranteed bite in the ass.
Just remember, Adam Guerbuez is the asshole who flat out lied about big bitcoin news that would "turn heads"...turns out he was just being an attention whore.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/adam-guerbuez-claims-some-very-big-news-is-coming-for-bitcoin-this-friday-924474
Jump to: