Topic: [FLAGGED] [scam] BetKing.io broke ICO promise and dropped token value 99% - page 6. (Read 4048 times)

When are you launching the next scam ICO for your "bitsafe" project?

It's actually not too bad. My suggestion was that we use an escrow-agent to create a 2-of-3 multisig address (Where I am one holder, dean is another and the escrow the third). We would both commit enough funds into the multi sig-address (and keep it topped up) and have public payout addresses. Dean preliminarily agreed, so I talked to some extremely prominent members of the bitcoin community who agreed to escrow the deal. But that rapidly fell apart with nonsense excuses and kept offering amendments such that would break rule from the start: I am not going to enter a deal where I need to trust him with a million dollars.

You ask me to explain how you are wrong AFTER you post more assumptions and false information? Are you serious?

The facts by people in this thread? The people who are posting false claims with no evidence and ulterior motives?

The burdon of proof is not on me to show innocence here, I am the one being accused. The accusers should show hard evidence instead of biased opinions.
You have shown to fit that same category and so there's not really any point me discussing or explaining to you either. Your mind is clearly already made up.

That was probably done to avoid breaking securities law enforced in the United States. I am not sure if this setup actually avoided running afoul of these laws though.

One of the things taught in accounting classes is that businesses should take out loans in durations that match their cash flows of what the business is borrowing for, so if a business is borrowing money to build a factory, it should not be in a position to have to repay the loan before cash flows from the factory are expected to have been generated. In other words, the time frame for receivables should roughly match the time frame for due dates of debts. Similarly, a business that earns its profits in dollars should not take out debts in Euros in case the value of the dollar goes down a lot.

Before the extra interest from the bankroll profit is taken into consideration, Dean was paying approximately 42% interest for things like bounties and marketing in the form of additional tokens issued. I cannot imagine someone intending to repay their debt being willing to pay that large a premium.

 
He sold the tokens at 70 cents on the dollar because only 70 millions were available for sale, and 30 million were given to bounty hunters.

Who wouldn't want a free ~$400k, right?

I saw you talk about this in a previous post, and you said that you have a "hard-requirement of not exposing (yourself) to counterparty risk" and I wanted to point out that having Dean deposit the bitcoin collateral with a reputable escrow would expose you to counterparty risk with the escrow. I agree it is not a good idea to expose yourself to counterparty risk to someone offering an "instant" 42% return. It also is maybe a good policy to not expose yourself to counterparty risk to anyone who approaches you with a business proposal over a threshold. 


Can you explain how I was wrong? I do not want to keep incorrect information up, and will correct any mistakes that are noted.

Right now, the facts as understood by nearly everyone in this thread, and probably by most reasonable people reading this thread show you to be a scammer and as not honoring your obligations. If you can correct the record, then you should have an easier time conducting business if the record shows you have honored your obligations, and would probably result in you earning more profits.

The answer is that you are a pathetic scammer who would have taken $1 million from RHavar had you been successful in your attempt to dupe him, then when it would inevitably all have gone downhill you would have no doubt said to him "I did not force you to invest, you should have applied due-diligence. No, actually I said this-that but I meant that-this so it is your fault for investing. Anyway it is a business I changed the direction of the business to the terms you invested and I can do it unilaterally because I am a dictator."

You pathetic little scammer - thankfully you fell flat on your face when you could not get RHavar to part with his crypto. Shame on you.






No chance of getting scammer Dean Nolan to respond that way








Here we go again....

Scammer Dean Nolan never answers the questions put to him and then asks people to read his answers. What an idiot scammer Dean Nolan is.

The scammer Dean Nolan that had $3.5 million in 2017 ICO funds for the bankroll but allegedly spent it on buy-backs to pocket cash while selling his own tokens too...

The scammer Dean Nolan that had $3.5 million in 2017 ICO funds for "marketing, promotions, seo, design, development, server costs and legal"...

and on top of that scammer Dean Nolan allegedly kept back 30 million tokens private tokens for "ICO bounties, testing bounties, advisors, hiring, future marketing and development"..

yet still oversaw more than 99% drop in value of his beloved betking tokens is complaining to other website owners.

The scammer Dean Nolan as recent as a few months back was trying to close betking and transfer over BKB tokens to his new "bitsafe" project but only AFTER having another ICO trying to raise $10 million of which nothing would go to BKB token holders - so it means scammer Dean Nolan would have it.

Pathetic little shameless low-life. What an imbecile.





Accounts involved
BetKing.io (-254)
BetKing Support (-128)
PocketRocketsCasino (-126)
dean nolan (-64)

You certainly do have your ways to shift attention

EDIT: Don't have to be an investor, just a player and an observer to make up my mind.

How about you read my posts and you would know the information?
What makes you think you are entitled to any information about a competitors business? You're not an investor are you?

How about you focus on your own site that raised $8-10 million and has not done any updates in the past year while your own token price has dropped 40%?

How about you post the right information instead of complaining how everyone is wrong without any information on HOW they are wrong?

Much appreciated...

So you say you can't prove i tried to scam you but leave a scam accusation anyway? That doesn't seem right and seems to be abuse of the trust system.

The other question can't be answered because PrimeNumber7 posted wrong information on how the ico, token value and buy back process worked.

Well, you can see my trust feedback for my opinion. But the misdirection is kind of killing me. You wanted a personal loan (either directly, or via BKB tokens). And promised to pay it back personally. You claimed to have systems in place to automatically sell BTC to guarantee your obligation to token-holders, even if there was a sudden and expected BTC price fall. The million dollars would've had no utility to the business. Anyway, I'm never going to prove you tried to scam me. So why don't you answer the simple and direct questions asked of you?

Here's a good one:

You're asking if a business would be different or change it's roadmap if 4-5 months ago it raised an extra $1 million in investment? What do you think the answer is?

@PrimeNumber7 your analysis looks very accurate


The problem is the name "betking ico" is a bit misleading. It was designed (and privately marketed) more as: "Dean Nolan's USD denominated debt token" but instead of offering any interest rate he offered a % of the site bankroll profit he would provide % of the bankroll profits. All costs associated with operating the site would be purely taken care of him. (this was done so "% of bankroll profits" is strictly +EV and investors didn't need to trust his ability to run a profitable business).

e.g. Just before he scammed everyone he told me he had some poker debts (in USD) and didn't want to lose his exposure to BTC. So I should buy a large sum of BKB tokens, which he would give me at a crazy favorable rate (something like 30% under their face-value, although I'd need to consult our chat logs to be sure) and would even provide me with an accelerated buy-back schedule.  [If anyone is wondering why I keep presenting a slightly different version, it's cause he made like ~5 attempts for me to give him money just before he scammed. Each i knocked back telling him I was unwilling to accept counter party risk by him, but would be willing to in an escrowed deal, which was something he would never agree to)]

This set off a huge amount of alarm-bells, why would he be willing to acquire BTC exposure ridiculously higher than market rate (e.g. bitmex) and then confirmed my suspicions by scamming his remaining token-holders.

But it's kind of pointless to try establish his motive/intentions, but I guess I can ask:

Had I bought the betking ~million dollars of  tokens you privately offered me, would've your honored the buyback agreement? Or would've my tokens been treated the same as everyone else's?



Exactly this.

I don't think any trust rating will do very much in warning most people. Businesses can advertise in many places on the internet, the majority of which will not be affected by the trust system.

The topic will allow anyone who is doing their due diligence to see what is going on and act accordingly. A thread that is locked implies the underlying issue is resolved/closed/no longer applies. 

Please do not lock this thread.

Yes scammer Dean Nolan has the red trust he deserves but please keep this thread open because maybe one day he might want to visit here to post the word "sorry" which he clearly has difficulty in saying at the moment.

It appears the ultimate basis for saying BetKing.io scammed investors via the ICO is the lack of buybacks.

My reading of how the buybacks work is they are based on the total raised and the total profits of the bankroll.

There appear to be 70 million tokens offered for sale, and 100 million total. The price appears to be based off of only the tokens offered for sale.

As an example, if they raised $35 million in total, the price for the tokens would be $0.50 each ("Token Price").

The buyback price appears to be based on the bankroll profits for the preceding quarter ("Quarters Profit") and the Token Price. As an example, if the Quarters Profit was $5 million, they would take 10% to apply to the tokens, or $500,000 and add this to the Token Price, and offer to buy back 10% of token holders at this price. So the Quarters Profit portion of the buyback price in this example would be $0.05, and the Token Price portion of the buyback price would be $0.50, for a total of $0.55. In this hypothetical example, $3,550,000 would be used to buy back tokens.

According to how the ICO page described how the ICO proceeds would be used, only 50% of the ICO proceeds were to be used to fund the bankroll, and the balance was to be used for operating expenses.

In the above example, $17.5 million would be allocated to the bankroll, and $5 million would be bankroll profit, but after the buyback, the total bankroll would be $18.95 million.

If the profits were lower, things would take a turn for the worse for token holders. For example, if bankroll profits were only $2 million, then $3,520,000 would be used to buy back tokens, but after the buybacks, only $15.98 million would be left in the bankroll.

Adding to the risk is that bitcoin's price may decline (it did), and the "Token Price" portion of the buyback price may get more expensive in terms of bitcoin, and the bankroll and bets appears to be denominated in terms of bitcoin. It should be simple enough to convert any bankroll profits to dollars when buying back tokens.

The way I am reading how bankroll profits are used to fund buybacks, only 1% of bankroll profits are used for buybacks. This hardly sounds fair, but token holders were free to negotiate different/better terms before buying.

The entire setup appears asinine, and subjects everyone to unnecessary risks. I don't understand why a percentage of bankroll profits would not be converted to etherum, or a stablecoin that could be airdropped to token holders in the form of a dividend. A market may develop for these tokens to capture the anticipated future cash flows of the dividends.

The way I read the terms, betking needs to buyback token holders at the Token Price if bankroll profits are zero (he needs to buy back 10% of tokens).

A decreasing percentage of the original amount of tokens issued will need to be repurchased each quarter in order for 10% of the remaining tokens to be repurchased. The first quarter would see 10% of the original tokens repurchased, the second quarter would see 9% of tokens repurchased, the 3rd quarter 8.1%, and so on.

My question to betking would be: Were 10% of outstanding tokens offered to be repurchased at a price described above? If not, I believe you have not honored your obligations.

Anyone can correct me if there is an error in my understanding.

I kinda wanted to give this post 50 Merit, and lock the thread. This post nicely summarizes your stance.
Instead, I've just archived it.
It's quite normal for the defendant to deny everything, despite overwhelming evidence.
I don't think this topic has much more to offer. You have the red trust you deserve to warn others, I have my worthless tokens.

I am sure the crypto wallets owned by scammer Dean Nolan would provide evidence to the contrary  

I see absolutely no proof presented from anyone that I scammed token holders, including LoyceV

You've given many different pieces of incomplete information, and sometimes change posts afterwards.