Topic: [FLAGGED] [scam] BetKing.io broke ICO promise and dropped token value 99% - page 7. (Read 3938 times)

That seems almost like a philosophical question. Let's say I made a 1 BTC bet with you, and I lost and paid you 1 BTC. Then you make the same bet with someone else, and you lost this time and decided you were not going to pay (would make bad business sense, you see).

Was I scammed?

I'd personally lean towards 'yes', but it does require knowing your intentions when you made the bet. But it's kind of also unproductive to speculate on intentions, so let's focus on who you directly scammed, which was token holders (like LoyceV).

And once again, if the amounts involved are so small: why would you even scam people, and just not keep your word?

I see what you were trying to imply now.
You spoke of two separate tokens in the same post and made it sound like the 600 BTC was spent buying the original BKB tokens at less than the ICO value, which is not true.

Your 1% number also means nothing. You clearly don't understand the new model, the way the business actually works (or how it worked before, no one here seems to understand that) or any of the plans moving forward.
Which almost everyone in terms of amount BKB held the $ value of the BKB I didn't own is in favour of and has willingly swapped to BKT and gave support.
So those people were scammed?

But agree. This whole chat is totally unproductive because you are biased and post opinions as facts without knowing what you are talking about and everything gets messed up because of idiots like jolly good.

Since "bitsafe" was mentioned...






The scammer Dean Nolan thought he would raise $10 million by the end of the bitsafe ICO.

He only cancelled the bitsafe ICO when nobody was interested yet he claimed he sold over $880,000 worth of tokens and was going to consolidate BKB tokens in to BTSC tokens and close down betking because it was not going to be worth running any more. Just a few months ago he was going to close down betking because it was a failing business and here he is now saying it is the healthiest it has been for a long time. Scammer Dean Nolan contradicts himself all the time, he is an imbecile.

Somehow, he had another brainwave and decided to scrap the pathetic "bitsafe" idea and keep betking going but using EOS BKT tokens in the hope to bring in 200,000 new users  

Serial scammer Dean Nolan

Ok. I give up. This conversation has gotten unproductive. You just finished trying to argue that you didn't "cancel buybacks" because they were still going (under completely and far worse terms) which are happening ~1% of the official buy-back price. If there was a disingenuous award, you'd clearly win it.


Anyway, I think it's pretty much telling that the only people who will come to your defence are BillyBurns who is clearly not a "normal" user and a bunch of newbie accounts that are offered BKB tokens to post on bitcointalk.


So I guess everyone can clearly see what a scammer you are. Good luck with your next ICO scam (bitsafe was it?), you might want to create a new identity though if you want to scam people, as "Dean Nolan" is a bit tarnished now and people will see it coming.

Where's do you get that idea from?

Again, this semantics-play is annoying. You sold them for bitcoin [1] and bought them back with bitcoin. You only bought them back slightly higher in terms of USD, and that's because bitcoin skyrockted, so you were making a killing on the buybacks. (i.e. you bought them back for less than you sold them).

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, per-se, because that was the terms of the ICO which said: You make a personal profit when the price of bitcoin goes up, and make a personal loss when price of bitcoin goes down. The problem is you reneged immediately after it actually happened.

And then after that, you started buying them back at hugely under the ICO price in both USD and Bitcoin. Maybe you outperformed the Venezuelan bolivar, so what next: everyone made a profit in terms of VES?


Also I find your "I had bought-back almost all tokens, so I only scammed a few people" kind of weak. Why wouldn't you just keep your word and eat the loss like your own terms dictated?


[1] Any some other cryptos, let's ignore that for simplicity though.

70% of the 2017 post-ICO 100 million tokens means 70 million tokens. Add that to the 2017 post-ICO 30 million tokens that were not for crowdsale, makes it 100 million BKB tokens. How is that possible?

betking might have held 70% of BKB tokens before the EOS BKT token platform launch but you did not. That statement highlighted in bold gives the impression that you felt so confident in BKB that you spent your own money to buy BKBs.

Stop lying and stop misleading and stop misdirecting. Scammer.

I don't think there's a way to have a productive discussion with someone who continues to ignore everything I say and just make assumptions

"To the best of my knowledge, he sold ~6.5M dollars worth of BKB, not bought a *single* one back at above the ICO price "

Yet I have stated many times I bought back 600 Bitcoin worth of BKB, all above ICO price btw, which is why I held 70% before the launch of the new platform.

So is anyone going to actually post evidence here instead of just making assumptions and twisting words or just straight up lying?

So you don't believe him when he says he bought back 70% of them?

Bizarre. People who did sell tokens and actually lost money apparently don't count (because they voluntarily sold, or something). And people who haven't sold, still haven't lost any money (despite them would if the ever needed to)?

So basically, you're saying the only way token-holders can lose money is if the site closes down?


I don't think there's a way to have a productive discussion with someone who argues that "not a single person lost any money" on a token that nose-dived ~99%.



This really seems like misdirection. No one is attacking Dean for being a bad investment, they're attacking it for repeatedly lying and dishonest. The simple undeniable truth is Dean used his personal reputation to create and back BKB to give him personal exposure to bitcoin. He repeatedly sold it as an instrument to protect against bitcoin price going down (up until including shortly before he cancelled the promise, trying several times to pitch it to me knowing I'm stupidly heavily into btc). He milked it all the way when bitcoin price was doing well, and literally the second things turned around he renegs. To the best of my knowledge, he sold ~6.5M dollars worth of BKB, not bought a *single* one back at above the ICO price  (and claimed to have hit something like 70% buybacks or something?).

I think the only thing left to do is play with semantics ("you haven't lost unless you sell!") "It's not Dean's problem if you sell at a loss" and "he's not a scammer because he wasn't intending on scamming! He only did it cause it was profitable. But to be a scammer, that has to have been your intention".

When a dictator takes steps unilaterally to divert away from an ICO promise of fixed rate token values for buy-backs and says it was done with consensus when clearly it was not unanimous AND does not allow investors/BKB token holders to have a choice between either swapping BKB for BKT or asking for the buy-backs if refusing the swap - then something is clearly wrong.

- Scammer Dean Nolan tried to dupe RHavar out of $1 million

- Scammer Dean Nolan used unlicenced software rather than pay 2 BTC fee to the licence holder

- Scammer Dean Nolan refused to pay 20 BTC +EV to winners of the 2018 betking Christmas Wager

- Scammer Dean Nolan never released accounts nor allowed audits of betking ICO funds. We just have his word (which is fairly useless) that he used 50% of the ICO funds for "marketing, promotions, seo, design, development, server costs and legal" and that he used 50% of the ICO funds for bankroll - right  

- Scammer Dean Nolan claims he used 600 BTC from the 2017 ICO bankroll funds to purchase BKB token buy-backs but fails to declare how many BKB were purchased-back and how many of BKB were his personal ones

- Scammer Dean Nolan made it clear in the 2017 ICO promotion 70 million BKB were for crowdsale and he would keep 30 million tokens for "ICO bounties, testing bounties, advisors, hiring, future marketing and development" but he also took profit on those 30 million BKB tokens thus diluting the profits of the 70 million BKB token holders

- Scammer Dean Nolan stated as per condition of 2017 ICO that all funds would be held in cold storage but never provided any mechanism to check and verify this

- Scammer Dean Nolan stated as per condition of the 2017 ICO "A percentage of profit made from bankrolled games will be used to buy back betking bankroll tokens from holders. All profits made on bankrolled games will be audited and made available to token holders as was done in the past with the crowdfunded bankroll profits. Bankrolled games are games where a player plays against the house such as blackjack and other games as well as 3rd party partner casino games. Player vs player games such as poker are not" - where did alleged 600 BTC of bankroll funds come in to the equation. That was the ruse, the scam to sell off his own BKB tokens

- Scammer Dean Nolan wrote: "The token price was $0.09286 after the ICO. The token value is calculated as $0.09286 + ((total bankroll profit of eth, btc, ltc in $ at current exchange price) / 100,000,000) Which is now $0.0966. A profit of $0.00374 per token": https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.25690525

The value of BKB held by LoyceV should have been 7278 BKB x $0.09286 (+profits) = $675.84 minimum flat rate without any profits to take in to consideration.

If the site made no profit betking should guarantee a buy-back of BKB at $0.09286 as per scammer Dean Nolan personally guaranteeing he would cover it even if BTC dropped to $1

Thanks

Now if we could only settle the other points with a civil discussion without having to resort to attacks and assumptions made or get everything mixed in with these other trolls on the forum.
There's 3 other things you have accused me of unfairly. Open to discussing on skype or pm

I never understand how people can say such wild things and not look at themselves just for a second. I will repeat I have not been paid a cent. All of you are so concerned for investors you claim right? But do you not see the irony that your hurting investors more than anybody? All these people that care tho right? 5 threads spammed all day every day in same forum for god knows how long.

I have come to accept that when it comes to betking  - expect the unexpected.

As you rightly pointed out BillyBurns (GNIKTEB) is an admin or moderator on betking.

His staunch defence of anything betking related makes it clear he has more than just an interest in betking (that has not yet been divulged). Either he is hired or he is somebody volunteering - either way he is a representative of betking

The "you didn't lose money if you didn't sell" narrative doesn't add up, tho. Your coins are always worth their face value, and if that value is down 99%, you lost 99% of your "investment" (maybe not permanently, though).

People have lost the value of what people  think betking is worth but no I don't think they lost any money until the site is closed down. For example I invested in both Betking and Bitdice Ico, despite how bad everyone thinks betking has performed bitdice aint doing all that great either, token price 0.025 my dividend payments might have made me like 1 eth in over a year despite investment being much larger than 1eth, and I think a lot of people were able to get 40% of their investment back from betking if they did buyback ( I never did a buyback) if I sold my bitdice tokens and added in dividends I woudn't even be at 40% of my investment back.

See, this is a common problem. People gather what they consider evidence on a topic which concerns them. Mostly because people (and / or they themselves) lost money. It does happen that that people get accused falsely, but what do you think why this happens? Look at all the elaborate scams which happen here on a day to day basis. If you're in crypto for a few years, you've literally seen horses vomit.

And while it's certainly not desirable to become a victim of false proof (which I'm not saying it is... but it does happen! //edit: seems to be solved, now), people creating the scam accusations just use what they have and try to make the connections.

So, if you feel you've been accused wrongly, present your situation in a civil manner. Make your point and try to prove what's wrong and I'm pretty sure you'll have a better chance of people listening to you, compared to starting a rant.

.edit:
I don't think it's wrong to do it publicly, especially when you can accept to be wrong when proven so. Thumbs up.

.edit2: grammar.
.edit3: as this has already been sorted out, this post is kind of pointless.

Based on this, would you say: "no one has lost any money" to be a fair and honest statement?