Topic: hilariousandco, Mitchell,Vod,Ognasty Bitblisscoin.com could be a scamsite - page 20. (Read 8432 times)

Please explain what the point of ALU is, if a member's actions don't reflect upon the group?  I don't want to make any assumptions.

It is a global issue, thus we can't blame anyone individually for it.

Maybe. I've seen projects hire members solely to post the threads (i.e. not campaign managers), thus I'd say that this more likely (than some other reasons?).

I think he just stated the way that they called it (although I can't be sure).

This one is not on ALU, but solely on aTriz. People seem to make *unusual* assumptions as to how ALU works, although some of those aren't because of malevolent intent (unlike QS's).

I can't really objectively comment on the whole matter, despite my awareness of the inherent bias (welcome to evolutionary flaws). However, I have scolded the youngling for his naivety and errors in judgement (regardless whether the reader believes that they were malevolent in nature or not) as soon as I've read that post.
For the reference: I had no information about any kind of "marketing strategy" (prior to this thread/post), nor did I ever really look into that project as I haven't managed any aspect of it.

---

Update: Many edits. Slumber.

Maybe "vouch" is not be the best word, but without disclaimers disassociating a campaign manager from the ICO, it is misleading, certainly to new members who probably don't even know campaign managers exist. This may be more of a global issue with managers/ICOs though. I'm not sure why campaign managers need to post the announcement themselves? is it to bring more credibility to the ICO because of their higher rank??  As a suggestion, prepare the post and send it to the ICO owner to post it from their [newbie] account/Copper. They can then announce whoever as the campaign manager and define his/her actual role with the ICO and that they do not endorse the validity of the ICO. This would be a little more transparent.

Regardless of that, the fact that aTriz was aware of this "marketing strategy" and was ok with it, to say the least, is disappointing - and alarming.

(FTFY - I'm not sure what this image posted was supposed to be showing, it's an empty album for me)

aTriz has obviously known this ICO was fabricating numbers since the pre-ICO in order to trick investors into eventually thinking there was over 3 MILLION dollars raised when there was apparently only 1BTC ($9,000-$10,000) raised

If we want to call this a "marketing strategy", it should be identified as a "scammers marketing strategy". Is this how other managers run their campaigns?  I've been giving aTriz a very large benefit of doubt with his alia encounter and the unusual behavior and apparent naiveness displayed multiple times, but this seems inexcusable.

No campaign manager should be seeing this as a marketing strategy and letting it go unhindered, especially from a group like ALU whom centers themselves around being "Trusted. Experienced." The sole purpose of this strategy is to deceive investors into thinking an ICO has more financial support than it actually does and is a classic way for scam ICOs to bait investors. Both smart & dumb investors look at the financial support of an ICO, with good reason, and when you combine the speed at which these supposed investors were fake investing, and the seemingly fake hype in the thread about all of their investors... it's just deceitful and untrustworthy behavior, a campaign manager that sees this, accepts it as marketing, and does nothing - also not trustworthy.

Actions speak louder than words, and a handful of aTriz's recent actions are concerning to me. I can understand the reluctancy Lauda, but you must have similar disdain here. I really can't believe you would have knowledge of this type of behavior from a campaign manager and be ok with it, especially given your support for my feedback when looking into Deja who was conducting similar shady behavior and lying about invested funds.

I'm eager to hear other opinions.

That is absolute, pathetic nonsense. The people who post these threads for others are not vouching for their content, the same way that they are not vouching for the success of the project. Neither one is up to them, and never was. Anyone claiming otherwise has no idea what they're talking about/is showing a clear lack of knowledge and experience.

This is only fairly clear evidence that you are a baboon.

Here's yet another nice example of your lies. This is most certainly not the case (at least not for me), and I know that you've attempted to bribe me with at least one shill.

---

No comment on the case as I await for the bandwagon. The rational and solely objective input is welcome/being further awaited.

I want to say a couple of things about this comment.

These types of ICOs will generally only benefit the investors of said ICOs if they raise a lot of money. It doesn't necessarily need to be oversubscribed, sell out, or have any specific percentage of coins sold, however there is a reason why these companies are trying to raise the amount of money they are. If you are claiming a lot of money is being raised via an ICO when in fact (nearly) no money is being raised, you are substantially misrepresenting the risks associated with with investing because if you are the 1st investor, not only does the underlying business model need to be solid, and upon execution, profitable, but also many others need to believe in the business plan sufficiently to invest their own substantial money, otherwise the management will likely not even have the opportunity to try to execute (and be profitable), and your investment will likely be worthless.


Another cold, hard fact about most ICO investors (IMO) is that most of them lack the capability to truly understand the risks and potential benefits of investing in a particular ICO. I suspect that many ICO investors use investor interest of others of a particular offering to gauge risk/benefit of a particular ICO. I believe the thought process is that if many others are investing, then surely the ICO is a good investment. Again, misrepresenting investor interest specifically harms investors because it makes them believe said investment is less risky than it is in reality.

In both of the above examples, there is very specific consumer harm.

I would note that ibminer's above examples are not the only fraudulent statements made regarding that ICO. There are other fraudulent statement in the OP that aTriz himself posted, such as "all monetary transactions with BIBC are processed through secured servers, so users have no need to worry about any risks..."

I would point out this is not the 1st (maybe only is a better word, I'm not sure) time that aTriz has been a part of this kind of fraudlent misrepresentation. He previously vouched for alia's gambling script that was very clearly worthless, and did not work as advertised. I think this is fairly clear evidence that aTriz's word is for sale to anyone willing to pay the right price, and as such is worthless.

This is nothing but deceitful nonsense. What you call a "marketing strategy", I would call fraud.

Scammer: a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
Swindle: to obtain money or property by fraud or deceit
Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.


No, you are not forced to do anything you do not want to do here, especially when someone is being fraudulent.

No, but when I'm 2 weeks into a bounty program I'm basically forced to go along with it.

You are ok with ICOs stating false information about how much they have raised to other potential investors... and you would call this a marketing strategy?

 No.


https://imgur.com/a/pFd3v

It was a marketing strategy and they tried to say they raised so much in just a day or 2.

I doubt they raised anymore then 1 BTC.

I'm confused. 2 investors?





3,111,374 * $.85  = $2,644,667.90 invested


EDIT:
Additionally, there was apparently a pre-ICO sale for 3 days (really *hot* ICO here ), which of course sold out. 660,000 BIBC ("$510,000 raised") here ?   
Nope, no scammers here. /s

I would like to confirm I have been refunded TYVM

Ico wasn't a scam, was a fail. They spent more than 1 BTC in marketing and basically had 2 investors and barely anything invested.

I've refunded you via PM.

Looks like aTriz started the ANN thread.  Maybe start asking questions there.

its been over 2 months and i can not withdraw my btc!!!!
i don't want to hear you are working on the feature .. I want to know EXACTLY when you will be making the withdrawal feature function

I have asked repeatedly and been told over and over to hold tight, the feature is coming... that is on the few times i have gotten a reply, mostly i am totally ignored

if not a scam, why is there no withdrawal?

january 14th i opened a scam acusation againt this project because the project did not have any team behind it .Now noone can withdraw their btc.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.33782063


The last time the potential scammer was online March 03, 2018, 01:57:21 AM

Yes Laura. You are absolutely right

I think he jusrt lissted DT members.

I wouldn't use Bitconnect in an argument where you're trying to defend yourself. That shit is a true scam and many will get burned from it.

Looks like it. Newbies often confuse these things; sometimes they even include me in PMs addressed to forum staff.

---

I don't see a strong case here.

While I personally try to avoid working with such projects (in any way), that does not necessarily have to mean that it is (or will be) a scam.

I have nothing to do with this at all. Not sure why I’m being mentioned. I’m not a mod here.

Are you saying these people are involved in this scam, or are you addressing this thread to these people?