Topic: [INTEREST CHECK] Alpen Coin "Scam Coin" - page 2. (Read 2423 times)

Just a little preview

(my finger is not touching the coin but resting on the rim of the capsule)

very true - I have gone back and re-read what Frank has posted - he was originally going to use a block to decide which coin was funded (only a single coin getting funded)

he did say maybe about doing a small amount to each coin with "winner" getting the majority but then also said he liked the "rekt" version better.

and that is where I was getting that the whole point should be to peel them to see who was the winner.

Nothing in this whole endeavor should be because of something I "prefer" or "want" nor should it be about anyone else's "preferences" or "wants" except Frank's. and that is simply my opinion.

I have no hand in how this whole thing goes down except to generate the keys - which I have done. They are printed and in my safe. They will be provided to minerjones for assembly. Even if he was to record each and every key to later retrieve the addresses - he would not know which would be the winner if the coin(s) are not funded until all coins are sold. And if he decided to "steal" the funds, it could only point to him or I that would have had possession of the keys and pretty sure neither one of us would steal these funds.

So, to clarify - all of my posts are simply my opinion - if they come across as otherwise, please take note - it is only my opinion. I have zero control over how this is to be done.

edit: this very much also is reminiscence of the "lottery ticket" theme that scamkey was trying to do before he scammed and ran. No one would  know if they were a winner unless they destroyed the card - so the more that were destroyed without a winner would make the remaining ones more "valuable" and "enticing" to buy. So, I can see your point on that @kryptowerks

I like both ideas. 0.001 funding seems collector friendly and still amounts to quite a bit for the rug-pull coin. Also I'd prefer to chop the funds, one winner coin and the rest with a minimal loading amount remaining, gotta agree there with Krogoth and 2stout.


Just because that's the "whole point" for you does not mean it's the whole point for everyone.
Never read "coins must be peeled to determine a winner".

What I do care about is a coin that plays with the scam terminilogy, ideally in different ways (references in design, as well as the loading aspect). However I don't care what everyone does with their coins. Imho you can hodl for 30 years and peel then or peel right away.
Actually I think it's even more fun if everyone decides by themselves. If for example 1/3 of collectors peel and don't find they are the winner, it also becomes more enticing for the remaining to peel. Could be some interesting dynamic.

The whole point also is for everyone to peel to see who is the winner and who got rekt

   Yeah 0.001 Funding is the way to go and not totally rekt at all...so gotta agree with 2stout on that.

   Would like my coin to have bits on it so I can treat it as a loaded coin and thus it will remain so in my collectables

Ah I understand you now, thanks and sorry lol... Yeah that makes sense. I'm getting those old microsoul vibes I guess now, where one coin had like 1btc on it or something silly like that... I know it was a big thing back in the day though. Not sure anyone even won looking back?

But yeah, makes sense. what do you think, 3 winners or something instead? :thinkface: Not sure myself anymore....


This could one way of looking at it I suppose as well... I mean, this is meant to be a gamble, amirite?

Keeping half your funds as well as the 1oz silver isnt really rekt - it just sounds like people want the chance to win without taking the full risk.

I'm fine with 0.001 as per Frank- "I could imagine that the coin + the funding 0.001 btc will be max 100 usd + shipping cost."  I wouldn't mind higher but I'm onboard with Frank's recommendation as he is the coin maker.  But still, in my example using 0.001, 50% loss on investment for 39 folks and 1 lucky one with 20.5x come up.

So... What are thinking then in terms of load value, sorry I'm just confused. Are you suggesting it should be higher? I guess then yeah, the winner would def make out like a bandit for sure, and that would be a substantial reckage if it was like .01, for me at least  

Disagree as what you are referring to is totally rekt.  You can still get rekt if a significant portion of your investment is lost.  Even FTX isn't at zero and is still ranked 217 in terms of market cap.  I'm thinking a totally rekt edition would be more appropriate and applicable to a Yogg/Cold Cunt coin.

I like the .001 but with only one coin funded - its not getting rekt otherwise

+3 for 0.001 funding.  Assuming this would mean all coins would be funded with 0.0005 and the "winning" coin would be funded with an additional 0.02 for a total of 0.0205?

+2 for .001

+1 for 0.001 loading.

thanks frank!

Yeah same here. It's a minimal amount in terms of USD at the moment. I definitely want one either way!

Thanks Frank, keep on making cool stuff, and I'll keep buying it!

I think .001 btc is a nice round number for funding and a good amount

Hi everyone,

I am back from the mountains.

Glad Mopar gets the coins. I will read carefully all your posts.  I've just skimmed the thread.

The idea is that the coin is max 100 usd with funding.. It's a community project. Hope people can afford it, and are ready to lose a little bit...

I could imagine that the coin + the funding 0.001 btc will be max 100 usd + shipping cost.

We can reduce the funding to 0.0005 btc...

Let me read every post.

the way I see it - no one will ever know who got the funds and who all got rekt unless everyone peels - and I can see some people never peeling so there may never be a known "winner"

I don't there should be any type of vote - it should just be Frank deciding. my 2 sats. If there is going to be a vote, then there still doesnt need to be one because the winning vote will be to have all coins funded because the majority while wanting a coin reflecting being "rekt" will not accept the risk to be totally "rekt" They will want to have some of their funds back.

So many suggestions and ideas, seems like a vote is needed, Frank's call though.

I would agree w/ Krog!