Topic: Polo To Face Class Action Suit (Read 3189 times)

I narrowly missed getting scalped but I'm still pissed about it.  My coins are off that site.  They're throwing the same red flags as Gox and Crypsy.  And I cut my teeth on Crypsy.  Broke my heart.

How's this for strange.

I somehow have an open margin long position in XRP @ .00021461? The price never came near that, nor spiked to that price point, yet here I am with this open position I did not order, that is obviously at a huge loss because the price only ever made it around .00014.

So tell me: How exactly would an open position fulfill at a price that never even spiked to that price point? I'm sitting looking at a loss and lending fees that just keep adding up for an order I didn't make, and obviously would never make, why the hell would I buy something that's 1.5x the recent ATH? I wouldn't, but yet here I am slowly losing money over it, if I close it out Ill lose hundreds of dollars. I contacted support, but wont cross my fingers that they respond.

Polo is turning into Cryptsy.

Patterson Law Firm in FL has been put on retainer and are investigating claims against Poloniex for fraud. You can contact Alexander Passo @ [email protected] if you've been dealing with any issues. Poloniex's terms of service are not enforceable in court, regardless of how much they want you to think they are.

Got a link? Seems like there's always these class action lawsuits that get announced but no news.

To answer a few questions here, It's unclear who is filing but lawyers have been instructed to look into the possibility of suing.Supernet should not have been listed as Bittrex would not list due to the fact it's becoming more a share than a coin.
Polo counter suing as they are a ponzi, unlikely as they would become implicit in listing a Ponzi.As I said before even lawyers looking into the possibility would draw attention from FinCEN and a lawsuit might not be even needed for Polo to get into deep shit

Who is filing the lawsuit? Some of those cryptcoins have anonymous developers like Supernet and what they are doing is not really legal. The developers cannot do anything because Poloniex could get someone to file a counter lawsuit versus the developers for making and maintaining a ponzi.

Giving developers warning before they delisted would not be a good idea legally.. when you make announcements like this, you're not supposed to leak it to anyone before hand to cover your butt... though if they told the developer and the developer leaked the information they would be the one liable.. it would be like leaking earnings reports ahead of time and letting people insider trade before they come out.. which I'm guessing does happen and people don't get caught all the time... human beings are corrupt and will take advantage when they can.

to be honest when all Devs that answered said no warning and in the past I know for certain no warning was given, unlike you I would take the word of the Devs before Polo

That is hard to believe. After all the scams and the scandals in the cryptospace, do you still believe the developers word that they have not heard anything before their projects were delisted? I do not believe it. Information always gets leaked.

I looked at the charts of these coins and compared them to the charts of other noname alt coins not being delisted and I don't see any huge differences aside from the plunge which came after the announcement, not before.  A lot of altcoins had volume spikes and raises in price on April 16th, including coins not listed on Poloniex and coins that are on Poloniex but not being delisted. The announcement came at 708PM April 18th.

I'm not convinced they could make that much money trading a bunch of illiquid, low volume, low market cap altcoins compared to what they make in exchange fees from doing legit business. I can see how someone might think they did something funny unless they dig deeper.  In any case, someone had to be a willing buyer. Maybe they have bots that manipulate the price? If they do, I suggest they STOP now and play it clean for the good of the technology and cryptos in general. Raise fees if you have too.... if they raised transfer fees to and from a bank account to .5% or charged a monthly fee of 10 bucks per user or something of that sort they'd make a KILLING compared to trading these 17 almost worthless, low liquidity altcoins.

If I were them I'd have customer service/HR reps posting on this forum at all times to answer questions like this or at least cover their butts.

I'm not taking a position on this either way, I have lots of money on polo and I suspect them of shenanigans from time to time.  I don't know whether or not you follow politics but I'm pretty certain that regulators in general, and financial regulators in particular are going to be taking the next four years off.

I know fincen and the boogieman of "terrorist" will still be an issue, but nobody is accusing polo of helping terrorists launder money, so I just don't see any serious pressure on them to follow any legal requirements these days.

Having "insider information" does not mean that there is no ambiguity to the information. People privy to the information could have been informed of "The List" of possible delist coins, but when the "tish" hit the fan, only 17 of them ended up being delisted. This seems to explain the frantic activity with some of the other coins. In other words, to me, it does not look well for Poloniex.

The shit will hit the fan shortly and it will really hit it hard

Yes, well, if you had insider information, you would have to be very naive "not" to try to hide the illegitimate pumping and dumping with apparently legitimate pump.

Pump literally costs next to nothing, especially if you actually accomplish your goal.

But as I said the exchange has to follow FinCEN rules so all transactions are recorded 

no one is talking about pumps were talking about massive sell-offs before the announcement on all 17 coins but yes there were suspicious pumps

The OP and supporters of this thread do appear to be correct.

Again. you're cherry picking data. There is no correlation between the pumps and delist unless you conveniently ignore: APM, DGB, EMC2, FTC, GAME, PINK, POT, XEM... and others. Look at the charts. There is no correlation between the pump and the delist when you factor in ALL markets.

Does nobody read before they answer and I have quotes from other DEVs who say the same that they were not informed beforehand, again that would be insider trading if they had

Maybe the developers of the future delisted cryptocoins are informed a few days before they are announced to be delisted. It would be unfair not to. But of course most of those developers are really scammers. Sometimes you question why they were listed if they had no future.

We are a US-based cryptocurrency exchange offering maximum security and advanced trading features.So if there US-based they must comply with  FinCen’s requirements so they have to record all transactions that take place on the exchange.If a class action starts FINCEN will become involved