MP is now owned by the group MonsterByte, aka bitcoinrush: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228243.1940
There you can find their thread with dev frolicking around, self loathing at his works.
Maybe someone should address the 100 BTC fraud the company they just purchased is currently going through.
Topic: [SCAM SCAM]MONEYPOT[SCAM SCAM] officially announced not to buy RBIES as promised - page 2. (Read 10665 times)
February 05, 2018, 07:57:36 AM
February 04, 2018, 04:02:54 PM
The following post of mine got deleted within 30 minutes from the main MP thread. I was told via PMs that it was because of "speculation"...even though all I did was restate clearly the discussion that MP themselves were having with someone who is apparently suing them.
Quote
So just to be clear: MP owes Maiden 100BTC (nearly a million dollars) and has not paid him/her? This is money that wasn't lost, but was held in the bankroll?
If this is true, than the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that MP is, in fact, insolvent. You held money that you can not return. This isn't debt, this is bankroll funds. If you've owed this money for a long time and have put off payment it looks really, really bad.
If this is true, than the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that MP is, in fact, insolvent. You held money that you can not return. This isn't debt, this is bankroll funds. If you've owed this money for a long time and have put off payment it looks really, really bad.
also RHavar's and mine were deleted. just look here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.29607926
February 04, 2018, 03:45:16 PM
The following post of mine got deleted within 30 minutes from the main MP thread. I was told via PMs that it was because of "speculation"...even though all I did was restate clearly the discussion that MP themselves were having with someone who is apparently suing them.
Quote
So just to be clear: MP owes Maiden 100BTC (nearly a million dollars) and has not paid him/her? This is money that wasn't lost, but was held in the bankroll?
If this is true, than the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that MP is, in fact, insolvent. You held money that you can not return. This isn't debt, this is bankroll funds. If you've owed this money for a long time and have put off payment it looks really, really bad.
If this is true, than the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that MP is, in fact, insolvent. You held money that you can not return. This isn't debt, this is bankroll funds. If you've owed this money for a long time and have put off payment it looks really, really bad.
January 16, 2018, 12:39:44 PM
We took Rubies on to support the network and give it grounding so that all rubies holders (us included) could benefit from it slowly and over the long term where the coin holds real value.
It sounds as if you still don't understand why that can't work.
When you offer a "floor price" below the current market price, nobody takes you up on the offer, and so there's no point having the floor.
When you offer a "floor price" above the current market price, everyone takes you up on the offer, and you go bust.
People pointed your mistake out to you at the time. I know I did. You ignored me. So don't claim now that you didn't know what you were doing.
January 16, 2018, 12:19:19 AM
I understand your point. I agree with it, but I think you're failing to see mine.
Honestly, I don't. You promised a price floor for rubies, and then broke your promise; tacitly scamming some pretty serious money...
Quote
It was more attractive to bet bitcoin with the rubies bet-mining, but at the same time, people were betting Rubies instead rather than Bitcoin. The Rubies betting volume that could have been Bitcoin betting was enormous. It was doing multiples of the bitcoin wagering daily for quite a while.
In other words, you directly profited from the effects of the price floor. The fact that people were also using rubies for gambling in a way that you didn't make any money is pretty irrelevant.
Quote
Just because something bad happens, doesn't mean you just give up on it. You have to adjust and work towards making it great. I understand that's what led us here, but the thought was that it was the better choice than just simply letting rubies, Betterbets, and us by indirect association taking on major damage that threatens its standing. It all happened quite early into the takeover with a big team and no clear order. We took what was dealt to us and tried to do the best with it as we could.
lol? You did pull the rug on everyone. It's easy to talk and come up with excuses (see: Josh Garza) for why you aren't doing what you promised. If you had an iota of integrity you would've held the price floor. And you have already irrevocably damaged Rubies, your and MoneyPot's reputation.... You act like scamming people protected it, or something???
A custodial bitcoin site is only as good as the value of it's promise, and you've established yours as having 0 value. I guarantee it'll be the death of MoneyPot. I hope your little scam was worth it.
Anyway, this will be my last post as I've spoken my mind and don't have anything new to add.
P.S. How's the search for a neutral third party who is willing to say what you did isn't scammy going? lol
You keep using the word scam and taking money like I or Moneypot ended up with it. We didn't. If I wanted to scam people, Moneypot still wouldn't exist, you wouldn't know who I am, and I still wouldn't be working hard day in an out.
I really haven't searched for one because I don't want to distract myself further with your childish games. I used to have a lot of respect for you, but I can't even tell if it's you or JPR who's responding to me now.
You of all people shouldn't be making all these outlandish claims. I believe you contributed more than anyone in how this has all played out. I have plenty more to say, but the day will come.
Take care.
please explain how and why RHavar is worse than you?
you can easy tell if it is me or RHavar but finally also other users get the point that DD is a Scammer
January 15, 2018, 10:15:25 PM
Probably misusing the word ironic, but... I find your reply to be ironic.
Anyways, we're both looking to end our points. We'll cross the bridge when we get there.
Take care.
Anyways, we're both looking to end our points. We'll cross the bridge when we get there.
Take care.
I think I'm missing something, as this makes no sense.
So let me get this straight: you scam people with rubies and then drop a vague accusation that I am to blame? And this is with the awareness that I have never owned, bought, sold, held, traded, advertised, discouraged or otherwise had anything to do with it?
If you're going to accuse me of any wrong-doing, I think you very much should at least articulate what I did wrong.
January 15, 2018, 10:00:28 PM
I wasn't going to respond, but I can't leave this hanging:
Pray tell us, how am I remotely responsible? I'm really trying to see it, but I can't come up with anything. Don't hold back
You of all people shouldn't be making all these outlandish claims. I believe you contributed more than anyone in how this has all played out. I have plenty more to say, but the day will come.
Pray tell us, how am I remotely responsible? I'm really trying to see it, but I can't come up with anything. Don't hold back
January 15, 2018, 07:28:09 PM
I understand your point. I agree with it, but I think you're failing to see mine.
Honestly, I don't. You promised a price floor for rubies, and then broke your promise; tacitly scamming some pretty serious money...
Quote
It was more attractive to bet bitcoin with the rubies bet-mining, but at the same time, people were betting Rubies instead rather than Bitcoin. The Rubies betting volume that could have been Bitcoin betting was enormous. It was doing multiples of the bitcoin wagering daily for quite a while.
In other words, you directly profited from the effects of the price floor. The fact that people were also using rubies for gambling in a way that you didn't make any money is pretty irrelevant.
Quote
Just because something bad happens, doesn't mean you just give up on it. You have to adjust and work towards making it great. I understand that's what led us here, but the thought was that it was the better choice than just simply letting rubies, Betterbets, and us by indirect association taking on major damage that threatens its standing. It all happened quite early into the takeover with a big team and no clear order. We took what was dealt to us and tried to do the best with it as we could.
lol? You did pull the rug on everyone. It's easy to talk and come up with excuses (see: Josh Garza) for why you aren't doing what you promised. If you had an iota of integrity you would've held the price floor. And you have already irrevocably damaged Rubies, your and MoneyPot's reputation.... You act like scamming people protected it, or something???
A custodial bitcoin site is only as good as the value of it's promise, and you've established yours as having 0 value. I guarantee it'll be the death of MoneyPot. I hope your little scam was worth it.
Anyway, this will be my last post as I've spoken my mind and don't have anything new to add.
P.S. How's the search for a neutral third party who is willing to say what you did isn't scammy going? lol
January 15, 2018, 06:56:12 PM
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something or missing some details, but here's the narrative that I'm hearing:
You buy a successful gambling site
The site starts losing money
You, for some unknown reason, decide to promise to reimburse the investors for some part of the loss
You, for some unknown reason, allow a site that's dependant on your bankroll to develop an altcoin
You, for some unknown reason, allow that site to take altcoin bets that you don't profit from
You, for some unknown reason, decide to support the altcoin that you have no stake in by promising a buy floor of 1k sat
You, for some unknown reason, destroy all of the coins that you buy from users
You purchase a % of a site that is on your network to prevent them from selling to an outside investor (which...why would you care who owns the site?)
You, for some unknown reason, decide to only have equity in the bitcoin aspect of the site (which you already have equity in by the fact that you own the bankroll that they use) and not the altcoin aspect of the site
You decide to pull your support buy floor for the altcoin
It just seems like a lot of pretty poor decisions. I'm sure there's a lot going on that I'm unaware of, but you should understand that the above is the public perception of events.
You buy a successful gambling site
The site starts losing money
You, for some unknown reason, decide to promise to reimburse the investors for some part of the loss
You, for some unknown reason, allow a site that's dependant on your bankroll to develop an altcoin
You, for some unknown reason, allow that site to take altcoin bets that you don't profit from
You, for some unknown reason, decide to support the altcoin that you have no stake in by promising a buy floor of 1k sat
You, for some unknown reason, destroy all of the coins that you buy from users
You purchase a % of a site that is on your network to prevent them from selling to an outside investor (which...why would you care who owns the site?)
You, for some unknown reason, decide to only have equity in the bitcoin aspect of the site (which you already have equity in by the fact that you own the bankroll that they use) and not the altcoin aspect of the site
You decide to pull your support buy floor for the altcoin
It just seems like a lot of pretty poor decisions. I'm sure there's a lot going on that I'm unaware of, but you should understand that the above is the public perception of events.
You can only really prevent someone from not taking altcoins by forcing them out. BetterBets was by far the most active casino and was the biggest reason for acquiring Moneypot, I imagine (I wasn't a part of the original deal). It would be foolish to kick them out at the time. This is why it was quite upsetting learning of Rubies and the program in the first place.
The Rubies coins were not destroyed. Only coins that were destroyed are ones that were converted into R2B2.
I admit some decisions made were mistakes. Some of them were forced out of consequence. But none of them were scams or intended to hurt anyone. That's why I've been quite emotional in some of these posts.
They were all meant to help Moneypot and all its users for the long term in some way.
Before joining the Moneypot team, I saw a grand vision of what Moneypot could become. It's why I had sacrificed quite a bit of time, energy, stress, and finances to try and get it there.
The ICO partnership would have gone a long way to help make those dreams came true until we were under fire and threats. Now, being powered by MonsterByte, Moneypot has another great chance at getting us there. It won't be immediate, but I believe it will definitely get there. And once it does, people will see why things were done the way it was.
You're right, I misremembered which coins were destroyed. Sorry.
You're kind of proving the point that I was making. You make a lot of decisions that you think are good/helpful that turn out to be the opposite. You let a major asset walk all over you (BB needs MP way more than MP needs BB) multiple times. You didn't set out to scam people, but people lost money on decisions you made.
Whoever has been making decisions for MP after Ryan sold it has made a lot of bad decisions. They've hurt people. Maybe those people shouldn't be making decisions for MP anymore?
January 15, 2018, 06:33:07 PM
Moneypot never profited off of Rubies betting. Moneypot never owned any of the Rubies income and had no part in its house bankroll at any time.
You're intentionally missing the point. Rubies were given as a reward for bitcoin betting. You were making money through bitcoin betting (in apparently multiple ways). The higher the value of rubies, the more attractive the bitcoin betting was.
Hence you directly stood to benefit from the value of rubies being higher.
Quote
We disliked Rubies betting altogether because they'd be betting on Moneypot where Moneypot receives no commission and no part of the betting action.
Quote
This is why it was quite upsetting learning of Rubies and the program in the first place.
Rubies were so upsetting to you, that you announced that rubies not only would it be the first altcoin backed by MoneyPot but that MoneyPot would be establishing a price floor on it (and by your own admission, driving the price up).
January 15, 2018, 05:45:35 PM
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something or missing some details, but here's the narrative that I'm hearing:
You buy a successful gambling site
The site starts losing money
You, for some unknown reason, decide to promise to reimburse the investors for some part of the loss
You, for some unknown reason, allow a site that's dependant on your bankroll to develop an altcoin
You, for some unknown reason, allow that site to take altcoin bets that you don't profit from
You, for some unknown reason, decide to support the altcoin that you have no stake in by promising a buy floor of 1k sat
You, for some unknown reason, destroy all of the coins that you buy from users
You purchase a % of a site that is on your network to prevent them from selling to an outside investor (which...why would you care who owns the site?)
You, for some unknown reason, decide to only have equity in the bitcoin aspect of the site (which you already have equity in by the fact that you own the bankroll that they use) and not the altcoin aspect of the site
You decide to pull your support buy floor for the altcoin
It just seems like a lot of pretty poor decisions. I'm sure there's a lot going on that I'm unaware of, but you should understand that the above is the public perception of events.
You buy a successful gambling site
The site starts losing money
You, for some unknown reason, decide to promise to reimburse the investors for some part of the loss
You, for some unknown reason, allow a site that's dependant on your bankroll to develop an altcoin
You, for some unknown reason, allow that site to take altcoin bets that you don't profit from
You, for some unknown reason, decide to support the altcoin that you have no stake in by promising a buy floor of 1k sat
You, for some unknown reason, destroy all of the coins that you buy from users
You purchase a % of a site that is on your network to prevent them from selling to an outside investor (which...why would you care who owns the site?)
You, for some unknown reason, decide to only have equity in the bitcoin aspect of the site (which you already have equity in by the fact that you own the bankroll that they use) and not the altcoin aspect of the site
You decide to pull your support buy floor for the altcoin
It just seems like a lot of pretty poor decisions. I'm sure there's a lot going on that I'm unaware of, but you should understand that the above is the public perception of events.
January 15, 2018, 05:15:53 PM
I'm not knowledgeable about the inner workings of Moneypot and BetterBets so I can't speak to that relationship, but regarding this:
Before Rubies, BB had a tiered betback system (I think it was weekly, it may have been monthly). As soon as Rubies were released, they nixed the betback system and replaced it with "bet mining". The goal was pretty obvious...Rubies were going to be the new betback system and the goal of getting a % of your bet back is, of course, to increase betting.
Also, if MP owned any % of BB at any point where there was Rubies betting on BB, MP did in fact profit off of an inflated Rubies price. Because MP would be profiting Rubies (off of Rubies betting). Again, I have no idea what the timeline was of when ownership was sold, so this may be a moot point.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
Before Rubies, BB had a tiered betback system (I think it was weekly, it may have been monthly). As soon as Rubies were released, they nixed the betback system and replaced it with "bet mining". The goal was pretty obvious...Rubies were going to be the new betback system and the goal of getting a % of your bet back is, of course, to increase betting.
Also, if MP owned any % of BB at any point where there was Rubies betting on BB, MP did in fact profit off of an inflated Rubies price. Because MP would be profiting Rubies (off of Rubies betting). Again, I have no idea what the timeline was of when ownership was sold, so this may be a moot point.
Moneypot never profited off of Rubies betting. Moneypot never owned any of the Rubies income and had no part in its house bankroll at any time.
We disliked Rubies betting altogether because they'd be betting on Moneypot where Moneypot receives no commission and no part of the betting action.
Just so I can understand things...you are saying that MP bought a % of BB but that % you bought was only for the bitcoin action on the site and not the rubies action on the site?
January 15, 2018, 05:11:48 PM
I'm not knowledgeable about the inner workings of Moneypot and BetterBets so I can't speak to that relationship, but regarding this:
Before Rubies, BB had a tiered betback system (I think it was weekly, it may have been monthly). As soon as Rubies were released, they nixed the betback system and replaced it with "bet mining". The goal was pretty obvious...Rubies were going to be the new betback system and the goal of getting a % of your bet back is, of course, to increase betting.
Also, if MP owned any % of BB at any point where there was Rubies betting on BB, MP did in fact profit off of an inflated Rubies price. Because MP would be profiting Rubies (off of Rubies betting). Again, I have no idea what the timeline was of when ownership was sold, so this may be a moot point.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
Before Rubies, BB had a tiered betback system (I think it was weekly, it may have been monthly). As soon as Rubies were released, they nixed the betback system and replaced it with "bet mining". The goal was pretty obvious...Rubies were going to be the new betback system and the goal of getting a % of your bet back is, of course, to increase betting.
Also, if MP owned any % of BB at any point where there was Rubies betting on BB, MP did in fact profit off of an inflated Rubies price. Because MP would be profiting Rubies (off of Rubies betting). Again, I have no idea what the timeline was of when ownership was sold, so this may be a moot point.
January 15, 2018, 04:14:11 PM
b) Moneypot did not own any of BetterBets when Rubies was introduced. We were actually surprised that it happened even though it was revealed to be in the works for some time. We weren't happy about it.
What about at the time you promised the price floor? What about later? What was the highest stake in BetterBets you owned? And likewise how much did BetterBets make from selling premined rubies?
Quote
c) Moneypot made commission on Bitcoin bets placed on BetterBets. It made 0 commission from Rubies bets. Many BetterBets players bet Rubies instead of Bitcoin, which adds to my #1 point from earlier.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
BetterBets gave out rubies when people bet bitcoin, called "bet mining". MoneyPot made a commission when people bet bitcoin. The price of rubies being higher made the benefits for betting on BetterBets better, thus attracted more action and commissions for MoneyPot..
Perhaps, we are just crossing our wires.
While, there were some spots where it created income for Moneypot, overall it provided a very negative outcome for Moneypot. Again, I wish it was never created in the first place and that sites weren't able to use side currencies.
We weren't very happy about the number one site in Moneypot at the time providing a different route of betting outside of Moneypot. There were some short term benefits, but it was heavily over weighed by long term damages.
It got to the point where we felt it necessary to try and help the Rubies community, which was where the idea of the floor came in. Yes, it was my idea and I lacked some foresight on some particular issues involved with it. But it was a move that I wish we didn't do or need to do in the first place and it was designed to help out Rubies holders and prevent backlash towards Moneypot, even though it wasn't our coin.
when did you own Betterbets? how much of it?
you dont answer the questions as always
I answer as much as I can. I'd be much more willing to answer all questions if you didn't try to find selective spots to attack in them and likewise actually answered questions that I had for you.
Moneypot does own a % of BetterBets currently. I am not able to disclose full details about it, but I will say we never wanted to own a %. We didn't want BetterBets to sell any part of their site. The MP team that bought from Ryan were told that it was very unlikely that BetterBets was going to sell. I highly doubt (I'm not certain because I wasn't a part of it) that the MP team would have bought it if it knew that BetterBets was going to sell any part of their site or create side coins to bet with.
MP owns % BetterBets and this tells us that MP profited from RBIES
your behavior told me long ago that you own BB. I am sure it was a business decision but again you guys missed to be transparent
January 15, 2018, 04:03:49 PM
b) Moneypot did not own any of BetterBets when Rubies was introduced. We were actually surprised that it happened even though it was revealed to be in the works for some time. We weren't happy about it.
What about at the time you promised the price floor? What about later? What was the highest stake in BetterBets you owned? And likewise how much did BetterBets make from selling premined rubies?
Quote
c) Moneypot made commission on Bitcoin bets placed on BetterBets. It made 0 commission from Rubies bets. Many BetterBets players bet Rubies instead of Bitcoin, which adds to my #1 point from earlier.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
BetterBets gave out rubies when people bet bitcoin, called "bet mining". MoneyPot made a commission when people bet bitcoin. The price of rubies being higher made the benefits for betting on BetterBets better, thus attracted more action and commissions for MoneyPot..
Perhaps, we are just crossing our wires.
While, there were some spots where it created income for Moneypot, overall it provided a very negative outcome for Moneypot. Again, I wish it was never created in the first place and that sites weren't able to use side currencies.
We weren't very happy about the number one site in Moneypot at the time providing a different route of betting outside of Moneypot. There were some short term benefits, but it was heavily over weighed by long term damages.
It got to the point where we felt it necessary to try and help the Rubies community, which was where the idea of the floor came in. Yes, it was my idea and I lacked some foresight on some particular issues involved with it. But it was a move that I wish we didn't do or need to do in the first place and it was designed to help out Rubies holders and prevent backlash towards Moneypot, even though it wasn't our coin.
when did you own Betterbets? how much of it?
you dont answer the questions as always
January 15, 2018, 03:54:49 PM
b) Moneypot did not own any of BetterBets when Rubies was introduced. We were actually surprised that it happened even though it was revealed to be in the works for some time. We weren't happy about it.
What about at the time you promised the price floor? What about later? What was the highest stake in BetterBets you owned? And likewise how much did BetterBets make from selling premined rubies?
Quote
c) Moneypot made commission on Bitcoin bets placed on BetterBets. It made 0 commission from Rubies bets. Many BetterBets players bet Rubies instead of Bitcoin, which adds to my #1 point from earlier.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
BetterBets gave out rubies when people bet bitcoin, called "bet mining". MoneyPot made a commission when people bet bitcoin. The price of rubies being higher made the benefits for betting on BetterBets better, thus attracted more action and commissions for MoneyPot..
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
BetterBets gave out rubies when people bet bitcoin, called "bet mining". MoneyPot made a commission when people bet bitcoin. The price of rubies being higher made the benefits for betting on BetterBets better, thus attracted more action and commissions for MoneyPot..
does make a lot of sense
January 15, 2018, 03:48:27 PM
b) Moneypot did not own any of BetterBets when Rubies was introduced. We were actually surprised that it happened even though it was revealed to be in the works for some time. We weren't happy about it.
What about at the time you promised the price floor? What about later? What was the highest stake in BetterBets you owned? And likewise how much did BetterBets make from selling premined rubies?
Quote
c) Moneypot made commission on Bitcoin bets placed on BetterBets. It made 0 commission from Rubies bets. Many BetterBets players bet Rubies instead of Bitcoin, which adds to my #1 point from earlier.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
BetterBets gave out rubies when people bet bitcoin, called "bet mining". MoneyPot made a commission when people bet bitcoin. The price of rubies being higher made the benefits for betting on BetterBets better, thus attracted more action and commissions for MoneyPot..
January 15, 2018, 03:45:53 PM
1 - Moneypot did not profit from Rubies.
Would you be so kind as to answer the questions I asked? Namely:
a) What % of "pre-mined" rubies did betterbets start with
b) What % of "betterbets" does or did MP own at any time
c) Did MoneyPot make a commission on bets placed on BetterBets
d) Did BetterBets give out rubies for people betting in a way that would generate MoneyPot revenue?
a) I do not know the accurate details of this. Rubies were given to investors of the stakeholder program, sites that adopted rubies (not us), and some were used for the bankroll.
b) Moneypot did not own any of BetterBets when Rubies was introduced. We were actually surprised that it happened even though it was revealed to be in the works for some time. We weren't happy about it.
c) Moneypot made commission on Bitcoin bets placed on BetterBets. It made 0 commission from Rubies bets. Many BetterBets players bet Rubies instead of Bitcoin, which adds to my #1 point from earlier.
d) I believe BetterBets gave out Rubies to profit as a coin and sell stakes in their site. It wasn't designed to increase Bitcoin betting on Moneypot.
question for b) when did MP own any of Betterbets ?
January 15, 2018, 03:34:15 PM
1 - Moneypot did not profit from Rubies.
Would you be so kind as to answer the questions I asked? Namely:
a) What % of "pre-mined" rubies did betterbets start with
b) What % of "betterbets" does or did MP own at any time
c) Did MoneyPot make a commission on bets placed on BetterBets
d) Did BetterBets give out rubies for people betting in a way that would generate MoneyPot revenue?
January 15, 2018, 03:17:52 PM
First, I am more than confident that I could explain the story to a neutral third party and have them see my side.
I'd encourage you to try. I have not as of yet seen coherent explanation that would justify your actions.
Quote
- Moneypot and/or I did not profit from Rubies. Moneypot and/or I did not create Rubies. Moneypot and/or I did not have any pre-mined or originally distributed coins.
This isn't remotely true. Rubies were originally created by "betterbets". Try answer these questions:
a) What % of "pre-mined" rubies did betterbets start with
b) What % of "betterbets" does or did MP own at any time
c) Did MoneyPot make a commission on bets placed on BetterBets
d) Did BetterBets give out rubies for people betting in a way that would generate MoneyPot revenue?
If you answer these questions honestly, it is pretty obvious that you/MoneyPot directly profited by the price of rubies being higher.
Quote
- The promise was kept for about a year and we aim to bring it back if possible (most likely with a few modifications to prevent abuse/exploits).
Again, this is an extremely dishonest mischaracterization. The scheme wasn't abused, it was simply used. You promised a price floor, the price traded below the price floor and people sold it to you. That's not abuse, it's quite literally what the price floor buy back promise was established for.
Also I don't think you get much credit for honoring the promise when the price was trading above the price floor
Quote
I do believe that overall for the sake of the community and the coin, that it was the proper move to make and one that made the most sense.
I do understand that some people lost out because of it if they decided to sell already.
I do understand that some people lost out because of it if they decided to sell already.
Dude. There's no future to the coin, it's literally a scam coin. You might have been able to fool people once, but it's now got such a tainted history that no one sane will touch it, and you know it.
Quote
I also believe that many more people benefited from our involvement than did not and that those who did not will still be able to if they haven't exited already.
A nice platitude, but obviously bullshit. If you truly believed it you would be buying it and honoring the price floor you promised.
Quoted just in case ....................
yea those Betterbets and RBIES questions are really spot on and I am very eager to see the answers. but sadly DD cant say the truth he is just not able to be transparent and honest
Jump to: