Topic: [SCAM SCAM]MONEYPOT[SCAM SCAM] officially announced not to buy RBIES as promised - page 2. (Read 10734 times)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.  

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.

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.

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?

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..

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.  

I'd encourage you to try. I have not as of yet seen coherent explanation that would justify your actions.


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.


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  


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.


A nice platitude, but obviously bullshit. If you truly believed it you would be buying it  and honoring the price floor you promised.

I did not give the PMs to anyone because no one wanted to be judge  over DogeDigital. what is your interest to see those?

Second, giving an account to someone so that he can work towards paying debt off on Christmas does not equal distrust.  I didn't work with him afterwards, even though I believe if I had, that the money would go towards paying back his debt to others as well.  I can find examples of people that have posted in this thread that are well trusted that have done the same.  

I had a really long write-up prepared, but deleted it.  This stuff has stressed me out quite enough already.

Going to share my quick thoughts and probably leave it be after this:

First, I am more than confident that I could explain the story to a neutral third party and have them see my side.  I am not claiming that it was the perfect way, but that it was one of the best ways to handle it given the circumstances.  I'm not looking to 'win' an argument for the sake of my ego; I'd rather put my effort into working and making the things I say come true rather than be distracted.

Second, giving an account to someone so that he can work towards paying debt off on Christmas does not equal distrust.  I didn't work with him afterwards, even though I believe if I had, that the money would go towards paying back his debt to others as well.  I can find examples of people that have posted in this thread that are well trusted that have done the same.  

Third, I'm not a fan of people actively trying to break privacy to pursue a witch hunt.  I feel the line has already been breached and don't know where it will end if things like this is continually encouraged and sought out.

I'd also like to throw some notes out:

- 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.
- I am NOTHING like Josh Garza.  Josh actively tried to scam and profited from people with malicious intent.  People should have something against him and it's alarming that one does not.
- We actively told people not to buy based on our actions and highly discouraged any form of trading based on our interactions in private conversations.  
- 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).


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 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.  

To end this, I am not perfect, but I can wholeheartedly say that I am doing everything I can to do right by the people.  I know these are just words until my actions fill them, so I'll be working hard on that.  I hope we will have an update for everyone soon.

Take care.

Has anyone taken you up on this offer to see these conversations, or have you posted them somewhere I have not seen yet?  If not, I'd like to see them.

I wish it was someone else shouting about this, but a promise is a promise, and a promise of this nature is not one that any organization should have ever taken lightly... unless it was a promise they never really intended to keep?   Based on DogeDigital's prior history of being caught working with scammers, it isn't surprising to me at all that an organization he is a part of would break such a promise. It would not be surprising or at all far-fetched to me that they did it intentionally with the sole purpose of financial gain or as a way to offer some level of support for their scammy buddies.

IMO, anyone that hands over alt accounts to known scammers, gets called out for it, and still offers the potential to do business "soon" with that scammer, is not someone that anyone should expect to be keeping any long term promises, and I'd personally stay away from any organization they are a part of.

I will give the mail conversation we had regarding RBIES to any trusted member

I will give PMs ( Dogedigital bombarded me with PMs ) to any trusted member to go through and get a view of his BS
even I told him he should not PM me cause all PMs are official because I will publish those if needed

a very interesting PM was where he was whining like a child ( very strange )

This quite possibly the lamest excuse for scamming people I've ever heard. "The system was being attacked".    No, you promised a price floor and people were taking you up on it because it was trading below the price. That's not an attack, that's literally what you promised to do.  Honestly, you should've just gone with a classic like "Sorry, I needed to use the money to pay for my mothers chemotherapy".



Here's my challenge to you: find a single impartial person of some standing in the community to opine what you did was ethical or justifiable or non-scammy. I'll wait.


Look, I have nothing personally against you. The place is full of scammers. You really did the same shit as Josh Garza's paycoin and it's "$20 guaranteed price floor", and I have nothing against him either. You just shouldn't act so indignant when called out.

There was a "no one gets scammed" scenario, which was you keeping your promise.

I really hope all this is just for show, as it's genuinely scary if you truly believe you did nothing wrong.

The problem is you ruin every discussion with your constant odd attacks.  Every time anyone says anything you jump in with horrible writing saying the same thing over and over and it ruins any discourse.  While your original premise is good, you execute it in a very ignorant way and do a lot of damage to your side of the argument.

Regarding the red trust, I don't think it does much good to rep red as a non-DT member except for situations where people are actually buying/selling goods.  Additionally, while I did personally lose money due to the broken promise regarding the Rubies floor, I still honestly don't know exactly who is to blame.  I'm hoping that the question asked by Dooglus in the other thread regarding who actually was the one to make/break the promise that lost people so much money.  I will quote what I said to DD:


Which I think holds more power than a non-DT red rep.