Topic: Suggestion: Open "Ponzi" category (Read 1497 times)
Just make a "scam announcements" subsection and be done with.
I think not only ponzi, we should put every dangerous investment at their own category
So, we just see a real gambling sub-forum
It's even better if only member or higher can access that category & only full member / better can make a thread
I bet this can decrease ponzi for a bit
So, we just see a real gambling sub-forum
It's even better if only member or higher can access that category & only full member / better can make a thread
I bet this can decrease ponzi for a bit
I agree with tmfp that there are some fine areas of distinction. Sort of like we had that spate of "gem" games where people kept buying nothing waiting for someone to buy it at a higher price.
However, ponzi's are scams and I don't think the forum should do anything to encourage them by giving them their own section.
However, ponzi's are scams and I don't think the forum should do anything to encourage them by giving them their own section.
Yeah, but there's two different things going on under the 'Ponzi' label atm.
There's the ones which are clearly stating they are a game based on the ponzi concept, i.e. the punter will be paid from new money coming in, there is no underlying business, and when new "investment" stops, that's it for you, winning or losing and the site owner makes a % fee.
That's a form of gambling, but with unknown, time related risk, and these schemes already (should) go in the Gambling section.
Then there's the ones which will swear black is white that they are cloud mining, arbitraging or whatever and they have discovered a way of doing it that enables them to return impossible ROI. These people will obviously not voluntarily put their schemes in a "Ponzi" category or the Gambling Section, because they deny that they are operating one.
It would be unrealistic to want or expect BCT to somehow vet, for example, a new cloud mining service and force it to go into a new Ponzi category or the Gambling section unless it met certain critireria.
In both cases people can lose their money, but only in the latter type are they being scammed, so really the separate Category would be a bit irrelevant.
There's the ones which are clearly stating they are a game based on the ponzi concept, i.e. the punter will be paid from new money coming in, there is no underlying business, and when new "investment" stops, that's it for you, winning or losing and the site owner makes a % fee.
That's a form of gambling, but with unknown, time related risk, and these schemes already (should) go in the Gambling section.
Then there's the ones which will swear black is white that they are cloud mining, arbitraging or whatever and they have discovered a way of doing it that enables them to return impossible ROI. These people will obviously not voluntarily put their schemes in a "Ponzi" category or the Gambling Section, because they deny that they are operating one.
It would be unrealistic to want or expect BCT to somehow vet, for example, a new cloud mining service and force it to go into a new Ponzi category or the Gambling section unless it met certain critireria.
In both cases people can lose their money, but only in the latter type are they being scammed, so really the separate Category would be a bit irrelevant.
Grumlin[1] just did a full refund due to the negative rep. I dont think its useless and I think more people should leave a bad rating for those running the ponzi. At the very least this will burn the newbie accounts and they will have to create new ones.
It is? Then why aren't people arrested for their participation in the traditional banking system?
I remember to have read that, yes. I might have imagined as I cant seem to find that passage anymore and I was certain I read it on sec.gov
[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10129483
Weekly fun fact: knowingly joining a ponzi is illegal in most countries.
It is? Then why aren't people arrested for their participation in the traditional banking system?
I remember to have read that, yes. I might have imagined as I cant seem to find that passage anymore and I was certain I read it on sec.gov
[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10129483
I think these ponzi threads are getting really out of control. I'm fine if there is only 2 or 3 of them out there, but there's like 10 new ponzi today only.
call me dumb or over-imaginative or whatever, but I think this might invite some countries to block internet access to this site. not to mention that leaving these ponzi untouched is going to leave some bad reputation for bitcointalk.
call me dumb or over-imaginative or whatever, but I think this might invite some countries to block internet access to this site. not to mention that leaving these ponzi untouched is going to leave some bad reputation for bitcointalk.
All the ponzi operators and people "investing" in them should be marked red
the ponzi operators all have negative trust as far as I can tell. I was giving negative trust to some of the participants, however I was getting PMs from them saying they were just reporting their experience, and knew the risks of "investing" in a ponzi, which is hard to argue that this is indictive of them scamming.
Agreed. I had the same thought.
How else can we help the situation? Let enough people get scammed until there are no more suckers?
For the most part they seemed to agree with me.
Seems effective if everyone would listen to that BEFORE investing. Guess all we can do is educate about what kind of "investment" ponzis really are.
All the ponzi operators and people "investing" in them should be marked red
the ponzi operators all have negative trust as far as I can tell. I was giving negative trust to some of the participants, however I was getting PMs from them saying they were just reporting their experience, and knew the risks of "investing" in a ponzi, which is hard to argue that this is indictive of them scamming.
Agreed. I had the same thought.
How else can we help the situation? Let enough people get scammed until there are no more suckers?
For the most part they seemed to agree with me.
All the ponzi operators and people "investing" in them should be marked red
the ponzi operators all have negative trust as far as I can tell. I was giving negative trust to some of the participants, however I was getting PMs from them saying they were just reporting their experience, and knew the risks of "investing" in a ponzi, which is hard to argue that this is indictive of them scamming.
Agreed. I had the same thought.
How else can we help the situation? Let enough people get scammed until there are no more suckers?
All the ponzi operators and people "investing" in them should be marked red
the ponzi operators all have negative trust as far as I can tell. I was giving negative trust to some of the participants, however I was getting PMs from them saying they were just reporting their experience, and knew the risks of "investing" in a ponzi, which is hard to argue that this is indictive of them scamming.
All the ponzi operators and people "investing" in them should be marked red
Doesn't sound like a good idea. Ponzis are famous amongst people new to it. Once they realize people lose as well , next time they wont try it.
Its just a short lived craze.
Its just a short lived craze.
We don't need ponzi board. Just wait for this crazy hype to end.
I agree with this bird. This hype stuff happened last year as well. It started with Ponzi's and ended with Hot Potato games. After that was the silence and now it's back. Creating a board just for a temporary hype isn't worth it if you ask me. There was a hype before and I created this thread because it was overwhelming the gambling section as it is today:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-cancer-that-is-ponzi-494662
The only benefit to creating a subforum would be that the section would receive less traffic and without attention ponzis die quickly.
We don't need ponzi board. Just wait for this crazy hype to end.
I agree with this bird. This hype stuff happened last year as well. It started with Ponzi's and ended with Hot Potato games. After that was the silence and now it's back. Creating a board just for a temporary hype isn't worth it if you ask me. There was a hype before and I created this thread because it was overwhelming the gambling section as it is today:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-cancer-that-is-ponzi-494662
The only benefit to creating a subforum would be that the section would receive less traffic and without attention ponzis die quickly.
We don't need ponzi board. Just wait for this crazy hype to end.
Nope, Ponzi's won't end. As you know Ponzi Scammers are always finding a new thing to drag people in.
For instance; "Network Marketing" is so popular right now, but it's basically a Ponzi.
In bitcoin business "cloud mining" is the new age of ponzi.
Tomorrow they'll rebrand ponzi as something else...
Whilst it's arguable as to whether they should be allowed or not it is forum policy to not moderate scams and they fall under that policy. Also, allowing them does not equals supporting them.
All ponzies are scam, and I don't think the forum supports scam.
No more space for ponzi.
No more space for ponzi.
That would be an admission / facilitation / endorsement of said entities. Its not a good idea.
This is exactly how I feel about this. We should kick them out, not make a section for them.
Here is the description of the gambling subform:
Code:
Gambling and all "investments" that are so risky they might as well be gambling (HYIPs, pyramid schemes, etc.)
We don't need ponzi board. Just wait for this crazy hype to end.
I agree with this bird. This hype stuff happened last year as well. It started with Ponzi's and ended with Hot Potato games. After that was the silence and now it's back. Creating a board just for a temporary hype isn't worth it if you ask me. Jump to: