The Atlantic article analyzed

Here we will post all original accusations and arguments people who hate onecoin wrote all over blogs and comments. We will deeply analyze, dissect and answer everything with objective arguments. People will be left to decide which arguments are more logical and true to them
Post Reply
Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by Igorkrnic » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:01 am

In this topic, I will analyze the article that is number one source link on Wikipedia and is used by critiques as the most credible source for Onecoin negativity. You can read the whole article here: The Rise of Cryptocurrency Ponzi Schemes

Let's analyze what it says. I will start with the author. It is DAVID Z. MORRIS and if you click on him, you can see that he only wrote one article in March 2015 and this one about ICOs in May 2017. If we click on WRITERS LIST we can see that DAVID Z. MORRIS is not registered writer on this web site.
Although he might look shady, he is actually a Contribute writer for the Fortune magazine and here you can see his articles.
The article wrote:The Rise of Cryptocurrency Ponzi Schemes
Scammers are making big money off people who want in on the latest digital gold rush but don’t understand how the technology works.
Ok so the point of his article is actually to address how there are many ponzi ICOs out there. We do know that there are so many ICOs lately that question is being raised if there are scams there too? We can see in this article that $1.2 Billion is Raised in 2017 alone.
The article wrote:Last month, the technology developer Gnosis sold $12.5 million worth of “GNO,” its in-house digital currency, in 12 minutes. The April 24 sale, intended to fund development of an advanced prediction market, got admiring coverage from Forbes and The Wall Street Journal
Ok, so he is mentioning Gnosis, a prediction market project that made its project based on the Ethereum blockchain. Gnosis ICO was conducted on April 24. 2017 and lasted only for that day. It raised $12.5 Million in Ethereum. Before ICO, there were not such articles about gnosis in such credible media. Why? Cause it is ICO, not worth mentioning. When the ICO finished, it was the news as a done deal.
What did Forbes and The Wall Street Journal write about Onecoin? Did he write about it on The Forbes magazine?
ImageImage
Nothing, cause those are serious media, serious people who write only about certain things. They will write about Onecoin when it goes public

Also, we can see some Red flags for Gnosis token holders.

After his praise to Gnosis, he wrote on:
The article wrote:On the same day, in an exurb of Mumbai, a company called OneCoin was in the midst of a sales pitch for its own digital currency when financial enforcement officers raided the meeting, jailing 18 OneCoin representatives and ultimately seizing more than $2 million in investor funds. Multiple national authorities have now described OneCoin, as a Ponzi scheme; by the time of the Mumbai bust, it had already moved at least $350 million in allegedly scammed funds through a payment processor in Germany.
When we read this paragraph, we see 3 segments there.
1) He mentions Indian arrests and we already know that those were only individual people using Onecoin to scam people, not the company itself, it was analyzed in this topic
2) He mentions how multiple authorities described Onecoin as a ponzi and this was a notorious lie. We already know that no authority described Onecoin as a ponzi, but we described why Onecoin is NOT a ponzi in this topic. There was just warnings for Onecoin, the same as there were warnings for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Whole analytics of warnings is here in this topic.
3) He mentions $350 Million being scam money where we know that was legit money from selling Education packages but issue was that the company who collected money (IMS International) did not have a license and that was not up to Onecoin to obtain it. Later, Germany recognized Onecoin as a future financial instrument so it needs to have a financia license. The whole Germany case is described here in this topic.
We can already see that this guy has no clue about Onecoin and he only "knows" what Bitcoin people and Onecoin haters told him.

Let's go on:
The article wrote:OneCoin loudly trumpeted its use of blockchain technology, but holes in that claim were visible long before international law enforcement took notice. Whereas Gnosis had experienced engineers, endorsements from known experts, and an operational version of their software, OneCoin was led and promoted by known fraudsters waving fake credentials.
This is the key why there is so much buzz about Onecoin. ICOs are started by developers, where Onecoin is started by financial people who just hired developers to do the job. Ask your self. When making a currency, an instrument with financial value and usage, is it normal that financial experts make a project, and developers work or can developers without any financial knowledge make a proper financial product?
We see at the decentralized community that developers are making and starting projects, without any financial expertise, they receive their millions and then they let the open market decide its value but the open market is ruled by speculators and whales and small people just lose money there, this is the importance of financial expert making a project to make it stable and less vulnerable to speculations.
The article wrote:According to a respected blockchain engineer who was offered a position as OneCoin’s Chief Technology Officer, OneCoin’s “blockchain” consisted of little more than a glorified Excel spreadsheet and a fugazi portal that displayed demonstrably fake transactions
So here he even linked a behindMLM article that writes about Bjorn Bjerke allegedly being called by Onecoin to make a blockchain?
First of all, we can see in this topic that Bjorn is a contradictory liar that was never called to work for Onecoin. But wait, do you see the Forbes or The Wall Street Journal allow to quote anonymous bloggers like behindMLM?
Of course not. That's why he published this here.
The article wrote:While it’s easy to see the lie in OneCoin’s fictional blockchain, entirely sincere claims about such a nascent sector still can strain the limits of mere optimism. Many experts, for instance, believe that Gnosis’s use of the blockchain to aggregate data could become a widespread backbone technology for managing complex systems from traffic to financial markets
It is not actually easy to see a lie, there is no lie. Lie is just an assumption. If that was a proven lie, this company would not be here after almost 3 years. The company claims to have a blockchain but there is no white paper. All the ICOs (except those based on Ethereum blockchain) do not have operational blockchain during ICO and sometime after ICO. Onecoin is running the second generation cause they realized in some point of ICO that they need a better one. So critiques only say Onecoin has no blockchain cause they do not understand certain things that they can see in the blockchain viewer in the back office. I wrote about that here and here.
And it is ok to them that other ICOs do not even have operational blockchain during ICO? Let's leave the company to go public and they will then open their blockchain so then we can talk about it.

CONCLUSION:
DAVID Z. MORRIS, a man that is not listed as a writer for TheAtlantic but is a writer for The Fortune, chooses to write such slander article on TheAtlantic cause this kind of nonsense would not be approved on The Fortune. He praises Gnosis all over the article although it has many red flags, maybe he is token holder? He writes an article that actually has sense, there might be many scam ICOs out there, but he used Onecoin as the biggest example yet he showed his complete ignorance and he just parroted what Onecoin critiques are doing for the last 2 years or some sickos even more. His sources were self-pronounced experts in cryptocurrency and MLM bloggers who write about anything just to get clicks.
Those kinds of guys will be credible when they start writing about serious and proven information, not just some individual assumptions.
Probably that is why he would not be allowed to write such article on The Forbes magazine. Pretty clear.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests