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
Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
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.

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analized

Post by CryptoXpose » Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:10 pm

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.
There's really nothing to understand. OneCoin claims to be totally transaparent company, OneCoin CEO Pierre Arens claims BackOffice blockchain view shows "detailed information about the blockchain". Either you have a blockchain from where you can see rational information connected to real life transactions, or you don't and your claims are BS. The latter is true for OneCoin.

All these explanations that "yees, but we are private so we are not really obliged to show anything", are BS. Either live up to your words or shut up with the deceiving marketing talk.
-------------
Basically, there is a lot of money being made just by hiding information from others.
The whole point of blockchain is that it can not only give people financial independence (i.e. you don't need a bank to use your money) but it also enables the kind of transparency that we would all benefit from. There is no point to blockchain if companies are not being more transparent as consequence of it. Blockchain then just becomes a gimmick to make extra money and that is bad for all of us who believe in transparency and openness. My actions were driven by this belief.

-Marcelo Garcia Casil - DXmarkets
Last edited by CryptoXpose on Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analized

Post by CryptoXpose » Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:34 pm

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.
It is a proven lie, that Kari Wahlroos and CEO Pierre Arens claimed the Marcelo Casil's "White Paper" proves there's a valid blockchain, when the "White Paper" actually described a system which was a new system designed by Marcelo Casil, and NOT implemented. That was a deception and a lie from the company leadership on stage in Macau, to claim the paper proves there's a valid blockchain.

No legit company would lower itself to that level. Trying to twist and deceive this kind of issue shows exactly why the company is not trusted by the industry and industry professionals at all.

Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analized

Post by Igorkrnic » Mon Aug 07, 2017 2:27 pm

CryptoXpose wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:10 pm
There's really nothing to understand. OneCoin claims to be totally transaparent company, OneCoin CEO Pierre Arens claims BackOffice blockchain view shows "detailed information about the blockchain". Either you have a blockchain from where you can see rational information connected to real life transactions, or you don't and your claims are BS. The latter is true for OneCoin.
You are starting to be annoying with this crap. This article on The Atlantic writes about ICOs, and Onecoin is ICO, if we will demand fully operational final version of the blockchain with open public explorer from Onecoin, then we can start writing about every single ICO as a scam with nontransparent blockchain. Please... Also, when the company speaks about transparency, they are talking about managing people, offices, addresses, leader. Not the small dumb fact that you can not see your own damn transaction being reflected in the back office.
CryptoXpose wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:10 pm
Basically, there is a lot of money being made just by hiding information from others.
The whole point of blockchain is that it can not only give people financial independence (i.e. you don't need a bank to use your money) but it also enables the kind of transparency that we would all benefit from. There is no point to blockchain if companies are not being more transparent as consequence of it. Blockchain then just becomes a gimmick to make extra money and that is bad for all of us who believe in transparency and openness. My actions were driven by this belief.

-Marcelo Garcia Casil - DXmarkets
This is true, for the company that is public. Onecoin is not yet, so this does not imply. He was only disappointed that he did not get the big job. Maybe it is not needed at all.
CryptoXpose wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:34 pm
It is a proven lie, that Kari Wahlroos and CEO Pierre Arens claimed the Marcelo Casil's "White Paper" proves there's a valid blockchain, when the "White Paper" actually described a system which was a new system designed by Marcelo Casil, and NOT implemented. That was a deception and a lie from the company leadership on stage in Macau, to claim the paper proves there's a valid blockchain.
No legit company would lower itself to that level. Trying to twist and deceive this kind of issue shows exactly why the company is not trusted by the industry and industry professionals at all.
What you are referring to is some closed leader meeting in Macau where Kari said that cause I believe even he thought that will be the whitepaper.
Also, he was not supposed to speak about that. Marcelo was supposed to come there and talk about his work. He was so "professional" that he took the money but did not show up making a problem for all people there. Later on he proved himself as so inexperienced with trolls, so the company decided not to work with him. You guys are now entitled to understand it as you wish.
Since the company never announced that white paper officially, you can stop spreading inside info that never got its official presenting.

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analized

Post by CryptoXpose » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:11 pm

and Onecoin is ICO, if we will demand fully operational final version of the blockchain with open public explorer from Onecoin, then we can start writing about every single ICO as a scam with nontransparent blockchain.
Ok, so if we are talking about other ICOs here, why OneCoin isn't announcing what percentage of the coins are owned by members and what percentage of the coins is owned by the company? Every single legit ICO give away that information.

OneCoin wasn't sold to people as some non-fucntioning start-up. It's sold as "we have a working coin, we have a working blockchain, everything is transparent, we have a working ecosystem, our coin price is here, if you mine coins, you can get them in discount price, we are the biggest cryptocurrency in the world!".
They have been doing this now for 3 years, which is AN ETERNITY in this industry area.

Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analized

Post by Igorkrnic » Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:39 pm

Yeah, I wonder why do they do not disclose a number of coins owned by users. I can not give you answer to this.
If they state that all coins are owned by users than I am going to shut down this forum :D

I think you are exaggerating but I can not blame you. The industry is new, ICO term is new, it is just beginning to be regulated cause every kid makes his ICO, takes millions and God help participants if he will make it work at all. Onecoin also had its developments changes over the last three years.
Yes, they were a bit harsh to call it self a Bitcoin killer. But I think they realized who actually made Bitcoin (I will make a topic about that) and stopped doing that. Cause Bitcoin is number one for now. They are now just trying to bring their cryptocurrency to the end of ICO, and attracting merchants in the process.
The tune changed a bit, there is no need for you to repeat statements from 2015. Listen to dr Ruja speak about "is Onecoin the best cryptocurrency" on the latest webinar. There is room for everyone.

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by CryptoXpose » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:48 am

Yeah, I wonder why do they do not disclose a number of coins owned by users. I can not give you answer to this.
If they state that all coins are owned by users than I am going to shut down this forum
You should ask this from the support and write here what they answer.
There is room for everyone.
Yes there's always room for legit projects and coins. A legit project doesn't try to hide key information while at the same time telling its members how transparent it is.

Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by Igorkrnic » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:36 pm

CryptoXpose wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:48 am
You should ask this from the support and write here what they answer.
Done
CryptoXpose wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:48 am
Yes there's always room for legit projects and coins. A legit project doesn't try to hide key information while at the same time telling its members how transparent it is.
I don't think you or anyone of your sort is credible to verdict what project is legit and what project it not until the end of ICO. You can spot certain things that are red flags to you and then decide to pass the project. EOS also has some red flags that is also scaring away many participants that are skeptics and scared of losing their money cause ToS is very releasing for the company that they can just run away with our money and not deliver a project.
What you guys are doing is slandering the company with your opinions of red flags and are trying to scare people away so they can share your opinion but by that, you legally are giving people what is called "an investment advice" and some one might sue you later. That's why you con artists are anonymous.

Non-legit or scam projects are only proven after the ICO. So if the advertising project is not realized after ICO, that turns to be a scam.
We see Onecoin actually delivering all the usability one by one and we have actually pretty little to expect after ICO except network can just then start to bring in merchants and expand usability, so I am not sure how can you say this is a scam cause ICO did not finish yet.
Lucky for you who stayed anonymous if all this turns out next year.

CryptoXpose
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by CryptoXpose » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:53 pm

What you guys are doing is slandering the company with your opinions of red flags and are trying to scare people away so they can share your opinion but by that, you legally are giving people what is called "an investment advice" and some one might sue you later. That's why you con artists are anonymous.
You are hilarious. You call us con artists, who warn people of these 20000 - 40000% "profit" packages, token "mining" which doesn't make any sense, all increasing self decided "value" of the coin, "cryptocurrency" which has no cryptocurrency properties, "blockchain" which has no ties to real life transactions etc etc, the list is goes on and on.

There's not a single 3rd party expert/professional in the world who'd say your project is legit. Your whole project is totally NON-transparent while at the same time all your leaders and company top lies that everything is transparent. The company is creating coins BUT CAN'T EVEN PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE HOW MANY TOTAL IT HAS CREATED SO FAR, WHAT PERCENTAGE FOR USERS AND WHAT PERCENTAGE FOR THE COMPANY. That is absolutely RIDICULOUS. And you call us con artists? You have some nerve, gotta give you that, when your project top people consists of real professional longtime career con artists. We are not giving any "investment advices", we tell people the facts that you don't. Anybody is free to invest as much money to a scam as they want, but it is morally wrong to try to fool ignorant people to invest in this, so that you will get your network bonuses.

The company has had every goddamn chance to prove it's legit with legit cryptocurrency and legit blockchain which it claims to have during the last 3 years and shut our mouths, yet it has "for some reason" decided not to do so, and by doing so avoided tens of billions of euros of investor money. There's absolutely no logical explanation for that. No logical explanation.

Besides, there has already been clearly illegal marketing for a long time. When did the IMA/compliancy rules appeared? Sometime on the second part of 2016 if I remember correctly. Once you have already acted illegally before that in 2014,2015 and 2016, it can't be taken away just by writing some rules and pushing all responsibility of faul play marketing on IMAs shoulders. No, it doesn't work like that. Lets not forget that the company was about 1.5 years ago marketing a package which didn't include any education at all, and really didn't care at all how OneCoin was marketed.

It is likely that it's you who will be sued. I'm pretty sure anyway, that latest in the beginning of 2018 Ruja will announce further delays, which will push promised ICO and IPO to 2019.

Igorkrnic
Site Admin
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: The Atlantic article analyzed

Post by Igorkrnic » Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:56 pm

CryptoXpose wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:53 pm
You are hilarious. You call us con artists, who warn people of these 20000 - 40000% "profit" packages, token "mining" which doesn't make any sense, all increasing self decided "value" of the coin, "cryptocurrency" which has no cryptocurrency properties, "blockchain" which has no ties to real life transactions etc etc, the list is goes on and on.
One again, but I will probably ban you cause you are starting to be a pain in the ass with this crap:
There is no profit from coins until public trading and this price is internal and we will see if people will be willling to pay it on public trading. look at bitcoin, last month it was 2300$, around 2000 tx per block, around 1billion trading volume per day, and after fork, not only that they invented around $6Billion market cap with BitcoinCash but Bitcon is almost $3500 and number of tx and trading volume was unchanged. It is fake value, but who cares if people are willing to pay it right? Let's see if people will pay for Onecoins on public trading.
Onecoin is ICO so they do not need to have fully working and public explorer as no other ICO has. Tezos has finished ICO and we do not still see any blockchain nor it is publicly traded.
CryptoXpose wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:53 pm
There's not a single 3rd party expert/professional in the world who'd say your project is legit.
Say hello to your experts, tell them 3.2 million people and growing do not give a damn about their expertise. FFS
CryptoXpose wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:53 pm
The company has had every goddamn chance to EASILY prove it's legit during the last 3 years, yet it has "for some reason" decided not to do so, and by doing so avoided billions of euros of investor money. There's absolutely no logical explanation for that. No logical explanation.
So if you do can not think of any explanation, you label it a scam? :)
CryptoXpose wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:53 pm
Besides, there has already been clearly illegal marketing for a long time. When did the IMA/compliancy rules appeared? Sometime on the second part of 2016 if I remember correctly. Once you have already acted illegally before that in 2014,2015 and 2016, it can't be taken away just by writing some rules and pushing all responsibility of faul play marketing on IMAs shoulders. No, it doesn't work like that. Lets not forget that the company was about 1.5 years ago marketing a package which didn't include any education at all, and really didn't care at all how OneCoin was marketed.
closed minded people lock them selves in their limited holes to nonimportant things, open minded people look it as: Oh good we have evolved and developed. Btw, bad marketing was done, but those people were punished either by authority or kicked out by the company.
When you say that the company talked about onecons and not mentioned education you refer to leader closed meetings. But the company realized that they need to put more focus on the education and lately we see the results. Cause they realized also leaders need to talk about it on their closed meetings. It is called evolving. I hope they will also start promoting Onecoin as ICO, not a finished cryptocurrency product, although no one is promoting Onecoin as finishes, only haters and critiques assume that and thus bring wrong conclusions.
CryptoXpose wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:53 pm
It is likely that it's you who will be sued. I'm pretty sure anyway, that latest in the beginning of 2018 Ruja will announce further delays, which will push promised ICO and IPO to 2019.
Again, your opinion and assumptions.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests