[DENIED] Ban Ponzi Scheme Advertisements on Sythe

[mumble]

Greetings,

Last year and early this year there was a craze regarding BitConnect.

This craze made its way onto Sythe and eventually had several high ranking members of the community promoting it.

There was a suggestion around a year ago about banning the advertisement of it before the exit scam actually occurred. https://www.sythe.org/posts/28458904/

I supported this suggestion then and with the rise of new Ponzi scams and other methods of taking people's hard earned money from them I suggest there be a rule made. It's sometimes difficult to gauge the validity of these scams at first. But over time they become more and more evident.

Many users were convinced by the Former Admins and Mods promoting BitConnect and put thousands of dollars into it, only for it to disappear.

My suggestion is ban advertisements for Ponzi schemes and similar scams. There are plenty of reputable advertisers out there such as the Trade Bungalow (shoutout @Bolt ) or numerous gold sites that have worked well in the community and are able to be held accountable by the community for any misdoings. BitConnect is out of the reach.

Thank you for reading this if you got this far, I would appreciate any discussion below.

 

[Fear]

Agree with Mumble, I invested around $1050 my self because of a friend recommending it. We both lost, i lost alot because of the way bitconnect is built.

We should safely assume that any website that's not under control by a legal Authority offering a lending service, where if an investment is made and is locked for a certain amount of time promising a consistant return of %, is a scam. It's a Ponzi, dirty little scammers playground.

In my experience, most of the people who had invested already knew it was a game of how long will the scam keep up before it shuts down. People are not smart when it comes to financing, and they can easily convince their friends and family to join because of greed. So please, ban this shit already.

 

Is there another example of this happening anywhere else on Sythe right now?

 

Is there someone on site taking payments/investments like bitConnect?

 

[mumble]

Is there another example of this happening anywhere else on Sythe right now?

https://www.sythe.org/posts/28458904/

Not as far as I'm aware, but many users were frustrated that nothing was done about it in advance when Ex-Admins of the site who to the average user appear to be very trusted, advertise it and in turn the ex-admin receives referral money for it. I believe they should be held accountable as well.

A broader application of this rule would be holding people accountable for advertising something that ends up scamming.

 

https://www.sythe.org/posts/28458904/

Not as far as I'm aware, but many users were frustrated that nothing was done about it in advance when Ex-Admins of the site who to the average user appear to be very trusted, advertise it and in turn the ex-admin receives referral money for it. I believe they should be held accountable as well.

A broader application of this rule would be holding people accountable for advertising something that ends up scamming.

I receive money for a advertisement banner in my signature from a Gold site, and the gold sites ends up scamming. Would I be liable?

 

[gambling_babz]

I receive money for a advertisement banner in my signature from a Gold site, and the gold sites ends up scamming. Would I be liable?

No

 

[BUILD]

This is a very hard thing to try and make everyone happy.

To solve it, I think the rule should consist of:
1) Promoting such things should not be allowed unless you're willing to take the heat for it.
2) When the market talks about investing, it should only be about things to potentially invest in.

There are many people / companies which pop up, take money from people promising some sort of return, or a possibility of a
return with a high % rate. They may be legit for some time, but once people start putting in thousands and thousands, you can
almost guarantee that it will be a scam. It's like a trust trade game.

 

I believe there will be a grey area between what is a Ponzi scheme and what isn't. A lot of these situations are multifaceted and may be hard to brand as a Ponzi scheme until too late.

To protect our user-bases' best interest, maybe the CDT or staff could encompass the role of sussing out poor advertisement choices and decide if they should be continued or not. I find it hard to fully see how we can effectively enforce this suggested rule, but I do find this post interesting and you have my support.

 

I like the idea,

but underline issue is how do we determine what is ponzi scheme and what is not?

 

[mumble]

I like the idea,

but underline issue is how do we determine what is ponzi scheme and what is not?

BitConnect was blatantly obvious, offering guaranteed returns while limiting the withdrawal process of those returns. I don't think that staff should ban someone, however, when they've deemed a site or a promotion has potentially fraudulent they could apply a TWC with the user advertising it. TWC isn't a ban nor is it a DNT. The staff has decided that something is potentially dangerous to the users of the site and is letting them know via the TWC. TWC could be removed as soon as the advert was taken down.

 

This seems to already be something that is being enforced. Support either way though.

https://www.sythe.org/threads/cashbackcoin-ltd-cryptocurrency-asset-management-service

 

[Xier0]

Is there another example of this happening anywhere else on Sythe right now?

Yes: Consider buying Ripple XRP

 

https://www.sythe.org/posts/28458904/

Not as far as I'm aware, but many users were frustrated that nothing was done about it in advance when Ex-Admins of the site who to the average user appear to be very trusted, advertise it and in turn the ex-admin receives referral money for it. I believe they should be held accountable as well.

A broader application of this rule would be holding people accountable for advertising something that ends up scamming.

This is something that is case-by-case though. This doesn't even nearly enough to implement a rule across the whole forum for something that has happened once in who knows how long.

 

[Champ]

This is something that is case-by-case though. This doesn't even nearly enough to implement a rule across the whole forum for something that has happened once in who knows how long.

With that said, this suggestion has been denied.