AdsNetworkPaid Review: $7-$200 Ponzi scheme
There is no information on the AdsNetworkPaid website indicating who owns or runs the business.
The company’s website domain (“adsnetworkpaid.com”) was registered on the 12th of April, however the domain registration is set to private.
In the AdsNetworkPaid FAQ the company simply states it
was developed by ADS Network & Businesses Ltd who has been in the industry for more than a year and is owned and managed by a team of professionals with over 7 years experience in network marketing.
No further information is provided.
As always, if an MLM company is not openly upfront about who is running or owns it, think long and hard about joining and/or handing over any money.
The AdsNetworkPaid Product Line
AdsNetworkPaid has no retailable products or services. Affiliates join AdsNetworkPaid and then invest in one of three “plans” the company offers.
Bundles with each plan are a series of advertising credits that AdsNetworkPaid affiliates can use to display advertising on the company’s website.
The AdsNetworkPaid Compensation Plan
AdsNetworkPaid run a revenue-sharing compensation plan.
Affiliates invest money into the network, with each plan paying out a specified ROI .
The three plans made available to AdsNetworkPaid affiliates are:
- Plan 1 $5 – $7 (140% ROI)
- Plan 2 $50 – $80 (160% ROI)
- Plan 3 $100 – $200 (200% ROI)
Note that in order to qualify for a daily ROI, AdsNetworkPaid affiliates must view 5 supplied advertisements.
Also note that affiliates are required to re-invest 50% of the ROI paid out by the company:
Q: Is there a repurchase/reinvest system at AdsNetworkPaid?
A: Yes, our repurchase is for revenue sharing and position earning.
Revenue Sharing Earnings = when transferring money from rev. share earning balance to withdraw balance, 50% of the amount will be transfered (sic) to Rev. Share Purchase Balance.
Referral commissions on investments made by recruited affiliates are also offered, paid down five levels of recruitment:
- Level 1 – 4%
- Levels 2 and 3 – 2%
- Level 4 – 4%
Joining AdsNetworkPaid
Affiliate membership to AdsNetworkPaid is free, however affiliates must invest into the scheme if they wish to earn any commissions.
Conclusion
Profit sharing with AdsNetworkPaid is dependent upon member participation with purchases of advertising packages/shares either via repurchase through program earnings or the purchase or new advertising packages/shares.
With no retail sales all revenues entering AdsNetworkPaid is sourced from the company’s affiliates, who invest on the implied guarantee of a ROI for each position in the compensation plan they purchase.
AdsNetworkPaid explain as much in their FAQ:
When you buy an ads/shares pack you will be entitled to our revenue sharing program. The Percentage shared to you depends on the ads/share plan you buy.
If your goal is to maximize your income then this the best time to buy Shares / Pack. The Shares / Pack can mature in a day. As the number of members grows, and will buy new shares / pack, the shares / pack that are active are maturing and returning daily income.
Everything depends on you and the purchases of new shares / pack How much you want to earn?
As such, AdsNetworkPaid squarely fits the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
This is again confirmed in the company’s refund policy, which states:
All purchases in the AdsNetworkPaid program are Non-Refundable.
AdsNetworkPaid shares the revenue from your purchase with all members, and therefore AdsNetworkPaid cannot afford to offer refunds.
The moment the payment enters our system, it is no longer ‘your’ money, and it certainly isn’t ‘our’ money. It belongs 100% to ALL members because these funds are shared with EVERYBODY!
Taking new affiliate money and “sharing” it with “everybody” already in the system? That’s about an obvious Ponzi scheme admission as you’re going to get.
One final note, I had a sense of dejavu as I read AdsNetworkPaid’s refund policy and after a quick bit of further research discovered why. Turns out it’s virtually identical to that of AdHitProfits.
Here’s AdsNetworkPaid’s refund policy:
All purchases in the AdsNetworkPaid program are Non-Refundable. AdsNetworkPaid shares the revenue from your purchase with all members, and therefore AdsNetworkPaid cannot afford to offer refunds.
The moment the payment enters our system, it is no longer ‘your’ money, and it certainly isn’t ‘our’ money. It belongs 100% to ALL members because these funds are shared with EVERYBODY!
And here’s AdHitProfits’:
Can we get a refund if we want?
NO REFUNDS! We share the revenue from your purchase with all members, so we cannot afford to offer refunds.
The moment the payment enters our system, it is no longer ‘your’ money, and it certainly isn’t ‘our’ money. It belongs to 100% ALL members because we shared those funds with EVERYBODY!
AdHitProfits is run by Charles Scoville and guarantees affiliate investors a 125% ROI on their $45 investments.
Whether the two similar schemes are related or if AdsNetworkPaid have simply copy and pasted AdHitProfits’ refund policy is unclear.
Either way as with all Ponzi schemes once the new investment into AdsNetworkPaid stops, so to will the daily ROI payments. And when that happens, boom goes the Ponzi – along with all your invested money.
In other words, it’s a communist plot to take over capitalism, right? 🙂
The AdsNetworkPaid Compensation Plan
Oz, Please explain how this is an implied ROI when it is explicitly stated.
Hoss
Technically they never stated it as “ROI”. They basically said “You buy $5 ad package, watch 5 ads per day, and when the time comes you’ll get $7 back!” And so on.
It’s Ad Surf Daily redux. It’s illegal Ponzi. Enough said.
I went to the website adsnetworkpaid.com and it very definitely calculates and advertises an ROI.
The numbers are screwed up as far as I can tell. Investing 5 and getting back 7 is not an ROI of 140%, its an ROI of 40%.
If also “affiliates are required to re-invest 50% of the ROI “paid out by the company” then who can tell me what they are actually saying? Does this mean they require reinvesting 50% of the stated 140% ROI or 50% of a 40% ROI?
Why is this relevant?
Because there is no implied ROI if it can not be calculated.
Hmmm… Hoss is right, Oz. ROI = (gain – cost) / cost.
So, if you put in 5, gets 7, ROI is 2/5 or 40%, not 140%.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/10/guide-to-calculating-roi.asp
@Hossy
Good point, I probably should have said specified. I’m so used to Ponzi schemes denying they specifically state their offered ROIs that it’s become a habit.
As you point out though with the forced re-investment it could be classified implied. Eg. “get 200%” but then you’ve got the daily payouts subject to what is put into the scheme and forced re-investment. Not quite guaranteed but specific enough to be classified implied. Certainly when the motive behind the investments is taken into consideration.
As for the investopedia definition of ROIs, I have issues with that:
1.25 is clearly 125%. I totally understand the logic behind claiming the 25% ROI in financial circles, but Ponzi convention dictates we’d refer to it as a 125% ROI.
When reporting about Ponzi schemes I’m going to stick to the industry convention. Reason being with legit investments you actually invest in something. In Ponzis you just shuffle money around. You put in $x and it’s gone, what you get back then is a lump sum from zero.
Then you can’t use “ROI”, as there’s a standard definition.
If you LOST money in Ponzi, then ROI is NEGATIVE. 🙂
Maybe we need to clarify that as “Ponzi ROI” or “PROI”? 😀
I know, semantics and jargon and all that. Argh! 😀
If vastly overstating the implied ROIs serves your purposes then all to the better. I hope none of your readers confuses “guaranteed ROIs” or “implied guaranteed ROIs” with anything that is actually real or in any way guaranteed.
If I put in $5 and get back $10, I’ve clearly gotten back 100% of the money I put in. Plus 50%.
Thus my ROI is 150% of what I put in.
Despite what Investopedia states I believe this is convention. It’s not mathematically incorrect either, it just depends on what you count as your return.
In a Ponzi scheme once you put in the money it’s not invested, it’s gone. Thus what you get back isn’t your own money + a return, you get back money from scratch – which is why the ROI sounds inflated.
To differentiate from the legit investment industry PROI sounds like a good idea but will probably just wind up causing more confusion. Given the dollar amount is stated along with the percentage, the amount returned is clear regardless of which ROI percentage convention one uses.
I’m talking about Ponzi schemes so I’m using Ponzi ROIs.
Maybe you can just explain that Ponzi ROI counts the principle too to make the return sound bigger. 🙂
Might get a bit tedious in every review that after analysis reveals a Ponzi.
Mind you, this is the first time in over four years this has come up so I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. So long as the dollar amounts are provided it should be clear.
Sorry Oz, By your logic a Bank CD yielding 1% a year has an ROI of 101% per annum. Have you heard Bank of America or Chase touting CD rates of 101% per annum? It would be front page news and we would have hyper inflation and mortage rates would be at 150%. Obviously something is missing.
In your example you would have received 100% return “OF” investment and 50% return “ON” investment. ROI by definition is return “ON” investment and does not include the return “OF” the investment. this is how you are conceptualizing it.
Nobody invests just to have their money returned. They desire a return “ON” the investment. That is the whole point! Would you invest $10, get it back a year later and claim you made 100% return per annum? I hope not, because you made no Return at all, in fact you would have lost money to inflation.
If you do not like the Investopedia definition try Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment or virtually any other dictionary or encyclopedia. I am sure you will find them consistent.
We’re not talking about banks, we’re talking about Ponzi schemes. Didn’t read the rest.
Maybe we should just refrain from mentioning “ROI” altogether when it comes to Ponzi schemes. 🙂
All investments are like that. Once the money leaves your account it may never come back It is at risk to one degree or another. This applies to EVERY single investment vehicle known to man. Ponzis are no different.
They are in how they source money and function mechanically.
There’s nothing wrong with the finance industry’s application of ROI, it’s just different to how things are calculated and expressed in the Ponzi world.
In a Ponzi scheme I put in $x and it’s gone. Then if new people put in money I get $x back plus (y). My ROI is x + y, or over 100% of what I put in. There’s probably a better word for it (return?) than ROI, but it’s what we’ve come to use and understand.
“We didn’t start the fire” and all that.
We’re not discussing your investment attempts here. 🙂
C’mon. If I loan money to a contractor for lumber and he spends it my money is “gone” too. Its no different, I only hope he can sell the house and pay me back (and sometimes he doesn’t).
In a ponzi you hope somebody else will buy into the program so you can get your capital plus a return back. So what is the difference?
Don’t forget, Ponzi investment schemes are identified as such because they are infact not legitimate investment schemes.
Therefore it shouldn’t at all come as a surprise to see that the terminology used differs from the finance industry.
We are discussing ROI.
That’s not what happens in a Ponzi scheme.
Seems we got off on a tangent somewhere… 😉
If you pay $5 and get $7, your “PROI” is 140%, and your real ROI is 40%. Happy? 🙂
Maybe you should because you seem to believe I can put $100 under my Ponzi mattress, come back a day later and have 100% ROI. That’s not how mattresses work.
In your example you would have received 100% return “OF” investment and 50% return “ON” investment. ROI by definition is return “ON” investment and does not include the return “OF” the investment.
Good thing we’re not talking about mattresses then hey…
Return of investment, return on investment, it’s still all just ROIs in Ponzi land.
Ecstatic.
Oh, P–U–H–L–E–A–S–E
Try talking about fraud and fraudsters without using the word “like”, or employing irrelevant analogies, will you.
A HYIP ponzi fraud is about as “like” a legitimate business as a Volkswagen is “like” a Porsche or an apple is “like” an orange.
What irrelevant analogies? Please explain
Do you know how fatuous your analogy is?
A Volkswagen is like a Porsche because they are both automobiles. An apple is like an orange because they are both fruits. An HYIP is like a legitimate business because it raises capital.
An HYIP is like a legitimate business because it distributes money to its stakeholders, An HYIP is like a legitimate business because the stakeholders either have a loss or a gain on their invested capital. An HYIP is like a legitimate business because …. Do I need to go on or do get the point yet?
Of course I’m being fatuous.
In fact I’m being deliberately fatuous.
When I see endless meaningless posts by “Hoss” where he makes completely irrelevant comparisons between online fraud and “real” business transactions, what else could I be other than fatuous.
Here’s a hint for you, Oh great nitpicker.
It’s the differences between apples and oranges, Volkswagens and Porsches and ponzi fraud and real business that are important, NOT how many similarities exist.
A successful fraud is successful because it IS “like” as real business in as many respects as the fraudster can make it.
Your usage of the word “LIKE” in your lumber contractor analogy is fatuous plus some.
The only difference is I was using an absurdity to point out exactly how “FATUOUS” the Hoss line of reasoning has become.
You’ll need to explain your logic?
I’m not asking you to list many more arguments like that, but to analyse and explain the logics behind the existing examples, i.e. the logical criterias. You can add a few more arguments, but don’t try to drown us in pointless arguments.
YOUR CONCLUSIONS
Your first conclusion was that an HYIP or Ponzi belong in the same group as a legitimate business, they are all part of the same group, just like apples and oranges both belong in the group “fruits”?
Your second conclusion was that since they all belong in the same group, Ponzies and HYIPs should use correct investment terms and not make up their own definitions?
YOUR ARGUMENTS
* It raises capital
* It distributes money to stake holders
* Stake holders will either have a loss or gain
Your current arguments only show that they are NOT like each others?
Hoss conveniently leaves out the part of legitimate businesses having a product/ service and CUSTOMERS which an HYIP never does. The very defining feature of a business.
It is like comparing an apple from a tree to a plastic one in a decorative shop window.
A “company” or a “business” is simply an organized structure designed to do organized activities towards its primary objective (whatever that might be). It will TYPICALLY involve some types of financial activities, but it can of course largely be based on other types of activities.
You can separate them into different sub types. Ponzi schemes should TYPICALLY end up in a different group than other investments, in different group than legitimate businesses.
Hoss used flawed arguments to defend his conclusion. Most legitimate businesses will not regularly try to raise capital or distribute money to stake holders. His arguments didn’t hold water.
ROI is independent from the nature of the business. Its a financial calculation.
And it’s very nice of you to point out the bleedin’ obvious for readers.
The fact remains though, no matter how “LIKE” a legitimate business a ponzi may be, it is NOT a legitimate business.
It has been made to look like a legitimate business, may even resemble closely a legitimate business and employ the same or similar terminology as a legitimate business, but that is as far as it goes in the real world, not HOSSworld
In fact, I would go so far as to say the obfuscating “HOSSES” of this world contribute in no small way to the increasing numbers of ponzi/pyramid schemes which are designed to be “LIKE” legitimate investments
Separate them anyway you want. If money is invested with the expectation of a return then an ROI (projected or actual) can be calculated.
If its a business then the objective is profit. There’s no reason to wonder about it.
I’m glad we agree on that.
In Ponzi/HYIP business models, prospected ROI is a core part of the business itself rather than a “financial calculation”. It’s not independent from the nature of the business. Your argument is constructed and flawed, and it doesn’t reflect the reality.
That is irrelevant to a discussion of ROI.
Money is blind. It does not know or care what type of business it is invested in and calculating machines do not make moral judgments.
“prospected” ROIs are at the core of HYIPs because they are used to induce the greedy, gullible and unsophisticated to invest. That very solemn fact does not change how an ROI is calculated.
Boy you were on that like a bloodhound. Too bad you lost the trail.
The discussion started with a comment from you, where you pointed out that Ponzi schemes use incorrect ROI, e.g. 140% where the real ROI actually is 40%.
The discussion has clearly not been about how ROI is calculated in general. If it had been about that, most of your “like” arguments would have been pointless.
Most others have tried to tell you that Ponzi schemes are neither financial institutions nor ordinary investments, following that trail all the way. They have simply been pointing out that your arguments are hypothetical and constructed.
Are you SURE it’s not you who have derailed from the trail somewhere in the discussion?
You’ll need to explain your own logic, e.g. why you consider Ponzies and HYIPs to be LIKE legitimate businesses, the main reason for why they should use similar definitions for ROI as other investments.
Nah, don’t ask him to do that.
Hoss is too valuable an example of how easy it is for outwardly intelligent people rationalize themselves into participating in illegal HYIP ponzi and pyramid schemes.
IM(very)HO, Hoss should be encouraged to continue in the same vein as he has.
The longer we can keep him digging, the deeper the hole he is creating for himself.
I am not going to explain what is self evident. Receiving your own money back is not a return on investment.
If someone tells you it is. Run.
You guys are arguing over why HYIP misuse the term ROI (they include the principle when they should never have) when we all know the answer: fraud.
The question is now is does a review of HYIP (which Oz here did many times) use the WRONG definition of ROI (that HYIP misused), or the RIGHT definition of ROI (that financial industry uses).
Which is why I advocated a new term: PROI (Ponzi ROI).
Oz can simply add an article on the difference between PROI and ROI, link to this discussion, then use PROI consistently in the future when reviewing HYIPs. 🙂 Problem solved.
I have a better idea …
“This website is primarily designed for normal people without any specific profession or education (e.g. lawyers, accountants, etc.)”.
That statement can be “mixed in” as a part of an argument, e.g. “You’re absolutely right. Financial institutions do calculate Return ON Investment, but this website is primarily designed for normal people without any specific education or profession”.
Then you can continue to use the expressions that are commonly known and accepted in that part of the market. They don’t need to be 100% correct, only commonly used and understandable for “normal people”.
If you start to use expressions like “PROI”, it will be very difficult for most people to understand what you actually mean. You will need to answer “What actually is PROI?” several times per day, and people will probably make some comments about “That weird PROI guy at behindmlm.com”.
KC, As you know from previous postings that included Oz,
“PROI”….is just another way of saying ROI + 100% or ROI + Return OF Investment.
Like it or not Ponzis are part of the investment landscape so I don’t think a jargonistic definition is desirable when there are widely understood terminologies already in use.
“Guaranteed” ROIs…. I am sure promoters would be more than happy to slap a guaranty on their mother’s eyeballs for an extra buck, but the truth is there is no guaranty even if prospective investor/participants want to believe their is one. Get rid of that term entirely. There are no guarantys.
Also, as if there were such a thing, mentioning an “implied guaranteed PROI” would be even be more mind boggling. (This possibility is what brought this whole subject to the surface to begin with because
1.) there is no implied ROI if one can not be accurately calculated or the terms are ambivalent,
2.) there is no actual guaranty that is or can be given, and 3.) PROI, as seductive as it may seem, no longer discretely measures return ON investment at all. We may as well say that we decided that for ponzis only 1 + 1 = 3.
Anyway. I am done with this topic. Oz will do what he thinks is best and there is no harm in vastly overstating ROI anyway if it makes the claims of the schemers seem the more outlandish and unbelievable.
I hope that is what it does, but unfortunately some casual readers and researchers may hear and then read on BehindMLM that their favorite revenue-sharing program is offering a “guaranteed ROI of 150%” without realizing just how implausible that actually is.
Oz his own ideas, which I respect (its his show), but for my own part I think Notional ROI should be used. It invites further investigation, is accessible and a much more descriptive term for what is being touted by these promoters.
Notional is in common use in financial circles so its consistent across the landscape as it is commonly used to describe something that is speculative, theoretical, or imaginary. This terminology also leaves intact the generally accepted and widely understood definition of ROI.
Well, no and yes. No because these two do not seem to care if the term is misunderstood and misused or not. Instead they have decided to circumvent that discussion by asserting that it does not matter because it impossible to calculate an ROI for an HYIP/Ponzi anyway.
A cute argument except its obvious to the most casual o observer that someone is making money (a positive ROI) and somebody is losing money (a negative ROI) in every one of these deals.
…and yes, vastly overstating the investment return or notional ROI of an HYIP is fraud…..but fraud or not, an ROI can be calculated based on money invested.
This.
It hasn’t been an issue on here for 4 and a half years and mathematically the ROI percentage is accurate. We’re not using finance terminology, it’s maths. Put in $x, get $x + $y and express that as a total percentage of what you put in.
I’m not a fan of creating extra work for myself or some new era of Ponzi terminology, especially when I think the current terminology does the job.
I know, I know. I guess we just have to keep in mind that when Ponzi schemes say ROI they don’t mean the financial industry’s ROI. Maybe Oz can simply remind the readers in a single sentence and link to the long discussion here. 🙂
Not at all.
In fact, a great many HYIP ponzi and pyramid frauds go out of their way to point out what they offer is NOT a “ROI” at all and threaten to ban members who use the term or the word “investment”
What you are attempting to do is introduce more confusion into already complicated situations.
It is NOT a “ROI”
It is a”RO” but it is NOT an I (“INVESTMENT”)
It is a fraud designed to look like an “investment”
Oh great heaven’s, then it must be true.
What the F*** is an RO? A Revenue Opportunity? Please tell me it isn’t, and that you are not that much of a fish. RO is nothing but a dissimulator’s way of avoiding the word investment. Do you actually believe that bullshit?
The person who puts up money, has made an investment. It may have been fraudulently induced, to an illegal purpose but it still an investment (“an asset or item that is purchased with the hope that it will generate income or appreciate in the future.”) The “asset” in these schemes is at least nominally, the position in the matrix.
Some people might even consider all of this gambling but of course “many of the HYIP ponzi and pyramid frauds go out of their way to point out what they offer is not” gambling “at all and threaten to ban members who use the term or the word” gambling….
….and of course they never, never, ever lie.
Don’t be a chump.