iX Global’s & Debt Box’s IN8 NFT grift collapses
iX Global’s IN8 NFT grift, purportedly running on Debt Box’s technology, has collapsed.
As per a March 27th message to investors on IN8’s website;
As of yesterday blockchain vendor DEBT has placed the IN8 project on a temporary pause.
We have become aware of new business challenges involving DEBT and we regrettably need to inform you that certain members of the DEBT Council have decided to indefinitely “pause” the minting of IN8.
iX Global doesn’t go into what the “new business challenges” are. BehindMLM noted securities fraud in our January IN8 NFT article, but securities fraud has been illegal in the US since 1933.
As a result of the unspecified “new business challenges”, iX Global advised investors;
We have decided that the best way to move forward is to declare the project non-viable and request that DEBT refund your minting fees.
What does this mean for you:
- Your IN8 NFTs are no longer eligible for any token reward from IN8
- Your minting fees need to be refunded through the DEBT V2 system by DEBT
IN8 was built around IN8 tokens. iX Global affiliates invested in $25 NFT positions, which provided access to a “staking” investment scheme.
With Debt Box and iX Global already targets of an SEC lawsuit alleging securities fraud, doubling down with a new unregistered securities offering seemed pretty stupid.
While we can’t confirm securities fraud is the reason Debt Box pulled the plug on the IN8 backend, we can confirm the grift was a massive flop.
Since launching in January 2024, IN8 NFT website traffic has been too low for SimilarWeb to track.
This doesn’t come as a surprise for a number of reasons:
- The SEC’s ongoing lawsuit against Debt Box and iX Global alleges $49 million in securities fraud
- the majority of iX Global investors appear to be Indians who got screwed over in Debt Box’s original unregistered securities offering
- the Indian investigation into iX Global is ongoing, with an open arrest warrant issued for founder and CEO Joe Martinez
I’m not expecting any but pending any further IN8 NFT updates, we’ll keep you posted.
Troy Dooly thinks Debt Box’s Jason Anderson has fled to Dubai and disappeared.
youtube.com/watch?v=oU8CcA5VLV8
Yesterday we saw another lies and false hope from the absconder Joe Martinez where he says that
1. all the money (ALL THE MONEY) that the broker had.
2. all the money is with the indian government and will be distributed back shortly.
3. creating “india relief fund”
4. first available to active ix users – which means that the victims will have to put in more money into ix to be able to access the form – then once the form is filled and submitted – then we will be doing a type of due diligence and then as per the terms and conditions (not disclosed) will be doing some % of refund-
how many will get how much is a big question mark ? is this not another type of Ponzi scheme ???
“we did not receive any commissions from your investments “ we did not make any money from your deposits” – what about the money which was collected for forex automation ?????
80% payouts thru the business plan ? how ?
blame on indian distributors – when you were making easy money you did not get educated is what Joe says ….
natg licences bought for 1500 dollars – not get 25 dollars for it .
crytoland is making progress and paying a few dollars daily.
the chairman Miguel rodregez is now the top producer is ix global .
Giving false information to the victims continues.
MESSAGE ON TELEGRAM CHANNEL OF THE DEBT BOX ABOUT JOSEPH MARTINEZ
Ruhroh, sounds like scammers have turned on eachother.
*grabs popcorn*
as per the court document seems Viraj Patil wanted to turn approver but was denied since he is one of the major player in the fraud says the federal agency of india.
hope he has disclosed that all 4 including tp global fx, ix ventures fzco , the digital commodity house, vertex global fzco are all next to each other in the same Dubai Silicon Oasis.
@oz – so this may just be a diversionary tactic to show that they are separate operations.
Is “approver” the Indian equivalent of snitch? I’m a bit lost on the terminology.
The term **”approver”** is not explicitly defined in the **Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)**, but it is commonly applied to a person who is directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence and to whom a pardon is granted under **Section 306** of the CrPC. Let’s delve into the intricacies of this concept:
1. **Definition of Approver**:
– An **approver** is an accomplice who decides to testify against co-accused in exchange for a pardon.
– The term is not explicitly used in the CrPC but is associated with a person who receives a pardon under Section 306.
– The purpose of granting pardon to an approver is to secure their testimony against other individuals involved in the same offence.
2. **Procedure for Granting Pardon**:
– **Section 306** of the CrPC outlines the procedure for tendering pardon to an accomplice.
– The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metropolitan Magistrate, or a Magistrate of the first class may grant pardon to a person who is directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence.
– The conditions for granting pardon include:
– The person must make a **full and true disclosure** of all circumstances within their knowledge related to the offence.
– The disclosure should cover details about every other person involved, whether as a principal or an abettor in the commission of the offence.
3. **Key Principles**:
– The court’s power to grant pardon aims to obtain evidence directly or indirectly connected to the offence.
– The court considers the type of evidence the individual requesting pardon is likely to offer and their complicity in the offence.
– The prosecution typically submits the request for granting pardon.
– Pardons are granted subject to complete and truthful disclosure of events related to the crime.
– Once designated as an approver, the individual ceases to be an accused and can only be questioned as a witness by co-accused.
In summary, an **approver** is an accomplice who cooperates with the prosecution by providing crucial evidence in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Their testimony can be instrumental in securing convictions against other offenders involved in the same offence.
But his request has not been accepted by the federal agency since he is one of the perpetrators.
Ah. I think the US equivalent would be a defendant seeking a non-conviction plea deal.
Good to see it was denied. Also reveals there are scammers above Patil.
I wOnDeR wHo ThEy CoUlD bE?