OneCoin beg investors to not withdraw funds
The key to a successful Ponzi scheme is getting people to invest, withdrawing their money and then leaving them in a lurch.
Tons of a victims, a handful of early investors profiting – you know how it goes.
One of the issues dampening efforts to rip people off is that with the traditional Ponzi schemes, ROIs are paid out on a schedule – to everyone.
Yes earlier investors still make off with the lion’s share, but mid to late investors also get a few dollars too (not nearly enough to cover their initial investments though).
Is there a way to address this “problem” and maximize admin and early adopter profits?
For the answer one only need look as far as a recent OneCoin webinar.
Zeek Rewards pioneered the Ponzi points business model. This model sees affiliates invest funds in exchange for points, with the scheme then paying out initial ROIs via said points.
The points are attributed imaginary value by the scheme’s operators, who quietly withdraw from the backend – all the while urging those who have invested to keep on reinvesting their points… for more points.
It’s a combination of a Ponzi scheme, fear of loss marketing and online MLM and, despite Zeek Rewards being shut down by the SEC in 2012, is a model still in use today.
Albeit in different form.
The latest form the Ponzi points model has been deployed is via altcoins, that is proposed BitCoin alternatives.
OneCoin is one such opportunity.
The core OneCoin business model is much like Zeek. You invest $x, you get points (OneCoins), something-something magic, those points indefinitely increase in value and you get paid in more points.
At some point the idea is you convert those points to cash but, as OneCoin management are evidently well aware of, if enough people start doing that early on, admin and initial investor profits are eaten into.
And so we have Sebastian Greenwood (right), Master Investor Distributor with OneCoin, begging investors to do the opposite.
Currently in Vietnam to promote OneCoin to unsuspecting locals, Greenwood urges existing investors to hold onto their OneCoins on the promise of an indefinite increase in value.
This was done via a OneCoin corporate “State of Nation” webinar held on August 14th, in which Greenwood laid on heavy with the “fear of loss” marketing concept:
[7:30] The people who have this early sell behavior they actually lost on their account because of the increase in limits.
Guys, do not sell at this early stage.
There is no real point in selling at this early stage, I’m just telling you some friendly advice.
Do not sell the OneCoin at this early stage, you are losing too much value because the price of the coin is increasing.
[8:15] This is definitely something that you should be very careful with.
There is no point for people who sold out, for example at one Euro, when it’s now one sixty-five.
Which means that those people who did sell at the early stage, they lost already thirty percent in value.
Now why would you go and do that? At this early stage, why would you sell?
There is no, no idea really behind it.
[14:20] Do not sell this OneCoin today. There is no point in losing that promising (undecipherable).
In an effort to encourage deeper initial investment into OneCoin, the scheme recently introduced a €12,500 “Premium Trader” entry-point – up from the €5000 “Tycoon Trader” package.
For legitimate cryptocurrencies, what users of the currency do with the coin is neither here nor there.
It’s out there, and whether it succeeds or fails is entirely determined by market adoption of the coin.
The difference with OneCoin?
Those selling you the coins are taking your money and have a very specific reason for not wanting you to withdraw it back out.
People withdrawing their OneCoins (points) means there’s less fund for Sebastian Greenwood and others at the top of the OneCoin investment pool to withdraw.
I mean do you really think Greenwood himself isn’t quietly withdrawing thousands daily/weekly while he encourages the rest of the OneCoin affiliate-base to accumulate numbers on a screen?
This is precisely how Zeek Rewards worked, with executive management and early investors making off with the majority of funds withdrawn.
The vast majority of Zeek Rewards investors were only left with VIP points. Points which, outside of the inflated value they were assigned within the scheme, were ultimately worthless.
And OneCoin, using the same core business model (OneCoins = VIP points = Ponzi points), is no different.
Whether regulators shut OneCoin down or the scheme collapses, the vast majority of investors are going to be left with nothing more than worthless OneCoin points… and it’s going to hurt, just like it did in Zeek Rewards.
The webinar video currently has 566 views, many of them coming in from this website (e.g. it got one view from me yesterday, and one today).
Statistics like that, indirect ones, are probably more reliable than OneCoin’s own figures for number of members.
2,215 followers (e.g. compared to Tony Rush’ 8,043 followers)
Short, official marketing videos have most views, followed by “proof” videos.
18,500 views 1:24 “welcome video” (4 months)
15,800 views 1;58 “Dubai Event” (2 months)
6,000 views 0:54 “OneCoin and Conligus” (4 months)
– – – –
5,800 views 17:15 “Audit interview” (2 months)
4,200 views 10:07 “Audit presentation, Dubai” (2 months)
– – – –
3,600 views 1:25 “Coin Vegas” (2 months)
Cool two.
Would you advise investors to withdraw funds or not?
I have clearly advised investors to not invest in OneCoin, e.g. in the post #731. But people will need to make that decision themselves. I will also advise people to withdraw money completely.
I have the feeling that you’re asking about something different here, i.e. that you’re “asking the wrong question but expect to get the right answer”.
I don’t know what you mean. What do you mean?
You probably already knew the answer to the question, i.e. you didn’t really need to have it answered.
I did not know how you would answer, but if you believe I was asking about “something different,” then you must really tell me what it was. I can’t read your mind.
Excerpts from a photo article on an Icelandic Bitcoin mine (NOT ONECOIN) with pictures.
Read more: uk.businessinsider.com/photos-iceland-bitcoin-mine-genesis-mining-cloud-2015-8#ixzz3jOMDmXoP
Bitcoin mine only makes sense if you already have a ton of idle hardware that’s actually efficient on electricity (AND cheap electricity easily available).
Cloud mining is impossible to verify since why would they rent it out to you if they could be doing the mining themselves, if there’s that much profit margin?
Given that difficulty of mining goes up steadily, you have to plow back enough to keep expanding the facility. And what will you do with it when it’s no longer profitable?
OneCoin is even more egregiously gray in all areas that it’s probably safer flushing the money down a toilet.
The facility shown in the article is in all likelihood legit and claims to be making a 20% pretax profit at current Bitcoin prices.
That’s not bad. Its taking advantage of low energy costs and economies of scale to do that.
I wondered myself.
Considering the technical expertise and capital needed to set up Genesis Mining’s operation in Iceland (NOT ONECOIN) one might reasonably expect Genesis to keep all coins mined for themselves, yet this does not appear to be the case as they also mine under contract.
For example, Genesis may decide not to mine for its own account if the price of Bitcoins is volatile, but they would happily continue doing so for others which would add revenue without incurring risk.
As such Genesis advertises their capability to mine any digital currency a customer requests.
It may be imagined that some of their customers have been reviewed by BMLM
genesis-mining.com
as discussed in previous threads, onecoin runs a ‘charity’ called one world foundation, which in an attempt to steal some legitimacy made some donation to SEVA canada, and proceeded to plaster this information all across its website and social media.
when some alert onecoin followers contacted SEVA canada, and informed them about onecoins ponzi activities, SEVA promptly contacted onecoin, and returned their donations and announced they had no ongoing affiliation with onecoin.
probably on SEVA’s insistence, mention of SEVA was removed from the Homepage of the oneworldfoundation.eu website.
however, scammers that ruja&co are, the website continued to mention ties with SEVA in the events section of their website.
it appears that SEVA canada cracked their whip some more, because the oneworld foundation website is devoid of ANY Mention of SEVA canada now.
victory for SEVA, and a slap in the face to rujamama.
also, while on one hand we have greenwood begging onecoin investors not to withdraw funds, the official onecoin FB page announced yesterday that they have reached 500,000 members.
since ruja&co are slimy shifty liars, i don’t know how true this number is, but the more the numbers grow, payouts will become more difficult.
it seems like onecoin is limping into an implosion.