Y’know all those OneCoin points y’all been investing in since 2014 on that non-existent blockchain?

Yeah… forget about them. Over the next year OneCoin wants you to invest even more money in a to be launched OFC ERC20 token.

Earlier today OneCoin revealed it’s latest “big announcement”, regarding what many desperate investors were hoping for a OneCoin points public trading date.

That didn’t happen, with OneCoin instead announcing a new OFC ERC20 token ICO.

Without getting too technical, OFC will be a new set of points available for OneCoin affiliates to invest in.

Rather than use OneCoin’s non-existent blockchain, instead OFC will be launched on the Ethereum platform. Because y’know, “future of money” and all that.

Worse still, despite taking only a few minutes to set up, OneCoin are going to drip feed OFC tokens to investors till October, 2019.

So yeah, anyone wanting to publicly trade their OneCoin points is going to have to wait at least another eleven months – after which there will no doubt be some other distraction pulled out.

Or Bulgarian authorities could get up off their lazy asses and do their job. Just sayin’.

OneCoin intend to start selling pre-generated OFC tokens from October 8th, 2018 till January 7th, 2019.

120 billion pre-generated OFC tokens will be flogged to what remains of the gullible OneCoin affiliate base for €0.02 to €0.06 EUR.

In April 2019 the company will release 30% of invested tokens, with the final amounts released on October 2019.

OneCoin of course provide no reason for delaying giving out pre-generated and already invested in OFC tokens by nine months.

A number of third-party exchanges are featured on the OneCoin ICO website as “exchanges that we are contacting”.

This suggests the company hopes to list its ERC20 OFC token publicly at some point.

Or to look at it another way, confirmation that pretty much OneCoin’s last four years have been nothing more than one big Ponzi lie.

Naturally no third-party exchange can list points tracked on a SQL database, hence we have this new OFC token nonsense.

Convince a few shady exchanges to list the token, convert existing OneCoin points to pre-generated OFC tokens at some point …

Please, someone stop me if I’m wrong.

As for the value of OFC inevitably dumping, OneCoin couldn’t care less if it collapses.

The company already has your money – what are you gonna do about it?

 

Update 23rd August 2018 – In a likely attempt to avoid scrutiny, OneCoin has removed the OFC ERC20 smart contract code from their website.

Here it is the code as originally published;

pragma solidity ^0.4.19;

/**
* @title ERC20Basic
* @dev Simpler version of ERC20 interface
* @dev see EIPs GitHub link
*/
contract ERC20Basic {
function totalSupply() public view returns (uint256);
function balanceOf(address who) public view returns (uint256);
function transfer(address to, uint256 value) public returns (bool);
event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
}

/**
* @title ERC20 interface
* @dev see EIPs GitHub link
*/
contract ERC20 is ERC20Basic {
function allowance(address owner, address spender) public view returns (uint256);
function transferFrom(address from, address to, uint256 value) public returns (bool);
function approve(address spender, uint256 value) public returns (bool);
event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);
}

/**
* @title SafeMath
* @dev Math operations with safety checks that throw on error
*/
library SafeMath {

/**
* @dev Multiplies two numbers, throws on overflow.
*/
function mul(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
if (a == 0) {
return 0;
}
uint256 c = a * b;
assert(c / a == b);
return c;
}

/**
* @dev Integer division of two numbers, truncating the quotient.
*/
function div(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
// assert(b > 0); // Solidity automatically throws when dividing by 0
// uint256 c = a / b;
// assert(a == b * c + a % b); // There is no case in which this doesn’t hold
return a / b;
}

/**
* @dev Subtracts two numbers, throws on overflow (i.e. if subtrahend is greater than minuend).
*/
function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
assert(b <= a);
return a – b;
}

/**
* @dev Adds two numbers, throws on overflow.
*/
function add(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
uint256 c = a + b;
assert(c >= a);
return c;
}
}

/**
* @title Basic token
* @dev Basic version of StandardToken, with no allowances.
*/
contract BasicToken is ERC20Basic {
using SafeMath for uint256;

mapping(address => uint256) balances;

uint256 totalSupply_;

/**
* @dev total number of tokens in existence
*/
function totalSupply() public view returns (uint256) {
return totalSupply_;
}

/**
* @dev transfer token for a specified address
* @param _to The address to transfer to.
* @param _value The amount to be transferred.
*/
function transfer(address _to, uint256 _value) public returns (bool) {
require(_to != address(0));
require(_value <= balances[msg.sender]);

balances[msg.sender] = balances[msg.sender].sub(_value);
balances[_to] = balances[_to].add(_value);
emit Transfer(msg.sender, _to, _value);
return true;
}

/**
* @dev Gets the balance of the specified address.
* @param _owner The address to query the the balance of.
* @return An uint256 representing the amount owned by the passed address.
*/
function balanceOf(address _owner) public view returns (uint256 balance) {
return balances[_owner];
}

}
/**
* @title Standard ERC20 token
*
* @dev Implementation of the basic standard token.
* @dev EIPs GitHub link
* @dev Based on code by FirstBlood: GitHub FirstBlood link
*/
contract StandardToken is ERC20, BasicToken {

mapping (address => mapping (address => uint256)) internal allowed;

/**
* @dev Transfer tokens from one address to another
* @param _from address The address which you want to send tokens from
* @param _to address The address which you want to transfer to
* @param _value uint256 the amount of tokens to be transferred
*/
function transferFrom(address _from, address _to, uint256 _value) public returns (bool) {
require(_to != address(0));
require(_value <= balances[_from]);
require(_value <= allowed[_from][msg.sender]);

balances[_from] = balances[_from].sub(_value);
balances[_to] = balances[_to].add(_value);
allowed[_from][msg.sender] = allowed[_from][msg.sender].sub(_value);
emit Transfer(_from, _to, _value);
return true;
}

/**
* @dev Approve the passed address to spend the specified amount of tokens on behalf of msg.sender.
*
* Beware that changing an allowance with this method brings the risk that someone may use both the old
* and the new allowance by unfortunate transaction ordering. One possible solution to mitigate this
* race condition is to first reduce the spender’s allowance to 0 and set the desired value afterwards:
* EIPs GitHub link
* @param _spender The address which will spend the funds.
* @param _value The amount of tokens to be spent.
*/
function approve(address _spender, uint256 _value) public returns (bool) {
allowed[msg.sender][_spender] = _value;
emit Approval(msg.sender, _spender, _value);
return true;
}

/**
* @dev Function to check the amount of tokens that an owner allowed to a spender.
* @param _owner address The address which owns the funds.
* @param _spender address The address which will spend the funds.
* @return A uint256 specifying the amount of tokens still available for the spender.
*/
function allowance(address _owner, address _spender) public view returns (uint256) {
return allowed[_owner][_spender];
}

/**
* @dev Increase the amount of tokens that an owner allowed to a spender.
*
* approve should be called when allowed[_spender] == 0. To increment
* allowed value is better to use this function to avoid 2 calls (and wait until
* the first transaction is mined)
* From MonolithDAO Token.sol
* @param _spender The address which will spend the funds.
* @param _addedValue The amount of tokens to increase the allowance by.
*/
function increaseApproval(address _spender, uint _addedValue) public returns (bool) {
allowed[msg.sender][_spender] = allowed[msg.sender][_spender].add(_addedValue);
emit Approval(msg.sender, _spender, allowed[msg.sender][_spender]);
return true;
}

/**
* @dev Decrease the amount of tokens that an owner allowed to a spender.
*
* approve should be called when allowed[_spender] == 0. To decrement
* allowed value is better to use this function to avoid 2 calls (and wait until
* the first transaction is mined)
* From MonolithDAO Token.sol
* @param _spender The address which will spend the funds.
* @param _subtractedValue The amount of tokens to decrease the allowance by.
*/
function decreaseApproval(address _spender, uint _subtractedValue) public returns (bool) {
uint oldValue = allowed[msg.sender][_spender];
if (_subtractedValue > oldValue) {
allowed[msg.sender][_spender] = 0;
} else {
allowed[msg.sender][_spender] = oldValue.sub(_subtractedValue);
}
emit Approval(msg.sender, _spender, allowed[msg.sender][_spender]);
return true;
}

}

/**
* @title Ownable
* @dev The Ownable contract has an owner address, and provides basic authorization control
* functions, this simplifies the implementation of “user permissions”.
*/
contract Ownable {
address public owner;

event OwnershipTransferred(address indexed previousOwner, address indexed newOwner);

/**
* @dev The Ownable constructor sets the original `owner` of the contract to the sender
* account.
*/
function Ownable() public {
owner = msg.sender;
}

/**
* @dev Throws if called by any account other than the owner.
*/
modifier onlyOwner() {
require(msg.sender == owner);
_;
}

/**
* @dev Allows the current owner to transfer control of the contract to a newOwner.
* @param newOwner The address to transfer ownership to.
*/
function transferOwnership(address newOwner) public onlyOwner {
require(newOwner != address(0));
emit OwnershipTransferred(owner, newOwner);
owner = newOwner;
}

}

contract OFC is Ownable, StandardToken {

string public constant name = “OneCoin”;
string public constant symbol = “OFC”;
uint8 public constant decimals = 7;

uint256 public constant INITIAL_SUPPLY = (120000 * (10**6)) * (10 ** uint256(decimals));

constructor() public {
totalSupply_ = INITIAL_SUPPLY;
balances[this] = INITIAL_SUPPLY;
emit Transfer(address(0), this, INITIAL_SUPPLY);
}

//sending tokens from contract address
function send(address to, uint amount) public onlyOwner {
require(to != address(0));
require(amount > 0);

// SafeMath.sub will throw if there is not enough balance.
balances[this] = balances[this].sub(amount);
balances[to] = balances[to].add(amount);
emit Transfer(this, to, amount);
}

//mining tokens and sending to address
function mint(address to, uint amount) public onlyOwner {
require(to != address(0));
require(amount > 0);

totalSupply_ = totalSupply_.add(amount);
balances[to] = balances[to].add(amount);
emit Transfer(address(0), to, amount);
}

//burning tokens from address
function burn(address from, uint amount) public onlyOwner {
require(from != address(0));
require(amount > 0);

// SafeMath.sub will throw if there is not enough balance.
totalSupply_ = totalSupply_.sub(amount);
balances[from] = balances[from].sub(amount);
emit Transfer(from, address(0), amount);
}

function() public payable {}

//Sendin Ethers
function sendEther(address to, uint amount) public onlyOwner {
require(to != address(0));
require(amount > 0);
to.transfer(amount);
}

}

Solidity and ERC20Basic appear to be free ERC20 token scripts available on GitHub.

Note that I had to edit the GitHub links as the URLs were too long in their original text format (was breaking the website for mobile users).

 

Update 23rd August 2018 #2 – The source-code of the OneCoin ICO website reveals the company hired to create the OFC smart contract:

In an attempt to mask the source, the rest of the image URLs on the website have been encoded. It appears however that someone forgot to encode the last few image URLs. Ruhroh!

The “ICO Promotion” website belongs to ICODA, who describe themselves as “the ICO Digital Agency”.

The company markets “done for you” smart contract creation, ICO website creation and white paper development and listing on exchanges services.

Who owns ICODA is not disclosed on the company website. Several ICODA employees are listed on LinkedIn, with disinticly Russian sounding names (Evgeniy Stepanov, Игорь Чеканов, Ruslan Pivnev, Vladimir Z. and Ratislav Yankovskiy).

How much OneCoin paid ICODA to come up with their OFC ERC20 token is unclear.