Quote:
Originally Posted by sharonsopinion
Andy,
Why in the world would someone use your CSATM when they can just use STP or one of the other exchangers directly? Also, isn't it just a copy of the LOOM system? I can't see why someone outside of signing up for XLOtwo would use it.
Having a program owner force people to use their exchange/payment processor as the only means of depositing and withdrawing is dangerous for players. When one collapses, the other is usually not far behind. Then they lose money in two places, instead of just one. Once it leaves someone's bank account, the funds are just a virtual blip on the computer screen. When someone runs both the scam and the PP, they are just moving the virtual blip from one web page to another and collecting a fee to do it! I have less of a problem with those that at least offer another method, instead of forced use. (If you say it isn't forced because people have the choice of not playing your game, then that is just a con. IF people want to deposit into your game, then they are forced to use CSatm.)
Which brings me to your explanation of how you are generating revenue for XLOtwo. You're still taking member's money (either from XLOtwo deposits or the fees they paid to move funds around in CSatm) and giving it to earlier depositors whose ad packs have matured. Plus 150% ROI in 75 days is too high to get just from CSatm fees, IMO.
So, what you have is a ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are scams, regardless of how long they last. It doesn't matter that your last ponzi scheme lasted 12 months or not. I fully believe that you knew it was on the verge of collapsing when you sold it to your fellow scammer, Bob Krimm. Please read my article titled, " Ponzi Scheme - Pond Scum."
All that you have done and said so far is a scam and makes you a con-man, IMO. You are no different than the old-time slick "medicine" salesman of days of yore. So, unless you can prove that you are making revenue from something other than the pockets of players, this one stays in the scam warning section. You say that we're shortchainging our readers by putting your scam in the scam section and I say that we'd be doing them a disservice if we promoted your scams.
JMO,
Sharon |
Right now the only person using CSATM in a program is myself. Others have enquired. Others have indicated that they will. However right now I'm the only one.
People joining XLO2 have to use CSATM. If I opened using e-gold indications are I would have been flooded. That is not the point. Right now I do not see a particularly healthy future for e-gold. Comments by various people indicate that e-currencies generally are in crisis. I am not sure if that is true but I am not about to sit around and do nothing when something is there to be done.
As I posted, I believe in the system. I believe that the safety and privacy offered by the operating system is paramount. Why would I want to use anything else? If I "forced" everyone to use e-gold and e-gold fails in the court case and the whole value is lost, then how smart is that? How forward thinking?
The system has been developed with owners of other ecurrencies. Input has been sought and obtained. The general acceptance is reasonable.
You say that the collapse of a program means that the payment processor is not far behind. With all due respect, you have not done any research on the system, and while I accept that that what you say is generally the case, there are safeguards in CSATM that prevent that. This has been explained in the interview that is posted on the NoBS blog. If you cannot do me the courtesy of reading what is posted and explained, then you cannot expect me to give your opinion any respect. And, to hammer the point home, I do not.
The fees generated from the ATM have covered the withdrawls thus far. Whether you think it is enough or not is not the point.
I suggest you redifine your word scam. If you insist that all ponzis are scams then that is your right. I reckon that is a pack of crap, and have posted that same viewpoint over several years. However, I digress. Quite frankly I have proven that the fees are going towards paying the returns. That right there qualifies this as not a ponzi. And therefore, by your own definition, not a scam.
Now if you want to put this in the scam section because of your personal opinion, then you as an admin can do that. But - by the very definitions you choose, this is not.