- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Crypto Launching In 2023 – PulseChain
Posted on 8/1/23 at 8:41 pm to METAL
Posted on 8/1/23 at 8:41 pm to METAL
quote:
Completely different scenarios from the start though.
Not sure how you can come up with this distinction.
People sacrificed money in exchange for Pulse.
They’re in a common enterprise as all share in the profits of the new token/network/etc.
The damn Pulse website constantly marketed the expectation of profit.
It seems like a slam dunk to me.
2
Posted on 8/1/23 at 9:14 pm to zzgobucky
quote:
LMAO Pulse down a cool 33% today.
And another 33%
Posted on 8/1/23 at 9:29 pm to slackster
If you don’t know/aren’t admitting the fundamental differences between the coins and what the suits entail you are ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:30 am to slackster
I'm no fan of how the SEC has treated crypto and their relationship to securities, so I can't side with the SEC on Hex/Pulse security debate. I think the fraud aspect of this is much more interesting. That could potentially turn criminal and be bad new for Heart.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:31 am to METAL
quote:
If you don’t know/aren’t admitting the fundamental differences between the coins and what the suits entail you are ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
Educate us
Posted on 8/2/23 at 12:15 pm to slackster
quote:
Educate us
Personally, I think the XRP ruling on the msjs was wrong. Did the SEC fail to admit evidence to show the knowledge levels of the programmatic retail buyers?
With that said, people don't understand the importance of each and every representation from these companies.
I said it a long time ago, but it isn't as easy as just labeling something as a sacrifice or donation in order to skirt the rules.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 12:41 pm to BottomlandBrew
1/3
From Matt Levine at Bloomberg, who I feel has a decent understanding of crypto from a tradfi background:
Here is an economic system, or a system anyway:
I make up a crypto token called MattCoin. I can issue an unlimited amount of MattCoins, since I made them up.
I sell them to people for money.
You can use MattCoins to make term deposits, with me: You can give me back your MattCoins and I will keep them for some specified time period (say, a year), and at the end of the period I will hand them back to you with interest.
The interest is paid in MattCoins.
The interest rate is high, say, 38% per year.
This is the only thing you can do with the MattCoins. They’re not useful for payments, they don’t run smart contracts on a blockchain, all you can do is trade them on crypto exchanges and deposit them for a 38% yield paid in kind.
So you pay me $100 for 100 MattCoins, you deposit them with me for a year, and at the end of the year I give you back 138 MattCoins.
At the end of the year, how much would you expect your 138 MattCoins to be worth? I think the main options are [1] :
$138. You put in $100 for 100 MattCoins, meaning that they are worth $1 each, and in a year you get back 138 MattCoins. If they are still worth $1 each, then 138 MattCoins are worth $138.
$100. You put in $100 for some MattCoins, absolutely no economic activity happened, and in a year you get back 138 MattCoins. This is like a stock split: You had 100 shares of a pot worth $100, now you have 138 shares of a pot worth $100, each share is worth less but the pot hasn’t changed.
$0. You put in $100 for some MattCoins, absolutely no economic activity happened or will ever happen, in a year you get back 138 MattCoins, but I keep the $100 and you don’t get to exchange your 138 MattCoins for real money again. There is not actually a pot with $100 in it; I just took the $100! You put in $100 and got back a pile of magic beans that are not redeemable for anything. The pile grew bigger over the year, but it remains worthless.
More than $138. You put in $100 for 100 MattCoins, those MattCoins offered a 38% yield, other people see that 38% yield and said “I want some of that,” they buy some MattCoins, the price of MattCoin rises, still other people see the rising price and say “ooh I want some of that,” the price rises further, it’s a virtuous cycle, eventually each MattCoin is worth like $10,000 and your 138 MattCoins make you a millionaire.
I think that Answer 3 is the standard answer that traditional financial analysis would give you: You bought an electronic token with no cash flows ever, so it’s worth zero. I am drawn to this traditional analysis, but it has not really worked all that well for understanding crypto.
I think that Answer 4 is the standard answer that crypto would give you. This is a completely accepted mechanism of crypto finance: You have some token, the main thing that the token does is generate more tokens, you call those additional tokens “yield,” people are attracted to the yield, they buy the token and its price goes up. The “yield” does not come from any economic activity in the real world; it just comes from printing more tokens. “Ponzinomics,” people sometimes say. Loosely speaking, this is the thought process behind crypto “Ponzicoins” like OlympusDAO and Wonderland. Loosely speaking, it is the thought process behind many algorithmic stablecoins like TerraUSD. Loosely speaking, it is the thought process that Sam Bankman-Fried once described to me on Odd Lots: “You start with a company that builds a box and in practice this box, they probably dress it up to look like a life-changing, you know, world-altering protocol that's gonna replace all the big banks in 38 days or whatever. Maybe for now actually ignore what it does or pretend it does literally nothing. It's just a box.”
From Matt Levine at Bloomberg, who I feel has a decent understanding of crypto from a tradfi background:
Here is an economic system, or a system anyway:
I make up a crypto token called MattCoin. I can issue an unlimited amount of MattCoins, since I made them up.
I sell them to people for money.
You can use MattCoins to make term deposits, with me: You can give me back your MattCoins and I will keep them for some specified time period (say, a year), and at the end of the period I will hand them back to you with interest.
The interest is paid in MattCoins.
The interest rate is high, say, 38% per year.
This is the only thing you can do with the MattCoins. They’re not useful for payments, they don’t run smart contracts on a blockchain, all you can do is trade them on crypto exchanges and deposit them for a 38% yield paid in kind.
So you pay me $100 for 100 MattCoins, you deposit them with me for a year, and at the end of the year I give you back 138 MattCoins.
At the end of the year, how much would you expect your 138 MattCoins to be worth? I think the main options are [1] :
$138. You put in $100 for 100 MattCoins, meaning that they are worth $1 each, and in a year you get back 138 MattCoins. If they are still worth $1 each, then 138 MattCoins are worth $138.
$100. You put in $100 for some MattCoins, absolutely no economic activity happened, and in a year you get back 138 MattCoins. This is like a stock split: You had 100 shares of a pot worth $100, now you have 138 shares of a pot worth $100, each share is worth less but the pot hasn’t changed.
$0. You put in $100 for some MattCoins, absolutely no economic activity happened or will ever happen, in a year you get back 138 MattCoins, but I keep the $100 and you don’t get to exchange your 138 MattCoins for real money again. There is not actually a pot with $100 in it; I just took the $100! You put in $100 and got back a pile of magic beans that are not redeemable for anything. The pile grew bigger over the year, but it remains worthless.
More than $138. You put in $100 for 100 MattCoins, those MattCoins offered a 38% yield, other people see that 38% yield and said “I want some of that,” they buy some MattCoins, the price of MattCoin rises, still other people see the rising price and say “ooh I want some of that,” the price rises further, it’s a virtuous cycle, eventually each MattCoin is worth like $10,000 and your 138 MattCoins make you a millionaire.
I think that Answer 3 is the standard answer that traditional financial analysis would give you: You bought an electronic token with no cash flows ever, so it’s worth zero. I am drawn to this traditional analysis, but it has not really worked all that well for understanding crypto.
I think that Answer 4 is the standard answer that crypto would give you. This is a completely accepted mechanism of crypto finance: You have some token, the main thing that the token does is generate more tokens, you call those additional tokens “yield,” people are attracted to the yield, they buy the token and its price goes up. The “yield” does not come from any economic activity in the real world; it just comes from printing more tokens. “Ponzinomics,” people sometimes say. Loosely speaking, this is the thought process behind crypto “Ponzicoins” like OlympusDAO and Wonderland. Loosely speaking, it is the thought process behind many algorithmic stablecoins like TerraUSD. Loosely speaking, it is the thought process that Sam Bankman-Fried once described to me on Odd Lots: “You start with a company that builds a box and in practice this box, they probably dress it up to look like a life-changing, you know, world-altering protocol that's gonna replace all the big banks in 38 days or whatever. Maybe for now actually ignore what it does or pretend it does literally nothing. It's just a box.”
This post was edited on 8/2/23 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 8/2/23 at 12:42 pm to BottomlandBrew
2/3
Anyway here’s a US Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action against a crypto project called Hex [2] and its founder, a guy named Richard Schueler who apparently goes by Richard Heart:
The Securities and Exchange Commission [yesterday] charged Richard Heart (aka Richard Schueler) and three unincorporated entities that he controls, Hex, PulseChain, and PulseX, with conducting unregistered offerings of crypto asset securities that raised more than $1 billion in crypto assets from investors. The SEC also charged Heart and PulseChain with fraud for misappropriating at least $12 million of offering proceeds to purchase luxury goods including sports cars, watches, and a 555-carat black diamond known as ‘The Enigma’ – reportedly the largest black diamond in the world.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Heart began marketing Hex in 2018, claiming it was the first high-yield “blockchain certificate of deposit,” and began promoting Hex tokens as an investment designed to make people “rich.”
There is a lot going on in the complaint, including a very fun paragraph detailing Heart’s spending:
Heart misappropriated at least $12.1 million of PulseChain investor assets between August 3, 2021 and September 22, 2022, to fund his purchases of luxury goods, including cars and watches. For example, on August 3, 2021, Heart spent $337,642 of PulseChain investor assets on the purchase of a luxury car from a European luxury car dealer. On August 24, 2021, Heart transferred another $534,916 to the same luxury car dealer for the purchase of a McLaren sports car. On August 29, 2021, Heart purchased a 2020 white Ferrari Roma for $314,125. From January 2022 through March 2022, Heart also purchased five watches in separate transactions. Heart’s first purchase, on January 20, 2022, included: (1) a $285,799 Rolex Submariner Oyster, (2) a $550,000 Rolex Daytona Eye of the Tiger, and (3) a $800,000 Rolex GMT – Master II. On April 5, 2022, Heart spent an additional $1.38 million to purchase another Rolex watch. On April 10, 2022, Heart spent $419,192 of PulseChain investor assets to purchase another watch.
But mostly I love Hex’s economic model. Here it is:
Beginning in December 2019, Heart offered and sold Hex tokens, promising investors many incentives and bonuses, while marketing Hex as the first high-yield “Blockchain Certificate of Deposit” launched on the Ethereum network. Additionally, Heart touted a Hex feature that he developed and dubbed “staking,” which he described as allowing Hex investors to lock up their Hex tokens for a designated period of time in return for additional Hex tokens at the end of their lock-up period. Heart claimed that investors who participated in the so-called “staking” of Hex tokens could earn an average of 38% annual return in the form of additional Hex tokens. …
Hex’s so-called “staking” mechanism does not involve validating transactions on the blockchain. ...
Heart told potential investors on many occasions, including via several YouTube livestreams, that Hex investors could “stake” their Hex tokens through a process in which the tokens are sent to the Ethereum blockchain’s genesis address. That address has no “owner” and, therefore, assets that are sent to it cannot be transferred out. In exchange for investors locking up their Hex tokens, Heart promised that the Hex smart contract would pay the investors investment returns in the form of additional Hex tokens to be delivered in the future. Heart has repeatedly explained, including during a YouTube livestream interview in December 2019, that the purpose of this form of purported “staking” was to incentivize investors to lock up their Hex tokens—which reduced the number of Hex tokens in circulation—to drive up their price. Heart and Hex repeatedly advertised, including on Hex.com, social media, and in interviews, that investors would receive an average investment return of 38% in exchange for so-called “staking” their Hex tokens. …
In a November 27, 2019 interview livestreamed on YouTube shortly before the Hex Offering, Heart described the so-called “staking” feature as “virtual lending” within the Hex ecosystem, saying that, “when people stake their coins . . . the supply has reduced, which means that everyone that hasn’t staked their coins just virtually borrowed the money. . . . If you’re holding an unstaked Hex, every time someone else stakes the Hex, your Hex that you can trade and sell for fiat, it goes up in value.”
Throughout the relevant time period, Heart has emphasized that the principles of supply and demand create a direct relationship between the number of “staked” tokens and the market value of Hex tokens. For example, on December 2, 2019, Heart emphasized on YouTube how his so-called “staking” program would benefit all Hex token holders: “[b]ut in Hex, when people lock up their coins, and that is what caused the price to go up, then the market cap will go down, which gives you more room to grow . . . [a]nd then you could just keep building appreciations and mad gains.” The Hex.com website currently states that “by staking their Hex, Stakers reduce the supply, which puts upwards pressure of Hex’s price.”
Notice how you earn your interest on Hex: You send it to a dead address so no one can ever use it again. This is not what banks do to pay interest: Banks take deposits and use them to fund lending to support real-world economic activity. It is not what, say, Ethereum does to pay staking rewards: Ethereum stakers validate transactions and thus arguably add to the economic value of the Ethereum network. Hex does absolutely nothing, but it just prints some extra tokens (which cost it nothing!) to pay “yield.” This is inflationary, but the staking is arguably deflationary (you can’t sell the tokens that you’ve sent to the dead address), so if everything works out just right the value of Hex tokens goes up and your 38% in-kind yield is great.
Anyway here’s a US Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action against a crypto project called Hex [2] and its founder, a guy named Richard Schueler who apparently goes by Richard Heart:
The Securities and Exchange Commission [yesterday] charged Richard Heart (aka Richard Schueler) and three unincorporated entities that he controls, Hex, PulseChain, and PulseX, with conducting unregistered offerings of crypto asset securities that raised more than $1 billion in crypto assets from investors. The SEC also charged Heart and PulseChain with fraud for misappropriating at least $12 million of offering proceeds to purchase luxury goods including sports cars, watches, and a 555-carat black diamond known as ‘The Enigma’ – reportedly the largest black diamond in the world.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Heart began marketing Hex in 2018, claiming it was the first high-yield “blockchain certificate of deposit,” and began promoting Hex tokens as an investment designed to make people “rich.”
There is a lot going on in the complaint, including a very fun paragraph detailing Heart’s spending:
Heart misappropriated at least $12.1 million of PulseChain investor assets between August 3, 2021 and September 22, 2022, to fund his purchases of luxury goods, including cars and watches. For example, on August 3, 2021, Heart spent $337,642 of PulseChain investor assets on the purchase of a luxury car from a European luxury car dealer. On August 24, 2021, Heart transferred another $534,916 to the same luxury car dealer for the purchase of a McLaren sports car. On August 29, 2021, Heart purchased a 2020 white Ferrari Roma for $314,125. From January 2022 through March 2022, Heart also purchased five watches in separate transactions. Heart’s first purchase, on January 20, 2022, included: (1) a $285,799 Rolex Submariner Oyster, (2) a $550,000 Rolex Daytona Eye of the Tiger, and (3) a $800,000 Rolex GMT – Master II. On April 5, 2022, Heart spent an additional $1.38 million to purchase another Rolex watch. On April 10, 2022, Heart spent $419,192 of PulseChain investor assets to purchase another watch.
But mostly I love Hex’s economic model. Here it is:
Beginning in December 2019, Heart offered and sold Hex tokens, promising investors many incentives and bonuses, while marketing Hex as the first high-yield “Blockchain Certificate of Deposit” launched on the Ethereum network. Additionally, Heart touted a Hex feature that he developed and dubbed “staking,” which he described as allowing Hex investors to lock up their Hex tokens for a designated period of time in return for additional Hex tokens at the end of their lock-up period. Heart claimed that investors who participated in the so-called “staking” of Hex tokens could earn an average of 38% annual return in the form of additional Hex tokens. …
Hex’s so-called “staking” mechanism does not involve validating transactions on the blockchain. ...
Heart told potential investors on many occasions, including via several YouTube livestreams, that Hex investors could “stake” their Hex tokens through a process in which the tokens are sent to the Ethereum blockchain’s genesis address. That address has no “owner” and, therefore, assets that are sent to it cannot be transferred out. In exchange for investors locking up their Hex tokens, Heart promised that the Hex smart contract would pay the investors investment returns in the form of additional Hex tokens to be delivered in the future. Heart has repeatedly explained, including during a YouTube livestream interview in December 2019, that the purpose of this form of purported “staking” was to incentivize investors to lock up their Hex tokens—which reduced the number of Hex tokens in circulation—to drive up their price. Heart and Hex repeatedly advertised, including on Hex.com, social media, and in interviews, that investors would receive an average investment return of 38% in exchange for so-called “staking” their Hex tokens. …
In a November 27, 2019 interview livestreamed on YouTube shortly before the Hex Offering, Heart described the so-called “staking” feature as “virtual lending” within the Hex ecosystem, saying that, “when people stake their coins . . . the supply has reduced, which means that everyone that hasn’t staked their coins just virtually borrowed the money. . . . If you’re holding an unstaked Hex, every time someone else stakes the Hex, your Hex that you can trade and sell for fiat, it goes up in value.”
Throughout the relevant time period, Heart has emphasized that the principles of supply and demand create a direct relationship between the number of “staked” tokens and the market value of Hex tokens. For example, on December 2, 2019, Heart emphasized on YouTube how his so-called “staking” program would benefit all Hex token holders: “[b]ut in Hex, when people lock up their coins, and that is what caused the price to go up, then the market cap will go down, which gives you more room to grow . . . [a]nd then you could just keep building appreciations and mad gains.” The Hex.com website currently states that “by staking their Hex, Stakers reduce the supply, which puts upwards pressure of Hex’s price.”
Notice how you earn your interest on Hex: You send it to a dead address so no one can ever use it again. This is not what banks do to pay interest: Banks take deposits and use them to fund lending to support real-world economic activity. It is not what, say, Ethereum does to pay staking rewards: Ethereum stakers validate transactions and thus arguably add to the economic value of the Ethereum network. Hex does absolutely nothing, but it just prints some extra tokens (which cost it nothing!) to pay “yield.” This is inflationary, but the staking is arguably deflationary (you can’t sell the tokens that you’ve sent to the dead address), so if everything works out just right the value of Hex tokens goes up and your 38% in-kind yield is great.
This post was edited on 8/2/23 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 8/2/23 at 12:42 pm to BottomlandBrew
3/3
This was in 2019, back when a lot of people found this economic model plausible, so it all did work out for a while. From the SEC complaint:
Heart pumped Hex’s capacity for investment gain, claiming at Hex.com (until at least November 1, 2020) that, “Hex is designed to surpass ETH, which did 10,000x price in 2.5 years. It’s working! So far, HEX’s USD price went up 115x in 129 days.” On December 2, 2019, during a seven-hour livestream on YouTube hours before the Hex Offering commenced, Heart stated that Hex “was built to outperform Ethereum and Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies.” Heart added that “[Hex] was built to be the highest appreciating asset that has ever existed in the history of man. That’s the design intention.”
And then it didn’t; Hex peaked in 2021 at about $0.49, and trades at about $0.006 today, down almost 99% from the peak.
I want to mention this case for two reasons. One is that it is absolutely a time capsule of crypto in 2019: Hex’s economic model was allegedly just “buy our token and we will give you more of our token and that’s how you will make money,” and in 2019 enough crypto investors were like “sure that makes sense” that Heart was able to raise a billion dollars. There is something magnificent about raising so much money with such a tissue-thin idea.
The other is that the SEC is suing Heart for securities fraud, arguing that Hex tokens were securities, under the traditional US securities-law analysis that we have discussed a lot around here, which says that a security is “an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.” And so the SEC cites evidence that the profits of Hex were to come from the efforts of Heart:
From the outset, Heart controlled—and continues to control—nearly all aspects of the Hex ecosystem. In a November 17, 2019 livestream on YouTube, Heart shared with potential investors “how-to” videos that he created to explain how investors could: (1) purchase Hex tokens during the offering period, and (2) stake their Hex tokens. In that livestream, Heart also shared additional efforts he was undertaking, including the creation of more “walk through” videos and “ringing up some more exchanges and whales [he] know[s]” in order to make the Hex launch successful. In the same video, Heart disclosed that he directed certain developers to work on the Hex code to the extent that their work “benefit[ted] the ecosystem.”
In a November 12, 2020 YouTube livestream, Heart was asked how much of his time was going towards Hex; Heart stated: “almost all of it.” As recently as the January 2023 Hex Conference (which was virtual, and available on YouTube), Heart stated regarding Hex, “I want to be – I want to have the best performing asset that’s ever existed. I want to be the best crypto founder that’s ever existed. I like doing – I like owning the world’s largest diamond. I like having a coin that went up a million percent that’s had 3 years of flawless operation, that’s never been hacked. The front end has never gone down.”
But look at that economic model! The profits that Hex promised didn’t come from anyone building anything; they came from (1) printing more Hex and (2) people buying it. This was not an investment in some promised ecosystem that was being built by a dedicated team of technologists to revolutionize computing or whatever; this was … an investment in nothing? This was so transparent a Ponzi, in the SEC’s own telling, that I’m not even sure it’s a security.
This was in 2019, back when a lot of people found this economic model plausible, so it all did work out for a while. From the SEC complaint:
Heart pumped Hex’s capacity for investment gain, claiming at Hex.com (until at least November 1, 2020) that, “Hex is designed to surpass ETH, which did 10,000x price in 2.5 years. It’s working! So far, HEX’s USD price went up 115x in 129 days.” On December 2, 2019, during a seven-hour livestream on YouTube hours before the Hex Offering commenced, Heart stated that Hex “was built to outperform Ethereum and Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies.” Heart added that “[Hex] was built to be the highest appreciating asset that has ever existed in the history of man. That’s the design intention.”
And then it didn’t; Hex peaked in 2021 at about $0.49, and trades at about $0.006 today, down almost 99% from the peak.
I want to mention this case for two reasons. One is that it is absolutely a time capsule of crypto in 2019: Hex’s economic model was allegedly just “buy our token and we will give you more of our token and that’s how you will make money,” and in 2019 enough crypto investors were like “sure that makes sense” that Heart was able to raise a billion dollars. There is something magnificent about raising so much money with such a tissue-thin idea.
The other is that the SEC is suing Heart for securities fraud, arguing that Hex tokens were securities, under the traditional US securities-law analysis that we have discussed a lot around here, which says that a security is “an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.” And so the SEC cites evidence that the profits of Hex were to come from the efforts of Heart:
From the outset, Heart controlled—and continues to control—nearly all aspects of the Hex ecosystem. In a November 17, 2019 livestream on YouTube, Heart shared with potential investors “how-to” videos that he created to explain how investors could: (1) purchase Hex tokens during the offering period, and (2) stake their Hex tokens. In that livestream, Heart also shared additional efforts he was undertaking, including the creation of more “walk through” videos and “ringing up some more exchanges and whales [he] know[s]” in order to make the Hex launch successful. In the same video, Heart disclosed that he directed certain developers to work on the Hex code to the extent that their work “benefit[ted] the ecosystem.”
In a November 12, 2020 YouTube livestream, Heart was asked how much of his time was going towards Hex; Heart stated: “almost all of it.” As recently as the January 2023 Hex Conference (which was virtual, and available on YouTube), Heart stated regarding Hex, “I want to be – I want to have the best performing asset that’s ever existed. I want to be the best crypto founder that’s ever existed. I like doing – I like owning the world’s largest diamond. I like having a coin that went up a million percent that’s had 3 years of flawless operation, that’s never been hacked. The front end has never gone down.”
But look at that economic model! The profits that Hex promised didn’t come from anyone building anything; they came from (1) printing more Hex and (2) people buying it. This was not an investment in some promised ecosystem that was being built by a dedicated team of technologists to revolutionize computing or whatever; this was … an investment in nothing? This was so transparent a Ponzi, in the SEC’s own telling, that I’m not even sure it’s a security.
This post was edited on 8/2/23 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 8/2/23 at 1:48 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:
This was so transparent a Ponzi
Explain how HEX is a Ponzi.
Proof of wait is a revolutionary concept.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 3:29 pm to tenderfoot tigah
Heart can call it proof of magic for all I care. That's his thing. He calls something one thing when it's actually another thing. My cat's name is Monkey. That doesn't mean she's a monkey. She's still a cat.
"Proof of Wait" is still a smart contract ponzi, just the same as a "sacrifice" is exchanging eth for pulse in anticipation of a profit, which is a security per the XRP ruling, and a security in which he allegedly spent $12 million on "marketing," which are actually luxury goods for Heart's own enjoyment.
Heart is a very smart and very charismatic person, but that doesn't mean his personal nomenclature absolves him of wrong doing. If that were the case, I could commit any crime and call it something rosy, like calling theft a "donation to The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too."
"Proof of Wait" is still a smart contract ponzi, just the same as a "sacrifice" is exchanging eth for pulse in anticipation of a profit, which is a security per the XRP ruling, and a security in which he allegedly spent $12 million on "marketing," which are actually luxury goods for Heart's own enjoyment.
Heart is a very smart and very charismatic person, but that doesn't mean his personal nomenclature absolves him of wrong doing. If that were the case, I could commit any crime and call it something rosy, like calling theft a "donation to The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too."
Posted on 8/2/23 at 3:35 pm to tenderfoot tigah
quote:
Explain how HEX is a Ponzi.
I think the article is saying it's because the profits don't come from any use or economic activity, but simply from other people buying in and driving up the price so people who sell get paid. At some point it will be worth nothing, and those who are left holding it are out of luck.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 4:21 pm to Thundercles
quote:
profits don't come from any use or economic activity,
That's false. The product is the T share.
quote:
other people buying in and driving up the price so people who sell get paid
That sounds just like a 401k.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 5:23 pm to tenderfoot tigah
quote:
That sounds just like a 401k.
The stock market does also have elements of a Ponzi scheme, but at the very least some of that behavior is driven by companies making a product or selling a service and reporting financial results.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 6:30 pm to BottomlandBrew
that's hilarious. The baw made up his own "proof of" with just being a smart contract on ethereum. I can't talk though I got scammed by celsius fml
This post was edited on 8/2/23 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:46 pm to 21JumpStreet
It's so hilarious that it did a 10,000x.
You are being a hater.
It's an ingenious idea. As is the Pulsex buy and burn that has bought PLSX off the open market and burned $5,000,000 in PLSX in three months.
Richard Heart is the only one with original ideas in crypto these days.
You are being a hater.
It's an ingenious idea. As is the Pulsex buy and burn that has bought PLSX off the open market and burned $5,000,000 in PLSX in three months.
Richard Heart is the only one with original ideas in crypto these days.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:38 pm to tenderfoot tigah
quote:
tenderfoot tigah
Speaking of original ideas, when is the last time you brought an idea to this board that didn't fall 70% or more?
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:42 pm to tenderfoot tigah
Meh, doge did better
Posted on 8/2/23 at 9:24 pm to tenderfoot tigah
Do you own Pulse?
Posted on 8/2/23 at 9:34 pm to tenderfoot tigah
quote:
It's so hilarious that it did a 10,000x.
You are being a hater.
It's an ingenious idea. As is the Pulsex buy and burn that has bought PLSX off the open market and burned $5,000,000 in PLSX in three months.
Richard Heart is the only one with original ideas in crypto these days.
I gotta respect you still sucking his D even after he's draining your wallet to $0. Crypto needs bagholders like you and METAL
Page 29 of 33
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News