Why do people care about a coin that does not affect them. If they are not invested in it then it doesn't affect them, they should take care of their own business. However, unless they are scared of it for some reason, then it makes sense. The competition is always scared of something that is/was more successful than them.
What part of illegal ponzi scam are you not getting?
Of course it wasn't illegal or they wouldn't be operating.
Oh great, that's all crime prevented then. Just announce that crime is illegal and criminals will stop doing it.
The UK financial conduct authority (FCA) do not care about these cryptos and have told me they have no control and do not even seem concerned. In UK law they are simply software utilities people are buying. The fact that people buy and sell them in a market is irrelevant. FCA have warned people against investing into bitcoin but what else do you expect them to do over something they don't control.
Crypto is not a crime. Ponzi scheme is a crime.
Bitconnect were no ponzi scheme and the lending could have carried on for much longer as they were sharing the profits of the coin price gain. The price of the coin would have kept going up until the bubble burst, a bit like the housing market. It could have continued still after that. What do you think bitcoin is going to do when it crashes? It will go back up again. The difference is the housing market can't go down to zero as there are actual unique uses for houses. Bitcoin has thousands of competitors that do the same thing and often a lot better.
Maybe you should tell this website they are promoting illegal ponzis if you really believe it:
http://icoreview.site (they only promote lending platforms and not other ICOs)
You know you lost your argument when you have to invoke some random shitcoining site as your "proof". Yes, they're promoting BCC-like scams. So?
You might have noticed that many of the promoters of bitconnect got together to form a new UK company recently (in the last 6 months I think, can't remember when). If it was illegal, I'm sure they wouldn't have been putting their names down (literally dozens of people were listed in the company filing).
Obviously, bitconnect lending wasn't a Ponzi as they were profiting from the lending system and didn't need to use BCC tokens from new members to pay old ones (since they always profited, they didn't even need to start using their vast BCC reserves which staked millions). Remember the lending was only in BCC tokens and that is all it involved. Bitconnect didn't even need to have an exchange or BTC wallet to operate their lending. Some lending platforms only started on external exchanges but I suppose an internal exchange gives you more control on the price.