Want to know something funny?
Staking yield was much better than the lending platform.
Min age is 15 day, max age is 30 days compounding at 10% a month the first 6 months and 8% the second 6 months.
That would have given you 3.4x the amount of coins in 1 year.
Let's say you bought 1000 coins at $1, staked them, and sold them at $400 (9 month period), that is about 3x the amount.
You would have made approximately $1.2 million
If you had bought $1000 worth and put it in the lending platform during the same 9 month period.
You would have approximately $14,000
Technically speaking, the lending platform was actually on par or even slightly less at times than the appreciation of just hodling BTC.
Staking yield was much better than the lending platform.
Min age is 15 day, max age is 30 days compounding at 10% a month the first 6 months and 8% the second 6 months.
That would have given you 3.4x the amount of coins in 1 year.
Let's say you bought 1000 coins at $1, staked them, and sold them at $400 (9 month period), that is about 3x the amount.
You would have made approximately $1.2 million
If you had bought $1000 worth and put it in the lending platform during the same 9 month period.
You would have approximately $14,000
Technically speaking, the lending platform was actually on par or even slightly less at times than the appreciation of just hodling BTC.
Why am I getting so much negative trust comments? Crestington (I think he put me on ignore) has just shown how bitconnect lending wasn't a real Ponzi as the lending was profitable (not many people compounded it but that was even covered even if everyone did). You can't say bitcoin and other cryptos are not non-deliberate ponzis as there is nothing unique about them or anything backing up their price so they are all a bubble, anyway. I am in no way associated with any of these sites but just realised how good an idea they were because they generate profits (the people lending the coin would have got more holding but they were still happy and didn't mind bitconnect taking some of the profits from them - assuming bitconnect sold most of the extra BCC they gained from the lending).
These profits could then be used to market the coin and increase the amount of buyers (this is the only way any crypto gains value btw before you say that's a bad thing). So I can see why people didn't like it but they had no reason to stop as long as they adjusted the interest so that it didn't exceed their growth.
Anyway, BCCX is on now.. I've never managed to buy any yet. I suppose they will need half a billion now to overcome all this bad press haaha but I think they'd make everyone go mental if they became successful again (I mean all these people saying they are a scam will need therapy- there was something else I was going to ramble on about but forgot )
OH shit I'm not buying BCCX now they have stopped the $150 promotion...... it's at just over $10 now
(just logged in)It said $150 before instead the real price:
Just found this (which also uses my non-deliberate Ponzi term): https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/world-bank-bitcoin-a-bubble-not-a-deliberate-ponzi/
"The 15-page paper, authored by economist Kaushik Basu, explores the science and mechanics behind various forms of Ponzi schemes. Included is a class of non-deliberate or naturally occurring Ponzi schemes, which are really just asset bubbles. Explained by others under whats referred to as the Greater Fool Theory, people buy into these assets unaware of their fundamental value and only because it is expected that others will drive their price even higher through speculation. This kind of a spiral, which has nothing more to it than peoples expectations feeding into more expectations, can cause huge price rises."