If the intent was to scam, why not just have a whale wipe out the entire bankroll instead of divesting people out?
Did you by any chance see the investor profit chart? It's not proof of foul play, but I would be willing to be it wasn't on the up and up. It's not an understatement to say it got continually pillaged in a way (that as a casino owner of 3+ years) have never seen.
If the case they're involved in is a slam dunk and the one side of the story is completely true, why wasn't a judgment made already? If the user making the claims wasn't actually just lying his ass off and that the inevitable ruling that was going to be made was that the user gets paid 103 Bitcoin, why even expand into different projects and development? Waste of time.
No one even knows the structure of the MoneyPot company (especially so after the "acquisition" )
Why would they not sell any rubies if they just wanted to scam? Seems awfully stupid to buy up a bunch rubies where a ton of people profit and they're themselves stuck with a bag that everyone wants to destroy. It might also be a good scam if they had a premine, but it's not even their coin and purchased coins in the free market like everyone else. The scam play would have been to announce an even higher price floor and then sell the coins when the market buys in. Such amateur scammers.
rubies was literally like a 100% a premine, and MP owns(owned?) half (?) of betterbets which allowed them to profit off it. It would be awfully naive to think that MP decided to pump rubies out of the good of their hearts.
What about the ICO? Do you think the best scam play was to have trusted escrows hold funds and have a detailed approval process to justify any purchase or transfer made? Terrible idea. The best scam move might have been to just have it written so that it's technically a loan given to them and have full control over it all with a loose obligation to owe it while being anonymous... oh wait that's another site. The scamming doesn't seem to be up to that level yet. Keep trying harder guys.
The use of "trusted escrows" in the ICO was clearly just a plan to try make the ICO look more legitimate. It's pretty common, and generally the escrow agents are bound such that they can offer no material protections to investors (actually why I have refused to act as escrow in a large amount of ICOs)
It's also clear now that at the time of the ICO moneypot was insolvent (and not disclosing this to investors). The whole thing was obviously done in bad faith
Pretty bad scamming move to not be anonymous too, especially considering they're registered in a first world country with real names attached and active eyes from Canadian securities regulators and lawmakers. I know the first thing scammers do is put a real name and face to the projects and decisions they make right? These guys need to be better at scamming.
I think it's clear they didn't intend to scam from the get go, but they should be held accountable for what they actually did. In the real world, if you rape someone you don't get any points because you didn't kill them after.