I don't think you can really abuse the trust system. It's basically a glorified comment section. No one really looks at it, or pays attention -- I wouldn't worry about it. (Although I agree about the multiple threads, it's a bit annoying).

That said, I find your support of betking a bit perplexing. I looked through your post history, and you're clearly a reasonable person. You've been aggressively promoting beking for 3(?) years (with even your profile link to "betking.io"), but your only affiliation you say is that you're an investor?  So did you invest in the ICO? And if so, did you get the same treatment as other investors?

Because honestly, I don't think a single reasonable person can conclude it was fair. Doing my best to not sensationalize:

The ostensible purpose of the ICO was to raise funds for bankroll and site development/software. Despite raising several million, the bankroll remains paltry and does (or did?) even require additional bankroll investors. And for software costs, Dean has been remarkably frugal. Even going as far as ripping Daniel off for 2 btc to save on costs (even despite knowing it would greatly harm his reputation, which is what casinos live and die on)


Dean personally profited by the terms of the ICO when the price of bitcoin went up (by pegging the token to USD, while holding btc). I agreed it was fair, because under the same terms Dean would personally lose if the price of bitcoin went down. When I inquired about how that is possible, and at what price bitcoin would need to drop to make that untenable, he said "even at $1" he could do it, because he has system in place to automatically sell bitcoin and would always honor the buy backs.

If you have the time, I'd appreciate some insight on how you think this is not just outright scamming?

--

On a more subjective note, I re-read through my conversations with Dean and am 99% sure that Dean tried to use his reputation (just before canceling the buybacks) to scam me out of a ~million dollars. He made up some story about having fiat denominated debts (poker debts, he told me), and having bitcoin. And needed a loan. Right from the very start, I told him I am happy to do so but I have a hard-requirement of not exposing myself to counterparty risk (e.g. i'd want him to escrow some bitcoin as collateral). Each time he would come up with new terms they would not meet the requirements and leave me vulnerable to being scammed. Then he finally agreed to preliminary terms, I went to the trouble of securing some highly respected and well-known people who could escrow. And then he changed his mind and wanted to self-escrow. Or then he agreed to collateral conditions, but wanted to use BKB (and once again promised that buy-back would never stop). Also all the while he was offering insane interest rates.  There's no way this was done in good faith.

But I do agree that my accusation is "he tried to scam" is extremely weak, so I'd rather if you could (since Dean refuses to give a proper response) to how you think what he did do to ICO investors was anything but scamming.

  This is where a interesting conversation starts. I was a ico investor and I have received no special treatment. My 1st reaction was anger. As for Dean being frugal you must have not been around when he was doing daily tournaments and freerolls with overlay day after day in poker tournaments. Also is reported that pro gamblers were crushing the sportsbook due to the favorable odds. According to what I have heard is that Dean was buying back tokens from people who were unhappy with the ico (did not know this was occurring). So some investors were able to exit without a loss and even a profit from BKB investment on site.

   Is renegging on a promise a scam? That is a question that I think each person can define differently. Now if intent was good but methodology was bad is it a outright scam?  Do you think Dean intent was for this to occur? Do you think Bitconnect had good intentions? Are they both outright scams? What if that system in place failed and it was impossible to fulfill?  Mistakes were made to get to this point there is no denying that, but to get where those mistakes began, plenty of sound decisions were made beforehand and many previous investors ( many ico investors) made out a lot of bitcoin. This obviously doesn't justify it because yes some of us got screwed (hopefully short-mediumterm)  this happens all the time in the stock market.  How are you so sure you were not going to be repaid had the loan gone through? Do you think there will be a exit scam? Is he fudging with the numbers on site or effecting rolls? Is he able to secure site funds? From what I have seen lately is Dean working on site day in and day out trying to get this going in the right direction again, hopefully he has a fire under his ass and can try and make good on those failed promises.