Post
Topic
Board Scam Accusations
Re: [tagged in red] BetKing.io broke ICO promise and dropped token value 99%
by
StackGambler
on 22/03/2019, 10:35:46 UTC
What Dean did is obviously horrible. Loyce, thank you for the write-up. However, the way I see it, a part of the blame also falls into the hands of the victim. This wasn't a very clever or well thought out scam at all... any person, especially in the crypto world, who guarantees that a token won't fall below a certain point is probably scamming. I mean, the very idea is ridiculous. I feel very sorry for the people who lost money in this... although it was obvious, let it be a lesson to everyone not to fall for such blatant lies.

No one lost money in this (except me).
They claim to know people who say they have lost money but none of them have posted and none of them have been in contact with me which I'm sure if they did actually lose money or felt they had they would be in contact.

If he has the BKB he can't have lost money. If he sells or trades it and sells at a low price now then he would lose money but that would be his decision and I have explained how the new system works and that he should wait.
Instead he wants attention and just shouts scam (note Loyce didn't even buy tokens in the ico, he got them from bounty)
But it is not the concern of anyone in this forum who didn't own BKB from the original ICO.

Thank you for the clarification. I have two questions:

a) Is it true that you claimed that there is a price floor, ie. a minimum price for the token that the value would never fall below?
b) Has the price of your token fallen below this alleged price floor, if it exists?



a) no. I gave an equation that calculated the price based on site profit. If the site had a big loss then the token price would have been lower than the ICO price.
b) there was no price floor

Alright, I apologize for coming off as aggressive. From Loyce's post, I ascertained that you promised that the token would not fall below the ICO price. I guess that statement from his original thread is wrong. Thanks for the clarification, once again.