Quote from: RHavar on March 23, 2019, 06:40:14 PM

Quote from: BillyBurns on March 23, 2019, 05:39:09 PM

People have lost the value of what people think betking is worth but no I don't think they lost any money until the site is closed down.

Bizarre. People who did sell tokens and actually lost money apparently don't count (because they voluntarily sold, or something). And people who haven't sold, still haven't lost any money (despite them would if the ever needed to)?

So basically, you're saying the only way token-holders can lose money is if the site closes down?

I don't think there's a way to have a productive discussion with someone who argues that "not a single person lost any money" on a token that nose-dived ~99%.

Quote

For example I invested in both Betking and Bitdice Ico, despite how bad everyone thinks betking has performed bitdice aint doing all that great either, token price 0.025 my dividend payments might have made me like 1 eth in over a year despite investment being much larger than 1eth, and I think a lot of people were able to get 40% of their investment back from betking if they did buyback ( I never did a buyback) if I sold my bitdice tokens and added in dividends I woudn't even be at 40% of my investment back.

This really seems like misdirection. No one is attacking Dean for being a bad investment, they're attacking it for repeatedly lying and dishonest. The simple undeniable truth is Dean used his personal reputation to create and back BKB to give him personal exposure to bitcoin. He repeatedly sold it as an instrument to protect against bitcoin price going down (up until including shortly before he cancelled the promise, trying several times to pitch it to me knowing I'm stupidly heavily into btc). He milked it all the way when bitcoin price was doing well, and literally the second things turned around he renegs. To the best of my knowledge, he sold ~6.5M dollars worth of BKB, not bought a *single* one back at above the ICO price (and claimed to have hit something like 70% buybacks or something?).

I think the only thing left to do is play with semantics ("you haven't lost unless you sell!") "It's not Dean's problem if you sell at a loss" and "he's not a scammer because he wasn't intending on scamming! He only did it cause it was profitable. But to be a scammer, that has to have been your intention".

So you don't believe him when he says he bought back 70% of them?