@PrimeNumber7 your analysis looks very accurate
The entire setup appears asinine, and subjects everyone to unnecessary risks. I don't understand why a percentage of bankroll profits would not be converted to etherum, or a stablecoin that could be airdropped to token holders in the form of a dividend. A market may develop for these tokens to capture the anticipated future cash flows of the dividends.
The problem is the name "betking ico" is a bit misleading. It was designed (and privately marketed) more as: "Dean Nolan's USD denominated debt token" but instead of offering any interest rate he offered a % of the site bankroll profit he would provide % of the bankroll profits. All costs associated with operating the site would be purely taken care of him. (this was done so "% of bankroll profits" is strictly +EV and investors didn't need to trust his ability to run a profitable business).
That was probably done to avoid breaking securities law enforced in the United States. I am not sure if this setup actually avoided running afoul of these laws though.
One of the things taught in accounting classes is that businesses should take out loans in durations that match their cash flows of what the business is borrowing for, so if a business is borrowing money to build a factory, it should not be in a position to have to repay the loan before cash flows from the factory are expected to have been generated. In other words, the time frame for receivables should roughly match the time frame for due dates of debts. Similarly, a business that earns its profits in dollars should not take out debts in Euros in case the value of the dollar goes down a lot.
Before the extra interest from the bankroll profit is taken into consideration, Dean was paying approximately 42% interest for things like bounties and marketing in the form of additional tokens issued. I cannot imagine someone intending to repay their debt being willing to pay that large a premium.
e.g. Just before he scammed everyone he told me he had some poker debts (in USD) and didn't want to lose his exposure to BTC. So I should buy a large sum of BKB tokens, which he would give me at a crazy favorable rate (something like 30% under their face-value, although I'd need to consult our chat logs to be sure) and would even provide me with an accelerated buy-back schedule. [If anyone is wondering why I keep presenting a slightly different version, it's cause he made like ~5 attempts for me to give him money just before he scammed. Each i knocked back telling him I was unwilling to accept counter party risk by him, but would be willing to in an escrowed deal, which was something he would never agree to)]
This set off a huge amount of alarm-bells, why would he be willing to acquire BTC exposure ridiculously higher than market rate (e.g. bitmex) and then confirmed my suspicions by scamming his remaining token-holders.
He sold the tokens at 70 cents on the dollar because only 70 millions were available for sale, and 30 million were given to bounty hunters.
Who wouldn't want a free ~$400k, right?
I saw you
talk about this in a previous post, and you said that you have a "hard-requirement of not exposing (yourself) to counterparty risk" and I wanted to point out that having Dean deposit the bitcoin collateral with a reputable escrow would expose you to counterparty risk with the escrow. I agree it is not a good idea to expose yourself to counterparty risk to someone offering an "instant" 42% return. It also is maybe a good policy to not expose yourself to counterparty risk to anyone who approaches you with a business proposal over a threshold.
You're asking if a business would be different or change it's roadmap if 4-5 months ago it raised an extra $1 million in investment? What do you think the answer is?
Well, you can see my trust feedback for my opinion. But the misdirection is kind of killing me. You wanted a personal loan (either directly, or via BKB tokens). And promised to pay it back personally. You claimed to have systems in place to automatically sell BTC to guarantee your obligation to token-holders, even if there was a sudden and expected BTC price fall. The million dollars would've had no utility to the business. Anyway, I'm never going to prove you tried to scam me. So why don't you answer the simple and direct questions asked of you?
Here's a good one:
My question to betking would be: Were 10% of outstanding tokens offered to be repurchased at a price described above? If not, I believe you have not honored your obligations.
...
The other question can't be answered because PrimeNumber7 posted wrong information on how the ico, token value and buy back process worked.
Can you explain how I was wrong? I do not want to keep incorrect information up, and will correct any mistakes that are noted.
Right now, the facts as understood by nearly everyone in this thread, and probably by most reasonable people reading this thread show you to be a scammer and as not honoring your obligations. If you can correct the record, then you should have an easier time conducting business if the record shows you have honored your obligations, and would probably result in you earning more profits.