is this characterization as a ponzi based on the idea that the promised returns are unrealistic?

i took a closer look at the "investbox". coins like DOGE and BTC yield very low interest like 0.1%. it's only the fake coins printed by yobit (like X10) that are paid HYIP-like returns. this leads me to believe that it's not really a ponzi per se because yobit can just keep printing fake coins to satisfy their investment obligations. it's actually an interesting loophole that sort of makes it not technically a scam.

they are basically promising people useless monopoly money, and they are following through on that promise. they are definitely fleecing greater fools, but then again, so is ripple labs---they printed the XRP supply out of thin air, took possession of most of it, and they just endlessly dump it all on greater fool investors. that's basically what yobit is doing: inventing fake coins, printing them at insane inflation rates to ("honorably") pay out HYIP rates, and letting greed take its course.

my point is this: the above scheme is a weak basis for red tagging advertisers. if you want to go after yobit, it should be because of their established practice of permanently keeping wallets in "maintenance", which effectively steals coins from their customers. this is a well known practice and its been happening for years.

the problem, of course, is that declaring yobit itself a scam makes your plan in the OP inconsistent. the negative tags (which IMO are overkill but we can table that discussion) should apply to all their advertisers, not just a small handful.