As we reported last month, the digital asset KWHCoin, sold-out of its pre-sale in less than 24 hours in December.

Although slightly delayed from its original date of late January, the KWHCoin ICO has now begun. In an update, the KWH team stated:

ICO began at 12:00 PM PST (20:00 UTC) and will end at 12:00 PM PST (20:00 UTC) on March 8, 2018 (or when all of the sale tokens have been sold, whichever is earlier).

They've also provided a link for participation in the ICO and an ICO Participation Guide that participants may find useful.

Further participant instructions mention clicking the "PARTICIPATE NOW" button to join the ICO.

KWHCoin aims to distribute renewable energy through blockchain technology and as of September 2017, John McAfee has been involved with the organization.

We spoke with CEO Girard Newkirk last month as well, you can see what he had to say in that article and you can learn more about KWHCoin on their website.

Get on it!

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by dinbits
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff
[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

Texas Securities Commissioner Travis J. Iles on Feb. 2 entered an Emergency Cease and Desist Order against DavorCoin, an entity offering investments in a crytpcurrency lending program in Texas.

The emergency order found that DavorCoin is telling investors they can earn lucrative profits by investing in a lending program based on a new cryptocurrency known as davorcoin. Investors allegedly purchase davorcoin and then lend it to DavorCoin.

According to the order, an investor lending $30,000 in davorcoin may earn $15,390 in the first month of the program and receive $107,217 after 120 days.

DavorCoin, however, is not telling investors how it will generate such extraordinary profits. DavorCoin also is not disclosing the identity of its principals or its place of business, claiming instead that “due to tax and regulatory risks,” it “cannot officialize its domiciliation.”

DavorCoin appeared to increase the marketing of its lending program after the closure of another cryptocurrency lending platform, BitConnect.

Commissioner Iles on Jan. 4 entered an emergency action to stop BitConnect’s illegal and fraudulent offers of a different lending scheme. After BitConnect closed its platform, DavorCoin appear to step up its marketing.

According to the State Securities Board's Enforcement Division, DavorCoin responded to BitConnect’s closure by announcing “[t]his does not change anything for us,” and that DavorCoin is now “the number one lending platform in the world!!”

The Enforcement Division also found that DavorCoin is an unregistered firm and it is selling unregistered securities through affiliates.

DavorCoin has 31 days to challenge the order before the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Press Release by the Texas State Securities Board
Original Release Title: "DavorCoin Latest Cryptocurrency Platform Hit With Order"
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff
[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

With few exceptions almost every virtual currency asset available is either stagnant or worth less than it was a few days ago as the prices have taken a large dip across the board.

ZCash and Stellar have managed to remain virtual unaffected, and n fact even saw their prices slightly increase over the weekend.

Litecoin, on the other hand, spiked in price hitting as high as $135 per coin.

Ether, BCash, and Dash have taken hard hits all three once over the $1000 mark Ether and BCash as recent as within the last 48 hours. Dash has been below $1000 for quite some time now.

Bitcoin drop from $9200-ish to a dismal $7200 and in the last 24 hours and seen a high reaching $8714.86 and dropped to as low as $7349.83, which isn't too far from it's current price around $7358.

What Going On?

Of course you're going to hear allot of stories ranging from bank credit card bans to Coincheck (which didn't even involve bitcoin mind you) as to the reason for bitcoin's decline in price this month and whereas there may have been some people who allowed news like this to affect their judgement and took a loss by selling, for the most part, it has nothing to do with any of that.

Quite simply put, this is normal. This always happens around this time of year just like the value pretty much always spikes in December or January followed by a big drop starting as early a December through about March.

This is loosely based on what's called the "January Effect" but it's not as prominent as it once was with the internet allowing things to occur much faster, additionally when you throw virtual currency in the mix you have just about right up until March in some cases if a fiscal year lands right before April. 

What happens in April? Taxes.

Back in the day the January effect was pretty much more like clock work where Investments were made in January and sold in December to harvest either profit or loss. In many cases it's beneficial to hold the asset past January 1st to keep any capital gains from showing up on that calendar year. 4

In other cases where fiscal years (used by corporations) conclude in March, the same process if shifted a bit.

However for the most part the drop usually begins in December to right at the beginning of January and then declines through March and this year was no different. Bitcoin reached it's all time high over $19,000 on December 17th and has been dropping ever since. 

Those who were holding over to keep from earning capitol gains are past the mark and if there's profit to start the year off with, then naturally now if the time to take it.

What To Do?

You'll also hear allot of crap from the mainstream media saying that investors and bitcoin traders will all tell you to HODL (hold), but in reality that's not exactly true. 

Sure that's what they are going to say on some message boards and friends, but underneath the sheets they want you to sell. They want that price to dip. They want to buy it now and they want you to go ahead and take that loss rather than hold on to it because it serves them well.

Then later down the road this year around September through December/January they can turn around and sell the bitcoin you took a loss on for a nice profit when the price goes back up.

This happens time and time again following the same overall pattern and this is not just limited to bitcoin or virtual currency. Take a look at the DOW which saw it's biggest drop in  a year. It's the same principle. 

If you're smart, you'll hold. If you want to get out, give us a call, we'd be happy to buy your bitcoin now while the price is low. 

Last but not least we also have to mention the "$19,000" high in December. Yes, that's what bitcoin hit and then quickly diminished. That's called a spike. There were some significant dips and spikes but overall few people expected bitcoin to hit anywhere near $20,000 in 2017. I believe we had predicted around $2,500 or $3,500 on the year.
[info title="Editors Note" ]Dinbits official prediction was that bitcoin would hit $2,500 by September and $3,500 before the end of the year. This was on May, 24th, 2017 in this article.[/info]
You have to take the mainstream media with a grain of salt when they say things like "bitcoin loses half it's value in a week" because It also gained half that value in a matter of days so long investors didn't see any losses only those trading during that short time span.

Ultimately an investment in bitcoin in January of 2017 is still with 8 times its value a year later. 

People take profit, isn't that why most people invest money to begin with? This industry is no different so don't believe the media hype and panic sell because you'll only be doing exactly what the professional investors want you to do, take a loss so they can take your win.

The only way to win, is not to lose.

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by dinbits
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff
[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

The state of Texas (United States) has sent a cease and desist order to R2B coin, and ICO and company based in Hong Kong.

If Texas were a country, it would be the 11th largest economy in the world, larger than the entire country of Russia, Australia, Canada, and Mexico just to put that into comparison.

So it's not surprising their government has no problem reaching out to anyone, no matter where they are and with a 1.6 trillion dollar GDP, it's likely many governments around the globe would cooperate with them.

Although well known for its bitcoin friendly laws, its historically taken issue with anyone potentially defrauding its residents having sent out similiar cease-and-desists in the past and derailing Tendon  Shavers and his Bitcoin Savings & Trust Ponzi scheme in 2014.

Just weeks ago, Bitconnect imploded post-cease-and-desist from Texas as well.

The Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) states that despite being "globally registered" as it claims, it is not registered with the TSSB and must stop offering securities to residents of Texas.

This will likely mean all of the United States as well. You can likely get away with that in Vermont or Wyoming, but in a state like Texas or California? Not likely.

The two combine for over 4 trillion annual GDP.

Which, by the way, would land at #4 on the economy if the combined 2 states were a country. Right behind Japan and ahead of both Germany and The United Kingdom.

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by dinbits
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff
[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

As everyone is well aware of by now with the mainstream media blast of a "cryptocurrency hack",  an exchange called Coincheck claims to have lost $530 million worth of the cryptocurrency NEM.

Coincheck is an online exchange that deals with virtual currencies like bitcoin, ether, and obviously ... NEM.

Let's bring out the flowchart (4 years running).
Coincheck has already stated that this "was not" an inside job, which is typically what everybody says on day one. Down the road it generally comes out that there was indeed some sort of inside job. Which, if you think about it, is almost better than the alternative which is that the security sucked so badly that hackers were able to waltz in and ripoff 500 million NEM coins.

Normally, we would walk through these steps, but ...
[warning title="Editors Note"]This is not an accusation, this is merely a presentation of the facts and all parties are considered innocent until proven otherwise[/warning]

Something Doesn't Add Up

Do any of these facts sound a bit off? The facts just don't add up, neither does the math. Let's start with the obvious and go down the list here.

1. What on earth was Coincheck doing with $530 million worth of anything in a hotwallet? 

This is about the dumbest thing on earth an exchange could possibly do. How is this even possible? There is not a 500 million coin transference demand for NEM (XEM) and furthermore exchange trades are representational based on custodial asset holdings, actual coin transaction don't occur on blockchains when trades are made. They keep enough hotwallet asset for average transference, not $530 million worth.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. There's no reason for it. There's no reason to risk it. This should not be like this and doesn't offer a single benefit to Coincheck.

2. What Exchange in this industry doesn't have 2FA? 

Coincheck admits they had not implemented two factor authentication. Coincheck resides in JAPAN. 

The same JAPAN of Mt. Gox Japan!! 

This Japanese company, in the wake of Mt. Gox, fired up it's operations and didn't bother to implement two factor authentication? 

Are these guy serious? This makes even less sense than the hot wallet. Seriously, go try and find another Exchange on earth that doesn't have some form of two factor authentication implemented.

This make beyond less than no sense when you consider the Coincheck has other services with this very feature meaning they have the source code and technical ability to do so.

That makes as much sense as walking uphill in the snow (both ways) to work or school during a blizzard without a coat when you have a limo and driver outside with the car warmed up and hot chocolate waiting for you.

3. What thief targets NEM?

Nothing against NEM, I own many coins of NEM, but let's be honest here. This is a new and barely known coin worth all of about $1. At it's peak a little over $2. It's not widely traded and limited to a handful of exchanges, so very hard to cash out even 500, much less 500 million.

Somebody with the mental capacity to orchestrate a 530 million dollar cyber-heist against the self proclaimed "largest exchange in Japan", doesn't have the brain cells to rub together hard enough to realize it'll be almost impossible to do anything at all with the coins?

Further more its a new and weak network so there's nothing stopping developers from rolling back the clock as they did with the Ethereum fiasco. (although note the NEM team has stated this won't happen and instead marked the coins).

If you manage to crack in to this exchange, then why not take something with value that can be actually realized?

4. How in the hell does Coincheck have 500 million to pay people back?

Coincheck announced the hacked coins will not affect its users and they will pay people back from their own pocket. This indicates that Coincheck has $530 million dollars to accomplish this, they vouched  ¥46.3 billion to compensate what was equates to ¥88.549 per NEM coin and $426 million USD.

Coincheck takes in 0.05 to 0.15% in fees per transaction on their exchange. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt here and give them 0.015% per transaction on everything.

Coincheck also has revenue from their BitPay style service. So let's say they do BitPay's volume of $1 billion USD and let's give them 1% of that annually.

We'll give them 3.5 years of operation for Payments (September 2014 to February 1st 2018) and 3.25 years of operation for Exchange fees (November 2014 to Feburay 1st, 2918).

We'll also give the full volume for the entire period.

Here's the math:

At 1% of payments processing of 1 billion they would rake in about $833,333 or about $10 million USD per month. That would equate to $31.5 million all time:

[code type="Math"]payments = ((83333333.33 * 0.01) * 12) * 3.5 exchange = ((160000000 * 0.015) * 12) * 3.25[/code]

According to estimates floating around, they conduct around $160 million in volume per month on their exchange which would equate to about $93.6 million annually. Here's the total for both the payments income and exchange revenue:

[code type="Math Result"] payment = 34999999.9986 exchange = 93600000.00 [/code]

See the following table for how that breaks down in detail.

Income Rate Volume Mo Yr Yrs Total Total
Payments 1% $83,333,333.33 $833,333.33 $10,000,000 3.5 $31,500,000 ¥3,461,188,500
Exchange 0.15% $160,000,000 $2,400,000 $28,800,000 3.25 $93,600,000 ¥10,284,674,400

The greatest mathematician of all time, I am not, but it appears to me as if that comes to about ¥13,745,862,900 ($125,100,000 USD).

They need ¥46.3 billion. How do they have ¥46.3 billion if they've made all of ¥13.75 billion in their entire existence??

Does Yen magically quadruple in value in Japan?
Perhaps hosting providers, employees, and other service providers actually pay them for the luxury of allow them to serve Coincheck?
Perhaps they invested 2.7 billion in bitcoin on day 1?

4. Who the hell is Coincheck anyway?

Allot of people have "heard" of Coincheck, but really haven't heard much about them in a while.

There hasn't been much heard about or seen from Coincheck since they opened their doors in very late 2014.

They were supportive of the DAO in 2016 before its implosive demise, but other than a couple notes, there hasn't been much of anything heard about them.

They say are the largest exchange in Japan and in all of Asia. (this is what they claim). Last week BitFlyer made headlines with its regulatory news and also claims to be the largest exchange in Japan.

6. Where the hell is the backlash?

500 million NEM coins were stolen and yet there's only 40 posts on their Reddit concerned about this? There seems to be more interest in a "cryptocurrency exchange being hacked" than the victims of these 500 million coins lost. 

Questions in General

How does a company pulling in $38.8 million annually have $500 million in operating capital?

How does a company with $530 million USD not have decent security?

How does a company with $530 million USD not have 2FA implemented when they have it implemented for other service offerings?

How does any company even survive in a country where Mt. Gox imploded from "supposed" bad security with even worse security?

None of this makes any sense.

We took a look at the Wikipedia pages in support of the exchange when fact-finding on their volume numbers..

Authors seem confused on all of the facts in general about Coincheck. They started in 2012, but then started in 2014, and had $46 million in transaction volume up until August of 2016 when suddenly they had $160 million.

In the above Wiki history they were founded in 2012, but then on the same page, states they were actually founded in 2015. 

Which is it, 2012 or 2015?

Apparently neither, as of September 2017 (see below) they managed to go back in time and founded themselves in 2014 and explain the 2012 away with ResuPress, Inc. being founded in 2012. They state they were founded in August of 2014 and we reported their opening in November 2014 which is an amazing 90 days that they built an entire operating exchange. 

No wonder why they had piss-poor security. However, in 3 years they never got around to updating it when by some miracle they've managed to accumulate $530 million which is laying around for them to easily pay for the lost NEM coins? 

We were rather generous in giving them their full $160,000,000 in transaction volume to conclude the above numbers in revenue, but according to announcements by the organization, as of February 2016, they only had $28 million in monthly volume (see below). Thus, they didn't even earn what we gave them as an operating revenue.

Of course, by some miracle by August 2016 they went from $28 million to $160 million. Now there's some amazing growth. They also went from 1300 hundred merchants to 2200 merchants.

What Does This All Mean?

This all points to the entire truth not being told and Coincheck being less than forthcoming in regards to the hack. It's also possible this entire thing is just a marketing stunt. They've either misreported the facts, or engaged in some sort of cover up engineered to buy them some more time to explain this away. 

Regardless, we do not believe the facts are being reported accurately by Coincheck.

They've also had some credibility concerns in the past according to one Reddit user.

It could be an inside job. It's always an inside job, and there's no reason for anyone to believe that in this case it wasn't, in part, or completely an issue that started internally. Even i they cannot tie this directly to an internal resource, the simply fact they didn't have proper security, a fact that is simply hard to fathom, is negligence enough.

They don't have the money. There's simply no way that Coincheck has the money to pay everyone back as promised unless they have managed to materialize some 32.6 billion Yen out of thin air.

Possible marketing stunt? The only other possible explanation is a marketing stunt designed to get the exchange into the mainstream media where it was previously non-existent in the wake of competitors such as BitFlyer who have dominated headlines regarding the area of operation. 

They certainly have the motive and had the ability to concoct such a story and make it believable. If they themselves took control of the NEM, paying it back to its users out of this supposed "operating capital" to make themselves look like the hero is certainly something that would have gone over well for them.

We cannot say which of these it is, but certainly doubt the story, as currently being told, is the whole truth.

Japan’s Financial Services Agency apparently doesn't think so either. They raided Coincheck’s offices yesterday looking for answers and confiscated documents and computers as evidence.

There's certainly more to this ... 

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by dinbits
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff
[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

BitFlyer, a Tokyo-based virtual currency exchange has been awarded a payment institution (PI) licence for the European Union becoming the first, and only, exchange licensed in Europe.

BitFlyer handles about a fourth of the planets bitcoin exchange volumes with over $250 billion in bitcoin traded on its platform annually and will give European traders access to the bitcoin trading market in Japan.

The organization, founded in 2014 in Japan, is already currently compliant with both Japanese and United States (as bitFlyer USA, Inc in the US) regulatory requirements.

In November of 2017, bitFlyer became only the 4th company to receive a New York BitLicense (21 NYCRR 200). Since 2015, of the 23 applicant for the BitLicense, only four companies have been granted one.

1. Ripple
2. Circle
3. Coinbase
4. BitFlyer

Ironically, Ripple is a private network and Circle no longer supports virtual currency. however, Ripple does issue its token XRP which would certainly be covered under the BitLicense.

BitFlyer is currently the only exchange with a payment institution license in Europe.


[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by Alba Gei
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff

[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

Payment service provider WEX, has shut down services to Uphold customers without warning and while many customers had pending transactions.

In a bitch move, WEX has frozen all customers funds stating it may take over a month to refund everyone's money.

Uphold stated in a blog post.
"...all VMC cards have been canceled and any pending transactions may be rejected. As such, we are working with WEX to facilitate the refund process which they state may take 4 -5 weeks. If you were not able to use the VMC prior to the service being suspended, you will receive a refund of the card creation fee...."
Upholds virtual card service allows users to fund payment cards with bitcoin and other virtual currency.


Heading for an EXIT? Surely they cannot just steal funds and leisurely return them a month or two later when they feel like getting around to it can they?

Of course they can, PayPal has been doing it for years. It's legal scamming.

Uphold also said that:

"On Friday, January 19, and without notice until late Monday morning, WEX, the service provider Uphold uses to issue Virtual debit card products, closed our account in response to similar actions taken by Visa and its processors against cryptocurrency companies.

We have been working to finalize an alternative that will bring better service and options for our customers by late Q2, early Q3 of 2018. We apologize for the inconvenience and look forward to bringing an optimal product offering to our members."

Well, yes, there were similiar actions, however those were violations of Visa's member agreement by Westlake and apparently there has been a history of the behavior. So say what you will, but it's not Visa or Mastercard, both of which are actively engaged in blockchain technology, who is calling the shots on this one.

In fact Visa even made the comment that plenty of card providers offer virtual currency funded cards in the area Westlake covered.

WEX just decided to steal people money for no reason stated and without warning it appears.

Apparently there's allot of turmoil at WEX, according to employees who posted on Glassdoor:
Training was terrible. Trainers are nice but hardly know what they try to teach. They do not invest ENOUGH time and training in employees, or new hires. They wouldnt have to train 20 newhires every 2 to 3 weeks if they were more consistent in the employees that wanted to be there and can do their job if they didnt put so little effort into their employees.
They don't appear to be well trained staff and management is very questionable per several employees:

"Negative employee experience, leadership says one thing and does another. Culture is toxic, moral is low and you are constantly looking over your shoulder."

"Awful department level senior leadership qualities - play favorites, shady communication practices, morals and ethics are not aligned with my own."

"Managers assume communication has taken place and that you know everything going on in the company and the inner workings of the company. Many people are missing from important distribution lists and email is a plague of miscommunication.

Dictated processes arrive on employees’ desks that do not fit the reality. It is creating so much administrative work it is going to bury the company."

Looks like WEX has some internal issues as well as questionable practices.

That's not the only problem with WEX (Wex, Wex Bank, Wex Fleet One, etc...), they have piles of complaints from various other companies as well. They have 30 complaints on BBB with 5 full reviews, all negative, yet somehow manage to still have gotten 3.98 stars out of the 5 with no positive reviews, 5 negative reviews, and 30 complaints. Over 1/3 of those in the last 12 months.

Their other aliases also all have bad reviews on BBB.

They also have a colorful RipOff Report and all reviews and complaints are about the same. Terrible management, shady business practices, and company focus more on stock price than its services.

With a score card like that, it's not hard to believe they've locked up everyone's funds for for 1 or 2 months.

The worse part of this is that customers literally have no option and are just stuck without their money....and companies like this wonder why bitcoin exists.

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by dinbits
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff

[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

It's been reported that Bitconnect has poured salt into the wounds of those who lost considerable investment into the Ponzi scheme.

The imploding Bitconnect platform which shutdown all activity last week temporarily pacified some investors by giving them bitcoin in exchange for the now worthless Bitconnect token.

The only problem was that although the value showed up in investors accounts, bitcoin withdraws are frozen and it's speculated that there may not be any bitcoin actually anywhere for investors to withdraw.

Ya think? Vapor-coin exchanged for vapor-coin on a vapor-platform. Imagine that.

Needless to say, this comes as a surprise to very few people, if any and it's become rather clear that BitConnect has gone .... full-Ponzi.

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by dinbits
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff

[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

The Commodity Futures Exchange Commission (CFTC) has charged two people and a Las Vegas-based organization, and Wyoming corporation, with an ICO scam. Additionally we uncovered a sister company involved in London, England.

Randall Crater of East Hampton, New York, Mark Gillespie of Hartland, Michigan, and My Big Coin Pay, Inc. (MBP) allegedly took $6 million customer funds and lined their own pockets for personal use.

In a CFTC statement Director of Enforcement James McDonald said:
“As this case shows, the CFTC is actively policing the virtual currency markets and will vigorously enforce the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. In addition to harming customers, fraud in connection with virtual currencies inhibits potentially market-enhancing developments in this area. We caution potential virtual currency customers, once again, that they should engage in appropriate diligence before purchasing virtual currencies.”

The Defendants allegedly misappropriated funds to personal accounts where funds were used to purchase "a home, antiques, fine art, jewelry, luxury goods, furniture, interior decorating and other home improvement services, travel, and entertainment".

When customers began to suspect foul play, MBP made attempt to "quiet" them by issuing them more unit of MBP coin, a digital asset which isn't traded on any exchange we could find other than NovaExhange with a current value of a whopping 6.4 cents USD.

Shady Sister Company Revealed

The CFTC statement states MBP "misrepresenting that MBC had partnered with MasterCard, with the promise that MBC could be used anywhere MasterCard was accepted, when in fact no such partnership existed and MBC could not be used anywhere MasterCard was accepted"

However, we dug a bit deeper and discovered a London England based company involved in the United Kingdom.

MBP supposedly began in 2013, but shows no activity until 2015 when they partners with a Visa card provider to provide ways to spend their asset. Interestingly enough, the card issuing company, V Card Net Ltd. (VCN), registered in London, England (reg. # 09721530), lists MBP as the only newsworthy item of their existence on their website.

Which is almost always a sign of conflicting interests, so we took a look at VCN and as suspected, it's a sister company of MBC where Randall Crater is a director.

Clearly this company was started for the sole purpose of being an entity that would be supposedly issuing Visa and Mastercard payment cards for MBP. On MBP's website, they state that on January 2015 they "partnered" with VCB to provide this service.

However, VCB didn't even exist at the time. VCB didn't organize as an entity until June of 2015 (See bottom of page above "Date Authorised: 6/08/2015").

How is it they were partnered with VCB and offering payment cards before the payment card provider even existed? Perhaps they traveled back in time?

Moreover. if we look at VCB, the company appears to be a farce itself. Under the card issuers "fee schedule", after being in existence for 2.5 years and supposedly servicing MBP for 3 years, an amazing feat miraculously service their first customer a full 6 months before they even existed, they show that their fees are "coming soon".

What reputable card payment issuer doesn't have an apparent fee schedule? We'll tell you. Zero. 

It's one of the first things customers look at.

Clearly, this is nothing more than a shell company setup to defraud customers into believing something tangible existed whereas in fact it did not.

According to VCN's website, the payment card is:
".. issued by V Card Net Limited pursuant to a license from Visa Europe. Registered Office: 20-22 Wenlock Road, London, N1 7GU."
Which certainly sounds all "official", however, it's bullshit and there's an app for that.

Visa offers a global providers registry of every provider involved with any of it's products and services.

Guess what? There is no "V Card Net", "V Card Net Limited", "V Card Net Ltd.", "V Card", or any other form of the entities name in existence on the registry, in other words, they do not have a license with Visa Europe and they are not authorized to issue any card bearing the Visa logo.


They don't even claim to issue Mastercard payment cards despite the fact the "Mastercard logo" is present on their website.

Another individual by the name of Edward White is also listed as an owner of V Card Net, Ltd., and does not appear to be directly associated with MBP. Perhaps the UK has been investigating this further. If not, they may well start now.

The CFTC is seeking monetary penalties, restitution, rescission, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, trading and registration bans, and permanent injunctions against further violations of the federal commodities laws, as charged.

You can read the full CFTC report here.

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by dinbits
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff

[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a civil enforcement action against Defendants Dillon Michael Dean of Longmont, Colorado, and his company The Entrepreneurs Headquarters Limited, a UK-registered company.

The complaint alleges the defendants 
"...engaged in a fraudulent scheme to solicit Bitcoin from members of the public claiming that customers’ funds would be pooled and invested in products including binary options, making Ponzi-style payments to commodity pool participants from other participants’ funds, misappropriating pool participants’ funds, and failed to register with the CFTC as a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and Associated Person of a CPO, as required..."

James McDonald said in a statement: 

“Increased public interest in Bitcoin and other virtual currencies has provided new opportunities for bad actors. As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants sought to take advantage of that public interest, offering retail customers the chance to use Bitcoin to invest in binary options, when in reality they were only buying into a Ponzi scheme. As this case shows, the CFTC will continue to take swift action to stop such fraudulent schemes and to hold fraudsters accountable for their misconduct.”

Starting in April 2017 the unregistered defendants solicited over $1.1 million worth of Bitcoin from over 600 people through social media sch as Facebook and Youtube. 
[error title="Editors Note" icon="exclamation-circle"]
Protip: If you're going to do something stupid. Make sure you do it very publicly via Facebook and Youtube. That way you get caught sooner and spend less time in jail for such stupidity since the crime won't have a chance to grow into much money.
They promised to convert the Bitcoin into fiat currency to invest on the customers’ behalf in a "pooled investment vehicle" for trading commodity interests, including trading binary options on an online exchange. 

However, they misappropriated customer funds which included using the funds to pay other customers in a Ponzi-ish type scheme.

The CFTC seeks restitution to defrauded persons, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil monetary penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC Regulations, as charged.

[accordion] [item title="Author and Credits"] Article by dinbits
Image Credits: Banner Image by staff

[/item] [item title="Disclaimer"]The opinions expressed by authors of articles linked, referenced, or published on do not necessarily express, nor are endorsed by, the opinions the of or its affiliates. Please review the Terms of Use for more information.[/item] [/accordion]

Powered by Blogger.