131–140 of 388 posts
It's pathetic that regulators haven't stopped this nonsense. These scams don't even last 6 months anymore, it's a joke
Let's be clear: YC needs to quit financing ponzi scams. Or better yet, be punished for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey these days we're going default ponzi :)
Seriously! I know this may be an unpopular opinion on this site in particular, but after seeing this I would never even consider raising money from YC. I would not be comfortable having the fate of my business in any way tied to a group of people that are so fucking dumb that they invested in the money version of a perpetual motion machine. Seriously, this is the fucking stupidest thing I’ve seen in _YEARS_
Written as if no mistakes were made on their end. Paraphrasing: "We all thought UST and Anchor were a source of stable >10%/yr gains that you could trust for your corporate treasury. That the yield instead turned out to be -99% is quite disappointing, and makes this a natural time for us to bring our service to an end. It's been a pleasure to serve you."
Even serious crypto people knew that UST was highly unstable lol How did these guys raise funding? They literally just built a fiat onramp
either the investors didn’t do enough research or they were on it
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2022/04/11/web3-a-vc-fu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Question though, do the founders here have any potential criminal liability from this whole situation (including apparently lying about what they were doing with their customers funds)? While they're not exactly forthcoming with the risks, their marketing pages[1] were also careful to not make any explicit claims of safety (eg. "your principal is protected", or "you won't lose money"). The most that they claimed wer…
> careful to not make any explicit claims of safety (eg. "your principal is protected", or "you won't lose money"). These are both explicit examples of explicit claims of safety that are still up on their documentation (at least as of 5 minutes ago) - "You will not lose your funds because all loans are 100% asset-backed." ( https://stablegains.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402680425... ) - "Regardless if crypto mark…
These people need to be in jail. Deleting evidence isn't going to look good in front of the judge.
If you are in the U.S. and lost money, please write to your state's Attorney General [1]. The company is Stablegains, Inc. and the people to name are Kamil Ryszkowski and Emil Rasmessen, co-founders and, I think, Board members. Copy Ken Paxton, Office of the Attorney General, P. O. Box 12548, Austin, Texas as well as his challenger George P. Bush at P. O. Box 26677, also in Austin. (Stablegains and its founders are i…
What's funny about this is that I can recall discussions here and elsewhere from only a few months ago questioning the "guaranteed" super-high returns. I forget who said this but someone awhile ago said in finance said that if someone is promising you consistent above-market returns it's either a scam or there is unknown or undisclosed risk. And the Crypto Andys were all like "you just don't understand DeFi!" to whic…
There was enough in the terra ecosystem to come to a conclusion of avoiding completely
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, by that definition, even AAPL is a pyramid schema. How about we leave the definition for pyramid scheme where it's already at? > Pyramid scheme: making money based on recruiting an ever-increasing number of "investors." > Oh well. We'll see, it might bounce back as these things do. No, it won't. It won't regain the trust of the community and the project is dead in the water now, no way it'll recover from this.
AAPL has physical and IP assets which could be sold to make investors whole. While I have big issues with them, they're not in the same ballpark as this 'stable' coin company or pyramid schemes.
While they might have some "physical and IP assets", there isn't nearly enough to "make investors whole" (ie. pay them back). If you invested $100 in apple earlier this year and AAPL somehow needed to be liquidated, you're only getting a fraction of $100 back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After all, why would they have to convince you to invest money if they could just do it themselves? Capital. Taking a 5% cut of billions of dollars is going to be worth a lot more than 20% of whatever tiny amount of capital you are able to muster yourself.
If you're so sure of your low-risk, high-reward strategy, get a bank loan. And then once you make more money, get an even bigger bank loan. There are ways of getting capital that don't involve the public's money.
There's the old saying "If you own the bank $1m, that's your problem, but if you owe the bank $100M, that's the bank's problem".
This kind of stuff happens in other industries (like real estate) all the time. Even with bank financing, you'll need another source of funds (typically LPs) to meet loan requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creating a public permanent record of having fallen for the latest crypto shitcoin will likely be too embarrassing for some. But then again I'm having trouble relating. Successful "crypto startups" hardly exist, and most of those are selling shovels to suckers. What was the expectation here?
Isn't it already "a public permanent record" because it's already in the news?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Question though, do the founders here have any potential criminal liability from this whole situation (including apparently lying about what they were doing with their customers funds)? While they're not exactly forthcoming with the risks, their marketing pages[1] were also careful to not make any explicit claims of safety (eg. "your principal is protected", or "you won't lose money"). The most that they claimed wer…
> careful to not make any explicit claims of safety (eg. "your principal is protected", or "you won't lose money"). These are both explicit examples of explicit claims of safety that are still up on their documentation (at least as of 5 minutes ago) - "You will not lose your funds because all loans are 100% asset-backed." ( https://stablegains.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4402680425... ) - "Regardless if crypto mark…