BitConnect Closes Exchange as States Warn of Unregulated Sales

For those unaware, Bitconnect was a Bitcoin-based ponzi-scheme that had operated 'successfully' for quite some time. I don't say 'ponzi' as an insult in the way some do for cryptocurrencies, it was quite literally just a bare-bones ponzi scheme, where you deposit your money (Bitcoin) on their website, buy their token, 'lock' your funds for some amount of time, and you are promised very high interest rates while encouraged to re-invest your returns.

What has happened today is Bitconnect has closed the exchange on their website, and so users flocked to some of the only other exchanges (of dubious reputation, since no reputable exchange wanted to list the BitConnect coin) in order to sell their now-worthless tokens, resulting in losses of around 90% today: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitconnect/

Many famous Youtubers and other individuals with influence convinced hundreds of people to put their money into BitConnect in order to profit off of referrals, leading to a lot of unfortunate losses and a lot of delusion and misinformation among devoted investors. The general sentiment towards those that lost money due to BitConnect has been a mocking attitude in the cryptocurrency investment communities, as BitConnect has been referred to by many as a blatant ponzi scheme for months.

> Famous Youtubers and other individuals with influence convinced hundreds of people to put their money into BitConnect in order to profit off of referrals

If you lost money in this scheme and are in the United States or Canada, contact your state securities regulator [1]. Mention any such referral sources. Those individuals may be liable for securities fraud under state and federal law.

If you're in the United States, send a copy to the SEC [2]. If you lost more than a token amount, I would also recommend contacting an attorney.

[1] http://www.nasaa.org/about-us/contact-us/contact-your-regula...

[2] https://www.sec.gov/complaint/select.shtml

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Doesn’t fraud require deception? Wasn’t this pretty upfront about being a Ponzi scheme?

To have that line of defense, the youtubers would have had to phrase their claims very carefully. I am willing to bet a fistfull of dogecoin that this was not the case of all of them.

Make them discover these actions have consequences, I can only see good sides to this.

> the youtubers would have had to phrase their claims very carefully

Ponzi schemes are one of those things you can't disclose your way out of.

Sort of like HIPAA [1]. If you violate HIPAA, "we disclosed our non-compliance to the patient" is an inadequate--and borderline aggravating--excuse.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_a...

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Remind me, because your comments in this thread don't make it quite clear to me - are you a lawyer? Is this legal advice?

I believe the reasonable person test would result in a court coming to the conclusion that he had presented himself as neither a lawyer nor that he was giving legal advice.

However, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice

I think one should say "neither he had... nor was he giving..."

However, I am not a native English speaker and this is not a grammatical advice