A couple years ago I had the privileged of getting to overhear an adjacent table where a scam cryptocurrency founder was pitching their ICO to an investor in a restaurant in mountain view. At the time I hadn't even heard of it but it went on to raise a lot of money then end up mired in legal trouble.
The central premise of the pitch was to repeadily go over how Bitcoin market price had changed from 2009 to whenever it was (probably around $3000 at the time), and then suggest that their new asset would experience even greater increases even faster because <jargon>. Paraphrasing: "So if I invest $1m today, in seven years...?" "Your investment be worth 100 billion! maybe more, but I can't promise that. 100,000x growth is the _minimum_ but the maximum is anyone's guess". They looped over and over again, I think with the prospective investor making extra sure he understood before writing the guy he was talking to off as a scammer.
At that point I stopped worrying about the particular pitchee was going to get scammed, it was too absurd. (I'm sure my numbers aren't exactly right, for one they had a bunch of excess precision in reality, presumably based on the day's Bitcoin price, but whatever it was was totally absurd).
> or even a VC that is not tech savvy
Honestly, I think being "tech savvy" is a liability. Someone who doesn't think they're tech savvy knows they don't know. It takes a certain level of expertise to talk yourself into something extremely dumb. They might not fall for this particular pitch deck (or the one I overheard), but there are scams for every skill level. And the more confident you are in your understanding, the larger the "investment" you will being willing to make.
All those pages that you found of people having exactly that same combination of educational background can be simply explained. They are the default sample content of the Team page on certain Wordpress themes (Therefore also the WP in ‘Blockchain WP’). A quick Google search shows that for example the FinanceCo theme from Radius has the same exact Education listing.[0]
So the other profiles you found could just be sloppy webmasters who didn't remove the default Team pages of their Wordpress theme.
Interesting, ok never thought that it might be the wordpress template. Will update the text. Even so, that "Sam Chester" page on that first linked site is legit. I think I found the legal guy too (US lawyer by the looks of it), this is his twitter page: https://twitter.com/richardnacht
Over on the employment side, I got a summer job pitch in college from a hot new startup building some kind of app to help turn activity tracker output in actionable info. A startup of four people.
"This sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why you're looking for a fifth employee who's only going to be around for a few months instead of someone committed?" "We don't want to shorten our runway with salaried hires too fast, but we're expecting to close funding within the next year, so we can bring back the summer hires full-time after graduation and you'll already be ramped up."
"So you have some runway now, and you're negotiating more funding - you've raised angel funds and are working out Series A?" "Well, we're still at 'friends and family' and we haven't pitched VCs yet, we don't want to dilute the company too quickly. But we're starting to sound out investors and we've had a lot of interest!"
"So if you're that early on, are you looking at hiring purely in stock? How will that work with the temporary role?" "Obviously we can't give people shares just for a summer of work, and we don't want to plan too far into the future since we don't know our timeline yet. But once we close this funding we'll of course be making very competitive salary hires with stock grants."
"So it's contract work with the potential to become an early startup employee later? I don't mean to obsess about salary, but I see it's in New York City and I'm going to need to pay rent." "Well it's not contract work as such, we want people more dedicated to our mission than that. But I guess I could talk to the other founders about putting together some sort of housing stipend."
"So, it's an unpaid internship in NYC, and you're not willing to put anything beyond that in writing?" "..."
Just for fun, I kept talking for long enough to find out the top-secret details of what the app actually did, which took some doing. It was going to assess your activity level and "holistic well-being" to present a "supportive audiovisual experience". They'd stapled a 2000-era WMP music visualizer to a mood ring.
But I think the worst scammers are those that operate in a semi-legit way. They're actually out there, in person, trying to raise money for some product which may work on a fundamental level, but that does not mater, as they have no plans on developing anything. Maybe they have legit experience from before, and even have serious people that can vouch for them, if needed.
They put together startups, have a couple of good months, but then go back to regular programming of funneling VC money into their own account, while starving out their startup.
Then when the startup goes under, they disappear, only to resurface a year or two later somewhere else. Probably with a new name or alias.
They almost never go for the real big fish / tens of millions, or even millions - but just enough to live a cushy and flashy lifestyle. Nice leased penthouse, cars, etc.
Totally agree. I came across a few of these over the years. Entrepreneurs that have done 5-10 companies in the past and none succeeded. They always raise money and fill their coffers and their friends' too. They stiff good vendors. Because if you can get real work done for free, it gives them the optics of having created something but they still have more money to squander before it goes belly up. And when the company closes down, unless you can prove fraud there's no recourse.
In the movie Goodfellas they articulate it well - obtain the goods on credit, move it in front door and sell it at a discount out the back. It doesn't matter. It's all profit! Then they even light it on fire and collect insurance money.
I get the feeling that it's easier to raise money for some vaporware, and then have fun for a couple of years with that pile of money than to spend a couple of years self-funding something that actually works and trying to find a buyer.
> I have no idea what the graph has to do with the words, maybe there is some connection here but I haven't found it yet.
With the slide saying: "The lack of direct integration with operating companies and associated funding sources creates volatility and eventually subjects other coins or tokens to disintermediation and extinction."
(Or, translated "other tokens die because of $reasons")
I think the point of the graph is to just reinforce the mood. Be an emotional influence that makes you take the slide's message more seriously. Where the text talks about the reasons why other tokens fail, you see a line representing something going down in value fast. For some reason, just looking at it makes me feel sad, the "oh no my investments" kind sad. Which I believe was the whole goal.
Total aside, but this notion that before the invention of minted coinage all exchange was done via "barter" is just completely ahistorical. Before currency exchange was done via favors. Instead of countable coins, you contributed to your community and built up a reserve of "honor" or "cred" that you could use to call in favors when you needed any kind of help or support. It's usually referred to as a "gift economy," but people get thrown off by the term "gift." It's less about the stuff you give or do and more about the obligations you have as a member or friend of any given community.
The main thing to remember is that people just had a very different way of thinking about the exchange of goods and services back then. It wasn't about financial transactions or maximizing economic returns, it was much more about building up cred and standing within a community.
Where financial transactions really come in is being able to facilitate exchange between two communities where that underlying foundation of trust and persistent social connection doesn't exist. This is why marriages between "clans" or "tribes" or whatever would often be marked by exchange of things that hold value like livestock, heirlooms and handicrafts, or parcels of land. These aren't really "barter" exchanges though, they're more like collateral or shows of good will between two groups or people who don't necessarily have a strong basis for trusting each other.
This is why coinage really starts to come around when you have large kingdoms or empires. Those rulers mint the coins because they control larger swathes of territory than could be governed by the sort-of-feudal interractions of familial obligation. So you start keeping track of things via precious metals instead.
Making the fictional company a cryptocurrency startup is lazy writing in my opinion, they are too easy to criticize. This article would be more compelling if it were analyzing a more “stealth” scam in a different market sector.
It's interesting to look at these slides because I so strongly prefer simple straightforward "ugly" presentations to slick vector art ones that include a timeline from 9000 BC. Slick presentations prime my "this is BS" suspicion.
I know this preference is a trope for people on HN (I mean, look at the HN layout) but it's strange to me that VCs apparently have such different preferences.
I'm not sure if I'd be able to resist asking the presenter how they got data from 4000 years before the beginning of recorded history if I was presented with a slide like that.
What's immediately remarkable about this deck is the frequency of poor phrasings and misspellings, especially as you get deeper into it. Virtually none of the "legitimate" pitch decks I've encountered have suffered from this degree of sloppiness.
Maybe it’s like the apocryphal rumour that spelling mistakes in scam emails are really a filter to get rid of a large chunk of people who wouldn’t fall for the scam anyway.
As with scam emails, I suspect that's to weed out overly skeptical potential victims early on so you're not wasting time on someone who will realize it's a scam.
Yeah, I'm blown away by the fact that "chauffeur" is part of the brand name but no one seems to have spell checked it first to make sure they weren't accidentally talking about a portable stove.
I have a question. How in the world do VC's ever fall for this bullshit? I mean in most situations they have made enough money on their own to invest, so they aren't stupid right?
1. Most VCs don't create value. Compared to a passive fund, like an ETF, they lose money (and take large fee, regardless of performance).
2. Most of the people staffing VCs were not necessarily successful investors. Many were people in their 20s escaping the NYC banking scene to be analysts in VC. These days, there are many people on the capital side that are ex-entrepreneurs, but that still doesn't mean they know how to spot a deal.
3. It does not always make economic sense to try to out a scam. If your model is that you find one mega-return to erase 100 failures in your portfolio, you actually go around looking for deals that sound insane (like Theranos). If other reputable VCs have already led the round, you just throw your money in without even investigating.
4. Most importantly, most VCs don't fall for anything this crappy. The target is likely individuals with net worths in the millions who aren't very business savvy. There are lots of such people (children of wealth, for example).
There are a lot of parts to the answer, at least in my experience with VCs.
Probably the biggest is just that they have a bias to be bullshitted (bullshat?). The are constantly searching for the next big thing, so they need these things to be true. They want them to be true. And human nature makes them scared of missing out.
Also, most of the VCs out there are not investing their own money, and have never actually operated a business. This is why they ask the same questions with slight variations, and get obsessed with metrics that may or may not apply to a given business. This also makes them easier to fool, although many make up for this hands-on inexperience with enough years of watching startups that they can "pattern match" rather than understand things from first principles.
Most also develop specialties. You're not going to fool an experienced blockchain VC with the made up or cherry-picked bitcoin numbers. But go next door on Sand Hill Rd and you can probably get away with it.
I once pitched around my own startup... and VCs all refused it, just in case it was "another scam".
Then I found out... they DID got scammed, in a rather elaborate way:
some guy (that I won't name here, but you can find out who it is) seemly created a mobile games company, made some simple but wildly successful games (in donwload numbers), and then started to put ad fraud after ad fraud on the games, Apple started to ban him, but he would find other ways to get back, meanwhile he would accumulate cash, then he rented an office, built a seemly legitimate company, and asked the VCs for money, and as proof of his business working as intended, gave to the VCs the data about his income...
Eventually Apple and Google figured out how to kind-of get rid of his frauds permanently, seemly he found one last loophole, moved all apps to a new account that was on his name only (not his company), fired all employees, and took off with Apple's and VC's money.
I was told Apple ended taking the hit, they gave all the defrauded money back to advertisers, but couldn't get the money back from the scammer.
So to reply to your question: if you have data, for example (fraudulent) income, it is easy to convince VCs... for the first time.
Since on the second attempt they believe even real business (like mine) is a fraud.
Because money, and its management, is not distributed by I.Q. but rather hazardously. Here are a few categories that I can think of.
- rich people by inheritance. They might have been spoiled and thus required little due diligence in life; or simply they are dumb and believe the hype.
- rich people by accident. They are not particularly bright. They invested in real-estate very early on because that's what they know at the time. Then real-estate appreciated significantly in the last few decades in their area and they are crazy rich.
- people managing other people money. they have to invest in "blockchain" and stuff and they get introduced via their circle. It's not their money at the end of the day; and if the VC fund collapse they'll manage to jump to the next one thanks to the networking circle they were busy building during their last tenure.
Given the amount of VC-funded companies with blockchain-powered products where the blockchain is either useless and can be replaced with a database, or where the product itself is completely flawed I realised a lot of VCs do absolutely zero due-diligence on a technical level.
I don't think most people -- VC, angel or otherwise -- do, but I suppose occasionally some must.
I believe what happens is that they think about the idea. What if there were some kind of bitcoin powered investing platform. Sort of like angellist but the block chain would ensure the funders were real and the money was in some crypto?
Yes, that could work. Wow, it could be worth a lot! Imagine all the startups that could get funded and omg where do I sign?
This wouldn't happen if you went for a visit, and the person -- lets assume they mean well and are not lying -- logged in and the screen was a little awkward. There were zero companies signed up because the authorities had not signed off on it yet. There are two companies waiting: a fast food franchise and a t-shirt company.
The gap between what could be and what probably is, is very wide till you actually look at the thing.
The thing that set my alarm bells is the projected revenue, users, posts, and etc. column charts. They have noise in them. As if someone played with the numbers to make them look like they're real data.
In India anyone can purchase the balance sheet and p&l for any private company as long as you know its name or directors name on a website like https://zaubacorp.com
PS - no affiliation
Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted, added this because I genuinely think it is a good additional step for seed investors and HNIs investing in startups to ensure the legitimacy of the claims made in a pitch deck.
I’ve seen these types of decks pitched internally at blue chips as well. There, an audience being bewildered by innovative words is exciting. Get in, get budget approved, get promoted before the devil even knows you’re there.
I think the most important takeaway from this is how many businesses which are not scams and have real revenues are tempted to flesh out presentations with similar vanity metrics and spurious background info...
This really happens and it almost invariably leads to some pretty pointed discussions during the due diligence. The tough part for the founders is that any surprises during DD cause break off risk or adjustments, sometimes major ones. Not getting funded in some circles leads to you not being able to get funding at all. The tam-tam is pretty powerful in VC circles.
I wish I could be as "religious" about my own company as that pitch deck is about warp. I know it's a scam, but the way its presented, I'm almost excited about it, lol.
at face value is a great idea, you sidestep blockchain adoption by tying it to physical and social services, you sidestep certain taxation like vat because value is gained only when these coin are converted back into money, you're not holding account because people purchase coins for money, so the money you sit on is yours, they only have a guaranteed buy back price.
it's extra funny because I know a startup that did basically that and is quite successful; but of course it focused only on the coin service exchange part and throw away the bitcoin / services nonsense.
While this points to outright scam - I’ve seen a fair number of pitch decks that deserve to be thrown in the trash but get serious attention anyway. It seems obvious but I’ve seen a number of investors who will ignore a history of average growth, simply eyeball next year’s forecast, and go with their gut if the management team has solid verbal skills and looks the part.
My favorite graphics in these slides are the revenue/user graphs that show occasional, apparently randomly inserted, MoM downturns. Could be an effort to make them seem more "realistic", even though I would be surprised if it were possible to make predictions with that kind of precision.
What genuinely puzzles me is the myChauffer revenue forecast quadrupling from Dec of Year 2 to Jan of Year 3, seemingly without any explanation offered in the text: https://jacquesmattheij.com/warpdeck/WarpDeck-14.png
[+] [-] nullc|6 years ago|reply
The central premise of the pitch was to repeadily go over how Bitcoin market price had changed from 2009 to whenever it was (probably around $3000 at the time), and then suggest that their new asset would experience even greater increases even faster because <jargon>. Paraphrasing: "So if I invest $1m today, in seven years...?" "Your investment be worth 100 billion! maybe more, but I can't promise that. 100,000x growth is the _minimum_ but the maximum is anyone's guess". They looped over and over again, I think with the prospective investor making extra sure he understood before writing the guy he was talking to off as a scammer.
At that point I stopped worrying about the particular pitchee was going to get scammed, it was too absurd. (I'm sure my numbers aren't exactly right, for one they had a bunch of excess precision in reality, presumably based on the day's Bitcoin price, but whatever it was was totally absurd).
> or even a VC that is not tech savvy
Honestly, I think being "tech savvy" is a liability. Someone who doesn't think they're tech savvy knows they don't know. It takes a certain level of expertise to talk yourself into something extremely dumb. They might not fall for this particular pitch deck (or the one I overheard), but there are scams for every skill level. And the more confident you are in your understanding, the larger the "investment" you will being willing to make.
[+] [-] BioGeek|6 years ago|reply
So the other profiles you found could just be sloppy webmasters who didn't remove the default Team pages of their Wordpress theme.
[0] https://www.radiustheme.com/demo/wordpress/themes/financeco/...
[+] [-] jacquesm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omarhaneef|6 years ago|reply
You better have sales, I say. They do they say. $1 Billion worth!
What are your margins? 30% they say!
Uh, so why don't you go to a bank? Well, you know banks charge an arm and a leg.
At this point, I don't believe anything but I ask for the contracts or the POs from the companies (GE! Honeywell!) thinking I would verify them later.
I get identical looking POs, adding up to a few hundred thousand, all from unheard of companies.
[+] [-] Bartweiss|6 years ago|reply
"This sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why you're looking for a fifth employee who's only going to be around for a few months instead of someone committed?" "We don't want to shorten our runway with salaried hires too fast, but we're expecting to close funding within the next year, so we can bring back the summer hires full-time after graduation and you'll already be ramped up."
"So you have some runway now, and you're negotiating more funding - you've raised angel funds and are working out Series A?" "Well, we're still at 'friends and family' and we haven't pitched VCs yet, we don't want to dilute the company too quickly. But we're starting to sound out investors and we've had a lot of interest!"
"So if you're that early on, are you looking at hiring purely in stock? How will that work with the temporary role?" "Obviously we can't give people shares just for a summer of work, and we don't want to plan too far into the future since we don't know our timeline yet. But once we close this funding we'll of course be making very competitive salary hires with stock grants."
"So it's contract work with the potential to become an early startup employee later? I don't mean to obsess about salary, but I see it's in New York City and I'm going to need to pay rent." "Well it's not contract work as such, we want people more dedicated to our mission than that. But I guess I could talk to the other founders about putting together some sort of housing stipend."
"So, it's an unpaid internship in NYC, and you're not willing to put anything beyond that in writing?" "..."
Just for fun, I kept talking for long enough to find out the top-secret details of what the app actually did, which took some doing. It was going to assess your activity level and "holistic well-being" to present a "supportive audiovisual experience". They'd stapled a 2000-era WMP music visualizer to a mood ring.
[+] [-] duxup|6 years ago|reply
You'd think with those margins and sales they'd have 15 million just lying around ... for pizza parties or something.
[+] [-] TrackerFF|6 years ago|reply
They put together startups, have a couple of good months, but then go back to regular programming of funneling VC money into their own account, while starving out their startup.
Then when the startup goes under, they disappear, only to resurface a year or two later somewhere else. Probably with a new name or alias.
They almost never go for the real big fish / tens of millions, or even millions - but just enough to live a cushy and flashy lifestyle. Nice leased penthouse, cars, etc.
[+] [-] exclusiv|6 years ago|reply
In the movie Goodfellas they articulate it well - obtain the goods on credit, move it in front door and sell it at a discount out the back. It doesn't matter. It's all profit! Then they even light it on fire and collect insurance money.
[+] [-] fortran77|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|6 years ago|reply
With the slide saying: "The lack of direct integration with operating companies and associated funding sources creates volatility and eventually subjects other coins or tokens to disintermediation and extinction."
(Or, translated "other tokens die because of $reasons")
I think the point of the graph is to just reinforce the mood. Be an emotional influence that makes you take the slide's message more seriously. Where the text talks about the reasons why other tokens fail, you see a line representing something going down in value fast. For some reason, just looking at it makes me feel sad, the "oh no my investments" kind sad. Which I believe was the whole goal.
[+] [-] jacquesm|6 years ago|reply
edit: updated, credited. Thank you!
[+] [-] naravara|6 years ago|reply
The main thing to remember is that people just had a very different way of thinking about the exchange of goods and services back then. It wasn't about financial transactions or maximizing economic returns, it was much more about building up cred and standing within a community.
Where financial transactions really come in is being able to facilitate exchange between two communities where that underlying foundation of trust and persistent social connection doesn't exist. This is why marriages between "clans" or "tribes" or whatever would often be marked by exchange of things that hold value like livestock, heirlooms and handicrafts, or parcels of land. These aren't really "barter" exchanges though, they're more like collateral or shows of good will between two groups or people who don't necessarily have a strong basis for trusting each other.
This is why coinage really starts to come around when you have large kingdoms or empires. Those rulers mint the coins because they control larger swathes of territory than could be governed by the sort-of-feudal interractions of familial obligation. So you start keeping track of things via precious metals instead.
[+] [-] Terr_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dblock|6 years ago|reply
The strongest slide is the team, which includes 2 PhDs, and an MIT research scientist.
[+] [-] buildbuildbuild|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] majos|6 years ago|reply
I know this preference is a trope for people on HN (I mean, look at the HN layout) but it's strange to me that VCs apparently have such different preferences.
[+] [-] MS90|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edouard-harris|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meheleventyone|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1986|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aty268|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smt88|6 years ago|reply
2. Most of the people staffing VCs were not necessarily successful investors. Many were people in their 20s escaping the NYC banking scene to be analysts in VC. These days, there are many people on the capital side that are ex-entrepreneurs, but that still doesn't mean they know how to spot a deal.
3. It does not always make economic sense to try to out a scam. If your model is that you find one mega-return to erase 100 failures in your portfolio, you actually go around looking for deals that sound insane (like Theranos). If other reputable VCs have already led the round, you just throw your money in without even investigating.
4. Most importantly, most VCs don't fall for anything this crappy. The target is likely individuals with net worths in the millions who aren't very business savvy. There are lots of such people (children of wealth, for example).
[+] [-] dharmon|6 years ago|reply
Probably the biggest is just that they have a bias to be bullshitted (bullshat?). The are constantly searching for the next big thing, so they need these things to be true. They want them to be true. And human nature makes them scared of missing out.
Also, most of the VCs out there are not investing their own money, and have never actually operated a business. This is why they ask the same questions with slight variations, and get obsessed with metrics that may or may not apply to a given business. This also makes them easier to fool, although many make up for this hands-on inexperience with enough years of watching startups that they can "pattern match" rather than understand things from first principles.
Most also develop specialties. You're not going to fool an experienced blockchain VC with the made up or cherry-picked bitcoin numbers. But go next door on Sand Hill Rd and you can probably get away with it.
[+] [-] speeder|6 years ago|reply
Then I found out... they DID got scammed, in a rather elaborate way:
some guy (that I won't name here, but you can find out who it is) seemly created a mobile games company, made some simple but wildly successful games (in donwload numbers), and then started to put ad fraud after ad fraud on the games, Apple started to ban him, but he would find other ways to get back, meanwhile he would accumulate cash, then he rented an office, built a seemly legitimate company, and asked the VCs for money, and as proof of his business working as intended, gave to the VCs the data about his income...
Eventually Apple and Google figured out how to kind-of get rid of his frauds permanently, seemly he found one last loophole, moved all apps to a new account that was on his name only (not his company), fired all employees, and took off with Apple's and VC's money.
I was told Apple ended taking the hit, they gave all the defrauded money back to advertisers, but couldn't get the money back from the scammer.
So to reply to your question: if you have data, for example (fraudulent) income, it is easy to convince VCs... for the first time.
Since on the second attempt they believe even real business (like mine) is a fraud.
[+] [-] csomar|6 years ago|reply
- rich people by inheritance. They might have been spoiled and thus required little due diligence in life; or simply they are dumb and believe the hype.
- rich people by accident. They are not particularly bright. They invested in real-estate very early on because that's what they know at the time. Then real-estate appreciated significantly in the last few decades in their area and they are crazy rich.
- people managing other people money. they have to invest in "blockchain" and stuff and they get introduced via their circle. It's not their money at the end of the day; and if the VC fund collapse they'll manage to jump to the next one thanks to the networking circle they were busy building during their last tenure.
[+] [-] Nextgrid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nexuist|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omarhaneef|6 years ago|reply
I believe what happens is that they think about the idea. What if there were some kind of bitcoin powered investing platform. Sort of like angellist but the block chain would ensure the funders were real and the money was in some crypto?
Yes, that could work. Wow, it could be worth a lot! Imagine all the startups that could get funded and omg where do I sign?
This wouldn't happen if you went for a visit, and the person -- lets assume they mean well and are not lying -- logged in and the screen was a little awkward. There were zero companies signed up because the authorities had not signed off on it yet. There are two companies waiting: a fast food franchise and a t-shirt company.
The gap between what could be and what probably is, is very wide till you actually look at the thing.
[+] [-] pseudolus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasz|6 years ago|reply
"I.. have made enough money on .. own .. so I aren't stupid"
[+] [-] icedchai|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supernova87a|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rwmj|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r_singh|6 years ago|reply
PS - no affiliation
Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted, added this because I genuinely think it is a good additional step for seed investors and HNIs investing in startups to ensure the legitimacy of the claims made in a pitch deck.
[+] [-] winslett|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notahacker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gitgud|6 years ago|reply
And some people will do what ever it takes to convince you, like; lie, obfuscate, appeal to emotion etc...
[+] [-] danschumann|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|6 years ago|reply
it's extra funny because I know a startup that did basically that and is quite successful; but of course it focused only on the coin service exchange part and throw away the bitcoin / services nonsense.
[+] [-] mattrp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] g_sch|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microtherion|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|6 years ago|reply