Ponzi Scheme Definition - investopedia.com

• Ponzi Scheme Definition - investopedia.com
• Mythes — Bitcoin Wiki
• bitcoin - Das Wiki, das schwierige Themen einfach erklärt
• Bitcoin: Eine Blase, wie sie im Lehrbuch steht Never ...
• Le bitcoin: une pyramide de Ponzi ? - Dici
Why Ethereum Problems Make UMI the Flagship Among the New Generation Cryptocurrencies

 ​ https://preview.redd.it/8skuypxp9lj51.jpg?width=1023&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba5a38ba592428f92dc7c1943a780ff127132875 Ethereum cryptocurrency that comes second in terms of capitalization on the crypto market is traditionally seen as fast and profitable. However, over the last few weeks it's had a rough patch. Since early August, the network has had huge queues of transactions pending processing while fees have skyrocketed and surpassed the historical high. The main issue though is that even fees of a few dollars per transfer don't help get rid of the“traffic jams”. The cause of this is numerous DeFi projects and a huge number of financial pyramids based on the Ethereum platform. Both generate excessive load on the network. The situation is downright unpleasant, and our users might question whether the UMI network could face a similar challenge? We'd like to assure you it could not. The UMI network is by default protected against these problems — it cannot have “traffic jams”, fees or financial pyramids. But first things first. How has the Ethereum network ground to a halt? In its report dated August 4, Arcane Research that provides analysis within the field of cryptocurrency stated that over the previous week the daily size of transaction fees in the Ethereum network has surged up to a record high for over two and a half years. On August 3, the median value #%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F)of the fee amounted to $0.82, with the overall amount of transaction fees totaling$2 mln. However, it only signaled the start of real problems. Over the next week, fees continued to grow and by August 11 the median fee value almost doubled equaling $1.57. Larry Cermak, an expert at a big analytical and news-making crypto portal The Block, wrote in his August 15 tweet that over a week the total amount of transaction fees in the Ethereum network totaled$34.5 mln, having surpassed its historical high. Meanwhile, in the Bitcoin network that is seen as too expensive the fees were almost four times lower at $9 mln. The total fee amount paid by cryptocurrency users over a week: Ethereum —$34.5 mln; Bitcoin — $9 mln; Monero —$2,240; Tezos — $1,876; Cardano —$1,615; XRP — $1,138; BSV —$1,102; Stellar — $1,059; Bitcoin Cash —$1,027; UMI — $0. Let's talk about it a little later. ​ https://preview.redd.it/z9azd9v6alj51.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=25c365d6e14665ecda4a2b8d19b2fc57dd5cde1e Historical Growth Chart for Ethereum Fees. Source The existing situation shows that Ethereum is actually not as fast and profitable as commonly cited. Additionally, this could happen to almost any cryptocurrency except UMI that charges no fees whatsoever. We will tell you why. Why have these problems emerged? There is nothing unoriginal: the Ethereum network simply can't handle an increased load. Arcane Research analysts consider that a principal cause of this situation is the constantly increasing number of the DeFi ecosystem projects built on the Ethereum blockchain. Their number is growing all the time which causes the overload of the network. As of August 12, the total amount of funds in DeFi applications reached$4.3 billion which is 19.5% higher than that in the past week. At the time of writing this article, the amount surged to $6.21 billion. You can see the current data here. What is the most unpleasant about DeFi protocols is that a lot of them are scam projects. Which is not the worst part though. There is also another factor that significantly slows down the Ethereum network. There are a lot of pyramid-like projects that are built on the EOS platform and use smart contracts. One of them is SmartWay Forsage, which regularly overloads the network with a large number of transactions, causes traffic jams, and, consequently, leads to increased fees (keep in mind that Ethereum miners choose transactions with a higher commission). Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, revealed his disapproval of the SmartWay Forsage methodology and asked them to "leave and not pollute Ethereum ecology in the future". However, the project is slow to do this — it continues to deceive users. This is only the tip of the iceberg of scam projects which abounds on the EOS network –– they continually emerge, work for a while, then go down as scams and are replaced with new ones. This never-ending stream of "investment projects" based on the Ponzi scheme overloads the system. This is the reason why Adam Back, a pioneer of the crypto industry and founder of the technology company Blockstream, equated Ethereum with such infamous projects as Onecoin and Bitconnect. Adam Back's solid dig at Ethereum became the subject of much debate among crypto enthusiasts. Of course, it all doesn't mean that Ethereum is a bad cryptocurrency. On the contrary, it has a lot of advantages over other coins. But all that has happened exposes Ethereum's faults which must be eliminated. The problem is that they may not be fixable. It is far from certain that the developers will be able to get rid of all the defects as the system has huge scalability problems. The crypto community has to admit that Ethereum, like other first-generation cryptocurrencies, has issues with capacity, fees, and scalability and is gradually becoming obsolete. 2020 is the time for young innovative cryptocurrencies such as UMI. UMI is the flagship of new-generation cryptocurrencies. In real fact, any cryptocurrency could face it. Each cryptocurrency charges fees which typically surge when the network is overloaded or the price is going up. Everyone will remember 2017 when in line with price growth and the network's overload Bitcoin transaction fee reached a high of around$40. But when it comes to UMI, it works the other way round. The UMI network's advantages are high capacity, no fees, and scaling possibilities. It uses the best and fastest crypto industry solutions and excludes all inefficient methods by default. Smart optimization in combination with the Proof-of-Authority technology operating on the master node basis enables almost instant payments. At the stage of network testing, an incredibly high capacity was achieved: up to 4,369 transactions per second; up to 262,140 transactions per minute; up to 15,728,400 transactions per hour; up to 377,481,600 transactions per day. Ethereum processes about 20 transactions per second. It means that the UMI network can process transactions that Ethereum processes over a year in 1 to 5 days — and with no fees. https://preview.redd.it/rwohnov3alj51.png?width=1125&format=png&auto=webp&s=4329b75c0bd8b7a22276b529f5ca433d17a0874f The UMI network can process transactions that Ethereum processes over a year in a few days and with no fees. More details What is more important is that less than 0.001% of the network's overall potential is used now. The UMI network has a lot of reserve capacity and can handle hundreds of thousands of times heavier load. Moreover, with scaling possibilities, UMI can keep up with the times. The UMI code ensures the safe introduction of any upgrades — the network can be easily modified and scaled with cutting edge technology solutions. In other words, traffic jams will never pose a problem for us. UMI will instantly process all transactions, with no fees. Always. https://preview.redd.it/t0068th0alj51.png?width=544&format=png&auto=webp&s=019f46ec8c093480c4638cf098312a5a146134a8 A real-time speedometer displays the number of transactions processed by the UMI network per second. Link Additionally, unlike Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies, the UMI's staking smart contract prevents possibilities of any pyramid schemes, meaning eliminates their negative influence. Our staking is completely safe and secured against scammers. Read more about this in our article. Any UMI staking structure could work forever. In other words, you can multiply your coins at a rate of up to 40% per month for an indefinitely long period of time. UMI doesn't inherit the disadvantages of the first-generation cryptocurrencies. This is an innovative, carefully designed network based on state-of-the-art technologies. UMI is an ambitious step toward the future. And we're making it together right now! Sincerely yours, UMI team submitted by UMITop to u/UMITop [link] [comments]

Évitez les arnaques et placements miracles !

Bien le bonjour,
Je vous partage cet article lu sur l'avenue des investisseurs.
J'ai bien aimé les différentes arnaques racontées et les Ponzi.
https://avenuedesinvestisseurs.fescroquerie-arnaque-investissement/
Peut-être que ça peut faire éviter des bêtises à certains. Je me suis rendu compte que les gens aiment bien ce qui sort de l'ordinaire (diamants, bitcoin, pyramides...) et ça mérite peut-être même une place dans le Wiki pour mettre en garde les gens sur les placements atypiques et trop beaux pour être sérieux ?
Pour le Pinel, ce n'est pas une arnaque, mais mon fils a failli acheter ça et je lui ai dit de plutôt acheter des SCPI. Je sais que c'est trop souvent surévalué à l'achat.

Latest SEC Bitcoin ETF Comment - Comp. Sci. Professor @ UNICAMP - Stanford Ph.D Alumni (Controversial)

Objective thoughts on the latest comment to the SEC?
The comment below was posted by this professor (received his PHD in Comp Sci. from Stanford): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi
I am not a US citizen, but the proposed ETF has a global impact, given its connection to Bitcoin -- a venture that is intrinsically international in scope. Bitcoin is being itself traded and advertised as an investment instrument, the world over; and the proposed ETF would legitimize it even in my country. So, please let me offer my comment about that proposal.
For the purpose of the fund, bitcoin is being characterized as a commodity. However, bitcoins do not really exist. They do not have material existence, of course; but they don't have even the virtual existence of MP3 or video files.
The latter are specific patterns of bits, that can be "owned" in the broad sense of the DCMA and other "intellectual property" legislation. Bitcoins are not specific patterns of bits, however. One cannot display them on a screen, print them, play them on a speaker -- as one can do with other forms of intellectual property.
In that respect, bitcoins are similar to the money in a bank account. The bank client cannot see his money, either. All he can do is see a ledger entry that states that he has a certain amount in his account. Likewise, he cannot display his bitcoins, but only see a ledger entry -- in the "blockchain" -- that states that he owns a certain amount of bitcoins.
There are important differences, however. A bank is bound by contract and by law to transfer the amount stated in that ledger to other banks, or to cash, if the client requests it; and the government is morally obliged to preserve the purchase value of that cash, to a reasonable degree. But there are no legal, contractual, or moral obligations about bitcoin transfer or conversion to other money instruments; and there is no entity tasked with preserving its value.
Thus, bitcoins are more like "penny stock", shares of a company with no assets, no products, and no staff; or shares in a pure ponzi schema, like Madoff's fund. The value of bitcoin is supposed to come only from the existence of an (allegedly) secure ledger that records the distribution of coins among numerous accounts ("addresses" in the system's terminology), and therefore allows their use as a means for internet payments. But penny stocks and ponzi funds offer that capability, too.
Another important difference between bitcoin and other assets, real or virtual, is that the ledger (blockchain) does not really establish ownership of the bitcoins to identified individuals. The bitcoins are assigned to "addresses" (accounts) that are identified by numbers, and can be moved anonymously by using "private keys" associated to the addresses.
Anyone who knows the private key of an address can move the bitcoins stored there. By design, there is no identity verification, not even the possibility of it. In that regard, bitcoin accounts in the blockchain are like the old numbered accounts in Swiss banks. As the case of the MtGox exchange showed, when btcoins are stolen, it is nearly impossible to identif the thief, or even to determine whether it was an outside or inside job.Â This feature creates a security risk that is impossible to quantify.
Since 2010 or so, bitcoin has been heavily used for for investment and speculative trading, more than as a currency or payment network. All that trade has been occurring in totally unregulated exchanges that are not subjected to any meaningful auditing.
The market price of bitcoin, like that of a penny stock or ponzi fund, is entirely speculative, based on expectations of traders about future prices, which will be based on expectations of future expectations...
Unlike legitimate stocks and bounds, that infinite regression is not ultimately grounded on fundamentals -- because bitcoin does not have any. In fact, its primary use as speculative financial instrument causes extreme price volatility, that prevents its use as a currency.
Ownership of bitcoins does not yield any dividends or interest. While eventual users of bitcoin as a currency would be required to pay transaction fees, those fees will not be paid to bitcoin holders, but to the "miners" that maintain the public ledger.
The only way to make a profit by investing in bitcoins is by selling them to other investors, for more than their purchase price. Thus, bitcoin has the essential character of a penny stock, or a pyramid schema: the profit of early investors comes entirely from the investment of later ones.
Investment in bitcoin does not contribute to mankind's real wealth or well-being: it does not finance the creation of any material goods or real services. On the other hand, it has ruined many naive investors who have been induced to put their savings into it, by spurious promises of fantastic price increases in some undefined future.
In my view, since it is primarily used for investment, bitcoin should be regulated like a security; in which case it would probably get from the regulators the same treatment that a penny stock or ponzi fund would get.
As for the proposed ETF, it does not add any productive mechanism to the underlying bitcoins. It only provides a level of indirection, that is intended to make bitcoin accessible to investments funds that it would not otherwise get (such as retirement funds). But, would the SEC authorize an ETF whose shares are to be backed exclusively by shares of a specific penny stock?
I hope you will consider these points when deciding on whether to authorize the ETF.
--stolfi
PS. Another minor problem with the proposal is that the nominal price of the shares is supposed to be tied to the market price of bitcoin at the Gemini exchange. That exchange is closely tied to the ETF proponents, and has relatively low liquidity and trade volume. There seems to be a significant risk that the nominal ETF share price will be manipulated, by relatively small trades that manipulate the bitcoin price at that exchange.
Jorge Stolfi Full ProfessoProfessor Titular Instituto de Computação/Institute of Computing UNICAMP"