Pecunix Takes Proactive Approach To Curbing HYIP Ponzis
A Digital Currency, like Pecunix, is about as-close-to electronic cash as we are going to get in this decade. Just like any cash transaction, it is impossible to regulate ‘who’ uses the currency or what it is used for….
As your local bank teller does not ask you what you are planning to do with your cashed paycheck, its impossible for digital currency operators to police all users, all the time and ask them how they plan to spend their electronic money.
This kind of supervision over a system has always been a big problem for the DGC industry. Many people expect that all DGCs should be operating like the super regulated PayPal or the paperwork intensive Western Union.
Advocates of regulation all say these plans and time tested regulations prevent misuse of the system. However, most experienced users will tell you that while these regulations and restrictive activities definitely help its not a 100% solution. People still misuse the PayPal system and steal from users [phishing] and the crooks still use Western Union to funnel out proceeds of their online crimes.
So digital currency operators are stuck between massive restrictive regulations or turning a blind eye to destructive fraud and criminal activity. This is NOT an easy problem to solve.
Consequently, if an operator identifies a grey area, not specifically a crime in progress, but a questionable transaction, what action should a responsible operator take?
- Should they act as judge and jury forcing people to obey their opinion (like the Christian Coalition-we feel its right so you must follow our rules) even though it may not be a disagreeable transaction in the actual users’ jurisdiction?
- Should the digital currency operator ignore the problem and pretend it does not exist, stating they are not responsible for what people do with their money?
What should the DGC operator do to prevent their digital currency from being used by scammers, crooks and con men?
After all, this is currently a self regulated industry and we want to keep it that way. We see that over regulation not only does not work, it spoils the free market.
Its a very tough question, but one that needs to be addressed.
For the last 6 weeks, Pecunix has been ‘piloting an experimental scheme’ and taking a very unique proactive approach to this problem.
They[Sidd & team] deserve some real credit and praise for their solution. Without being judge and jury, Sidd has taken a large step in the right direction and addresses this issue head on… and I like it.
Pecunix accounts are now actively monitored for HYIP activity and each account that is discovered or recognized gets ‘marked’. All ‘marked’ accounts then receive the following payment interface upgrade. Once upgraded, the effect is the same whether you use a payment link, the PRI (shopping cart) interface or a standard account to account payment, so all payment activity for that account is covered.
Anyone attempting a payment through the marked account will meet a large warning screen with the following text:
WARNING!
This account has been identified as a likely HYIP Ponzi scheme or SCAM. If you continue there is a strong possibility that you will lose your money!
It is not too late to cancel this payment.
[Cancel Payment Button]
(RECOMMENDED)
If you decide to continue with this payment, you must accept full reponsibility. Please carefully read section 6 and 7 of the Pecunix User Agreement before continuing.
Identified HYIP Ponzi accounts and ‘investments’ will now get this warning, and customers trying to send money to them must read and agree, thus accepting full responsibility for their actions if they continue.
You can click the following link which is a payment link to the A3union Pecunix account and see what happens.
http://pecunix.com/pay.me?payments@a3union.com
I think this is a fantastic move for any digital currency to make towards preventing their system from being used for fraudulent investment schemes. If a user progresses past this warning and spends money, they accept the responsibility in the case of a loss they are 100% responsible and acknowledge that they were warned.
Please join our discussion:
- Do you think this approach will be successful?
- Do you think its ‘overboard’ and we should all mind our business?
- Or do you feel this does not go far enough to fight scams?
I like this scenario the best thus far.
So long as people accept responsibility for their actions, DGCs should clear the way for people to go about their business. At the same time, this warning system puts everyone on notice that there is a real danger of losing your money to crooks and scammers who have been potentially identified as such. Decision: Ours. As it should be.
I can’t think of anything more a DGC can do without crossing that fine line described in the article above.
Pecunix continues to impress.
Pretty innovative and cool, but a question.
What if its a genuine business and investment plan? Does Sidd allow the entity to prove themself and remove the warning?
This could hurt a business bad if its being identify wrongly, otherwise, it’s a fantastic new feature Pecunix ;)
In my humble opinion this new policy is a good idea, and I fully support it. There is however there are some issues that need to be addressed. The first that comes to mind is just how does one go about removing the warning from one’s account if Pecunix wrongfully “marked” the account. What documents are required to prove to Pecunix that the account is being used for “legitimate” purposes. Also Pecunix doesn’t state what their filter considers “hyip” or “ponzi” patterns of account activity, so you’re just going to have to trust Pecunix and hope they know what they’re doing.
alansmoneyblog.com
To address some of the points mentioned so far:
Marking accounts is not an automatic process. Every account that has been marked has been assessed by a real person, so the chance of incorrectly marked accounts is very slight.
If an account holder believed his account was wrongfully marked, he would need to contact Pecunix customer service and convince them that he was not running a HYIP or scam. Remember, Pecunix is a private business, so ultimately they have the right to decide which accounts are within acceptable boundaries and which are not.
This is a good move from Pecunix. My only concern is that nowhere it is specified what are the “acceptable boundaries”. I know that Pecunix has the right to do whatever it wants with user accounts (as per clause 16.1 of the user agreement), but I think a bit of clarity would avoid trouble down the road.
Otherwise, excelent decision and Death to HYIPs!
This does serve as a very “in your face” visual warning for the total newbie that may have been introduced to this arena by unscrupolous “upline” without the very real risks being laid out.
BUT ok I’ve always read that Pecunix says NO to ponzi hyips so if they have identified a program as being a hyip ponzi isn’t this playing both sides. Ok cool you are a ponzi hyip but your welcome here just pay your fees lol
Good quote Larry, “death to HYIPs”.
td, I agree, but if you think about it, these programs are swearing up and down they are legit, they say stuff like, “…we are a successful group of stock traders” which is total BS.
I don’t think any of them want their potential ‘investors’ having to preview a screen that say PONZI/SCAM before they send cash.
So I’d say that the screen is just as much, if not more, of a tactic to prevent the operators from wanting to use Pecunix, along with protecting the ignorant user from losing their money.
What HYIP operator would take the time to con users into believing they are stock or forex trading gurus, only to get that ‘in your face’ ugly screen before any money comes in. I think HYIP operators knowing they will get exposed, won’t attempt to use Pecunix, they’ll go straight to Liberty Reserve :-)
In both of these cases, its a 100% IMPROVEMENT over the previous arrangement, excellent addition Sidd! Keep up the great work.
Thank you for taking time to comment. Very impressive Pecunix.
Mark
Ultimately though, the responsibility falls squarely in the hands of the user, which is good about this approach. If they, after being warned, still decide to risk their gold grams, who else but they is to be blamed? At the very least, such warning should induce any person to give a second look at the due dilligence.
Hello Larry, Your point about clarity of “acceptable boundaries” was carefully considered when we introduced this innovation. We have decided not to publish any parameters, and will base our decisions entirely on our discretion. We believe that publishing parameters will merely encourage the various scam operators to try and structure their web sites to avoid the parameters, and also opens a can of worms where there will be constant argument about whether a particular site violates the conditions or not. We are not interested in wasting our time with that.
We simply decide whether we are comfortable with the business that is using our service. If not, we warn our users accordingly.
Hi td, your somewhat cynical comment needs careful consideration. Mark has addressed it well, pointing out the deeper effect of our policy, but there is more to add.
You write “I’ve always read that Pecunix says NO to ponzi hyips”… but how does a business such as Pecunix effectively do this?
If you are suggesting that Pecunix should simply close the offending accounts, you are suggesting the exact same solution that e-gold tried, and which obviously failed dismally. By doing this, we would simply start a vicious circle, or a race with the Ponzi operators, where they set the rules and have all the advantages, and ultimately the Ponzi victims lose. In such a scenario, the Ponzi simply opens a new account and their “investors” never know that there is a problem. When the new account is discovered and closed, the whole cycle starts again, and there is absolutely no assistance or notification to potential victims.
Pecunix exists as a service to its customers, not as an authoritarian dictator of rules and behavior. We believe our policy offers the best possible service to our customers, educating and notifying them of risks, but not dictating their actions.
In my humble opinion it is a fantastic move, which as I understand give real Investments with registration and Office location a Plus.
If we take a look at it as e-gold does it right now – is nothing more then BS, and we are right now preparing a legal lawsuit against e-gold for their business handling during 1996 till 2007. Their operation are clear a fraudulent business and so is it as well right now for blocking accounts without reason.
The whole Investment scene is changing and it is a long overdue move, of course will there be scams but the way it is heading the scam systems will be very fast detected and closed down.
Great move Pecunix
nice step to avoid complaints of greedy hyips investors and e-gold law saga interest. this is probably a new standard in e area
is it true ? or just to remind the member to get more carefully for hyip
Sidd, if you were sincere about keeping scammers out of Pecunix, you would freeze those accounts that you, quote “decide whether we are comfortable with the business that is using our service. If not, we warn our users accordingly.”
Anyone who has had their feet wet in the HYIP/ Ponzi world doesn’t need more than a minute to look at the outrageous claims before they know it’s a scam. So why not abide by your own TOS and not allow the account? Instead of shifting the resposibility to the consumer?