Article on Banx

[EvilDave]

Maybe.....could also be that I just have a very bad reaction to the concept of religious belief. 

[xeroc]

You should form opinions based on your own research, not purely on what people tell you.

That's what I wanted to express .. I may have failed

[EvilDave]

Someone recently told me that in the US, kids get tought that earth was made by god in 7 days even though academia knows better. Which one to trust?
What ever the masses tell you or what every those that you trust tell you? From an outside perspective (not knowing about what is true and what is not) .. the questions is not answered easily.

Really ? Which one to trust ? Is there any doubt in your mind about the science vs skybeard issue ?
And what does that have to do with Banx, apart from the general theme of believing in stupid things ?

You should form opinions based on your own research, not purely on what people tell you.

[xeroc]

So, no-one actually did any research into Banx or Mark L ?
But you're quite happy to have a go at anyone who points out the massive range of red flags that Banx provides.

Open your eyes, ffs, some of you guys are like turkeys voting for Christmas....we've already established that Banx is a sham and even Mark has confirmed that it generates no actual income.
The dividends are paid out of Marks earnings selling marketing products on www.jvzoo.com:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1181883.msg12703290#msg12703290

BTW: I reserve the right to laugh like a drain when Banx blows up.....

Someone recently told me that in the US, kids get tought that earth was made by god in 7 days even though academia knows better. Which one to trust?
What ever the masses tell you or what every those that you trust tell you? From an outside perspective (not knowing about what is true and what is not) .. the questions is not answered easily.

[EvilDave]

So, no-one actually did any research into Banx or Mark L ?
But you're quite happy to have a go at anyone who points out the massive range of red flags that Banx provides.

Open your eyes, ffs, some of you guys are like turkeys voting for Christmas....we've already established that Banx is a sham and even Mark has confirmed that it generates no actual income.
The dividends are paid out of Marks earnings selling marketing products on www.jvzoo.com:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1181883.msg12703290#msg12703290

BTW: I reserve the right to laugh like a drain when Banx blows up.....

[Tuck Fheman]

I appreciate the responses in here guys. Although some of you are not fans of my business at least you see what is going on with this.

I am excited to become a part of this community and utilise BTS 2.0 and show  everyone my plans and make my vision a reality.

Regards

Mark

I'm here for the porn. 

Edit: Sorry I misspelled "crypto".

[MarkLyford]

I appreciate the responses in here guys. Although some of you are not fans of my business at least you see what is going on with this.

I am excited to become a part of this community and utilise BTS 2.0 and show  everyone my plans and make my vision a reality.

Regards

Mark

[MarketingMonk]

What do we know?

• Controversy sells
• Coinjournal has a crypto donation QR on the website
• Controversy increases website traffic
• Website traffic converts to donations

I state each of those items individually as stand alone items. The relationship between them I have no comment about because I don't know.

It's a shame that it's so easy to forget the deep connection that we all have.

Aren't we all lovers of crypto?
Aren't we all drawn to it for the same reason?
Don't we all have similar beliefs about freedom and liberty?

So it's a shame that there's friction within the community when there's enough competition and resistance from the existing world of finance.

Let's each individually hold up the mirror for Coinjournal.

As you read Ian's article, periodically check it against the sites founding principles thus:



Is the writing objective and unbiased?

I'm just asking questions, isn't that how you get to the truth?
Isn't that what journalists are supposedly really after?

[Murderistic]

Does Ian DeMartino own coin-journal dot net? If so, Mr. DeMartino's entire "article" is in reality a disguised informercial, written for profit at the expense of Mark Lyford.

His bio says "co-founder of coinjournal.net". Yes, I think either there was some outside interest involved or else Mr. D. grew up believing that journalists get noticed by writing odd hit pieces. If I were a source, I sure wouldn't go to him with a story.

In his comments to mark he makes it pretty known that he has no interest in producing a piece that exonerate Mark or has anything to do with writing objectively.

Also just by looking at the headline and knowing for a fact that they were going to remove it that day anyways and it's none of it was based on any sort of accusations just makes that seal the deal in terms of bias.

It's clear he has an agenda just based off of that and knowingly making the headlines something inflammatory and controversial, when he already knows those accusations had zero to do with it.

[Tuck Fheman]

My official response to Ian DeMartino >> http://digitalmoneytimes.com/banxshares-was-removed-from-coinmarketcap-rankings-and-not-because-of-ponzi-accusations-the-official-response-from-mark-lyford/

I am behind the scenes working to give both Mark and Ian the opportunity to clarify their positions in a hangout.  @MarkLyford @IanDeMartino please feel free to reach out to me so I can get it scheduled.  This is definitely something that the community has interest in so I feel it is important to give both sides the ability to be heard.

 

[tbone]

I read your article. I have no knowledge regarding the content and have no comment on it whatsoever.

I would like to comment on the technical proficiency of your "article" though, because the crypto space is sorely in need of credible journalism.

The article was very poorly written. You should not expect informed individuals to read it and take you seriously. It does not conform to any technical writing standards that would be required by a legitimate publication (1). Most of it is conjecture and opinion on your part. The subject could make a strong legal case it is libelous (2). The article in no way attempts to adhere to the 4 core principles outlined by the SPJ Code of Ethics (3).

We are in the "wild west" of cryptocurrency. Responsible journalism and PR are critical to helping us make informed decisions about how to participate. Please consider learning what it takes to contribute to the advancement of this innovative, world changing space.

For your reference:

(1) https://www.apstylebook.com/?do=product&pid=978-0-917360-61-9

(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

(3) http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

The above comment nailed it perfectly for me. VERY heavy on conjecture. I have no way of judging the content. Time will tell if Mark L. is honest or not; there was some smoke before but never any fire proven. I personally wouldn't go into a business partnership with him, but I also would like to give him the chance to build an honest business here, which I will support. Beyond the content, no responsible writer makes those kinds of accusations and correlations without more and better information. The article was shit. Then to run Google ads playing up those rumors? That's some business you're running, Mr. D. I wouldn't want to be your lawyer.

Let me start by saying I'm not necessarily a huge fan of Banx.  Actually, Mark's whole plan seems a little too pie in the sky for me, and I think he plays a bit fast and loose the way he characterizes aspects of his business.  But that doesn't mean he won't be successful.  And it certainly doesn't man he's done anything dishonest. 

If you read Ian's article, then watch Mark's video, and most importantly if you listen to the skype conversation they had, you will likely come to the conclusion that Ian's "article" (let's just call it a blog post) is a complete hatchet job and doesn't remotely resemble journalism.  The title itself is clearly an attempt to mislead readers, which ought to make anyone suspicious from the start.  And the whole blog post just exudes agenda from the word go. 

I'm not saying I think Ian was paid or bribed.  But I do think some individual or group fed Ian with a bunch truths and half truths, and took advantage of his zeal to make a name for himself in journalism, something he has apparently failed at in the past for obvious reasons.

[donkeypong]

Does Ian DeMartino own coin-journal dot net? If so, Mr. DeMartino's entire "article" is in reality a disguised informercial, written for profit at the expense of Mark Lyford.

His bio says "co-founder of coinjournal.net". Yes, I think either there was some outside interest involved or else Mr. D. grew up believing that journalists get noticed by writing odd hit pieces. If I were a source, I sure wouldn't go to him with a story.

[werneo]

The publication Coin-Journal dot net purchased a google ad promoting the following text:

"Banx shares A Ponzi? -Looking To Invest In Banx shares?"

Screen capture of the google ad here:
http://banxcapital.s3.amazonaws.com/press/coinjourmal_Add_1.png

another one here:
http://banxcapital.s3.amazonaws.com/press/coinjourmal_Add_2.png

Does Ian DeMartino own coin-journal dot net? If so, Mr. DeMartino's entire "article" is in reality a disguised informercial, written for profit at the expense of Mark Lyford.

addendum:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3hoj33/cryptocurrency_ponzi_pumper_ian_demartino_claims/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hi5ok/i_knew_there_was_a_reason_i_was_rejecting/

[donkeypong]

I read your article. I have no knowledge regarding the content and have no comment on it whatsoever.

I would like to comment on the technical proficiency of your "article" though, because the crypto space is sorely in need of credible journalism.

The article was very poorly written. You should not expect informed individuals to read it and take you seriously. It does not conform to any technical writing standards that would be required by a legitimate publication (1). Most of it is conjecture and opinion on your part. The subject could make a strong legal case it is libelous (2). The article in no way attempts to adhere to the 4 core principles outlined by the SPJ Code of Ethics (3).

We are in the "wild west" of cryptocurrency. Responsible journalism and PR are critical to helping us make informed decisions about how to participate. Please consider learning what it takes to contribute to the advancement of this innovative, world changing space.

For your reference:

(1) https://www.apstylebook.com/?do=product&pid=978-0-917360-61-9

(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

(3) http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

The above comment nailed it perfectly for me. VERY heavy on conjecture. I have no way of judging the content. Time will tell if Mark L. is honest or not; there was some smoke before but never any fire proven. I personally wouldn't go into a business partnership with him, but I also would like to give him the chance to build an honest business here, which I will support. Beyond the content, no responsible writer makes those kinds of accusations and correlations without more and better information. The article was shit. Then to run Google ads playing up those rumors? That's some business you're running, Mr. D. I wouldn't want to be your lawyer.

[fuzzy]

My official response to Ian DeMartino >> http://digitalmoneytimes.com/banxshares-was-removed-from-coinmarketcap-rankings-and-not-because-of-ponzi-accusations-the-official-response-from-mark-lyford/

I am behind the scenes working to give both Mark and Ian the opportunity to clarify their positions in a hangout.  @MarkLyford @IanDeMartino please feel free to reach out to me so I can get it scheduled.  This is definitely something that the community has interest in so I feel it is important to give both sides the ability to be heard.

[MarkLyford]

My official response to Ian DeMartino >> http://digitalmoneytimes.com/banxshares-was-removed-from-coinmarketcap-rankings-and-not-because-of-ponzi-accusations-the-official-response-from-mark-lyford/

[EvilDave]

Hey, Ian !
I've also made a couple of attempts at getting the BTS side of the Banx story, but it's still more than a bit ambiguous.
There are definitely elements of the BTS community who aren't on board with Banx at all, but we also have the CEO/COO/boss dude enthusiastically announcing their partnership with Banx all over the place, especially on BTT.

I've seen Ian work over the last 18 months or so, and while his style may need tidying, I'm pretty confident that his integrity doesn't.
Marks idiotic accusations about Nxt bribing Ian to write this piece are just that, idiotic. Nxt has nothing real to gain by giving Banx a kicking, and we wouldn't waste hard earned cash on bribing journo's to investigate....(and if we wanted to damage BTS, simply letting Mark roll with it would be a most effective method).

I want to see honest and transparent crypto-currency projects succeed, it's the only way to get genuine adoption. Every investor who gets scammed by a  bad project is one less crypto adopter in the long term and so it is in the best interests of every  legitimate project in crypto to work together to kick out the bad actors.

[phillyguy]

Thanks for your feedback. This article did have a few more ins and outs than normal, so perhaps it isn't my best style-wise. I tried to get the important facts out first and then narrow down onto the more specific pieces. That is standard journalism practice. If you feel that I didn't do that properly, perhaps you are correct, I kind of don't like my intro, but do feel things pick up after that.

Outside of style, I think this is perhaps the most important article I've ever done.

I do appreciate your feedback, but my writing has been competent enough to keep me fed and sheltered for the last three years, and has led to a book deal.

I am well aware of libel and ethics laws. And am confident in my article. My article states that the marketcap was fake. That is a fact. That BanxShares would be removed from CMC, that happened. That the volume was made up of off market trades that could not be verified as real, that is also a fact and something Lyford admitted. That the projections put on Banxcapital.com/investors were misleading and unrealistic, judging by any industry standards, that is also true. That Banx's code was copied from Foocoin, which isn't even a coin but a template, also true. That C-Cex and Mark disagree on what caused them to remove Banx is a fact (I did not take a position on who was right). That people who bought Mining contracts have been switched to Banx, not a fact but something Mark Lyford told me himself.

Exposing scams like Paycoin and potential scams like Banx is my contribution to this space.


Again, thank you for your constructive criticism,  I am simply trying to make you guys aware of this.

I read your article again. Second time through, I think it is actually not so bad - technically speaking. I think I was jaded by reading the comments section, where you guys going back and forth was pretty ugly and tarnished you "taking the high road" so to speak. Sorry if I came across harshly.

Maybe my recommendation then is don't engage in the comment section.

Again I don't know anything about you or Banx so strictly considering the writing aspect.

[jakub]

I think the article is actually quite good. Obviously it does not offer a solid proof but it does raise some legitimate questions.

Banx's business model is very far away from the clarity and accountability promoted by BitShares.
For me the rates of return offered by Banx do no match the industry's profitability at this moment.
But it may be a viable business. I just don't know.

Thank you for sharing it.

[DMo09]

Bitshares will shine the light. We will see.

[liondani]

I will keep track on Banx and  your future articles etc.

Time will reveal the truth I guess...  THEN I will decide if I will give you credit or not....


PS have you revealed other scams?and when? can you give us evidence for your past finds? (links,articles, etc.)

[IanDeMartino]

Thanks for your feedback. This article did have a few more ins and outs than normal, so perhaps it isn't my best style-wise. I tried to get the important facts out first and then narrow down onto the more specific pieces. That is standard journalism practice. If you feel that I didn't do that properly, perhaps you are correct, I kind of don't like my intro, but do feel things pick up after that.

Outside of style, I think this is perhaps the most important article I've ever done.

I do appreciate your feedback, but my writing has been competent enough to keep me fed and sheltered for the last three years, and has led to a book deal.

I am well aware of libel and ethics laws. And am confident in my article. My article states that the marketcap was fake. That is a fact. That BanxShares would be removed from CMC, that happened. That the volume was made up of off market trades that could not be verified as real, that is also a fact and something Lyford admitted. That the projections put on Banxcapital.com/investors were misleading and unrealistic, judging by any industry standards, that is also true. That Banx's code was copied from Foocoin, which isn't even a coin but a template, also true. That C-Cex and Mark disagree on what caused them to remove Banx is a fact (I did not take a position on who was right). That people who bought Mining contracts have been switched to Banx, not a fact but something Mark Lyford told me himself.

Exposing scams like Paycoin and potential scams like Banx is my contribution to this space.


Again, thank you for your constructive criticism,  I am simply trying to make you guys aware of this.

[phillyguy]

I read your article. I have no knowledge regarding the content and have no comment on it whatsoever.

I would like to comment on the technical proficiency of your "article" though, because the crypto space is sorely in need of credible journalism.

The article was very poorly written. You should not expect informed individuals to read it and take you seriously. It does not conform to any technical writing standards that would be required by a legitimate publication (1). Most of it is conjecture and opinion on your part. The subject could make a strong legal case it is libelous (2). The article in no way attempts to adhere to the 4 core principles outlined by the SPJ Code of Ethics (3).

We are in the "wild west" of cryptocurrency. Responsible journalism and PR are critical to helping us make informed decisions about how to participate. Please consider learning what it takes to contribute to the advancement of this innovative, world changing space.

For your reference:

(1) https://www.apstylebook.com/?do=product&pid=978-0-917360-61-9

(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

(3) http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[IanDeMartino]

ah, gotcha.

Yeah, Banx is far from a top ten currency. With no price discovery, there can be no marketcap. Simple economics.

[topcandle]

Im speaking to the community in general.  Im not rushing to judgement, but I'm very skeptical of most partnerships that Stan is touting.  This is more reason to be...

So MUCH FOR THAT TOP TEN ALT COIN JOINING THE BTS NETWORK>>> ALL HYPE

[IanDeMartino]

stop getting burned by other people .

Who burned me? What do you mean?

[topcandle]

stop getting burned by other people . 

[IanDeMartino]

I attempted to contact the Bitshares team to warn them about the issues I saw with banx before I put out this article, but they either didn't get it or were too busy to reply.

In any case, I would suggest you guys do some research on these guys before you let them put out PRs linking your names together.

http://coinjournal.net/ponzi-accusations-fly-as-banxshares-is-set-to-be-removed-from-coinmarketcap-rankings/

I don't want to argue, do what you guys want, but I felt I should at least bring it to your attention.