SCAM: Ionomy and Ion


I guess that’s right, haven’t really had time or leisure to look deeper into it.


Member had requested this be referenced here since it is relevant. and should be discussed here.


So are you saying the Ion and Ionomy discussion needs to stay in the XPY-Paycoin Discussion thread?:hushed:


No. Needs to be discussed here. XPY is separate.


in name only…

Affirming the consequent…

ION is different than XPY, XPY was a scam… so therefore ION isn’t a scam…

One of the older con tricks in the book…


Here is a philosophical crypto-dilemma. How can someone be a scam if it doesn’t really exist… no wallet, no chain, nothing.

Edit: lulz, no whitepaper either… even Garza had some turbo-flex bullshit ready before the launch. - link to “full whitepaper” goes to an empty page:

Anyway, the non-full whitepaper says the premine is going to be 10,900,000, so that’s an equivalent of ~87 million XPY, or $2+ million USD according to the $0.20-0.25 ICO rate. Inflation 100%+ in the first year (12 million ION). Also something about masternodes, looks like some ioners will be more equal than others.


Guess the only real question is who’s dumb enough to keep dumping their money into scam after scam after scam…



Initial Coin Supply

  • 3.4 million ION: participation incentives given away by
  • 2.5 million ION: bounties for coin development
  • 5.0 million ION: for offer through Initial Coin Offering

Do people still fall for this?


No. But paycoiners might. As long as MrCoins is leading them off the cliff.

Oh, and by the way -



Initial Coin Supply

  • 3.4 million ION: participation incentives given away by
  • 2.5 million ION: bounties for coin development
  • 5.0 million ION: for offer through Initial Coin Offering

We the anonymous heads of ION have a perfectly reasonable answer for this and its…


I actually asked about that on slack:

  • The incentives are for game tournaments etc.
  • The dev bounty rewards go to developers that deliver certain (community) requested functionality. This may include Team ION devs I think.
  • The paycoins that converted are being burned. Proof/links should be provided to the blockchain.

Ofcourse anyone can have their own intepretation.


interpretation makes a coin…
There would be less of a problem if XPY was scrapped awhile ago and efforts went into establishing a separate alt coin.

At this point the other coin would have proven itself or flopped already but the perception would have been different.

Now forever XPY = ION = a scam, at least in most people’s eyes :see_no_evil:



finally another scam to invest in. from the great planners of xpy support team
how many times did they ■■■■ up and get hacked

:rocket: to the moon :innocent:


Even @huey agreed on that, but that argument does only support the current move imho.

I don’t want to argue if it’s a scam or not, i’m just missing the valid arguments. I do respect your opinion, but I just see emotions and opinions most of the time. I think everybody already knows that there are mixed feeling in the community, and it does not make this topic any more valuable by keep repeating those. Ofcourse this may somewhat be inherent to the still missing whitepaper as therefore there’s little facts to discuss yet…


isnt it just another fully premined coin. what more is there to say


You mean the ‘problem’ that the money from the initial selling/ico goes to team ion’s fund? True, that could be a problem IF not transparent. It has been stated that (prev) team ion isn’t non-profit, so i don’t know how people in crypto would handle this. Crypto most of the times is about you making money and not allow others to, right? :wink:

That’s one of the potential trust issues with the bits, those were not on the blockchain so it is not traceable what money has been spent where. Now those bits are converted into ION for a similair value according the ICO price, but it does make it more complex to track.

ICO still lasts more than a month. Let’s see comes up.


Looks like they’ve put up something interesting we can discuss about :slightly_smiling:


Let’s see the source first and then discuss if the Whitepaper even comes close.