Talk:OneCoin

Not sure what the view is regarding reliability for [1] it's certainly interesting, since it certainly belies the idea that they are selling "educational material" --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is http://www.onecoinnorway.com/ a reliable source for the claim of "the fastest growing company" as it says in the page "Digital currency is the fastest growing industry in the world, and OneCoin leads this growth" (above the image of "The Bitcoin killer").--RicHard-59 (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, you need a neutral/independent source for a statement like that. OneCoin Norway is a Onecoin affiliate, meaning that it's Onecoin themselves claiming that "they lead the growth in the fastest growing industry in the world". That is pure unsubstantiated promotion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Here's one of the few WP:RS on Onecoin in English:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/who-wants-onecoin-millionaire-you-7346558

Who wants to be a OneCoin millionaire? YOU don’t - here’s why hyped-up web currency is virtually worthless

10 Feb 2016

By Andrew Penman

Bitcoin is the virtual currency world leader and it is claimed that OneCoin comes next, but something doesn't add up

--Nbauman (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You mean exactly the same one as I pointed to in the section above ? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

This edit request to Onecoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am part of onecoine multilevel network (now onelife.eu) for 3 months now, and I am very educated in this matter, what we do, what we want to achieve and I find this article very poorly written by educated person and all sources are only blogs ran by anonymous people that are attracted to write bad about onecoin just so they can sell ads and they really like onecoin because it is so popular for so short time. I care about onecoin and onelife, it changed our life and lives to many people, so I would like yo edit this article so it will reflect true about onecoin and onelife network. If you decline this, I will just open new true onecoin article. Thanks ahead

Igorkrnic (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done @Igorkrnic: As the note says: "State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes. Other editors need to know what to add or remove." Any attempt to create a new article will be seen as a violation of Wikipedia's policies (see WP:POVFORK). Instead, you must attempt to build consensus here. The way to do that is by making specific suggestions, not vague insinuations, and do not make threats to ignore policy and disrupt Wikipedia. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Igorkrnic, If it did good to your family, good for you. But when it comes to "stating the truth", Wikipedia only allows content that have been backed up by credible sources to be put up. If we take sides and our minds are not open to consider both sides, then we are not in the right state of mind to write a NPOV article. EmGaGa (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8x3z4wtsyA&t=1m51s

Must be updated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.182.172.88 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, put in the price. Haakon (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

New top product €225,500 EUR. [2]--RicHard-59 (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

According to OneCoin support, OneCoin cannot be used as payment method by merchants until 2018, as it is still not in public. And as the founder Ruja Ignatova announced in recent event in Thailand, OneCoin would not go public until the second quarter of 2018.[3]--RicHard-59 (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would suppose that the introducing sentence is not correct: "Onecoin is a virtual cryptocoin, based on cryptocurrencies, with a private blockchain". There is nothing like a "virtual" cryptocoin. It means that it doesn´t exist. What is "based on cryptocurrencies"? Onecoin does not exist, it is based on nothing, it is just a fantasy. A private blockchain? Same. Just a fantasy. Onecoin is nothing else than a ponzi scheme with fantastic words describing nothing but hot air as we say in Germany. --TechArtGer (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Right was: "Onecoin is a virtual cryptocoin, based on cryptocurrencies, with a private blockchain" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBetterKnower (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I second that. According to the BBC podcast "The Missing Crypto Queen" Onecoin does not have a block chain as stated in the opening sentence. This needs to be corrected if the podcast is correct. George Elliot (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

indeed, OneCoin literally stated to the BBC that it was an "SQL database"! - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I personally didn't think they were all bad myself, and did make the article a little more encyclopedic. Maybe if they are done again, maybe just don't do so many at once. TVGarfield (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not all bad but not all true either. The edits started to go wrong from the very first sentence. OneCoin is not a cryptocurrency, and it does not have a working blockchain. At least there is no any proof of either one but proof against it exists plentiful. RMJJRM (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I saw the edits as a deliberate attempt to whitewash the article and portray OneCoin as something they aren't (see User talk:Thomas.W#OneCoin), which is why I reverted them. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can agree with you both. I didn't think it was all white washing however. The first sentence was wrong. I'm not concerned either way. The dates of various things were out of chronological order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVGarfield (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone think it can be removed at this point. It seems what it was addressing has been fixed. TVGarfield (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the article contains original research anymore if it did. I also don't think there is a major contributor to the article with a connection. It seems to have lots of contributors. I think the tags should be removed. Anyone have a comment?TVGarfield (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think, that OC is a ponzi scheme. This would mean, that the collected money is used to pay older investors. OC is "just" telling, that their coin is raising and the profit would be done by increasing the value of this coins. From my point of view is OC fraud. Because this promise, that the value is xy $ or increasing is wrong.--AxelHellinger (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• @AxelHellinger: We report what the sources say, and they describe OneCoin as a pyramid scheme/Ponzi scheme, since that's what it was until OneCoin closed their exchange, using newly "invested" money to pay early investors who wanted to sell their "onecoins" and get real money instead. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The opening sentence of this page is “OneCoin is a Ponzi scheme” even though there is no evidence to support this claim. Wikipedia admins should allow this to be edited to present a more balanced view.

A ponzi scheme is clearly illegal - yet no charges have been brought and no-one from OneCoin has been arrested. How can admins let this statement remain in place?

(cur | prev) 14:36, 2 June 2017‎ Dennis Brown (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,990 bytes) (+132)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by L.lefarge (talk): That changes what the sources said. (TW)) (undo | thank)

What source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.lefarge (talk • contribs)

• Office were shut down and assets seized, and there are plenty of reliable sources calling it a ponzi scheme. I've added a reliable source demonstrating that many national authorities have made this claim. Oh, and 18 people have been jailed so far (read my new cite), so you are very mistaken. All you had to do was read the news. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

This company is definitely not a ponzi scheme! The company is in more than 190 countries, has more than 30 months in operation, more than 3 million people legally involved. What happens is that there are good people and bad people who are part of it, and bad people when they are discovered are banned from the business, but the company is legitimate selling their products and creating their coins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewetomaz (talk • contribs) 03:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• There is no evidence of any of that. Perhaps you don't understand how a Ponzi scheme works or what people involved in one think. TVGarfield (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
• The sources say it is a ponzi scheme, and they report many national agencies from many nations calling it that. At Wikipedia, we follow the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
• It has been described as both a ponzi scheme and a pyramid scheme by the authorities in multiple countries, and people connected to/working for OneCoin have been arrested and charged with illegal activities in multiple countries (including the German authorities arresting and charging a number of OneCoin people with organized fraud and money laundering; see sources in article for both that and a lot more), so it's definitely not a valid/legal cryptocurrency as you seem to think, but a clear case of fraud... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Onecoin is not Ponzi schemes Krushna510 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• This has already been explained. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Onecoin Not Ponzi schemes. Krushna510 (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are multiple reliable sources presented in the article that disagree with you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

A empresa já foi investigada em varios países onde não foi condenada, o que sempre ocorre é que pessoas "nao corretas" entram na empresa e fazem besteiras, assim como em qualquer negócio no mundo.^[1] Estude as NEWS do site oficial, onde tem o relatório de todos os casos em países que foram questionados. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:688C:957:59EE:D36D:397A:3392 (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Machine translation: The company has been investigated in several countries where it has not been condemned, what always happens is that "right" people enter the company and do nonsense, as in any business in the world. Study the NEWS of the official website, where you have the report of all the cases in countries that have been questioned.

The official website of the subject cannot be relied upon to present an impartial view of the company. That's why we prefer independent reliable sources such as reputable newspaper and magazines. If The Atlantic is willing to call OneCoin a Ponzi scheme, that's enough of a source for us. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also the BBC says Onecoin has no block chain, which is the basis of a Crypto currency. George Elliot (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

As of 22 June the OneCoin wikipedia page states:

16 June 2017 the CEO of OneCoin Ltd. claimed OneCoin being licensed by Vietnamese government, having legal rights to be used in Vietnam as a digital currency and being the first cryptocurrency in Asia officially licensed by any government.[10] 20 June 2017 the Ministry of Planning and Investment of Vietnam issued a statement that the document which OneCoin used as a proof was forged. They stated that the document was against the MPI regulations and that the person who supposedly signed the document was not in the position claimed by the document at the time when the document was created. MPI warned individuals and enterprises to be vigilant if they encounter the document during business.[11][10]

There is no evidence that the CEO of OneCoin claimed OneCoin had been licensed by the Vietnamese government.

The statement made by the Ministry of Planning and Investment (here - http://www.mpi.gov.vn/Pages/tinbai.aspx?idTin=37303&idcm=188) states that a company called "Trident Crypto Academy" forged a document saying they were able to trade OneCoin. Why is this being attributed to OneCoin on the Wikipedia page when this is making unsubstantiated claims and is about a company called Trident Crypto Academy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.lefarge (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• There are two sources in that section, a fact that L.lefarge (a single-purpose account whose edits, enough edits on other articles first to become autoconfirmed, and then straight to this article to remove any mention of "ponzi scheme" from the lede, and edits only on OneCoin from there on, shows that the only reason they're here on en-WP is to whitewash the article) conveniently chooses to ignore. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I caught that early this morning, and the editor may have a point for this one section. Had to translate, but he may be correct and deleting might be the right answer. Would like others to review, isn't large. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Pinging Thomas.W Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• @Dennis Brown: There are two sources in the material that was removed in the edit you linked to, and multiple times after that, this source is about the forged documents, and TRIDENT CRYPTO ACADEMY (i.e. the same information that L.lefarge linked to), while this source is for the link to OneCoin's CEO. As always sources have to be evaluated, but removing the material citing that one of the sources doesn't mention OneCoin's CEO while conveniently ignoring the other source that does (even though I pointed out that there are two sources, not just one, on L.lefarge's talk page), isn't OK... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Onecoin is not a scam, haters and bloggers doing this just for money or anything else, when bitcoin invented same thing happened with that coin, sir why don't you focus on things which were going good with company, onecoin company given clearance chit by germany court and other countries, company is struggling to come on exchange, hamble request from onecoin community once study our comapny vision and strategies.thank you Sulthanst (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why is information on OneCoin overwhelmingly negative? I have invested a lot of money, but my acquaintances are afraid to invest because of this Wiki. Shouldn't Wiki be neutral and not opinion-building or slanderous? Please make the page about OneCoin neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.122.248 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about your investment but the information provided is neutral and is the information available. The positive information in sources is all provided as well. Something reported by most sources as a Ponzi scheme and being banned and investigated by many governments will probably come across as negative in an encyclopedia. You might want to consider that since you fear you are losing your investment, that you might not be able to look at the information in a neutral way. TVGarfield (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

And in case you are wondering slander is spoken, you meant libel. However, since nothing presented is false, but information provided by reliable sources, it isn't libel. Information such as arrests, did happen and are facts. TVGarfield (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Neutral means to provide verifiable and factual information without being interested in the outcome. This article achieves this exceptionally well. You obviously have an interest in the success of this Ponzi scheme, so your opinions are not neutral. You are invited to provide sources from reputable 2nd party publications here so they can be reviewed, but it isn't our fault if every reliable source is calling OneCoin a Ponzi scheme, due to the arrests and their method of conducting business. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Excellent replies. Zezen (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Someone should find references and write about the block chain or apparent lack of it. Without a decentralized one a crypto coin isn't really a crypto coin. TVGarfield (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I found these, although I didn't look close enough to guarantee they are all RS. They are worth a look. [5] [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. That last one has new info on countries taking action as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi guys, I would like to suggest the following changes: I would like the article to be removed because it is affecting the company's image once people try to search for it. I will submit an edit soon but please remove it! 2A02:C7F:81F:E400:9D49:FFB1:15E0:D6FF (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: deletion requests should be made over at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Further, Wikipedia articles are not removed "because it is affecting the company's image". Wikipedia presents information neutrally based on what other sources say about it. If the majority of sources say things that could harm the company's reputation, we just report them fairly and neutrally. We do not whitewash articles by removing negative information while leaving in positive information, and we do not delete articles just because the article contains negative information. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Danieltz19 (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is real, you can already trade their currencies through internal trade by the site deal shaker, and the company has already opened a wallet for everyone at www.onecoin.eu and the official website of the company can see original content and reliable (After registration) and the company's CEO is a former banker pierre arens. On October 8, 18, the currencies will trade on the stock exchange, according to the company and world leaders. The European Union also praises One Coin as the only currency that works with a unique KYC identification feature http://edcab.eu/blog/european-union-virtual-currency-legislation-published

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That Belize IFSC issued a warning, no doubt about that, but they also removed the page, so reference is not working.

Rcdrun (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

One shall mention or make pages for Ruja Ignatova, as she was involved in a Bigcoin ponzi scheme: https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=bigcoin+ruja+ignatova&t=gnu

http://behindmlm.com/companies/onecoin/bigcoin-bna-the-original-onecoin-ponzi-points/

Rcdrun (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Company is selling educational courses like any other online learning program, it offers different packages each package contains different kind of courses with alot of materials from experts in the economics fields.

Cryptoking1 (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Not done Multiple official government sources describe OneCoin as a criminal Ponzi scheme. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Quel nouvelle depuis Janvier 2018 Gereni (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The defendants “created a multibillion-dollar cryptocurrency company based completely on lies and deceit,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in Manhattan said in a statement. “Investors were victimized while the defendants got rich.”

Sources:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-crypto-currency-onecoin/us-charges-alleged-leaders-of-onecoin-pyramid-scheme-idUSKCN1QP1WF

and

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-announces-charges-against-leaders-onecoin-multibillion-dollar

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add space in first sentence after the citations, and before "promoted":

Ponzi scheme[1][2]promoted ---> Ponzi scheme[1][2] promoted 201.183.45.12 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done Technical change only to bring into obvious compliance with MOS. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove this text:

"On 1 March 2016, without a prior warning, OneCoin issued an internal notice that the market would be closed for two weeks for maintenance. The notice explained that the maintenance was necessary due to the high number of miners and for "better integration with blockchain". On 15 March 2016, after the two-week maintenance, the market opened again but no visible changes had been made; most of the transactions expired as before and daily limits stayed on."

Reason: it's completely irrelevant. It was a normal maintenance that did no changes at all for the users. Every server needs maintenance from time to time, and I highly doubt the Twitter or Wikipedia articles would list all maintenances did on the servers.

--MisterSanderson (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC) MisterSanderson (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Onecoin company is struggling from 5years and now the time came for open exchange but some haters and bloggers posting some inappropriate news regarding onecoin for sake of money and for blog viewers, it is right onecoin company facing a lot of issues in lot of countries but in germany and more other countries given clean chit for its operation and vision and comapny, any how company lawers and professionals working day and night to prove onecoin is not a scam. Onecoin company helping poor people serving food and cloth and educating there children by opening schools around the glob specially in african countries, onecoin with 3.5million users around the glob is ready to come on exchange, all the legal formalities completed and it just a matter of weeks. Iam requesting wikipedia deletion team to once focus on this again and take your own dicision. Thank you Sulthanst (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sulthanst: You'll need to provide independent reliable sources showing that OneCoin has rehabilitated itself over the last two years, given the two strong sources cited in the intro (but dated to 2017) that call it a Ponzi scheme. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It should state Konstantin was arrested in 2018, as Ignatova could refer to brother or sister. Chrismorris321 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Chrismorris321: No: the article refers to the sister as Ignatova and the brother as Ignatov, so it is unambiguous: Konstantin was arrested. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

this text should include the BBC podcast "The missing Cryptoqueen" BjørnBj (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

probably a good idea (it's a meticulously researched piece of journalism done over several months, will be an excellent source) - there's also a text article summarising it [11] - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

excellent source from BBC today with a huge amount of content for the article here [12]. have fun... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please can you consider making an addition to this page stating that it is a general belief that the founder, who is Dr. Ruja Ignatova, is thought to be working for the Mafia Best Regards 94.207.172.100 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Not done A claim such as that would definitely need a reliable source. Please see WP:BLP. Deli nk (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please may you include the fact that Dr. Ruja Ignatova had a sudden disappearance in October 2017, when, although she has a history of being incredibly punctual, she did not appear present in a OneCoin event

Ps. I would also ask if you could include information regarding the BBC Sounds podcast Crypto Queen 94.207.172.100 (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deli nk (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In "Legal Issues and criticism" it would fit that the German financial authority BaFin has made any trading with OneCoin illegal in 2017, see [[13]] V-Li (talk)

  Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let us add this

http://www.innercitypress.com/sdny41aonecoinignatovcrim112119.html

https://financefeeds.com/onecoin-co-conspirator-mark-scott-gets-convicted-400m-money-laundering-scheme/ Zezen (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Zezen:, this is an awfully generic suggestion. What from those articles is not in our article? What should be added? Where should it go? Why? You are asking us to read not only those articles but also attempt to read your mind and guess what you are asking for. If you want better response, I suggest you start a new section here with a clear edit request, which should be specific, uncontroversial, necessary and sensible. If what you think is important in those articles is not, then please answer the questions above so other editors can evaluate your suggestion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are right. I type it on the mobile UI so I am short.

I meant these details:

SCOTT layered the money through various Fenero Fund bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and the Republic of Ireland.  SCOTT subsequently transferred the funds back to Ignatova and other OneCoin associated entities, this time disguising the transfers as outbound investments from the Fenero Funds.  

so that OneCoin holders know where their money has been flowing and via which banks (also mentioned there).

Zezen (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ping Eggishorn. See also my newest suggestion below.

Zezen (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article contains "Currently, none of the countries have declared OneCoin as criminal activity, but authorities have warned of potential risks involved in businesses like OneCoin." which should probably be removed as it's uncited text with "Currently" ^[when?] added in 2016, and it not being declared criminal goes against the arrests mentioned elsewhere in the article. Doublah (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following is a series of six proposed edits, some specific, some more general and time-consuming. The article's tenor and thrust are roughly accurate, but its outdatedness and inconsistencies between lead and main body make the article un-encyclopedic. Note, in closing I suggest that the edit protections be lifted (while continuing oversight for vandalism), to allow for constructive editing by myself and other non-registered editors. This would save you all the following work!

(1) The article needs the following article tags to warn readers about serious issues with the article structure and accuracy. We owe our readers warnings, from the start, when articles have serious deficiencies. See the remaining edit request entries, nos. 2-6, for explanations of each warning (except for the final {{Cleanup}} tag, whose explanation is self-contained):

This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)   The article's lead section may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: It introduces new material rather than summarizing and draws firmer conclusions than the main body of the article (e.g., "Ponzi" being utterly absent from the main body). Please help improve the lead and read the lead layout guide. (February 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message)   This article may contain unverified or indiscriminate information in embedded lists. Please help clean up the lists by removing items or incorporating them into the text of the article. (February 2020)   The factual accuracy of this article may be compromised due to out-of-date information. The reason given is: article is missing most recent enforcement and legal news reports (none from 2020, and <15% later than Q2 2019). Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (February 2020)   This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the need for a copy edit for all standard grammar and structural issues, and need for citation completeness and consistency. (Overall citation and author and title styles are inconsistent, titles and access dates are missing, and title translations are not provided.). Please help improve this article if you can. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

As well, the {{Cleanup list | section}} should be affixed to the head of the "Legal issues and criticism" section, see explanation following.

(2) Lead. The article lead contains statements that are original rather than summarizing the main body. Per MOS:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". As such, the lead as a whole needs to be reviewed, sentence by sentence, against the main body, and any content absent in the body needs to reproduced there, with the citations appearing (primarily) in the main body. This entry explains the lead rewrite tag. Note, the rewrite tag was chosen because it allows for explanation, and both {{lead extra info}} and {{inadequate lead}} tags apply, as much information is newly appearing, and some summary content is omitted.

(3) Legal issues and criticism. This section is currently only a little more than a list; as such, given the nature of its updating, its elements are not perfectly consistent: one-sentence paragraphs added as breaking news reports appear impact understandings from earlier news reports, but these deeper, integrative edits have not been made consistently. This long series of one-sentence paragraphs needs to be rewritten as self-consistent, integrated prose—and updated to include the best, and latest analyses and summaries of the news. (At present only 6 out of 45 citations date to the last half of 2019, and none are from 2020.) This entry explains the article and section list tags, and the update list tag.

(4) Legal issues and criticism. One specific request, reiterating the earlier (20:07, 14 February 2020) edit request: The paragraph ending "Currently, none of the countries have declared OneCoin as criminal activity, but authorities have warned of potential risks involved in businesses like OneCoin" is problematic insfoar as it makes an inappropriate open reference to time ("Currently"), makes a absence-of-evidence and time-dependent claim thus prone to inaccuracy ("...none of the countries have declared..."), and thereafter presents material easily shown to be questionable (cf. this one source, and this further, more general source, to start). This sentence should probably just be deleted.

(5) Legal issues and criticism and Lead, etc. The article overall needs to be checked for dated information, and discrepancies, beginning with a comparison of the very clear and firm statements regarding the "Ponzi" nature of the scheme that appear in the lead, versus the catalog of news reports that appear in the "Legal issues..." section (where mention of "Ponzi" is utterly absent, and whose statements are more equivocal). It may be that once entry nos. 2 and 4 (lead and section rewrites) above are completed, the discrepancy issue will become moot. However, the current, much firmer conclusions in the lead are not a summary of and are not fully consistent with the blow-by-blow description of news reports in the "Legal issues..." section. No tag was afixed to indicate this (likely disappearing) need.

(6) Further reading. A further reading section should be created so that articles that are found but not yet acted upon (i.e., not yet extracted of relevant content) can be shared with the WP community. Here is a first entry:

• DOJ Staff (8 March 2019). "Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Charges Against Leaders Of 'OneCoin,' A Multibillion-Dollar Pyramid Scheme Involving the Sale of a Fraudulent Cryptocurrency". New York, NY: Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York. Retrieved 17 February 2020 – via Justice.gov.

Finally, WP admins should seriously consider allowing open editing of the article alongside dedicated oversight to prevent vandalism. OneCoin sockpuppets will not be stopped by the need to register, to accomplish edits. The principle thing accomplished by the protection is that good edits are not being done (i.e., by editors such as myself). As it stands, the article, for the limited editorial attention it is now receiving, is increasingly a hodgepodge of one sentence updates, lacking integration and cohesiveness, and for the rarity of attention, it is increasingly out of date as well. 2601:246:C700:19D:7C8D:56CB:34EB:ED61 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Partly done: Here's the status of the edits thus far:

(1), only some tags added. I only added the FA tag.

(2), I don't see any problems with the lead section.

(3), tags were already added to the article in (1) about this issue.

(4) was already handled by Eggishorn in above edit request.

(5) Both sources [14] and [15] identify OneCoin as a Ponzi scheme. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to say it is.

(6), section added to the article, with suggested reference.

Because of the circumstances behind this request, I'll keep this request open so someone else can look at this. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 02:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed this request and everything seems okay. The partial response deems sufficient. If not, reactivate this request. For now, this request I will close. To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} ([[User talk|talk]]) 01:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's true: news about OneCoin appear not very often at news.google.com . Slow news isn't our problem to fix. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's the same family, but men from it are called Ignatov and women from it are called Ignatova. Standard family name policy in their country. So there was no confusion possible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

FinCEN Files: BNY Mellon Processed $137M for Entities Linked to OneCoin

https://www.coindesk.com/fincen-files-bny-mellon-onecoin

Plus https://projects.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/confidential-clients/#/en/ruja-ignatova/

DUE?

Zezen (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know: the first source does not appear RS, and I don't know anything about the second. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "OneCoin is a Ponzi scheme" to "OneCoin is a multilevel company" Rofalilu (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC) OneCoin is a multilevel company no ponzi scheme. Here reliable source http://ladigitalizaciondeldinero.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-fecha-de-hoy-el-numero-de.htmlReply

To editor Rofalilu:   Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That website is "blogspot.com", and WP:RS, a Wikipedia content guideline, specifically disallows blogs as unreliable sources. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change OneCoin is a Ponzi scheme* to *onecoin is ah education company* Dadi2021 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC) WHY:I ask for the change because the authorities approve the *company education onecoin* link:https://fantasticglobalteam.ro/tribunalul-bucuresti-confirma-legalitatea-business-ului-onelife-romania/Reply

  Not done Yeah, pigs can fly and Trump was the best president. It's only a matter of time before FBI and similar services start issuing international arrest warrants. You should pray that you haven't scammed any US citizen. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, you are either WP:COI or WP:PAID.

As I have suspected:

• www.onecoin.eu
• www.onelife.eu
• www.oneworldfoundation.eu

Have been taken offline.

And US is not the only country pissed off by OneCoin/OneLife. China is also pissed off. Countries which would never extradite people to the US would extradite them to China without thinking twice. And China will likely pass the capital punishment for such crimes, after interrogating them for a couple of years. So, yeah, the death penalty is on the table for OneCoin/OneLife bosses. I'm not advocating for the death penalty, I just say it is a real possibility for such people.

Listen, billionaires, OneCoin can make you millionaires. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for this belated answer, but US, Germany, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, China, India, Thailand, etc., don't care about the verdict from a small case from Romania. Romania is not that powerful worldwide and does not have jurisdiction over other sovereign countries. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

And, yup, it is illegal to sell OneCoin. It is not illegal to sell training. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

There should be a history section that addresses the founding and early marketing. The legal troubles section could be a subsection (early growth phase of the scam...then legal backlash). I wanted to know when OneCoin started and do not see that mentioned anywhere.Beakerboy (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I believe it would be beneficial to include the text at the top stating that OneCoin and Harmony One are unrelated, so avoid confusion.

The Kuwaiti Home Department told Saudi authorities she is a sponsor of terrorism, Saudis believed them. Hence the category. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since the page is protected here a source for "In 2020 the FinCEN Files showed that BNY Mellon processed $137m for entities linked to OneCoin." https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2020/09/21/fincen-files-bny-mellon-processed-137m-for-entities-linked-to-onecoin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeTriton (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Slp1: See Inner City Press. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks. I am not sure what you want to indicate by linking to that page, but the info certainly confirms my view that the Inner City Press is not a reliable source, most especially BLP material. Despite the name, it seems to boil down to being Matthew Lee's website/blog, with no sign of the sort of editorial control and fact checking that WP requires. --Slp1 (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

move from Category:Pyramid and Ponzi schemes to Category:Crypto Ponzi schemes GR86 (📱) 23:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

BBC reports on 9 June 2023 that Frank Schneider (advisor to Ruja) absconded from house arrest in France after losing his extradition battle with the US: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65861495 RenesisX (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

BBC and US Attorney Office recently announced that Karl Greenwood, co-founder of OneCoin has been sentenced to 20 years in jail in the US. Might be worth to add to the entry. Here are the sources - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66793135, https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/co-founder-multibillion-dollar-cryptocurrency-scheme-onecoin-sentenced-20-years-prison Vivocj (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've used this to expand the article a bit. I've also copied mention of Greenwood from the lead to the body, since that should be where details like this are explained. It would be nice to use sources to expand this a bit more to explain who he is and what his role was in this, but it's a bit closer now, at least. Grayfell (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Grayfell, I found a bit of information about Greenwood himself, like where he is from, family info, lavish lifestyle, etc. on https://euroweeklynews.com/2023/09/13/sebastain-karl-greenwood-swedish-onecoin-founder-sentenced-20-years-prison/ and I believe there's more about his involvement on https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-12/-cryptoqueen-sidekick-gets-20-years-in-4-billion-ponzi-scheme, but I don't have access to the entire article.

Also found a small typo on "2022 Greenwood ple4aded" Vivocj (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've fixed the typo and expanded the article from the EuroWeekly source. I don't have access past Bloomberg's paywall right now, but if there's anything from that source that should be added, feel free to let me know. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cool, I also don't have access to Bloomberg beyond the paywall, but I did find one more fact that I believe is relevant: "Greenwood, the top distributor, received 5% of all OneCoin sales, raking in more than $300 million in total, the DOJ said.". Found this on https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/12/cryptoqueen-partner-gets-20-years-prison-in-4-billion-ponzi-fraud.html Vivocj (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good source. I've added that. I am not attached to the current wording or arrangement and welcome additional suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can someone remove the extra "made" word from this sentence ?

"5% of all OneCoin sales went to Greenwood, who made *made* over US$300 million" Effco (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good spot. Changed that for you EditorInTheRye (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Got some news for you: Apparently, the OneCoin guys changed their name AND logo. They're now calling themselves the "One Ecosystem", not to be confused with the Pensoft journal of the same name, and they even have new websites and socials to match. I'm not proposing a move, but i feel this should be mentioned in the article. If you wanna propose a move, go ahead, i'm not your boss.

Here are some links:

Website: https://oneecosystem.eu

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@oneecosystem3998

Facebook: https://web.facebook.com/oneecosystemofficial/?_rdc=1&_rdr

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oneecosystem_official/

Cheers. 191.135.55.141 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, we need WP:RS. Social media posts won't do. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Given the scam's name change, please make the following change to the article:

187.46.134.26 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We need WP:SOURCES to that extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply