Mirror Trading International

[D@leW]

Some truly believe in the "Bot" - it's like arguing with a child to get them to believe otherwise.

Some people don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either, even though there's more proof of His Noodliness than there is that the bot is really trading.

 

[D@leW]

Any statement from MTI yet?

Keen to see how they will double down. Can pretty much gaurentee the shortfall will be explained by saying, oh ya we use that to trade

Nope. Which means they are in violation of European GDPR regulations which require them to notify all European citizens about the data breach, and what information has been stolen. I can't remember the specifics, but they have something like 72 hours to do this after they discover the breach. We can just chalk that up as yet another set of regulations they are ignoring. But it's bitcoin, so GDPR doesn't apply, right?

 

[Joe jeff]

Facebook

www.facebook.com

 

[warrenpridgeon]

Very informative. Just missing any evidence that these trades actually occurred.

Reminder... there is no bot

This would be the PERFECT opportunity for them to prove their legitness and win EVERYONE over... but as usual "Everyone is wrong/doesn't understand"
"data is legit, but not legit".

They throw around protection of personal information...but part of the regulations is letting people know their info has been compromised... no notifications gone out to members yet. And a post on a random Telegram channel doesn't count.

 

[Joe jeff]

This group has been apart of my due diligence when a friend referred me to ScaMTI. Thanks for all the comments and the thorough investigation.

 

[D@leW]

C'mon, people cannot honestly be the daft. Oh, right.....

They can and they will. I'm currently being threatened with legal action for questioning the legitimacy of MTI and posting some member's transactions which are now public domain and available to anyone to check.

 

[Venator]

They can and they will. I'm currently being threatened with legal action for questioning the legitimacy of MTI and posting some member's transactions which are now public domain and available to anyone to check.

Fell free to check the database if the "lawyer" has an account in MTI. Immediate conflict of interest.

 

[D@leW]

With the 200x leverage it would be 100,000 BTC to make 170 BTC.

A daily average return of 0.17% is huge (over the year (assuming 260 trading days) that's 55% annually) . Most traders wish they could achieve this. Those that can don't do it for long.

 

[IndigoIdentity]

They can and they will. I'm currently being threatened with legal action for questioning the legitimacy of MTI and posting some member's transactions which are now public domain and available to anyone to check.

That’s a tad humorous, seem they actually have no idea who leaked the data or how to stop it from speeding so that target random joes who have seen said data.

How pitiful they truly are...

 

[IndigoIdentity]

Fell free to check the database if the "lawyer" has an account in MTI. Immediate conflict of interest.

Something tells me they may be quite hard up when it comes to finding legal representation that isn’t a part of their con party.

 

[D@leW]

Fell free to check the database if the "lawyer" has an account in MTI. Immediate conflict of interest.

Still waiting for the call from the lawyers. For any type of defamation claim they have to prove damages, which will be zero if they are just "investing" (can't see how anything I've done has materially impacted MTI's trading record). If the claim is because of loss of possible recruits (10% recruitment bonus are quite lucrative) then they are admitting to providing financial services without the required accreditation, which is illegal. I'm fairly sure you can't sue for damages for losses from illegal activities.

Edit - This is just treats from random "investors" that I live close to. I doubt I'm important enough to get any threats from any founders.

 

[retromodcoza]

Still waiting for the call from the lawyers. For any type of defamation claim they have to prove damages, which will be zero if they are just "investing" (can't see how anything I've done has materially impacted MTI's trading record). If the claim is because of loss of possible recruits (10% recruitment bonus are quite lucrative) then they are admitting to providing financial services without the required accreditation, which is illegal. I'm fairly sure you can't sue for damages for losses from illegal activities.

Edit - This is just treats from random "investors" that I live close to. I doubt I'm important enough to get any threats from any founders.

While the above is accurate , you need not worry. This whole thing will be long over by the time any defamation suite reaches court.

 

[D@leW]

MTI is apparently suing the people who released the data.

Who are they going to sue? Silk road? The "dark web"? The whole internet?

They should talk to the oaks they bought the system from

In theory anyone who shares the data is sharing private information. The fact that it's available to anyone who wants to take a look isn't relevant. From a legal perspective I think the issue is whether anyone involved in a Ponzi scam has a legitimate right to privacy, specifically in regard to the now public record of their transactions. Any lawyers here who'd like to commit? From the point of a civil case (I don't see SAPS investigating of the NPA bothering to prosecute people on this) they'd have to prove damages, e.g. financial loss or loss of reputation. That's a tricky one when the reason for the loss is being complicit in a Ponzi scam. At least that's my opinion, which I'm entitled to by our constitution. This is not financial advice, because that would require registering as a financial service advisor which I've obviously not, unlike all the people recruiting people to their downstream.

 

[D@leW]

So apparently they know who did the attack and are taking action to increase security.

They know who anonymous_za are? Yeah, right. So far increasing security has been commenting out the URLs that allowed the data to be stolen.

 

[D@leW]

Any service provider of any product at all (incl BTC) who does not freeze assets (upon lawful instruction) is making a very bold statement and is likely to feel some pain from international authorities.

I am not saying an SA instruction should be automatically accepted, but that international cooperation is likely and necessary with this sort of lunacy.

You are assuming the BTC is under the control of someone (e.g. their mythical broker) who would capitulate to international law. That's unlikely since they don't have the funds with any broker.

 

[warrenpridgeon]

You are assuming the BTC is under the control of someone (e.g. their mythical broker) who would capitulate to international law. That's unlikely since they don't have the funds with any broker.

Yeah... there's waaaaay too many holes in their stories. But yet people believe a MULTI BILLION RAND company has a crappy backend built by some dodgy dev company... And said MULTI BILLION RAND company uses "gmail" lawyers.

Yet... People believe their edited "proof" videos. There is no reason for them to hide if they are legitimately trading... and any broker handling the amount of volume they are apparently doing would fall over themselves to do stuff like show VERIFIED trading statements delayed by 1 hour or 1 day on their site.

I'm waiting for them to pick 1 of the top 40 BTC wallets and go "this is our cold storage wallet"... lol.

 

[John Tempus]

The last place these cult leaders would ever want to step around is a court room.

Anyone getting any legal threat letter should forward it to the FSCA and make it clear to the FSCA that you are being threatened and extorted by a ponzi scheme operating as MTI and they are sending you legal threats for being involved in exposing easily accessible information about their scam.

2 birds with 1 stone.

 

[Wary GOM]

In theory anyone who shares the data is sharing private information. The fact that it's available to anyone who wants to take a look isn't relevant. From a legal perspective I think the issue is whether anyone involved in a Ponzi scam has a legitimate right to privacy, specifically in regard to the now public record of their transactions. Any lawyers here who'd like to commit? From the point of a civil case (I don't see SAPS investigating of the NPA bothering to prosecute people on this) they'd have to prove damages, e.g. financial loss or loss of reputation. That's a tricky one when the reason for the loss is being complicit in a Ponzi scam. At least that's my opinion, which I'm entitled to by our constitution. This is not financial advice, because that would require registering as a financial service advisor which I've obviously not, unlike all the people recruiting people to their downstream.

From what I understand of protection of private information, it is up to the holder of that information to take due procaution that the data are secure. So I think the arguments would come down to how easily a "normal" computer user could access the data (i.e. the level of secturity or how insecure the system was). Making information that can be gained by any computer user is surely not the same as making public secure and evidently private information?

 

[Venator]

how easily a "normal" computer user could access the data (i.e. the level of secturity or how insecure the system was). Making information that can be gained by any computer user is surely not the same as making public secure and evidently private information?

And that's exactly the issue here...literally anyone could see any info they wanted about any other MTI member by simply changing the numbers in the URL up in the address bar.
If you knew what a friend's user ID was, you could just log in with you own account, using your own credentials and password, and once you are logged in you just needed to replace your user ID in the URL with another known user ID and you could instantly see all their information.

 

[D@leW]

From what I understand of protection of private information, it is up to the holder of that information to take due procaution that the data are secure. So I think the arguments would come down to how easily a "normal" computer user could access the data (i.e. the level of secturity or how insecure the system was). Making information that can be gained by any computer user is surely not the same as making public secure and evidently private information?

This goes well beyond my understanding of the legal system. In places like the US you can be prosecuted for sharing classified information even if it's freely available, but there's no national security issues here. I don't see that any information repeated from the hacked data is necessarily an illegal act, but in any case you'd have to convince a responsible authority to prosecute, which will never happen (can't even get them to prosecure serial Ponzi scammers).

A civil case isn't doing to go anywhere without proof of damages, for which there aren't any. Hurt feelings isn't a legitimate reason for seeking compensation. The specific threat was "He’s either been contacted via legal means today or will be contacted soon " (in response to someone else on the group). Anyway, looking forward to the call. It won't be the first time I've had to explain to a lawyer why their client has no case. I dislike bullies and I see no reason to give into their intimidation tactics.