Why have subscriptions been banned on the grounds of "too high a yield" ? - page 43
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
It doesn't matter.
Yes I understand... just to make a tick. You can't just lie like that (I mean bullshit).
What we need is a new clean pamm with offers . Only THIS will close the issue of the claimed multi thousand p.a. on real.
Right now there's a pamm open with 75 investors on board. Does it work?
Alas, I am not a lawyer and my penmanship is not honed, so I am not able to ask precise, specific questions with no guarantees of ambiguity.
But, imho, it's hard to fault the wording here. I finished the question above.
The question lacks details and wording at least in the way I asked it. Besides, the answerer is not specified. One more opportunity to say later that "you misunderstood, the man is overworked".
I am very interested to see Denis Peganov's answer personally.
It doesn't matter . Go as accomplices) now they've been set up.
It does not count, you are transferring from one account to another, think about it if 10 or 100 accounts working in one system (those sub-accounts of one system).
The demo market is shifted at once. You have a lot of liquidity, make accounts of a lakh and let's swing the demo market.
Well, you can try it.
Though, the maximum account you can open is limited to two yards and a tails (I guess it's a 4-byte int).
I honestly don't know what the consequences might be, but I'd love to watch.
I am very interested to see Denis Peganov's answer personally.
This is a reply from Denis Peganov personally. I offered to engage him in a discussion here, but...
Ask yourself why TheXpert has been playing convinced against common sense for such a long time.
Yes, I understand... just to make a tick. We don't know what kind of bullshit we are dealing with here.
Right now there's an open account with 75 investors on board. Is it good?
I've seen it. It doesn't work. And it's not because the returns are ridiculously low compared to the throwaway ponzi scheme. You just have to start from scratch. If we take away the unnecessary fuss, then we need proof from Fuckix about real trading with the pam showing a few thousand percent p.a. .
The fact that there is an offer available to all will prevent the possibility of manipulation with the type of account. There is no way for Krefix to fill unlimited amounts from the donor to the acceptor account. After all, he is talking about taking profits from the market .
This is a reply from Denis Peganov personally. I offered him a chance to participate in the discussion here, but...
...he understands that proof won't work. And he'll have to retract his words anyway.
Well, you can try.
There's no limit to the lotta, but the maximum account you can open is limited to two yards and a tail (I take it that's a four-byte int).
Open an account and go ahead. Tear down the gangs, move the market. I honestly don't know what the consequences might be. But I'd love to watch.
I'm not going to lie and tell you directly, you grabbed yourself a red car and now you're jumping to the ceiling.
I have more pressing issues than grabbing a blue one and having demo-machine races.
I originally thought it was just PR for one of the brokers, too many uncovered holes in the use of demo pricing technology.
And Renat confirmed my unspoken thoughts by posting the statement that it's a PR campaign.
You, out of natural curiosity, just fell for those red cars.
ZS in resum: I will not do it simply because I think it is a waste of time.
Ask yourself why TheXpert has been playing convincingly against common sense for so long.
Andrew's a friend, let him fool around.)
I am one hundred percent sure he has no direct or indirect financial benefit from complicity in PR. He doesn't need it.
Alas, I am not a lawyer and my penmanship has not been honed, so I am not able to ask precise, specific questions with no guarantees of ambiguity.
But, imho, it's hard to fault the wording here. I finished the question above.