Here (SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT MNO AND HYIPCOM SITUATION) you can read something wrong about MNO and HYIP/com scandal. This article was initially named who is scamming who, but it had to be changed because such heading didn`t correspond to the facts, so we did it. The thing is that Paul nipped into our thoughts regarding the innocent side and the guilty side. It appears that all those persuasive arguments on Alex`s forum are made up. Or at least it is just one-sided information. If you want to look at this situation from the other side, you should definitely read this news. Because in a previous article it was explained what Alex thought about MNO and the situation in general, but in this one you can find out what Paul thinks about it as well. And what he thinks about HYIP/com. We should explain you some details before we start our short story. HYIPNews.com has to deal with inferential evidence, heard stories or references to events which don`t have documentary proof in most cases. That was before and that is how the things are now. This is the reality of our world.
For example, Alex states that MNO was the first who restricted its advertising spenders to advertise themselves at HYIP/com. So what does Paul say about it? "I have no such policy telling my customers where they can and cannot be monitored." Are there any proofs that Paul imposed such restrain and has such policy? Well only know about third-person`s message which says: "If you ask me, this is pretty harsh measure but I did see MNO proposing same first and this is where "credit" on this problem should go (I read MNO too)". Meaning "HYIP.COM is looking forward to in the future, is to relieve itself of any future attacks coming from Money-News-Online, and there is no other way achieving this, but by eliminating the overlap of presented on two sites programs." This comment was written by BigCarlos, the author of 28 forum posts. And it is the only place where I personally saw information about restrain imposed by MNO. But was there any kind of restriction at all?
Recommendation not to have anything in common given by blogger can sound quite harmless. For example, iehyip.com has shown 6 times already that the program was PAYING while other monitors and investors said they were NOT PAYING. In such case I have to warn investors so that they don`t trust and don`t rely on such monitor. We, a team at HYIPNews.com regularly post lists of monitors which don`t work qualitatively enough. We do not say they are liars or they are bad but we simply warn our readers and investors, so that they don`t make any mistakes. How can I recommend them iehyip.com and how can I not warn them not to trust this monitor? This is just an example in practice. And I don`t think that blocking me is a normal thing to do. Maybe it is better to fix the problem and work for good of everyone involved in HYIP investment field, what do you think?
Paul Abramson writes: "Basically this all started in late 2008 when the owner of hyip/com had a personal issue with the admins of what were two otherwise successful and popular programs. One was called StableProfit and the other was called W-MTFund." Both programs got NOT PAYING status and were also closed as a result. So what did Paul do? "This is what I highlighted, not as a personal attack but rather to inform MNO readers of what was going on."
Paul`s position in this action consists in a very simple principle: I have one simple rule to keep a program in good status - pay your members. And that is all. When administrator of HYIP investment monitoring Alex, makes up a rule that the program gets a NOT PAYING status when it is actually PAYING (because of his principles or beliefs), he trespasses against this principle. By trespassing against it he destroys the mechanisms of market performance. Monitors show paying status according to this mechanism, they monitor. Blogs express opinions and evaluate. What HYIP/com admin doing now is simply expressing his own opinion with the help of his monitor (and statuses). He evaluates program`s behavior but not its paying capacity. That`s what it is about.
But the thing is not only about restriction for programs to advertise themselves in two places at the same time. The point at issue is that the program that does so will be punished. And all its investors will be punished too. I suppose you, dear readers, understand full well that Do Not Invest Warning program loses more than just one monitor. It loses its investors who are its life force. It simply cripples investors by working less than it could have. That`s it. Of course, everyone has a right to determine his own rules on his territory. But those rules must not cross over other territories. If you cross my line I will tell you to get out from my territory - it is one way of warning. If you cross this line I will destroy you - is another one. The first one sounds like a warning and nothing more, but the second warning isï¿½ a threat. So who started this confrontation? And who continues?
It would be interesting to hear Alex`s opinion again.