In the recent WIPO case involving Genesis Teknoloji ve Bili?im Hizmetleri A.? the company owned by Hakan Torehan, parent company of Miracle Cash&More against Kacee Jackson, the complainants sought control over the domain names miraclecashfacts.com and mtrcstock.com. The domains are used to host content critical of the complainants, outlining unethical activities within their business operations.
The panel determined that the use of the domain names by Jackson and constituted legitimate non-commercial fair use for the purpose of criticism. It was found that the domains did not mislead the public into believing they were official sites of the complainants, and the content was genuinely intended for critique rather than commercial exploitation or defamation.
This decision comes against a backdrop of a previous legal issue involving Micah Theard, an owner of Miracle Cash & More, who was involved in a domain impersonation case last year, indicating a pattern of legal challenges related to domain use and rights. That decision, which determined that Micah Theard was impersonating a healthcare website in order to obtain login credentials of it’s clients, can be found here.
Ultimately, the complaint to gain control over the disputed domain names was denied, reinforcing the our right to use the domains for bona fide criticism. The decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between genuine criticism and misleading or malicious use of domain names in digital communications.
For a detailed account of the arbitration process and findings, refer to the original WIPO decision here and below:
In a recent WIPO arbitration, a notable domain dispute has arisen concerning the website MiracleCashFacts.com. The respondent, Kacee Jackson, provides a robust defense against the allegations from Genesis Teknoloji ve Bilisim Hizmetleri A.S., emphasizing the educational and non-commercial nature of the disputed domain.
MiracleCashFacts.com is accused of being linked to a potential investment scam operated by Miracle Cash&More. The complainant alleges trademark infringement, but the respondent counters by questioning the legitimacy and authority of the complainant’s claims, highlighting the absence of ownership proof and authorization.
The respondent asserts that the terms “Miracle,” “Cash,” and “More” are generic and widely used, which dilutes any claims of specific trademark infringement by the complainant. Over 28,000 trademarks globally utilize these terms in various combinations, underscoring their generic nature.
The domain is used for educational and informational purposes, focusing on discussing the practices of Miracle Cash&More. It serves as a platform for free speech and public discussion, differentiating it from the commercial intent typically protected under trademark law.
Under the UDRP, a respondent can demonstrate legitimate interest if the domain was used for bona fide offerings before any dispute notification, known commonly by the domain, or used non-commercially without misleading consumers.
The respondent notes that “Miracle Cash&More” is registered only in Turkey, limiting its trademark protection to that territory. Since the domain targets a primarily American audience, the complainant’s trademark rights do not extend to affect the operation of MiracleCashFacts.com in the U.S.
The respondent argues there was no bad faith in registering or using the domain, as its purpose is informational, aligned with fair use and free speech, not for commercial gain or to mislead consumers.
The respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking against the complainant, publication of the decision for public record, and compensation for attorney fees amounting to $20,000.
The defense laid out by Kacee Jackson for MiracleCashFacts.com highlights the importance of considering the generic nature of certain terms, the purpose and content of a domain, and territorial trademark rights. The case underscores the complexities of domain disputes in the digital age, where the lines between trademark rights and free speech often blur. This dispute not only tests the boundaries of trademark law but also the principles governing the internet and public discourse.
The complaint is below:
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER
Genesis Teknoloji ve Bilisim Hizmetleri A.S. |
Maslak Mah. AOS 55. Sk. 42 MASLAK |
B Blok Sitesi No:4 I¢ Kapt No: 570 |
Sariyer, Istanbul/TURKIYE |
(Complainant) |
-v- | Disputed Domain Name :
| miraclecashfacts.com
Kacee Jackson |
|
(Respondent) |
RESPONDANTS FIRST RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
(Rules, Paragraph 3(b); Supplemental Rules, Paragraphs 4(a), 12(a), Annex E)
Background:
Miracle Cash&More is a company that by many estimates is a front for money laundering for Russian and Iranian interests and undoubtedly an investment scam that solicits investor money with promised returns of 100 – 5,000 times original investments. The company hides behind a web of over 20 corporations with unknown ownership across Europe and an untraded off-market penny-stock in the USA. Miracle Cash&More previously did business as Ofinans, who had their license revoked by the Money Laundering Data Bureau. These and additional facts are outlined on the website that is the subject of this complaint at MiracleCashFacts.com
The ultimate owner of these companies is believed to be Hakan Torehan, a bad actor in Northers Cyprus who fled there from Turkey after fleecing investors in Turkey for over $10 Million. Torehan was again convicted and served time in Prison in Northern Cyprus for additional financial crimes in that country.
The scam company advertises that a $5,000 payment will result in $10 Million in payouts. The company has taken in over $35 Million in investor money and redirected those funds away from investor-owned assets and into semi-legitimate businesses and other assets for the benefit of Hakan Torehan. The website MiracleCashFacts.com exposes these FACTS in an educational and documented-source manner, allowing for open discussion, where participants can debate or dispute the facts. The website has maintained a policy of 100% factual information, even correcting some of the stated facts when pointed out to be partially inaccurate by the complainant.
We question if the complainant has provided any information that shows that they are the rightful owner of the trademark in question, or has provided any documentation to show that the person filing the complaint has the authority to do so. In addition, the complaint does not provide any type of ownership information on their website or within the complaint. We suspect that this this dispute is quite possibly not originated by an authorized party or originated by a third party using a name that is deceivingly similar to the owner of the trademark.
Respondent is the authorized registrant of MiracleCashFacts.com. MiracleCashFacts.com is a free-speech educational domain dedicated to exposing this fraud.
Sanctions and Actions requested against Complainant:
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking: The Respondent contends that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and, accordingly, the Complainant should be sanctioned by a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
Paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP Rules provides that, if “after considering the submissions the panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (‘RDNH’) or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding”. The Respondent is requesting such a finding here.
We request this for each of the domains that are disputed.
Public Decision: We request that the decision, be published to serve as a public record of the dispute and the finding against the complainant, which is important for the respondent.
Costs: We request reasonable attorney fees of $20,000
Response to Claimants arguments
RESPONSE
1. Prevalence of the Constituent Terms in Global Trademarks
The terms “Miracle,” “Cash,” and “More” are widely used in trademarks globally, underscoring their generic and descriptive nature. There are over 10,000 trademark registrations incorporating the term “miracle” and more than 18,000 that include “cash,” in various combinations with other words. This widespread use demonstrates the commonality of these terms in the business and commercial landscape. For instance, trademarks such as “Cash More” and “More Cash” highlight how these terms are frequently combined in different orders and contexts, reflecting their versatility and generic application across industries.
Given this backdrop, the domain name “MiracleCashFacts.com” incorporates these common terms in a manner that is unlikely to ever be uniquely associated with any other single source, especially when the domain’s content and purpose are distinct from those typically associated with the terms in a commercial sense. This prevalence of similar trademarks dilutes any claim that the combination of these terms in a domain name could singularly point to the complainant’s trademark “Miracle Cash&More” as the source of goods or services.
With regard to MTRCSTOCK.com, no trademark exists for Metaterra, MTRC, MTRCSTOCK.
2. No Confusion Between Trademarks Due to Distinct Purpose and Content
The domain “MiracleCashFacts.com” serves a fundamentally different purpose from the trademark “Miracle Cash&More,” which purportedly provides crypto asset services across Turkey.
“MiracleCashFacts.com” is a not-for-profit Web Application, email, FTP, and blogging platform for news, information, and parody, focusing on disseminating facts and discussions. This divergence in function and content is critical in assessing the likelihood of consumer confusion. MiracleCashFacts.com uses a theme and “gopher” branding that is nothing like or could possibly confused with the Miracle Cash&More crypto company.
Trademarks are legally protected to prevent confusion among consumers about the source of goods or services. The core of this protection lies in the potential for a trademark to mislead consumers regarding the origin, sponsorship, or endorsement of a product or service. However, when a domain name like “MiracleCashFacts.com” is clearly delineated as an informational and parody site, it does not compete with or mimic the services offered under the “Miracle Cash&More” trademark. This distinction is vital in negating any presumption of consumer confusion, as the nature of the site’s content and its intended audience are markedly different from the commercial activities protected by the trademark in question.
According to filings, the company with a previous stock symbol MTRC is affiliated with Metaterra Corp based out of the Dominican republic. Meteterra Corp, according to EDGAR filings with the SEC is “a corporation established under the corporation laws in the State of Nevada on January 20, 2021. The Company sells auto parts in the Dominican Republic. The same filing shows that the business assets consist of two used cars and a total company value of only $38,000. No one would confuse the domain MTRCStock.com with the corporation Metaterra. With regard to MTRCSTOCK.com, no trademark exists for Metaterra, MTRC, MTRCSTOCK.
Conclusion
Considering the widespread use of the terms “Miracle,” “Cash,” and “More” in various trademarks globally and the distinct purpose and content of “MiracleCashFacts.com,” it is clear that there is no substantial risk of confusion among consumers regarding the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the website. These factors should be given considerable weight in evaluating the domain name dispute, as they directly address the primary concerns of trademark protection and infringement analysis.
MTRCStock.com is not a trademarked name
RESPONSE
Right to and legitimate use of the domain name: According to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), specifically under Article 4(c), a respondent can demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name if they can show any of the following:
Before any notice of the dispute, the respondent used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
The respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if they have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
The respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The disputed domain name is being used for noncommercial, fair use purposes. It is registered to support not-for-profit reporting, commentary, and criticism. The Report is not monetized in any way. The websites contain no ads, solicitations for money or links to commercial sites (except as sources and references). There have been no attempt to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the domain names to anybody.
The Respondent emphasizes that he cites sources for the facts recounted in the report published on the Respondent’s website and gave the Complainant “multiple” opportunities to respond. The Respondent states that he never attempted to sell the disputed domain names or direct them to other websites for commercial gain and observes that the Respondent and the Complainant “are not competitors”. As the Complainant offers no evidence in support of the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith, the Respondent contends that “these false and malicious statements constitute a violation of the Complainant’s Certification” and represent an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, simply trying to “shut down speech that the Complainant finds unfavorable”.
In the cited WIPO case of Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, the Panel established the respondent’s burden to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the domain name when challenged. However, it is essential to consider each case’s specifics, including the nature of the domain name’s use.
In the case of “miraclecashfacts.com”, the use of the domain for the purpose of disseminating information, critiques, or facts related to “Miracle Cash&More”, without direct commercial gain, is a legitimate non-commercial use. The intention behind this use, aimed at providing public information or critique, aligns with the principles allowing for freedom of expression and fair use under internet governance policies. The website generates zero revenue and has no commercial value whatsoever.
Furthermore, international law, including principles under the Berne Convention recognizes the importance of protecting expressions of free speech, which includes critical commentary and information dissemination through various media, including the internet.
Therefore, the respondent’s use of “miraclecashfacts.com” should be examined under the lens of legitimate non-commercial or fair use, without presuming an intent to damage the complainant’s commercial reputation unjustly. Each argument should be considered within the context of the broader legal principles that protect the rights to free expression and fair use of internet domains for lawful purposes.
Further, the WIPO case of “Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras v. Ivo Lucio Santana Marcelino Da Silva, Case No. D2014-1331” is particularly relevant. This case demonstrates that non-commercial use of a domain name as a forum for criticism can be considered a legitimate interest under the UDRP. The panel concluded that the use of the disputed domain name for criticism without intent for commercial gain did not violate the trademark holder’s rights. This precedent supports the argument that non-commercial, critical websites can have legitimate interests in domain names, even when they incorporate the trademark.
Educational Legitimate Interest
The use of MiracleCashFacts.com for educational purposes establishes a legitimate interest. The website aims to provide valuable information, possibly about financial literacy or related topics, which does not directly compete with or detract from the trademarked services or products of Miracle Cash&More.
WIPO panels have recognized that the use of a domain name for bona fide educational information can constitute a legitimate interest. In WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.), the Panel established criteria for a legitimate interest in using a trademark in a domain name, including the site’s offering of genuine, relevant content without intent to mislead consumers.
Distinctiveness and Confusion
MiracleCashFacts.com is distinct from Miracle Cash&More in both visual appearance and purpose. The addition of “Facts” suggests a focus on providing information or educational content rather than commercial services or products. This distinction minimizes the likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.
Precedent: In similar WIPO case law, domain names that clearly indicate a non-commercial intent, especially when combined with descriptive or generic terms, have been found less likely to create confusion. For example, in WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 (Bridgestone Corporation v. Horoshiy, Inc.), the Panel found that the addition of terms indicating the content or intent of the website can differentiate the domain from the trademark.
Territorial Limitations of Trademarks: The territorial limitations inherent in trademark law highlight that a trademark is protected only within the jurisdictions where it is officially registered. This principle, foundational to international trademark law and underscored by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, asserts that “Miracle Cash&More,” as a trademark registered solely in Turkey, is confined in its legal protections to Turkish territory.
Consequently, its legal claims against the domain “MiracleCashFacts.com,” which primarily engages an American audience, are substantially weakened due to the lack of registration in the United States. The Madrid Protocol does not automatically enforce trademark rights across all member countries without specific actions taken to secure such protections in each jurisdiction. Therefore, the absence of evidence showing “Miracle Cash&More” pursued or obtained trademark protection in the U.S. under the Madrid Protocol implies that the trademark’s territorial rights in Turkey do not extend to or impact the operation of “MiracleCashFacts.com.” This domain’s focus on a distinctly different audience and purpose further delineates the lack of infringement on the territorial rights of “Miracle Cash&More.”
Further, the WIPO case “Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., Case No. D2003-0455,” demonstrates the UDRP’s consideration of this territorial nature, indicating that trademarks need to be registered or recognized within a specific jurisdiction to enforce rights. This framework crucially impacts the evaluation of domain name disputes under WIPO’s UDRP, highlighting that a trademark’s rights do not automatically extend globally without explicit registration.
MTRCStock.com and or MTRC is not a trademarked name anywhere.
RESPONSE
Lack of Bad Faith: The registration and use of “MiracleCashFacts.com” were not motivated by any intention to derive benefit from the goodwill associated with the “Miracle Cash&More” trademark or to confuse consumers. Instead, the domain serves a bona fide informational purpose.
In the case of “Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras v. Ivo Lucio Santana Marcelino Da Silva, Case No. D2014-1331,” the use of a domain name for a site critically examining the complainant’s business practices was not found to be in bad faith when the site was non-commercial and aimed at public discussion.
Accordingly, if “MiracleCashFacts.com” is used in a similar manner—primarily for non-commercial purposes, to disseminate information, critiques, or facts about “Miracle Cash&More” without intent to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark for commercial gain—this could argue against the claim of registration and use in bad faith. Critical discussion or review, especially when it does not directly compete with or seek to profit from the complainant’s business, falls within the scope of fair use and legitimate interest, contradicting the assertion of bad faith.
If “MiracleCashFacts.com” aims to engage in lawful critique or consumer education without these intents, it challenges the presumption of bad faith under UDRP guidelines.
It is also worth noting that the company Metaterra Corp does not currently trade on any stock exchange, neither name is trademarked and the terms MTRC and MTRCstock are not protected by any law.
In what seems like a plot lifted straight from a satirical finance novel, Rodl & Partner’s recent $3.2 billion valuation of the relatively unknown Miracle Cash&More has left industry observers baffled, amused, and somewhat concerned. The valuation, lofty enough to make Icarus reconsider his approach to flight, has turned heads not for its optimistic outlook on Miracle Cash&More’s future but for its apparent detachment from financial reality.
Miracle Cash&More, a company whose revenue barely qualifies as a rounding error on its own valuation report, has been thrust into an unenviable spotlight. Rodl & Partner, known for their buttoned-up approach to financial matters, now finds themselves the butt of jokes across finance blogs and social media platforms. The valuation figure, so astronomical in comparison to Miracle Cash&More’s modest (zero) earnings, suggests either a revolutionary unseen potential or a typographical error that got out of hand.
Despite the comedic goldmine the valuation presents, the laughter quickly fades when considering the implications for Metaterra (MTRC), the parent company of Miracle Cash&More. In a normal world, such a valuation could be expected to send shockwaves through the stock market, boosting Metaterra’s stock through sheer optimism. However, we seem to be operating in a parallel universe where traditional finance principles are merely suggestions.
Metaterra’s stock has remained unmoved, as if the valuation was nothing more than a whisper lost in the wind. This peculiar non-reaction suggests a couple of possibilities. Firstly, investors might be exercising unprecedented levels of discernment, recognizing the valuation for the farce it appears to be. Alternatively, the market might be so used to seeing inflated valuations in the tech and startup sector that another one, even as outlandish as this, fails to raise eyebrows.
The situation raises serious questions about the valuation processes for startups and the ripple effects they can have on the broader market. In the case of Miracle Cash&More, the valuation seems to be an island unto itself, disconnected from the economic realities that govern market movements and investor behavior.
As for Metaterra MTRC, the parent company’s stock stagnation serves as a poignant reminder that in the stock market, substance often trumps spectacle. Investors seem to be signaling that they’re not easily swayed by headline-grabbing valuations, especially when they bear little relation to a company’s financial health or prospects.
In the end, the Rodl & Partner valuation of Miracle Cash&More might go down in history not as a benchmark of success but as a cautionary tale of what happens when optimism outpaces reality. For now, Metaterra MTRC and its stakeholders are left to navigate the aftermath of a valuation that, rather than bolstering their stock, has turned into a comedy of errors without any immediate financial punchline.
The joke can be found here: https://rodlreport.miraclecash.com/MiracleCash-RodlPartner-Report.pdf
When a publicly traded company fails to file its annual reports on time, it faces a range of consequences. Initially, the company must file a Form NT (“Non-Timely”) which grants a one-time extension to file the necessary reports. If a company does not comply within this grace period, significant repercussions can follow. These include regulatory penalties, the possibility of being deregistered by the SEC, delisting from stock exchanges, challenges in raising capital, and potential debt covenant violations. Additionally, the company’s stock value can be negatively impacted as late filings increase information asymmetry, raise trading costs, and can signal deeper underlying problems, which in turn affect investor confidence and stock performance. Investors and other stakeholders depend on timely disclosures to make informed decisions, and failing to meet deadlines undermines the perceived reliability of a company’s financial reporting.
For Mediterra (MTRC), not filing today can result in these mentioned repercussions. If the company has halted trading for over a year and is run by individuals who are using deceptive practices, and it’s affiliated with dubious entities like Phoenic token and Miracle Cash&More, this situation raises serious concerns about the legitimacy and future of the business. Investors and regulators may become increasingly wary of the company’s operations, potentially leading to investigations or legal action. It’s important for investors to monitor such situations closely and be cautious about investing in companies that display signs of fraudulent activities or fail to meet their regulatory filing requirements
oai_citation:2,How Missing SEC Filing Deadlines Affects a Company’s Stock Value | CLS Blue Sky Blog
oai_citation:3,Public Company Accounting: SEC Reporting 101 – NOW CFO.
April 14, 2024
Unveiling the Shadows: The Phoenic Token Scheme
In the world of cryptocurrency, the line between a revolutionary opportunity and a financial pitfall can be perilously thin. Today, we turn our investigative focus towards Phoenic Token (PNIC), a cryptocurrency that has exhibited signs of potential price manipulation and could very well be part of a broader scheme.
Centralization of Control
From our analysis, a striking feature of the PNIC ecosystem is its centralized control. A minuscule group of addresses dominates the transaction volume. For instance, a single address, 0x86cbfa77...558a9, was responsible for a disproportionately large number of transactions both as a sender and a receiver. This appears to be the main operating pool for Phoenic token, so it is understandable that it would have sent a lot of tokens as it distributed them to investors on the first few days. That address was responsible for 2,535 transactions involved in distributing 182 Million tokens (when excluding the first few Multi-Billion token distributions) .
What is however unexplainable is why this address was the receiver in 1473 transactions totaling 119.46 Million tokens. Is Hakan Torehan or Micah Theard buying back 65% of tokens to create a percieved false demand, thus manipulating the price higher?
This raises the first red flag, suggesting that few hands have significant control over the coin’s movement and, by extension, its pricing.
Suspicious Transaction Patterns
Delving deeper, we observed suspiciously large transactions occurring in bursts, typically clustered within specific hours of the evening. The most active periods between 19:00 and 23:00 saw the same few addresses repeatedly exchanging vast quantities of tokens. Notably, addresses like 0xff74280527801298867553267b9f11242f00e138 and 0x0765e7d307d5a90b9281bb602963ae9182d006d8 were frequently involved in these exchanges, hinting at potential coordinated activities which are typical signs of wash trading or other manipulative behaviors.
Large Inflows and Outflows
The data shows massive inflows and outflows involving particular addresses in amounts that are unusual and raise questions about their legitimacy. Such volumes can drastically alter the coin’s market price, especially in a low liquidity environment typical of many new tokens.
Market Manipulation Indicators
The distribution of transactions further exposes the manipulative potential. For instance, removing the top 10 and bottom 10 transactions from our dataset still leaves a concentration of trading activity among a small number of traders. This suggests that the majority of the coin’s trading volume is controlled by a select few, which is a textbook characteristic of pump-and-dump schemes.
Buy vs. Sell Orders:
Both buying and selling activities are present, but the quantities and transaction sizes vary significantly. Large sell orders, such as 31,001 PNIC for $1,487.62 and 25,000 PNIC for $1,298.35, contrast sharply with smaller buy orders. This pattern might indicate that few large holders (possibly initial stakeholders) are offloading substantial amounts of tokens, influencing the market price with each transaction.
Consistency of Transactions Across Different Prices:
The presence of both buy and sell orders at closely timed intervals at different prices could suggest that certain traders are attempting to control or sway the price direction. This tactic is often used in manipulation schemes to create a misleading appearance of high volatility or market activity.
Potential Wash Trading Indicators:
Transactions such as simultaneous buys and sells of similar quantities at similar prices could be indicative of wash trading, where a trader or group of traders buy and sell the same asset to create misleading market activity and manipulate prices. Notably, transactions occurring at the same minute with very close prices could be suspect, especially if tied back to the addresses controlling significant market shares.
Limited Token Demand Beyond Initial Users
Analysis of the transaction volumes and the number of active traders involved in PNIC transactions reveals an obvious trend. Aside from the initial flurry of activity likely driven by the creators or initial investors, there appears to be very little ongoing demand for the token. The vast majority of transactions are concentrated among a few addresses, with minimal spread into a broader market. This lack of wider market participation suggests that the perceived value and demand for Phoenic Tokens are artificially maintained by a few stakeholders rather than genuine market interest.
This conclusion flies in the face of why the company held off the launch of the token for months (after they promised their investors would all be Millionaires by christmas). They told investors that they were holding off so that the could launch a massive worldwide marketing campaign. There appears to be little evidence that the company did any real marketing whatsoever, bringing in old memories of the “Times Square Takeover” flop in which a picture of Ebru Torehan was displayed on a screen in times square for 15 seconds, a marketing accomplishment that anyone with an iPhone and $39 could purchase.
Conclusion: A Grave Warning About Phoenic Token
Given these findings and the dubious history of the creating company, Metaterra, investors should approach Phoenic Token with the utmost caution. Metaterra, the parent company behind Phoenic, is not traded on any recognized exchange and has been previously valued at multi-billion dollars based on falsified hypothetical Bullshit data provided to the auditors, Rodl & Partner. This pattern of deceit, combined with the manipulative transaction patterns observed, strongly indicates that Phoenic Token is not just manipulated but an outright scam.
At MTRCstock.com, and MiracleCashFacts.com our mission is to shed light on these dubious practices to protect investors from potential scams. This case of Phoenic Token is a textbook example of why diligence and skepticism are paramount in the cryptocurrency space. Stay informed, remain skeptical, and protect yourself from investments that seem too good to be true.
A copy of the transaction data can be downloaded here:
The world of sports and betting, often seen as a realm of thrill and entertainment, has been rocked by recent revelations involving Hakan Törehan, a figure now infamous as the “black money baron” of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Törehan, embroiled in allegations of illegal betting and fraud, has fled Turkey under the shadow of numerous deceptions, finding refuge in Cyprus. Törehan’s name has surfaced in connection with Miracle Cash, casting a dubious light on his financial maneuvers. The scale of his alleged scam is not limited to just shadowy betting rings; it also encompasses claims of money laundering. This is not just a small blip in the financial world; it suggests a pervasive rot in the intersection of sports, betting, and finance. Further intrigue is added by Ebru Törehan, Hakan’s wife, who is listed as the CEO of Metaterra. This detail hints at a family-run operation and raises questions about the depth and breadth of their business activities. Amid calls for the press to delve deeper, it seems that the full story of Hakan Törehan’s enterprises is yet to be unveiled. There are insinuations of media suppression, indicating that powerful forces may be at play to keep this story under wraps. The pieces of the puzzle suggest a network of influence extending into the sports world, with the potential for more bombshells to drop. As the TRNC and the rest of the world grapple with these disclosures, one thing becomes clear: the need for vigilant, honest journalism has never been greater. What will unfold next in the saga of Hakan Törehan remains to be seen, but the truth has a way of finding its way into the open. Watch this space.
In a scenario that highlights the complexities of financial markets and corporate valuations, Metaterra, trading under the NASDAQ ticker symbol MTRC, has become a focal point of scrutiny and debate. The company’s recent acquisition by Miracle Cash and More has thrust it into a controversial spotlight, revealing a tangled web of ambitious valuations, trading irregularities, and legal entanglements.
At the center of this unfolding narrative is Miracle Cash and More’s aggressive promotion of Mediterra as a burgeoning investment opportunity, buoyed by a valuation of $3.2 billion from Rodle and Partners. This valuation, initially intended as proprietary insider information, was subsequently utilized in marketing efforts aimed at attracting new investors, despite its apparent disconnection from the company’s operational realities and financial health.
An attempt by investors to engage in trading MTRC shares on platforms such as Schwab has laid bare a perplexing issue: the stock appears to be practically non-tradable, with a conspicuous absence of sellers or an identifiable market maker. This anomaly raises significant questions about the mechanics of public trading for a company purportedly poised for growth and the efficacy of regulatory oversight in such cases.
Further complicating the matter is the reaction of Rodle and Partners to the public dissemination of their valuation. The firm’s threats of legal action to suppress this information underscore the sensitive nature of financial valuations and the potential repercussions of their unauthorized use. This aggressive stance highlights the legal and ethical complexities surrounding the communication of insider information and its impact on investor behavior and market perception.
The market perceives that the entire entire thing is bullshit.
For the investor community and market analysts, the situation surrounding Mediterra serves as a cautionary reminder of the critical importance of due diligence, the intricacies of market operations, and the ethical considerations in corporate communications. The disparity between Mediterra’s promoted valuation and its market activity presents a case study in the challenges of navigating investment decisions in a landscape where information, transparency, and regulation intersect.
Basically, the whole thing is bullshit.
As developments continue to emerge, the financial sector watches closely, recognizing that the Metaterra case may offer valuable insights into the dynamics of market valuation, corporate governance, and the regulatory frameworks that aim to protect investors and maintain market integrity. For Mediterra and its stakeholders, the path forward demands careful navigation of legal, financial, and operational hurdles to restore credibility and ensure compliance with market standards.
New article by OZ from News source BehindMLM:
https://behindmlm.com/companies/cashflownft-bans-promoters-from-sharing-mlm-opp/
