A (MLM) Skeptic

Recently Ray Higdon, a self-professed high flyer in MLM and inspiration coach, posted on his blog "How to Answer 'How much Money Have you Made in Network Marketing". His answer is evasive and shocking, as it basically sidestepped the answer.

Here is a screenshot of Ray Higdon's blog, and copy of his text:

How To Answer “How Much Have You Made In Network Marketing?”

This is a question that you most likely get when people feel like you’re maybe not as postured as you could be. Right? That maybe you’re not as confident as you could be, and people like to ding you with this question. “Well how much money have you made in network marketing?”

Obviously, those of you who haven’t made any money in network marketing, you’re, “What do I say?” Right? My suggestion for this circumstance would be you can rely on your upline. You can rely on even trainers. You can use a little bit of my story, if you’d like.

But my suggestion on answering that is to say:

“Hey, you know what? I’m just getting started, but the people that I’m working with and getting trained by have made millions of dollars in network marketing. They’re showing me exactly what to do, so I’m fired up about it. I’m just getting started, but I’m excited that I’m learning from people who’ve proven it over the last X number of years. They’re helping me follow the exact footprints, exact steps that they took to make money, so I’m fired up about it.”

That’s how I would answer it. By painting where you’re going. It’s very powerful.

Yep, you read it right: self-professed MLM coach telling everybody to NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Be evasive, blah blah about "getting training" instead.

Right, and my teacher was "Rich Dad", Bill Gates, and Buckminster Fuller. Or I can rattle all the rich and famous people I'd like to emulate.

What a bunch of crock.

Let's face it: if there is a formula to make money, everybody who cares to be would be already rich.

The truth is simple: EVERYBODY'S CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT. Those who push the idea that there are "footprints to follow" are basically camp followers and wannabes enjoying the "churn" in the MLM industry, never quite rising to the top. The few who did by chance then perpetuate the myth that they did it by hard work, ignoring those who they stepped on, on their way to the top.

Furthermore, by being evasive, that is NOT the kind of person who answers ethically. Indeed, this sort of "I believe I'll get there" is smack of faith and cult-think.

Let's face it... When you are asked how much do you make, would any industry OTHER than MLM try to shift the focus onto "I'm being trained by people who made money"? Heck, not even sales people do that.

And this is supposedly a top MLM trainer saying how they would answer the question personally!

Furthermore, the idea that MLM created a lot of millionaires is a myth perpetuated by MLMers, and they've been saying it for over 40 years. Direct sales, of which MLM is but a fraction, is 0.64% of total US retail as of 2012. MLM has been on a DECLINE since 2006 and only recently started to recover.

But perhaps you should not have been surprised, when Ray's slug line is "Helping Network Marketers Recruit More Reps, "Get More Leads, & Become Top Earners in Their Company"

Nowhere was 'sell more stuff' mentioned.

Basically, this guy treats MLM like a recruitment game: tell any sort of thing to recruit the next guy, gal, or alien. More you recruit, the more you win. Even "leads" are for recruiting, not sales.

That's not that multi-level marketing is about.

Recently the Trump camp used "alternative facts" when attempting to "defend" some numbers that are obviously bogus... with even MORE bogus factoids. It is interesting to note that this has been used by MLM for decades, with little success.

So what are some of the "alternative facts" that had been used by MLM supporters?

If I can succeed you can too... just like "any lotto ticket can be the big winner"
Success requires hard work... and a whole lot of luck, and other stuff conveniently not mentioned
Thousands of people around the world found MLM works for them... out of 100 million, as estimated by DSA
Avon is nothing compared to the bigger network marketing companies... despite Avon is almost same size as Amway, about 10 billion annual revenue larger than any other MLM company.

MLM is the next big thing that will replace all retail and they've been saying it for the past 40 years, and it's still not true
MLM created the most millionaires of any modern industry... Nope, that'd be tech industry.
MLM helps a lot of people make supplemental income (despite annual average sales of less than $2000 per person in the US, and that's just revenue, not profit). Just how much effort are you spending to make that extra $167 per month?

Have you spotted more "alternative facts" cited by MLM proponents about their particular MLM? Do they sound "reasonable" at first, but a quick fact-check disproved them easily? Share them in the comments.

Two ponzi scammers got their prison sentences handed down recently in early 2017.

Paul Burks, who was the head of the $939 million Zeek Rewards ponzi scheme with over 1 million victims around the world, got 14 years in a Federal prison, in addition to fines of $244 million in restitution (which he can't pay as he already gave up all his possessions) and 3 years probation. Given that Burks is already 70 years old and is believed to be not in the best of health, he may spend his final days in prison.

Two other top heads of the scheme, Daniel Olivarez (computer guru) and Dawn Wright-Olivares (VP of Operations and spokesperson) have been sentenced previously to lesser terms for their contributory roles in the scam that was shut down in 2012 by SEC and Secret Service. It was believed they were fined and have to give up their residence. There was no word on what happened to a restaurant Dawn allegedly operated, or what happened to her job at a different MLM company called iWowwe.

MLM Skeptic had been tracking Zeek Rewards for over a year before it was shut down and published several articles explaining how Zeek Rewards cannot be legitimate. Indeed, in the final days of their scam they tried to gag me with a "takedown request" to my content host by claiming MLMSkeptic had violated their trademark when it was quickly realized that the alleged trademarks was not even owned by them! Must be really desperate over there in their final days, as only a few weeks later when SEC and Secret Service stepped in.

In other news, co-leader of a smaller ponzi known as "The Achieve Community", Kristine Johnson, was sentenced to 21 months in Federal Prison. TAC, which is peanuts compared to Zeek, was shutdown in 2015 by SEC. It was a pretty simple Ponzi scheme that didn't bother to polish itself by hiring celebrity lawyers and experts and pretending to be legitimate. They mainly stuck to Facebook and such, by claiming "triple algorithm" that can multiply money... What utter nonsense.

MLM Skeptic had not been tracking TAC but it was identified early on by Oz of BehindMLM as a simple cycler ponzi scheme.

What do these two scams have in common? It's actually quite simple..

GREED.

ZeekRewards claimed that if you buy their bidpacks, and give them away as "promotional items" to people, you can then share in their auction profits. In reality, the profits are from the bids the participants had purchased, but rigged in a way that the early joiners, with "points" already accumulated, take most of the payouts, while the new participants are encouraged to leave their money inside to accumulate.

TL;DR = give us money, take out a lot more later.

It is so obviously an investment, and an UNregistered investment at that, but simple Googling will reveal a trove of bogus reasoning written by people, desperate to bring in more money into the system so they have more to be taking out, that denied simple facts (like the amount of auctions could have never generated the amount of profit being paid out).

Furthermore, Zeek hired big attorneys (Nehra and Waak, famous MLM attorneys) and pay for ceremonies, consultants, and more to look legitimate.

The Achieve Community (TAC) did not even bother with the disguises about running a penny auction to generate the revenue. They don't claim to be running a business at all.

TL;DR = give us money, take out more later

When asked how are they generating additional money, they claimed some "triple algorithm", which turned out to be completely fictional... There is no algorithm. Yet both leaders took out tens of thousands of dollars and transferred them into their personal accounts and spent them on themselves.

It's obviously a Ponzi.

The common factor is greed... People believe that one can earn money without doing much of anything.

It is this greed that ruin people.

"Crank magnetism" is a phenomenon describing that a crank for one idea often is also a crank of one or more unrelated but equally unorthodox and often irrational ideas. The term was coined in 2007 by Mark Hoofnagle to describe a particular Holocaust denier who also latched onto some crazy DNA theory of disease from someone else.

When I encounter this term, I immediately thought of how "sheeple", i.e. those victims ready to be fleeced, tend to fall for one scheme after another, not necessarily at the same time, but they are vulnerable to cross recruitment, i.e. "here's something else that'd be good for you". To my surprise, there is no such term. While sheeple is defined, and there are related terms such as reload scam, the phenomenon that a sheeple can believe in multiple unrelated scams is not a term.

So let me coin the term now: sheeple magnetism... phenomenon describing a sheeple, who fell for one scam, is often vulnerable to other scams.

Ponzi scheme victims are the most often found examples of sheeple magnetism, esp. if they were among the"net winners", i.e the minority who got more out of the scheme than they put in (so the rest are net losers). They were often given "contrafreeloading" tasks to make them believe they "earned" their money. Such "victims" will go on to a different scheme that they recognize to be of a similar structure: way too easy work, way too much money, and believe they found their path to riches.

Many schemes are started by former members of another scheme, esp. if they are of the "inner circle", the few who are privy to the actual backend operations. The perpetrator of Ad Surf Daily scheme,"Andy" Bowdoin, was a member of 12DailyPro ponzi operated by Charis Johnson. Ad Surf Daily was started merely 6 months after Feds took down 12DailyPro.

Many members of Ad Surf Daily went on to found or join several other ponzi schemes. Indeed, when you trace "career" of such, many of them just join one scheme after another and start their own at times. Indeed, most MLMs can be traced this way as well.

What they don't understand is they had entered an alternate reality where they BELIEVE they are entitled to the money that had been taken from others through false promises. Some may even accept that they are spending other people's money, but then they take the indignant attitude "they shouldn't play if they can't afford to lose", i.e. victim-blaming. Paul Burks, head of ZeekRewards, was well known to have told a newspaper reporter to tell everybody not to blame him, that they should not play with money they can't afford to lose, after Zeek was shut down by the US Secret Service.

And even the victims who LOST money are vulnerable to such pitches, because they believe there is a shortcut to money, and whatever they encountered that victimized them was an aberration, and they just need to try a few more to find the "right" one, not believing that there is no such thing, and only insiders and a few judas goats actually make money from Ponzi schemes.

Sheeple, those who are vulnerable to scams, being lead around by judas goats, are also vulnerable to sheeple magnetism, in that they also believe other crank ideas about making money. This will lead them to fall for further scams.

From when you're but a wee little toddler, you've probably been taught some (or all of the following):

Don't take candy from creepy people
Don't take health advice from tobacco company
Don't take money advice from loan company
Don't take ethical advice from the Devil

So why do so many MLMers take business and money advice from their upline?

Think about it, In each of the scenarios above, it's basically inmates running the prison, or fox guarding the henhouse... There's an ETHICAL conflict in the scenario.

But, but you say, my upline *wants* me to succeed because if I succeed, s/he earns more, and so do I! How can this be an ethical conflict?

But that's because you fail to see the situation from your upline's perspective, but rather, from the MLM myth it perpetuates about itself.

Let's see it from your upline's perspective....

While your upline would LOVE for you to succeed, let's face it, 90-99% of MLMers fail to make a living doing so. In fact, most of them fail to make ANY profit. DSA.org's own figures from 2014 shows that average participant sold less than $2000 worth of stuff the whole year. That's revenue, not profit. Average Amway IBO makes less than $200 a month in 2013. According to Herbalife, 88% of their distributors (estimated to be about 3.8 million people total) received ZERO commission in 2012.

Assuming your leader makes 5% of what you make, that's a pittance since you're starting below average, and when the average was already low, it'd be practically NOTHING.

So your leader CANNOT expect you to succeed. Hope, yes. Expect, no.

It'd be STUPID for your leader to expect you to succeed.

So why do leaders need new people like you?

So you will BUY stuff. (Preferably, every month, on autoship)

Your upline makes money when you BUY stuff, not when you sell stuff. Whether you sell it or consume it; whether you give it away or dump them in the trash; your purchase put money in your upline's pocket, whether you make any profit (or not). Once you bought the stuff, your upline no longer needs you (until next month, because your upline needs the quota filled to stay qualified).

Ah, but you ask, isn't that the same?

No, the motivation is different. Why do you think the leaders are always doing group events? So they can recruit several people at the same time. It's easier recruiting several people, most of whom who will never succeed, rather than giving individual attention to someone who probably will not succeed (despite showing some potential and ambition).

Give 1 hour presentation and recruit 4 people, or spend 1 hour with ONE person who may or may not succeed. The choice is clear: group events, as many gullible noob sheeple as they can find.

That includes you.

They call it team building. What it really is: build up a loyal customer base, who don't even realize they are buying, because the "customers" all believe themselves to be businessmen who are selling.

And if you joined MLM, the only way for you to succeed is to do exactly the same thing: recruit a lot of noobs (like you once were) and make them into YOUR customers, by telling them the fiction that they will succeed... by cloning you... go out and recruit a lot of noobs (like them cloning you).

And the cycle repeats.

Black is white. Truth is lie. This is so Orwellian 1984, isn't it?

Feel free to utilize these pointers to counter sales pitches next time people come up to you and want to recruit you for some sort of income scheme they tout as "can't lose", "risk free", and so on.

#1

Wow, sounds amazing. Is your entire family in? I'm sure blood is thicker than water and all that. Is/Are your brother / wife / papa and mama / etc. in? How many relatives did you recruit?

Wow, that sure sounds impressive. Did you quit your job and go full-time? Sounds like you can do a lot better in this (insert name).

That's certainly interesting. However, I'm a bit empty in my wallet now. Tell you what, lend me the seed money. I'll split any profit with you 50/50. What do you say?

I thought you said you made plenty of money? So you don't have any money to lend me?

You thought your scheme was impressive? Let me tell you about mine...

(Inspired by a post from JusticeAlwaysLate, a scambuster on Facebook)

Those of you who have diabetes or pre-diabetes may have been spammed on Facebook or similar social media sites by someone marketing the HELO band. At first look, it is basically something like a Fitbit or such. However, it had promised in Jan 2017 something that had never been achieved by anyone: non-invasive continuous blood glucose estimation. See press release dated Jan 10, 2017.

PRNewswire press release from WRMT where it claimed it will
launch blood glucose estimation tech in its "Helo" wellness band
dated Jan 10th, 2017

However, it is interesting to note that NO SUCH FEATURE was mentioned on World's official website, worldgn.com

worldgn.com shows no blood sugar feature on their HELO device as of JUN-28-2017

Now isn't that interesting...

However, its reps have been repeating the blood sugar pitch all over Facebook... Here are two of the examples.

World rep priases World CEO ahead of curve with
blood glucose monitoring wearable wristband

World rep claims Helo LX offers "similar"
continuous blood glucose monitoring in a wristband

But let's think about it for a moment. If Helo can actually do blood glucose monitoring without any pinpricks or incisions, it'd be a total game changer. Heck, Apple was working on one, according to CNBC. However, when you read World's quarterly report dated June 8, 2017...

WRMT / Worldgn has no patents nor applying for any, as of June 8, 2017

That's right, Worldgn basically told everyone that they have NO PATENT (nor any pending) on anything (esp. this blood sugar monitoring thing) despite promising to launch such a thing back in January 2017.

So this feature, despite being "world's first" (quoting the January press release), is NOT patentable (or they'd have applied for one already, right?) And despite having promised such for SIX MONTHS (coming up on 7th) no such feature even listed on their own website.

Basically, Worldgn reps are advertising VAPORWARE (i.e. features that don't exist), because there is no such feature. And even if there are, it'd be a total guesswork (why do you think it's called "estimation"?) and totally useless for its intended purpose.

So, Worldgn reps, stop parroting your company's marketing speech. Start using your brain a bit.

Someone spotted this gem from the official HELO FAQ

HELO FAQ: "When you don’t wear it (HELO band),
it still reads something literally from the air"

That's right, this band is so fancy, you don't even need to wear it for it to sense your body.

WTF?! This is so bogus, I'm surprised anybody would fall for **** like this.

For other HELO band hilarity, read my original article.

Recently I came across a comment about IPro Network on BehindMLM.

First, what is iPro Network? Some generic discount network based on some generic altcoin they are billing as some fantastic e-commerce opportunity, you should buy into the currency despite there's no proof that it was widely adopted (since there are tons of altcoins out there). It's so fantastic, there is absolutely NO TRACE of the CEO on the internet (other than on their own website), who wears a clearly wrong size shirt (he can't even button his collar), despite claiming "15 years experience".

Anyway, here's the comment about why is the review so hard on a "legitimate" opportunity.

"Bill Antonio": "Oz I appreciate you trying to protect marketers from scams but why is it that you seem to criticise every business opportunity and preventing people from making money online from legit companies. IPN has been endorsed by Scott Warren a most sought after MLM Lawyer as IPN has met all the compliance guidelines and has also being endorsed by well-known entrepreneur Kevin Harrington from Shark Tank who is highly respected in the business world.They also have sought after motivational speaker Jay Abraham who is in the same league as Anthony Robbins. These people will never be involved in any scams.

Okay, there are a couple things to note:

1) Did Scott Warren, an MLM lawyer, "endorse" IPro Network?

2) Did Kevin Harrington (Shark Tank) endorse IPro Network?

3) Does Jay Abraham work for IPro Network?

Not surprisingly, the answer is "no proof of such" in each and every case.

This is like the game of telephone, where somehow message was distorted into whatever the promoter wanted to say, instead of the REAL content.

So what is the truth? Let MLMSkeptic lead you to some discovery.

So, let's begin...

1) Q: Did Scott Warren endorse IPro Network?

All research indicates that while IPro Network did hire Scott Warren for legal counsel, this is NOT an endorsement by the named attorney.

Please also keep in mind that two of the biggest scams in recent years, TelexFree and ZeekRewards, hired the biggest MLM attorney at the time, Gerald Nehra and his firm, Nehra and Waak.

Nehra was heavily touted by both ZeekRewards and TelexFree members who proclaimed the same: with him onboard, Zeek Rewards and TelexFree cannot be illegal. In fact, Nehra appeared at a TeelxFree event, and stated specifically "[TelexFree and its associates] are on very solid legal ground" at a TelexFree company event in July 2013.

Yet both Zeek Rewards AND TelexFree were shut down by regulators as huge ponzi schemes. Nehra was sued by the ZeekRewards receiver for 100 million in damages caused. Nehra ended up paying 0.1% (1/10th of a penny on the dollar) i.e. 100000 dollars in damages total, as they are basically bankrupt. TelexFree case is still pending.

The ONLY thing to take away from this is exactly what it says: IPro Network may have hired Scott Warren as its legal counsel. This does NOT mean in ANY WAY that IPro is somehow now completely legal and beyond reproach. You cannot judge a company's trustworthiness by the attorney it hires.

A: No, Scott Warren was retained by IPro Network. That does NOT imply an endorsement.

2) Q: Did Kevin Harrington, formerly of Shark Tank, endorse IPro Network?

So far, the only sign linking Kevin Harrington to IPro Network is a 1:19 video on Youtube where he will be the keynote speaker about an online platform for transactions for the "Launch Event" for IPro Network in July 2017.

There is no mention whether he was being paid for his appearance.

While I am sure Mr. Harrington is an upstanding guy, there are mentions back in 2015 that any one can buy an appearance with him to the tune of 25000 dollars and "be on public TV" with the semi-celebrity.

So, in conclusion, that is NOT an endorsement by either Kevin Harrington nor IPro Network to each other. Any one claiming so is fibbing, Just like the statement with Scott Warren, there is no endorsement. He was paid to appear as a speaker, nothing more.

A: No, Kevin Harrington was scheduled to appear at an IPro sponsored marketing event. There was no endorsement.

3) Q: Does Jay Abraham work for IPro Network? (i.e. IPro Network "have" Jay Abraham?)

There is no mention of IPro on Jay Abraham's website. The only link between the two was Jay Abraham had appeared as a featured speaker at IPro Network's Launch Event along with Kevin Harrington in July 2017.

Jay Abraham is available for booking if you pay enough. In fact, if you have enough money, you can book Tony Robbins himself as a speaker.

It's also worth noting that Vemma, a verified pyramid scheme that was shut down by FTC and ordered to reorganize, had at least two celebrity motivational speakers... Bob Proctor (who had his wife and daughter in high positions in Vemma too, and is a personal friend with Vemma founder BK Boyreko), and Eric Thomas, who charges 10K to 20K per appearance, appeared multiple times at Vemma events.

A: Jay Abraham appeared at ONE IPro Network event as a featured speaker. There is no evidence of long-term employment.

THREE OUT OF THREE ARE TOTAL EXAGGERATIONS.

Basically, the IPro Network promoters are committing "Association with Authority Fallacy" aka "name-dropping". And they cannot even do so accurately.

Instead of "IPN hired Scott Warren as legal counsel", it went through "telephone game" and emerged as "Scott Warren endorses IPN (therefore IPN cannot possibly be a scam)".

Instead of "Kevin Harrington will be keynote speaker at IPN Launch Event", it went through "telephone game" and came out as "Kevin Harrington Endorses IPro Network (therefore IPN cannot be a scam)".

Instead of "Jay Abraham will appear as featured speaker at IPN Event", it came out as "IPN hired Jay Abraham (therefore IPN cannot be a scam)"

WTF, folks. WTF. LISTEN to yourselves. You're worse than tabloids reporting Elvis is an alien or something.

And just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR...

I NEVER SAID that IPro Network is a scam.

I simply question the logic of people who use "association with celebrity" fallacy as "evidence" that IPro network cannot possibly be a scam. That's not evidence. That's inventing something that's not there.

And based on the history of people desperate enough to invent something that's not there, in order to justify their own actions... This does NOT bode well for IPro Network.

(Friendly suggestion for IPN: rein in your affiliates from making bogus statements like "endorsements" before these celebrities find themselves annoyed enough to sue IPN for causing damage to their reputation... Remember what happened to Nerium and Ray Liotta...)

Direct Selling Association is supposed to be promoting direct selling. Instead, for the past several decades, DSA has been trying to destroy direct selling by killing legislation that would have promoted retail, and promoting legislation that discouraged retail. This is actually not a surprise as DSA is really a lobbying group by the largest MLM companies like Amway, Avon, Herbalife, and so on.

In July 2017, DSA launched its latest attempt to destroy direct selling by trying to attach a rider to the current budget appropriations bill for FY18, known as the Moolenaar Amendment. It claimed that there is no Federal law that defined a pyramid scheme, and this bill would define one. The problem is, this is at best, a half-truth.

The US courts and FTC already have an existing definition of a pyramid scheme: The Koscot Test. MLM attorney Jeff Babener called it "a twenty-year standard", back in 2001. So by now, it's a 36-year-old standard. DSA, in its "selective blindness", pretended this standard does not exist so it can substitute a LOOSER definition instead.

DSA's previous attempt to pass a bill, deceptively titled "Anti-Pyramid Promotional Scheme Act of 2016", never made it out of committee. This time, by attaching the failed legislation to the appropriations bill, DSA hope it will sail through until various consumer organizations called them out.

But what is wrong with this piece of legislation, vs. the existing standard?

While on the surface the bill sounds rather clear, it contains several interesting bits of language designed to erode the definition over all.

But first, let us go back to the Koscot Test, and how it stood for 36 years (and counting).

The Koscot test is very simple. You can read a more detailed explanation here, but to make it very short, a pyramid scheme is defined by four parts:

(1) Payment of money by the participant to the company, in return;
(2) The participant receives the right to sell a product (or service);
(3) The participant also receives compensation for recruiting others into the program;
(4) The compensation is unrelated to the sale of products (or services) to the ultimate user.

This definition has been in use for 36 years, and it was successfully used to prosecute pyramid schemes for that long, And in the past year, two major DSA members, Vemma, and Herbalife, lost their pyramid scheme cases to FTC and was forced to undergo major changes under various settlements.

While this "anti-pyramid 2016" bill mentioned earlier sounds like a reiteration of the Koscot definition, it introduced several alternative definitions to limit the legislation's effectiveness.

a) it introduced a "buyback guarantee" (called "appropriate inventory repurchase agreement" in the bill) that companies can incorporate to avoid the pyramid promotional scheme label, when this in no way exonerates the scheme. It is worth pointing out that both Herbalife and Vemma had such policies in place when they were sued by FTC into instituting reforms.

b) it attempted to redefine "ultimate user", which was already defined by Omnitrition case, by adding "a participant who purchases reasonable amounts ... for personal use... not made solely for purposes of qualifying for increased compensation", trying to go around a precedent set. Omnitrition case already defined in dicta that "If Koscot (test) is to have any teeth, such a sale (to participants) cannot satisfy the requirement that sales be to 'ultimate users' of a product."

The net effect of these modifications is letting the direct selling industry sail on without instituting any more meaningful changes, despite seeing two of its members prosecuted as pyramid promotional schemes, because the bill basically made self-consumption legal (which negated any need to retail), and thus rendered Koscot useless, throwing away the precedent that had worked for 36 years.

But just consider this from the most basic view.

DSA = Direct Selling Association. Selling is in the title.

Yet the bill introduced basically guarantee the legality of an MLM to not sell anything, that its members can just buy stuff, and make money by recruiting people who ALSO buy stuff.

That makes no sense at all.

And I've been saying that since 2013.

Letting this amendment remain will lead to erosion of FTC's ability to prosecute pyramid schemes, esp. similar behavior by large MLMs that are already entrenched.

Beware.

I'll leave you to go read it on their site:

https://www.wareable.com/fitness-trackers/helo-lx-band-multi-level-marketing-9876

But the most hilarious part is a HELO rep then offered the reviewer, who just gave them a bad rating, a free sample, as if that'll change the reviewer's mind!

EuroFX is supposedly a forex trading company that started in 2012, has 13 year experience, and promised fat returns. It was shut down as a pyramid scheme in China in 2014, with possibly tens of thousands of victims that spread from the US to Phillippines, with possible amounts exceeding 2 billion USD.

What's interesting is the scope of the fraud: this involved Britons, Aussies, Singaporeans, and possibly more, with possible fake names and dozens of companies registered in UK and New Zealand and Australia.

The alleged head was a Briton by the name of David Byrne, and they promise returns of 6 -16% PER MONTH if you can invest up to 250K. He presented himself as either CEO or Acting CEO. However, when investors caught up with him later after EuroFX's collapse, he claimed either he was only onboard for less than a year, or he's only "consultant CEO".

Whether David Byrne was guilty of collusion was NOT the issue. It's the matter of perception.

Myth: Companies registered in the UK are required to follow all UK law.

Reality: Companies registered in the UK, but not sell to UK citizens, are NOT governed by UK law. In other words, a UK registered company can cheat and scam non-UK people, and UK law enforcement can do NOTHING about it.

That's what happened in EuroFX, were ActionFraud, the UK fraud hotline, received multiple tips about EuroFX, and even investigated, but ultimately determined that it is NOT within UK jurisdiction as it sold nothing to UK residents and citizens.

Basically, UK biz registration is worthless.

Not that you can rely on just a biz registration to determine if a business is legit any way.

But the point that companies can hire temporary CEOs is the other thing to take away... the alleged CEO is just a part of marketing.

Also see following links:

http://fortune.com/2016/08/13/eurofx-pyramid-scheme-china/

https://atozforex.com/news/why-the-west-ignores-british-ponzi-schemes/

http://eurofxvictim.weebly.com/ (Chinese/English site set up by victims to preserve evidence)

Recently my news feed came across an R+F consultant (that's Rodan and Fields, an MLM cosmetics brand) denying that R+F is a pyramid scheme. Does her denial make sense?

She started out by casting a wide net, basically stating "I hear that from time to time... (some people) believe RF is a scheme... (but) RF isn't like that"

Then she immediately went into defensive dilemma, which means "if you say it to my face, I will assume that 1) you don't know me and I don't know you, or 2) you don't know what you're talking about"

But does the author know what she's talking about?

She never explained what a pyramid scheme is, or how R+F is not like that. She simply claimed that R+F is a legitimate company. But that's interesting are the two factors she cited in her denial.

We are different: really?

According to the author, "If you’re looking at a company’s payroll by levels of income, it’s probably going to resemble a pyramid. The owner is at the top and earns the highest salary, everyone else trickles down. Right out of the gate, we are different."

Basically, the author is saying that R+F is NOT like a traditional company where the owner is NOT earning the highest salary, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it seems the author is merely half-right. Because R+F is run by Chairman Amnon Rodan (Dr. Katie Rodan's husband) and President/CEO Diane Dietz. Drs. Rodan and Fields own most of R+F. They pocket most of the profit, just not a direct salary.

R+F press release says they achived 626.9 million revenue in 2015, and maybe a billion in 2016. You can be sure all the top execs took home MILLIONS in salaries or other compensations.

It's definitely NOT as different as the author implied.

Level Playing Field: really?

Next, author tried to invoke the "potential equality myth".

"In regard to earnings, the playing field is level in Rodan+Fields. For instance, a Harvard trained attorney and a high school drop-out can earn the same income with RF…if building an empire isn’t your dream and you simply want to earn a few hundred dollars a month, that can easily happen with very little time invested."

It seems the author had not read R+F's own income disclosure statement 2016, from which I quote directly:

"Over the course of 2016, R+F had 286709 enrolled Consultants; 161361 were Paid Consultants (56%) who received payment in at least one month for sales that occurred during 2016; and 125348 were Consultants (44%) who received the benefit of discounted prices, but did not earn any compensation from R+F."

Out of 287000 consultants, 44% earned NOTHING. ZERO. NADA ZILCH. GOOSE EGG.

What of the remaining 56%? Figures are not encouraging.

60% of those 161361 "paid" consultants earned average of 334 PER YEAR ($28/month)
30% of those 161361 "paid" consultants earned average of 2304 PER YEAR ($192/month)

The percentage gets narrower as the income gets higher. The top tier says...

0.04% of those 161361"paid" consultants earned average of 1.244 million PER YEAR.

But what the author failed to tell you is this caveat stated in the income disclosure itself, from which I quote directly:

"To be eligible for commissions on products, you must have monthly sales to retail customers and/or personal purchases of roughly $100 worth of product [measured in Volume]. To receive greater commissions and maintain your status your direct Customers must purchase and/or your direct Consultants must sell 600 in Volume of products each month."

Basically, you can BUY your way out of any monthly sales quota by selling stuff TO YOURSELF! That's an expense you didn't count on in R+F, did you?

So the income, which is commission only, does NOT count any expenses, and surely won't cover the cost if you sell to yourself (i.e. expense only, no profit).

Once the sales network (read: minion tree) had been established, there's no way a low-ranker can make more than the high ranker who already have a tree, which is always growing by the minions. The potential of equal income only exists when the company was brand new. And that was almost ten years ago.

Conclusion

Frankly, NEITHER defense addressed the issue: is R+F a pyramid scheme? Both defenses raised are completely irrelevant.

The "we're not traditional" defense was irrelevant and was half wrong as well. How does "we're not traditional" prove R+F is not a pyramid scheme? By invoking "traditional companies are pyramid-shaped", the author was guilty of using the "pyramid equivocation" bad argument.

The "equal potential income" defense was also irrelevant, not to mention wrong in face of current statistics. Why would one person's POTENTIAL income prove the company is not a pyramid scheme? It can't!

The author failed to defend her premise, that R+F is not a pyramid scheme. She raised some emotional triggers and tried to spin those as evidence. They are not, and they are often factually wrong at least in part.

However, keep in mind that failure to prove R+F is not a pyramid scheme does NOT mean R+F is a pyramids scheme. You need to prove it the other way too.

But it's clear that R+F is not as life-changing as the author thinks it is.

Recently, MLMSkeptic came upon something called TresMore. It sparked my interest because it is heavily marketed toward Asians, with a Chinese name 特利多 (te-li-duo, lit: special profit plenty) and websites in Taiwan, China, and even Malaysia, this thing was basically promising $$$$ for merely shopping, which, as you can imagine, can't possibly work. The premise of paying 20% of retail value just to get your shopping data makes absolutely no sense! Even supermarkets and such don't give you 20%... more like... 2% and coupons.

In fact, this is almost an exact clone of a suspect scheme call Saivian. You can do research on that yourself. Or just read the BehindMLM review.

Researching Tresmore

First, let's look up Tresmore.com Wow, all these "business partners", eh?

Screencap of Tresmore.com official Tresmore website. Claims all these
are business partners. But which ones are real, and which ones are fake? You may be
surprised at the results, once we do a little research, and you can verify for yourself.

But which one is real? And which ones are pretenders? Let's look a little closer.

TresMore address is 3235 Satellite Blvd, Ste 290, Duluth, GA 30096

That means they rent an office from that building. Suite 290, remember?

Now let's look up their corporate info via Georgia State Website https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch

Registered 3/11/2017 by Chae Chang, why 290B vs 290?
What about filing history?

Well, there is a Tresmore LLC... registered March 2017 by a Chae Chang. Hmmm... However, if you go into filing history and access the company formation papers, you'll see another name, Sang Lee.

Two people responsible, a Chae Chang, and a Sang Lee, for Tresmore.

Let's go down the list. So what is EsolutionTG? (item 1)

Researching eSolutionTG

If you go through a similar process above, you'll find it was registered 11/21/2014 by Seongya Kim and its address is in Suwanee GA. It listed only ONE organizer: Seongya Kim.

Indeed, if you go into esolutionTG.com // About Us // Our History, it will explain everything, which, remember, I didn't write all this. THEY DID.

Indeed, if you go to eSolutionTG.com/partners.html, it will show the following, as they admitted themselves:

Our Clients: ThanksDigit, TM POS LLC, TMWellBeing, TresMore
Our Subsidiary Companies: EsolutionTG, TM POS, TMWellbeing, TM Pro Consulting, Thanks Trucking, TresMore, Thanksdigit, ThanksPayout
Our Brands ThanksMatrix, Go7Shop, GoLawCase, TM University, eu-Bliss, de-hygion, ThanksBless

Which can be summarized below in pretty neat list:

eSolutionTG -- master company, B2B IT development, registered by Seongya Kim in 2014
ThanksMatrix -- BRAND only, backend CRM system w/ MLM comp plan
Go7Shop -- BRAND only, B2C e-commerce system w/ MLM comp plan
TM POS INC -- "client", systems integration consulting, registered by Sanggon Lee in 2015
TMWellbeing -- "client", home MLM, registered by Sean Lee and Chae Chang in 2016
Eu-Bliss -- BRAND only, skin cream sold by TMWellbeing
TM Pro Consulting -- unknown, company NOT in Georgia, may be in Korea?
Thanks Trucking -- unknown, company NOT in Georgia, may be in Korea?
TresMore -- "client", cashback for using credit card and referrals, registered by Chae Chang and Sang Lee in March 2017
ThanksDigit -- "subsidiary", either asset management or crypto-mining, registered by Chae Chang and Sean Lee in March 2017
ThanksPayout -- "subsidiary", e-payment processor registered in UK
GoLawCase -- BRAND only, ThanksMatrix optimized for lawyers
ThanksBless -- BRAND only, ThanksMatrix optimized for religious organizations
De-Hygion -- BRAND only, sub-brand of TMWellness, laundry and dish detergent
TM University -- BRAND only, trains users to use ThanksMatrix

So out of the 12 things listed as "business partners", 5 are real US companies (eSolutionTG, ThanksDigit, TM POS INC, TMWellness) including itself (hey, I guess if you want to double-dip, i.e. f*** yourself...), and all are subsidiaries (their words, not mine) of eSolutionTG. There are two that are apparently in Korea and thus unable to be verified. The rest are brands and websites they created, not separate "partners".

If you doubt my words, feel free to use the link above to Georgia Corporation Search and check out all the links yourself.

Note that many of these "partners" are registered and created by the SAME PEOPLE. That in itself should make you weary, that they *want* you to think they are much larger than they really are.

Conclusion

So is TresMore trustworthy?

According to TresMore, it has a dozen "business partners", and it adheres to DSA code of ethics. Remember item 13 in the first screenshot?

Except TresMore is NOT in the DSA, nor are they pending. So why would they list DSA code of ethics? Hmmm?

Out of the dozen so-called business partners (counting itself, so actually 11), one is its PARENT company, two are in Korea and thus cannot be verified, and four are fellow "subsidiaries" and has no direct business partnership. The rest are not even companies, but merely brands owned by parent companies or other "brother" subsidiaries.

THAT in itself should tell you this company is not trustworthy.

In the next installment, we will look at the inconsistencies of TresMore, and why its business model makes zero sense.

It seems an MLM noob is very fond of her comp plan, which she described as

... I can find 3 people who also want sustainable <item> my order is then FREE

She doesn't realize that this is ILLEGAL. Yes, I said it. It is ILLEGAL.

This is called "referral sales", and it can be described as

Seller offer to prospective buyer a consideration (discount / rebate / commission, etc.)
for a sale (or lease) of item from seller to buyer
the buyer must provide sellers list of potential customers
the consideration (see 1) is contingent on seller be able to make additional sales/lease to one or more of the potential customers (see 3)

And all four elements are in the quote found earlier. Let's check it again, with the elements highlighted.

... I can find 3 people (3) who also want sustainable <item>(4) my order (2) is then FREE (1)

And yes, this is ILLEGAL. In all 50 states of the US, and in all European countries, and Australia, and so on and so forth.

And you'd be surprised how many companies engage in this ILLEGAL behavior, and its affiliates are completely unaware they are being defrauded.

Here's a member trying to defend such a practice, even after he was told it's illegal:

...I would not look at it as getting a discount. I would look at it as getting a commission for selling a product. Why would it matter if you’re buying/using that product as well?

Except the law was clear... ANY consideration makes this referral sales, and thus illegal, if you were a customer first.

After being reminded AGAIN it's potentially illegal, he tried special pleading ("we can't be that, but I can't explain why") and emotional appeal ("You obviously don't like network marketing").

Let's be very clear:

Network marketing is NOT (supposed to be) referral selling.

Network marketing (if done correctly), does NOT require you to buy things first (that's why "starter kits" are heavily frowned upon in modern MLM, when anything can be delivered in a day or two), unless you need it for your demonstrations and actual retail, and that's why there's refund policy in place.

If you are buying stuff FOR YOURSELF, and you are trying to find people who are also buying which gives you discount / commission on your order, you are essentially doing referral selling... WHICH IS ILLEGAL!

The same also applies to membership fees. Refer 3 people and your membership fee is waived. Oh, really? That's referral sales! Illegal! Yet people are persistently ignoring such warnings signs, with statements such as

The 3 and FREE or 5 and FREE or what ever and FREE are also industry standards and does not constitute a Pyramid.

The "3 and FREE" plan is "refer 3 people and your own membership fee is waived". When asked why this is not referral selling (illegal), all the guy can say is "well, I've seen it before, and it's launched by MLM veterans, so they must know what they are doing".

In other words, he had no clue why what he described is not illegal, he simply trusts that it is not, even when shown the law, as explained by MLM lawyers, that it is illegal.

Trusting fellow, ain't he?

NOTE: All quotes are taken from public comments on behindmlm.com for illustrative purposes only. Names have been removed to protect the innocent (and potentially stupid).

Recently, it was all over the news (cite 1) (cite 2) (cite 3) that former finalist for Miss England and FHM model Charlotte Thompson was "busted" selling 'slimming coffee' and got a visit from the UK Trading Standards Officers and told to stop her business. She went online to vent. But what you won't find in these news articles is WHY did Trading Standards make a visit to her home?

MLMSkeptic investigates this little conundrum, by exploring what Valentus did in the aftermath passing blame, then check the sources from Valentus itself, and the statements by Ms. Thompson, then checking the relevant UK laws and interpretations, to see if there is ANY hope for Valentus, in UK, and in rest of Europe.

Recently, when forced to address the issue, Valentus corporate "Director of International Registration", Terry Recknor, gave a webinar. Ms. Recknor initially blamed Ms. Thompson for spamming thousands of people, implying that was the reason for the visit from Trading Standards, but she soon dropped this bomb:

What you need to understand is, the products technically are illegal because we’re not registered yet.

This seems to imply that as soon as Valentus registered their products in the UK, then there would be no more problems. In the meanwhile, there are suggestions that recruitment in UK and rest of Europe are continuing as if nothing was wrong, despite warning from Ms. Thompson that dealing in Valentus is apparently illegal.

So, what is the truth? Let's investigate first, what does UK Trading Standards actually do? In the case of their visit to Ms. Thompson, it is to offer:

Business advice: Trading standards offer a range of business advice and enforcement policies for all traders and businesses. These range from issues regarding licensing to consumer protection laws.

So presumably, when you combine the various statements given by Ms. Thompson, Ms. Recknor, and explanations, one should conclude that

Valentus SlimRoast coffee needs to be registered in UK
Lack of registration is a violation of consumer protection laws
Ms. Thompson's spam alerted Trading Standards to let her know

But is this true? Searching UK Food Laws (Food Safety Act 1990, Food Standards Act 1999, and Food Hygiene Regulations 2006) brought up nothing about registering coffee or similar drink mixes and such. There had to be a different reason.

Which brings us back to "consumer protection", and what other areas does that cover. This was made clear at a different Trading Standards page:

We make sure that people are not misled by claims, prices, descriptions and other selling techniques used by traders when they are selling goods and services.

As it wasn't about registration, let us investigate whether Valentus made any misleading claims. But what constitutes misleading claims under UK law? As SlimRoast is about weight loss, I googled "weight loss claim UK", and that brought me to Advertising Standard Authority, or asa.org.uk and their guidance on slimming guidelines for the press (PDF).

On page 3 was a list of unacceptable claims, from which I quote:

Unacceptable claims

Claims that products can, for example, boost metabolism, inhibit dietary fat absorption, melt fat, soak up fat, break down fat, suppress appetite, block fat etc, are almost always unproven and are likely to break the Code. They may also be medicinal claims. Further advice can be sought from the MHRA (www.mhra.gov.uk).

CAP has seen no evidence that products containing the following can assist in weight loss: Aminopyline, Citrus Aurantia, Chitosan, Chromium Picolinate, CLA, Garcinia Cambogia, Guarana Extract, L-Carnitine, Lecithin, Ribose.

Did Valentus Make Unacceptable Claims?

Well, let's go check Valentus SlimRoast ingredients, shall we? So we have a basis for comparison. Strangely, an ingredient list was NOT available easily. It took me several bits of browsing to find the active ingredients hidden in the "health and safety FAQ", which I've taken a screenshot:

Valentus products contain Garcinia Cambogia, L Carnitine, and Chromium (picolinate)
as per buyslimroast.co.uk, a Valentus website.

If you compare it to the "unacceptable claims" list on the ASA website earlier, all three ingredients: Garcinia Cambogia, L-Carnitine, and Chromium (picolinate), according to CAP, have NO proven effect in weight loss, and thus any claims by Valentus that they can help lose weight are unacceptable claims.

Conclusion

Based on these easily found guidelines, it is clear that Valentus SlimRoast coffee is illegal, and will remain illegal in the UK for the foreseeable future unless it incorporates ingredients that are actually PROVEN to promote weight loss.

However, what is far more troubling, is that Valentus corporate, via Ms. Racknor, had engaged in a misinformation campaign hoping to divert attention from its illegal nature, implying that all it takes is for the business to register the products (with whom?) in UK to resolve the problem, when the problem stems from the very NATURE of the product.

Makes you wonder what ELSE are they hiding, doesn't it?

More than a month ago, I highlighted some spurious claims by (over-)enthusiastic IPro Network members claiming that some famous personalities have "endorsed" IPro Network.

Two anon comments were left claiming I know nothing, blah blah blah, but left NO evidence to rebut any of the observations. I invited them to leave publicly verifiable evidence, not "I know the secret call me" or "my friend told me" evidence.

It has been about a month, and I haven't gotten a single reply.

So I decided to go search for some myself. Is there any news that Kevin Harrington endorses IPN?

Google says... nope. Indeed, there is ZERO mention of Kevin Harrington with ANY sort of cryptocurrency or blockchain opportunity in the entire 2017 when searched via Google News.

Instead, it appears that in 2017, Kevin Harrington is jumping into soap, cannabis, marine phytoplankton (sea scum), and horse racing, not to mention lending his name to entrepreneur bootcamps and invention services. But nothing about cryptocurrency, and definitely not IPN.

Indeed, the ONLY webpages that mention Kevin Harrington and IProNetwork together are IPro Network members webpages (or social media) and event listings that mention his one-time appearance.

Yet this tweet is still there:

Kevin Harrington of shark tank endorses https://t.co/pnBqODzynX
The revolution is here!
Vid-https://t.co/sag7Ur2vh1 #bitcoin #proc #ipn
— IPRO NETWORK (@IPNCrypto) June 24, 2017

And here's a claim that Kevin Harrington has "JOINED" with Pro Currency Team (i.e. IPro Network)

"Kevin Harrington from the Original hit TV show (Shark Tank) Joins
With Pro Currency Team (IProNetwork)..." claims G+ post

https://plus.google.com/115931890863103213165/posts/VXckhxCjDJk

I am still waiting for the evidence, guys.

Spotted this in the Lifehacker archives (originally published 2012) but it's still relevant

The internet is full of crap. For every piece of reputable information you'll find countless rumors, misinformation, and downright falsehoods. Separating truth from fiction is equal parts a mental battle and diligent research. Here's how to make sure you never get duped.
As long as words are hitting the page, news and facts are filtered through someone. Sometimes this is a ludicrous rumor that somehow morphs into a fact, or even just a small tip that doesn't work at all. Filtering out the junk from the facts is hard, but it's not impossible.

http://lifehacker.com/5950871/how-to-spot-truth-in-the-sea-of-lies-rumors-and-myths-on-the-internet

A sports talk show radio host claims he has access to an almost unlimited amount of discounted major sports tickets, and he needed a lot of money to buy them in order to share the profits. Do you believe him?

A "hedge fund of the year" with 18 billion assets did, and it appears they have lost $4.3 million they put into two companies controlled by this talk show radio host.

You may think who'd believe this sort of stuff, or how can they be this stupid, but really, think about it...

Hedge funds, esp. fund of the year are NOT stupid.

However, there's no doubt that this is a ponzi scheme... When the Feds arrested the radio talk show host and uncovered a trove of communications between him and his co-conspirators, as well as evidence of his millions in gambling debt. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is the very definition of Ponzi scheme. This radio talk show host, who co-hosts with a VERY famous former NFL celebrity, had been accused with running this scheme.

Yet you can see this sort of argument proliferate in the "make money fast" market, and promoters use the language of "this can't possibly be a scam because it associated with _____", and this guy has it in spades. A famous hedge fund gave him millions of dollars. He co-hosts a show with a celebrity. He can't possibly be a scammer, right?

WRONG!

Lesson to take away: when someone tries to sell you something on reputation only, think VERY VERY HARD on it. The risk is probably much higher than you think.

Moving the goalpost is very simple to explain with a single image:

Moving the goalpost, courtesy of zapiro @ zapiro.com

If someone moves the goal post, you'll never to be able to score a goal.

So what does that have to do with scams? Two ways:

1) when scammers promised one thing, then moved the goalpost with some excuses, or

2) when scam deniers tried to deny the evidence of the scam by moving the goalpost.

Scammer Moving the Goalpost

Scam companies that promise an IPO (initial public offering) while offering stocks or options to affiliates are known to move the goalpost because the IPO either will never take place, or takes place but were completely useless. One such example was Wantong Miracle 萬通奇跡 scam in China, where a known scammer who launched multiple scams in China AND in the US seem to have finally been arrested by Chinese authorities.

Some suspect that recent attempts by Visalus to roll back the promised "founders equity incentive plan" may also be "moving the goalpost" after one side had already satisfied the requirements, only to be met with even MORE requirements from the other side or lose the supposed equity incentive they have gained, that a judge had to issue a restraining order.

OneCoin, which has been accused by multiple regulatory bodies on multiple continents of being a scam or a suspect scam, has repeated changed or delayed its IPO or ICO (depending on when you asked). In January and February 2017, OneCoin announced they will go IPO in "early 2018", then the date was moved to July 2018 according to a Chinese website on OneCoin. However, in September 2017, the news completely changed. Instead of IPO, affiliates of OneCoin claimed that OneCoin will conduct an ICO (initial coin offering) instead, and it will not be until October 2018. That's at least THREE delays in less than a year, and it's ALWAYS a year away.

"Always delay the day of reckoning" is a standard bull****er tactic.

Let's go onto our next topic, scam denier moving the goalpost

Scam Denier Moving the Goalpost

Scam deniers are people who deny that the scam is a scam, often in face of facts and logic. Clearly, you can't argue against logic without logical fallacies, and one often employed was moving the goalpost. Following is a summarized and edited version of actual dialog I had with a scam denier:

A: Acme XYZ is not a Ponzi! It does not promise return!

B: Acme XYZ doesn't need to promise a return to be a Ponzi. Other Ponzis didn't.

A: Acme XYZ is not a Ponzi because it cannot collapse because it only shares 50% of its profits. (move #1)

B: Acme XYZ's "profit" is generated by affiliates reinvesting the money. When affiliates wanted to pull the money out, profits will shrink. When affiliates go to 100% withdrawal, there is no more profit to share.

A: Acme XYZ uses bids linked to real money, not imaginary money, so it's not a Ponzi. (move #2)

B: Ponzi has nothing to do with "imaginary money". See legal definition.

A: Acme XYZ is not a Ponzi because Ponzi can't pay everybody. There are NO reports of people not getting paid by Acme XYZ. (move #3)

B: Uh, there was one reported the day before... Not to mention getting paid doesn't prove anything. (Madoff Ponzi paid for a decade)

A: That's an "obviously brand new affiliate..." (who don't know what he's doing) (move #4)

Note how A reacted to being refuted. He simply moves the goalpost, never conceding his point. He used most of the bad arguments outlined here.

Another possibility goes like this:

A: Acme XYZ is not a scam!

B: Countries (), (), and () say it is.

A: It's just the local affiliates doing it wrong! Acme XYZ is fine!

B: That's not what the warning / judgment says.

A: It's just a misunderstanding! It's just missing some registration papers!

B: The charges are violation of laws (), (), and () which has nothing to do with registration

And this goes back and forth...

What to do about others moving the goalpost?

If it's a suspect scam, the winning move, much like Wargames, is "not to play". After all, why play a rigged game where you can never win? How much crap are you going to take?

If it's a discussion, and your opponent chose to move the goalpost, point it out, then ask if your opponent chooses to concede that point. Every point he brought up, answer it, but remind him "so what do you say about that previous topic of ______"? Do not lose your cool, but if this keeps up, you can start acting a bit condescending. "Have you greased your goalposts today?" or such. Sooner or later your opponent will tire of losing and leave, or hopefully start really contemplate what sort of beliefs he's holding.

MLM Veteran on answering MLM income question: Be evasive

Bad Propaganda: "Alternative Facts" about MLM

Two Ponzi Scammers Got Their Prison Sentences Handed Down...

Scam Psychology: Crank Magnetism and Sheeple Magnetism

Why should you trust your upline if s/he is making money off of you whether you fail or succeed?

HUMOR: How to get rid of people who want to rope you into "make money fast" schemes

Overpromise and Underdeliver: the HELO band

More HELO band hilarity: it can read your wrist when you're not wearing it

IPro Network (IPN) and the MLM Game of Telephone: garble up the message to sound better

DSA's latest attempt to destroy direct selling: Moolenaar Amendment

Wareable agrees: HELO LX is overpriced and should be avoided

What you can learn from the EuroFX scam that targetted Chinese victims