The halvening was just around the corner and the likelihood is that Andreas just timed his 2019 re-launching as an occasion to siphon away monies from the Ponzi scheme to invest them on the wider markets. This seems to be the main reason they were relaunching despite earlier failures. It could be that there had been no failures at all. The scam was just rebooting for a 2.0 shakedown. His promotional material provided to the community he was actively recruiting included a London address and a UK phone number which was hardly picked up when called. All London registered companies maintain a modicum of information with the government and I wondered if searches using the government’s webs might turn up something.
The halvening was coming and everybody wanted a pot of money to play on the markets with.
This bit just flew over my friends heads when I tried to describe it. I tried still.
Bitcoin as the king of cryptos rules the prices. In terms of circulation and market capitalisation, it was at the top of the ranking. Now, Bitcoin is mined and so at regular periods, miners compete with their systems and rigs (think of well-designed smart electrical devices) for the opportunity to solve complex mathematical problems(hashes). They do this in order to confirm or validate transactions placed on the Bitcoin network (or blockchain). They work with these rigs plugged into computers. Therefore, mining runs on electricity, same as computers. Those miners who solve the hashes successfully are said to have solved a block and are awarded a reward of 12.5 or Bitcoin/BTC (from 2016 to 2020). Strictly, the halvening relates to this supply of Bitcoin every time a miner is rewarded and the inventor of Bitcoin stipulated that this regular supply of Bitcoin be halved every four years, which is where the idea of the halving or halvening stems from.
During May 2020, that award of Bitcoin was going to be halved to 6.25 Bitcoin. Which becomes the size of the new block-reward. This artificial, but hard-coded devaluing of the ‘award’ size drives up the price of Bitcoin or specifically the price of unitary Bitcoin (i.e 1 BTC) which in turn increases the demand and competition for it. The demand curve of Bitcoin follows some obscure law of economics too. It mirrors the demand curve of ostentatious goods. Typically, the more the price of such goods the more quantity demanded, which some may well deem abnormal but quite fine in the world of Bitcoin . This relates to Andreas’ motives in specifically the following way. In 2016, during the last halving (I am going to start calling it that - halvening is too geeky and a mouthful to pronounce) and for some time after that, the price of Bitcoin skyrocketed and achieved an all-time high. It dragged the prices of all the other cryptos up with it and there was such a mad scramble. Many people (including Andreas obviously) felt this was about to happen again.
And this more than anything would be responsible for the relaunch of Super.One and the lockdown conditions created by the coronavirus, ensured that people were listless and desirous enough of anything that might cure their boredom. Also at least it got them to the place where they could hear the pitches – online. This was lengthy and although I had gone to some length in explaining, nobody was listening.
I am naturally curious so I knew that I definitely would search so off to the gov’s websites I went. I found corroborating evidence that Andreas Christensen was not only the founder of Super.One but that Super.One was going to be stricken off the register of companies as lately as January 2020. Admittedly, the company had salvaged its position in the eyes of the registrar of companies and action to be stricken off got called off. I post the cropped ‘photo’ of this notice here, following the demand curve for ostentatious goods in the study of Economics.
The fact that Super.One was nearly stricken off the books early this year was rather inconsistent with the information being given would be ‘investors’ about the standing of the company. This wasn’t a company about to launch operations. Another thing was: contrary to information provided about the existence of a team, there appeared to be no team ‘shown’ on the documents I reviewed. Super.One appeared to be someone’s solo project. There were other worrying signs. Since a majority of those who contacted me about this opportunity did so on Facebook or through Messenger, I was keen to show them the results of my digs. I made a related Facebook post the very next day.
