Friday, November 22, 2024
Home > News > Cryptocurrency Market > AMFEIX Threatens Users Who Share Coverage That Criticizes the Company

AMFEIX Threatens Users Who Share Coverage That Criticizes the Company

Last week Cryptox published a story about investors having difficulty getting their money back from a crypto fund called AMFEIX, which promised high-yield profits for investors who sent them Bitcoin (BTC). Our story described more than 500 pending withdrawals from users trying to get their money back, and AMFEIX’s unsatisfactory communication with those users.

The company addressed its users via its official Telegram channel after the story was published, suggesting that the withdrawal delays were due to technical difficulties that had been an issue since May. It also stated that “members who show loyalty to AMFEIX will have priority” in the withdrawal process. The unspoken suggestion is that those who share unflattering coverage of the company won’t see their money returned in a timely fashion.

Two hours after that first article was published, AMFEIX distributed a new white paper describing several new policies that were previously undocumented. Most notably it included a clause about defamation, and the company started contacting individuals from its corporate Telegram account to inform them they were in violation.

Here’s what people received from the company, whether they shared unflattering coverage or not:

You are in violation of policies:

28. AMFEIX reserves the right to ban users if suspected of defamation.

To rectify the defamation situation an apology from the author (in the form of an article, published on official cointelegraph accounts), and removal of the current article will be necessary. Until it has not been resolved the verification process will have a perpetual pending status on the above addresses.

At least three self-identified AMFEIX investors contacted Cryptox staff to ask that the article be removed because AMFEIX wanted it done. As of press time, the company has not responded to Cryptox’s request for comment on the article published on Wednesday.

Source