AMFEIX threatens users to share an article that criticizes the company

Last week, Cointelegraph published a story about investors struggling to get their money back from a crypto fund called AMFEIX, which promised high returns to investors who sent them Bitcoin (BTC). Our story describes over 500 pending withdrawals from users trying to get their money back and AMFEIX’s unsatisfactory communication with these users.

The company turned to its users after its story was published via its official telegram channel, suggesting that the delays in withdrawals are due to technical difficulties they have had since May. He also explained that “Members who are loyal to AMFEIX have priority” when withdrawing funds. The unspoken deduction is that those who share unflattering coverage from the company won’t get their money back carefully.


AMFEIX threatens users to share an article that criticizes the company
AMFEIX threatens users to share an article that criticizes the company

Two hours after the publication of this first article, AMFEIX has released a new white paper that describes several new guidelines that were not previously documented. In particular, it included a defamation clause, and the company began contacting people through its corporate telegram account to inform them that they were violating this clause.

This is what people got from the company, whether or not they shared unflattering coverage:

You violate the guidelines:

28. AMFEIX reserves the right to ban users if there is suspicion of defamation.

To correct the defamation situation, an apology from the author is required (in the form of an article published in official Cointelegraph accounts) and it is necessary to delete the current article. Until the resolution has been resolved, the review process, according to the previous information, has an unlimited status.

At least three self-identified AMFEIX investors contacted Cointelegraph employees to request removal of the item because AMFEIX requested this. At the time of going to press, the company has not responded to Cointelegraph’s request for comment on the Wednesday article.

Similar Posts