Thread: FlexKom aka Flexcom aka Weeconomy - legitimate MLM or scam ??

Originally Posted by NikSam

Dear MLM-shill justlogicnohate (or should i call you Micah:) )

would you mind please explain to everybody here your role in this pyramid ?

including disclosure if you are being employed, paid, contracted or more than just a participant of a kind.

JLNH is fine.

And I would answer your question if I understood your terminology.

Just wanted to clarify something, on Google+ your profile says you work at FlexKom,
on your pimping site it says you and Jason are "FlexKom Global Team Members / US Regional Coordinators & Sales Managers"
on your facebook it says you are CEO at "Geeks Own Technology" and you like cash cyclers (Rocket cash Cycler, Ultimate Power Profits, ...),
on your other facebook it says you work at "Runway Textile",
on your youtube you are sitting together and talking with Asker Sakinmaz.


just wondering.
Who are you exactly at flexkom (other than a sucker who bought "Global Team Member" license)?

Originally Posted by NikSam

Just wanted to clarify something, on Google+ your profile says you work at FlexKom,
on your pimping site it says you and Jason are "FlexKom Global Team Members / US Regional Coordinators & Sales Managers"
on your facebook it says you are CEO at "Geeks Own Technology" and you like cash cyclers (Rocket cash Cycler, Ultimate Power Profits, ...),
on your other facebook it says you work at "Runway Textile",
on your youtube you are sitting together and talking with Asker Sakinmaz.






just wondering.
Who are you exactly at flexkom (other than a sucker who bought "Global Team Member" license)?

hahahahahahahahaha good try!!

Now what part do you play in this Hexagon again?

Originally Posted by justlogicnohate

hahahahahahahahaha good try!!

It's called skill, talent and perseverance.

Three things that are sadly lacking in the "justnonsensenologic" household, judging by what you choose to promote..

Originally Posted by NikSam

Just wanted to clarify something, on Google+ your profile says you work at FlexKom,
on your pimping site it says you and Jason are "FlexKom Global Team Members / US Regional Coordinators & Sales Managers"
on your facebook it says you are CEO at "Geeks Own Technology" and you like cash cyclers (Rocket cash Cycler, Ultimate Power Profits, ...),
on your other facebook it says you work at "Runway Textile",
on your youtube you are sitting together and talking with Asker Sakinmaz.

Originally Posted by NikSam

other thing, why do you need 4 (maybe more) Google+ accounts ?
do you create new one every time you forgot your password or you prefer to keep different things you pimp in different places?

How did you find these profiles and how do you know that this is the same guy? Don't see any links listed by justhatenologic's profile on this forum?

Originally Posted by freighttrain

How did you find these profiles and how do you know that this is the same guy? Don't see any links listed by justhatenologic's profile on this forum?

Maybe i am Hexagon voodoo master or "scam blogger"/ "shyster" / "scammer myself" how Micah likes to call us here.

Originally Posted by NikSam

@ Micah Theard
Just wanted to clarify something, on Google+ your profile says you work at FlexKom,
on your pimping site it says you and Jason are "FlexKom Global Team Members / US Regional Coordinators & Sales Managers"
on your facebook it says you are CEO at "Geeks Own Technology" and you like cash cyclers (Rocket cash Cycler, Ultimate Power Profits, ...),
on your other facebook it says you work at "Runway Textile",
on your youtube you are sitting together and talking with Asker Sakinmaz.


just wondering.
Who are you exactly at flexkom (other than a sucker who bought "Global Team Member" license)?

A pimp will always be a pimp.

A serial ponzi and MLM pimp Micah Theard, now sanitized himself from anything FlexScam and now pimps (guess what?) - OneCoin Ponzi :)

From https://bitconnect.co/bitcoin-news/9...-fresh-souls/:

micah_onecoin_1.jpg


micah_onecoin_2.jpg
URL: http://vc.digicoinpro.com/mtheard


Man, this moron is seriously dumb, Cannot even pick a promising scam to pimp before its dead

Hey Niksam, what is your role in this hexagon?

Employed, paid by competing companies. Working for The Islamic Fettulah movement.

Maybe just a silly hobby....:-)))

No, just locking scammers up from time to time.

Micah, I do not know what kind of voodoo you talking about, what do you refer by "Hexagon" ?

other thing, why do you need 4 (maybe more) Google+ accounts ?
do you create new one every time you forgot your password or you prefer to keep different things you pimp in different places?

As a graduate in economics, this is my thought process in considering this subject:

Vendor A has an item to sell - a widget. There is a minimum price he/she will accept; of course he/she would prefer more.
Punter B wants a widget. There is a maximum he/she will pay; of course he would prefer less.

Simple situation #1: Vendor A and punter B meet face to face, either by chance, by prior knowledge, by going to a known location, such as a market or high street (or ebay)

No other person, company or agent is required - they talk, they agree a price (or fail to agree) and a sale is made or not.
(For efficiency, retailers often fix their price and advertise it - saves time for everyone, for routine purchases.)

In this simple situation, *any* additional agent is actually parasitic upon the hard work of both A and B (for example, sales taxes or VAT)

Complex situation #1: Vendor A or punter B don't know that the other exists. Or perhaps all the A's that B meets, or all the B's that A meets can't agree the price.

Assuming that somewhere out there is an A to match the B, at this price, how do you find them?
This is where an additional agency comes in. For example, vendor A can advertise his widgets - in the local newpaper, a sign in the street, via a website, word of mouth, or even through an agency (for example, estate agent, recruitment agent, etc)

In this situation, the 3rd agent will take a cut of the wealth of both A and B, perhaps an agreed percentage. In this situation the 3rd agent should not be considered parasitic - for they have brought something necessary and valuable to the table: information. Without the information, the trade could not have happened, and to be fair, the 3rd agent probably had to do some work to facilitate provision of the information.

For these following scenarios, punter B is not actively seeking a widget, or rather his/her willingness to pay is too low.
Simple situation #2: Vendor A, sells widgets. He/she is not making sales - failing to find sufficient punters B as above, and wants to shift this stock. Vendor A wants to persuade punter B to buy a widget that he might not otherwise buy.

When eventually A and B agree a price, vendor A has had to lower his/her minimum price he/she will accept. Vendor A doesn't really want to do this, but has no choice. A 50% loss on stock is better than a 100% loss.
Vendor A vows to him/herself to make better decisions about stock purchases and his/her guesses of what the market is like.

Alternatively, perhaps vendor A's discount is an ongoing situation, in order to reach a certain market, for example, a student or old-age discount. In this situation, the discount CANNOT be at a loss, because it is not a one-off, but an ongoing situation. A discount that's too steep is better off not being given at all. Vendor A has to assess whether it's worth it going after that market sector.

In this situation, there is no 3rd agent, it's just that there is an additional cost, for vendor A, to running the business. Punter B is better off monetarily from this - BUT is not necessarily more wealthy, because that would assume that punter B *really wanted* the widget (as in Simple Situation #1 above)
When I bought my biker leathers for £350 instead of £500, I was more wealthy, because I was looking for leathers and would have bought some anyway (it's also a once in a lifetime purchase).
When my wife came home with her 30th pair of shoes because "they were in a sale" .. ok, let's not get into that discussion ;-)

Complex Situation #2
Vendor A is persuaded by a 3rd agent (advertising, VISA services, window cleaning) that he/she should pay for that agent's services. Vendor A now has increased costs to the business. Vendor A has to decide if it's worth it. Advertising pulls in punters. Visa makes it easier for punter B to pay = increases likelihood of a sale. Window cleaning makes the shop more attractive and pleasant to enter.

What about a service that, for whatever reason, doesn't deliver? For example, advertising that fails to pull in punters. For example - a local magazine that doesn't have quite the circulation promised, or perhaps some "SEO services" that promise "you'll be No#1 on Google, but you have to wait 6 months for it to work".

The wise vendor A will acknowledge their mistake, learn from it, write off the loss, and move on.

But what if that 3rd agent "service" has vendor A "locked in"? This gets interesting.
For example, every punter that comes in from the failed magazine must be given a discount at a loss to vendor A?
Sometimes this is done: "35% off 1st purchase" or something.
If the magazine doesn't pull in the punters, only the purchase of the advert is lost.
If the magazine works, then the discounts are given and vendor A hopes to keep all the punters B that come in as customers.
Ok, still all fairly inert. Some decisions work, some don't. Small business is often trial and error like this.

But in a magazine that doesn't have the circulation, or isn't working, what if they say:
"If you advertise with us, we will give you a cut of every trade made off the back of *every other* advert in the magazine."
Sounds good doesn't it?
But you have to reverse the flow: for every punter coming to vendor A for a widget, via the magazine, by what mechanism does vendor C (the local horse-riding school - also advertising in that mag) get their promised cut?
Answer: by taking a cut from the trade for a widget between A and B. Would this cut be parasitic (as in sales tax) or deserved (as in a required business cost for information and facilitating a trade which would not have otherwise happened) ?

Why does the horse-riding school deserve a cut? Is it because they paid money to the mag, for an advert, thereby helping to keep the mag in business, so that the mag can do its job of pulling in punters for all the advertising businesses?
Sound convincing to you?
Not me. This extra artificial injected construct sounds fishy to me.
Either the mag has the necessary circulation *innately* or it doesn't. Either it pulls in the punters or it doesn't.
A magazine (in my area there are a number of these free local mags get put through your door) will have to do or create *something* of value, to add to the exchange. Maybe it writes good articles and editorials. Maybe it screens the businesses so well, that punters feel stress-free about trusting those businesses. Maybe it simply has massive circulation - such as Google or Facebook.
But something about the quality of the mag is such that makes the punters *want* to be exposed to those adverts.

How do you judge such quality?
Well, that's a fuzzy thing, probably having much to do with the business sector, but perhaps includes such things as brand reputation, eg Google vs Lycos (remember them?) or for smaller 3rd agents, maybe it's a judgement call about the people running it themselves, such as who is it who writes the editorials for that advertising free-mag? Or maybe personal reputation, for example, Virgin's brand rests a great deal on Richard Branson's personality and likeableness.

However you judge it, a component part will be to do with how other people judge it - in other words, the word-of-mouth / viral factor.
This component is so important, in fact, that some companies spend money & effort trying to force the viral factor. Done with skill this may work. Done badly, it can backfire so bad that a company goes bust almost overnight. (Of course, an engineered viral factor is slightly an oxymoron, but some brands could be said to achieve it - for an example, google "chipotle scarecrow")

What of a company were trying to spontaneously create such situation? ie, having no *innate* quality factor, they simply believe that being big enough is good enough, and therefore specifically target circulation size as the cause of popularity and viral factor above all else. In other words, try to make a service popular by saying it's popular. Would there be workability to this?

I don't know about that, but what I do know is that _if_ it's going to work, that company would have to reach a critical mass of circulation before it would be workable. To achieve that, it all rests on persuading enough punters to receive copies of the mag, and enough vendors to advertise, all in one big push.

Part of that would be trying to create a self-proving situation, where if enough people think it will be big enough, then they'll sign up and so it will be.
But is that how Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple, etc got big? Did people start buying iPhones *purely* because they wanted to be compatible with everyone else who would also be buying iPhones (they believed)?

Perhaps we need something more than that, to persuade people to sign-up. Having no *innate* quality, we come back to the gimmick of:
"If you advertise with us, we will give you a cut of every trade made off the back of *every other* advert in the magazine."

Is this gimmick a suitable, workable injection of quality into the trade equation to switch that 3rd agent from being a parasite, to being an enabler of trade?
It sounds enticing because everyone loves free money. But is it a bona fide "value add"?

My answer is: NO!

Why? Because the "value add" is coming from another vendor, and another trade.
The cash back that vendor A gets, and the cash back that punter B gets, come from that horse-riding school and other vendors and punters.
In other words, whilst on *this* trade, A gives a discount to B, and has to give the advertiser a slice, and therefore loses out, the "value add" in the form of cash coming in to A is not only nebulous and unquantifiable, but it relies on vendor C's loss to exist at all.

The 3rd agent has created an APPARENCY of "value add" by displacing the location of the loss. It appears to add value to the trade of persons A & B only when you consider persons A & B and don't look at the wider scope. The moment you consider all of those people together, all making trades via this 3rd agent, it can be seen that the 3rd agent remains parasitic.

And what of the "critical mass" factor? What if the 3rd agent does indeed become as big as Google?
Imagine a town where *everyone* was signed up to FlexKom. That means that EVERY TRADE GIVE FLEXKOM A SLICE. And in exchange for what?
Is it for the enabling factor of added information? After all, that's what businesses are willing to pay Google Ad for.
But with Google, the business pays PER CLICK, NOT PER TRADE. Google Ads pulls in new punters. Existing punters don't need pulling in.
And a business isn't locked in to Google.

Ok, maybe vendor A isn't locked in, because they don' t have to offer discounts to B via FlexKom. But in that case vendor C gets no cash back (passive income) from the trade of A & B.
Actually, vendor A IS LOCKED IN, because he's obliged to honour FlexMoney that vendor C offers when buying a widget.
Or if he isn't obliged to honour FlexMoney purchases, then FlexMoney collapses as a currency.

So you get either:
Endgame A) Businesses are all offering discounts and "trying out" the FlexKom system, so vendor A is giving some of punter B's money (paid for the widget) to FlexKom, and vendor C gets some FlexMoney out of that, which he can spend with vendor A, for a widget which vendor A bought for real money from the wholesaler. In other words, vendor A has been duped into giving away widgets for free. He thinks he's getting value because the cash flows on this circuitous route via vendor C. And each iteration of that circuit, FlexKom takes their cut.

It cannot sustain. So we get:

Endgame B) Businesses have all paid for a FlexKom terminal, but don't want to offer discounts, so there's no cash back being given and no FlexMoney circulating, and the thing just sits there as an unused piece of expensive electronics taking up space.

Meanwhile, FlexKom walk off with all the REAL money, whilst giving away lots of FlexMoney, which costs not FlexKom, but the vendors.


And all the while it looks SO CONVINCING, because there's always these arguments for why the 3rd agent is an enabler, not a parasite. That it's injecting into the economy, not leeching.

And the whisper echoes down the ages and the hotel conference rooms and the internet forums .... "Just wait until they get big, then you'll see."

Anyone recognize the gentleman with the British accent ??

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Anyone recognize the gentleman with the British accent ??

Jason L. Davis (a Micah partner in flexkom crime)

Well, if our recent defender of Flexcom is indeed Micah Theard, I'd like him to explain an older networking connection of his. Lori Arzamendi, who Micah shared a giant check with (possibly Empower Network?) some 2-3 years ago. Lori, who was hit with selling unregistered securities by the State of Missouri in 2011.

The FlexKom Global Team page on Facebook

There's a question I've been wondering to myself, regarding the very top or "inner" core of FlexKom (ie. Cengiz Ehliz et al.) or indeed Banners Broker or anything similar.

Lower down the ladder it's very plain to me that those jumping on board do really believe they're joining a workable system. Although they cascade and spread the deception, and increase the number of victims, I regard them as more guilty of naivety and business negligence than anything else.

But the guys at the top: do they really believe they have created a workable system? or do they jolly well know it's unworkable, but also know they can spin it for while, and certainly long enough to acquire for themselves a pretty sum in some tax haven somewhere?

In other words, are they criminal, or just stupid?

Of course, from a certain philosophic viewpoint, criminality and stupidity go hand in glove.

Perhaps the answer is that they think: "It might work, maybe not, but who cares, as long as it *looks like* it works, for long enough."

I guess it's a psychological thing. If you just keep telling lies all the time, it's just a matter of time before you actually start believing your own lies. I am really sure that there are enough people at the top of Flexkom who know that it is not quite a healty business they are running. Also, if you look at the resume of people like Ian Driscoll, Mark Stokes, Asker Sakinmaz, Chengiz Ehliz, Karl Roller; they just keep jumping on and on between pyramids and ponzi's.

But a lot (and I mean really a lot) of people really believe these guys. They sometimes even worship them. This must give these guys the idea that what they are doing is right. Why else would these people be so happy for them and their business?

But I do think that what these guys are doing is definitely criminal. They keep their eyes closed to all the victims they make. Remind you; for every person that is happy with the piramid scheme, there has to be at least 2 to up to whoever knows how many people who are unstatified with their investment in the scheme. That's because in order to make money off the piramid scheme, you have to recruit others. These others also have to recruit others. Well, you all know how the piramid schem works.

People lower down the ladder are not really criminal people in my opinion. At least, not for the fact that they believed the story told to them and paid money for it, or even recruiting others because they honestly believed that it would be a legit business. Maybe these people do have to get some lessons in business and psychology, so that they know that they were a bit naive and they do not fall for these scams again. Because I have met people who just kept falling for the same sort of scams. These people were in high debt and kept hoping for the golden egg, if they just paid the entrance fee for the scam. Then they'd believe that they make these huge amounts of money to pay off al their debts.

Does anyone know anything about Peter Grünewald ?

I work in IT, and I'm fairly used to looking up colleagues and CTO's on LinkedIn, etc

I wanted to assess his technical background to perhaps understand with more reality the "roll-out" of their phone app, and the infrastructure needed to support the POS terminals; but I can't find out anything about him that's not FlexKom related.

FlexKom Strengthens its Corporate Management
FlexKom International Holding AG

Originally Posted by Stewart

Does anyone know anything about Peter Grünewald ?

http://www.harich.de/blog/wp-content...au_02.2012.pdf

Perhaps one of our readers will recognize him:

I see Mr. Bean is CFO.......

2004/2010 he was highly involved in other bankrupt concepts of the visionary mister Ehliz: Innoflex, Germanwys, IQ City, Lifestyle Club, Tivibo, …. I don’t think that mr. Grunewald has a glorious past in telecommunication.
http://cheliz.de/wp-content/uploads/...-Germanway.pdf


New on Facebook: “Flexkom is only for the smart people. Dumb people won't understand Flexkom. Therefore there are only smart people involved in Flexkom. Are you smart enough to join our cult?”
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Flexk...14665971913613

"Dear FlexKom Partner, we have just surpassed another record month! In September, together we have realized the thus far strongest month in terms of sales since the start of FlexKom Europe......." ................. Record sales without product = pyramid :)

Complete newsletter FB Flexkom Planet Earth (October 14)
https://www.facebook.com/flexkomrulersoftheuniverse

*******
*******

FLEXKOM REVIEW AFTER 12 MONTHS - IS FLEXKOM A SCAM OR REAL BUSINESS?

Flexkobi | Online Company Review - Online Business News And Reviews 2013

Karl Roller (CEO Flexkom USA) seems to have jumped ship last weekend. Last weekend also happens to be the weekend that Flexkom had announced to go live in most EU countries. Unfortunally, nothing happened. No start of phase 3, grand opening whatsoever, no Flexkom shops opened, no nothing. Coincidence? I think not.