I am following up on my post the other day about the recent breakout of the Pro Currency (PROC) cryptocurrency from about $0.02 all the way to $0.185 before pulling back and now $0.11 as I type. The earlier post was generally positive, giving the positive reasons why this may be happening. This post will be generally negative, giving the risks involved in PROC and its marketing mlm arm, iPro Network (IPN).
I have been a member of IPN for maybe nine months, and my experience has been positive. There was a time during the first half of 2017 while the company was absorbing the downline from another mlm business (OneLife) that bonus volume and commissions were not forthcoming, but that seemed to resolve during the fall (at least as far as bonus volume showing up in the back office). I have seen the company behave honorably and generously several times as various hiccups and support tickets were resolved.
The software that the company claimed to be developing (online shopping rebate app, and a cryptocurrency wallet) all seems to work as promised. And PROC really does seem to be on a blockchain. I actually had the experience of struggling with a corrupted wallet that showed a $0 balance and seeing it restore over the course of 24 hours or so the correct balance seemingly from online sources. It looked like it was proving up the wallet balance against a distributed blockchain. But I have not looked at any code or have any real proof of that.
So after I finished my post the other day, as I was wrapping up some loose ends, I stumbled on some scary testimony by Elisha Jancik, a terminated member of IPN who had been recruited pretty high up in the distributorship. He posted two videos on YouTube, which are below with my comments.
In part one, above, we have Elisha Jancik explaining how Daniel Pacheco’s IPN distributorship team does business. Most of the team came into IPN from the OneLife network. OneLife had been operating within the U.S. in “pre-launch” mode but had decided to pull out, leaving the U.S. team hanging. Leadership in the U.S. OneLife Team negotiated entry into IPN or creation of IPN through negotiations with ProCommerce. Elisha considers the fact that IPN operated exclusively in the U.S. (at the time of his video) as dubious, but hey, everybody has to start somewhere, so I don’t buy that.
The company didn’t pay commissions for the first nine months of operation, until the fall of 2017. It looks to me as though it has since caught up – at least in my account and my team’s. But I am not talking about extracting cash from commissions that show in the back office. I haven’t tried that.
Elisha feels that Daniel and Elisha’s sponsor, Bishop Stewart, were intentionally stealing money by taking money in but not making good on their promises to pay out. He makes a good case that Daniel, who unfortunately now serves as president of the IPN Team from his office in Irvine, California, actually was stealing money from his downline. It sounds like he was taking money and not entering it into anyone’s account.
Elisha is concerned that the original “world famous” CEO of IPN, Armando Contreras, is no longer with IPN and online searches for this individual indicate he is more invisible than he is famous. I see their website still listing him as CEO, but that website may not be up to date, which is kind of a red flag in itself. The company offers a resource site, and a support site, both of which are definitely out of date – a red flag.
Elisha says that there is no IPN office in England (while their website shows an address there) and that their California office is staffed with just one person: Daniel Pacheco, master distributor and president (possibly a ”self-appointed” title) of IPN in America. He doesn’t say how he knows about these two offices, but my impression is that he is local to Irvine and would know about the office there at least. He doesn’t mention the IPN Delaware address.
Elisha tells us his history with IPN. He joined IPN as they were first starting up and were not yet paying out yet on their promised commissions. He stuck it out as long as he could while building what would now be a lucrative team if he were still with IPN. During this time, he recruited an Asian man. I will call him Lee – not his real name. Lee was concerned that his group would not get paid, since pretty much no one was at the time. But he jumped in, and paid cash. As the company started paying commissions, Elisha wasn’t yet getting paid and saw no bonus volume in his back office on which commissions could be paid. He suspected that the leadership was just throwing cash around where they needed to to keep lucrative legs on board.
As I remember those days, the company established bonus volume and paid commissions to the top leaders first and then worked their way down the distributorship structure. This would have been necessary due to the nature of the data associated with a multi-level downline. I think it is entirely possible that while this was happening, as a stop-gap, leadership was throwing cash at problem groups to keep them on board. At this point, Elisha told Lee that he was having second thoughts, and Lee went to Daniel and Bishop and asked for his cash back. It had not yet even been uploaded into the system (although it should have been), but they would not refund it.
At this point Elisha had been running out of money and Daniel and Bishop suggested he get a side job to hold him over until payouts commenced. Elisha is a professional network marketer, and so he found another mlm company to promote. When Daniel and Bishop found this out, they began discrediting Elisha to his team leaders and wiring them money in order to keep them from jumping ship. This was not authentic commissions paid through the system. Elisha says these leaders had no bonus volume in their back offices, so this was clearly stop-gap slush funds. Meanwhile, Daniel’s wife was dipping in the till. Elisha himself received no money and the Asian team became re-branded as “Bishop’s” Asian team. Elisha was soon terminated as an IPN associate.
Next he talks about the cryptocurrency token, PROC, that IPN promotes. Here he becomes misleading due to some inaccuracies. He talks about the ICO selling billions of coins at $0.04. That didn’t happen. There will, over 10-15 years be 15 billion pre-mined PROC released to circulation. They are held in escrow in cold storage. Presently, maybe six months after the ICO, there are only 96 million trading. The White Paper says that ultimately 75 billion tokens will be mined. I don’t know whether the 75 billion still applies, because CoinMarketCap shows total supply as 15 billion.
He says that during the “pre-ICO” they were selling coins for $0.04. Just as clarification they started the ICO at I think $0.025 and with the price rising a few times during the ICO until in last weeks of the ICO it was offered at $0.04. Maybe there was a pre-ICO that I am not aware of. At any rate, during the ICO the process to get PROC that I knew about was to become a member and buy an educational package. With any package purchased, IPN gave a minimum 100% rebate in the form of Pro Rewards. These were scheduled to become PROC at the given ICO offering rate. I say scheduled, because 5% of Pro Rewards become convertible to PROC after 30 days, and then another 5% each week until they all converted. That is the present schedule. I don’t remember whether it was different then. So the PROC being acquired this way during the ICO could not be traded right away. I also don’t know whether or how many PROC were sold directly through the ICO outside of IPN membership, which could have been tradable immediately.
During this time PROC was not generally trading (or at least members couldn’t trade their ripening Pro Rewards), but somehow a price was being listed on Coin Market Cap and the price shown there rose to the $0.50 range. Elisha says that this price was “only because they weren’t paying out.” I think he is referring to the company’s Pro Rewards policy I just described and that it was not yet possible for the members at large to sell their PROC and thus cash out.
Maybe a very few bought into the ICO outside of IPN membership and were trading it. I always suspected that during that time a few “staff members” or “team leaders” were given special rights to trade a few coins between their own selves as a “test” and conveniently the price went really high. As soon as it actually began trading or began trading in any real volume, it began drifting down, until at the time of Elisha’s videos it was around $0.02.
Elisha says that, “no sooner did they let people actually take their money out, did the coin value start to fall.” True, if he is referring to the commencement of trading. That doesn’t mean, though, that IPN or ProCommerce intended this result from the outset.
Elisha also says near the end of his video that use of PROC is restricted to only a portion of one’s holding. This is not true. Once Pro Rewards are transferred by the member from the back office to their wallet (a free download) any and all of them can be traded between wallets or on Cryptopia or on C-Cex at any time (I haven’t tried to do this yet). It is just that if you recieve Pro Rewards for purchase of an education package it takes 160 days for all of it to become tradable PROC.
At any rate, at the end of the ICO, once PROC was being traded by members at large, it drifted down. Elisha surmises that the IPN team is thinking that with the coin at just $0.02 (at the time of his video) they have to keep promoting this company to get that price up so they can get their money out. Well, really with regard to PROC that was always the plan. The hope is that there is actually something valuable to promote – as in a cryptocurrency ecosystem using PROC that revolves around online retail trade of goods and services among the general public. Such an ecosystem would have real value and the price of PROC would rise to reflect that.
And speaking of a retail ecosystem, Elisha disparages PROC as being a “rent-seeking token” like Chucky Cheese tokens, saying that PROC can only be used to buy stuff the company sells. Really, the answer to that complaint lies in Phase II of the company’s business plan. This phase is only just beginning to emerge over a month after Elisha made his videos. Phase II involves online stores accepting PROC in payment for their goods. With recent events, a couple of mlm networks have announced they will accept PROC in payment for their products. Phase II should move forward with more announcements beginning January 19 when the SinglePoint national TV promotion begins. This is the birth of a real economy for PROC. It could be a still-birth, or a live birth. We will have to see how the product is accepted. If it is a still birth, PROC will probably flame out. If successful, PROC will go up. I don’t know how much.
Elisha, in closing his Part 1, implies that the blockchain community is not talking about PROC but it is being promoted only by network marketers. I don’t know what the blockchain programming community thinks of PROC. There are things about PROC that Crypto purists won’t like. But I do know that the Pro Commerce business plan is to bring PROC out of the rarified climate of blockchain technicians and to the general public. They decided to use network marketing to do that. Elisha sees network marketers who know nothing about blockchain, “riding on the bitcoin name,” as a red flag. But it is the natural, if unfortunate, result of an intentional plan to attract interest from outside the realm of blockchain aficionados.
The above Part 2 was posted on November 18, 2017. In it Elisha says that Armando Contreras, who may no longer be with IPN was originally billed as an IT developer. As I remember it he was billed as a marketing guy, not a blockchain developer. IPN does have a Director of Technology – Doug Verner – but most of the programming development for this project is done by ProCommerce, not IPN.
It is worth pausing here to highlight that there are (at least) two companies involved in this enterprise: the IPN network marketing company, and the ProCommerce “blockchain” and software development company. Originally Armando was CEO of IPN, and his brother, Carlos, was and still seems to be head of ProCommerce, which also lists a programming team.
At any rate Elisha’s primary point regarding Armando is that the Pachecos (who are thieving low-life) are now in charge of IPN. This is in some sense true, as you already saw in the notes above on Part 1. Part 2 now adds that Daniel and Bishop were claiming to have been paid commissions in 6 figures during their first few weeks of membership – this during the time when the company wasn’t paying commissions, at least not to anybody else. Maybe they were describing the cash payments they were taking in from sign-ups, which they seemed to be pretty slow to enter into the system and which they seemed to be using as they pleased. Daniel Pacheco was recently billed as President of IPN on a recorded conference call, and Bishop Steward was billed at an IPN event for Asia as an “Impact Leadership Council” member. These titles may have been self-assigned.
Elisha then presents some photo op pictures where members of the Asian team holding manila envelopes of cash they had just been paid, and of Johnny Read, who is IPN International Sales Director, handing out envelopes of cash on a stage with Lee standing next to him. Elisha disparages this, saying that IPN is running a ponzi, but it is possible that they are just marketing to an Asian culture. They are obviously using this method as a marketing ploy. They could just as easily deposited the money somewhere and handed them checks. They didn’t have to do it on a stage, or take pictures at all. And it doesn’t have to be a ponzi. There have always been complaints the mlm companies are ponzis, and this has led to a legal structure in U.S. law governing mlm in that regard. This is why IPN prominently includes their mlm attorney, Scott Warren in their events and on their websites.
Elisha reads a phone text he received from an IPN associate, who shares that while PROC is being billed as the next BitCoin, it is not at all in the same league. The text says that IPN promoters make a bogus claim when they say that it has partnered with thousands of retailers with its rewards app. I agree, there are no partnerships. The entire mechanism to reward shoppers with PROC is within the app itself. The app then just connects to the retailers through their respective affiliate programs that they have out there. This is no partnership. It is good programming, and loose marketing. No real partnerships exist, but I have bought stuff from Wal-Mart, AutoZone, Bed Bath and Beyond, and others and received free PROC for doing so. I love it! The text rightly says that you can not buy anything using PROC using the app. That is true. That is not its purpose. The app represents Phase I of the ProCommerce business plan. Making purchases with PROC itself is Phase II.
The text says that IPN fails to divulge that PROC is a pre-mined token, but it is in the White Paper. Marketers are not going to get into the weeds like that, generally, and especially if it might be a red flag. And it is true, pre-mined tokens is thought to be a red flag.
Next the text says that there were two clear instances of pump and dump by IPN. On September 6, 2017, when PROC his $0.29 and October 12, 2017, when it hit $0.14, each spike only lasting hours. Live calls and seminars were scheduled to coincide with these rapid price rises. Yes, that is evidence on the pump side, and it is unethical. But any group of IPN members could have perpetrated this. It does not have to reflect “company” policy. Also, comparing those spikes to the current price rise shows a marked difference in character due to the enormous volume involved in the current event, which volume was missing in the earlier spikes. If this is a pump and dump it should be bigger and last a lot longer than the others. But it may be a pump and hope it floats.
The text addresses the endorsements by Kevin Harrington and Robert McNulty, and Elisha comments that the need for endorsements only indicates a lack of company credibility, not the opposite. I will have to disagree with Elisha on that point, but the text advises us that Harrington and McNulty are just serving their own self-interests, which is another issue.
Agreed, and I agree that McNulty’s iBuyRite online store product looks like a loser that comes with ongoing monthly fees sure to bleed store owners dry before they finally give up and realize they made a mistake. Worse than that, Bishop, as a side hustle is selling leads to these people at ridiculously high prices. But when the text reads that IPN doesn’t care that storefront owners don’t know what they are doing, I have to at least partly disagree. The educational products that IPN sells (and are required before being able to purchase an iBuyRite store) are focused on how to sell online, so if the education is any good at all then potential store owners should be pretty well informed. The iBuyRite product certainly fits in with IPN online retailing educational products, but I think it is a very bad choice.
Harrington’s product we have yet to see, but it apparently incorporates one or more retail-ready cryptocurrencies. There are several he could have chosen, so the fact that he chose to highlight PROC actually may be an endorsement.
The text goes on that IPN offers cryptocurrency trading educational packages ranging in price from $500 – $10,000 and that these are available on YouTube for free. I don’t know about said free YouTube videos. I found some on the same topics but don’t know whether these are the exact materials offered by IPN. One minor correction is that the IPN promos for these packages make no mention of cryptocurrency, but only of trading in general. Most of the IPN education packages come with a 100% Pro Rewards rebate, reducing its effective cost maybe entirely. But with these products I see no rebate.
The text moves on to the new automatic trading system, the eTrader, saying that since 80% of day traders lose their money this apparently means that the eTrader software can’t work and of course IPN doesn’t care about that but only wants to milk its members dry. Elisha’s tongue-in-cheek guess that it was produced by Armando is of course completely off-base. My guess that it was produced by a third-party – a team of professional traders – is probably more accurate.
The text describes the IPN business model as selling worthless products to its members through various inducements such as worthless ponzi points for one. It is debatable how worthless these are. Another inducement is that an improved commission structure comes with each more expensive product. That is pretty ponzi-like, although it is logical to say that an associate with higher training should be paid more.
The text then drifts into emotion-laden denigration and statements like, “in the crypto world Pro Currency is just another shitcoin … .” Yes, blockchain programmers and crypto purists will never like a pre-mined token or a token that is centralized on just a few servers (which I think PROC is) or a token that is promoted via mlm or a token that reaches its audience through something like a shopping app rather than teaching them what a blockchain is and why it is a superior form of blockchain programming. So the shitcoin label is just name-calling. And it continues the thought the baseless claim, “with no future value.”
The text goes on about how the crypto world has such geniuses (and so PROC must be shit) and real cryptocurrencies have a clear purpose to solve problems. PROC certainly has a clear purpose to solve problems in the online retail space and may very well do so. Elisha does mention that Daniel and Bishop repeat to prospects that a top Etherium programmer was involved in developing PROC, but never name him. Agreed, they are probably lying or hyper-inflating some shred of truth with intent to deceive. The text then goes on that PROC does not have top developers, but offers no substantiation of the claim.
The text then makes the interesting statement that, “the iPro Network leadership has some shady characters. Just google them and see what comes up.” That may well work, and I would love to see a list of names. Shady activities are mentioned like not paying out on commissions while hosting events at expensive venues around the country. But these are startup pains that seem to have ended. Agreed, they never should have happened, but really how many startups don’t have skeletons buried in their closets?
Also in the never should happen category is the company claiming to be unable to fulfill bonus cash-out requests due to Payza being down when Payza says it has never been down. IPN really needs a better business culture than what I have seen in Elisha’s testimony. Thank you, Elisha Jancik, for your obvious integrity and for speaking out.
In closing, Elisha repeats that IPN cut him off, confiscating his bonuses (which were substantial), while wiring his downline team money to prevent them from bailing out. He says the money was wired to his team without any calculated bonus volume showing in their back offices. He repeats that people can’t sell PROC, which is incorrect as we have gone over already. He repeats that Daniel and Bishop come off rich whether any holders of PROC can sell at a profit or lose all their money. That’s true.
Next I give what little I know of who the players are. You can see the ProCommerce team here. In the YouTube below, the IPN team is described. I don’t see any names from my list of criminals or near criminals that were involved in the startup of OneLife (OneCoin). But of course from the testimonies above, I really hate to see the Pacheco’s in charge of IPN in America. On the other hand, I hate to see Bill Gates (who I also regard as a criminal) in charge of Microsoft, too, and that doesn’t mean that Microsoft is a ponzi. (And lest you just think I’m partisan, what was Dick Cheney in charge of?):
Kevin Harrington pitches PROC (this is not the upcoming national TV spot) below:
So is this breakout in PROC a “pump and dump?” We know we are about to see a pump, due to the national TV promotion scheduled to begin January 19. But will we see a dump? I don’t think we will, and that is due to the information in the following video.
Assuming that 1Fashion Global and iPro Network really have teamed up as the video says, then the plan is to actually sell clothing and continue to grow the network. It is not a pump and dump where some temporary excitement is intended to lift the price of PROC just long enough for the founders of a ponzi sign up lots of new recruits, grab their cash, sell their own PROC and get out, leaving all the late-comers holding the bag.