The problem is not with the general understanding of what is considered to be an investment, but with the legalities behind what an 'investment' is. With the exception of DXBlueChip, DX has never portrayed itself as an investment of any kind and this has always been one of my pet peeves.
A true investment would normally have all sorts of agreements and assurances surrounding it and is generally legally registered with some form of regulating body. Although this does not provide any guarentee or assurance, usually if an 'investment' goes bad then there is some recourse for the investors either is the form of legal action being able to be taken and/or financial relief in the form of losses being able to be written off against taxes (at least this is my understanding)
There has been numerous discussions and rumors for many months now regarding possible legal action against DX or GDT (or even Merv himself personally) but to be perfectly honest I do not actually see how any such case could actually be upheld (again, with the exception of DXBlueChip which was handled very differently). Although we were never informed (by DX) that we may actually loose any funds placed under the trust of DX, we were also never encouraged by the prospect of guarenteed returns (by DX).
Now although I truely wish this was not the case and there was actually some formal process we could follow to try and recover our funds, IMHO there really isn't.
|
