TrafficMonsoon Ponzi Proof

It has been almost two months now since the SEC shutdown the TrafficMonsoon website due to allegations it had been a Ponzi Scheme and various allegations of Fraud against Charles Scoville. It is amazing that still to this day there are many TrafficMonsoon members who believe the website will come back and they can continue making money. Despite there being ample proof that TrafficMonsoon was a Ponzi scheme.

It is amazing that people do not understand how serious the allegations against Charles are. How they have all been duped into thinking they will get their money back.  They believe that the SEC are falsely accusing Charles Scoville of fraud.

Let’s be clear here: The SEC had been monitoring TrafficMonsoon for months, tipped off by Paypal and other members who had concerns about the Ponzi nature of Traffic Monsoon.

By the very nature of how ponzi schemes are successful, they prey on the gullible, the often poorer sections of society who innocently get lured in with promises of making money easily, quick returns, those who borrow money to invest in the business to compound their new fortune and more often than not, the elderly pensioner worried about their pension .

Sound familiar? Facebook is littered with people who sent money to Traffic Monsoon with the hope of earning some money.

If, as Charles Scoville declares, people were only buying advertising, why was the quality and quantity of the traffic so poor. Why are people demanding their money back, declaring the SEC has ruined their business? What business? Traffic Monsoon was owned by Charles Scoville. not the members. Why do you want your money back? You’ve apparently forgotten that the website’s terms and conditions never guaranteed you’d get all your traffic. Funny though, everyone still seems to remember the part of the terms and conditions that stated you were not investing….

So, let’s get down to business:

Proof Traffic Monsoon is a Ponzi:

Let’s break it down as simply as possible with some examples. A ponzi scheme relies on paying the first person with money earnt from the second person who joins, as well as people joining after the second person. so money earnt from the second, third, fourth, etc person to join, pays the first person.

Let’s say hyperthetically I was the first person to join Traffic Monsoon and paid $50 for a “revenue sharing position”. Traffic Monsoon now has $50 in their bank account. I refer the second person to join Traffic Monsoon. I get $5 as a referral bonus. The second person pays Traffic Monsoon $50. Traffic Monsoon now has $100 in their account, gives me $5 for my referral payment, so they now have $95 in their account.

I click my required number of clicks everyday for 55 days and I withdraw $55, making my total I’ve earnt $60.

Traffic Monsoon only has $40 left in their account. The second person clicks their required number of clicks everyday for 55 days and withdraws $55. But Traffic Monsoon only has $40, so where does the other $15 dollars come from?

Charles Scoville will have you believe that there were many other income streams for the business, but in actualy fact, in his witness statement to the SEC, only 0.4% of revenue came from purchases of products other than Adpacks. So in our hyperthetical case of two members paying $50 dollars each, on average Traffic Monsoon would have made another $0.40 in income. So where does the income come from to pay the second member the outstanding $14.60 he needs to withdraw his $50? One of the two members would need to recruit a third member to join to pay another $50 so that Traffic Monsoon can pay the second member the outstanding $14.60.

On paper that all makes sense, but to make things worse, Charles admitted to the SEC that for every $50 adpack purchased, he took $2.50 for himself. (It used to be $7.50). And then what about server hosting fees? He always used to say there were multiple servers for Traffic Monsoon. So all of a sudden there are operating expenses to consider. He had people working at a call centre that needed paying, where did all that money come from? Not from the 0.4% extra income!

So in the simple mathematical example above, it shows that Traffic Monsoon needed more new members joining all the time to ensure that the people who referred them could be paid.

Sound familiar? Of course it does, that’s the very definition of a ponzi.

Charles Scoville can dress it up as much as he wants, stating it wasn’t an investment, etc, just advertising, but truth be told, Traffic Monsoon was a ponzi scheme, and I’m afraid the seriousness of the matter hasn’t sunk in yet to the many people who are blaming the SEC.

Don’t blame the SEC. Blame yourself for being seduced by Charles Scoville and his promises of earning money on the internet with Traffic Monsoon.

TrafficMonsoon ponzi proof.

Please share on social media to ensure the word is spread as far as possible.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *