I can see the sense in investing 90% of your wealth in (multiple independent) places that offer a 95% chance of turning $100 into $110 in a year, and a 5% chance of turning it into $98. The statistician's "expected return" is $109.4 and by spreading the risk around, the likelihood of losing 2% on everything is minimal.
I can see the sense in investing 90% of your wealth in (multiple independent) places that offer a 90% chance of turning $100 into $130 in a year, and a 10% chance of turning it into $30. The expected return is $120, the potential losses are larger.
I can even see the sense in spending $10 on a lottery ticket which offers a one in two million chance of winning $10,000,000, even though the statistician's "expected return" is just $5, and you're a near certainty to lose your dough. It's play money and dreaming, not investment.
But investing everything you can lay your hands on, even borrowed money you MUST repay to the bank, in a single investment claiming a return of, what, 4% per month, 60% per annum, which MUST carry a very significant risk of total loss??
Surely these muggins can see it *might* be a scam, I wonder what they think the % likelihood is that this is a scam?
Some thinking type people might accept a 60%pa return on investment with a risk of total loss of 25%, yielding an expected return of 20%pa, but they sure as hell wouldn't stake their entire financial future on it.
And this one stinks much more than 25%.
It's a lottery, so the investment should be no more than play money and the return is nowhere near enough to bother.