Bitcoin Forum

I suggest any investment program which refuses to reveal their business model that promises high yield returns be placed there.

I am agnostic on the pirate-related investment schemes but the lending forum is starting to resemble talkgold.com

+1

i bet it would help people find what they're looking for

This is too subjective. Some would say that even BS&T has revealed its business model sufficiently.

I have been considering a HYIP subforum under Gambling based on interest rate. I haven't decided yet whether this would be fair, consistent, and helpful.

Sure its subjective but its also easy to prove you arent running a ponzi with bitcoin :)
Returns of more than 1% a week are by definition "high yield investment programs"

I like this Idea as well, Think the securities and lending forum need to be tightened up. The whole pirate thing is choice of investor, if you feel good handing someone money over the internet to go do what they want with, that's your choice. Me I like to see what exactly there doing with it, for all we know it could be funding al-Qaeda lol.

Whether or not HYIP need their own sub-forum, they probably shouldn't be allowed to dominate the front page of the lending forum.  Perhaps the rule for the lending forum should be that only loans can be sought there, that deposits can't be sought there and stats can't be published there.  The investment side of lending should have its own threads elsewhere.

They're identical

I dont care what people do with their own money I just dont think this forum should legitimise shady investment schemes, especially ones sucking so many coins out of the productive economy  :)

The "productive economy" - hmmm, that's an interesting statement.

For the majority of 2012 I had 1000 coins invested in a venture paying 3%/week.  I knew what the business model was, who was doing it and that it wasn't a fraud.  The income allowed me to further the bitcoin economy. 

I would happily point out that lending rates were (and sometimes still are) 15% per month and my default rate is 2.5%/week with weekly payments.  On the metrics discussed here and elsewhere, this would be labelled a scam and illegal and I would be subject of personal abuse and slander.  When are the "holier than thou" people going to grow up and realise this happens to be the market that bitcoin actually encourages (on a risk adjusted basis).  Over time the economy will mature and that is why the deposit rates are declining (and lending rates too). 

I find it annoying as someone doing a large volume of business that this forum is divided along the lines of nay-sayers and a growing group of customers that appreciate what I and other people do ( my customer list is around 200 individuals not counting the people that simply seek advice).

(yes, a grumpy Starfish)

I think theres a difference because your model is transparent. You wont get an argument from me about why your rates need to be where they are. Do you really think people are out there demanding to pay %5 + per week interest to borrow massive amounts of coins week after week ?

I support OP's proposition and suggest the limit should be 50% APR (around .78% /week). Lower than that can still be scam (and 50% APR most likely is, if business model is not disclosed and there's no upper limit for "deposits"), but there can be legitimate reasons to pay that much.

So what everyone is saying is they need legit lender on the forum that does not charge 3000% APR. The deposit rate of 1% interest return a week is not bad if your charging 10.5% per week. All these problems go along with decentralized currency and it is up to the community itself to decided what they will and will not except from people.

Sorry, but most mining farms' profits, if they're actually sharing most of the profits with the people invested, are >1% a week and would classify as HYIP under your definition.  I think you need to stop relating USD rates to bitcoin rates.  Clearly there are gains to be made in bitcoin that are much harder to replicate in USD.  


In summary: Traditionally, HYIP are edge cases. If many businesses are getting 1%, then 1% isn't edge case and therefore, not HYIP.

Translation: this forum is filled to the brim with scams (euphamistically referred to as "HYIP") that I'll redefine as "businesses," and the sheer number of scams here somehow makes them OK.

Thread Translation: Bitcoin needs a credit rating agency. Maybe even an SEC or a FinCEN of its own. ::)

Not by the standards of actual investors. The "revelations" do not stand up scrutiny placed on a prospectus. You have to draw the line somewhere. Of all the things one could argu about, this issue is actually quite well-defined.

Those "some" that say that are pass-through operators and various anonymous shills. There is just not enough there to bear scrutiny.

How about any investment scheme that doesn't provide a detailed breakdown (not just vauge hints) as to what it is doing, levels of deposits, investments etc (and most of the good ones already do this - the mining companies certainly do and most of the big lenders do) gets put in an "unverified" or "HYIP" subforum?

For anyone running a legit operation it should be no trouble to provide said info. Should help to filter out the safe operations...

what if the name was "High Yeild Investments" to avoid the damning initialism?

seems like an honest description to me

1)  No man of science would say that

2)  HYIP is fine, or how about "1000%+ APY investments" 

As far as I know, currently HYIPs end up in the gambling subforum.  There is some cross-over between securities and high-yield deposits, and there is a growing database of information related to "credit ratings" for product issuers.  One of the additions to that system is business transparency, and I have been considering making a rating a requirement to be listed in the WPW thread to help separate some of the more reliable operators from some less reliable ones.

I'm not quite sure why gene is convinced everything is a scam, and it is pretty obvious that many are not.  However, having been effectively labelled a scammer by gene I presume anything I contribute he will dismiss without reason.

Nothing wrong with self regulation the problem begins with "regulatory capture"   :)

I think it's fairly obvious that many of the deposit schemes on here are legit - I wouldn't have a deposit with you if I thought you were going to disappear  ;)
It's also pretty obvious that some of them aren't.

I like the idea of having ratings to separate out the lending offers, but obviously it needs to be transparent.

Personally the criteria I use when making BTC deposits are:

-Is publicly identifiable (is it known who this person really is?)
-Clear evidence of ongoing business.
-Viable balance sheet.

The way I'd do it is to, say, cap ratings for lenders that aren't identifiable at something like B-, then base the rest on balance sheet etc.

The other potential issue is conflict of interest.
If lenders are paying for these ratings there is that potential, but I think if balance sheets and such are made public then it's not such a big issue for now. Bitcoin accounts are normally pretty easy to understand, it's not like real-world finance where half the derivatives contracts are just intentionally as convoluted as possible...

I was wondering what sort of credit rating pirate would get  :)

Depends on who's doing it and how much they're getting paid.

You could say the same thing about arbitration and escrow.

Yup  :D

Lenders don't pay and I don't get anything (other than a bit of grief) doing them.  There is some conflict because I am also in the deposit taking space.
Also, some people value their privacy and that is why I looked at publishing ratios so the underlying values would not need to be published.



I did some mock numbers of that for fun (although I have invited him to provide numbers).  It came out as "BBB" scoring low on liability to asset ratios and transparency.  However, scores well on income, size of business and time in business.

We have numbers for his income?
Also full credit to your efforts in trying to make the system a little more transparent  :)

I said "mock" numbers - I did an estimate.