Bitcoin Forum

Just curious... :)

Depends. Some operators were more "responsible" than others - Patrick made the service available to those who were looking for it but didn't push people towards it.
BurtW, on the other hand, attacked anyone who dared to suggest that the scheme might be a scam and pimped pass-through bonds heavily in the Newbies forum.

They are responsible to 32 cents to the dollar out of their own money as it stands, right?

Depends on what your definition of responsible is.

If you mean did they accept funds in trust for those that they brought onboard as "customers, taking a skim of the profits in exchange for the use of others money, then the answer is yes. Each of them is fully responsible for all amounts entrusted to them in full. To my view, there is no hiding behind vague "high risk" disclaimers or dodging by using the conveniently undefined concept of "Pass Through". You took money and promised a return on that money, and just as pirate is responsible, so too are those who enabled his deception by acting as his retail outlets to promote his scheme.

No, they were honest about just being pass throughs to Pirate.

However, some of them implying they knew his business model and saying it wasn't a ponzi, which is definitely misleading to their customers.

I voted no because that is how I personally feel about how things should be.  I believe they were open as to the terms and what was going on. 

In the USA, if they made any profits (that they got out) they could be held legally responsible and potentially have those clawed back.  I am not a lawyer of course, but this has happened before with dollars.  Things are different, as this is bitcoin (maybe protects the PPT's) and some of the PPT's knew and even said it was a ponzi (maybe hurts the PPT's).  This is all new territory. 

They being Patrick, he bought out the others.  Otherwise, yes, he is responsible.

I voted no because running a PPT was just providing a transparent service there was great demand for.

I will say however that some of the PPT operators were constantly shilling for pirate in every thread and ridiculing critics.  Promoting the scam and acting like they had evidence it wasn't a scam makes them "partially responsible".

My thoughts exactly, voted accordingly.

What if everyone that profited gave money back?

I wonder how the answer changes, if pirate turns out to be a zeek rewards passthrou as suspected.

It doesn't, because he never said he was a passthrough for another not-a-ponzi scheme. These guys did. Pirate claimed to have his own business scheme.

If he had said he was a passthrough for Zeek I suspect the answers would be different, yes.

I think it only depends on if the lenders knew what the underlying business was.  If I set up a pass through to buy Apple stock with my own e-trade account, and Apple takes a huge nose dive, it seems like I should only be responsible for my group's loss if I never told them or misled them about where their money was going.  The people running the PPT's were honest about it.

The difference here is that we know Apple's business model much better than BTCST.

Your analogy and what has happened here are worlds apart.

I don't see how that is relevant.  The only thing that matters is whether or not the people running the passthroughs were dishonest about what they were doing.  If they were, they're responsible; if not, they were doing the consumer a favor.  That the user of the passthrough wound up losing isn't the fault of the passthrough operator, it is the fault of the underlying scheme, and the user knew full well that his money was ultimately going to that scheme, whatever it might entail.

We dont know that for sure. Its feasible some of them knew it was a ponzi on the verge of collapse and did not pass (everything) through, and instead just pocketed the money. I would like to see some transaction IDs to make sure thats not the case. I want to see those PPT transactions anyway.


+10.
Misleading is too kind a word though.

I have no compassion for PPT operators who lied to their investors by claiming they had "insured" funds when in reality it isnt the case.