So, in summary, forum staff should not decide which investments are worthwhile, but they can decide who's credit ratings are worthwhile?  
Either all credit ratings should be stickied or none of them should. But I agree with Gavin that ideally this whole section should move to another TLD.

Thanks guys for your well thought through responses.

I was hoping for input from one of those who claim it wasn't a ponzi / wasn't a ponzi intially / might have been anything other than a ponzi.

But I guess silence is also an answer. 

Sure, I understand that people fall for them, and there is a gray zone between commonplace returns and what-sort-of-idiot-do-you-take-me-for returns where I can see myself falling for such a scam as well. What baffles me is people who still believe that BTCST wasn't a ponzi. Some of them even appear to have accepted that they will never see a single satoshi, yet they come up with alternative explanations of what could have gone wrong. These are usually accompanied by the statement that no-one can prove that it was a ponzi.

Now, I am not asking for proof that it wasn't a ponzi. I am just asking for evidence. Any single scrap of evidence, however circumstantial. Is there any reason to believe that it was not a ponzi? Is there a single aspect of the scheme or of Pirate's behaviour which is atypical for a ponzi? Or is all of this wishful thinking (even from people who were allegedly not invested in BTCST)?

Oh. So that's what HYIP stands for. I thought it was
Huhh? Yup, It's Ponzi!
 

I am baffled by all the posters who still don't believe it was a ponzi. Could any / all of you please expand on why you still don't believe this?
Stated another way: How would YOU identify a ponzi? Forget about pirate. Let's say a new opportunity arises in the lending market: call it Buccaneer Investments offering x% return. Under which circumstances would you consider Buccaneer to most likely be a ponzi scheme (which does not necessarily imply that you won't invest in it?)
-Is it a function of x?
-Of the reputation of the person running it?
-Of the amount of detail that is revealed about the underlying business? 

What would have to change relative to what we currently know about the BTCST situation before you would consider "ponzi scheme" the most likely situation?

+1
At first I thought he was just a little slow on the uptake, but right now I have no option but to believe that he realised that he can either come out of this looking like a scammer (if he knew it was a ponzi and encouraged others to invest) or like an idiot. He went with idiot, but is overplaying his hand if you ask me. If you really are that stupid IRL you are virtually guaranteed to do yourself an injury before reaching adulthood. That's how evolution works.

Nope. Cause it doesn't fit with this :


Unless Charlie is screwing with us.  . This is driving me crazy.

Sorry, but that is not what is implied by your question.

I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not express yourself properly as anyone who has read your posts can tell that your "wright"ing is not the best.
But then there is this awkward little bit from the same thread:

followed momentarily by:

Stop hiding behind Theymos. Theymos never claimed that he understood the business model and it is definitely not a ponzi. Quite the opposite. Theymos did not attack anyone on the forums who dared warn others that it might be a ponzi. You on the other hand have a well established track record.


I have indeed. Have you read any of it?

and then less than 12 hours later in the same thread.


Epic fail.

Good catch. Dark pool trading then? Iceberg orders and the like. That fits the bill and should certainly contribute to stability.

You running low on reserves? Looks like I'm not the only one loading up my account on fiat hoping for another chance at cheap coins over the weekend.

Hope you came right.

Cheers
H

You could say the same thing about investing in Pirate. Or playing russian roulette. Doesn't make any of those a smart move.

Did a quick scan of you posts and I stand corrected.


I've invested plenty, thanks. Sure companies can do plenty that is harmful to investors. But bear  in mind that pirates so called investors were really "depositors" rather than "shareholders". They were not buying a percentage of the operation, implying that they have a right to a percentage of future profits.

So it is more similar to making a deposit at a bank for a fixed interest rate, than it is to investing in a company. In this case the only  relevant question is "Am I safe against a default?" If we ascertain that the answer is yes, then your concerns are moot.

Management embezzling money? If this does not result in a default, then, by definition, they must have been stealing from the shareholders, not the depositors.
Late payments? A default by any other name.
Insufficient return? Isn't this just another way of saying default (since the exact percentage interest returned was agreed to up front?)
Selling drugs and getting arrested? Boohoo for him. I had no knowledge of this fact and would be no more liable than someone who deposited at a bank who in turn loaned money to a drug lord. Luckily I still get my capital and interest back.



Pffft. Any positive rate of return is impossible to sustain in a non-inflationary currency. Someone who invests 1 BTC at 1% weekly interest and allows it to compound will have all 21 million bitcoins after 32 and a half years. Any investment, no matter how small at a fixed positive interest rate no matter how small will eventually grow to exceed the total money supply. The only distinction is how long it takes. By contrast how sustainable is your bet?

Yeah the problem with pitching your bet as a way of "teaching others a lesson" is that it is only a lesson if they actually lose the bet. But you yourself have said that you don't trust pirate and that you would not recommend investing in BTCST because it is very high risk and has no transparency, implying there is a real chance that coins invested would be lost. 

If the risk was unacceptable to you back before the default started, why would it suddenly be acceptable now and for a far lower reward? Unless you actually think you are going to win your actions does not make sense as either an investment or a "lesson to others". Unless the lesson is not to trust random strangers on the internet. In which case, I read you loud and clear and will not be betting against you.

It's his opinion, he is entitled to it. If you can't  tell that from the context, then you must have really bad reading comprehension.

Restated:
I think it's his opinion. I think that if you can't  tell that from the context, then you must have really bad reading comprehension.

Disclaimer :
I cannot prove that 556j meant the statement "BS&T was toxic to bitcoin." as an expression of his opinion and not a statement of fact. But I am of the opinion that he did so. I am also of the opinion that BS&T was a ponzi.

It can't go lower than that while Matthew is offering even odds on a default. Assuming an investor has the cash available and trusts Matthew, he can get 50% of his "investment" back by simply making a bet with Matthew for 50% of his exposure.

Pirate defaults : Investment lost, bet won.
Pirate pays out 100% : Investment safe, bet loses.
Best case : Pirate pays out 99% and bet wins.

I really don't understand Matthew's motivation here. To risk 10k BTC on some guy (who you yourself claim not to trust) paying out, simply to make a point about how people should say:

It is probably a ponzi.
rather than
It is a ponzi.
 

All I can say is he probably knows something we don't.

EDITED: Realised an investor wouldn't need to have the cash available, since he will only have to pay Matthew once Pirate has paid out.

^
Genesis block.

Of course it is morally reprehensible.  But is it against the law? SEC regulations don't apply to GLBSE assets (or any other form of bitcoin contracts for that matter). And even if you could take legal action, how would you prove it? Seems like a way of getting away without legal ramifications. Still think it's unlikely though. Purely because I don't think it is viable for him to buy enough of his liabilities at a large enough discount. Especially if he has to do so before friday. Last I heard assets with pirate exposure were still selling for 80% of face value. Anyone have an update?

Ohh. OK. Well to be honest, pretty much the entire post was a setup for the examples. I'm not seriously suggesting that the community split up based on where we stood on pirate's trustworthiness. That was just a sideshow on the road to bitcoin world domination. 

Chill dude. If you think it's offensive/disruptive/whatever feel free to delete the post. I didn't mean any harm.