I had trouble with partial derivatives so fail comp methods, but I did pass my 1st year calculus and thought the algebra paper deserved a better mark.  So only ended up with an undergrad science degree (double in Statistics and Computer Science) and post grad commerce degree (Operations Research).  But, I'm just a starfish.

BTW - loan funds on their way.

Beware, you'll be accused of being a shill and encouraging children to lose their pocket money.  Based on how BS&T people were treated, that is a risk for you (and others).

Anyone else is free to provide a better or more complete system.  As for being stickied, I think Maged decided that.

For the example given, a 3.29 isn't that great of a score.

I would like to apologise for the crap in the lending section.  I thought it would be useful to seek some clarification about what it would take for Starfish to achieve the mythical Micon seal of approval.  What that turned out to be was essentially revealing the details of every piece of business that I transact in bitcoinland.  Despite the fact that it doesn't all take place in the blockchain, and providing a couple of references, my concern that they would focus on any gaps was rapidly confirmed.  I do not think exposing customer details in such a blatant way is a good idea and so I've given up on that for now and will let those that think I have poor judgement and am running a scam continue to believe so.

Also of interest, I exchanged pm's with nrd525 regarding his nine-point checklist for ponzi spotting.  I was applying it to my Kraken Fund and entities like a real bank or a corporate like Apple.  I considered it would be useful if he provided an assessment.  I received a nice reply which, other than saying he wouldn't like to be associated with me, where he asked a couple of sensible questions that I answered for him.  Apparently I baffle him doing what I do here.

I only have 10BTC with RustyRyan.  The longevity of his deposits is yet to be seen, and that is why the rating is lower than a comparable person that has been around for six months.  Maybe I should have used a 1-10 scale - would that have been better?

ID was not provided.  I received this question a few days ago and I recommended that person seek it directly.  The system can not force of compel deposit takers to provide all of the details, nor is there some third party audit or regulation in place to protect the unwise.  If you want to deposit with him and are unsure - ask RustyRyan the questions - that's what he is there for.

I'll state it again, the WPW thread is a collection of information that provides a starting point for people to do some of their own research.  It saves me answering a lot of questions that I was receiving by pm because I was getting asked for recommendations of where to place funds.  Also, without an attempt by anyone to do this (even if I get called names for doing so), it would be blank, and having an alternative could be quite useful.

And back to more serious stuff - no, I will not be revealing my customer details and transactions.  I do not know of any entity that would so blatantly breach customer confidentiality in such a way.  If you wish to believe it is all a scam, reason isn't going to sway your opinion and I've already directed people to this thread for information regarding your warning.

Canucks - hockey right?  

Hockey is played on grass!!!!!  

(plus, congratulations to BurtW winning his hockey on ice championship)

Yes, that would have been good to have - but he managed to raise a lot of capital on the basis of vapour-assets.  (definitely no rating given)

I can respect your question - I have made a judgement based on information that I had available.  i invested my own funds and, due to my link with the PPT.x series of assets on GLBSE, provided an early opportunity for people to invest in BS&T if they didn't have the necessary minimum.  Other people came afterwards and ran much larger pass-throughs.  

In the absence of any other bogus rating system, the unwary will fall for the more obvious scams, and I'm quite happy to consider improvements to the one I offer.  no one needs to adhere to it, and (again) it is simply a starting point for people looking to park funds.  I'm not aware of anyone that has come to me saying they have lost money because of it.

I repeat again, I know who Pirate is (which is why I have funds loaned to him), and I have a good understanding of the mechanics that would produce 5%+/week returns.

I thought you were younger, but hey, well get the Skyline and Supra on the track and have some fun.  BufferOverflow and Wendy as reserve drivers.

A duck floats because it's lighter than wood.  If she burns it means she's made of wood.

(I did actually get some financials from RustyRyan before posting a rating   )

She normally wears one-piece - maybe we'll do "private onsen" when we've in Beppu in November.

(and the btw - micon's done it now - Wendy's annoyed)

You mean like 6b92e6ad01b05c5a004a8425df2534d7465dcf9d11c78a139cf1813071f1cf15

or this receiving address: 1KSp4tdijUq4ghqWNmHBE9BiddqEGPLmHA

Thanks for the list Joel.  

1: Given confidentiality, and a lack of audit processes, it might be difficult to confirm.  I could get various people to verify the loans/rates/payments that they've made and similarly the list of dividends received over time from GLBSE and other investments that pay regular returns.  To provide the full list, demonstrating how 200 coins/week are generated I would expect people to pick on holes and deliberate omissions rather than the overall picture.

2: That's a good idea, and I do assess the risk of the loans and investments that I make.  I probably have one of the better databases of credit risk, but I still have some that have been spectacular failures (Rebate springs to mind).

3: Normally I take the losses, and not my customers.  Not aware of anyone that has had a loss on their deposit yet.  If anyone can provide a counter example that would be useful.

4: See #3 above.  People depositing to Starfish are not really exposed to the underlying.  When I consider some of the real-life bank runs I have observed, there can be queuing.  I think that if someone wanted to force the issue and required me to liquidate all my assets at a loss (rather than an orderly wind out) then they should accept that as their choice.  I have discussed that with several people recently and it is a feature of most investment funds/deposit schemes that coins are put to work, not simply lying around.

Also, thank you for noting there are many more scams than ponzis.  There are many scams on these forums, and I have had a decent number of people that have stolen funds from me either by simply running away with coins through to more elaborate identity theft.  However, I also have some other people I do good business with, some deals returning up to 5% a week (occasional), but more generally in the 2% to 2.5% per week range.  

I will add that currently I don't need any more funds to run the current business, and extra funds simply add more drag on profitability.  That's why I have limits on accounts in both number and value.

I've asked nrd525 if he would do assessments on the offers in this sub-section based on his checklist.  I was looking at how the Kraken Fund would come out using his nine point plan and also how other institutions might fare.  However, I've appeared to annoyed a few people around the forum so I wouldn't consider expressing an opinion - not sure what I did to annoy P4man, probably something to do with Pirates.

Please note the discussion and in particular the following assessment at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105285.msg1153048#msg1153048

I've been doing a couple of loans the past few days and bitcoinland appears to be settling down a bit.  I've also allowed a few new accounts based on specific requests.  Therefore, I'm re-opening deposits for accounts up to 100BTC.  As usual, funds will be applied to loans and investments in low risk ventures (including fixed rate bonds and some mining because they still generate decent returns). 

Micon is entitled to express his opinion and I'll answer his question fairly.  This repeats a lot of material that has gone before.

The thread describes how the ratings are assigned, and the metrics used.  Information is provided by different people and I collate the information.  It is also very clear that people are expected to do their own due diligence on investments.  The ratings are not a personal endorsement of different schemes, and there are some listed that I personally would not invest in.

Further, the ratings are linked to the issuer rather than the issue.  Some of the Projects provided by Ziggy and Smart are extremely high risk, and it pays to read their guarantees and rates carefully.  The objective is to determine if the issuer has a track-record and ability to repay on the obligations they incur.  This is measured by some simple ratios and some other metrics.

1: Commencement - normally you don't get to stay in business a long time if you're stealing people's money.  Currently the longest established scheme is from Ziggy and Smart.  Pirate actually started sometime in 2011 as well, but he's not rated.  Personally, I kicked of lending and deposits back in January.

2: Liabilities divided by monthly income - Having income in bitcoinland is necessary to meet all of those interest payments.  This might be from mining (like EIEIO and Imsaguy), or something less obvious.  Some times it's diversified investments, loans, trading.  Despite what some people claim, arbitrage opportunities are still around for manual traders if they know how (the one I would do currently is about 10%).

3: Business transparency - not just what they're doing with your coins, but how open are they.  For example, the Moveto.Fund is pretty transparent, but others are not.  Some deposit takers are not prepared to even disclose their financial metrics (and so they don't get on the list).  Doesn't mean they are a poor risk, just a different level of risk.  As an example, I have 1000 coins with HashKing that I don't worry about, even though he's not in the OP.

4: Liabilities divided by assets - simple metric for indebtedness overall.

5: Current liabilities divided by current assets - an important liquidity measure.  Some deposits are on call, others are fixed term.  If you request a withdrawal, this helps indicate how likely you are to get your funds back quickly or not.  This is also linked to size (value/numbers) that follow.

6: Size of business - funds under management.  Some people will successfully accumulate large balance sheets but sustaining them given payouts helps weed out the more risky ones.  Also, managing a large number of coins takes a level of skill.  For smaller/start-ups, it simply highlights that they don't have the same level of exposure or depth.  There is a reason why some chose a big bank over a small one.

7: Size of business - number of customers.  Similar to #6, managing 10 customers versus 100 is quite different.  Indications are payb.tc had four or five hundred and he had a nice web site.  I do mine manually for about 200-ish accounts.  The numbers reflect the confidence and service levels.  Newer operators need to build that confidence and service, such as RustyRyan or ciuciu.  As they establish their track-record, people will be able to look at and ask about the service.

8: Time in business - This is actually quite an aggressive metric because being new means you're going to score badly.  Without the track record, you're a higher risk.  If you've been around for a year, not so much.

9: Disaster recovery/deadman switch - An adjustment to recognise that many deposit takers are individuals.  Provides an indication that if they die, someone can unwind the business.

10: ID - do you know who you are dealing with?  Doesn't stop anyone asking for that information directly, and if they are investing a decent amount of coin, they should.

11: Account Limits - Having an open ended appetite for deposits should be a concern.  Deposit takers need to be aware of their ability to provide returns and manage their position.  A relatively simple thing to do, but not everyone does.

Does all of the above provide certainty?  No, of course it doesn't.
Is the casual 10BTC depositor going to request and assess financial information from a dozen different sources and actually receive it?  Not likely.
Is having a starting point useful to the community when the alternative is to have nothing?  In my opinion, yes.

So, Micon can choose to ignore the collection of data listed in the OP and decide separately if and who the scams are, and who is on the more genuine end of the scale.  I will not be judging who is and isn't a scam in this thread because that would be unhelpful to those that wish to use it as a starting point for their own research. 

Maybe people should look into the background of the Harrison Act (US legislation).  The illegality of most "drugs" today was based on the assertion "Black men rape White women".

Personally, I'm not a user and don't ever intend to be.  I've seen the positives and negatives of drug use on people (actually the same person), but they died of cancer.

Edit: (less serious) and while I don't usually post into Dank's thread, I will repeat I'm not going to run a Dank-Bank PPT.

Yes, some things come up that are unexpected, others are anticipated.  I appreciate the questions.

1: Yes, initial investors are permitted to increase up to the 1000 limit - I had one user add 700 coins today bringing them up to their maximum.  Initially there was scope for this to be higher, but I needed to revise that to prevent a completely unbalanced situation if someone ran a 100k passthrough.  After all, the returns are allocated across units and if only 10k can usefully be put to work, the returns for the initial investors with a few hundred would be pathetic.  (I did have an inquiry for a 7000 coin deposit.)

2: The accounts are all done in blocks of 100BTC.  I do need to clarify the withdrawal policy because it's not a case where funds are expected to be lying around, so a simple queue will operate, or else other members of the funds might wish to take over extra units.  The waitlist in the OP gives a line of people that might wish to take over a spot as well.

3: The plan is for returns to be a smooth as possible, but those in the fund currently will see that is unlikely given the current asset allocation.  Therefore, there will be some back-smoothing across weeks (up to four).

4: Currently I am not directly invested.  However, you will note that I am guaranteeing a minimum 100BTC price so am exposed to losses.  I did buy a few of the Kraken pass through bonds on GLBSE for fun.

Kraken #2 will be different - already there are features in Kraken#1 that I would probably not repeat and there are parts to it that I think will be valuable to carry forward.  Issues around size of account, risk/return structures and generating income are significant issues.  Also having a clearer "investment profile" for the fund might be useful as well, allowing those after higher returns to go one direction, and those after lower risks in another.  I am also aware there are competing funds that fill the needs of different parts of the bitcoin community and I do not wish to duplicate their models as that would not be good for bitcoin overall.