No offense, but you cant be a good poker player. Anyone can calculate the odds of cards relatively easily (or with some software), but that doesnt help you at all to gauge your opponents hands or bets.  If you were to play against a good poker player, he will use your blind faith in stats against you to win fairly easily on average, because you will become predictable.  Poker is as much about probabilities as it is about (reverse) psychology. Seems you only discovered half the game, the easy half. I would advice not playing against Micon for significant sums of money .

/OT

Doesnt change my opinion that you should not allow it. Allowing it means a majority shareholder can change the contract so that he is entitled 100% of the dividends or give himself the right to buy other shares at 0% of face value.  You may argue that the minority shareholder should have thought of that possibility before buying, and technically that might be true, but its still a terrible idea IMO. The issuer will want to have the possibility to alter the contract, so every issuer will put it in there, and its only a matter of time before its grossly abused.

Isnt that how Sonny from BFL earned his.. jail time?

MX2 is pretty difficult to apply properly. Its almost like chewing gum. I would suggest you switch to MX4 which is (marginally) more effective, but more importantly, very easy too apply,.

Dein Englisch ist viel besser als mein Deutsch

vergessen sie "Viktor". Er existiert nicht.

Die eigentliche Frage ist, ob Smart1985 = ZiggiStar.
Hat jemand schon  das Telefon verwendet und  "Rene Engfer" angerufen?

One shouldnt allow a change of contract without unanimous shareholder consent.  Every share represents a contract between issuer and shareholder, a third party (other share holders) has no right to change that contract.

There might be an argument to be made to allow addendums to a contract if a majority votes for it, but only as long as the addendum doesnt infringe on the original contract.

This is precisely what I expect will happen. But it wouldnt  be a problem for ponzi plus, as we would also pay 0% on our ponzi+ bonds. We dont need an official default date or something, and the market price for Obsi bonds would give us a good indication of how much of the coins we need to keep in reserve. As the market price for these bonds approaches zero, our 10% buyback offer will be used by our depositors, extinguishing our liability and cementing the rest as profit.


He can only do that if the other shares are also fast growing ponzis, in which case we should bet against them equally.

Thats the beauty of running this on an exchange, there is no out, there is no risk of a bank run. Ask OBSI.HRPT investors, the only way out is selling your bonds (/shares) at market value.


Indeed, this was already brought up and answered. Again its not a problem on an exchange where you can find this data, but it would be a problem for an off exchange ponzi.


Lets hope none ever gets remotely as big as pirate again, but there is no shortage of new and old ponzi's. Have you checked this subforum recently?

Same way as the ponzi operator; if you bet against an actual ponzi, your dividends/coupons would never exceed the sell value of the bonds, and in most cases they will only be a small % of them. Since you only have pay dividends for as long as the original ponzi does, you make a big profit on every winning bet.

Is there any reason to believe Smart1985 is not ZiggiStar and "Viktor" ?

Is it coincidence they all share the same writing style (eg "PUSH" instead of "bump"),  the same poor level of English, the same use of red fonts?

No one said "providing a service" was foolish, not even providing a service like you did. The foolishness was in believing all the ponzi operators and scammers and anonymous lenders that claimed no exposure, and your assumption you would get the vast majority of those loans back, even though many of them would default along with the ponzi's they invested in and even though you probably have zero leverage over them.

Put differently, you were a fool to believe your own credit ratings.

There is no shortage of coins, there is a shortage of assets worth buying (and perhaps an increasing awareness of this reality). Big difference.


Why dont you list the assets your want to sell and let people bid on it? It would solve your liquidity problem and give you a far better idea of what your obsiponzi bonds and other assets really are worth, plus it avoids getting in to a spiral of debt. If no one is willing to bid close to what you think is a fair price, odds are your fair price isnt what the market thinks is fair and its time to reassess.  

I saw your other posts where you seem to think multiplying your share count by the lowest ask is the market value of your companies (proudly announcing you doubled your company value by buying 10 shares), even though the total of bids is just a handful of BTC. Its about time you learn that is not how it works. Granted, the sum of GLSBE bids isnt a fair assessment of value either, because you cant bid on several assets with the same coins, but the fact remains that something is only worth what the fool is willing to pay for it, not what you think its worth or what you ask for it. So find out what your stuff is really worth.

I was thinking mostly of the ponzi's on glbse and cryptostocks. You are correct of course, for an off-exchange ponzi like pirate's, we would have to try and make a (very conservative) guess; if we cant, we should not be betting against it for the reason you state.

That said, I would want to keep this small anyway, the point would mostly be educating users rather than making large amounts of money. And if I could think of a way to return at least some of our profits to scam victims without creating a moral hazard, I would like to do that, but I fear that will be impossible.  Guaranteeing future victims at least 10% or so seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

usagi clearly doesnt understand market depth. Only an idiot would think that buying 10 shares for 1 BTC could double a company's  value.
Maybe he is learning though, the hard way:


facepalm indeed.
Here is a hint usagi, thats what happens when you buy ponzi bonds; for some weird reason no one wants to buy them when the ponzi begins collapsing and multiplying your bonds by the ask price is almost as accurate a reflection of your asset value as BurtWs BTCST account info. Ouf of curiosity,  how much exposure do you have to this ponzi? I think your shareholders might want to know.

Its very unlikely a ponzi operator would take the risk of paying out more than 100% of his deposits, and also keep in mind we would generally start a lot later, when the actual ponzi  has already spent a fair amount of his investment in paying coupons/dividends.

There are risks of course, the biggest is perhaps if the original ponzi would continue attracting new capital at a faster rate than the payouts, while we would not; then the ponzi might outlast us. Again this seems very unlikely though, since we would sell far less bonds and I cant see why investors would keep spending on the lower paying actual ponzi and not on the lower volume, but guaranteed ponzi plus. All in all,  Id be shocked if we lost one out of 10 bets, and winning just over half of them against rational ponzi's would guarantee a positive ROI.

A bigger concern is probably reassuring depositors that we will not run off with the money. Since we dont need the coins for anything other than paying out  dividends at a predictable rate (and at worst, a known fixed amount for a buy back), I wonder if opentransactions and/or multisig could be used here somehow?

Still not sure if serious. In case you are, google "ponzi".

There was nothing lucky about pirate (and hashking, and all the others). It was common sense. The same common sense that says Patrick was running a ponzi (pass through) even though he may not have realized it. The market is full of ponzis attracting depositors that will gladly borrow money at a lower interest rate than what is offered by those ponzi's. If patrick is not a scammer than he was.. not very smart to not see this coming.

ROFL!

You are being sarcastic I hope?

I do agree its morally ambiguous, but I dont think this scheme would promote ponzis. The very fact you create a bet in the other direction and people pour money in it should have a shilling effect on potential investors . Since its more attractive than the original ponzi, it also would cause people to stop buying the original ponzi making it collapse faster.


Yeah thats working really well.