Hi guys,
As some of you may know, I'm the main person in charge of stickies in the Lending forum along with John. Our current policy is to sticky major lenders in order to separate them out from all of the lending requests. I believe that this is reasonable, since there are far fewer lenders than lendees, and when people go to the lending board for the first time, chances are that they are looking for a loan, so making them be stickies makes sense.
However, what has happened is that many of these lenders have started taking out loans of their own in the form of deposit programs and they are advertising them through their sticky, giving them an unfair advantage over all of the other loan requests. In fact, just this last week I had to yell at BurtW for converting his sticky into ONLY the deposit program. As a result, I took about a week to reevaluate the sticky requirements in the Lending board, and I think I have a solution that I want to hear the community's opinion on.
I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.
Let me know what you guys think.
Then perhaps there needs to be a deposits subforum. While deposits/loans can be considered the same thing, I'd argue the loans are typically given by the more trusted to the less trusted, whereas the deposits are given by the less trusted to the more trusted and as such, represent two different market segments. The people stickied in the deposits subform, while not officially endorsed, would be your long term, seemingly highly reliable people. |
|
|
|
You keep thinking that I'm saying that I have proof that this is a ponzi. By definition, that is impossible. My only proof was that your claim about staying within 5% has historically been false, and it turns out that that was just a miscommunication because you thought that everyone knew that the policy hadn't started yet. Of course, until the policy goes into effect, it still doesn't do anything to help your side because Pirate could run with the money before the policy even takes effect on Monday.
You're right, I misread that. I just went back and reread the post. |
|
|
|
Seems pure btc to me. Bond is priced in btc, coupons are btc, upgrade is priced in btc.
It's a bitcoin economy. Can I buy shares in direct barter for asparagus?
I did think it a bit odd when gigavps first mentioned that the fee could go down because of a change in exchange rate, but I figured I'd ask anyways. Except BFL doesn't denominate their gear in btc, they denominate it in USD. Bitcoin is nothing more than a Visa, just a means to transmit USD. |
|
|
|
Why no, I didn't miss that. In fact, just to make sure, I just read it again. I see no public announcement about getting additional interest if you stay within 5%, however. If such announcement was made publicly, it was made on IRC, and you can't expect everyone to have all of the logs of that channel, yet alone the time to read them all. So no, this part was not public knowledge, in the general sense.
Posting on IRC is public knowledge. The nice thing about IRC is that the comments can't be edited like they can be in the forums. Once its said, its said for good. I agree, a person can't be everywhere. I do my darnedest to try to keep up with everything said on the forums but as everything has become more polarized and seemingly less factual, I grow weary from it. I don't understand why, if you or someone else has linked conclusive proof of shenanigans going on why it can't be disclosed. If freedom of expression allows a person to call someone else a ponzi without any proof, then surely that same freedom of expression covers honest mistakes. Further, if there's such a moral obligation to speak out against pirate being a ponzi, surely there's just as much of an obligation to actually release evidence of said ponzi. At least more than "It lives where ducks live" or "Its colored like a duck". |
|
|
|
Thanks for the response imsaguy. If EIEIO was more transparent about its operations I would have much more confidence in it. The description (in addition to mining) "taking advantage of market arb opportunities and other btc related activities." and interest rate tiers/incentives reek of a pirate clone. You have stated you will release "full statement of accounts" by the end of the month, which should improve your credibility. Feel free to PM or linke me proof of a large mining set up as well.
Assuming this bond is backed (in part) by a mining farm, I could still see a default scenario if the BTC price rose sharply and pirate defaulted, as mining farms are mostly valued in USD.
Why the hell would I pm it to you? Are you now the official arbiter of what is just and right? I'd release it to the general public before I took the time to specifically pm it to you. There have already been people that called me out on this before and they got shut down as equally fast with pictures and hashrates at pools. Oh, and while the hardware itself might have USD value, it was all bought and paid for in bitcoin and that's how I document it. |
|
|
|
Maged: I have a proof that this is a ponzi. But I will not tell ya, coz people who dug it up did not give me permission.
I made no such assertion. I was merely saying that we had proof that imsaguy's claim that pirate is discouraging deposits and is being effective in doing do is patently false. Of course this was the case, because apparently the discouraging hasn't started. He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals. How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?
You can say it all you want, because the unofficial audit team has irrefutable proof that this is absolutely not the case. For example, despite growing over 10% per week, BitcoinMax is still making 7.7% per week in interest. The rules don't take effect until the middle of the month... Weird that you never brought that up... Well, guess we now know what is happening on the 14th... Did you miss the posting where Pirate said trust accounts are pushed back? I didn't think I had to regurgitate public knowledge. Contrary to public opinion, I don't have some special access to Pirate and only know what he announces to everyone else. |
|
|
|
A buyer at $5 may be a seller at $10. New entrants may be buyers at $10 and sellers at $9. In either situation, supply is replenished and available for acquisition to be redirected as return for investors. Everyone is looking at the total amount of BTC in existence rather than the churn at the margin, where holders of bitcoins sell, reintroducing flow into the market. Once more - that flow becomes fodder to be picked up and supplied to Pirate & investors. There is a recirculating dynamic. I already brought this up. Clearly it isn't a compelling argument.  |
|
|
|
Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed).
I guess that means whoever thought up "Innocent until proven guilty" was a conman. Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme [as in exhibits literally each and every characteristic of a ponzi scheme], and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding. So far, your evidence is an unjustified return and the lack of disclosing trade secrets. What other characteristics? Please, document them. Don't make generic statements, they just repeat whats already been said. |
|
|
|
Good answer, but I would like a little further clarification just because I don't see the answer-
Someday (in non-default based future), Pirate will drop his service and return all deposits. What happens at that point? I assume since you got all the deposits returned to you, you will turn around and buy back all shares @1 btc. Correct?
How big does someone have to be to ask for a direct withdrawal? Is there any price point of GIPPT where you would consider initiating a small pirate withdrawal specifically to buy back shares on GLBSE and cancel out the shares? If you don't do this then I think you are earning interest yourself on value that is no longer present in the market you created... it's an interesting position to be in.
Apologize if these are dumb questions, I like your fund.
Thank you-
I think the bonds are worth hell of a lot more then they are currently, which is kind of sad to see  You guys don't like the asset? The bonds are worth more than 1.2 BTC, by my math. The market is simply saturated. 1 BTC is a joke for them, because then there's 0 risk for the investor of a pirate default. Pirate defaults, I don't lose anything. And that is why I pulled out of YARR and won't be buying Goat's bond. It is not zero risk. If pirate defaults, you have to hope that ineedausername and imsaguy, who are both heavily invested in pirate, do not default on the insurance. Ok, here's where I get to step in.. you're spewing shit. You need to get your facts straight and stop talking so authoritatively about other people's businesses, especially when you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about. EIEIO isn't exposed to Pirate. Its a mining farm that does pretty well. There are many, many people on this forum that have sold and either shipped to me or sold to me and met me in person. I have on order with various enterprises a bunch more gear. Go digging on the forums, its documented and timestamped. In fact, ask Maged or Theymos to verify I haven't edited them anytime lately. I /was/ involved in a PPT with 5 other people, but both INAU and I have sold our shares and are no longer invested in that. That is also documented here on the forums. I currently run a direct PPT, uninsured, meaning the only funds are funds that people explicitly give to me for that purpose. In addition, I think its been about 98% that have been internal transfers at BS&T which means very little inflows from me on behalf of others into BS&T. |
|
|
|
The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.
Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proofWhen debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
[vomit, diarrhea, more farts from the mouth...] Permit me to simplify: E_p > E_npwhere E_p = N (for large positive values of N) is evidence of being flaming ponzi and E_np = 0 is evidence of not being a flaming ponzi Oh right, once again, no facts. |
|
|
|
The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.
Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proofWhen debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
Are you not asserting the claim that Pirate is a ponzi? Guess that means its on you. |
|
|
|
He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals. How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?
You can say it all you want, because the unofficial audit team has irrefutable proof that this is absolutely not the case. For example, despite growing over 10% per week, BitcoinMax is still making 7.7% per week in interest. The rules don't take effect until the middle of the month... |
|
|
|
Its pretty incredible that people are STILL investing when the numbers indicate that in 18 months or so Pirate will have paid out all the bitcoins in existence ............including the ones that havent even been mined yet  Are you aware that interest rates are flexible? Are you aware hes also throwing out ADDITIONAL % bonus "incentives" for people who keep their balance at a high level and dont withdraw it ? Yeah, he's offering bonuses for people that don't deposit more money.. totally ponzi! |
|
|
|
Similarly, a stability requirement "makes sense" in some sort of way--capital stability, of course! But penalizing withdrawals and not deposits absolutely screams "scam," so it's unsurprising that such a rule is not put into writting.
It was put in writing. It was mentioned on IRC by pirate himself. Both withdrawals and deposits count towards the stability requirement. I was saying that he wouldn't put a one-sided limit on withdrawals in writing. Has he? I would think that would be a big red flag event to the credulous. Hence it's a bonus for maintain the same amount (while still letting in new money). Same effect, no red flag. He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals. How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what caused it.
It seems that the server locked up while compressing the forum backup. I don't know why. This normally works fine -- I just tried it now without any issues. At least you're backing up  |
|
|
|
Add me to the long posts lost club.  I had my post posted about 5 times. :-/ |
|
|
|
Similarly, a stability requirement "makes sense" in some sort of way--capital stability, of course! But penalizing withdrawals and not deposits absolutely screams "scam," so it's unsurprising that such a rule is not put into writting.
It was put in writing. It was mentioned on IRC by pirate himself. Both withdrawals and deposits count towards the stability requirement. |
|
|
|
They restarted the server. Ah. Was this planned somewhere? Seems like maintenance should be scheduled such that people don't lose posts. Nope, not planned. It seemed like something locked up and when notified, they restarted the server and things were working again. |
|
|
|
It's another mental barrier to people considering removing funds. If interest payments don't count and are just allowed to compound, then people who might otherwise draw down their balances will be tempted to let them sit, reducing the number of withdrawals that call upon a limited pool of funds.
To be honest, if I were running a ponzi I'd probably do just that - it looks legitimate and it makes juggling cashflow easier and more predictable.
Over what time period are we talking for this .5% bonus?
The interest payments don't count either way.. whether invest or paid out. The bonus is over a month's time, so the balance can't move more than 5% over 30 days. |
|
|
|
They restarted the server. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
