The information I have is a bit different to what has been posted here - some aligns, other bits do not.  Some of the issues around the account have been reported to the admins, but the more recent events are not bitcoin related.

pm received - return of deposit made

Just as a notification, having cleared my over-night pm's, I do sometimes hit the 10 messages an hour limit and that can slow down responses. 

Seti is one of the worst boinc projects, that's why I don't run it much.  I have 600M+ in boinc (places me in the top 200), so I posted into the seti thread.  I don't expect it to do anything.  I'd be better to get my boinc team to bring all their ati cards across, but that's not he point.  Ignore the ignorant.

(swear word)

Ignoring all the bullshit above, I have been helped by a couple of forum members chasing scammers and otherwise non-paying assholes (and I've making payment where it's due).  A couple of those people would be useful to employ more regularly.  From a lender's perspective, having better access to enforcement and follow up would be useful.

I'm only posting because I have nothing better to do right now (thanks Jack #7).  Better names than I have already clearly labelled this thread repetitive and irrelevant.

However, as someone working with a modest business in BTC (exceeding 10k deposits and 10k in lending), and having seen posts like this over the last year, I wonder why mystery2048 has not bothered to do any reading on the forum.  It's dull finding this crap again and again.

Even if BTC is doomed (1960's Hammer Horror voice - DOOOMED - or maybe a Simpsons version), it has a long way to go before people stop using it.  In the last week I have escrowed a fx deal and two equipment deals (and I don't even offer that as a regular service).  I lose count of the deposit accounts I run, and have an extensive range of loans and investments helping to provide actual assistance to people doing real things.

Added Brendio's 32-day deposits

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91536.0

I do the occasional escrow for people, holding coins while deals go through.  I did one for Gigavps a while ago for around 600 coins and another one last weekend for 200.  It's not something I charge for as holding coins on behalf of someone else isn't much work for me. 

A variation on this theme is I have done loans where the coins are paid direct to a third party.  Say you managed wrestle some equipment out of Giga but wanted to debt fund it.  Giga sends you the xyz gizmo, I pay Giga and you repay the loan.  Variations on a theme.

While not a good result for anyone, a BS&T default pays the same to bond holders irrespective of how far through the cycle they are.

If you buy on day one and the default is on day two, you get 0.32.
If you buy on day one and the default is on day twenty-seven, you get 0.32.

It might depend on if you are looking at default probability on a daily weekly or monthly cycle.  On the flip side, if you don't think Pirate is going to sail away with your funds, there are other products/options.  PPT.x bonds is just one in a range.

I have been asked to act as escrow.  I will be using the following address: 1NzcEbEWPMdBqFcuogZGiw4JN77fc9Gr6a

Edit: I understand the deal is off, so nothing further to add.

I didn't want to comment, but you asked politely.  The first row is incorrect, as the 1000 BTC was not placed in BS&T, but 1280 BTC placed in the fund.

The other item I could correct is the differentiation between the PPT.DIV pay outs (what you have labeled PPT shareholders) and the core PPT holders of the 36 shares that place the capital at risk still have 3860 coins sitting idle in the event of default.

The other distraction here is that the insurance was never free for purchasers, and there was a premium paid, and that is the profit that goes to the PPT.DIV holders.  With the change in interest rates from BS&T a decision was made, on the information available, to change the rate of pass-through.  It is not the worst pass-through rate available on the forum, but the bonds do have some other features that people value including tradability and liquidity (although that is quite low currently).

At the end of the day, if Pirate goes bust, I have a 640 BTC hole in my accounts as do the five other initial funders.  I'm off for some sleep and I hope your day is going well as you hoped.

Updated in the WPW thread.

I was avoiding posting here, but I obviously need to provide (repeat) some information about my business and it is my private business and doesn't need to be disclosed.

Yes, I have a BS&T account, and have had it since 17 December 2011 (no secret, it's announced in the BS&T thread).  For a long time it sat around 4k and at the moment it's sitting at 10k and will probably stay that way until Christmas.  I'll be getting 5%/week on it as I don't expect to be attracting pass-through deposits.  Income derived from this account goes into two main activities:
1: Increasing BTC investments including GLBSE assets, mining equipment and a stake I have in things like a BTC electronics business, and
2: Cashing out funds to pay for various real-life things including various organisations like our local homeless shelter which is costing me a couple hundred dollars/week thanks to the efforts my wife makes.

Outside of the BS&T account, as of today, I have 10,794 BTC outstanding in loans and 10,586 BTC held on deposit (plus 160 in the 7Seas fund).  This is the core business of StarFish BCB and what generates the return for people looking for something other than BS&T exposure.

Only just stumbled on this while looking for something else - will pm usagi.

If the redemption of the bonds was on a five week cycle I would be more inclined to agree, but it's not.  But you are getting closer.  The other piece that appears missing is the payments to PPT.DIV holders, but as have need stated, you're not interested in accurate bookkeeping.

In the table, a default event would also show 0.32 coins per outstanding bond being used to pay bond holders, and from what you have clearly set out, that does come from the week zero funds.

In other news, major insurance companies use customer premiums directly to build reserves, pay claims and enrich shareholders.

Obviously you do not care about the bookkeeping and transactions - it makes the story less interesting.

In the event of a default, the coins from the auction invested into BS&T are gone.  I am not sure where you think this magical extra set of coins appears from as any "spare" is paid out in profits.  If we were running a five week cycle that might work, but would still require approximately 4000 coins more than customers have provided.

As for honour, I do not need to attest my own position.

Interesting: in the event of a BS&T default, we pay out 3860 coins to bond holders.  Collectively we can demonstrate the blockchain transactions and the address where these coins sit (Burt had this somewhere).  This is obviously not a penny (actually around $26,000).

I suspect the transactions, which are quite simple, are not clear.  Let me try to explain.

1: PPT raised 3860 BTC to serve as an insurance fund.
2: PPT.x buyers bid for bonds running for four weeks paying 1.28
3: Any surplus (profit) is paid to PPT.DIV holders.

PPT.x buyers do not pay explicitly for insurance.  Any premium they pay, and profit generated is paid to the PPT.DIV holders.
In the event of a BS&T default, irrespective of the progress through a PPT/x cycle, the bonds are guaranteed to pay 0.32 per bond where any other pass through bond pays zero.  The founders of PPT will be out of pocket 3860 coins (USD4300 each).
The change in floor price has been well explained related to the change to BS&T interest rates.  That change was not made with a justification that the bonds carry partial insurance against default.

Thank you for the great reply.

There are a heap of things that could be asked, and that is part of a due diligence any investor should look at.  What I am most (and others should be) interested in is financial ability to repay.  A ponzi operator is unlikely to disclose sufficient information to get a rating (or a good one).  Growth metrics and disclosure are useful (I have some, as do some others) and these do not always indicate scamming behaviour.

Also, there is a nice underlying (implicit) point that lying on credit score information would be noted and would provide a huge red flag for any investor.

How someone makes their income/return is less of an issue if they have reserves, and I would expect someone investing purely on GLBSE capital gains to have a few extra problems over someone that regularly lends funds.

Size of the business doesn't necessarily lower risk, but it does have an impact.  For example, I have 150 addresses in my client list, so it could be based on number of client accounts and/or volume.

BTW for a good read, search for "Corporate credit criteria"  http://www.nafoa.org/pdf/CorprateCriteriaBook-2008.pdf

(fixing a couple of small formatting issues)


How about something like "XYZ would be useful" or "I'd like to know if someone has all my money tied up in an illiquid asset on GLBSE", or "wtf does income have to do with it?"

Maybe more interesting is how people might value or discount rated offerings and if other deposit takers actually want to disclose (even at an aggregated level), this information.

It's taken longer than planned to get around to this, but it is a topic I have been asked about three times in the past week, in reference to alternatives and how trustworthy various deposits are.  Assessing Bitcoin-deposit takers and interest providers is quite different to the real world as many of the metrics do not apply very well, especially as there is unlikely to be interest and depreciation, or large operational income.  It is also desirable to keep things simple and brief where possible.  Therefore, I propose to use the  following metrics to form the basis of ratings:

Financial
Liquid Assets: Those able to be redeemed within 48 hours - includes cash held at an exchange.
Assets: Typically investments in fixed term deposits or extended as loans.
Investments: Stocks, bonds and investments in BTC enterprises that are not necessarily liquid.

Nett Income: Average monthly income for the last 3 months.
Bad debts: Total of bad debts to Assets for the last 3 months.  

Current Liabilities: Payable within 1 month.
Term liabilities: Payable later than one month.

Non-Financial
Identity verification (generally accepted people know who you are in real life)
Length of time in "business" (months)
Operation of limits on accounts.
Disaster recovery procedures (Y/N)
Prior late or missed payments.

Non-Financial
Identity verification (generally accepted people know who you are in real life)
Length of time in "business" (months)
Operation of limits on accounts.
Disaster recovery procedures (Y/N)
Prior late or missed payments within the last six months.

Ratios

-------------------------------	AAA	AA	A	BBB	BB	B	C
Liabilities / monthly income less than	3	6	9	12	18	24	-
Bad debt ratio less than	0	2	4	6	8	10	-
Current_liabilities_/_Liquid_Assets_less_than	1	1.5	2	2.5	3	5	-
Liabilities_/_Assets_less_than	0.5	0.75	0.9	1	1.1	1.25	-
Time in "business" months	12	6	5	4	3	2	1

Modifiers - to move from one category to another takes three points.
ID verified: +1
Account limits: If current limits maintain or improve ratios, +1, otherwise -1.
Disaster recovery: +1
Prior late/missed payments: -3 per event.


Example updated and is posted below.

Also as usual, comments welcome.

Nah, apparently I've annoyed Vladimir quite effectively https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91643.msg1014104#msg1014104

And discussing complex number theory and statistics is less interesting than my beer and the steak I'm going to be having soon.

Anyway, my personal expectation is that BS&T might run another six months, so I'm set until Christmas, so I'm in the staying camp.  (I also know who Mr P is, and have various other bits of information that provide me confidence that my funds are as safe with him as many other places.  I am not "all in", and happy to be receiving less than the top tier of interest from 1 August because others are keen to run low margin pass-throughs.)