The problem with many unregulated securities is that it is hard to make sure something is a ponzi scam or not. What I try here is to give money management advise when dealing with unregulated securities or investments. There are 3 fundamental rules: 1. Never play around with money or time that you can't afford to lose. 2. Never reinvest your earnings from one asset into the same asset. This means, always take your dividend, distribution, or interest payment and keep it or use it for something else. 3. Always draw down your investment over time. What is a ponzi? A Ponzi is a fund that pays investor A with the money deposited from investor B. Ponzi are fraudulent investment funds that act on investor greed to steal their money. Ponzi's can sometimes be discovered by an unusually high interest rate, but if a business is capable of growth or pays out most of its income then they give high dividends. So how to protect your investment? Following the 3 rules above. In the following example, Alice invests 10,000 in some unregulated asset that promises her 7% a week. Each week she makes 7% on her total balance, withdraws the interest that she makes, and withdraws an additional sum of money equal to her interest that she made that week. Each week's interest decreases but her total amount of money being risked also decreases. At 10 weeks after her initial investment, she has her original 10,000 back, but now she is making pure income. Example, Name: Investment Fund A (IFA) Weekly return: 7% (crazy) Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AncUp77iGwCjdFBsNE5DODA4M2hwLXlBWjhVMHE1SHc |
|
|
|
That's pretty awesome. Have you bought anything cool with the interest you've taken out in the last few weeks?
yes, i compunded it back. turning into an even bigger deposit. isnt that cool?  It's really strange, you're a smart kid, like you understand the concepts of cryptography really well, you can do some nifty Chrome plugins etc. and yet you think this, I don't understand, is it like a mental blind spot for you?
This is public knowledge. There was massive drama about my not giving Nefario my ID cuz he said he was going to give it to the police.
I think you miss-remembered or miss-interpreted something I had said, it's never been my position to give any ID to anyone outside GLBSE and I've said as much. We've gone to great lengths to make it difficult to impossible for law enforcement to make us do so through the use of cryptography. Also GLBSE will only have to follow AML rules if we're required to register as a financial institution, which would also mean that other regulations apply. All we need comply with is the 1998 data protection act which prevents us giving out our users information. You said at the time you would make my personal info public if you thought I was a scammer. This was when you were trying to shut down my BTCST account because you thought I was a scammer. It's all public record. So I did not send you the ID :/ I think you panicked and over reacted but I remember this just fine... I don't see what the need is for to store the IDs, even if it is encrypted. Check the information then destroy the documents. When I buy a beer they don't keep my ID on file. |
|
|
|
It seems almost every security has some sort of clause to the effect of: I reserve the options of either buying back the offering at 105% of the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the prior 360 hours What's up with that? So all an operator has to do to get out of their obligations is run a false flag of bad news, or visibly mismanage the asset, to drive the price down and then buy the shares back at a discount? Or in the case of mining shares, if the operator has inside information that the performance of their rig is going to improve dramatically, they can buy out all the shares at a forced discount (not everyone would be willing to sell at only 5% above market)? What would happen if a "real world" stock had this kind of clause in it? This seems like quite the gimmick. If we want Bitcoin securities to have any sort of legitimacy, these kind of shenanigans need to stop. I mean we're already accepting quite a bit of counterparty risks with the exchange, and the operator of the security, and we need to have this clause on top of that? I call bullshit. The stocks and bonds on GLBSE and the other exchanges are not actually stocks and bonds, they are contracts between the contract creator and the purchaser. The buy back clause is a way to wind down the security if the issuer does not want to do it anymore. The purchaser can always sell the contract to another person in the secondary market, but the asset creator cannot just sell it to just anyone. I put one in my security because if I decide to retire from managing the security and no one else wants to take over, there is a way to dissolve the contract. Some people could take advantage of the situation, but people should have a level of trust with the asset creator before purchasing the asset. |
|
|
|
|
The real question is how do you know if an exchange is doing any of these minimal security standards?
|
|
|
|
Just thought you should know, on the bitping.com website, the currency pair quotes are written wrong. You have them set as USDBTC, EURBTC, etc, but you should have them reversed. In the forex nomenclature, the first currency is called the base currency and the second currency would be the quote currency. What this means is that the price you list will represents how much of the quote currency is needed for you to get one unit of the base currency. So if you are saying USDBTC is 10.50 then that means you need 10.50 BTC to purchase 1 USD. Instead you should list them all as BTCUSD, BTCEUR, ect. Or add a slash... USD/BTC is 10.3 atm, but USDBTC is 0.097 No, in forex lingo even with a slash between the first currency and the second currency means the same thing as without. In other words USDBTC, USD:BTC, USD/BTC, all mean the same thing. The slash does not me 'per' and it is not a math equation. It is just a marker to separate the base currency (the first currency) and the quoted currency (the second currency). I know it seems ass backwards, but this is just the way the it is. To write it correctly it would have to be BTC/USD. This means that how much USD is required for 1 BTC. I have a degree in math so I literally read that as USD per BTC, so it's not wrong in my head. If the forex community actually uses the slash like that then they are retarded. I'm fine with them switching the order as one unit or with a colon, but / is per or division. This is what happens when bureaucrats make decisions. Currency pairs are written by concatenating the ISO currency codes ( ISO 4217) of the base currency and the counter currency, separating them with a slash character. Often the slash character is omitted. A widely traded currency pair is the relation of the euro against the US dollar, designated as EUR/USD. The quotation EUR/USD 1.2500 means that one euro is exchanged for 1.2500 US dollars. |
|
|
|
One thing still unclear to me (assuming it was indeed a scam) is why he hasn't severed all communications and just went poof.
Because any big money lenders who could potentially take action are either privy to info that no one else has or are just still convinced by his presence that they will still get their money back. I think I'm about the only large account that at this point thinks it was a scam or he just ran off with the money. I assume this because I keep getting sent messages like, "Don't call pirate names, you are going to hurt his feelings!!" I think pirate is actually a member of the [img=http://www.hubculture.com/]http://Hub Cult[/img] and with the coins he is going to...  |
|
|
|
THat my friend is an awesome domain....as are search IDs, sessions and working links  oops, wrong copy and paste. http://trendonshavers.com/ |
|
|
|
If the amount of people using bitcoin continues to go up as it has along with corresponding increase in services, at some point it will become an honest threat to the sovereignty of the state. At this point, the states (the powerful ones anyway) will have no choice but to intervene and shut down all of the services (mtgox, glbse, bitinstant, this forum etc) that users depend on in order to facilitate exchange within and between currencies. My question is: Is it possible for this decentralized currency to build out an equally robust and decentralized service infrastructure? If not, what is the contingency plan for when this happens?
I am being SATIRISTIC  |
|
|
|
Just thought you should know, on the bitping.com website, the currency pair quotes are written wrong. You have them set as USDBTC, EURBTC, etc, but you should have them reversed. In the forex nomenclature, the first currency is called the base currency and the second currency would be the quote currency. What this means is that the price you list will represents how much of the quote currency is needed for you to get one unit of the base currency. So if you are saying USDBTC is 10.50 then that means you need 10.50 BTC to purchase 1 USD. Instead you should list them all as BTCUSD, BTCEUR, ect. Or add a slash... USD/BTC is 10.3 atm, but USDBTC is 0.097 No, in forex lingo even with a slash between the first currency and the second currency means the same thing as without. In other words USDBTC, USD:BTC, USD/BTC, all mean the same thing. The slash does not me 'per' and it is not a math equation. It is just a marker to separate the base currency (the first currency) and the quoted currency (the second currency). I know it seems ass backwards, but this is just the way the it is. To write it correctly it would have to be BTC/USD. This means that how much USD is required for 1 BTC. |
|
|
|
Just thought you should know, on the bitping.com website, the currency pair quotes are written wrong. You have them set as USDBTC, EURBTC, etc, but you should have them reversed. In the forex nomenclature, the first currency is called the base currency and the second currency would be the quote currency. What this means is that the price you list will represents how much of the quote currency is needed for you to get one unit of the base currency. So if you are saying USDBTC is 10.50 then that means you need 10.50 BTC to purchase 1 USD. Instead you should list them all as BTCUSD, BTCEUR, ect. |
|
|
|
If keeping Pirate debt debt and hedging it is a "best bet" then buying Pirate debt bet and hedging is equally the "best bet".
What he means is (I think), if you already have money loaned with pirate the bet is good as you can hedge your loss. If someone hedges 50% of what they loaned to pirate then if pirate does not pay at all the person gets even money. If pirate pays pays 10% of his obligations, then the creditor makes a 10% return after getting their money from their hedge. A person can reduce their risk to essentially the probability that Matthew will honor the bet. Also, it is not a logical fallacy as conditions change over time. It just depends on the risk/reward ratio of the debt being purchased. Loaning money to someone in the past may have made sense, but if they default and their credit rating changes, loaning more money to them for the same reward would be foolish as the risk has increased. The investor/gambler needs to see how much is debt being sold for, and calculate how much they need to hedge and still make a profit. |
|
|
|
What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout? No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk. You're still considering risk a binary concept. It's not. Would you say the same statement about a venture with low risk? You need to define the risk you refer to in terms of the probability it will not pay. Then you can estimate how much to invest. Risk may be a sliding scale, but results are binary. Either the risk pays off, or it doesn't. And until it does, you have to act as though it will not. Any other course is inviting disaster. How do you decide how much to invest in any given scheme then? Standard risk/reward calculation. But I never risk more than I can afford to lose. I understand that I am taking a risk, and I may not be able to recoup it. I don't assume that anything I "have coming" will actually come. A pessimist is never disappointed. But if you calculate the risk/reward ratio for this pirate default bet then there really is no risk, as the gamblers do not have to put their money in escrow thus no money is being risked. If they lose the bet they simply walk away and open up a new account. If they win the bet, maybe they will get paid. I believe Matthew got the bad bet as he has many people he is betting with and more reputation to lose if he does not pay every single one of those bets. On the other hand, all the other investors can simply ignore the bet if they lose, lowering Matthew's risk/reward ratio. |
|
|
|
Reading through this gives a list of stupid people to forever ignore. |
|
|
|
I came to the same conclusion. It is possible he may have worked there around the same time. My hunch is that he may have been in some sort of technical position and had access to the merchantile login while in that capacity.
His brother is in IT and has connections to the same person (and may have worked there too). I'm not sure what value there'd be to contacting pirate's previous employers. With the exception of his younger brother, his family seems fairly stable and unlikely to up and disappear even if Trendon does. It would be hard to just get up and leave as he has a wife with twins. I assume the twins are not his but from his wife's first husband. |
|
|
|
Has anyone called the other place of work in texas. The real estate one?
I dont have those details on me.
Stonebridge is the company him and his wife are renting an apartment from. Unless there was some info leading one to belive he worked there that I missed..?? Interesting.... if he is renting that does not fit with the hot water heater story... I believe he rents, but not an apartment. When I was thinking of investing in one of the PPTs I did some background research on the person people claimed pirate to be. Searching for Trendon Shavers I came across the address: 2304 S. Custer Road Apt 1507 just as it listed herebut I also came across: 2812 Glen Hollow Drive, McKinney, TX 75070. **EDIT: Nevermind owned by a LAURA LEE REYES. You can scroll down that page and see that the house was sold in 2010 to Reyes from the Shavers. What made me curious was that it is only a short distance from the registration address of buscog.com Registrant: Business Cognition 5100 Eldoardo Pkwy Mckinney, Texas 75070 United States http://goo.gl/maps/gHZxzI should also add, another whois for buscog.com: http://www.websitevalue.us/www/buscog.comContact
Owner Name Business Cognition
Owner Org No Info
Adress 2812 Glen Hollow Dr.
Adress Mckinney, Texas 75070
Adress United States
Owner Phone (469) 964-7666
Owner Email tshavers@gmail.com |
|
|
|
I'm not sure how that would change anything? If I added more singles, I would add more shares and thus your payout would remain the same. The plan is to upgrade the singles into a mini-rig SC when those become available.
Will BFLS shares then be turned into BFLS.RIG shares? |
|
|
|
Actually, if someone can prove that Tredon used a bitcoin address that was used for both paying interest on BTST accounts and GPUMAX then just file a lawsuit by serving the papers to the registered agent listed for GPUMAX. I know people in the US think litigation is the answer to everything, but what value is there in filing a lawsuit at this point? It's just an expensive way to reach the very same settlement you'd reach without involving courts. It is Texas so litigation would not be able to take his house (unless he purchased it by illegal means), but everything else is open to forfeiture. People can declare bankruptcy but that is only for outstanding debt, that does not include fraud. If that fraud was done over the internet then that is wire fraud. |
|
|
|
Well, if all else fails, I am still a fan of the 'Scorched Earth' way of doing things.
If I can't have it - neither can he..... and I will move my claims to the IRS, Homeland Security and Customs/Immigration.
You should try the Dallas Morning News as well. |
|
|
|
Wrd, on top of that I don't understand why bonds are ”tricky”. Just pay out the security issuer (Goat) and let him divvy it up from there. The only reason why it would be ”tricky” is if he (or whoever its using him aa sock puppet) wanted to ID all the bond holders. I wonder why he would want to do that?
I don't believe pirate is being legit but if he was then you pay creditors directly rather than through intermediaries so that you're not liable if the pass-throughs don't pay. There is no good reason whatsoever for him refusing to give the pass-through operators contact details for his lawyer or accountant though. It makes me wonder if pirate is collecting information because he hasn't maintained adequate records and he needs it to now create them. Normally, the information would be submitted directly to the accountant/lawyer handling an insolvency and verified against existing business records. Actually, if someone can prove that Tredon used a bitcoin address that was used for both paying interest on BTST accounts and GPUMAX then just file a lawsuit by serving the papers to the registered agent listed for GPUMAX. |
|
|
|
|
I can imagine Trendon lawyer's face when he told his lawyer what he was up to for the last few months.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
