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 is presence that they will still get their money back.

Who want to take *what* risk? The risk that you'll decide not to pay them 20% interest?

What's the difference? Your pitch appears identical to Stock Generation's pitch.

In other words, you may or may not pay out on any 'project' based on factors that you won't disclose. What sane person would give money under such terms?

Sure, as much as you choose to offer them for as long as you let people keep money in them. That sounds a lot like Stock Generation, doesn't it?

But you don't promise high rates. You make it clear that there's some unspecified risk that the high rates, and even the principal, won't materialize. And you do not make it clear under what conditions principal can be lost. Effectively, you're saying "You might make money, I might keep your money, it's risky. And I won't tell you what determines which of these two things will happen."

The same was true of Stock Generation. You've yet to explain how this is different.

Explain what the "risk" is precisely and how someone who loses money can tell whether this is because of a legitimate risk that didn't pan out or merely because you decided to keep his money.

All you've said so far is, "You might make a lot of money. Or you might lose money. It's risky. And we won't tell you what the risks are or how we decide whether you make or lose money. It's up to us." Sorry, that's something only a scammer would say.

Your pitch is precisely like this: "Lend me $50 and I'll pay you $10/week. I'll do something with your money that makes money, and I'll share the profits with you. However, it's risky. I might have to stop paying you at some point.." That's just not what an honest business does, because it not only suggests but explicitly allows you to just stop paying because you'd rather keep people's money. You have to say *what* the risk is so that if you do stop paying me, I know it's not just because you decided you'd rather keep my money.

The scam with Stock Generation is not what they did -- with one very minor exception, they kept their promises and did what they said. The scam is the offer itself -- we might or might not pay you based on factors we won't disclose. And that scam offer seems, at least to me, to be your offer. If I'm missing something, please correct me. How is your offer different from the classic SG scam offer?

How do you plan to find that lawyer, assuming he exists?

zyk, I love your posts.

Keep on keepin' on!

check out my tygrr bond p thread, start on page 29.

thanks

Pirate has said he would give that information last Friday. Pirate however did not give that information. I personally would like to talk with Pirates lawyer
 

I personally believe he has none and neither needs nor wants one.

But if anybody knows pirate's lawyer, it would be a good idea to contact him quickly to make sure first that he exists. Why has that not happened yet?

...AND, he's back on ignore.

Zyk, I just want to thank you for completely butchering the language that I know and love.

does that mean every single other PPT 'complied'?

let's see if their lenders report having coins come in... that's the only thing that matters and i've still seen no evidence of that occurring.

See why I asked you not to quote him.... Mr. Dong?

I approve this statement.

Would it not be reasonable for payb.tc to talk to pirates lawyer before moving on? since pirate is changing terms should we not at least wait until pirate explains? 

for all i know pirate will void ppt accounts because operators let in coins that were not theirs. i mean why not, if he can change the rules after the fact why not just keeping changing them?