With all the pirate funds gone and ZIP.A and BDT under a cloud I think your fund is going to be one of the top 3 assets on GLBSE shortly  

Under all of this mess is an underlying business that could become quite successful. If only the website security and customer relations could be handled as professionally as Meni handled the IPO!

I wouldnt be so sure about Alberto and I would avoid any and all future projects proposed by JRO.

Pirate closed, funds should start be returned by monday, until then markets are on the loose. Time to ride this beast! 

You can't collect from someone with no money, and a shitstorm will damage reputation necessary to collect funds for payback.

I suggest everyone just keep calm, and give this a couple months' more time. Investors could be screwed, yes, but collecting at this point won't salvage much. We can be angry, but try to keep it out of mind for a while. These various securities have effectively become loans, and I can speak from experience to say it's a very bad idea to ruin someone in trying to collect money when they need to collect money themselves. Loans need to be symbiotic, and that means you can't immediately turn on the rape switch when someone's in default. To do otherwise would result in tragedy for everyone with their neck out. Partial loan calls can be symbiotic if it forces a business/individual to cut away all the fat, but in this case, we'd be taking all his meat.... okay - bad analogy.


JRO might speak in depth, eventually... hopefully - but at this point, it seems we're better off expecting repayment within a year, and not demanding answers in the meantime. I believe I am most exposed, fwiw. I don't mean to be a bully, and I have no authority to do so, but I would very much unappreciate actions which harm JRO, as it harms everyone with money in him. Especially if you have nothing at stake, please shut up.  

ETA: Not directed at anyone in particular.

Did you read both of those threads extensively? "Alberto" ignored the fact that there were security issues being identified. When people confronted him he said there was no issue, and when people confronted him again with proof of exploits, he fixed individual exploits and pretended like the reports were wrong. He also was not using bcrypt as he claimed.

I know you have some financial interest in this being FUD, but facts are not on your side.

I talked with Alberto. He may choose to make his own statement but the bottom line is that contrary to claims, no funds have been stolen from Bitdaytrade; whatever security deficiencies exist, they will be sorted out; and that bondholders shouldn't panic, he is still committed to fulfilling the contract and I will still assist him in doing so.

I talked with Alberto about many things and I am confident he is committed to making bitdaytrade work, and even if it fails, to pay back every last satoshi of debt, bringing to the table his personal assets if necessary (of which he has enough to cover his obligations). He is also committed not to have the kind of security negligence we have seen in Bitcoinica.

In any case the vast majority of the money is stored offline and withdrawals are inspected manually, so even if something happens it should still be in a level which Alberto can absorb without affecting customers.

He clearly lied about passwords being stored with bcrypt.

...almost every major JSON api function has an SQL injection.

LOL

I cant prevent people sending pirate shares to the account but so far the only ones related to pirate are YARR. I dont know about OBSI.HRPT but he hasn't said its pirate related.

BDT has been unfrozen, bitdaytrade has been very helpful in getting this mess sorted out. He can explain things from here.

Nefario.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that.
So from what I gather the issuer just left all his BTC-businesses behind?
Zipconf has seemed like a somewhat profitable business based on the dividends - so why would JRO just pack up and leave?

Sounds a little strange and very, very unprofessional. I can understand if a business venture fails and investors suffer a loss, but getting no info whatsoever from the reponsible party is just, wow.

I had some hope for ZipConf, as it was a business I thought could be constructive for the Bitcoin community. Now I'm just happy I didn't put all that much money into it.

I consider Patrick to be the lowest-risk borrower in the Lending subforum. However, Kluge is also low-risk, established, and acceptable.

As I said multiple times, an investment being "recommended" is a function of the price. It will be inappropriate for me to discuss whether the investment is recommended at any specific price. I am currently not offering any new bonds so I have no direct interest in people buying them at this point.

You can doubt it all you want, it was my intention. I wanted to simultaneously make a profitable, honest business venture, offer people a streamlined way to invest in mining, and move us one step closer to a hashrate commodity market.

When I created the bond I did not know when would ASICs arrive, did not expect them to be introduced with such an aggressive pricing strategy, and I definitely didn't expect the trade-in program. To suggest that I somehow plotted to cunningly profit from these events is ludicrous.

In the long term issuers don't determine the price of bonds, the market does. I explained very clearly what the asset does, what factors go into valuating it, and that it is every investor's responsibility to evaluate how much they stand to gain from it. It is not my fault if someone decides to pay 0.7 BTC per bond (not to me, in the secondary market) and it ends up a bad investment.

In theory the prospect of profiting from upgrade plans and such would make its way into the price the issuer is willing to offer the bond at. In my case I had not expected such a plan, and so it was not reflected in my initial price.

I am not. If I was I would probably have given up my word and my values and offered an upgrade plan to win the popularity contest. Or try to offer new bonds the moment ASICs arrive to capitalize on the uncertainty with regards to the target equilibrium.

You keep focusing on the "fairness" of issuers sharing the outcome of every positive event with investors but never stop to consider the bad things that can happen, and the risks of being committed to stick to the contract no matter what. I could die and continue to pay coupons from beyond the grave, would many greedy people do that?

In truth, I hoped you had noticed already that "extremely low liquidity" means something.

However, you've been doing well nevertheless, hopefully you'll be doing even better now that you've adjusted the algorithm, and personally compensating for losses really does show you care about us -so I'm still strongly in  

You're entitled to a different opinion but please stop the trash-talk saying deterministic assets should be "filtered out".