 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
|
I came up with many different concepts too, but they all seem to be either complicated or too unusual. We'll launch a ponzi service with hourly payments and restarts when the system gets stuck within several days. Also our profit structure will be more transparent, we need profits the market the thing. I cant stop thinking about this kind thing and ive made spreadsheets with different kind of setups. However i am a math noob and a code noob, not likely im going to set one up. But i think i have an interesting idea.
Basically i think i got the numbers set up so it takes about a month to be done. The payments are every 6 hours, and the interest is 19% total. That means you get 119% back of your original deposit. I think this is still attractive for an investor. 19% in 1 month. The good thing about it is the fund has time to lure in new investors, it doesent get out of hand too fast. There is time to gather more money.
What i made was something that paid out a % of the bankroll to everyone who invested. As soon as they invest the system registers they are owed 1.19 of their original deposit and will pay them out 0.015 of this amount in proportion to what is the bankroll. This means the bigger the bankroll is, the faster people can be done, and the smaller it is, the slower it will be. So when it is nearing depletion the payouts still come out, but they may be small, which gives time to find new/more investors. The payout will stop for each investor as soon as total payout reaches >1.19*original deposit.
|
|
|
|
Yes exactly actually we see no excitement for the scheme, so we'll take a simpler route. Am i understanding this correctly? If i paid in 1 BTC and that is say 10% of the bankroll, every hour i get 10% of what is in the bankroll until i have made 1.5 BTC?
No, I don't think so. Every time anyone deposits anything, the whole deposit is paid out to previous deposits in proportion to how much they are still owed. There's no "every hour", because each payout completely drains the scheme's funds until the next deposit arrives. At least that's how I understood it. |
|
|
|
Sorry might have messed up with the text when typing. looks like no one likes what I proposed, we'll go a simpler route for now, we'll have an announcement soon. I get what you mean, this is a simplified description, just to give the general idea. But yes you are right, there's infinity here if taken literally  The most important here is not to overcomplicate the system. Trying to find a way to prevent it getting stuck. I think there's a problem. Dude, you changed my name? I agree with the previous poster that simple is best. It's always going to get stuck - there's no way to stop it. |
|
|
|
I get what you mean, this is a simplified description, just to give the general idea. But yes you are right, there's infinity here if taken literally The most important here is not to overcomplicate the system. Trying to find a way to prevent it getting stuck. - It pays the whole available balance to all users with outstanding balance, proportional to the system debt to a given user.
- System profit is taken only from complete 150% cycles, and it is 10% of all complete cycles payouts.
Tell us what you think.
I think there's a problem. If you pay each user a fraction of what they're owed, in proportion to what they're owed, nobody ever gets fully paid out until everybody is fully paid out - and that never happens. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise for a related paradox. This means you never complete anyone's 150% cycle, and never get paid yourself. We can work various examples, but suppose every day you get 1 new person depositing 1 new BTC. day 1: A deposits 1 and is owed 1.5 day 2: B deposits 1 and is owed 1.5. We'll assume B doesn't get paid from his own deposit, so only A is owed anything from B's deposit. A gets B's whole deposit. A is owed 0.5 and B is owed 1.5 day 3: C deposits 1 and is owed 1.5. C's 1 is split between A and B in ratio of their credit: 0.5:1.5 or 1:3. So A gets 0.25 and B gets 0.75. A is left being owed 0.25, B is owed 0.75, C is owed 1.5 day 4: D deposits 1 and is owed 1.5. D's 1 gets split 0.25:0.75:1.5 or 1:3:6. A gets 0.1, B gets 0.3, C gets 0.6. A is owed 0.15, B is owed 0.45, C is owed 0.9, D is owed 1.5 and so on. A's balance goes 1.5, 0.5, 0.25, 0.15, ... and gets lower every day but never reaches zero. Get it? |
|
|
|
Reasonable advice. I think it sounds to complicated. You will provide more confidence when people know exactly when and how much their payments will be. Keep it simple so more think they can "Play the system" and win. The last run was simple and worked well while it ran. Honestly I wouldn't change much, just provide more tips on how to make it last longer and advertise more on other sites. Maybe post on a couple HYIP sites.
|
|
|
|
|
We need your feedback about the following scheme
- Every hour system calculates outstanding balance and checks available balance
- It pays the whole available balance to all users with outstanding balance, proportional to the system debt to a given user.
- System profit is taken only from complete 150% cycles, and it is 10% of all complete cycles payouts.
In this setting each new payment moves the system forward, since there's no fixed payout, the system tries to pay as much as it can. Also system profit structure is more clear.
Tell us what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
The system got unstuck.
The blue print for new ponzi is ready, we'll post it here for discussion soon.
|
|
|
|
Yes, no problem, and no one seems to want it. So it will run. we will start a new program using this experience, tweaking some things. Naturally another simple option would be to restart it after a certain time-out where it slows down indeed.
Let us know what you think, we sure can restart this. You are to choose.
I think you made it pretty clear that the scheme wouldn't shut down when it couldn't pay, but would wait for new deposits. As a result, I don't think you can really shut it down any time soon without breaking your promises. You have to give the bag-holders a chance to pass their bag on to new bag-holders. |
|
|
|
Let's wait what the users think. If you sent your payment after the halt it will be refunded. |
|
|
|
|
Naturally another simple option would be to restart it after a certain time-out where it slows down indeed.
Let us know what you think, we sure can restart this. You are to choose.
|
|
|
|
It will continue indefinitely, we don't have rounds actually. So the round I joined in yesterday is over? Haven't gotten a 1% payout in quite some time. If so I have the worst luck with these ponzi games haha.
|
|
|
|
sure you are right no ponzi lasts forever on the other hand some ponzis last very long Instead of hourly payments i suggest daily. Lots of people will be happy with 1% return every day. But many people wont be happy to lock their coins in for 150 days. Its a tricky balance
But that will have the same issue towards the 2nd half of the payout period. No matter what the interval will be, the graph will follow the same falling curve. |
|
|
|
Yes it's a tricky balance, probably if we could some absolutely secure escrow we could follow in the footsteps of the original ponzi which paid 150% in a month and a half. large payouts at the end of the term also break cashflows. We have to ponder over all the possibilities a little. Instead of hourly payments i suggest daily. Lots of people will be happy with 1% return every day. But many people wont be happy to lock their coins in for 150 days. Its a tricky balance. Maybe you should keep the funds for 14 days, and give 1% each day. on the 14th day pay out 114%?
|
|
|
|
|
This is rather unexpected I must say. There was an influx of funds several days ago but then it suddenly petered out. Unstable cashflows kill ponzies. We won't stop it, new funds will be used to pay old deposits, so the program goes on. Using this experience we'll tweak the payment scenario and launch a parallel program soon. The Ponzi experiments will continue.
|
|
|
|
You are more or less correct. The math model is different though. The key here is the increase of the deposits by 50% each cycle. In this case no payments are missed. if it does not go like that - system slows down waiting for new funds. Thanks dooglus. Kind of a silly miscalculation there. It also shows that the system will bust really fast after a few initial returns(unless profits are reduced).
I have updated the Excel Sheet to also reflect(scroll down) how the payouts will stop happening or happen at less intervals even if people continue investing after that.
It will stop/ paid out in less intervvals after a few more rounds of returns(unless the subsequent investments are much bigger than 100).
Also, looks like the current cycle has come to an end with only 0.3BTC left in the address, and has paid out around only a 50%-60% back who deposited on 9th July. Payouts will now happen only if the balance goes above 0.3 BTC, and will probably happen after bigger intervals(in the case more deposits occur).
|
|
|
|
If you have been burnt with scam ponzies it is understandable. Otherwise not so much, since the whole machinery of our operation is completely open for everyone to see. You can see actually when you should be getting paid and when probably you will have to wait. I am actually highly surprised that I have got paid every hour with the amount that I should have. I'm going to invest more once the cycle I'm in completes!
|
|
|
|
Excuse me what's OT? As far as I know smart contracts like that are not supported by any live system at the moment. It could work even with Bitcoin, if they didn't kill scripting Sure it's possible When (and if) Etherium is online. There are gonna be other alts which allow this, this is certain. We thought about that, but it seems really cumbersome to take it from each deposit.
That probably would raise a lot of questions. But I get your point.
Let's make the following rule - we withdraw 1 BTC each time we get new 100 BTC in deposits.
That is as soon as we have 100 BTC in deposits we withdraw 1 BTC, as soon as we have 200 we withdraw another 1 BTC and so on. If we cannot withdraw it due to low balance we wait till we have sufficient balance. We're here for a long term program, we don't need to take 1btc out and damage the program.
OK, so you get lots of tiny deposits, and for some of them taking 1% would mean taking less than a transaction fee which is very wasteful. So how about this: Each time you make an hourly payout, you pay yourself however much you're owed, based on all the deposits you've received since the last time you paid yourself. That will usually not add enough to the transaction size to require any extra fee, and makes it clearer to everyone how much is really in the fund. As it is I don't know if you own 0.01 or 0.99 BTC of the fund in unclaimed fees. Is it not possible to add in the 1% into the ethereum contract? What about if you used open transactions since the idea was even grandma can make contracts but the gui never came to fruition. OT already is out , can it not do the smart contracts? |
|
|
|
|
Updated our website, please check. We'll add more stats to it within a couple of days.
|
|
|
|
Yes I get your point, for now we'll withdraw it by 1 btc each 100 btc, but we'll make an automated script to withdraw the fee, I think it should be per 24 hours after all. yes it's doable, but actually our fees are also very easy to see - this is just 1% of the total deposited amount, can be checked at blockchain.info
Suppose you have collected 100 BTC in deposits, your fee is 1%, and your public address currently holds 1.1 BTC. I can tell that so far you have collected 100 BTC. So I can tell that you've "earned" 1 BTC in fees. But I can't tell whether you've withdrawn your fees or not. So maybe you already withdrew the 1 BTC, and the fund has 1.1 BTC to pay out future payments. But maybe you didn't, so the fund only has 0.1 BTC to pay out future payments. Or maybe you took out some but not all of the 1 BTC fee, so anywhere between 0.1 and 1.1 BTC is available for payouts. This ambiguity makes it impossible for potential investors to make informed decisions. |
|
|
|
Sure it's possible When (and if) Etherium is online. There are gonna be other alts which allow this, this is certain. We thought about that, but it seems really cumbersome to take it from each deposit.
That probably would raise a lot of questions. But I get your point.
Let's make the following rule - we withdraw 1 BTC each time we get new 100 BTC in deposits.
That is as soon as we have 100 BTC in deposits we withdraw 1 BTC, as soon as we have 200 we withdraw another 1 BTC and so on. If we cannot withdraw it due to low balance we wait till we have sufficient balance. We're here for a long term program, we don't need to take 1btc out and damage the program.
OK, so you get lots of tiny deposits, and for some of them taking 1% would mean taking less than a transaction fee which is very wasteful. So how about this: Each time you make an hourly payout, you pay yourself however much you're owed, based on all the deposits you've received since the last time you paid yourself. That will usually not add enough to the transaction size to require any extra fee, and makes it clearer to everyone how much is really in the fund. As it is I don't know if you own 0.01 or 0.99 BTC of the fund in unclaimed fees. Is it not possible to add in the 1% into the ethereum contract? What about if you used open transactions since the idea was even grandma can make contracts but the gui never came to fruition. |
|
|
|
|
........ ) because you said "It will continue indefinitely."
