List of Lying deposit takers, and the reasons why

[chungenhung]

This is somewhat related to pirateat40 BTCST mess.

Many deposit takers on this forum state that the deposits are NOT invested in BTCST. They gather people to deposit with them, and simply turn around and put it with pirate. Sure, receiving 7% weekly from pirate and paying 2% out is very profitable.

I hate to be blunt here, but so far, a few "INSURED" or "GUARANTEED" deposits have went bust.

Here's the list:
1. Nckrazze. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81927.0
He stated the deposits are NOT placed in BTCST funds. But due to BTCST default, now he is UNABLE to pay back.
If the funds are not placed in BTCST, then what does BTCST default have anything to do with his ability to pay back?
He also stated a 35% reserve fund. If the fund is really reserved, then why can't he pay back 35% of the deposits?
In my opinion, he is lying.
2. IneededAUserName (INAU). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91375.0
He stated that the pirate deposit is FULLY insured. Now BTCST has annouced default, but INAU still haven't paid back the "INSURED" deposits.
I was told to wait over a month to get my deposits back.
3. HashKing. Supposedly holds the INSURED coins from IneededAUserName. Now that pirate defaulted, HashKing is UNWILLING to pay out the deposits INAU have with him directly to me. Saying the deposit is a regular deposit, and thus the deposit will be returned to INAU. At that point, what if INAU just decides to run with the coins? This is NOT really HashKing's fault, as he said INAU never said the deposit is to be hold as escrow.
Update 09/08. HashKing has put all interest rates to 0% on all accounts, and have NOT been making payments. So, if I were to wait for INAU to get his coins from HK, I'll be fucked more by now.
4. imsaguy. Supposedly invests in mining hardware. But somehow, he got caught in the pirate mess too. Also, both imsaguy and HashKing said they need 3 years to pay back. Coincidence or planned?

To be determined:
1. Kluge. I was in a skype chat room with all the above guys. Started to ask imsaguy question about what is his REAL plan to repay investors. In the end, I got kicked out by Kluge.
This doesn't mean Kluge is a scam, but that is enough reason to believe Kluge is planning with the above guys.
Update. Kluge said b/c there's too much BS going on in the skype chat room, and he don't have time for the non-sense talk. On top of that, Kluge says his ISP gives him very limited bandwidth per month. I believe his house is in a remote area where broadband is not really available.
Kluge confirmed that he is working with imsaguy on a solution.

You are welcome to post what you think, and why I am wrong.
This post is not to create a war, but rather let people know what "INSURED" and "GUARANTEED" usually means nothing.

[squall1066]

This is a good post and needs to be made, I have had dealings with chungenhung and cant fault him.
My reasons were not related to Pirateat40, But obviously came at the wrong time, It was handled well.
I hope to do business again when I am more stable.

[chungenhung]

This is a good post and needs to be made, I have had dealings with chungenhung and cant fault him.
My reasons were not related to Pirateat40, But obviously came at the wrong time, It was handled well.
I hope to do business again when I am more stable.

It sure came at the wrong time. Everyone was pulling deposits out at that time and I thought you were one of them with the same reasons.

[memvola]

I also would like to hear some counter-arguments, especially from the people involved.

hashking's response seems to make sense, so we'll see the result at the end of the term? It seems that it's still INAU's responsibility to return the coins though.

I think nckrazze needs to find a way to cover the loss ASAP. He's a trusted member of the community and he can continue to make money if he stands behind his word. I hope he's waiting for the pirate just to be able to measure the depth of trouble he's in.

[SgtSpike]

This post is not to create a war, but rather let people know what "INSURED" and "GUARANTEED" usually means nothing.

I kind of figured this much to begin with.  Why would I trust someone to insure funds any more than I would trust pirate to continue paying out?

[ineededausername]

I also would like to hear some counter-arguments, especially from the people involved.

hashking's response seems to make sense, so we'll see the result at the end of the term? It seems that it's still INAU's responsibility to return the coins though.

I think nckrazze needs to find a way to cover the loss ASAP. He's a trusted member of the community and he can continue to make money if he stands behind his word. I hope he's waiting for the pirate just to be able to measure the depth of trouble he's in.

It is my responsibility to return the coins to GIPPT.  Chungenhung and I have reached a private settlement on this matter, and I now owe nothing at all to chungenhung.  He will confirm this.

I confirm hashking's response is accurate.  His 8 week CD is being used to back GIPPT and when it is paid, everyone investing in GIPPT will be paid.  I do not know what all this commotion is about.

[bitcoinBull]

Okay. If "chungenhung" isn't a "lying deposit taker", we can still add him to the list of ponzi operators.

[dank]

I feel that Dank Bank should be added to the bottom list.

[Willowbitcoin]

ciciu was also one of the good guys. I believe he has wrapped up now though.

[chungenhung]

I also would like to hear some counter-arguments, especially from the people involved.

hashking's response seems to make sense, so we'll see the result at the end of the term? It seems that it's still INAU's responsibility to return the coins though.

I think nckrazze needs to find a way to cover the loss ASAP. He's a trusted member of the community and he can continue to make money if he stands behind his word. I hope he's waiting for the pirate just to be able to measure the depth of trouble he's in.

Correct, it is INAU's responsibility.
But I was under the feeling that if it is insured, at least HashKing should pay directly.
As of now, I got this settled with INAU.

[payb.tc]

i'm not going to name names, but i can confirm that some accounts in bitcoin max belong to 'deposit takers'.

these may or may not be the deposit takers' personal funds.

[hashking]

I also would like to hear some counter-arguments, especially from the people involved.

hashking's response seems to make sense, so we'll see the result at the end of the term? It seems that it's still INAU's responsibility to return the coins though.

I think nckrazze needs to find a way to cover the loss ASAP. He's a trusted member of the community and he can continue to make money if he stands behind his word. I hope he's waiting for the pirate just to be able to measure the depth of trouble he's in.

Correct, it is INAU's responsibility.
But I was under the feeling that if it is insured, at least HashKing should pay directly.
As of now, I got this settled with INAU.

Why would I pay directly if this was never setup as an escrow agreement.  Once again this was a regular deposit with no escrow agreement.  If there was some other information passed on to you by someone else then you need to take it up with them.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

The OP is wrong and a non-sequitur, the conclusions don't follow from the facts.

The situation with Pirate is causing a bank run where everyone rushes to withdraw all of their deposits. This can cause liquidity problems for all depositors, whether they are invested themselves or not.

Take Nckrazze for example. If he has 35% reserve and a customer constituting 10% of the deposits withdraws, he now has 25% reserve until he can replenish it (which takes time). After a few more withdraws the reserve will run out. He doesn't know in advance how many people will want to withdraw and it is legitimate to serve the first requesters in full.

With INAU it's even sillier. "Insured" doesn't mean he has funds lying around in completely liquid form doing nothing. If he did he'd have no need to take the deposit. The insurance means he has the funds in some useful illiquid form, and will pay them back in a default once liquidated.

I'm not saying anyone is or is not a liar, just that it doesn't follow from the facts you mentioned. And of course, if you hold yourself to a higher liquidity standard that's great.

[chungenhung]

I also would like to hear some counter-arguments, especially from the people involved.

hashking's response seems to make sense, so we'll see the result at the end of the term? It seems that it's still INAU's responsibility to return the coins though.

I think nckrazze needs to find a way to cover the loss ASAP. He's a trusted member of the community and he can continue to make money if he stands behind his word. I hope he's waiting for the pirate just to be able to measure the depth of trouble he's in.

It is my responsibility to return the coins to GIPPT.  Chungenhung and I have reached a private settlement on this matter, and I now owe nothing at all to chungenhung.  He will confirm this.

I confirm hashking's response is accurate.  His 8 week CD is being used to back GIPPT and when it is paid, everyone investing in GIPPT will be paid.  I do not know what all this commotion is about.

Correct.

[imsaguy]

May I propose we file this topic in trash now?

[cytokine]

The OP is wrong and a non-sequitur, the conclusions don't follow from the facts.

The situation with Pirate is causing a bank run where everyone rushes to withdraw all of their deposits. This can cause liquidity problems for all depositors, whether they are invested themselves or not.

Take Nckrazze for example. If he has 35% reserve and a customer constituting 10% of the deposits withdraws, he now has 25% reserve until he can replenish it (which takes time). After a few more withdraws the reserve will run out. He doesn't know in advance how many people will want to withdraw and it is legitimate to serve the first requesters in full.

With INAU it's even sillier. "Insured" doesn't mean he has funds lying around in completely liquid form doing nothing. If he did he'd have no need to take the deposit. The insurance means he has the funds in some useful illiquid form, and will pay them back in a default once liquidated.

I'm not saying anyone is or is not a liar, just that it doesn't follow from the facts you mentioned. And of course, if you hold yourself to a higher liquidity standard that's great.

+1000

Thanks Meni for posting this, and I really appreciate the professionalism and eloquence of your comments. I truely apologize for saying anything bad towards you in the past when I was pissed about PUREMINING. You have been nothing but honest and always upheld your obligations.

Meni is right that these deposit takers are having a serious liquidity crunch, and some are in default since they've stopped paying interest, but it doesn't mean that they're not ultimately good for their deposits. I'm tired of all this premature lynching going on, everyone needs to just be honest and uphold their obligations to their best of their abilities, and apart from that we need to just move on to new things. There's still a very good chance IMO that Pirate will settle for *something*, and so I expect the situation to improve over the next few weeks. At the very least, it certainly cannot get any worse than the current situation in which I'm operating under the assumption of a complete and total pirate default.

[JoelKatz]

Meni is right that these deposit takers are having a serious liquidity crunch, and some are in default since they've stopped paying interest, but it doesn't mean that they're not ultimately good for their deposits. I'm tired of all this premature lynching going on, everyone needs to just be honest and uphold their obligations to their best of their abilities, and apart from that we need to just move on to new things. There's still a very good chance IMO that Pirate will settle for *something*, and so I expect the situation to improve over the next few weeks. At the very least, it certainly cannot get any worse than the current situation in which I'm operating under the assumption of a complete and total pirate default.

Unfortunately, I think it can get worse.

We don't know how much of the liquidity crisis is from a withdrawal flood and how much of it is from non-paying loans. If some or much of it is from non-paying loans, then most likely it's because people borrowed money to invest in Pirate. Likely, those people have promised to make payments shortly, perhaps in the belief that Pirate would make at least partial repayments soon. But the reality is that it's likely most of those loans will fully default. An equity crisis can start out looking like a liquidity crisis.

Deposit-takers may have much more exposure to Pirate than they think. If they have loans that suddenly stopped paying interest shortly after Pirate did, they should probably assume those loans will default. Pirate may ultimately take down any number of other funds whose operators honestly thought they were doing the right thing but who, without even knowing it, were actually Ponzi schemes.

[finkleshnorts]

If some or much of it is from non-paying loans, then most likely it's because people borrowed money to invest in Pirate.

First-hand experience here. Sucks...

[bitcoinBull]

If some or much of it is from non-paying loans, then most likely it's because people borrowed money to invest in Pirate.

First-hand experience here. Sucks...

How many people tried to warn you? And not just about pirate. HYIPs are last thing that bitcoin needs. They are all the same, 1% or 7.

[chungenhung]

and now HK is in default....