Pirate wants to settle with individuals for less. Don't let him do it.

[Coincomm]

Pirate should deal exclusively with the PPT operators so you, the account holders, get the most money possible.

If he deals with individuals exclusively, he can ignore their pleas one-by-one, like ants. He can make them settle for as low as possible.

Dealing with an antpile is a different story.

Unionize. Stick with your union leaders. Get what you are due.

*salutes Chaang-Noi*

[Matthew N. Wright]

in b4 matthew says "Shut up Atlas".

Oops.

[AsymmetricInformation]

Pirate should deal exclusively with the PPT operators so you, the account holders, get the most money possible.

If he deals with individuals exclusively, he can ignore their pleas one-by-one, like ants. He can make them settle for as low as possible.

Dealing with an antpile is a different story.

Unionize. Stick with your union leaders. Get what you are due.

*salutes Chaang-Noi*

Prisoner's Dilemma!

Ants=Doomed

[SysRun]

This is interesting. Where is the alternative explanation from pirateat40?

I just can't make sense of it. Why does pirate want to handle it this way?

[repentance]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

[ElectricMucus]

Prisoner's Dilemma!

Ants=Doomed

lulz @ post & handle

[CrazyGuy]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

[repentance]

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

Didn't his bet refer to pirate paying people 100%?  If people have sold their debt to someone else for less, pirate no longer owes them anything - the full amount is owed to whoever bought their debt.

[CrazyGuy]

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

Didn't his bet refer to pirate paying people 100%?  If people have sold their debt to someone else for less, pirate no longer owes them anything - the full amount is owed to whoever bought their debt.

Regardless of who owns the bond or what price they purchased it for, pirate needs to pay the full amount to the current bond holder for Matthew to win the bet. if anyone has received a payment less than 100% of the bond's value, Matthew loses the bet. No need to wait until September 9th... I just want to make sure the terms of the bet aren't dynamic in favor of Matthew.

[phantitox]

Matthew, since your bet was 100% payout, and some bond holders are settling for less than 100%, haven't you already lost your bet?

Didn't his bet refer to pirate paying people 100%?  If people have sold their debt to someone else for less, pirate no longer owes them anything - the full amount is owed to whoever bought their debt.

Regardless of who owns the bond or what price they purchased it for, pirate needs to
pay the full amount to the current bond holder for Matthew to win the bet. if anyone has received a payment less than 100% of the bond's value, Matthew loses the bet. No need to wait until September 9th... I just want to make sure the terms of the bet aren't dynamic in favor of Matthew.

i think if Chaang Noi's doest want to release the info in order to get paid, the fair case is to assume that pirate wants to pay the bonds,  no?

[payb.tc]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

how can he block them?

i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.

[bittenbob]

Not to pick any sides in this but is there ANY proof that pirate is trying to settle for less? Newer OP here making a baseless accusation without any proof to back it up makes it pretty hard for me to believe this.

[Hexadecibel]

If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.

but then:

Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.

And pirate's thread:

When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred.  I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.

By this criteria Matthew has lost the bet. Pirate has admitted default and interest is no longer accruing which is in breach of the terms. QED.

[CrazyGuy]

Of course pirate wants to pay the bond holders individually. I'm sure a large amount of the bond holders purchased the bonds at significantly lower than face value and would be pleased to get something from pirate. However, if I purchase a 1 BTC bond for .50 BTC, and pirate settles with me for .75 BTC, that is not 150% payback, that's 75% payback, and Mathew's bet is lost given the original terms. Given the original terms of Matthew's bet, if anyone settles for less than face value of the bonds, the bet is lost.

[bittenbob]

If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.

but then:

Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.

And pirate's thread:

When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred.  I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.

By this criteria Matthew has lost the bet. Pirate has admitted default and interest is no longer accruing which is in breach of the terms. QED.

You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.

Once again is there any proof he is trying to settle for less than is owed?

[bigasic]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

Matt,

I hope your not setting up to win the bet on a technicality.. If the investors don't get at least 90 percent of their money back and it was agreed by the investors and Pirate, (including all interest owed up to the minute of the deal, (if there is one)) then he is in default and is fraudulent.. Now, if Pirate says, i ill give you guys 50 percent as long as you take my deal. I would consider that being held hostage and he is in default.. The way its written, if Pirate doesn't pay at least 90 percent back and its agreed upon by the lenders, then Matt would win.. Anything less, then the bettors would win..Plain and simple..

AR

It's a mute point. He HAS defaulted.. He's admitted it.. No way will everyone get at least 90 percent of their money back...

[imsaguy]

how can he block them?

i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.

oh good, now I can tell pirate about my bitcoin max account that had 40k coins in it.  I even have a screen shot to prove it. 

[Hexadecibel]

If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% without agreement to investors, -that- is fraud and a failure to pay back. I would obviously lose the bet.
If he owes 100% and only pays back 90% but the investors agreed to it, -that- is the agreement and therefor he has paid it back. I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and pays back 100%, I would win the bet.
If he owes 100% and does not pay anything anything back, I would lose the bet.

but then:

Post in this thread how much you're committing and I will double that amount you commit (maximum of 10,000BTC in bets allowed in this thread total) if Pirate does not pay out in 3 weeks as he described in his thread.

And pirate's thread:

When will I get my coins?
Starting Monday I’ll begin systematically closing and withdrawing accounts as coins are transferred.  I don't expect the entire process to last longer than a week. The moment your account is closed you’ll receive your coins plus any interest accrued up to the hour it was sent.

By this criteria Matthew has lost the bet. Pirate has admitted default and interest is no longer accruing which is in breach of the terms. QED.

You could argue the accounts were automatically closed when he defaulted. If he pays 100% up until the default that would be hard to call Matthews bet lost.

Once again is there any proof he is trying to settle for less than is owed?

You could argue, Matthew would be a nutter not to unless he really hates loads of cash.

The way I read it, and I admit I am biased, Matthew has already lost his bet. Pirate has defaulted. Interest has stopped. This is in breach of pirate's own terms.

 

[CrazyGuy]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

Matt,

I hope your not setting up to win the bet on a technicality.. If the investors don't get at least 90 percent of their money back and it was agreed by the investors and Pirate, (including all interest owed up to the minute of the deal, (if there is one)) then he is in default and is fraudulent.. Now, if Pirate says, i ill give you guys 50 percent as long as you take my deal. I would consider that being held hostage and he is in default.. The way its written, if Pirate doesn't pay at last 90 percent back and its agreed upon by the lenders, then Matt would win.. Anything less, then the bettors would win..Plain and simple..

AR

90% would be a loss as well, the bet was that pirate would repay 100% and nothing less.