Bryan Micon's List of Non-BCST Ponzi's Still Running (with credit rating)

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

What do you feel about this?
https://docs.google.com/a/glados.cc/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdGFKVlAtZVAzOGNqS1Brd05MUlFlT2c

[1715307112]

1715307112

[1715307112]

1715307112

[1715307112]

1715307112

[1715307112]

1715307112

[EskimoBob]

What do you feel about this?
https://docs.google.com/a/glados.cc/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdGFKVlAtZVAzOGNqS1Brd05MUlFlT2c

Feel? Feelings have nothing to do with it.

Start reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme (This is recommended to most of you, who love screaming "ponzy", every time you see something you do not understand.

I had a chance to ask some questions from Obsi about the OBSI.HRPT. Hi is running a passthrough to some really shady crap and it sure stinks bad. Ponzy? Not 100% sure. Chat was in open channel and he admitted that he is not sure can he get the coin out before the "location" is set up and running properly. "Location" = new shop for debt purchases and loans.

You can add this one to your list: [CRYPTOSTOCKS] Private loan pass-through (WIT), Dividend up to 1.2% daily  This is not his first time here, scamming people for coin.

[Namworld]

What do you feel about this?
https://docs.google.com/a/glados.cc/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdGFKVlAtZVAzOGNqS1Brd05MUlFlT2c

There's a thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109679.0

[makomk]

Traditional angel funding (in the unlikely event anything significant's ever repaid) is probably the harshest to collect on since there generally aren't hard terms defining exactly what should happen, except when $10m+ companies with a brigade of lawyers are able to draft it up in a satisfactory manner. So, you might get a slip of paper (if lucky) saying you own 10% of Bullocks, LLC - aaaand... well - good luck turning that into anything useful. With regards to that, debt is a very attractive investment, because it has easy-to-define terms. I'm strolling way off-topic, though.

Which is of course part of the reason the SEC has "accredited investor" rules which restrict those kinds of investments to the wealthy - anyone else is almost certain to get scammed.

[Micon]

Ty for posts about new-er BTC ponzi's.  Will update this over the weekend.

[AndyRossy]

In response to this post:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81542.0  by PatrickHarnett which is was stickied in the "Long-term offers" section, a misnamed Ponzi-corner of this forum which contains nothing but scams.  Well I was right about BCST and I'm going to be right about all these too.  Here are a bunch of Ponzi Schemes, all are poorly executed and all follow the standard Ponzi 101 model of having a totally obscure business plan with a totally outrageous interest rate.  I will be making spreadsheets for each scam showing why they cannot pay the outrageous rates.


Ponzi Schemes & Similar Scams

User_name	Weekly	Monthly	Since	Credit Rating	Notes	Link
Capital One Corp (lol)	~6%	-	?	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109883.0
Sky Deposits	1.25%	-	?	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108965.0
Mybitcointrade	5.00%	-	?	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81357.0
RustyRyan	3.00%	-	28-Jul-12	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96163.0
smart/ziggy	-	11.1%	May-12	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81357.0
vescudero	1.50%	-	Jun-12	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89122.0
Chungenhung	1.36%	6.0%	Jan-12	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56853.0
Starfish BCB	1.00%	4.4%	Jan-12	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61262.0
Kluge	0.97%	4.25%	Mar-12	F	PONZI	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67446.0

Honorable Mention:
Dank and his various, odd scams that even the guys that got rolled by Pirate wouldn't invest in

[MPOE-PR]

I must say I did enjoy reading the prevarications of a certain "administrative clerk" with delusions of grandeur. "Cartel", eh?

Kids these days...

9/30/12

Effective immediately,

I am defaulting on my BDK.BND debt. Beyond this, I will no longer be honoring the contract in the form I originally laid out. I previously intended to empty my non-legal wife's (we personally consider ourselves married, but legally, we are individual and thus have rights we'd otherwise forfeit) 401(k). I obviously did not want to do this, but it became clear it was necessary as I was looking at $200-250/wk interest on this single debt while having been financially raped by loans to various members of the community (No, Pirate is not the primary cause of my distress. Please don't turn this into some Pirate discussion.). After weeks of tha stress, on top of previous stress... heated arguments... -- this is no longer an option. I do not think her response to my actions is unreasonable (she's already effectively lost tens of thousands due to my actions), but this clearly affects my ability to repay within what I'd consider a reasonable time-frame. I currently have a negative net worth excluding my residence which would be protected under a personal bankruptcy filing which I will not pursue unless a suit is formally filed against me. I'd advise against taking action on potential cynicism, and suggest you give me at least a couple months to confirm I am indeed making a decent effort toward repaying what I owe.

I am unable to pay interest on my current BDK.BND debt. It's impossible for me to keep up with that, living expenses, and interest on other debts which are small enough where I can close them - and I apologize, in a sense, for the unfairness of how this is being handled. BDK.BND-holders, who I've always wanted most protected from risk, are now getting the shaft. I cannot subject my wife to more loss, and will be forcing BDK.BND holders to suffer as a result of my unwillingness to liquidate my residence. I apologize for the trust I've violated, the business mismanagement, and this default as a result. If I were unable to compartmentalize, I would be unable to write this. I am truly and deeply sorry. I also apologize for not having the emotional fortitude to prevent what I'm also about to announce: I will not be communicating much, if at all. I will likely not read anything written in this thread beyond this post for months. I just can't handle it when there are many things I need to do to get the situation in order. I will not be responding to phone calls, Skype messages, nor responding to emails. I will not be clarifying what I've written, and will not be responding to questions. I just can't right now, and understand how bad that looks and is. Again, I apologize. I will post an impersonal message each time I make a dividend payment.

All BTC I currently own will go toward BDK.BND payments. These will come in the form of irregular, unannounced dividends -- there will no longer be .001BTC/bond dividends each week. I will never buy BDK.BND back, and that section of the contract can be considered practically void. I can do nothing but assure everyone that I have no intent to make any purchases of BDK.BND units, and will allow them to trade freely on GLBSE as people value them given I have absolutely no information on when, and in what amount, these bonds will be repaid. However, I promise I will repay the debt as it stands, as I'm able. So long as GLBSE is active, I am alive, and earning income, I will continue to make dividend payments on BDK.BND units as a gesture of goodwill (and appreciation for not suing me into bankruptcy) beyond the .101BTC "hard debt" I currently consider as existing. Basically - I will be making larger, more rapid payments until dividends beyond this date reach .101BTC/bond. After that time, I will continue paying irregular dividends in a way which is appropriate for the gratitude I owe, and possible for the amount I need to live. I am unable to provide a repayment schedule or dividend schedule. Essentially - I'm giving what I can without forcing an unreasonable amount of loss (beyond what I've currently caused) onto my non-legal wife, and I naively hope everyone trusts me to be doing exactly what I'm saying I will. I'll provide instructions in my will to give an update (with death certificate) on this forum in the event of my death. Though things have been pretty shit lately, I am not at all suicidal -- just gave the info in that last sentence as an FYI.

-Ben

(Additionally... Someone may remember I recently posted assets/liabilities on my side. This included many of my non-legal wife's assets. The CU/bank assets have been largely emptied to repay CD-holders and my mother, who fronted us money to purchase this house [I've since defaulted on that loan, too, after a partial repayment so I could repay CD-holders]. There is still one outstanding CD-holder who has been excessively generous in providing me time to repay.)

(Many individuals have my home address [NOT the Spring Arbor address. That is a family member's house. DO NOT release that address.]. I would prefer my home address not be released publicly, but would also not consider public release of that information unwarranted. If you are coming for a visit, I would like at least a voice message a day or two prior. Harm toward family's off-limits, and I would physically object to bodily harm which may result in my stay in a hospital, as that'd further impede repayment. I am armed, so please keep ideas of physical violence in check.)

Hey, whudda thunk it....

[JoelKatz]

But - yeah, bank runs are a big problem for reasons I've already given. It ain't rocket science. If the majority of depositors leave a bank within a month - the bank's fucked, and if the bank isn't FDIC (or with CUs, NCUA) insured, remaining depositors are probably fucked, too. OTOH, as you point out, if the majority of depositors withdraw from a ponzi operation - the ponzi op's fucked (well, he'd probably just leave), and the remaining depositors are probably fucked, too. So - could indicate someone's operating a ponzi, but that's no reason for Shit-Brush to get all worked up because his ponzi predictions have almost all come true.

I can't believe I missed replying to this. This is 100% completely and totally wrong. Bank runs are a 100% solved problem. Bank runs do not screw depositors.

It's not worth going into detail here, but the basic idea is this simple: Bank runs can only directly cause a liquidity crisis. They can only cause an equity crisis if a bank or lender is so poorly capitalized they should never have gone into business in the first place. Regardless of how much of a run you have, the total value of both the lender's capitalization and its loan equity will always be enough to ensure the depositors get back both their deposits and all earned interest. There may be a delay, but the money will get back to them. (And it's not hard to avoid even the delay, however, the lender will wind up broke with its capitalization  gone.)

That lenders don't structure to avoid this problem, despite how easy it is, just shows how inept they are and how indifferent they are to the interests of their depositors. (Or, more likely, how they are too poorly capitalized to operate properly or are outright scamming.)

Any time a bank or lender claims that depositors didn't get their money back (other than a delay where all principal and most interest is returned) because of a bank run, they are lying. The truth is most likely either that they were drastically undercapitalized to begin with , they made bad loans, they operated a Ponzi scheme, or they outright stole from their depositors.

[Raoul Duke]

vescudero seems to have paid back in full and is thus not a ponzi. im sure you will want to verify that but it is something that you should note. 

I suspect they will say that having paid back in full doesn't prove it wasn't a ponzi... Wait for it...

[smoothie]

vescudero seems to have paid back in full and is thus not a ponzi. im sure you will want to verify that but it is something that you should note. 

I suspect they will say that having paid back in full doesn't prove it wasn't a ponzi... Wait for it...

You would know this because Pirate paid you back in full? lol....

Oh right...."Look guys he pays!"

 

[Raoul Duke]

vescudero seems to have paid back in full and is thus not a ponzi. im sure you will want to verify that but it is something that you should note. 

I suspect they will say that having paid back in full doesn't prove it wasn't a ponzi... Wait for it...

You would know this because Pirate paid you back in full? lol....

Oh right...."Look guys he pays!"

 

Do you have any kind of reading disability?
The only one who's talking about pirate is you...

[Shadow383]

vescudero

1.50%

-

Jun-12

F

PONZI

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89122.0

Victor's paid back in full. You going to stop slandering the guy now?

[Micon]

vescudero

1.50%

-

Jun-12

F

PONZI

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89122.0

Victor's paid back in full. You going to stop slandering the guy now?

nope, going to continue to "slander" as you say "out a scammer" as I say.

This payback is to further build confidence in a longer scam.  I'm on record for that now.  he is absolutely 100% a scammer.  He likely payed back this time because many of his so-called accounts were shills.  Take a look at how many sub-100 post users posted "+1 / paid me back in full" - mix those with the guys he really actually paid back and this venture was a cheap way to build confidence for the future.

I will update the OP to reflect this.

[Micon]

vescudero seems to have paid back in full and is thus not a ponzi. im sure you will want to verify that but it is something that you should note. 

I suspect they will say that having paid back in full doesn't prove it wasn't a ponzi... Wait for it...

Remember when you were arguing with JoelKatz about how you can't divulge trade secrets when you are running such a cool business? 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94900.msg1101345#msg1101345 

because I do. 

psy if you hadn't greated gangman style you would have lost all credibility.  You are trying to rub it in my face that I called Vescudero a Ponzi.  So are you saying because he paid everyone back he is a legitimate business man worthy of much trust from this community?  Go on record saying that now to further your battered history here.

Vescudero is a scammer.  This payback is to build trust for the future.  and also psy - how about giving me credit for calling out all of the scams that clearly were Ponzis.  Even if u credit the Vescudero as a loss I'm batting around .900

[AndyRossy]

Vescudero is a scammer.  This payback is to build trust for the future. 

I laughed. I guess you can always use this argument. 

[Raoul Duke]

Vescudero is a scammer.  This payback is to build trust for the future. 

I laughed. I guess you can always use this argument. 

I predicted it first.

vescudero seems to have paid back in full and is thus not a ponzi. im sure you will want to verify that but it is something that you should note. 

I suspect they will say that having paid back in full doesn't prove it wasn't a ponzi... Wait for it...

Micon, I now understand why your wife left you. Women don't like guys who are so predictable as you.
I heard those kind of guys also make lousy poker players...

[MPOE-PR]

But - yeah, bank runs are a big problem for reasons I've already given. It ain't rocket science. If the majority of depositors leave a bank within a month - the bank's fucked, and if the bank isn't FDIC (or with CUs, NCUA) insured, remaining depositors are probably fucked, too. OTOH, as you point out, if the majority of depositors withdraw from a ponzi operation - the ponzi op's fucked (well, he'd probably just leave), and the remaining depositors are probably fucked, too. So - could indicate someone's operating a ponzi, but that's no reason for Shit-Brush to get all worked up because his ponzi predictions have almost all come true.

I can't believe I missed replying to this. This is 100% completely and totally wrong. Bank runs are a 100% solved problem. Bank runs do not screw depositors.

It's not worth going into detail here, but the basic idea is this simple: Bank runs can only directly cause a liquidity crisis. They can only cause an equity crisis if a bank or lender is so poorly capitalized they should never have gone into business in the first place. Regardless of how much of a run you have, the total value of both the lender's capitalization and its loan equity will always be enough to ensure the depositors get back both their deposits and all earned interest. There may be a delay, but the money will get back to them. (And it's not hard to avoid even the delay, however, the lender will wind up broke with its capitalization  gone.)

That lenders don't structure to avoid this problem, despite how easy it is, just shows how inept they are and how indifferent they are to the interests of their depositors. (Or, more likely, how they are too poorly capitalized to operate properly or are outright scamming.)

Any time a bank or lender claims that depositors didn't get their money back (other than a delay where all principal and most interest is returned) because of a bank run, they are lying. The truth is most likely either that they were drastically undercapitalized to begin with , they made bad loans, they operated a Ponzi scheme, or they outright stole from their depositors.

Yeah. There's a reason uppity clerks don't get to run banks IRL.

[Micon]

Micon, I now understand why your wife left you. Women don't like guys who are so predictable as you.
I heard those kind of guys also make lousy poker players...

You resort to personal attacks instead of responding to this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94900.msg1101345#msg1101345

so let me remind me of your words during the Pirate debacle: 

You consider that since you dont know how something makes money, its just not possible ? I guess trade secrets and the likes is also nothing but magic.

No, that's not what I said, please try reading it again. It's not that I don't know how it makes money, it's that I don't know how it could be possible that it makes money. So if I try to consider the possibility that it's making money, I literally have no idea what I'm considering.

have nothing against you personally JoelKatz but your approach to validating if something is fact or fiction in the businessworld is absurd. You dont have to believe in it but for the love of spacemonkeys making statements that since you cant imagine how it is functional therefore it cannot exist is beyond retarded.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if I don't know how something could be possible, I cannot consider the possibility of it. I literally don't know what it is I would be considering. My very first step in reasoning would be blocked as I tried to consider the consequences of an unknown thing.

And why is it that you need to know everything that goes on with other peoples business?
Is it such a difficult concept to grasp that some people know some stuff you don't know and that they are not obliged to disclose their trade secrets to you?

Just remember how wrong you were here, and how right you believed yourself to be at this time.

You are once again wrong, I am once again right, and we will once again it will take some time and another scam for you to believe me this time.

[Shadow383]

I am once again right, and we will once again it will take some time and another scam for you to believe me this time.

In the case of Victor, why don't we judge any future scheme he comes up with on the face value of that.

What you should admit though is that Victor's most recent scheme wasn't a ponzi, on the basis that everyone has been paid back in full, with interest, on time.

[Micon]

I am once again right, and we will once again it will take some time and another scam for you to believe me this time.

In the case of Victor, why don't we judge any future scheme he comes up with on the face value of that.

What you should admit though is that Victor's most recent scheme wasn't a ponzi, on the basis that everyone has been paid back in full, with interest, on time.

going live on DD radio like I do every Wed. at 7pm / would love to debate you on this point. 

724-LOL-DONK  to call in after 7pm