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

[FreeMoney]

Micon, you are missing your poker scam site from the list. LOL
 

It is my poker site and it isn't a scam.

[1713943476]

1713943476

[1713943476]

1713943476

[1713943476]

1713943476

[1713943476]

1713943476

[556j]

I also dont think Starfish is a ponzi, although any faith I might have had in Patrick and particularly his judgement is long gone. Dont know the others, wont comment.

nope, total Ponzi for Starfish / PatrickHarnett

1%/wk to borrow money is still crack prices, still yields you owing giant interest as scam builds, and he is even making up increasing numbers month-over-month to show you the business is growing.    This one is a slow Ponzi.  

btc is different than USD. What do you think of 0.5%/week? Total scam in anything denominated in USD right? But fastcash4bitcoins.com took out a loan like this. This is a reputable business with proven business model, do you think it's unreasonable for unproven entities to pay slightly more interest in loans? To accuire btc cost upwards of 4% if you deal with shitbag companies like bitinstant that pay their employees slave wages with no benefits and no insurance, so the interest isn't that unreasonable. Patrick is very transparent as well. How many ponzi disclose their total deposit?

[PatrickHarnett]

I've asked nrd525 if he would do assessments on the offers in this sub-section based on his checklist.  I was looking at how the Kraken Fund would come out using his nine point plan and also how other institutions might fare.  However, I've appeared to annoyed a few people around the forum so I wouldn't consider expressing an opinion - not sure what I did to annoy P4man, probably something to do with Pirates.

[fabrizziop]

Not all scams are ponzis but just because they aren't a ponzi doesn't mean they're not a scam or that they're viable.

I agree that "long-term offers" is an inappropriate label for many of the high-risk programmes being offered and that a more suitable way of segregating the different types of investments being offered needs to be found.

by APR % IMO

I don't think the starfish is a ponzi starfish. He asks loans at 1% per week. You must consider most BTC loans around here are at about >10% per month, so, if he takes BTCs and lends BTCs there is a reasonable business to be made, with a healthy profit margin. He is as transparent as he can be without disclosing personal info. I'm even thinking to do that at a smaller scale (small enough for me to cover losses) if I get the guts.

Personally I'd give him a lot of money if he accepted USD-denominated deposits, and I could even make some nice passthroughs in my country, taking the risk myself.

[TheOtherGuy]

Not all scams are ponzis but just because they aren't a ponzi doesn't mean they're not a scam or that they're viable.

I agree that "long-term offers" is an inappropriate label for many of the high-risk programmes being offered and that a more suitable way of segregating the different types of investments being offered needs to be found.

by APR % IMO

So Micon, what else would you have PatrickHarnett disclose to show it is not a ponzi?

[Micon]

Micon, you are missing your poker scam site from the list. LOL
 

It is my poker site and it isn't a scam.

I think he was referring to DonkDown or TheMiconSystem (an infobook a guy paid me to use likeness / make material for in 2005-7)

At this stage there are very few people I would do business with.  SealsWithClubs & FreeMoney are currently the gold standard for trustworthiness in this community.  

Attacks on others' credibility is deflection from the real issue - There are so many scams in this sub-forum right on the heels of BCST and it's time to clean them up.

[JoelKatz]

So Micon, what else would you have PatrickHarnett disclose to show it is not a ponzi?

Anything sufficient to do these four things would be enough for me:

1) Determine that claimed profits are in fact profits from investments.

2) Realistically assess the risk to investors.

3) Assure investors that there's a mechanism in place so that if they do take losses, they'll be able to reasonably assure themselves that those losses were due to legitimate investment losses and not just him deciding to keep people's money.

4) Assure investors that there's a mechanism in place such that if there are reductions in the total worth of all investments, losses will be taken proportionately by all investors instead of processing full payouts to those who happen to withdraw first and leaving essentially nothing for those who don't withdraw at the right moment.

It's not a matter of whether it's a Ponzi or not really. There are lots of scams that aren't Ponzis. The idea is to show that it's a legitimate loan or investment. If there was something that was otherwise a legitimate investment but couldn't do at least two of these four things, rational people would not invest in it.

[Micon]

I also dont think Starfish is a ponzi, although any faith I might have had in Patrick and particularly his judgement is long gone. Dont know the others, wont comment.

nope, total Ponzi for Starfish / PatrickHarnett

1%/wk to borrow money is still crack prices, still yields you owing giant interest as scam builds, and he is even making up increasing numbers month-over-month to show you the business is growing.    This one is a slow Ponzi.  

btc is different than USD. What do you think of 0.5%/week? Total scam in anything denominated in USD right? But fastcash4bitcoins.com took out a loan like this. This is a reputable business with proven business model, do you think it's unreasonable for unproven entities to pay slightly more interest in loans? To accuire btc cost upwards of 4% if you deal with shitbag companies like bitinstant that pay their employees slave wages with no benefits and no insurance, so the interest isn't that unreasonable. Patrick is very transparent as well. How many ponzi disclose their total deposit?

1) BTC is only a different currency, same principles of economics apply and are modified accordingly (i.e. taking in to account the deflationary nature)

2) the culture of "unproven business models" must stop.  If you are selling drugs and need to buy precursor, you are likely browsing this forum in TOR anyway, so post the pix when you buy it. Mining? show the rig.  Growing weed and need lights? borrow, buy, and post pix of grow setup.  I thought for sure there would be a SR bond on GLBSE by now.  There now exists a culture of "just send me BTC, I do something, and much like everyone else in this sub-forum I cannot tell you what I'm doing, but I'll pay you 1-3% per week and even though I'm profitable, I always need new money.  Businesses usually take on rounds of funding.  Seed money - start the business, then it grows.  How could someone doing something profitable keep needing more and more new investment?

3)  Just because Patrick posts a list he made up of loans outstanding doesn't make him "very transparent" - do we have block chain results for all these loans and paybacks?

[Micon]

So Micon, what else would you have PatrickHarnett disclose to show it is not a ponzi?

Anything sufficient to do these four things would be enough for me:

1) Determine that claimed profits are in fact profits from investments.

Once again JoelKatz nails it.

I will say it plainly:  I believe that PatrickHarnett is blatantly making up his statistics on number of loans, repayments, etc.  To answer the question he would have to block-chain verify these transactions.  When he posts his August stats, let's see some block-chain verified loan repayments & interest payments.

[PatrickHarnett]

So Micon, what else would you have PatrickHarnett disclose to show it is not a ponzi?

Anything sufficient to do these four things would be enough for me:

1) Determine that claimed profits are in fact profits from investments.

2) Realistically assess the risk to investors.

3) Assure investors that there's a mechanism in place so that if they do take losses, they'll be able to reasonably assure themselves that those losses were due to legitimate investment losses and not just him deciding to keep people's money.

4) Assure investors that there's a mechanism in place such that if there are reductions in the total worth of all investments, losses will be taken proportionately by all investors instead of processing full payouts to those who happen to withdraw first and leaving essentially nothing for those who don't withdraw at the right moment.

It's not a matter of whether it's a Ponzi or not really. There are lots of scams that aren't Ponzis. The idea is to show that it's a legitimate loan or investment. If there was something that was otherwise a legitimate investment but couldn't do at least two of these four things, rational people would not invest in it.

Thanks for the list Joel.  

1: Given confidentiality, and a lack of audit processes, it might be difficult to confirm.  I could get various people to verify the loans/rates/payments that they've made and similarly the list of dividends received over time from GLBSE and other investments that pay regular returns.  To provide the full list, demonstrating how 200 coins/week are generated I would expect people to pick on holes and deliberate omissions rather than the overall picture.

2: That's a good idea, and I do assess the risk of the loans and investments that I make.  I probably have one of the better databases of credit risk, but I still have some that have been spectacular failures (Rebate springs to mind).

3: Normally I take the losses, and not my customers.  Not aware of anyone that has had a loss on their deposit yet.  If anyone can provide a counter example that would be useful.

4: See #3 above.  People depositing to Starfish are not really exposed to the underlying.  When I consider some of the real-life bank runs I have observed, there can be queuing.  I think that if someone wanted to force the issue and required me to liquidate all my assets at a loss (rather than an orderly wind out) then they should accept that as their choice.  I have discussed that with several people recently and it is a feature of most investment funds/deposit schemes that coins are put to work, not simply lying around.

Also, thank you for noting there are many more scams than ponzis.  There are many scams on these forums, and I have had a decent number of people that have stolen funds from me either by simply running away with coins through to more elaborate identity theft.  However, I also have some other people I do good business with, some deals returning up to 5% a week (occasional), but more generally in the 2% to 2.5% per week range.  

I will add that currently I don't need any more funds to run the current business, and extra funds simply add more drag on profitability.  That's why I have limits on accounts in both number and value.

[PatrickHarnett]

So Micon, what else would you have PatrickHarnett disclose to show it is not a ponzi?

Anything sufficient to do these four things would be enough for me:

1) Determine that claimed profits are in fact profits from investments.

Once again JoelKatz nails it.

I will say it plainly:  I believe that PatrickHarnett is blatantly making up his statistics on number of loans, repayments, etc.  To answer the question he would have to block-chain verify these transactions.  When he posts his August stats, let's see some block-chain verified loan repayments & interest payments.

You mean like 6b92e6ad01b05c5a004a8425df2534d7465dcf9d11c78a139cf1813071f1cf15

or this receiving address: 1KSp4tdijUq4ghqWNmHBE9BiddqEGPLmHA

[Micon]

So Micon, what else would you have PatrickHarnett disclose to show it is not a ponzi?

Anything sufficient to do these four things would be enough for me:

1) Determine that claimed profits are in fact profits from investments.

Once again JoelKatz nails it.

I will say it plainly:  I believe that PatrickHarnett is blatantly making up his statistics on number of loans, repayments, etc.  To answer the question he would have to block-chain verify these transactions.  When he posts his August stats, let's see some block-chain verified loan repayments & interest payments.

You mean like 6b92e6ad01b05c5a004a8425df2534d7465dcf9d11c78a139cf1813071f1cf15

or this receiving address: 1KSp4tdijUq4ghqWNmHBE9BiddqEGPLmHA

no, like all of these: 

Total liabilities (Deposits + other commitments) = 13,500
Total assets (cash, BTC, investments) = 29,400
Net assets 15,900BTC

July 2012 activity (updated 1 August 2012)
 - 14 loans repaid  (approx 7800BTC)
 - 32 loans current (approx 8800 BTC)
 - 66 deposits (total approx 15400)
 - deposits repaid during the month (at call) >3600

Total liabilities (Deposits + other commitments) = 19,700
Total assets (cash, BTC, investments) = 37,100
Net assets 17,400BTC

Also how much cash?  BTC?  what are "investments" ?  can we see some Block chain verification, or real world verification on how this money is used to generate more monies?

[JoelKatz]

2) Realistically assess the risk to investors.

3) Assure investors that there's a mechanism in place so that if they do take losses, they'll be able to reasonably assure themselves that those losses were due to legitimate investment losses and not just him deciding to keep people's money.

4) Assure investors that there's a mechanism in place such that if there are reductions in the total worth of all investments, losses will be taken proportionately by all investors instead of processing full payouts to those who happen to withdraw first and leaving essentially nothing for those who don't withdraw at the right moment.

It's not a matter of whether it's a Ponzi or not really. There are lots of scams that aren't Ponzis. The idea is to show that it's a legitimate loan or investment. If there was something that was otherwise a legitimate investment but couldn't do at least two of these four things, rational people would not invest in it.

2: That's a good idea, and I do assess the risk of the loans and investments that I make.  I probably have one of the better databases of credit risk, but I still have some that have been spectacular failures (Rebate springs to mind).

The point was that your investors had to be able to realistically assess the risk of investing with you.

3: Normally I take the losses, and not my customers.  Not aware of anyone that has had a loss on their deposit yet.  If anyone can provide a counter example that would be useful.

The point was that your investors have to know what will happen if they do take losses. For example, investors with Pirate took losses when Pirate failed to meet his own payout terms. Those investors now have no idea what the value of their investment is. Every Ponzi scheme will go through a long period in which people are told they didn't take losses and the investors are kept in the dark about the losses they are taking. There has to be a way for investors to know they have not in fact taken losses.

If your current total deposits exceed the fund's assets, then your investors have taken losses. If you're hiding that from them, that's a problem.

4: See #3 above.  People depositing to Starfish are not really exposed to the underlying.  When I consider some of the real-life bank runs I have observed, there can be queuing.  I think that if someone wanted to force the issue and required me to liquidate all my assets at a loss (rather than an orderly wind out) then they should accept that as their choice.  I have discussed that with several people recently and it is a feature of most investment funds/deposit schemes that coins are put to work, not simply lying around.

Are you saying that right now, the fund's total net worth exceeds deposits? If so, why don't your investors know by how much? Essentially, you are the only one who knows the actual value of the funds your investors supposedly own a portion of.

[VelvetLeaf]

Don't you think a few mining pool with 0% fee should be added as ponzi too ?
Since they don't take any profit, you're at the mercy of the operator there, and they can close it anytime with by saying their site is "hacked".
I know some pools have been closed because it's "hacked".

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools

[WifeOfStarfish]

I also dont think Starfish is a ponzi, although any faith I might have had in Patrick and particularly his judgement is long gone. Dont know the others, wont comment.

nope, total Ponzi for Starfish / PatrickHarnett

1%/wk to borrow money is still crack prices, still yields you owing giant interest as scam builds, and he is even making up increasing numbers month-over-month to show you the business is growing.    This one is a slow Ponzi.  

Sad to see someone who has lost all faith in humanity. Is this an american thing? Here down under we still give people the benefit of the doubt which is why I tell Patrick off periodically when he takes the occasional risk on people which backfires ''fiscally''.

Why is is so hard to believe there are honest people in the world? Patrick donates more than $500 a month to our local homeless shelter and I get PISSED OFF (note the caps Bitlane) when his integrity is questioned. Google him for god's sake!! The man's an open book.*

Annoyed and vodka-powered (it's evening here),

Wife Of Starfish - Wendy Harnett (if you want to check I'm a real person)

* Even his high school class photo is there

[WifeOfStarfish]

So Micon, what else would you have PatrickHarnett disclose to show it is not a ponzi?

Anything sufficient to do these four things would be enough for me:

1) Determine that claimed profits are in fact profits from investments.

Once again JoelKatz nails it.

I will say it plainly:  I believe that PatrickHarnett is blatantly making up his statistics on number of loans, repayments, etc.  To answer the question he would have to block-chain verify these transactions.  When he posts his August stats, let's see some block-chain verified loan repayments & interest payments.

Just as well we (Patrick and I) don't live in america where you can sue anything that moves. You are a screwed up sad person

Wendy Wife of Starfish

[jojo69]

LMFAO

[bitlane]

Wife Of Starfish - Wendy Harnett (if you want to check I'm a real person)

Bikini Pics, or it never happened

[WifeOfStarfish]

LMFAO

Great Ghost in a Shell avatar - Patrick has it on a t-shirt

[PatrickHarnett]

Wife Of Starfish - Wendy Harnett (if you want to check I'm a real person)

Bikini Pics, or it never happened

She normally wears one-piece - maybe we'll do "private onsen" when we've in Beppu in November.

(and the btw - micon's done it now - Wendy's annoyed)