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

[WifeOfStarfish]

Jesus, I was finally added. Micon, I've had principal and interest for loans listed -- it's been that way since I started taking deposits in March. I made loans (back in January) before I took deposits, and have been returning deposits for months, now, because I dislike the risk. My deposit amounts have been decreasing, not increasing. Most lendees have verifiable forum names. My name, phone number, and address are about as public as possible without publicly posting my ID. It doesn't really matter if people are willing to pay more for short-term loans than what you consider reasonable - that doesn't make the lender a ponzi-operator. -But, knowing that (or ignoring it because knowing what you're talking about takes too long) and still listing what I do as operating a ponzi implies you are a lazy loud-mouth troll.... or a dullard. (or both)


Now, let's look at what your actions have done. Knowing Pat on a much more personal level (we talk daily -- almost everyone in the lending cartel talks daily with each other), I can vouch for him as an honest, hard-working person - intelligent in the field he works professionally, as well as in what he does on this forum. He's basically facing a run, now. I've been put in a similar situation (not related to depositors fleeing, but bad loans leaving me starved for working capital), where I've had to call in loans (voluntarily, for them) at a loss. Pro-rating interest and then also having them asked to return the funds early would be kind of obnoxious. Generally, lendees get to keep all the interest they would've otherwise paid, and just return principal, since we're grateful they returned principal at all, given we need it *now* to pay out depositors. If any financial institution on Earth were faced with depositors fleeing at the rate we've experienced the past month, they would've all crumbled. It's not because they're ponzis, but because they (and we) rely on consumer confidence. We need that trust, and we can't have 50% of deposits jumping out the window all within a few weeks, because it requires we liquidate our assets at a loss -- a big loss. Lenders now leaving the market may indicate they operated a ponzi (and just happened to be returning deposits in all cases of people involved with the lending cartel), but, more likely, I'd imagine it indicates they're deeply annoyed by a small handful of people waltzing around with a shit-brush and smearing it on their faces every day, do not enjoy working capital starvation through the exodus of depositors, and of course, have a lot of bad loans popping up because lendees were quietly using funds to put into a Pirate account. Negative trends take away that light at the end of the tunnel -- but maybe you're just weeding out people who jump too soon - Idunno.

Keep doing what you do until you feel better about yourself, though - I'll be sticking around with ya.

+ heaps

[1714155903]

1714155903

[1714155903]

1714155903

[dust]

Micon, you are missing the most obvious current ponzi: OBSI.HRPT

It is within his contract though to take everyone's money whenever he wants, so I don't even know if it can be considered a scam 

[Grinder]

Lenders now leaving the market may indicate they operated a ponzi (and just happened to be returning deposits in all cases of people involved with the lending cartel), but, more likely, I'd imagine it indicates they're deeply annoyed by a small handful of people waltzing around with a shit-brush and smearing it on their faces every day, do not enjoy working capital starvation through the exodus of depositors, and of course, have a lot of bad loans popping up because lendees were quietly using funds to put into a Pirate account.

So, you are basically blaming Micon for the problems you get from bad loans. I guess the irony is now perfect, because this is exactly one of the issues your customers have been warned can give you problems returning their money even if it's not a ponzi. It seems to me they should be glad they pulled out their money before the losses got bigger than you could handle.

[Kluge]

I guess the irony is now perfect, because this is exactly one of the issues your customers have been warned can give you problems returning their money even if it's not a ponzi.

English, motherfucker - do you speak it?!

But... I think I see what you're getting at. I wasn't trying to make a connection between The Shit-Brush and lendees defaulting because they were covertly all-in on Pirate. As it happens, I haven't had any lendees default on me since Pirate wound down, defaulted (it's always [since April or so] been policy to forbid lendees from depositing in another deposit program, especially Pirate's since he disclosed nothing about what he was doing) - but some did experience losses beyond what they knew they had exposed to Pirate. That's not Micon's doing (I wouldn't dare give him the glee of thinking otherwise).

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.

[Shadow383]

Byron Micon is the Ponzi Breaker. He jacks fools.

Not really.
If Micon spent half as much time researching as he spent making wild accusations he'd have a good picture of the financial state of every lender on here.

[ZenInTexas]

I think it's highly misleading for anyone in the bitcoin community to use the words bank, insured, trust account, deposit account or escrow account.  This is really aimed at rational bitcoin citizens that are accustomed to the western style reserve banking financial systems; I think a more appropriate term to describe these entities would be unregulated broker, unregulated lender, or even wholesale broker.  Bank is the word of the day, the others, I might discuss another day.  But all of these words share a common element, they are used by regulated entities to mean very specific things.

Banks can only function, when they are trusted.  Normal western style banks will fight to maintain a high level of customer service and honor all withdrawals.  You probably didn't read the real world bank deposit agreement, but In the fine print, their is usually a statement requiring prior written notification on amounts that would pose a danger to the normal operations of the real world bank.  But in practice, this is rarely enforced, because delaying or dishonoring a withdraw, will result in a loss of what they value most, trust.

A real world bank, will try to maintain that trust, even when faced with the prospect of more withdrawals than liquid cash (ie cash on hand, cash in the cash vault), they will make every effort to honor all the withdrawal the same day.  They will request the product(yes they call cash the product) from the reserve bank.  But that will never be the case for the bitcoin community, since it's virtual currency with no central banking operation.  If satoshi was an economist, he would probably cry if he saw the word bank used to describe something in the bitcoin world.  I tend to think he was a idealist coder, and didn't really understand the complexities of the finance world.

To make money, banks take short term deposits, and lend the funds out for longer terms, the interest differential is the profit.  But there is an inherit problem for banks when loans default above the anticipated default rate.  Also, when a real world bank faces the prospect of more withdrawals than available funds in liquid electronic accounts, they will take overnight loans from another bank.  When they are shut out of the interbank lending market, the real world bank will approach a discount window at the reserve bank (in secret usually).  For these reasons, a western bank usually has to earn a license, and is regulated to ensure it has the privilege of accessing the discount window.  I think we should all consider the use of the word bank to describe an entity in the bitcoin community an abusive brain teaser.

Pretty much all lending operations in the bitcoin world that pay interest on short term deposits, at any given time may face more withdrawal requests than available funds - each and every one of these lending operations should be considered by definition a ponzi scheme.   Anyone that pays a high yield on a short term deposit, in the bitcoin world needs to be labeled as a ponzi scheme - just to make folks aware of the risk.  In other words, they are taking money, and returning a fraction as interest without the backing of an interlending market and/or reserve window.  It's customers may face a situation where they can't get their money back, when they want it - not when the bank says they can have it.  If the intention of the entity was honorable but described themselves as a bank or used the word deposit in their operations; it was naive to think their customer's won't make a comparison to ponzi scheme - if they can't honor a withdrawal request.  

It's self-righteous to blame the customer, when the entity can't honor a valid withdrawal request on a short term deposit.

[Kluge]

I think it's highly misleading for anyone in the bitcoin community to use the words bank, insured, trust account, deposit account or escrow account.  This is really aimed at rational bitcoin citizens that are accustomed to the western style reserve banking financial systems; I think a more appropriate term to describe these entities would be unregulated broker, unregulated lender, or even wholesale broker.  Bank is the word of the day, the others, I might discuss another day.  But all of these words share a common element, they are used by regulated entities to mean very specific things.

Banks can only function, when they are trusted.  Normal western style banks will fight to maintain a high level of customer service and honor all withdrawals.  You probably didn't read the real world bank deposit agreement, but In the fine print, their is usually a statement requiring prior written notification on amounts that would pose a danger to the normal operations of the real world bank.  But in practice, this is rarely enforced, because delaying or dishonoring a withdraw, will result in a loss of what they value most, trust.

A real world bank, will try to maintain that trust, even when faced with the prospect of more withdrawals than liquid cash (ie cash on hand, cash in the cash vault), they will make every effort to honor all the withdrawal the same day.  They will request the product(yes they call cash the product) from the reserve bank.  But that will never be the case for the bitcoin community, since it's virtual currency with no central banking operation.  If satoshi was an economist, he would probably cry if he saw the word bank used to describe something in the bitcoin world.  I tend to think he was a idealist coder, and didn't really understand the complexities of the finance world.

To make money, banks take short term deposits, and lend the funds out for longer terms, the interest differential is the profit.  But there is an inherit problem for banks when loans default above the anticipated default rate.  Also, when a real world bank faces the prospect of more withdrawals than available funds in liquid electronic accounts, they will take overnight loans from another bank.  When they are shut out of the interbank lending market, the real world bank will approach a discount window at the reserve bank (in secret usually).  For these reasons, a western bank usually has to earn a license, and is regulated to ensure it has the privilege of accessing the discount window.  I think we should all consider the use of the word bank to describe an entity in the bitcoin community an abusive brain teaser.

Pretty much all lending operations in the bitcoin world that pay interest on short term deposits, at any given time may face more withdrawal requests than available funds - each and every one of these lending operations should be considered by definition a ponzi scheme.   Anyone that pays a high yield on a short term deposit, in the bitcoin world needs to be labeled as a ponzi scheme - just to make folks aware of the risk.  In other words, they are taking money, and returning a fraction as interest without the backing of an interlending market and/or reserve window.  It's customers may face a situation where they can't get their money back, when they want it - not when the bank says they can have it.  If the intention of the entity was honorable but described themselves as a bank or used the word deposit in their operations; it was naive to think their customer's won't make a comparison to ponzi scheme - if they can't honor a withdrawal request.  

It's self-righteous to blame the customer, when the entity can't honor a valid withdrawal request on a short term deposit.

In the past, it's been fairly easy to grab a low-rate intralender loan in the cartel room way below market rates to cover depositor requests when necessary. It's been extremely difficult lately, though, because Pirate's pervaded into almost the entire Bitcoin economy. We all knew how pervasive it was and I had strong words against it at first, but when people pop up personally guaranteeing (falsely, in many cases, it seems) something like 2.5%/wk and we can't assimilate them into the cartel to get agreements together, the only way to be competitive for deposits is to try matching or dramatically out-innovating them. The Vegas event inspired a lot of confidence with me, too. In most cases, we individually chose easy, impatient methods of competing with guaranteed PPTs, and while innovations like IOUcoin.com and co-lender guarantees on deposits have been in the works, couldn't be pushed out fast enough. We fell way short, Pirate ended up being in almost everyone's portfolio, depositors left after fear came about from Pirate's default/collapse, and now there are liquidity problems just about everywhere.

We'll try to cover Imsaguy's debt (he's the only current cartel member who's defaulted, AFAIK -- I haven't checked on HK, though) and work out an agreement with him and his depositors (incidentally, his main problem also wasn't a loss on Pirate [though that eliminated his liquid reserves -- Pirate's program was very attractive in that it wasn't a "hard" fixed-term like many CD offerings], and his problems can largely be availed just by purchasing his BTC debt, "locking" it into USD, and stomping the interest rate down until he can breathe again). Pat has funds to back what he's lent out personally. I can cover everything I owe. Burt can cover everything he owes. James, AmazinRando, and the like aren't experiencing TOO severe of liquidity problems, ATM, AFAIK. I don't think AR did lending - he was just there so we could help fund. JG doesn't often lend, either, but I think he may've had Pirate exposure, which I haven't looked into how much affects him. payb.tc, Goat, and some others (ciciu, vescurdo, and obviously dank) aren't in the cartel, so I don't watch whatever they may be doing, and have much less interest organizing a way to cover whatever they may owe since I don't know them nearly as well as people I talk to every day. We lack a reporting process for depositors who were unable to withdraw what/when they were entitled to, and that makes keeping tabs on everyone a bit difficult. That'll eventually be resolved. We've talked about explicitly insuring each other (individually) off-and-on, but with Pirate pervasiveness, I've never wanted to offer it in the more public cartel room, and I never came to agreements with individual lenders, so we all operated without outside backing - and with Pirate pervasiveness, it would have been useless in many situations because both lenders are going to be experiencing liquidity problems whether they're directly exposed to Pirate or not.

This is a systemic problem, not isolated to any single lender. Everyone's experiencing troubles right now, and since intra-lender loans have dried up, there're also no solutions to helping depositors get principal if they request it outside of calling in loans at a loss of previously-accrued interest (I don't think any lender has "hard" calls in loan contracts - so we offer to waive interest if they pay us principal). In a way, this environment's challenge is kind of fun, but of course, it needs to be treated with the sense of urgency it deserves, as most people did only do short-term fixed deposits. Back when the cartel had maybe five people in it, we talked a little about a collaborative bond to keep us symbiotic and less cannibalistic... it's unfortunate collaborative bonds turned out to be PPT bonds.

There's a lot of anger, now, but it'll pass. We'll have time to think about correcting fundamental problems again, but there'll be this event to point to, demanding we come up with solutions now rather than later, putting a little more enthusiasm in the solution-finding process, I'd think. We'll see. It's ultimately still a fun, experimental process, and we're learning as we go along. Pat's place is in energy consultancy. I was an administrative clerk. Mark's in some type of non-combat role over in Afghanistan (I think he might be back - I heard him mention TWC being slower than satellite over there). Nick... Idunno what Nick does, honestly, aside from drawing a decent salary. Burt's an engineer and plays hockey. HK's a landlord. None of us have a particularly full background in finance. Hell - I just read a textbook by Mishkin, looked at the lending sub-forum and thought "why not?"

On a related note... people looking to fix us might have interest being in the cartel to prod us into finding solutions, and helping find those solutions. I'd be eager to have you in.

[JoelKatz]

If Micon spent half as much time researching as he spent making wild accusations he'd have a good picture of the financial state of every lender on here.

Why would he care what the financial state of the lenders are? He's not trying to work out the right timing to invest in a Ponzi scheme and pull it before it fails. He's not interest in when they collapse.

I can know that someone who promises exorbitant interest rates, promises low risk, doesn't explain his business model, has no apparent business, makes regular payments at a constant rate, and requires an ever-increasing supply of borrowed money at these exorbitant rates is almost certainly operating a Ponzi scheme (or similar scam). This is so regardless of their financial state.

Pirate appeared to be in a very good financial state (and perhaps actually was) when he decided to stop making payments. If he stopped because he was broke, it was not obvious. Knowing Pirate's financial state would, at most, have allowed you to predict roughly when he would default.

[imsaguy]

Why would he care what the financial state of the lenders are?

You're right, he's not worried about that.  He's worried about making a name for himself by throwing as much shit at the walls as he can and then going with whatever sticks while ignoring the rest.  Why must his posts be titled "Bryan Micon's XYZ" when all of his posts already have his name next to them.  Putting his name in the title is redundant.. unless of course he's striving for SEO.

[Kluge]

Well since I was named...

I have bought back my Insured Pirate bonds...

I have bought back my Uninsured non guaranteed tygrr bond D... 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98421.msg1169673#msg1169673

I do not at all need help from the lending cartel and was able to manage my own risk... Yes I'm pretty destroyed by this mess but I still covered my debts.

Thank you...

Sorry - wasn't meaning to imply otherwise, just say that a lot of us work together to prevent depositors noticing any liquidity problems on our end in response to Zen. I'm focused on salvaging the situation, keeping us all in good standing with the community, and moving forward as a collective, and wanted it known - for selfish purposes.

[blazing]

Well since I was named...

I have bought back my Insured Pirate bonds...

I have bought back my Uninsured non guaranteed tygrr bond D... 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98421.msg1169673#msg1169673

I do not at all need help from the lending cartel and was able to manage my own risk... Yes I'm pretty destroyed by this mess but I still covered my debts.

Thank you...

Sorry - wasn't meaning to imply otherwise, just say that a lot of us work together to prevent depositors noticing any liquidity problems on our end in response to Zen. I'm focused on salvaging the situation, keeping us all in good standing with the community, and moving forward as a collective, and wanted it known - for selfish purposes.

It appears that HK is having liquidity problems. My interest payments have been stopped. Is hashking a member of the cartel and will assistance be provided to him by you?

[JoelKatz]

Micon, you are missing the most obvious current ponzi: OBSI.HRPT

It is within his contract though to take everyone's money whenever he wants, so I don't even know if it can be considered a scam  

It appears to be a Stock Generation style Ponzi scheme. It's a scam because it claims that funds are actually invested when they are not. (Or they're invested in obvious Ponzi schemes which are not actually investments at all.)

The business receiving these investments is in the financial sector and currently expanding. They have demonstrated an excellent return on my personal investments and I thought now would be a good time to offer an alternative to the other high risk pass-through investment opportunities on the market.

The way I explain why these are so idiotic is by making this offer: Give me $5,000. I'll go to Vegas and if I win, we'll split the money.

[Kluge]

Well since I was named...

I have bought back my Insured Pirate bonds...

I have bought back my Uninsured non guaranteed tygrr bond D... 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98421.msg1169673#msg1169673

I do not at all need help from the lending cartel and was able to manage my own risk... Yes I'm pretty destroyed by this mess but I still covered my debts.

Thank you...

Sorry - wasn't meaning to imply otherwise, just say that a lot of us work together to prevent depositors noticing any liquidity problems on our end in response to Zen. I'm focused on salvaging the situation, keeping us all in good standing with the community, and moving forward as a collective, and wanted it known - for selfish purposes.

It appears that HK is having liquidity problems. My interest payments have been stopped. Is hashking a member of the cartel and will assistance be provided to him by you?

Possibly - though maybe directly not by me. We have no leaders, really -- I don't get a final say, and there are no explicit cartel funds anyone can direct. HashKing is a member, though. Nick I've met in-person before, so I'm much more familiar with, and he's helped me a LOT personally - including offering a house at no charge while I was shopping around with a bit of desperation. HK's relatively new, and not someone I've met in-person, though he's also helped me out before when I was house-shopping -- I think we added him 3 months ago or so. I'm more often a recipient of intra-lender loans than a giver, to be honest, and we do things individually (much more "Anonymous"-like than having any serious organized structure -- there are no formal meetings, for example), but given how frequently we communicate in the room, we're often familiar enough with each other that we help when members have problems. When I had my GLBSE account emptied just a month or so ago, the cartel raised the equiv. of ~$4k to gift me - without any solicitation (though some "anti-solicitation") on my part - so there's a good bit of debt I feel I owe. I can help organize - and the rest of the cartel can, too. I'll likely be giving Imsa a large USD loan out of personal funds so he can get back to focusing on business instead of crushing BTC debt, and that pretty much empties me out as far as liquid non-reserved funds go. There are still a few not facing liquidity crises in the room, but we need to go outside the cartel for "real" money real quick, nowadays. However, it could probably be said that our informal job is to match people who want money up with people who have money, and in cases where we have fixed-term deposits, we're more guaranteeing the loan (for a fee) than issuing the loan with "our" funds - so... business as usual, I guess, now with higher stakes.

From the little I recall from HK in the cartel room, his problem is in liquidity, not negative equity, so we might be able to come to an agreement with him which is amicable for his depositors if he is unable to repay them within a reasonable amount of time (I have no idea if that's the case -- I'm speaking out of my ass a bit).

[JoelKatz]

From the little I recall from HK in the cartel room, his problem is in liquidity, not negative equity, so we might be able to come to an agreement with him which is amicable for his depositors if he is unable to repay them within a reasonable amount of time (I have no idea if that's the case -- I'm speaking out of my ass a bit).

I'll admit that I don't know enough about the details to have much confidence in my conclusions. But I would just warn you that an equity problem often looks like a liquidity problem in the early stages.

For example, say you had people who borrowed money from you guys and then "invested" that money with Pirate planning to profit from the interest difference. Now that Pirate stopped making interest payments, they can't make interest payments either. This may appear to be a liquidity problem because your borrowers are either still hoping Pirate will pay back or just don't want to admit that they aren't going to pay back their loans. Once time, these non-paying loans will probably mostly fully default. If you make (or guarantee) loans to ease the liquidity problem, when those loans finally do fully default, there will probably be no money to pay you back.

A lot of people who thought they had little or no Pirate exposure may find out the truth is otherwise.

[Kluge]

From the little I recall from HK in the cartel room, his problem is in liquidity, not negative equity, so we might be able to come to an agreement with him which is amicable for his depositors if he is unable to repay them within a reasonable amount of time (I have no idea if that's the case -- I'm speaking out of my ass a bit).

I'll admit that I don't know enough about the details to have much confidence in my conclusions. But I would just warn you that an equity problem often looks like a liquidity problem in the early stages.

For example, say you had people who borrowed money from you guys and then "invested" that money with Pirate planning to profit from the interest difference. Now that Pirate stopped making interest payments, they can't make interest payments either. This may appear to be a liquidity problem because your borrowers are either still hoping Pirate will pay back or just don't want to admit that they aren't going to pay back their loans. Once time, these non-paying loans will probably mostly fully default. If you make (or guarantee) loans to ease the liquidity problem, when those loans finally do fully default, there will probably be no money to pay you back.

A lot of people who thought they had little or no Pirate exposure may find out the truth is otherwise.

I don't think many would consider Pirate debt an asset when calculating equity, anymore, including those you may consider scammy morons. There are obvious, extraordinary conditions right now causing liquidity problems, and if that's not a relatively short-term problem, I'd have no interest in it. Pirate debt was particularly attractive because, if you needed to, you could withdraw at any time. That is in contrast with the majority of BTC-related offerings. AFAIK, nobody offers demand deposits, and many (including myself) do not even allow CDs to be called prior to the date of maturity, even if the depositor offers to forfeit interest (at least - that's policy... something voluntary can be worked out). 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.

The point is (or... was) - those who kept reserve funds in Pirate lost a good chunk (if not practically all) liquid funds, and now need to start calling in loans or denying renewals. When working something out (Imsa's case is different [and relatively easy to solve] since he wasn't very involved with lending outside the loss on Pirate), we need to figure out how much they can call loans for, figure out who would be willing to honor a voluntary call, and start the slow work of making that happen, because, as you and I have both noted, there are lendees who covertly invested funds in Pirate and had no intent (possibly ability) of covering losses. We aren't going to say "Oh - you say you have 10kBTC in deposits, 15kBTC in loans. Well, okay, sounds like you're good to go - here's a few thousand coins until you're back on your feet!" It also requires HK consent to us butting in and asking him these questions... Idunno - I'm talking about him a lot and I've heard very little from him. I don't think he publishes his operation finances anywhere, either... I don't mean to speak for him -- Idunno his situation very well, so I don't mean to imply anything about him or his situation.

[Bitcoin Oz]

It looks like the tide is going out and a lot of people are going to be left standing there without pants on.

[zyk]

Don't mess with bitcoin.

Cheers Zyk

[Micon]

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	~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

updated to keep up with the new scams

[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...

[totaleclipseofthebank]

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	~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

updated to keep up with the new scams

why no obsi.hrpt? 1% a day? No business model?