"Long-term offers" - gonna have to tackle this 1 eventually

[theymos]

I added a warning to the top of every topic in "long-term offers".

[1715129038]

1715129038

[1715129038]

1715129038

[1715129038]

1715129038

[theymos]

I think it's good to have credit ratings stickied. As far as I know, Patrick is currently the only person publishing credit ratings. If more people publish them, I'll unsticky Patrick's topic and create a new sticky which links to all of the credit rating topics.

[hannesnaude]

...High Yield Investment Programs (HYIPs)...

Oh. So that's what HYIP stands for. I thought it was
Huhh? Yup, It's Ponzi!
 

[Micon]

I think it's good to have credit ratings stickied. As far as I know, Patrick is currently the only person publishing credit ratings. If more people publish them, I'll unsticky Patrick's topic and create a new sticky which links to all of the credit rating topics.

Maybe you still don't understand it either, but https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81542.0  these credit ratings are akin to a 3rd grader writing in crayon on a piece of construction paper which pony she thinks is prettier:

Here is PatrickHarnett's Rating (rememebeer PatrickHarnett himself runs a 1%/wk scam himself) for "RustyRyan"

RustyRyan

3.00%

-

28-Jul-12

A-

10 coin/4 week minimum, weekly payout

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96163.0

Yup, that's right - a 3%/wk scam, A- Credit rating.  Theymos I suppose you either don't care because you are making money or you cannot immediately discern that paying 3%/wk to borrow money & to keep borrowing more of it is literally 100% always a scam.  If you cared or could understand this you would realize the grave mistakes you have made and continue to make in this matter.  You are directly working against the best interest of this community and you are working directly in favor of scammers.

And I have also published my Credit ratings & reviews too:   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105285.0

[gene]

Utterly disgraceful.

I know, what a dick, letting people make their own choices.

3) oddly enough, almost admitting to save face in the future, this thread "how to identify a Ponzi" is also stickied - the only 2 threads stickied there, and the views and pages of "WPW" far exceeds the Ponzi-identifier...

I don't see how it's odd at all, it's pretty consistent with giving people the information they need and letting them decide what they want to do with their money. As for one having more views than the other, well one has been up for ~4 months, the other for 3 weeks.

Apparently nobody bothered to actually read and understand the thrust of what Theymos wrote.

In his response, Theymos admits to taking part in what he stronly suspected was a ponzi scheme where others were being actively misled about the nature of the scheme. Theymos also proudly asserts that he did profit from this "fun" scam at the expense of those who were misled. He seems to think that the profits are "rightfully" his, despite him knowing that they necessarily were to come from other dupes. By his own admission, he has demonstrated intent to defraud misinformed investors as a participant in a ponzi scheme.

The players can only be innocent if they were truly unaware that it was a ponzi scheme. Theymos stronly suspected it was a ponzi scheme and participated, despite this knowledge.

He then goes on give some flimsy excuse for why he not only tolerates but also encourages all manner of questionable and outright fraudulent activity on this board.

This is contemptible, even if I'm the only one who acknowledges it.

[gene]

I think it's good to have credit ratings stickied. As far as I know, Patrick is currently the only person publishing credit ratings. If more people publish them, I'll unsticky Patrick's topic and create a new sticky which links to all of the credit rating topics.

That so-called credit rating system is and always has been a bad joke. Reminds me of the credit-rating that led to the financial meltdown in 2008. Ratings based on nothing...

and theymos stands ready and eager to give the scammer some legitimacy by going out of his way to make it a sticky.

I hate to ask, but why are you so intent on fulfilling every sterotype of the techno-savvy but real-life naive 20 year old boy?

[greyhawk]

I hate to ask, but why are you so intent on fulfilling every sterotype of the techno-savvy but real-life naive 20 year old boy?

He's 21.

[Severian]

Is this why you took part in pirate's ponzi scheme? Because you thought it would be fun? Did you "earn" any "interest" from it?

It was fun, and still is!

Speaking as the interested outsider, it's this kind of attitude that will make it harder for people like me to get other people to adopt bitcoin. Much of how bitcoin is perceived by the world starts here in this forum, like it or not.

[Severian]

This is contemptible, even if I'm the only one who acknowledges it.

I've been watching this story unfold and share your judgement.

[Maged]

I think it's good to have credit ratings stickied. As far as I know, Patrick is currently the only person publishing credit ratings. If more people publish them, I'll unsticky Patrick's topic and create a new sticky which links to all of the credit rating topics.

I approve of this. The more credit ratings, the better.

And I have also published my Credit ratings & reviews too:   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105285.0

Sorry, but that's an absolute joke. I would guess that it's mostly right, but you've clearly not put any real effort into gathering information. Additionally, you are ONLY focusing on what you believe are ponzis. Where are the ratings for the legitimate investments? If you want to be included in a sticky, you will need to actually work for it.

[gene]

He's 21.

I didn't know his age (though I'm not surprised); it was more of a comment about his apparent age as judged by his actions.

[gene]

Utterly disgraceful.

Thanks for the detailed rebuttal.

I somehow missed this. My response was not meant as a rebuttal -- it was just a reaction. Nausea.

[John (John K.)]

I agree with Micon. I'm embarrassed by 'Long Term Offers' and scared by 'Securities'.

1) tyvm.  I would love to have you on my podcast, DonkDown radio.  I have so many questions.

2)  I now am blaming the mods for this.  I heard Theymos invested in the giant Pirate scam.  Now Mod John says in this 1.5%/wk scam thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89122.180

He is on his quest to label every worthwhile lender in this subforum as a ponzi-maker. Be happy that he approved you too.  

and then quickly deletes it.

Why are the bitcointalk mods on the side of the scammers?

3) I have intentionally never touched the GBLSE or MPEX as it seems like the SEC should be all over that soon.  It is clearly inevitable given the SEC's history of aggressive action towards unlicensed securities.  .onion that thing ASAP if you ever want to see it again.

4)  I don't know how it took me and everyone else this long to figure this out, but the current crop of "Long Term Offers" and formerly "Lending" had nothing to do with lending - they are all *borrowing*   Maybe a forum with subforums of different borrowing %? 

Sticky at top of 500% APR borrowing forum that says "In the course of human history, every entity borrowing at 500%+ APR has been a scam of some sort up until now" ?

Since when did I delete my posts? I stand behind every word I say, and at the time of my posting you did label everyone as a ponzi. True, the mechanics of their lending program might be strange considering the weekly interest and not yearly interest, but remember the fact that the spread of MTGOXUSD is sometimes more than 1%, and the weekly fluctuations is more than that. An interest of 1-2% is sustainable given the current pricing fluctuations of Bitcoin.

[evolve]

Micon is dead on. Promoting fake "credit ratings" done by a ponzi operator is like letting a fox watch the henhouse. Dude is pulling the long con, and this forum not only supports it, but actively promotes it.

As i said in another thread, we'll see history repeat itself soon enough, and everyone is going to bend over and thank the scammers for the privilege.

[Ponies]

Investing in a ponzi is marginally unethical at best. The bad guys are the scumbags who invest and are shilling for something that they know is a ponzi.

Also patricks thread clearly has no business being stickyed. His credit ratings are completely worthless and based on almost nothing other than the fact that they people are still paying out. Stickying that thread gives it legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.

[Micon]

I think it's good to have credit ratings stickied. As far as I know, Patrick is currently the only person publishing credit ratings. If more people publish them, I'll unsticky Patrick's topic and create a new sticky which links to all of the credit rating topics.

I approve of this. The more credit ratings, the better.

And I have also published my Credit ratings & reviews too:   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105285.0

Sorry, but that's an absolute joke. I would guess that it's mostly right, but you've clearly not put any real effort into gathering information.

Wait... let me get this straight...

1) you, like theymos, approve of credit ratings and wish more people published them.  (I also agree with this - then over a long sample size (years and years) we will see who has published more accurate credit ratings)

2) you say my credit ratings are a joke, but then in the next sentence say that they are "mostly right" - and I strongly disagree as I think others would that I have "clearly not put any real effort into gather information" on this subject as you claim.

[FreeMoney]

I think a separate top-level domain for everything under the Marketplace heading would be the right thing to do.

Agree.

If they are going to stay, do not police them. You will make mistakes and nothing could be better for a ponzi operator than to get whatever stamp of approval the forum starts handing out.

But I think they should go.

If you want to let people talk about whatever it can be in off-topic it doesn't need a serious sounding name like "Securities".

[repentance]

I think a separate top-level domain for everything under the Marketplace heading would be the right thing to do.

Agree.

If they are going to stay, do not police them. You will make mistakes and nothing could be better for a ponzi operator than to get whatever stamp of approval the forum starts handing out.

But I think they should go.

If you want to let people talk about whatever it can be in off-topic it doesn't need a serious sounding name like "Securities".

Talking about them isn't the problem, it's the active promotion and solicitation.  If the "business" is happening elsewhere, then we won't have dozens of "where's my money" threads here whenever a business fails.  Look at reddit - they discuss the hacks and failures but the reason why we get dozens of threads about each failure here is because it's here where the schemes are launched and promoted and where the operators have solicited users.

[Puppet]

Sorry, but that's an absolute joke. I would guess that it's mostly right, but you've clearly not put any real effort into gathering information. Additionally, you are ONLY focusing on what you believe are ponzis. Where are the ratings for the legitimate investments? If you want to be included in a sticky, you will need to actually work for it.

Patricks rating are just as much a joke. AFAICT, he hasnt actually checked any wallet addresses, seen any bank statements or has any way to actually verify that what is being said is true. He is just believing the ponzi operators on their word. Big surprise they all get high ratings. Its frigging hilarious.

[hannesnaude]

Having forum staff decide whether specific investments are dangerous is definitely something I don't want.

And I have also published my Credit ratings & reviews too:   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105285.0

Sorry, but that's an absolute joke. I would guess that it's mostly right, but you've clearly not put any real effort into gathering information.

So, in summary, forum staff should not decide which investments are worthwhile, but they can decide who's credit ratings are worthwhile?  
Either all credit ratings should be stickied or none of them should. But I agree with Gavin that ideally this whole section should move to another TLD.