Scammer Tags- Pirate Pass Through operators ?

[Bitcoin Oz]

I would like the forum administrators to make a decision on whether PPT operators actions contributed to the size of the BTCS&T collapse. Now that pirate has a scammer label should people who enabled his behaviour be given a tag as well ?

I think they should only have labels as long as pirate hasnt paid back his debt. Im in two minds about it and who is more or less responsible. Does the scammer label even matter ?

[Isokivi]

I also feel like some action is needed, a persons member-status in here should stand for something.

[bitlane]

Each case should be evaluated on a separate basis though. I don't believe that all Passthrough OPs deserve to be labeled as scammers immediately, or in a few rare cases, not labeled as scammers at all.

To throw a blanket-label on every PPT now, would essentially be to invalidate every GLBSE contract on the market, as terms for certain programs were very clear from the start (basic pirate default clauses rendering certain bonds worthless that people purchased full knowing ahead of time)..

NOW, if funds were mis-handled or the acquiring of funds under some sort of misrepresentation has clearly occurred, then by all means, a scammer tag should apply (lying about WHERE funds will be invested and to what exposure etc.). For example, taking funds that were supposed to be used for INSURANCE against a 'pirate default' and allowing greed to see those funds secretly invested INTO pirate's program to get a high interest yield would be the WORST and most obvious case, as has been shown to have happened already.

This is just a slippery slope once set upon.... and each 'judgment' should be handled with care.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Each case should be evaluated on a separate basis though. I don't believe that all Passthrough OPs deserve to be labeled as scammers immediately, or in a few rare cases, not labeled as scammers at all.

To throw a blanket-label on every PPT now, would essentially be to invalidate every GLBSE contract on the market, as terms for certain programs were very clear from the start (basic pirate default clauses rendering certain bonds worthless that people purchased full knowing ahead of time)..

NOW, if funds were mis-handled or the acquiring of funds under some sort of misrepresentation has clearly occurred, then by all means, a scammer tag should apply (lying about WHERE funds will be invested and to what exposure etc.). For example, taking funds that were supposed to be used for INSURANCE against a 'pirate default' and allowing greed to see those funds secretly invested INTO pirate's program to get a high interest yield would be the WORST and most obvious case, as has been shown to have happened already.

This is just a slippery slope once set upon.... and each 'judgment' should be handled with care.

I agree with this.  A scammer should have done at least one of the following two things:

• lied in the security's description or in some other provable context (e.g. posting deliberate misinformation on forum)
• did not perform according to the security's terms

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

[Dalkore]

I agree that if they are listed on the GBLSE AND that DISCLAIMED the possibility of complete loss then they SHOULD NOT be labeled a SCAMMER.   This is along the lines of if the risk section of the prospectus.    The investors are responsible for due diligence and if this was disclaimed then they deserve to bare the risk associated with that type of investment.  I read through some offering statements on the exchange and some did outright state this in clear English.


Dalkore

[JoelKatz]

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

I disagree. Running a PPT was paying Pirate to make you and your investors the recipients of obviously fraudulent transfers of other people's money. If that's not scamming, what is? But as I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to give PPT operators who aren't on record as saying they knew or suspected it was a Ponzi a free pass this one time. But in the future, I will be holding people to a higher standard.

[SgtSpike]

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

I disagree. Running a PPT was paying Pirate to make you and your investors the recipients of obviously fraudulent transfers of other people's money. If that's not scamming, what is? But as I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to give PPT operators who aren't on record as saying they knew or suspected it was a Ponzi a free pass this one time. But in the future, I will be holding people to a higher standard.

But if the investors knew going in that a pirate default meant a pass through default, how is the pass through operation scamming?

[Atlas]

No. They were just resellers of the Pirate security. Independent entirely. They should not suffer any liability for the product they only resold.

[JoelKatz]

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

I disagree. Running a PPT was paying Pirate to make you and your investors the recipients of obviously fraudulent transfers of other people's money. If that's not scamming, what is? But as I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to give PPT operators who aren't on record as saying they knew or suspected it was a Ponzi a free pass this one time. But in the future, I will be holding people to a higher standard.

But if the investors knew going in that a pirate default meant a pass through default, how is the pass through operation scamming?

I bolded the portion that explains that, which you seem to have quoted without reading. The pass through operation is scamming Pirate's other victims by hiring Pirate to take money from them and give it to the PPT's customers. If I help a woman hire a hitman to kill her husband, I am as responsible for the murder as the hitman is. This is true even if I was completely honest with the woman and got her a trustworthy and reliable hitman.

No. They were just resellers of the Pirate security. Independent entirely. They should not suffer any liability for the product they only resold.

Really? So if someone wants someone killed and they pay me to hire a hitman for them, I'm not responsible for the actions I paid the hitman to take because I'm just "reselling" his product?

[Atlas]

I see no fruitful way of arguing this. Your money is/was with Pirate. The PPT operators only provided a service and collected a small fee for that service. I can't perceive them as having any responsibility nor can I see any value in persecuting them.

As for murder as a commodity, if somebody needs a hitman, they are going to get it without a middle-man if they are truly serious.

[JoelKatz]

I see no fruitful way of arguing this. Your money is/was with Pirate. The PPT operators only provided a service and collected a small fee for that service. I can't perceive as having any responsibility nor can I see any value in persecuting them.

You're still responding to the argument that PPT operators defrauded their investors. That's not the argument I'm making.

As for murder as a commodity, if somebody needs a hitman, they are going to get it without a middle-man if they are truly serious.

I agree, but that doesn't reduce the middleman's responsibility. Especially in this particular case because it was difficult to invest in Pirate directly. That's why the PPTs started up.

[SgtSpike]

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

I disagree. Running a PPT was paying Pirate to make you and your investors the recipients of obviously fraudulent transfers of other people's money. If that's not scamming, what is? But as I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to give PPT operators who aren't on record as saying they knew or suspected it was a Ponzi a free pass this one time. But in the future, I will be holding people to a higher standard.

But if the investors knew going in that a pirate default meant a pass through default, how is the pass through operation scamming?

I bolded the portion that explains that, which you seem to have quoted without reading. The pass through operation is scamming Pirate's other victims by hiring Pirate to take money from them and give it to the PPT's customers. If I help a woman hire a hitman to kill her husband, I am as responsible for the murder as the hitman is. This is true even if I was completely honest with the woman and got her a trustworthy and reliable hitman.

No. They were just resellers of the Pirate security. Independent entirely. They should not suffer any liability for the product they only resold.

Really? So if someone wants someone killed and they pay me to hire a hitman for them, I'm not responsible for the actions I paid the hitman to take because I'm just "reselling" his product?

Ok, I see your point of view.  But, I see two differences:
1)  The scam wasn't known as a scam for certain.  You KNOW that a hitman is going to kill someone in your example - you don't KNOW that people are going to lose their money in a scam until it happens in the case of pirate.  Sure, there was a strong likelihood, but it still wasn't certain.
2)  I see risky investments as a form of gambling.  If people want to gamble their monies away, or give it to a homeless guy on the street, or light it all on fire, it really doesn't make a bit of difference to me.  And I would even help them do it if they wanted and I had some incentive.  Therefore, I don't feel as though the people who invested in Pirate were wronged.  They knew the risks of investing up front, and they chose to invest anyway.  I wouldn't say they got what they deserved, but at the very least, they understood the risk they were taking by investing in the scheme.  That is far different from someone who unknowingly has a hit placed on them.

Do you also think casinos are in the wrong for letting people lose money?  And banks that let people withdraw their money to spend at casinos?

[kronosvl]

In the hitman example the middleman knows what he is doing. You don't have any proof that PPT operator knew what was going on. If you just carry a bag of money without knowing that is for a hit you are not responsible for that crime.

[JoelKatz]

1)  The scam wasn't known as a scam for certain.

Yes, it was.

You KNOW that a hitman is going to kill someone in your example - you don't KNOW that people are going to lose their money in a scam until it happens in the case of pirate.  Sure, there was a strong likelihood, but it still wasn't certain.

The scam wasn't that people lost money. The scam was the transfer of money described as "investments" when there was no evidence of any actual investment activity. That was known from the beginning and repeatedly pointed out by many people, including me.

Also, would you accept money from one person to give to another if you know there's a "strong likelihood" that the money pays for a hit?

2)  I see risky investments as a form of gambling.  If people want to gamble their monies away, or give it to a homeless guy on the street, or light it all on fire, it really doesn't make a bit of difference to me.  And I would even help them do it if they wanted and I had some incentive.

I agree. But gambling doesn't involve fraud. Fraud and gambling are two different things.

Therefore, I don't feel as though the people who invested in Pirate were wronged.  They knew the risks of investing up front, and they chose to invest anyway.

Correct, they chose to invest, but their funds were in fact never invested in anything. They were scammed. They didn't lose on a risky investment -- there was no investment.

I wouldn't say they got what they deserved, but at the very least, they understood the risk they were taking by investing in the scheme.  That is far different from someone who unknowingly has a hit placed on them.

Yes, they understood the risk but they didn't lose money because what they were doing was risky, they lost money because what they were doing was a scam.

Do you also think casinos are in the wrong for letting people lose money?  And banks that let people withdraw their money to spend at casinos?

No, those are risks. This was a scam. That is gambling. This was a scam.

In the hitman example the middleman knows what he is doing. You don't have any proof that PPT operator knew what was going on. If you just carry a bag of money without knowing that is for a hit you are not responsible for that crime.

Actually, they all knew or should have known. But as I said, I'm willing to give any PPT operator who is not on record as saying they knew or suspected that this was a scam a free pass this one time. However, after this, everyone should know how to spot an obvious Ponzi scheme or related scam and I for one will no longer accept the "I didn't know for sure" answer.

[hashman]

I see no fruitful way of arguing this. Your money is/was with Pirate. The PPT operators only provided a service and collected a small fee for that service.

The only question I would be interested in if I had paid a unaccountable pseudonym to give money to a BullShit trust would be:
Did they actually give my money to the bullshit trust?

This is bitcoin, if they had given the money obviously they would have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.  If they didn't, well I'll let you connect the dots. 

[Severian]

The scam wasn't known as a scam for certain.

Speaking as someone that watched it unfold as a lurker, I saw it for a scam. 7% a week is always a scam.

[danieldaniel]

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.

I disagree. Running a PPT was paying Pirate to make you and your investors the recipients of obviously fraudulent transfers of other people's money. If that's not scamming, what is? But as I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to give PPT operators who aren't on record as saying they knew or suspected it was a Ponzi a free pass this one time. But in the future, I will be holding people to a higher standard.

But if the investors knew going in that a pirate default meant a pass through default, how is the pass through operation scamming?

I bolded the portion that explains that, which you seem to have quoted without reading. The pass through operation is scamming Pirate's other victims by hiring Pirate to take money from them and give it to the PPT's customers. If I help a woman hire a hitman to kill her husband, I am as responsible for the murder as the hitman is. This is true even if I was completely honest with the woman and got her a trustworthy and reliable hitman.

No. They were just resellers of the Pirate security. Independent entirely. They should not suffer any liability for the product they only resold.

Really? So if someone wants someone killed and they pay me to hire a hitman for them, I'm not responsible for the actions I paid the hitman to take because I'm just "reselling" his product?

Sorry, but everyone in the situation knew what was happening.  There was no murder, in which the murdered person didn't know he was going to be murdered.  This is therefore an invalid argument. 
The investors knew that it may be a scam. 
If someone comes up to you and says "I will steal your money if you give it to me, but I will fake very high interest rates to make it look as if you're making money." and you give him money, when he steals the money, did he really scam you?  Scamming is lying/not fulfilling a contract.  If, as you said, it was so blatantly obvious that it was a scam, then the PPT operators didn't scam anyone.  They merely offered a service that they knew no more about than we did. 

[bitlane]

Based on what I was trying to convey in the following quote that originated from the 3rd post in this thread...

Each case should be evaluated on a separate basis though. I don't believe that all Passthrough OPs deserve to be labeled as scammers immediately, or in a few rare cases, not labeled as scammers at all.

To throw a blanket-label on every PPT now, would essentially be to invalidate every GLBSE contract on the market, as terms for certain programs were very clear from the start (basic pirate default clauses rendering certain bonds worthless that people purchased full knowing ahead of time)..

NOW, if funds were mis-handled or the acquiring of funds under some sort of misrepresentation has clearly occurred, then by all means, a scammer tag should apply (lying about WHERE funds will be invested and to what exposure etc.). For example, taking funds that were supposed to be used for INSURANCE against a 'pirate default' and allowing greed to see those funds secretly invested INTO pirate's program to get a high interest yield would be the WORST and most obvious case, as has been shown to have happened already.

Using 2 specific users for the following example....
Here is essentially what I was referring to in my post above and perhaps the basic criteria that I might apply if faced with helping to make the final decision:

PatrickHarnett
- Solid GLBSE Contract with clear default information.
- Even now, continuously working towards closing out his 'business' in a timely fashion, above and beyond original contract(s).
- Never lied about destination of certain funds, risk involved or consumer/buyer/investor protection.
- Good communication throughout.
*NO SCAMMER TAG*

hashking
- No clear contract(s) using GLBSE, rather used his own platform, for the most part, limited GLBSE.
- Currently estimates longer-than-should-be 'closing-out' business plan, even for Insured 'Securities' etc.
- Masked destination of certain funds received, misappropriations, re-invested Anti-Pirate 'Insurance' back into Pirate program.
- Complete LACK of communication, clarity and policies etc.
**SCAMMER TAG Deserving**

Disclaimer:
The above is based on common Forum knowledge. No assumptions were made by me during the above points.

This is why I feel that blanketing ALL Passthrough Operators would be unfair and counterproductive in a way, especially for those OPs who are working towards making things 'right' by their own standards and going above and beyond what even their original contracts offered.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,
bitlane.

[JoelKatz]

Sorry, but everyone in the situation knew what was happening.  There was no murder, in which the murdered person didn't know he was going to be murdered.  This is therefore an invalid argument.
The investors knew that it may be a scam.

You kind of just contradicted yourself. First you say that everyone knew what was happening. Then you say the investors knew that it may be a scam. Did the investors know it was a scam?

Are you saying everyone who claimed it wasn't a Ponzi was lying and that everyone really did know that it was a Ponzi scheme all along? If so, the PPT operators who didn't say they knew it was a Ponzi were lying, just like Pirate. Right?

If someone comes up to you and says "I will steal your money if you give it to me, but I will fake very high interest rates to make it look as if you're making money." and you give him money, when he steals the money, did he really scam you?  Scamming is lying/not fulfilling a contract.  If, as you said, it was so blatantly obvious that it was a scam, then the PPT operators didn't scam anyone.  They merely offered a service that they knew no more about than we did.

If it's your position that everyone knew it was a Ponzi scheme all along, then the PPT operators were knowingly participating in a Ponzi scheme. They're as deserving of scammer tags as Pirate.

[Frankie]

I think there are two questions to ask in each case: (1) whether they actually gave the money to Pirate as described or were effectively running their own synchronized Ponzi, and (2) whether they shilled on behalf of Pirate, by claiming to know his business model, cash flow, whatever.

Affiliate scams and confidence men certainly deserve the tag, but not flat "honest" pass throughs, who could plausibly have been duped.

Case-by-case determinations should be made, I think.