The pirate and the SEC - Alleged e-mails.

[jgarzik]

It is positive for bitcoin as a whole, assuming the S.E.C. only targets those breaking existing laws, and not simply all bitcoin users.

There are many legitimate, lawful uses of bitcoin and it can only be a good thing for that to be on the record.

It was clear to anyone sane that Pirate's returns did not match anything in the known lawful universe.  Or to quote Gavin,

So-called high yield investments are (almost?) always dressed-up Ponzi schemes.

[evolve]

I hope they round up every ponzi and "bank" on the forum. They are a cancer on bitcoin, and make us all look bad.

[jgarzik]

I hope they round up every ponzi and "bank" on the forum. They are a cancer on bitcoin, and make us all look bad.

Yep.

[bitlane]

I don't think that it's fair to simply call all 'banks' or savings plans that exist on the forum, an outright scam or cancer.
There are still a few honest guys that do a decent job of transparent lending/savings plans etc, so I would like to think that there is still a future for some of them.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, most of the recent 'problems', are all tied to a single entity and the exposure that people had to it.

At the end of the day, some of these so-called 'Cancers' stand to lose far more than many average users combined, if a certain defaulted 'bank' does not repay, especially those who are currently going 'out of pocket' to repay their own Investors, even though the bulk of their funds are still missing currently.

This has been a huge lesson learned, for alot of people.

I still have high regards for those who are currently moving forward (perhaps operating 'with a limp') and repaying their Investors (even contrary to the terms that the Investors originally agreed to, ie. Default = 100% loss, no insurance...etc).

The past 6 Weeks has been a constant Witch Hunt and has ruined the reputations of more respected forum members than it should have.

[imsaguy]

I don't think that it's fair to simply call all 'banks' or savings plans that exist on the forum, an outright scam or cancer.
There are still a few honest guys that do a decent job of transparent lending/savings plans etc, so I would like to think that there is still a future for some of them.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, most of the recent 'problems', are all tied to a single entity and the exposure that people had to it.

At the end of the day, some of these so-called 'Cancers' stand to lose far more than many average users combined, if a certain defaulted 'bank' does not repay, especially those who are currently going 'out of pocket' to repay their own Investors, even though the bulk of their funds are still missing currently.

This has been a huge lesson learned, for alot of people.

I still have high regards for those who are currently moving forward (perhaps operating 'with a limp') and repaying their Investors (even contrary to the terms that the Investors originally agreed to, ie. Default = 100% loss, no insurance...etc).

The past 6 Weeks has been a constant Witch Hunt and has ruined the reputations of more respected forum members than it should have.

either you're sick and or that's the best sarcasm I've ever seen from you.

[bitlane]

either you're sick and that's the best sarcasm I've ever seen from you.

Huh ?

either you're sick and OR that's the best sarcasm I've ever seen from you.

....or....

either you're sick and that's the best sarcasm I've ever seen from you......OR....

Which was it supposed to be ?

For the record, I was being truthful.....NO sarcasm.

[imsaguy]

Which was it supposed to be ?

For the record, I was being truthful.....NO sarcasm.

Corrected.

[bitlane]

Again, all BS and sarcasm aside.... my faith in the community and trust in general increase as I see Passthrough OPs go out of pocket to repay Bonds that were sold with NO Insurance...which, at the time of sale initially, many Investors had no problem purchasing and knew full well what they were getting into, yet still screamed SCAMMER TAG to those who are actually keeping in contact with them and trying to make things right at their own expenses.

Because of this, I have an extremely clear picture of those who I would never have a reason to question in future dealings.
I'm not going to sound like a fan-boi and drop names or give kudos to anyone in particular, but it should be pretty clear who those people are, based on their continued support of Investors, even though they don't have to......

[repentance]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, most of the recent 'problems', are all tied to a single entity and the exposure that people had to it.

Which comes down to risk management.  If you have significant enough exposure to an investment that its failure would cause you significant liquidity problems then you shouldn't lend money to others to place in that same investment because if it collapses there's a high risk that they'll default and you'll get squeezed from both sides.  This isn't a novel concept.

[Fjordbit]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, most of the recent 'problems', are all tied to a single entity and the exposure that people had to it.

Which comes down to risk management.  If you have significant enough exposure to an investment that its failure would cause you significant liquidity problems then you shouldn't lend money to others to place in that same investment because if it collapses there's a high risk that they'll default and you'll get squeezed from both sides.  This isn't a novel concept.

Are we talking about pirate or AIG?

[repentance]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, most of the recent 'problems', are all tied to a single entity and the exposure that people had to it.

Which comes down to risk management.  If you have significant enough exposure to an investment that its failure would cause you significant liquidity problems then you shouldn't lend money to others to place in that same investment because if it collapses there's a high risk that they'll default and you'll get squeezed from both sides.  This isn't a novel concept.

Are we talking about pirate or AIG?

I'm talking about bitlane's comment regarding the problems being tied to a single entity (pirate).  The cascade effect is because people who already had exposure to pirate also lent funds to others to invest with pirate.  Those people are down two lots of money - the money which they didn't receive from pirate and the money from borrowers who invested funds with pirate and are now in default. That kind of double exposure to pirate was an insane risk to take.

[Fjordbit]

I'm talking about bitlane's comment regarding the problems being tied to a single entity (pirate).  The cascade effect is because people who already had exposure to pirate also lent funds to others to invest with pirate.  Those people are down two lots of money - the money which they didn't receive from pirate and the money from borrowers who invested funds with pirate and are now in default. That kind of double exposure to pirate was an insane risk to take.

My comment was a joke. AIG insured practically anyone against default on mortgages leading up to the 2008 crisis. Their inability to price the systemic risk in their mortgage default insurance was a key component in the liquidity crisis we are still facing. Every large bank had massive exposure to them in their mortgage backed securities, and AIG had no realistic way to repay what they owed before the federal government stepped in.

I just saw an interesting parallel.

[danieldaniel]

My comment was a joke. AIG insured practically anyone against default on mortgages leading up to the 2008 crisis. Their inability to price the systemic risk in their mortgage default insurance was a key component in the liquidity crisis we are still facing. Every large bank had massive exposure to them in their mortgage backed securities, and AIG had no realistic way to repay what they owed before the federal government stepped in.

I just saw an interesting parallel.

People who did not get the joke, buy and read The Big Short before posting again.

I only read, like, the first half of it and I get it.

* danieldaniel laughs

[Puppet]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, most of the recent 'problems', are all tied to a single entity and the exposure that people had to it.

Which comes down to risk management.  If you have significant enough exposure to an investment that its failure would cause you significant liquidity problems then you shouldn't lend money to others to place in that same investment because if it collapses there's a high risk that they'll default and you'll get squeezed from both sides.  This isn't a novel concept.

Are we talking about pirate or AIG?

Neither I think. Sounds like he is talking about usagi's CPA.

[augustocroppo]

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, most of the recent 'problems', are all tied to a single entity and the exposure that people had to it.

Which comes down to risk management.  If you have significant enough exposure to an investment that its failure would cause you significant liquidity problems then you shouldn't lend money to others to place in that same investment because if it collapses there's a high risk that they'll default and you'll get squeezed from both sides.  This isn't a novel concept.

Are we talking about pirate or AIG?

Neither I think. Sounds like he is talking about usagi's CPA.

I'm talking about bitlane's comment regarding the problems being tied to a single entity (pirate).  The cascade effect is because people who already had exposure to pirate also lent funds to others to invest with pirate.  Those people are down two lots of money - the money which they didn't receive from pirate and the money from borrowers who invested funds with pirate and are now in default. That kind of double exposure to pirate was an insane risk to take.

[Puppet]

[danieldaniel]

People who did not get the joke, buy and read The Big Short before posting again.

I only read, like, the first half of it and I get it.

* danieldaniel laughs

Yeah, but someone must have spoiled the ending for you.

Nope.  I just know that they were insuring peoples mortgages who ended up not paying them back.

[nimda]

I got exactly the same email an hour ago...
Here is the full copy: http://pastie.org/4791945

- Anyone know what is this about?
- How did they got my email address?

I didn't invest with Pirate, so I honestly don't know why I am receiving this anyways.

Did you give him a rating on OTC?  It seems that everyone getting it so far has rated Pirate on OTC.

I have received this email, from a legitimate .gov address. AFAIK they got my address from OTC somehow... I rated him -10 for "defaulted on large loan."

[fbastage]

Nope.  I just know that they were insuring peoples mortgages who ended up not paying them back.

it's far more than just that.  there are several documentaries on the subject (i.e. Inside Job, https://www.google.com/search?q=documentaries+recession+2008).

AIG had implemented several questionable insurance offerings such as allowing people to
- insure the same security/event multiple times (huge leveraged liability in case of failure)
- insure securities they did not own (wow.. just wow)

things like this created a massive (if artificial) liability that AIG could not handle when the housing mortgage bubble popped.  and since AIG was integral in insuring and backing up all manner of other things, including underwriting most other insurers of other insurance systems, and they were "too big too fail", the US Gov't got to bail them out.

[CJGoodings]

Its sad to see there's people that still have the response that danieldaniel had, ignorance is bliss am i right?

Im not attacking you personally daniel, im just stating that your conditioning from living within the states is showing.