It says that it is not tied to any business being successful or not, so how on earth is he going to raise 0.05% or 112 USD per day starting right away?
Two things about that statement by him :
1. It was just part of what he copied/pasted from namworld's contract - as with all copy/pastes there can be no certainty to what extent the person using someone else's contract actually understands/means what it says.
2. Not tied to the success of any business means that what he pays you doesn't change based on how well his businesses do. It doesn't mean that he doesn't have businesses that he expects to make the profit.
What's missing is an unambiguous statement that the funds will be used and kept predominantly BTC-denominated. The two most risky forms of loans are:
1. Ones that are taken to invest in someone else's higher-rate paying investment (see pirate). These ones default if/when the underlying investment turns out to be a scam. That is NOT the case here.
2. Ones that are taken to be converted into a different currency for use. The usual culprit here is loans taken denominated in BTC that are then converted for use into USD. These default when BTC rises sharply vs USD - as even if the USD-denominated business is very profitable it still can't support the debt at the higher rate. Examples of this include Bakewell, loads of loans on BTCjam, various other mining outfits (e.g. BTC-Mining in my view) and failed businesses that believe or claim to be BTC-denomnated whilst actually having high USD exposure (e.g. Ziggap).
There's no assurance that 2. isn't the case here. The funds are for use in some of his businesses - but are they going to remain BTC-denominated? If not (or if the businesses aren't already profitable) then some assurance should really be provided that he has BTC-denominated assets sufficient to repay the principal in the event the businesses do badly and/or BTC rises sharply vs USD (or whatever currency the loans will be converted to).
I'm only aware of three other ongoing offers comparable to this one:
Namworld's one - which pays a lower rate, isn't currently looking to raise more funds and provides a spreadsheet showing current BTC-denominated assets well in excess of the bond capital.
TradeFortress' loans service - a higher rate than this and used for BTC-denominated loans.
My own bond (which you won't know about as although it's denominated in BTC it's traded in LTC so in the alt section) - which pays a higher rate, is NOT currently selling more and is backed by BTC-denominated assets exceeding loan capital AND by LTC-denominated assets exceeding loan capital.
The key point is that all three hold (or at least claim to hold - outside viewers can't be certain) BTC-denominated assets matching or exceeding the owed capital. I don't know how much TF's one has in debt - but I know Namworld and mine are both significantly smaller (mine's paused at 250 BTC for now).
If the capital is being used for speculative purposes (e.g. to develop businesses that currently show little/no profit) then that is NOT a problem - so long as he has BTC-denominated assets able to be realised to cover the debt if necessary, Some assurance on that point would be good.
