BitPonzi: GLBSE pyramid scheme!

[cuddlefish]

BitPonzi is exactly what it sounds like.

It is a GLBSE asset. Once a week, on Saturdays, I will pay a dividend of 90% of profit from selling the asset to all shareholders.

Get in now for maximum profit!

[1713311422]

1713311422

[erek]

what do you guys make of this?

[Anonymous]

Hahaha, never would this be possible before. The world is changing before our very eyes.

Cheers to Bitcoin!

[MtRev]

90% ?? Hmm.. . tempting but i dont know.

[erek]

90% ?? Hmm.. . tempting but i dont know.

why don't you know? explain

[Anonymous]

90% ?? Hmm.. . tempting but i dont know.

why don't you know? explain

English isn't his first language.

[Sukrim]

...so I buy a share for 1 BTC (e.g.) to get back 90 bitcents? Wow, sounds like a GREAT deal!

With the "once a week" scheme, I doubt anyone will even buy a single share in week 2, so it quite likely that you only give some free money to the operator.

Also it's fairly easy to cheat a system like this as an operator.

Edit: Some people seem quite eager to loose money, maybe I should do something similar?! http://charts.glbse.com/markets/BitPonzi_trades.html

[erek]

...so I buy a share for 1 BTC (e.g.) to get back 90 bitcents? Wow, sounds like a GREAT deal!

With the "once a week" scheme, I doubt anyone will even buy a single share in week 2, so it quite likely that you only give some free money to the operator.

Also it's fairly easy to cheat a system like this as an operator.

Edit: Some people seem quite eager to loose money, maybe I should do something similar?! http://charts.glbse.com/markets/BitPonzi_trades.html

so it's always going to be at a loss of 10% for whoever buys a share?

[Sukrim]

No, it'll be a loss of 10% for the ones in the first round - it will be a much bigger loss for anyone buying in at further rounds who then subsidize partially the 10% loss of the first-rounders (but as you'd need 10 times the volume of round 1 further down the road to even let the first-rounders have ZERO LOSS, it's quite likely that only the operator wins).

[TiagoTiago]

I'm confused...

[TheBitMan]

I'm confused...

same here

[Anonymous]

Basically you buy shares in this fictional company. It takes all the investments and spits them out as profit every weekend, assuming new investors are always appearing.

[Shinobi]

Sounds like Stockgeneration.com all over again!

Basically you buy shares in this fictional company. It takes all the investments and spits them out as profit every weekend, assuming new investors are always appearing.

[josell]

I hope I loose nothing.

[fascistmuffin]

I don't think you're supposed to advertised a ponzi scheme with this amount of transparency. At least you get points for originality.

[Nefario]

The first legitimate Ponzi scheme.

If you start using, the more people you get in the more you can get out, and it grows until the last ones to enter are final losers.

Kind of like social security.

Check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

[3phase]

Kind of like social security.

aah, NOW I UNDERSTAND!!

[josell]

When is the payment? Saturday or Sunday?

[julz]

The first legitimate Ponzi scheme.

If you start using, the more people you get in the more you can get out, and it grows until the last ones to enter are final losers.

Kind of like social security.

Check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Should GLBSE really be supporting this sort of scheme as one of it's tradable assets?

While I can sort of see a case for it because it's up front about what it is, it strikes me as the sort of thing that will negatively affect GLBSE's growth.
Why not restrict assets to those that have at least a plausible sustainable investment model - and also are not so likely to attract negative attention from the media and/or various law enforcement/regulatory bodies?

While in general I expect the bitcoin community would be hesitant to get law enforcement involved in disputes - there are perhaps cases involving fraud where there is a place for cooperation with certain agencies. (e.g MTGox indicated they may get law enforcement involved with certain aspects of the recent hack)
Having an asset like bitponzi on the books seems to make it unlikely you'd get any cooperation if for some reason the exchange did need to work with investigators on some issue.

That aside.. it's just likely to scare the average investor off and thus reduce the potential depth of the GLBSE exchange.

Wouldn't it be in your interests to drop bitponzi and at least have a basic 'dress code' for listings? - e.g: 
a) real world contact details which you have verified (can be kept secret - but retained in case of fraud)
b) plausible sustainable business model
c) enough transparency in operations to give credence to b).

I can see you're going for a hands off approach from your terms and conditions.. which is fine to an extent..
but it puts your interests somewhat at odds with those of the average investor.
BitcoinGlobal could be seen to be making a profit from shonky asset operators. 

You state:
"We assume no responsibility or liability for any fraud committed on this exchange but will do our best to prevent its occurrence."
Ponzi schemes aren't likely to fit into most peoples expectations of doing the best to prevent fraud. Even if bitponzi itself is up front about it - you can almost guarantee some early participant will misrepresent it to someone else in order to get more money into the pot.
It's a bit like a company saying they don't spam, yet they encourage their agents to do it on their behalf.

Your exchange your rules.. but it strikes me that you're making a gift for whatever competitors come along and setup an exchange that feels more 'business-like'.

[Nefario]

The first legitimate Ponzi scheme.

If you start using, the more people you get in the more you can get out, and it grows until the last ones to enter are final losers.

Kind of like social security.

Check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Should GLBSE really be supporting this sort of scheme as one of it's tradable assets?

While I can sort of see a case for it because it's up front about what it is, it strikes me as the sort of thing that will negatively affect GLBSE's growth.
Why not restrict assets to those that have at least a plausible sustainable investment model - and also are not so likely to attract negative attention from the media and/or various law enforcement/regulatory bodies?

While in general I expect the bitcoin community would be hesitant to get law enforcement involved in disputes - there are perhaps cases involving fraud where there is a place for cooperation with certain agencies. (e.g MTGox indicated they may get law enforcement involved with certain aspects of the recent hack)
Having an asset like bitponzi on the books seems to make it unlikely you'd get any cooperation if for some reason the exchange did need to work with investigators on some issue.

That aside.. it's just likely to scare the average investor off and thus reduce the potential depth of the GLBSE exchange.

Wouldn't it be in your interests to drop bitponzi and at least have a basic 'dress code' for listings? - e.g: 
a) real world contact details which you have verified (can be kept secret - but retained in case of fraud)
b) plausible sustainable business model
c) enough transparency in operations to give credence to b).

I can see you're going for a hands off approach from your terms and conditions.. which is fine to an extent..
but it puts your interests somewhat at odds with those of the average investor.
BitcoinGlobal could be seen to be making a profit from shonky asset operators. 

You state:
"We assume no responsibility or liability for any fraud committed on this exchange but will do our best to prevent its occurrence."
Ponzi schemes aren't likely to fit into most peoples expectations of doing the best to prevent fraud. Even if bitponzi itself is up front about it - you can almost guarantee some early participant will misrepresent it to someone else in order to get more money into the pot.
It's a bit like a company saying they don't spam, yet they encourage their agents to do it on their behalf.

Your exchange your rules.. but it strikes me that you're making a gift for whatever competitors come along and setup an exchange that feels more 'business-like'.

GLBSE is just a platform, with the exception of cheating people we take no position on whats traded.

The issuer is upfront on exactly what this is, a Ponzi scheme, if people decide to buy it then they are gambling, and the risk as a result is theirs.

Nefario.

[julz]

Your exchange your rules.. but it strikes me that you're making a gift for whatever competitors come along and setup an exchange that feels more 'business-like'.

GLBSE is just a platform, with the exception of cheating people we take no position on whats traded.

The issuer is upfront on exactly what this is, a Ponzi scheme, if people decide to buy it then they are gambling, and the risk as a result is theirs.

Nefario.

Yeah I got that already..  your reply is just the tl;dr version of your terms and conditions.

The point of my post was about whether you had any concerns about the types of assets you admit affecting the perception of your business, and likely (IMO) effects on growth.

I think you'll do well from the die-hard libertarian quarter - not so much from the general investor/business community.
Your chosen position is entirely consistent with commonly perceived ideals of deregulation and decentralization in the bitcoin community.

It worries me that operations such as yours will deter many from the general uptake of bitcoin - not just your own business.

If it worries a guy like me - it'll positively send some others packing. Hopefully I'm wrong however and the majority of the world will jump into this wild west with open wallets and reckless abandon!

[ctoon6]

I don't think this is legal. and why?

[Nefario]

Your exchange your rules.. but it strikes me that you're making a gift for whatever competitors come along and setup an exchange that feels more 'business-like'.

GLBSE is just a platform, with the exception of cheating people we take no position on whats traded.

The issuer is upfront on exactly what this is, a Ponzi scheme, if people decide to buy it then they are gambling, and the risk as a result is theirs.

Nefario.

Yeah I got that already..  your reply is just the tl;dr version of your terms and conditions.

The point of my post was about whether you had any concerns about the types of assets you admit affecting the perception of your business, and likely (IMO) effects on growth.

I think you'll do well from the die-hard libertarian quarter - not so much from the general investor/business community.
Your chosen position is entirely consistent with commonly perceived ideals of deregulation and decentralization in the bitcoin community.

It worries me that operations such as yours will deter many from the general uptake of bitcoin - not just your own business.

If it worries a guy like me - it'll positively send some others packing. Hopefully I'm wrong however and the majority of the world will jump into this wild west with open wallets and reckless abandon!

What I would recommend you do is begin a rating service that investigates each asset on GLBSE and gives it a safety rating. This is something thats needed and allows regular investors to choose more wisely.

[julz]

What I would recommend you do is begin a rating service that investigates each asset on GLBSE and gives it a safety rating. This is something thats needed and allows regular investors to choose more wisely.

Spoken like a true laissez faire economist!

Despite my protestations above - I do have some respect for this approach.
It's the pragmatist in me that thinks  - without such a system in place already - the damage is being done.

I hope if/when some 3rd parties offer rating services - you are able to integrate their ratings directly into your interfaces.

[lemonginger]

I think this might be interesting with a 99% payback. As it is, with 10% lopped off for the owner, it becomes untenable incredibly quickly.

Though not as quickly as Sukrim thinks it will. (Hint, you don't need 10 times the volume in week 2 to make a profit for a week 1 investor)

[Sukrim]

I wonder though why suddenly a LOT of trades are happening at 3 times inflated prices... http://charts.glbse.com/markets/BitPonzi/trades.html

[erek]

did anyone make a decent return on this BitPonzi?

[Nefario]

Apart from cuddlefish?

Also is it over?

[Nefario]

I'm happy to announce that for the web client, bitcoin history now shows which asset has paid a dividends.

All the history pages (bitcoin,asset,market) now show 15 entries instead of the default 5.

Please clear your browser cache and reload the webclient to use.

Nefario.

[erek]

anyone makin good profit on this venture?

[LightRider]

Has anyone heard from cuddlefish lately?

[Meatpile]

As silly and sleezy as this is... I do like the fact that glbse allows anything and everything to exist.

Lets just hope it doesn't scare away any real company attempts.

[Nefario]

As silly and sleezy as this is... I do like the fact that glbse allows anything and everything to exist.

Lets just hope it doesn't scare away any real company attempts.

Thank you, I take this as a compliment.

LightRider, cuddlefish has a habbit of disappearing for a while and then coming back, it's normal for him, at least that's been my experience.

Nefario.

[Meatpile]

Now how long until we have a publicly traded meth lab?!

Those would be interesting accounting reports to read.

July 28, 2011: Debit: Dead hooker removal and cleanup from shed c.  $76.54

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Now how long until we have a publicly traded meth lab?!

Those would be interesting accounting reports to read.

July 28, 2011: Debit: Dead hooker removal and cleanup from shed c.  $76.54

September 4, 2011: Credit: 10% Rebate for Shed Converted to Man Cave    $456.78