What is **actually** going on with Coinlenders? Open discussion

[GOB]

The old Coinlenders thread has been closed and the new one doesn't have much for real answers (if one of the following theories is correct, I can see why TF is not answering definitively), so I wanted to throw this out there for discussion. Which of the following is the case?

1) TradeFortress determined the Coinlenders concept was putting him in legal risk and really shut it down.

2) TradeFortress determined promoting Coinlenders put him in legal risk so he changed "interest" to "fee rebates" and now his site to a "demo" (but one that still works, i.e. you can get your BTC out, in, earn, etc.).

Now,

If (1) is true, what happened to people's deposits and the loans that were outstanding? Are people losing their BTC? What does this mean for inputs.io? Are inputs users in danger of losing their BTC?

If (2) is true, does it really change anything? Wouldn't he be in the same legal risk? I can understand if TradeFortress doesn't want to go on the record clearing this up definitively, that's why I created this thread.

[marcovaldo]

It seems that nothing really changed in fact.

[GOB]

It seems that nothing really changed in fact.

Ok, so option 2 

Now, does anyone know if that will really protect him legally? I ask out of curiosity and because it could be instructional. To my understanding, the government doesn't even acknowledge such defenses ("It wasn't prostitution! I only paid her for her company, not for sex!"), at least in the US. So if you're gonna be on the wrong side of the law, wouldn't it be better to just be clear with your customers?

I'm actually not a coinlenders user (though I was thinking about it), but I do use inputs.io and this development worried me a bit--enough to panic withdraw my coins. That's why I was hoping for some answers, so I could allay some of my worries and go back to inputs cause I really like it.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Now, does anyone know if that will really protect him legally? I ask out of curiosity and because it could be instructional. To my understanding, the government doesn't even acknowledge such defenses ("It wasn't prostitution! I only paid her for her company, not for sex!"), at least in the US. So if you're gonna be on the wrong side of the law, wouldn't it be better to just be clear with your customers?

I'm actually not a coinlenders user (though I was thinking about it), but I do use inputs.io and this development worried me a bit--enough to panic withdraw my coins. That's why I was hoping for some answers, so I could allay some of my worries and go back to inputs cause I really like it.

That's a totally different comparison. There's no expectation of profit on the demo instance, and it is not an common enterprise.

It's true that calling interest "fee rebates" has no purpose. However, there's already a precedent that the changes were based on - SEC v. SG, Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 45.

When the "crime" is about how something is presented and marketed, then yes "word games" makes a difference.

[murraypaul]

Now, does anyone know if that will really protect him legally?

No, it makes no difference whatsoever.
It is actions that matter, not what you call them.
It might make people less likely to notice what he is doing though.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

No, it makes no difference whatsoever.
It is actions that matter, not what you call them.
It might make people less likely to notice what he is doing though.

When the action is about wording and how it is presented / marketed..

[GOB]

Now, does anyone know if that will really protect him legally? I ask out of curiosity and because it could be instructional. To my understanding, the government doesn't even acknowledge such defenses ("It wasn't prostitution! I only paid her for her company, not for sex!"), at least in the US. So if you're gonna be on the wrong side of the law, wouldn't it be better to just be clear with your customers?

I'm actually not a coinlenders user (though I was thinking about it), but I do use inputs.io and this development worried me a bit--enough to panic withdraw my coins. That's why I was hoping for some answers, so I could allay some of my worries and go back to inputs cause I really like it.

That's a totally different comparison. There's no expectation of profit on the demo instance, and it is not an common enterprise.

It's true that calling interest "fee rebates" has no purpose. However, there's already a precedent that the changes were based on - SEC v. SG, Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 45.

When the "crime" is about how something is presented and marketed, then yes "word games" makes a difference.

Hey TF, thanks for the responses (and sorry we got the conversation going on two threads!)

I understand what you are saying and God knows I agree that you have to protect yourself and that some things are illegal but not wrong (for example, bitcoin lending, parking where it's not permitted, etc.). However I'm trying to protect myself from something that maybe illegal and wrong (i.e. a ponzi scheme). In other words "malum in se" vs "malum prohibitum".

But I gotta say, it doesn't fill me with confidence that your defense above refers to a giant, long-running, ponzi scheme (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/265/265.F3d.42.01-1332.01-1176.html).

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

But I gotta say, it doesn't fill me with confidence that your defense above refers to a giant, long-running, ponzi scheme

Things like habeas corpus are often challenged by later convicted terrorists. That doesn't mean it is reasonable to assume anyone basing off those precedents are terrorists.

This case is actually a lot more relevant to btct.co - does that make it a ponzi scheme?

[GOB]

But I gotta say, it doesn't fill me with confidence that your defense above refers to a giant, long-running, ponzi scheme

Things like habeas corpus are often challenged by later convicted terrorists. That doesn't mean it is reasonable to assume anyone basing off those precedents are terrorists.

True. Sorry, I probably shouldn't have just made that statement without a question, as I was not accusing you of being a ponzi scheme (or a terrorist!). I suppose my question would be, what part of that SEC case were you making reference to? How does your demo strategy fit within the case? In that case they also hid behind some terms which the SEC ultimately dodged or ignored (though yes, SG did guarantee certain returns, unlike what you are doing).

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Specially how the way something was marketed makes a difference:

"Had the offer mailed by defendants omitted the economic inducements of the proposed and promised exploration well, it would have been a quite different proposition."

The way you word it / market it was one of issues for debate on if it constituted an investment contract or not. If you notice, btct.co has recently added a 'disclosure statement'.

I think that's enough, I apologize but I will refrain from commenting further in this thread.

[GOB]

Specially how the way something was marketed makes a difference:

"Had the offer mailed by defendants omitted the economic inducements of the proposed and promised exploration well, it would have been a quite different proposition."

The way you word it / market it was one of issues for debate on if it constituted an investment contract or not. If you notice, btct.co has recently added a 'disclosure statement'.

I think that's enough, I apologize but I will refrain from commenting further in this thread.

No apology necessary, I didn't expect you to comment but I appreciate that you did.

[Lohoris]

This case is actually a lot more relevant to btct.co - does that make it a ponzi scheme?

It's very different: btct.co holds lists of security owners, and mails them periodically to the issuers.
So, the only things at risk there are the bitcoins you keep there, and the trades since the last backup list.

[drewph]

TradeFortress, does that mean that we cant make new loans/cd's as of 08/29/2013?

[favdesu]

TradeFortress, does that mean that we cant make new loans/cd's as of 08/29/2013?

looks like it's still working.

[drewph]

yes but, did your loan got accepted after 08/29/2013 when TF announced that CL is CLosed.
because, i wont pay a BTC .05  deposit, where my loan has no chance getting approved.

[Welsh]

yes but, did your loan got accepted after 08/29/2013 when TF announced that CL is CLosed.
because, i wont pay a BTC .05  deposit, where my loan has no chance getting approved.

Try reading the other thread in the lending section. It has more information and will give you some answers which you have already asked. I'm pretty sure TF will also comment on there more frequent.

[b!z]

If you shoot someone, and you call it "taking care of someone", you will not be considered a murderer?
That's new to me. I have nothing against CL, I'm just curious.

[Lohoris]

If you shoot someone, and you call it "taking care of someone", you will not be considered a murderer?
That's new to me. I have nothing against CL, I'm just curious.

Stupid people think word juggling will save against the government.
Instead, at best that will only help the owner against their users when he decides to run away with their money.

[kopipe]

If you shoot someone, and you call it "taking care of someone", you will not be considered a murderer?
That's new to me. I have nothing against CL, I'm just curious.

Stupid people think word juggling will save against the government.
Instead, at best that will only help the owner against their users when he decides to run away with their money.

I never thought of it this way. If CoinLenders is currently insolvent or becomes insolvent at some point in the future, TF can just up and run because he announced that the service was "shutting down". I'm not even sure it would even be technically scamming at that point, because as he himself said this is just a demo site with no real money

[cyclops]

If you shoot someone, and you call it "taking care of someone", you will not be considered a murderer?
That's new to me. I have nothing against CL, I'm just curious.

Stupid people think word juggling will save against the government.
Instead, at best that will only help the owner against their users when he decides to run away with their money.

I never thought of it this way. If CoinLenders is currently insolvent or becomes insolvent at some point in the future, TF can just up and run because he announced that the service was "shutting down". I'm not even sure it would even be technically scamming at that point, because as he himself said this is just a demo site with no real money

Lets hope it does not happens.