⏩⏩[AUCTION LIST] Auction for ColdKey victims of the apparent theft⏪⏪

[cygan]

✂️
ok that makes sense - in your prior post you said the two contacted you and that you did pay them - I am now believing that was a typo and that you meant you did not reimburse them (ultimately as chronicsky repaid it)

the two users contacted me at the time and i reimbursed them out of my own

✂️

i just saw the typo too. i changed it, of course

btw who decides whether the satoshis goes to the three of us first?

[1714704187]

1714704187

[1714704187]

1714704187

[1714704187]

1714704187

[MoparMiningLLC]

✂️
ok that makes sense - in your prior post you said the two contacted you and that you did pay them - I am now believing that was a typo and that you meant you did not reimburse them (ultimately as chronicsky repaid it)

the two users contacted me at the time and i reimbursed them out of my own

✂️

i just saw the typo too. i changed it, of course

btw who decides whether the satoshis goes to the three of us first?

ok lol makes more sense now

and now that funds are to be disbursed from the auctions etc - how do I put in a claim for the funds I lost from the one card? for the 25 undelivered cards and the .05 BTC loan?

[cygan]

✂️
how do I put in a claim for the funds I lost from the one card? for the 25 undelivered cards and the .05 BTC loan?

i can't answer that question either. the only thing is that things have to move on here. it's all well and good that the funds have been lying around for almost 6 months now, but they should also be moved and distributed
and if nobody gets in touch, then nothing will happen and the satoshis will remain on the wallet for a few more months

just my 2 sats

[MoparMiningLLC]

✂️
how do I put in a claim for the funds I lost from the one card? for the 25 undelivered cards and the .05 BTC loan?

i can't answer that question either. the only thing is that things have to move on here. it's all well and good that the funds have been lying around for almost 6 months now, but they should also be moved and distributed
and if nobody gets in touch, then nothing will happen and the satoshis will remain on the wallet for a few more months

just my 2 sats

thank you Cygan.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses, who would one even submit a claim to? What is required to prove the loss?

ie in my case with the the loan/the 25 card purchase/funds lost from the one card etc

[Kryptowerk]

I think there are quite a few more that did not accept a "refund" from cygan, right? I know I didn't (wasn't crazy much, though).

A way to approach the how-to-manage-funds question would be to have maybe one person or a team of 2 or 3 trusted collectible memebers that take the task upon them to collect all data on anyone affected by sweeps, missing cards, missing funding and loans.
We then can compare that total to the funds that were collected during the charity auctions. Let's say we get a 1:5, meaning for every Satoshi that's "missing" we have 0.2 Satoshi to distribute to anyone affected.
All this should/could have a deadline (maybe within 3 months or so) - anyone that doesn't come forward with proveable losses from the Coldscam will not receive compensation from the charity funds.

Sure, we can prioritize either people who loaned money or people that haven't accepted cygans offer, or cygan himself - but most fair to me seems to take EVERYONE into account equally and just payout a share like suggested above.

Just my few sats. It's late after a long day and maybe I missed some important points.
So feel free to discuss.

[minerjones]

I think there are quite a few more that did not accept a "refund" from cygan, right? I know I didn't (wasn't crazy much, though).

A way to approach the how-to-manage-funds question would be to have maybe one person or a team of 2 or 3 trusted collectible memebers that take the task upon them to collect all data on anyone affected by sweeps, missing cards, missing funding and loans.
We then can compare that total to the funds that were collected during the charity auctions. Let's say we get a 1:5, meaning for every Satoshi that's "missing" we have 0.2 Satoshi to distribute to anyone affected.
All this should/could have a deadline (maybe within 3 months or so) - anyone that doesn't come forward with proveable losses from the Coldscam will not receive compensation from the charity funds.

Sure, we can prioritize either people who loaned money or people that haven't accepted cygans offer, or cygan himself - but most fair to me seems to take EVERYONE into account equally and just payout a share like suggested above.

Just my few sats. It's late after a long day and maybe I missed some important points.
So feel free to discuss.

That may work, but cygan already refunded people at 100% of their loss.
How would that factor into the losses/repayments?
If it did come to a 1:5 ratio, would they have to pay back 80%?

[Kryptowerk]

I think there are quite a few more that did not accept a "refund" from cygan, right? I know I didn't (wasn't crazy much, though).

A way to approach the how-to-manage-funds question would be to have maybe one person or a team of 2 or 3 trusted collectible memebers that take the task upon them to collect all data on anyone affected by sweeps, missing cards, missing funding and loans.
We then can compare that total to the funds that were collected during the charity auctions. Let's say we get a 1:5, meaning for every Satoshi that's "missing" we have 0.2 Satoshi to distribute to anyone affected.
All this should/could have a deadline (maybe within 3 months or so) - anyone that doesn't come forward with proveable losses from the Coldscam will not receive compensation from the charity funds.

Sure, we can prioritize either people who loaned money or people that haven't accepted cygans offer, or cygan himself - but most fair to me seems to take EVERYONE into account equally and just payout a share like suggested above.

Just my few sats. It's late after a long day and maybe I missed some important points.
So feel free to discuss.

That may work, but cygan already refunded people at 100% of their loss.
How would that factor into the losses/repayments?
If it did come to a 1:5 ratio, would they have to pay back 80%?

Good question and first impulse is: They can't be factored in at all. Good for them, I mean it was everyone's choice to take up cygan's offer or not.
Them paying back 80% (or whichever number it is) is of course not a feasible option.

Generally I believe there are only non-optimal options, meaning someone will always feel disadvantaged or believe the funds should be distributed here or there first or with other proportions. That's why I think there shouldn't be any priority.
That said I think lost premiums cannot (and should not) be included in the losses calculation. They change all the time and cannot really be determined, also I would book it under regular collector risks to lose out on (most) of a premium value.

[minerjones]

I think there are quite a few more that did not accept a "refund" from cygan, right? I know I didn't (wasn't crazy much, though).

A way to approach the how-to-manage-funds question would be to have maybe one person or a team of 2 or 3 trusted collectible memebers that take the task upon them to collect all data on anyone affected by sweeps, missing cards, missing funding and loans.
We then can compare that total to the funds that were collected during the charity auctions. Let's say we get a 1:5, meaning for every Satoshi that's "missing" we have 0.2 Satoshi to distribute to anyone affected.
All this should/could have a deadline (maybe within 3 months or so) - anyone that doesn't come forward with proveable losses from the Coldscam will not receive compensation from the charity funds.

Sure, we can prioritize either people who loaned money or people that haven't accepted cygans offer, or cygan himself - but most fair to me seems to take EVERYONE into account equally and just payout a share like suggested above.

Just my few sats. It's late after a long day and maybe I missed some important points.
So feel free to discuss.

That may work, but cygan already refunded people at 100% of their loss.
How would that factor into the losses/repayments?
If it did come to a 1:5 ratio, would they have to pay back 80%?

Good question and first impulse is: They can't be factored in at all. Good for them, I mean it was everyone's choice to take up cygan's offer or not.
Them paying back 80% (or whichever number it is) is of course not a feasible option.

Generally I believe there are only non-optimal options, meaning someone will always feel disadvantaged or believe the funds should be distributed here or there first or with other proportions. That's why I think there shouldn't be any priority.
That said I think lost premiums cannot (and should not) be included in the losses calculation. They change all the time and cannot really be determined, also I would book it under regular collector risks to lose out on (most) of a premium value.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect people who already received compensation to pay back funds.
So maybe it would be "better" if cygan paid back the two outstanding members (Mitchell and chronicsky) like he did the other members and then that would clear single card claims and only leave the loans, cygan, and undelivered/outstanding cards?  
This might make it a little easier to figure out the compensation level/ratio

[MoparMiningLLC]

I think the issue is that there are more than 2 who were not paid back fully - kryptowerks and myself as examples of two such.

There are probably a dozen or so that have not been paid back.

Also - how do you verify if they  swept it or if Yogg actually did? the ones that are in bulk are obvious but if I recall there were single cards that were claimed to have been swept by Yogg but they were in a single transaction on their own and not with the group sweeps.

I also think nothing can be done for the premiums - that is the risk we all take in collectibles.

as for loans and undelivered cards, there is surely not enough collected to cover those. Sadly.

[cygan]

i just want to make one thing clear so as not to give the wrong impression. of course i don't want to get my full amount refunded, but i would be very happy with 60-65% and on the other hand i want things to finally move on and be brought to a conclusion

[ChiBitCTy]

In my opinion this is insane that everyone hasn't come to a conclusion yet on how to distribute the funds.  I would say for the sake of those whom graciously donated to this cause, it's time to pass the funds along to the victims.  Now I'm not completely caught up on the entire thread of late, so maybe there's stuff that I'm missing or has been discussed, but IMO it's an easy solution.  Those whom got rug pulled with their cards should be refunded first.  When it comes to loans that's technically impossible to prove fully how loans were paid out and what not, so IMO they should come second.  For the record I don't care if I see a dime back.  So I'm not saying this with any skin in the game as I'm fine taking my name of the list of those whom should receive funds.  Also, by now, I would hope everyone realizes suing Yogg would be a massive waste of time and money.

[MoparMiningLLC]

In my opinion this is insane that everyone hasn't come to a conclusion yet on how to distribute the funds.  I would say for the sake of those whom graciously donated to this cause, it's time to pass the funds along to the victims.  Now I'm not completely caught up on the entire thread of late, so maybe there's stuff that I'm missing or has been discussed, but IMO it's an easy solution.  Those whom got rug pulled with their cards should be refunded first.  When it comes to loans that's technically impossible to prove fully how loans were paid out and what not, so IMO they should come second.  For the record I don't care if I see a dime back.  So I'm not saying this with any skin in the game as I'm fine taking my name of the list of those whom should receive funds.  Also, by now, I would hope everyone realizes suing Yogg would be a massive waste of time and money.

I agree partially -

1:  stolen/swept funds by Yogg
2: purchases never delivered
3: loans

While loans can be hard to document - some may be easier than others but I think loans should come last not second.

I dont think there are even enough funds to cover half of point one though.

But I agree it should be handled soon.

[minerjones]

AUCTION 1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5439649.msg61778552#msg61778552

-AOLUAIN'S POST: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5439649.msg61756857#msg61756857
-WINNING BID SHOULD BE 0.0017 NOT 0.0019

AUCTION 2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5440122.msg61799832#msg61799832

AUCTION 3: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5440784.msg61820353#msg61820353

AUCTION 4: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5441677.msg61863117#msg61863117

ORIGNAL TOTAL: 0.4003

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434623.msg61866120#msg61866120

NEW TOTAL: 0.3958

SOMEONE PLEASE CHECK MY MATH!!!!

THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DONATION FROM MAX (KIALARA)

WHILE I HAVE NO SAY IN HOW THIS WORKS, I VOTE FOR REFUNDING THE DONATORS AND IF THEY REFUSE/DO NOT WANT THE REFUND THEN WE CAN DONATE THE REMAINING (IF ANY) FUNDS