Starfish BCB - Loans and Deposits

[Bjork]

Anyway, weekly interest has been paid, and available funds (loan repayment proceeds) have been pro-rata paid to those with withdrawal requests.  Transactions will hit the blockchain when the wallet syncs properly.

Waitwaitwait. You can't pay all the loan requests, but you can pay interest? Where are those interest payments coming from? I hope when you say "weekly interest paid" you mean you actually took what you received in interest, and split it up between all the investors, so that their actual BTC holding accounts have increased, instead of just increasing everyone's interest on paper, and giving out ALL available BTC to cover withdrawal requests. Cause, um, if this interest is just on paper, there's a word for that.

He sent out a payment and adjusted our balances accordingly after including the interest. 

Say he sent you 7 btc, he only took your balance down by like 6.6btc because he would have owed you ~0.4 btc in interest.

[1713573620]

1713573620

[1713573620]

1713573620

[Rassah]

He sent out a payment and adjusted our balances accordingly after including the interest.  

Say he sent you 7 btc, he only took your balance down by like 6.6btc because he would have owed you ~0.4 btc in interest.

Let me see if I can explain what I mean (example):

There are two investors, each invested 10BTC. Total of accounts is 20BTC
One investor notifies the bank that he wants to withdraw his money. The bank only has 5BTC on hand, so can't pay out in full.
Interest payment comes in. Interest earned on all accounts is 2BTC, so now each account should have 11BTC.
What the bank actually has on-hand is now 5BTC + 2BTC interest = 7BTC
The investor asking for a withdrawal comes up to get his money, and receives 7BTC. He is still owed 4BTC.
The second guy has 11BTC in the bank, but since there's no actual money there, it's all on paper.

Is that what's happening?
Or does the guy who asked for a withdrawal only gets 5 + 1 = 6BTC, with the other 1BTC going into the account of the guy who's not withdrawing?

EDIT: Though, now that I think about it, I guess it doesn't matter.

[Bjork]

He sent out a payment and adjusted our balances accordingly after including the interest.  

Say he sent you 7 btc, he only took your balance down by like 6.6btc because he would have owed you ~0.4 btc in interest.

quote.

I'm not sure actually, but I see what you are getting at.

I think the people who didn't ask for withdrawals just have everything "on paper" i.e. imaginary numbers signifying a debt.  But he may be forcing everyone to withdraw, I'm not sure.  Or maybe the people who haven't requested a withdrawal are earning more interest? (1% still), albeit still somewhat "imaginary".

[Carnth]

I have not requested a withdraw and my account is a re-invest interest account. So my account is "all on paper."
As such, the latest amount shows that 1% was credited to my balance.

I don't know if that clears up anything, but that's what my numbers are.

[Rassah]

I know financially that's not the case, but it just "feels" as if that's taking other people's interest to cover current people's withdrawals. Money is fungible, of course, so yeah, that's not the case.

[Bjork]

I have not requested a withdraw and my account is a re-invest interest account. So my account is "all on paper."
As such, the latest amount shows that 1% was credited to my balance.

I don't know if that clears up anything, but that's what my numbers are.

This makes sense, so only the accounts "withdrawing" have their interest lowered.

[Haplo]

Nice to see at least one lender coming out of this sans scammer tag.

[WifeOfStarfish]

Been visiting my elderly father - somewhat more important than feeding the trolls here.

My regards; hope he's doing well.

He has never behaved less than impeccably in his business here yet since Pirate's gone he's the next easy target.

I have as much right as you to be here but I get called ''shill'' (whatever that means) etc. I guess I make an easy target.

I don't think it's insomuch that Patrick is an easy target as that everyone offering interest (at least that I have seen) is being targeted or has been targeted in the past few weeks.

'Shill' is a derogatory term used to indicate a company/service advocate claiming no relation with the company. Whomever has called you that probably needs to reread a dictionary, as you've disclosed your relationship pretty clearly.

Again, you don't make an easier target than many - everyone remotely connected with any interest-providing service, and plenty not connected, are being trolled. A few for good reason, but most just because of a large amount of general animosity, a few instigators who the 'mob' of trolls follow like sheep, and some major fallout from multiple defaults, mainly Pirate, in a small period of time. It will pass eventually, don't take it personally.

I do wonder why you spend time on these forums, but then again most days I wonder why I spend time on these forums.

Thanks. Curiosity brought me here since bitcoins take up a significant amount of Patrick's time. The same reason I now drive his Supra on the racetrack: if you can't beat 'em join 'em...

[makomk]

The beloved PatrickHarnett pulled yet another classic scammer move, deleting your OP to cover up the month-over-month lies he used to post (something Pirate did too) why delete the financials that this community praised you for posting, saying that you were so open and honest about your borrowing program?

(any chance Joel Katz or Dooglus has the full list before he deleted?)

List as it stood on the 9th

To provide a little more info on the lending scene
January activity
- 4 loans repaid (approx 320BTC)
- 11 loans current (five 100BTC or over, five under 100BTC)
- 1 bad
- 1 inter-bank loan (repaid)
February activity
- 11 loans repaid (approx >1500BTC)
- 20 loans current (ten 100BTC or over, ten under 100BTC)
- 2 bad/suspect, 1 overdue
- IBB donation 2.67
March activity (Updated 10 April 2012)
- 12 loans repaid (approx 1100BTC)
- 16 loans current (most 100BTC or over, two under 100BTC)
- 4 bad loans (loss 223 coins), 1 further suspected bad
- IBB donation 0.00 (due to loss on the month overall from the above)
- 16 deposits (total approx 2500)
April activity (Updated 1 May 2012)
- 2 loans repaid (approx 500BTC)
- 9 long term loans paying interest as required
- 18 loans current (most 100BTC or over, three under 100BTC)
- 1 bad loans (loss 70 coins)
- IBB donation 10
- 19 deposits (total approx 3300)
- 8 deposits repaid (at call 2,000)
May 2012 activity (updated 2 June 2012)
- 8 loans repaid (approx 1750BTC)
- 8 long term loans paying interest as required (approx 4000)
- 17 loans current (approx 6500 BTC)
- 0 bad loans (yay)
- 24 deposits (total approx 6300 paying near 100BTC/week in interest)
- 4 deposits repaid (at call 800)
June 2012 activity (updated 30 June 2012)
- 5 loans repaid (approx 2250BTC)
- 8 long term loans paying interest as required (approx 3600)
- 18 loans current (approx 7000 BTC)
- 2 loans deliquent/late (700 BTC)
- 1 bad loan (10 coins)
- IBB donation 10
- 42 deposits (total approx 9300)
- 4 deposits repaid (at call 800)
Total liabilities (Deposits + other commitments) = 13,500
Total assets (cash, BTC, investments) = 29,400
Net assets 15,900BTC
July 2012 activity (updated 1 August 2012)
- 14 loans repaid (approx 7800BTC)
- 32 loans current (approx 8800 BTC)
- 66 deposits (total approx 15400)
- deposits repaid during the month (at call) >3600
Total liabilities (Deposits + other commitments) = 19,700
Total assets (cash, BTC, investments) = 37,100
Net assets 17,400BTC

[PatrickHarnett]

That list covered everything, not just Starfish.  There was also my personal BS&T account, and before some of the GLBSE assets that have since been trashed such as the JRO assets.  Thanks for positing it.

[Shadow383]

That list covered everything, not just Starfish.  There was also my personal BS&T account, and before some of the GLBSE assets that have since been trashed such as the JRO assets.  Thanks for positing it.

So you included your personal BS&T account under "assets"? That was what? 10K?

[PatrickHarnett]

That list covered everything, not just Starfish.  There was also my personal BS&T account, and before some of the GLBSE assets that have since been trashed such as the JRO assets.  Thanks for positing it.

So you included your personal BS&T account under "assets"? That was what? 10K?

From March it was 4k at BS&T.  Also had a bunch of hardware, funds from GLBSE and other long term investments.  It was quite straight forward that all of the deposits in Starfish were covered by non BS&T assets - if that's the actual question.  When I brought out the PPT.x series the balance in the account changed, and I had some other funds parked in BS&T (again, not related to starfish, actually related to some mining assets).  The other aspect that doesn't show on the assets/liabilities list are the coins I moved in and out of the account.

[Haplo]

For fuck sake . If I had known that I wouldn't have invested in pirate, either. That scheme wouldn't work at all, and assuming that you can corner the market is a bet you're 100% certain to lose every time. You can't pay 10% interest in fiat AND 7% in BTC without actually making (lots of) money somewhere. His promise to pay someone else 10% in USD does not pay interest on my BTC deposit.

Also, you FUD-spamming assholes consider yourselves 'honest', but none of you have contributed shit except to spam other people's threads. You never had a single shred of evidence, and you have called everyone on these boards a ponzi whether they actually were or not. I don't see any of you screaming ponzi in triple posts in dank's obvious scam bank, oh no, you're here, trying to insult patrick when he's one of the few people who lived up to his promises. How bout taking your self-righteousness and shoving it in the orifice you so love to speak from.

[BrightAnarchist]

Also, you FUD-spamming assholes consider yourselves 'honest', but none of you have contributed shit except to spam other people's threads.

+1

[Rassah]

I don't see any of you screaming ponzi in triple posts in dank's obvious scam bank.

Go back a few pages. There was plenty of that, until Rarity completely derailed the whole thread with pages upon pages of his crusade against drugs.

[Shadow383]

Also, you FUD-spamming assholes consider yourselves 'honest', but none of you have contributed shit except to spam other people's threads.

If we stopped even one person from throwing their money away, we've contributed plenty 
To clarify, I didn't think Patrick was running a ponzi - I had a small deposit with him at one point after all which I withdrew after the pirate debacle as I needed funds for other things and wanted to hold back for a few months, let the tide go out and see who was swimming naked - having seen him buying bitcoinmax accounts and knowing that he had personal bullshit&trust exposure I was concerned that he might be significantly over-exposed.

The problem is, people want to believe that they can have money and success and great investment returns without doing any research or putting in any effort.
When people really want to believe something, their logic becomes a bit skewed. It reminds me very much of this comic:

"Hey guys, I have a scheme that pays 7% per week with low risk!"
"Oh yeah? Prove it."
"YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT I DON'T!"

Asking the questions that any sensible investor who's not just a gullible ATM for scammers will ask is not "spam".

[sgravina]

...
   Mr Z has happy customers, and made some money along the way.

...

I take it that pirateat40 is Mr Z.  So, which of these images of Mr Z best represents pirateat40?

[coinft]

IF you are going to +1 it, you might at least address Joel's point. Why would you want to protect the anonymity of defaulted lenders from the depositors that have to pay for it?

Joel is on ignore. As for the question, presumably you wouldn't need to protect the anonymity unless it harms collection efforts, which it very well may.

Not sure why I'm responding to someone who has my on ignore, but I do agree that if breaching anonymity would harm collection efforts, that would justify preserving it. I would think the depositors deserve to be told specifically which loans are being kept anonymous for that reason, and if there wasn't reasonable progress towards collection on a reasonable schedule, anonymity should then be breached. Without being a jerk, the threat of publicized default can be leveraged to obtain collection. It's not that you're abusing this to pressure them to pay, it's just that realistically, those covering the default are entitled to either reasonable payments or knowing who defaulted on them.

The tricky case would be the guy who says something like, "Keep me anonymous, and I'll pay 35%. Tell anyone who I am, and I'll pay nothing."

Take 35%, then leak it. When blackmailed I don't feel morally compelled to play fair.

I hope at least the threat of this will prevent this behavior.

[matthewh3]

I'm not joining the bank run my small amount of compounding coins are yours to hold until you shut up shop.  I'm sure you would repay me just like HashKing has nearly finished doing and I expect him to repay the final amount in the near future.

[sadpandatech]

And I'll continue to pay my loans..

Its disturbing to think that there are likely a percentage of defaulted loans that are only such because of current situations and not their lack of ability to pay.... jerks