Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19

[Mushoz]

I had two 10 BTC deposits with Hashking and just received the first deposit back, so it looks like things are starting to move. Will report here once I receive the second deposit.

[1714506383]

1714506383

[1714506383]

1714506383

[1714506383]

1714506383

[chungenhung]

I had two 10 BTC deposits with Hashking and just received the first deposit back, so it looks like things are starting to move. Will report here once I receive the second deposit.

wow, hashking is still working on 10 btc deposits....
Guess that means i really have years to wait.

[Buffer Overflow]

wow, hashking is still working on 10 btc deposits....
Guess that means i really have years to wait.

Why not ask to have your account split up into smaller pieces. By that logic, you'll get paid quicker!

[memvola]

wow, hashking is still working on 10 btc deposits....
Guess that means i really have years to wait.

Why not ask to have your account split up into smaller pieces. By that logic, you'll get paid quicker!

Presumably hashking is trying to minimize the people he needs to deal with, so it won't work. Does anyone have a large (>100) account where a small deposit was paid back?

[carlo]

Deposit of 250 btc.
Deposit made on: 2012-07-16
8 week lock in @ 1.9%

Looks like i got the deposit number : 451

Hope that you will progress with your payment fast. I report here if i get paid.

[vite]

Nothing yet for me

[drlatino999]

Deposit of 250 btc.
Deposit made on: 2012-07-16
8 week lock in @ 1.9%

Looks like i got the deposit number : 451

Hope that you will progress with your payment fast. I report here if i get paid.

If you get paid out before a good majority of us, that will completely remove the ascending value idea of paybacks leaving us back to the chaos theory of returned payments.

[hashking]

Payments sent out.

[Buckwheet]

I sent a PM but got no response. Do you have a process for us to sell this debt off that we need to follow?

[hashking]

Sure, Just pm me when you have the information.

[alphadude]

Got repaid 10BTC. Deposit number 388.

[smoothie]

I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses.  This is a business, it has failed.  When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything.   I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can.  If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.  

Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".

Your account name should be HashDragQueen.

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses.  This is a business, it has failed.  When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything.   I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can.  If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.  

Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".

Your account name should be HashDragQueen.

why are you here? what are you trying to do?

[Micon]

I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses.  This is a business, it has failed.  When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything.   I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can.  If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.  

Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".

Your account name should be HashDragQueen.

why are you here? what are you trying to do?

and you?  what's your plans?

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses.  This is a business, it has failed.  When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything.   I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can.  If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.  

Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".

Your account name should be HashDragQueen.

why are you here? what are you trying to do?

and you?  what's your plans?

First off, I asked first, and to someone else.

Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.

PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me 

[heatstroke]

First off, I asked first, and to someone else.

Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.

PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me 

Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents.  However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms.  Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.

The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank.  If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound.  If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.

With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.

[BadBitcoin (James Sutton)]

First off, I asked first, and to someone else.

Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.

PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me 

Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents.  However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms.  Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.

The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank.  If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound.  If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.

With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.

now I have to ask you, did you REALLY think he meant insured as insured by the FDIC? I don't think he actually knew what it meant, hence negligence.

[heatstroke]

First off, I asked first, and to someone else.

Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.

PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me 

Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents.  However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms.  Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.

The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank.  If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound.  If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.

With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.

now I have to ask you, did you REALLY think he meant insured as insured by the FDIC? I don't think he actually knew what it meant, hence negligence.

Of course not, 'insured' to hashking meant "yeah dude, your money's safe, I'm good for it."  Which is probably the same insurance policy that numerous other 'banks' have.

All I'm saying is that to someone who was looking to invest, they probably saw that hashking advertised himself as "insured" and presumed it was just like the FDIC.  Ignorance of basic financial terminology is not a valid excuse.  Which is why a 15 year old should not be running an investment fund or bank or whatever this is.

In an Ideal economy, the bitcoin SEC would be cleaning hashking out to ensure those 'insured' deposits get paid back, but that's the beauty of an unregulated free market, isn't it?  The only thing guaranteed is laughter.

[Puppet]

he has no contractual obligation in paying,

 
What makes you say that?

[coinft]

Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. ...

First sentence already shows a fundamental lack of understanding contract law, this is simply not true. Contracts can be of any form, and are there to be kept. Proving it to a judge is another matter, but not impossible.