.

[cedus]

0) I also designed the system with one other design constraint:  minimize the amount of weekly cash flow in and out of our BS&T account. -- On the third point we have only a very small, usually less than 100 BTC flow in or out of our BS&T account every week.

I was just about to ask how you finance that 2 hour gap from 12 AM UTC to 2 AM UTC, but then I read about this:

1) We issued shares of PPT to the six backers of the PPT.x zero coupon bond system in order to raise exactly 3840 BTC of working capital.  As stated in our contract this entire amount is available to be paid out to our customers in the case of a default.  Maybe not calling this capital an insurance fund will satisfy piotr_n (?)  Ok, I will call it the working capital of PPT.  It is kept separate and is not on deposit at BS&T so we would not lose it in the case of a default by pirateat40.

Holy shit! To an investor it makes a hell of a difference whether it's an "insurance fund" ie. completely separate fund from the daily operations OR just a "working capital" which you can use to finance that 2 hour (or last time much longer) gap! This practically means that if Pirate defaults during that 2 hour window you're happily using our "insurance fund" as your "working capital", there is no insurance at all - all BTCs gone! So please clarify this to your investors and tell us you're not using BTCs from the insurance fund to "minimize the amount of weekly cash flow in and out of our BS&T account." And if so, how you're doing it (with whose BTC)?

Once this uncertainty is resolved we plan to reduce or eliminate this mandatory "premium surcharge".

Well this is some good news.

[Namworld]

So, if it wasn't possible for the 3000 BTC deposit to handle all the payments, then how is it possible that it is possible on the chart?
Or the other way around: if it is possible on the chart, why it must not be possible in the reality?

Because there's 3000 in the account. PPT.A doesn't get in at week 1 to get out at week 5, it gets in at week 1 and gets out at week 4 after 3 week.

Week 0
PPT insurers - 1000

Week 1
PPT insurers - 1000

Week 2
PPT insurers - 1000
PPT.B - 1000

Week 3
PPT insurers - 1000
PPT.B - 1000
PPT.C - 1000
Total 3000

Week 4
PPT insurers - 0 (Retrieved on your chart to pay out insurers after 4 weeks only this amount stays 4 weeks)
PPT.B - 1000
PPT.C - 1000
PPT.D - 1000 (Buying in.)
Total 3000

Week 5
PPT.B - 0 (Payout to A from B's investment after 3 week)
PPT.C - 1000
PPT.D - 1000
PPT.E - 1000 (Buying in.)
Total 3000

Week 5
PPT.C - 0 (Payout to B from C's investment after 3 week)
PPT.D - 1000
PPT.E - 1000
Total 3000

Week 6
PPT.D - 0 (Payout to C from D's investment after 3 week)
PPT.E - 1000
PPT.A - 1000
Total 3000

etc. etc. etc.

With 3000 you can roll through the 1000 investments slices every three weeks only, accumulating less dividends.

You never deposited a 1000 bitcoins investment on week 1 for A and remove PPT insurers investment from week 0 on week 4. You don't have a slice on week 5 that has been earning since week one. You're taking out week's 2 investment for PPT.B after 3 weeks only.

Are you saying that with 3000 in the BS&T at any time and Pirate paying 7% of your balance per week, pirate will pay more than 210 weekly?

And that your charts shows you removing a net 310 weekly. More than the dividends?

Pirate pays on the balance and 7% of 3000 doesn't cover the net 310 you withdraw each week on the balance. To widthraw 310 weekly, you must have the 4439.9 balance shown on my chart which doesn't take 1000 away to reimburse PPT.Div insurers.

[Namworld]

Your chart shows that you're using insurers initial investment to pay out 1310 on week 4 to pay them back and on week 5 for the investment that was never deposited for PPT.A on week 1. The problem was that this initial investment was used twice and made your initial chart have a 4000 balance. By agreeing that only 3000 would actually be kept, you also have to agree that you cannot pay week 5 for divs since week 1 since the insurers fund which were there since week 1 was ALREADY used to pay them back on week 4.

The 1000 initial investment can't earn the dividends twice for paying back the insurer AND for PPT.A at the same time.

[piotr_n]

Your chart shows that you're using insurers initial investment to pay out 1310 on week 4 to pay them back and on week 5 for the investment that was never deposited for PPT.A on week 1.

You are right.
Sorry - my bad.
Thanks for picking that up.

But since the insurance exposes the investor to the risk for 4 times longer period, while insuring only 25% of his output capital, I believe there must be an algorithm to eventually make it 100% risk-free for the business owner. And I will figure it out... But now I just need to honestly admit that I haven't actually figured it out yet. And apologize you for doubting in what you were saying.

[Namworld]

Aye, no problem.

I actually don't see how that's possible. If they insure 25% for 4 weeks rolling (1000 on 4000 for example), they need to keep their funds in the insurance for it to stay insured. Being kept aside, they can't earn any interest on it. That the period is 1 week or 1 year, there's a risk of a default happening ONCE. If that happen, you need to have that 25% kept aside and cannot earn interest on it so it pays itself back since it must be kept aside.

And they can't earn it back by borrowing on other investments because it goes back to the initial problem of actual investment not earning dividends for themselves.

Thus I can't see any scheme possibly allowing this. Keeping compounded interests for 3% weekly and selling over 1.04 each is the only way I can see them making more than 0.07 or 7% weekly on their initial insurance they risk.

If you find a working way to do it, it'd be quite curious to see that.

[PatrickHarnett]

While not a good result for anyone, a BS&T default pays the same to bond holders irrespective of how far through the cycle they are.

If you buy on day one and the default is on day two, you get 0.32.
If you buy on day one and the default is on day twenty-seven, you get 0.32.

It might depend on if you are looking at default probability on a daily weekly or monthly cycle.  On the flip side, if you don't think Pirate is going to sail away with your funds, there are other products/options.  PPT.x bonds is just one in a range.

[coblee]

Your chart shows that you're using insurers initial investment to pay out 1310 on week 4 to pay them back and on week 5 for the investment that was never deposited for PPT.A on week 1.

You are right.
Sorry - my bad.
Thanks for picking that up.

But since the insurance exposes the investor to the risk for 4 times longer period, while insuring only 25% of his output capital, I believe there must be an algorithm to eventually make it 100% risk-free for the business owner. And I will figure it out... But now I just need to honestly admit that I haven't actually figured it out yet. And apologize you for doubting in what you were saying.

piotr_n, I think you are wrong here. The insurance is not an illusion. You really don't need to create a chart to understand. Just remember that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the funds are with pirate earning interest or they are sitting there waiting for a default. They can't be doing both at the same time. Each PPT bond is held for 4 weeks. So the funds need to be with Pirate to earn 4 weeks of interest. If that is the case then there is no mysterious pool of fund to pay for the interest when there is a default. If there's a default all funds from PPT bonds will be lost and the interest will need to come from somewhere else. There's no trick. The snake cannot survive by eating its own tail.

[piotr_n]

Your chart shows that you're using insurers initial investment to pay out 1310 on week 4 to pay them back and on week 5 for the investment that was never deposited for PPT.A on week 1.

You are right.
Sorry - my bad.
Thanks for picking that up.

But since the insurance exposes the investor to the risk for 4 times longer period, while insuring only 25% of his output capital, I believe there must be an algorithm to eventually make it 100% risk-free for the business owner. And I will figure it out... But now I just need to honestly admit that I haven't actually figured it out yet. And apologize you for doubting in what you were saying.

piotr_n, I think you are wrong here. The insurance is not an illusion. You really don't need to create a chart to understand. Just remember that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the funds are with pirate earning interest or they are sitting there waiting for a default. They can't be doing both at the same time. Each PPT bond is held for 4 weeks. So the funds need to be with Pirate to earn 4 weeks of interest. If that is the case then there is no mysterious pool of fund to pay for the interest when there is a default. If there's a default all funds from PPT bonds will be lost and the interest will need to come from somewhere else. There's no trick. The snake cannot survive by eating its own tail.

Please, have a look at this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjniD04O6MJndE9vX2MwSDdHTnZVVWdNLTRQRldyWUE

In the blue cells there is the actual data from the auctions. The content of purple cells is just my wild guess (it could as well have been played differently), but it gives an idea of how the business can eventually become 100% risk free, which happens at the price of receiving lower interest from the initial capital for the first 10 weeks while still exposing it at BS&T default. But please also note that the PPT.DIV shares were given to the PPT holders during week 5 and their market price ever since then hasn't been negligible.

[coblee]

Your chart shows that you're using insurers initial investment to pay out 1310 on week 4 to pay them back and on week 5 for the investment that was never deposited for PPT.A on week 1.

You are right.
Sorry - my bad.
Thanks for picking that up.

But since the insurance exposes the investor to the risk for 4 times longer period, while insuring only 25% of his output capital, I believe there must be an algorithm to eventually make it 100% risk-free for the business owner. And I will figure it out... But now I just need to honestly admit that I haven't actually figured it out yet. And apologize you for doubting in what you were saying.

piotr_n, I think you are wrong here. The insurance is not an illusion. You really don't need to create a chart to understand. Just remember that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the funds are with pirate earning interest or they are sitting there waiting for a default. They can't be doing both at the same time. Each PPT bond is held for 4 weeks. So the funds need to be with Pirate to earn 4 weeks of interest. If that is the case then there is no mysterious pool of fund to pay for the interest when there is a default. If there's a default all funds from PPT bonds will be lost and the interest will need to come from somewhere else. There's no trick. The snake cannot survive by eating its own tail.

Please, have a look at this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjniD04O6MJndE9vX2MwSDdHTnZVVWdNLTRQRldyWUE

In the blue cells there is the actual data from the auctions. The content of purple cells is just my wild guess (it could as well have been played differently), but it gives an idea of how the business can eventually become 100% risk free, which happens at the price of receiving lower interest from the initial capital for the first 10 weeks while still exposing it at BS&T default. But please also note that the PPT.DIV shares were given to the PPT holders during week 5 and their market price ever since then hasn't been negligible.

So you are saying after weeks of operation, the people behind PPT could have made enough coins to now cover the insurance. How is that risk free? They are still using the profit they made to cover the insurance. Also you aren't taking opportunity cost into consideration when calculating their profit.

You go from calling people liars to a hand wavy explanation about how you think it's possible that it's 100% risk free. I guess you will never admit you are wrong since there's always a way that you haven't figured out yet.

[piotr_n]

So you are saying after weeks of operation, the people behind PPT could have made enough coins to now cover the insurance. How is that risk free? They are still using the profit they made to cover the insurance. Also you aren't taking opportunity cost into consideration when calculating their profit.

So how many risk-free weeks need to pass and how many more PPT.DIV stocks need to be sold, before you generously give me a right to say that the investment is already "risk-free" for the initial investors?
Is there such a number?

You go from calling people liars to a hand wavy explanation about how you think it's possible that it's 100% risk free. I guess you will never admit you are wrong since there's always a way that you haven't figured out yet.

I did what was the right thing to do, and what nobody else wanted to do; explained to people what this business is about and that the initial investment has already been paid off by the bond buyers, so decreasing them the interest rate now because "we give free insurance" has no justification whatsoever. In fact, it's more of a scam - or just a lie, if you prefer calling it like this.

You are criticizing me for doing what I believed was right.
And what did you do in this time? Nothing - so spare mi your morals, because I don't need to be a genius like you to know that the best way to make no mistakes it to simply do nothing.

[coblee]

So you are saying after weeks of operation, the people behind PPT could have made enough coins to now cover the insurance. How is that risk free? They are still using the profit they made to cover the insurance. Also you aren't taking opportunity cost into consideration when calculating their profit.

So how many risk-free weeks need to pass and how many more PPT.DIV stocks need to be sold, before you generously give me a right to say that the investment is already "risk-free" for the initial investors?
Is there such a number?

Sorry, but I don't think you understand what risk-free means. Whether or not they have made enough money to cover the insurance is besides the point. Is Apple's business now risk-free since they've made a boatload from ipods, iphones, and ipads?

You go from calling people liars to a hand wavy explanation about how you think it's possible that it's 100% risk free. I guess you will never admit you are wrong since there's always a way that you haven't figured out yet.

I did what was the right thing to do, and what nobody else wanted to do; explained to people what this business is about and that the initial investment has already been paid off, so decreasing the interest rates now because "we give free insurance" has no justification whatsoever. In fact, it's more of a scam - or just a lie, if you prefer calling it like this.

You are criticizing me for doing what I believed was right.
And what did you do in this time? Nothing. So spare mi your morals, because I don't need to be a genius like you to know that the best way to make no mistakes it just to do nothing.

You were actually just throwing FUD around. Sorry if most of us didn't appreciate you trying to enlighten us and save us from these PPT scammers. We are all adults here (well most of us), and we really are not as stupid as you think we are. If the price of PPT is too high for the insurance provided, we won't buy the bonds. There's no scamming going on around here. If the PPT owners need to raise the minimum price to stay profitable, then that's their prerogative. If you feel like the minimum price is too high, then you don't need to buy the bonds.

There are a lot of scams going on around these forums, but this is not one of them.

[piotr_n]

Sorry, but I don't think you understand what risk-free means. Whether or not they have made enough money to cover the insurance is besides the point. Is Apple's business now risk-free since they've made a boatload from ipods, iphones, and ipads?

And I don't think you understand what risk-free means.
I guess its a matter of language.
For me this investment is already risk free - I'm not going to admit that I was wrong stating this, because I wasn't.

You were actually just throwing FUD around. Sorry if most of us didn't appreciate you trying to enlighten us and save us from these PPT scammers. We are all adults here (well most of us), and we really are not as stupid as you think we are. If the price of PPT is too high for the insurance provided, we won't buy the bonds. There's no scamming going on around here. If the PPT owners need to raise the minimum price to stay profitable, then that's their prerogative. If you feel like the minimum price is too high, then you don't need to buy the bonds.

There are a lot of scams going on around these forums, but this is not one of them.

Of course I am not going to buy any more of these bonds - I wasn't waiting for your permission.

And are you saying that you are going to buy more of these overpriced bond?
Well, then enjoy the free insurance!

[coblee]

Sorry, but I don't think you understand what risk-free means. Whether or not they have made enough money to cover the insurance is besides the point. Is Apple's business now risk-free since they've made a boatload from ipods, iphones, and ipads?

And I don't think you understand what risk-free means.
I guess its a matter of language.
For me this investment is already risk free - I'm not going to admit that I was wrong stating this, because I wasn't.

You were actually just throwing FUD around. Sorry if most of us didn't appreciate you trying to enlighten us and save us from these PPT scammers. We are all adults here (well most of us), and we really are not as stupid as you think we are. If the price of PPT is too high for the insurance provided, we won't buy the bonds. There's no scamming going on around here. If the PPT owners need to raise the minimum price to stay profitable, then that's their prerogative. If you feel like the minimum price is too high, then you don't need to buy the bonds.

There are a lot of scams going on around these forums, but this is not one of them.

Of course I am not going to buy any more of these bonds - I wasn't waiting for your permission.

And are you saying that you are going to buy more of these overpriced bond?
Well, then enjoy the free insurance!

Thanks

[Namworld]

You have not to forget that they reimburse the insurance by keeping extra money in and thus extra money in BS&T. They reimbursed it on that 7% interest, the insurance they paid not being able to earn any interest since it must be kept aside.

~~~~~~
They got less than 7% weekly on the insurance fund from selling the shares at a premium + keeping compounded interests while it was at risk (since it's the insurance, they would have lost 100% in case of default). Risking it in BS&T directly would have earned them more for the same risk.

They get 7% weekly by keeping these lesser profits and even depositing extra into the fund, effectively risking the amount in full (again only the shares part is insured, not any extra they have in there). This balance slowly earns them 7% per week at the same risk as any regular BS&T deposit.

Once those 7% cover with the interests the amount needed to insure the bond, they remove it from PPT
~~~~~~

They earn less than 7% on their insurance while it's at risk. They earn a full 7% by risking their profit in BS&T at full risk until that 7% eventually cover the insurance needed. They now retrieve fund.

No matter how fast they can earn the insurance back by having more deposited in it (and thus risked in BS&T), they always lose on the possibility from having earned more interest weekly on that insurance for the same time risked by having a deposit in BS&T for themselves.

Any extra they earned by keeping their profits or depositing extra funds in PPT shouldn't be considered since that amount is not covered by insurance, risked in full, and earning them the same 7% as any regular BS&T deposit. It's not paying them their insurance back for free, they holded the extra risk to earn it back just as any BS&T deposit earnings.

[gabbynot]

Holy moly reading this thread is like watching Groundhog Day.

[piotr_n]

Risking it in BS&T directly would have earned them more for the same risk.

Yes, I know - I haven't forgotten that.
Obviously for the first few weeks they were 100% exposed to BS&T default risk while earning far less than 7% from their deposit (know as "the fund).
And I do understand that taking that extra risk gave them a right to make bigger profits now, comparing to what the other PPT businesses are making per every deposited BTC.
But let's not go crazy - it wasn't that much of a risk, especially if you keep in mind that thanks to this "very lucrative business" they were given with 9000 of PPT.DIV shares later on, many of which got sold at 1+ BTC price.

If you plan to keep your funds in BS&T for as long as possible, until Pirate dies, then risking it for first 5-10 weeks at a lower rate just to get a 100% risk free returns later - for me it's more like insuring your own investment, that just looks like insuring others... Though it is all relative.

[Namworld]

Since it's either paid for for them directly or on profit from funds in BS&T, either way they are out of the insurance fund + interest on it from a BS&T deposit.

So far as they earned less than 7% weekly on the profits from compounded interest/shares sale.

They do get CLOSE to 7% monthly (x4 for the four active PPT which makes it almost 7% weekly) for that risked money, making them earn almost as much as BS&T if they risked the money their directly, making it a small negative for them. And investors lose close to 7% monthly while getting 32% insurance.

In the end, investors do kind of pay for the insurance (less profit, but less risk), but that isn't in any way giving anything good to PPT issuers according to current profit numbers. Unless they would get a full interest equivalent on the risked insurance, they pay for your insurance a bit too.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact the lower returns PPT shareholders get pay for their insurance, just that PPT issuers cannot be claimed to have it insured for free by now. They have less for the same risk incurred than if they invested for themselves. Thus it has not been free for them to insure it.

But it's not free for the investors either indeed, although they paid less than the full insurance (the premium plus lost compounded interest is slightly less than the insurance put aside). PPT issuers lose interest on that small extra insurance margin not covered by shares sale profits.

[Otoh]

These last two posts are a very concise description of the two sides of the "insurance debate".  Thank you gentlemen.  Now, please, let's leave it up to the customers to decide.

I'm very glad that I took you're advise here, 6 days & a million someone's wrong on the internet posts later that thankfully I haven't been engaged in or even read (where's the Phew! smiley), congrats btw at placing all of the last PPT issue soon after launch with the new minimum bid limit.

[piotr_n]

Yeah, actually if we can go back to the subject.
I don't think that this business will keep. Not at 1.04+
Despite of all the attacks I've had on me, I still believe that people are not that stupid

[Otoh]

Yeah, actually if we can go back to the subject.
I don't think that this business will keep. Not at 1.04+
Despite of all the attacks I've had on me, I still believe that people are not that stupid

But, but, the free insurance