100% proof pirate runs a ponzi (thought experiment)

[Vladimir]

The logic is undeniable.

1. An operation can be either a ponzi or not a ponzi.
2. It cannot be a not ponzi.
3. Therefore, it is a ponzi.

I hope there is no one around here who would argue assertion 1.
I also hope that there is no one around here who would argue (conditionally on 2 being true) assertion 3.

At the same time it is painfully obvious that assertion 2 is true to anyone with a modicum of common sense and/or any decent education and/or practical experience in trading and financials.

Of course, exactly that assertion 2 is usually strongly contested by ponzi funboys (MOST of whom have financial incentive to promote the ponzi) and as such their ability to see past dollar signs is highly suspect.

Now if you believe that an operation which  needs to continually borrow at >3000% APR and conforms to most if not all of the classic signs of a pre default poinzi is not a ponzi, I pity you.

If you publicly claim or imply that an operation which needs to continually borrow at >3000% APR and conforms to most if not all of the classic signs of a pre default poinzi is not a ponzi, I despise you.

Edit: BTW, hazek, a good one on schrodinger's cat.   And I known that my argument contradicts yours. Damn quantum physics is so illogical. But note that inevitable ponzi's default does not turn a non ponzi to a ponzi. Right now, where we know the secret for sure or not,  there cannot exists both underlying economic activity producing >3000% ROI and underlying economic activity producing way less than 3000% ROI. A ponzi is a ponzi is a ponzi, unlike photon is wave is a particle.

[1714796570]

1714796570

[1714796570]

1714796570

[Raoul Duke]

The logic is undeniable.

1. It can be either ponzi or not ponzi.
2. It cannot be a not ponzi.
3. Therefore, it is ponzi.

I hope there is no one around here who would argue assertion 1.
I also hope that there is no one around here should would argue (conditionally on 2 being true) assertion 3.

At the same time it is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain and/or any decent education and/or practical experience in trading and financials that assertion 2 is true.

Of course, exactly that assertion 2 is usually strongly contested by ponzi funboys (MOST of whom have financial incentive to promote the ponzi) and as such their ability to see past dollar signs is highly suspect.

Now if you believe that an operation which  needs to continually borrow at >3000% APR and conforms to most if not all of the classic signs of a pre default poinzi is not a ponzi, I pity you.

If you publicly claim or imply that an operation which needs to continually borrow at >3000% APR and conforms to most if not all of the classic signs of a pre default poinzi is not a ponzi, I despise you.

If you lost less time spewing shit about things on which you clearly have no vested interest in maybe you would release your monthly magazine once a month.
I bet those subscribers are already waiting for the June and July issues. Oh, wait... It's a fucking ponzizine and it already went bust after the first month!

[Vladimir]

The logic is undeniable.
...

If you lost less time spewing shit about things on which you clearly have no vested interest in maybe you would release your monthly magazine once a month.
I bet those subscribers are already waiting for the June and July issues. Oh, wait... It's a fucking ponzizine and it already got busted after the first month!

The logic is undeniable

Trying to deflect are we?

My post was intentionally constructed so that THE ONLY VALID WAY TO ARGUE IT is to argue the assertion 2

Yours, psy, futile attempt to argue it by bringing up some irrelevant nonsense (a logical fallacy) is telling more than you think it is.

[imsaguy]

@imsaguy: Could you show me my mistake, for example a normal and plausible explanation for the 7% weekly interest rate?

@psy: Curiosity. If he was really running a ponzi, it would be awkward to tell his identity. Escaping to another country is surely still possible, but involves a lot of trouble. It would make me have to think again why he would do that.

Review my posts.  I've already made a rather long explanation on how its possible but basically it was rejected because of Occam's razor.  Essentially, it was denied because there was an easier explanation.  People invoking that principle fail to realize what Occam was really going for but I didn't feel compelled to waste my time explaining it.

[Raoul Duke]

The logic is undeniable.
...

If you lost less time spewing shit about things on which you clearly have no vested interest in maybe you would release your monthly magazine once a month.
I bet those subscribers are already waiting for the June and July issues. Oh, wait... It's a fucking ponzizine and it already got busted after the first month!

The logic is undeniable

Trying to deflect are we?

My post was intentionally constructed so that THE ONLY VALID WAY TO ARGUE IT is to argue the assertion 2

Yours, psy, futile attempt to argue it by bringing up some irrelevant nonsense (a logical fallacy) is telling more than you think it is.

Pirate never failed with what he promised to the ones who trust(ed) him. You and your team, on the other hand...
That tells me everything I need to know.

[Vladimir]

The logic is undeniable.
...

If you lost less time spewing shit about things on which you clearly have no vested interest in maybe you would release your monthly magazine once a month.
I bet those subscribers are already waiting for the June and July issues. Oh, wait... It's a fucking ponzizine and it already got busted after the first month!

The logic is undeniable

Trying to deflect are we?

My post was intentionally constructed so that THE ONLY VALID WAY TO ARGUE IT is to argue the assertion 2

Yours, psy, futile attempt to argue it by bringing up some irrelevant nonsense (a logical fallacy) is telling more than you think it is.

Pirate never failed with what he promised to the ones who trust(ed) him. You and your team, on the other hand...
That tells me everything I need to know.

It tells me everything I need to know too. Some produce a product and create value, a process which is subject to uncertainty, other don't.

Just note how your naive argument is actually making my assertion 3 (it is a ponzi) stronger, by effectively supporting assertion 2.

Your post also tells a lot about some typical characteristics of FANBOYS.

[imsaguy]

FUNBOYS

Close, but no cigar.  The term is "Fanboys".

[myrkul]

Here's what I got from this thread:

Schrodinger's cat is in the black box, and you don't know whether it's alive or dead until you open it.

Your BTC is in Pirate's black box, and you don't know whether it's a Ponzi or not until it finishes.

Smart pet owner does not put cat in black box. Neither does smart investor put money in black box.

[Serge]

Vladimir, why are you upset over this?

[imsaguy]

Here's what I got from this thread:

Schrodinger's cat is in the black box, and you don't know whether it's alive or dead until you open it.

Your BTC is in Pirate's black box, and you don't know whether it's a Ponzi or not until it finishes.

Smart pet owner does not put cat in black box. Neither does smart investor put money in black box.

You invest in a company, say Enron.  Do you really know what they are doing with your money? You're going on what their reports say and what the auditors say.  Come to find out, you're wrong.  Guess you shouldn't invest in stocks. 

You invest in gold, but you don't know if its going up or down.  Sure there's only a finite known supply, but you never know when people might start dumping or a new undiscovered vein is found.   Guess you shouldn't invest in precious metals.

[myrkul]

Here's what I got from this thread:

Schrodinger's cat is in the black box, and you don't know whether it's alive or dead until you open it.

Your BTC is in Pirate's black box, and you don't know whether it's a Ponzi or not until it finishes.

Smart pet owner does not put cat in black box. Neither does smart investor put money in black box.

You invest in a company, say Enron.  Do you really know what they are doing with your money? You're going on what their reports say and what the auditors say.  Come to find out, you're wrong.  Guess you shouldn't invest in stocks. 

You invest in gold, but you don't know if its going up or down.  Sure there's only a finite known supply, but you never know when people might start dumping or a new undiscovered vein is found.   Guess you shouldn't invest in precious metals.

Fair point. You never really know what someone is doing with your money, unless that someone is you. But Pirate's Big Black Box Of Money-making(r) doesn't even give you the courtesy of telling you anything. At least Enron's investors got the benefit of a nice show for their money. You guys get to look at a big black box. I'm not saying it is a ponzi, I'm not saying it isn't. What I am saying is that for my money, A box I can see into (even if that box might just have a pretty picture painted on the inside) is safer. You guys do what you want. I'm not touching it.

[Hunterbunter]

Right now, where we know the secret for sure or not,  there cannot exists both underlying economic activity producing >3000% ROI and underlying economic activity producing way less than 3000% ROI. A ponzi is a ponzi is a ponzi, unlike photon is wave is a particle.

I believe the amount that pirate claims he earns is actually 10% per week, but that 3% is cashed out (or some such), which is why he doesn't need to reinvest his own principle.

While it doesn't quite make the total ROI 14,000%, it does make it more than 3300%.

[imsaguy]

Fair point. You never really know what someone is doing with your money, unless that someone is you. But Pirate's Big Black Box Of Money-making(r) doesn't even give you the courtesy of telling you anything. At least Enron's investors got the benefit of a nice show for their money. You guys get to look at a big black box. I'm not saying it is a ponzi, I'm not saying it isn't. What I am saying is that for my money, A box I can see into (even if that box might just have a pretty picture painted on the inside) is safer. You guys do what you want. I'm not touching it.

So you're saying you'd feel better if Pirate told you some story rather than tell you nothing at all?  "Lie to me, don't just say nothing"  

[imsaguy]

imsaguy wants 1.5%/day on his loans.

huh?

[myrkul]

So you're saying you'd feel better if Pirate told you some story rather than tell you nothing at all?  "Lie to me, don't just say nothing"  

Well, you put it that way, it sounds silly, but yes, essentially. At least go through the motions of making a believable mechanism that spits out the cash. Of course, that opens up the mechanism to being scrutinized, and it would take a clever Mechanical Turk indeed to fool everyone. Thus why a black box arouses more suspicion than one I can see into.

[imsaguy]

So you're saying you'd feel better if Pirate told you some story rather than tell you nothing at all?  "Lie to me, don't just say nothing"  

Well, you put it that way, it sounds silly, but yes, essentially. At least go through the motions of making a believable mechanism that spits out the cash. Of course, that opens up the mechanism to being scrutinized, and it would take a clever Mechanical Turk indeed to fool everyone. Thus why a black box arouses more suspicion than one I can see into.

Perhaps he's opted for black box, because everything that does get released/discovered is analyzed to the Nth degree and even when there's a perfectly legit/legal reason, people seem to cling to the more nefarious.

[myrkul]

Perhaps he's opted for black box, because everything that does get released/discovered is analyzed to the Nth degree and even when there's a perfectly legit/legal reason, people seem to cling to the more nefarious.

Well, that backfired, didn't it?

[imsaguy]

Perhaps he's opted for black box, because everything that does get released/discovered is analyzed to the Nth degree and even when there's a perfectly legit/legal reason, people seem to cling to the more nefarious.

Well, that backfired, didn't it?

Not really.  One way or the other, people would bitch.  He opted to not waste the effort.

[payb.tc]

didn't read the whole thread but even if it were 100% proven...

proven ponzi != everyone will lose their money

i like how psy called the OP 'logicman'

[Hunterbunter]

So you're saying you'd feel better if Pirate told you some story rather than tell you nothing at all?  "Lie to me, don't just say nothing"  

Well, you put it that way, it sounds silly, but yes, essentially. At least go through the motions of making a believable mechanism that spits out the cash. Of course, that opens up the mechanism to being scrutinized, and it would take a clever Mechanical Turk indeed to fool everyone. Thus why a black box arouses more suspicion than one I can see into.

I agree that while on the surface more information allows the truth of a lie to become more apparent, human psychology still works against it. Pirate has told many stories already, and that's what very few people are scrutinizing. They're wonderful stories, though, which make people feel good to believe. Most people don't realize just how much control their emotions have on their decision making.

It will possibly help those people who are smart (or emotionless) enough to even bother scrutinizing, but the vast majority of people who, for example, still take the bible literally or the existence of Gods seriously, it's more important to be part of the story than it is being right. Our brains are wired this way, perhaps because there is safety in numbers.

The people who would scrutinize the information / story given, are the same people that wouldn't invest in a black box now due to the insane unpredictability / gamble of it. Do you invest with pirate now? Would you invest more with more information? Are you looking for justification to invest because you want to believe it's possible to earn this much?