Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 08:23:03 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending"  (Read 108029 times)
peasant
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 265


Bitmaker


View Profile
August 08, 2012, 05:50:45 PM
 #481

If it's a ponzi there's no way of knowing until it goes bust, unless the accused wish to be more transparent about things. Those deposits also seem to not be guaranteed in most cases. Only time will tell it seems.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481228583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228583
Reply with quote  #2

1481228583
Report to moderator
1481228583
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481228583

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481228583
Reply with quote  #2

1481228583
Report to moderator
koin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 874


View Profile
August 08, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
 #482

Getchapopcorn ready, the boom is gonna be a fun show.

not so fun for those who lose their money, including those who ran or profited from the ponzi too: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2012/08/08/murder-suicide-at-center-of-potential-245-million-south-african-ponzi-scheme/
Clipse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
August 08, 2012, 06:32:43 PM
 #483

Clipse is simply waging "go and prove a negative" campain. Safe to ignore him, he is blabbering utter illogical nonsense.

(It seems 80% of population of this board could use some logic 101)




That is rich coming from the self proclaimed security expert, part owner of a near vapourware magazine(still waiting for issue 2 in coming soon 2013, and Serial orsom ASIC uberbusiness which all tend to hyped up beyond voodoo dolls.

Im not waging anything nor did I start this stupid thread. I am being logical and realistic and asking him to prove his so-called facts but I wouldnt expect anything other than your dull response considering your track record in this forum and your own hyped up bullshit.

If he is purely speculating that its a ponzi he should name it as such, thats not what he is doing here and I am still waiting for the evidence for his facts.

...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> Clipse

We pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
Clipse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
August 08, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
 #484

Getchapopcorn ready, the boom is gonna be a fun show.

not so fun for those who lose their money, including those who ran or profited from the ponzi too: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2012/08/08/murder-suicide-at-center-of-potential-245-million-south-african-ponzi-scheme/


Interesting, seems that happened in my backyard(so to speak).

...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> Clipse

We pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
Shadow383
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
August 08, 2012, 08:39:07 PM
 #485

If it's a ponzi there's no way of knowing until it goes bust, unless the accused wish to be more transparent about things. Those deposits also seem to not be guaranteed in most cases. Only time will tell it seems.
You can prove that it's not a ponzi if it has a known revenue source outside collecting new deposits that would allow it to pay the rates that it does.
In the absence of one of those...
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 08, 2012, 09:09:50 PM
 #486

You can prove that it's not a ponzi if it has a known revenue source outside collecting new deposits that would allow it to pay the rates that it does.
In the absence of one of those...

Several alternate revenue streams have been pointed out repeatedly.

There's no way to prove or disprove their existence and capital movement without revealing more information, but doing so might reduce the competitiveness of BTCS&T. That's the same situation that exists with the inability of proving or disproving a Ponzi. In the end, everything may be legitimate and Pirate might still decide to simply run off with everything regardless of whether it's a Ponzi or not.

Micon is his own worst enemy even beyond being emotionally unstable, as his actions only benefit Pirate in the following ways:
  • Sporadic, unorganized withdrawals simply allow a Ponzi to continue operating
  • Withdrawals allow for continued legitimate operations to provide an elevated return for a longer time before market saturation slows growth

Either way, whomever maintains a deposit (that has already doubled and the principal withdrawn) wins because the risk of default is reduced while returns persist.
Shadow383
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
August 08, 2012, 09:58:18 PM
 #487

You can prove that it's not a ponzi if it has a known revenue source outside collecting new deposits that would allow it to pay the rates that it does.
In the absence of one of those...

Several alternate revenue streams have been pointed out repeatedly.

There's no way to prove or disprove their existence and capital movement without revealing more information, but doing so might reduce the competitiveness of BTCS&T.

Several?

You'd expect for the sort of volume that'd be required to bring in ~30K BTC per week the transactions would be either:

1-Fairly prominent in the blockchain.
2-If dealing in USD (which was one of the early claims if I remember rightly) then you'd expect some additional volume on some of the exchanges, particularly since if pirate were to convert all his liabilities to USD and back each week (dealing in USD) he'd easily eclipse the entire MtGox volume.

It should be possible to provide blockchain transactions or something similar without giving too much about any legit business model away.
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 08, 2012, 11:11:19 PM
 #488

Several?

Yes.

You'd expect for the sort of volume that'd be required to bring in ~30K BTC per week the transactions would be either:

1-Fairly prominent in the blockchain.
2-If dealing in USD (which was one of the early claims if I remember rightly) then you'd expect some additional volume on some of the exchanges, particularly since if pirate were to convert all his liabilities to USD and back each week (dealing in USD) he'd easily eclipse the entire MtGox volume.

Neither Gox nor Pirate are the entire economy. Data shows that both fit well within the overall activity.

Daily transactions: uptrend

Daily transactions excluding the highest volume addresses: uptrend

Mt. Gox USD volume: uptrend

Unique addresses: uptrend

Transaction volume: uptrend

At an estimated 200,000BTC transferred per day, 1,400,000BTC per week is sufficient to contain trading and interest payments related to BTCS&T in addition to all other market activity.

It should be possible to provide blockchain transactions or something similar without giving too much about any legit business model away.

How do you know?
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
August 09, 2012, 02:37:07 AM
 #489

You can prove that it's not a ponzi if it has a known revenue source outside collecting new deposits that would allow it to pay the rates that it does.
In the absence of one of those...

Several alternate revenue streams have been pointed out repeatedly.

There's no way to prove or disprove their existence and capital movement without revealing more information, but doing so might reduce the competitiveness of BTCS&T.
It's called an independent, third-party audit. The evidence that most of us are asking for is really not that much. Sure, some of the crazies will still say that he bought off the auditor, but that would be enough for most people. In fact, an audit would bring in so much additional funding that Pirate could likely reduce his interest rate to well below 1% per week, maybe less. The fact that a business that is taking in $300k to $500k dollars in profit per week hasn't done that is extremely telling.

imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2012, 02:48:03 AM
 #490

It's called an independent, third-party audit. The evidence that most of us are asking for is really not that much. Sure, some of the crazies will still say that he bought off the auditor, but that would be enough for most people.


Not likely.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
August 09, 2012, 02:55:07 AM
 #491

It's called an independent, third-party audit. The evidence that most of us are asking for is really not that much. Sure, some of the crazies will still say that he bought off the auditor, but that would be enough for most people.


Not likely.
Take your head out of Pirate's ass. Most of us are actually reasonable people, especially the people who aren't being vocal that they think that this might be a ponzi. I know, because I used to be part of that group.

memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
August 09, 2012, 03:02:37 AM
 #492

It's called an independent, third-party audit.

It's not such a bad idea; the auditor could sign a non-disclosure agreement beforehand. He/she will only disclose whether real money is being made, or something to that effect determined by the contract. It's unreasonable for pirate to deny such a proposal if he's not running a scam.
imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2012, 03:03:22 AM
 #493

It's called an independent, third-party audit. The evidence that most of us are asking for is really not that much. Sure, some of the crazies will still say that he bought off the auditor, but that would be enough for most people.


Not likely.
Take your head out of Pirate's ass. Most of us are actually reasonable people, especially the people who aren't being vocal that they think that this might be a ponzi. I know, because I used to be part of that group.

It has nothing to do with Pirate's ass.  Look at all the people that have been trolling this.  You think some audit will make them go away?  They have something to prove (that they are right) and won't give up until that's done, even in the face of contrary facts/evidence.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
August 09, 2012, 03:17:56 AM
 #494

It's called an independent, third-party audit.

It's not such a bad idea; the auditor could sign a non-disclosure agreement beforehand. He/she will only disclose whether real money is being made, or something to that effect determined by the contract. It's unreasonable for pirate to deny such a proposal if he's not running a scam.


who would pay for such an audit? micon?


He's the most likely candidate to arrange it. It doesn't have to be his money, and he could delegate the job to find the auditor, but it's his thread and his cause, so...
Frankie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 206



View Profile
August 09, 2012, 03:29:58 AM
 #495

Micon is his own worst enemy even beyond being emotionally unstable, as his actions only benefit Pirate in the following ways:

Sporadic, unorganized withdrawals simply allow a Ponzi to continue operating

Do you think this will be true if you keep saying it?  You like patronizing metaphors.  The cash in a Ponzi is like melting ice; the more there is, the more there is to bleed off and pay interest.  It makes sense to close the Ponzi when:

  • Interest payments + Withdrawals > Deposits

...for any time scale foreseeable by the Ponzi operator. There is some art to this, so the quitting point is subjective in practice--one might get some big deposits after an unprofitable week, so try to hold on a bit longer.  But when the scheme looks to be in the red permanently, it's clearly time to quit.  Withdrawals are certainly a drag on that and contribute to the end of the scheme, even small sporadic ones.

Run some numbers if you don't believe it.  Say that Pirate has 700,000 paper coins in deposit and only 300,000 in actual capital.  Say that one half of the deposits take interest payments for 7% and the other half compound.  Say that 40,000 in new investments come in every week.  The numbers don't matter much as long as you realize that his paper deposits are higher than actual coins.  So if no one withdraws anything, after one week he has paid 24,500 in interest and now has 764,500 paper deposits (40,000 new deposits plus the compounding half).  He only has 315,500 in actual coins, so you see the scheme is clearly unsustainable, but he's still bringing in money so it makes sense to continue.

If continues does and there are no capital withdrawals, his scheme makes sense to quit on the 8th week, when he would have to pay 42,062 in interests, which is more than the new coins.  At this point the hypothetical Ponzi pirate walks away with about 358,228 real coins.

What about in an alternate, Micon-influenced reality where a mere 1% of the paper deposits are taken out every other week (i.e. small and sporadically).  Well, after the first week 7645 are withdrawn, which means less interest to pay for the next week.  Woo-hoo, Ponzi pirate saves an average of 267 in interest payments!  But in reality, he has taken in only about 7000 coins that week, instead of almost double that in the scenario where there are no withdrawals.  The scheme makes sense to abandon after only 6 payouts, when a bit over 10,000 in withdrawals plus interest exceed the new deposits, and it's all downhill from there.  At this point, the hypothetical Ponzi pirate walks away two weeks earlier and with only about 339,318 real coins.
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
August 09, 2012, 03:33:33 AM
 #496

just wondering because...

the people who say it's not a ponzi have no incentive to pay for an audit.
the people who say it's a ponzi probably have no money in it, hence no financial incentive to pay for an audit.

Why would people who say it's not a ponzi not have incentive to pay for an audit? Since when did having an opinion indicate absolute certainty? Especially for people losing out on 4% or whatever each week to pay for an insured PPT, I think they'd have a LOT of incentive to pay for an audit.

I'm up for putting a couple coins in the audit fund, including the NDA idea where the auditor gives general statements instead of releasing all financial information on the operation.

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
August 09, 2012, 03:49:12 AM
 #497

It's called an independent, third-party audit.

It's not such a bad idea; the auditor could sign a non-disclosure agreement beforehand. He/she will only disclose whether real money is being made, or something to that effect determined by the contract. It's unreasonable for pirate to deny such a proposal if he's not running a scam.


who would pay for such an audit? micon?
Like I said, Pirate would finance it himself. It would save him hundreds of thousands of dollars per week by being about to take in much more money at a lower interest rate. Of course, for that reason alone, nobody currently invested with Pirate would want an audit, which is why most of them will call me names for just suggesting the idea.

imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2012, 03:54:37 AM
 #498

Of course, for that reason alone, nobody currently invested with Pirate would want an audit, which is why most of them will call me names for just suggesting the idea.

Who? Where?  You act as if those invested in Pirate want him to be a ponzi.  You couldn't be further from the truth I think.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
August 09, 2012, 03:58:05 AM
 #499

Of course, for that reason alone, nobody currently invested with Pirate would want an audit, which is why most of them will call me names for just suggesting the idea.

Who? Where?  You act as if those invested in Pirate want him to be a ponzi.  You couldn't be further from the truth I think.
Why would you think that? No, I'm implying that those invested in Pirate don't even want to know whether or not it's a ponzi, because they would then make less money. They can make more money by making a blind gamble on Pirate than knowing the truth, whatever that is.

JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2012, 04:33:36 AM
 #500

Why would you think that? No, I'm implying that those invested in Pirate don't even want to know whether or not it's a ponzi, because they would then make less money. They can make more money by making a blind gamble on Pirate than knowing the truth, whatever that is.
Exactly. If you're one of the people making money from a Ponzi scheme, the last thing you think you want is that it be revealed that it's a Ponzi scheme. You fear that would keep new suckers from feeding in the money that's going to your exorbitant profits. (But the truth is the reverse. You do not really benefit from being the recipient of fraudulent transfers. See my other posts about things like claw backs.)

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!