Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending"

[Shadow383]

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.

[1713859091]

1713859091

[miscreanity]

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]

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]

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.

[Maged]

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]

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]

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.

[memvola]

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]

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]

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.

[Maged]

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]

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.

[Maged]

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]

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.)

[Vladimir]

There is a reason why I call em shills, they are.

[CoinCidental]

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.)

there will not be any "claw backs" in reality

Pirate and the top  guys who are all claiming its impossible FOR THEM to lose anything since they already got out more than 100% of whatever they put in are obviously going to profit from new investors joining below them

the top levels/guys running passthroughs  have nothing to lose but the people on the bottom levels will have to lose ,there is just no way everyone can walk away with triple their investment  when this tumbles

if Pirate wanted to prove this wasnt a scam he could do it easily ,just by showing a 3rd party the BTCST account balance and the 3rd party could verify that pirate has or has not been paying interest from  everyones principal investment .......

it would be a very easy way to silence all the critics and he wouldnt have to disclose business secrets to prove he is not in the red  and still has enough funds to close the shop without anyone being burned ............




 

[memvola]

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.

With all due respect, this is tiresome; it's as if you want them to call you names (which they don't seem to be doing, though given enough time some idiot certainly would). It would be more convincing if everything was arranged and pirate denied it. However, it's apparent that no one will take the risk that he'd accept the audit. It's as if everyone's investing for a "ha ha, I told you so" moment, but no one is ready to really risk losing it.

I'm not sure I'd trust an audit pirate arranged and financed himself. Everything needs to be taken care of externally, and pirate still has an option to call for a change of a particular auditor. This is fair I think. I'd chip in a few coins for this, and I'm sure both detractors and investors have an incentive to do so.

[hgmichna]

...
I'm not sure I'd trust an audit pirate arranged and financed himself. Everything needs to be taken care of externally, and pirate still has an option to call for a change of a particular auditor. This is fair I think. I'd chip in a few coins for this, and I'm sure both detractors and investors have an incentive to do so.

I think the audit discussion is naive. Nobody has even asked pirateat40 whether he would accept an audit, but even if he did, it would not matter. The Ponzi scheme is nearing its end. Pirate would simply play some delay tactics for a couple of weeks, until game over.

[Raoul Duke]

The Ponzi scheme is nearing its end. Pirate would simply play some delay tactics for a couple of weeks, until game over.

You guys are saying that same thing for the last 6 or 8 weeks

[imsaguy]

The Ponzi scheme is nearing its end. Pirate would simply play some delay tactics for a couple of weeks, until game over.

You guys are saying that same thing for the last 6 or 8 weeks

Everything we know, we learned from BFL.