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

[CoinCidental]

It should not be very difficult to figure out if pirate has been paying 7% a week out of all the principal investments and praying deposits keep exceeding withdrawls 

there has got to be either  a massive deficit  in the deposists + compounded interest   by this stage unless hes raking in coins by the truckload from somewhere

if he even allowed someone independent to verify that he still has ability to repay everyone or maybe 500-750k BTC  still under his control in the BTCST account  it would go a long way

How does this affect the temporary and long term value of the bitcoin though ,when people are getting 7% free every week does it not devalue the currency  itself and also take away  the benefits of mining and other activities that are paying less than 7% but may not be scams?

[1713575224]

1713575224

[1713575224]

1713575224

[1713575224]

1713575224

[1713575224]

1713575224

[Frankie]

Again, I'm not giving you grief here.  Your statement that "most of them feign not being interested in taking your money (even though they are supposedly paying absurd rates). Ponzi schemes like to seem "exclusive"; this is a diagnostic characteristic." is fascinating, and I would love to read case law or the original research that has concluded this.

Honestly, this is really, really basic stuff. It's Ponzi 101. Any good introduction to Ponzi schemes will cover this. Madoff famously refused many investor's money. It was not unusual to hear people argue that if Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, he wouldn't refuse any deposits. He also cleverly warned people that because withdrawals disrupted his strategy, people who withdrew might not be permitted to re-invest.

One very basic thing any major scammer does is at least occasionally, intentionally act against type. You have to look carefully to get the big picture.

Indeed. I've posted this link several times, which has a good overview of modern internet Ponzi schemes: http://fc12.ifca.ai/pre-proceedings/paper_27.pdf

Warning signs from the author of a treatise on Ponzi schemes: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/30/157606305/four-signs-your-awesome-investment-may-actually-be-a-ponzi-scheme

[Frankie]

Similarly, a stability requirement "makes sense" in some sort of way--capital stability, of course!  But penalizing withdrawals and not deposits absolutely screams "scam," so it's unsurprising that such a rule is not put into writting.

It was put in writing.  It was mentioned on IRC by pirate himself.  Both withdrawals and deposits count towards the stability requirement.

I was saying that he wouldn't put a one-sided limit on withdrawals in writing. Has he?  I would think that would be a big red flag event to the credulous.

Hence it's a bonus for maintain the same amount (while still letting in new money).  Same effect, no red flag.

Also Honest Bob, you're talking about having to buy probably $2-3 million in BTC to cover the likely shortfall if all the coins have just been sitting there. It's very questionable whether or not he has that much in liquid capital.

Yes. It might make sense to "prove" you're legit early on if the out-of-pocket is just a few hundred dollars (and I imagine some smaller-scale scamers do that with regular BTC loans). The risk-reward situation is different if you presuppose Pirate is already rich (while writing bad $500 checks for some reason, and having to scrounge for investors on a freaking web forum). I'm skeptical he was rich; if he paid everyone off, I'd probably drop the Ponzi talk.

[hgmichna]

Also Honest Bob, you're talking about having to buy probably $2-3 million in BTC to cover the likely shortfall if all the coins have just been sitting there. It's very questionable whether or not he has that much in liquid capital.

I was going to say. If pirateat40 had been a millionaire already at the beginning, why would he start a massive illegal scheme to obtain money? Typically you look at illegal sources of money when you have none and cannot get it legally.

Going illegal has fundamental disadvantages. You may end up in jail or you may get shot by a hothead whose money you stole.

I had this funny, but surely very unrealistic dream with the following story:

"It was all a social experiment. I just wanted to demonstrate gullibility. I will now pay you back every penny you paid in—without interest, of course. I hope you didn't take it too seriously."

[imsaguy]

Similarly, a stability requirement "makes sense" in some sort of way--capital stability, of course!  But penalizing withdrawals and not deposits absolutely screams "scam," so it's unsurprising that such a rule is not put into writting.

It was put in writing.  It was mentioned on IRC by pirate himself.  Both withdrawals and deposits count towards the stability requirement.

I was saying that he wouldn't put a one-sided limit on withdrawals in writing. Has he?  I would think that would be a big red flag event to the credulous.

Hence it's a bonus for maintain the same amount (while still letting in new money).  Same effect, no red flag.

He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?

[Frankie]

I was saying that he wouldn't put a one-sided limit on withdrawals in writing. Has he?  I would think that would be a big red flag event to the credulous.

Hence it's a bonus for maintain the same amount (while still letting in new money).  Same effect, no red flag.

He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?

I acknowledged it the first time. I said: "But penalizing withdrawals and not deposits absolutely screams 'scam,' so it's unsurprising that such a rule is not put into writing."

If he had a rule like that, it would deter even the credulous, so it's not surprising he doesn't have an express rule like that.

[hgmichna]

He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?

Just say it a couple more times. Nobody in his right mind will believe it anyway.

There are so many obvious ways to lodge new deposits that your intention is equally obvious, just one of them being that he can bend his own rules. This had already been mentioned in this thread.

[Vandroiy]

Forced withdrawals in the beginning are the expected behavior, to limit the growth curve and extend the run-time. I've said this a gazillion times, the forced withdrawals are an indicator of a Ponzi scheme, very especially in the way they were used at BS&T. It's silly to use this as an argument against Ponzi accusations.

Keep the user base growth above, but close to the paper coin growth to limit the fraction of nonexistent coins as long as possible. This is a basic application of the exponential function, why are we discussing this yet again?

[miscreanity]

And another thing that helps convince me personally, though I completely understand if you don't find it convincing, is that I know a lot of people who are very active in the Bitcoin economy. Every single one of them that I've discussed this with, and that's most of them, is 100% firmly convinced that it's a Ponzi. This includes top-level people associated with Mt. Gox, formerly associated with Tradehill, associated with Bitcoin Magazine, three people who each hold in excess of 50,000 bitcoins each, and so on. Not one of them has any other explanation that they think is even remotely likely.

And while I love a big "I told you so" as much as anyone, I honestly would love to be wrong about this, because a lot of people are going to get hurt very badly. This could be the Bitcoin equivalent of the global economic collapse because so many Bitcoin-related things have serious exposure that they may not even realize.

Why isn't everyone creating The Next Big Thing^TM? Wealth has little to do with the ability to understand an idea. There's a perspective shift required to make use of a situation, especially when it comes to new technologies. It's summed up well by the phrase:

"Why didn't I think of that?"

If everything Pirate is doing were confined exclusively to the Bitcoin economy, there would be no chance of perpetual operation; it would've been over almost three months ago. Instead, I think churn at the margins is being capitalized on. As long as that continues, there will be profit potential.

As I've suggested - gold and silver market management is extremely profitable for the entities involved, and it continues to be profitable for them even as the USD price rises. The same applies to Bitcoin on a smaller scale (for now). To understand how this is possible, that perspective shift is necessary. There are perhaps a few dozen prominent individuals with this view regarding gold, and they're mostly labelled as the fringe. Gold and silver continue to defy the skeptics, who happen to be the vast majority and many of whom are very wealthy.

How many big, wealthy household names understand Bitcoin (not that [m]any are even aware)? Does that make them right and us wrong, or do we share a unique perspective that they haven't been able to grasp?

[BorderBits]

or do we share a unique perspective that they haven't been able to grasp?

Nope. It's a Ponzi scheme. 

[totaleclipseofthebank]

miscreanity is spouting vague salesman-type Ponzi gibberish like its his job

lmao

nothing he says makes any sense

"churn at the margins is being capitalized upon"

[Maged]

He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?

You can say it all you want, because the unofficial audit team has irrefutable proof that this is absolutely not the case. For example, despite growing over 10% per week, BitcoinMax is still making 7.7% per week in interest.

[Raoul Duke]

He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?

You can say it all you want, because the unofficial audit team has irrefutable proof that this is absolutely not the case. For example, despite growing over 10% per week, BitcoinMax is still making 7.7% per week in interest.

Where is that irrefutable proof?
Didn't you start researching 2 months ago or around that time? Still no conclusion?

[gene]

Total ponzi. Nothing new around here... scam central. Expect more charlatans; marks (inexperienced kids?) reliably flock to bitcoin.

A simple truism: the burden of proof lies on those making incredible statements which contradict all experience. The returns promised require extraordinary explanation.

No explanation is provided. End of story. One can only conclude that what looks and smells like an utter fraud is, in fact, an utter fraud.

Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme, and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding.

Demand for the impossible proof of a negative is a reliable gambit for the conman and also assuages the bedeviling consciences of the naively complicit (and there are many of those, indeed).

This "community" reaps what it has sown. For a long time, our very own, highly esteemed, Theymos (hero moderator, etc. ad nauseum) openly advertised a ponzi game and facilitated others. (S)he and similar elements are just the sort of scum that are guaranteeing bitcoin be forever associated with scams and frauds. Who needs a 51% attack when you can just make sure every newspaper article on bitcoin forever mentions the countless ponzi schemes and untold millions stolen from credulous fools?

It is clear that the repercussions will be substantial.

[Maged]

I'm pretty sure Maged knows what he's talking about on that part. But still, I don't understand if people have data, why don't they share it. I mean, you guys are asking for proof of pirate business, but you don't provide much on your part either.

I wish that they would, but I'm not authorized to.

[Vladimir]

As it was said so many times before. The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.

LOL. Maged is fighting fire with fire.

Pirate: I have a legitimate biz that pays 3000% APR and earns much more. But I will not tell ya, because it is a secret and if I tell, everyone will start doing it.
Maged: I have a proof that this is a ponzi. But I will not tell ya, coz people who dug it up did not give me permission.

[imsaguy]

He's penalizing deposits as well as withdrawals.  How many times do I have to say this before you actually acknowledge it?

You can say it all you want, because the unofficial audit team has irrefutable proof that this is absolutely not the case. For example, despite growing over 10% per week, BitcoinMax is still making 7.7% per week in interest.

The rules don't take effect until the middle of the month...

[miscreanity]

miscreanity is spouting vague salesman-type Ponzi gibberish like its his job

lmao

nothing he says makes any sense

"churn at the margins is being capitalized upon"

Ad hominem. If you want to contribute anything of substance, you need to have comprehension of the dynamics I'm talking about. The critical concepts:

Capital flow

Stock to flow ratio

Video discussing S:F

Everyone is concentrated exclusively on the stock, which not where the action is. The margins are where the flow becomes most important, and also where the profit is gained. It's very similar to hydraulics, where a marginal effort amplifies results.

[molecular]

cool list, just discovered this.

what's up with BDT (Bitdaytrade). nefario has locked the asset. anyone have any info? Why is it on the list here?

[gene]

The burden of proof is on pirate and his shills. It is a ponzi until proven otherwise as far as any reasonable person is concerned.

Why? [additional bullshit omitted to spare humanity]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]