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

[Philj]

Rate change: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822

Discuss.

Clearly a ponzi because no legitimate business has ever had to change their rates.

/sarcasm

[1714950883]

1714950883

[1714950883]

1714950883

[drakahn]

How much would you pay people to not be competition while giving you time to become "the" bitcoin savings account/go to guy(or anything else you want to call it really)?

The door to the world is open, and pirate is building a giant shoe.

[Clipse]

Rate change: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822

Discuss.

It only counts when Lord Micon reports it.

I am thrillfully awaiting his presence.

[makomk]

Rate change: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822

Discuss.

5% weekly, that's something like 1164% annualized I think? Still well into classical-ponzi territory.

[wachtwoord]

Does Pirate clarify this decision anywhere on the forums? It comes very fast after the restructuring of the accounts. Curious what triggered this sudden change.

[wachtwoord]

So he should introduce the same system as Hashking for predictability and be done with it. Lowering the rates will lead to more withdrawals I think.

[labestiol]

Does Pirate clarify this decision anywhere on the forums? It comes very fast after the restructuring of the accounts. Curious what triggered this sudden change.

Code:

<pirateat40> hashking, I tried to hold off thinking the operating wallets would balance out but they haven't fast enough so Im having to hold more reserves which is eating into my profit margin.
<hashking> ok.
<Chaaaang-Noi> you need more coin or less?
<riX2000> probably less withdrawals/deposits
<teek> sounds like he needs less in / out
<pirateat40> Its a stability thing, its getting harder and harder to predict when coins will come in and go out.
<Chaaaang-Noi> i see
<pirateat40> So I'll have times when im holding too many coins in op wallets and move some over and then get a flood of withdraws.
<Chaaaang-Noi> could you just lock it so we can only take out on mondays or someting?
<pirateat40> Yea, but i hate limiting people moving funds.

Here, for those curious about the reason.

How does a rate decrease help stability ?

Discuss that...

[Serge]

^^ it helps maintain healthy bottom line. stability can't be predicted with no hardcoded limits on withdraw/deposits

[Clipse]

Does Pirate clarify this decision anywhere on the forums? It comes very fast after the restructuring of the accounts. Curious what triggered this sudden change.

Code:

<pirateat40> hashking, I tried to hold off thinking the operating wallets would balance out but they haven't fast enough so Im having to hold more reserves which is eating into my profit margin.
<hashking> ok.
<Chaaaang-Noi> you need more coin or less?
<riX2000> probably less withdrawals/deposits
<teek> sounds like he needs less in / out
<pirateat40> Its a stability thing, its getting harder and harder to predict when coins will come in and go out.
<Chaaaang-Noi> i see
<pirateat40> So I'll have times when im holding too many coins in op wallets and move some over and then get a flood of withdraws.
<Chaaaang-Noi> could you just lock it so we can only take out on mondays or someting?
<pirateat40> Yea, but i hate limiting people moving funds.

Here, for those curious about the reason.

How does a rate decrease help stability ?

Discuss that...

A.) Everyone get 7% and deposit/withdraw habbits is all over the place, assume due to these situations pirate effectively can only generate 10% returns on whatever he is doing.

B.) Everyone get 5% and deposit/withdraw habbits is all over the place, assume due to these situations pirate effectively can only generate 10% returns on whatever he is doing.


Pretty clear that from a profitable margin option B is helping alot more than option A.

[unclescrooge]

Does Pirate clarify this decision anywhere on the forums? It comes very fast after the restructuring of the accounts. Curious what triggered this sudden change.

Code:

<pirateat40> hashking, I tried to hold off thinking the operating wallets would balance out but they haven't fast enough so Im having to hold more reserves which is eating into my profit margin.
<hashking> ok.
<Chaaaang-Noi> you need more coin or less?
<riX2000> probably less withdrawals/deposits
<teek> sounds like he needs less in / out
<pirateat40> Its a stability thing, its getting harder and harder to predict when coins will come in and go out.
<Chaaaang-Noi> i see
<pirateat40> So I'll have times when im holding too many coins in op wallets and move some over and then get a flood of withdraws.
<Chaaaang-Noi> could you just lock it so we can only take out on mondays or someting?
<pirateat40> Yea, but i hate limiting people moving funds.

Here, for those curious about the reason.

How does a rate decrease help stability ?

Discuss that...

It doesn't help stability, it helps him staying profitable because instability eats his margin.

And we can thank ponzis boys for increasing instability I think...

[wachtwoord]

So deposit funds for longer periods such as with Hashking ...

[labestiol]

If he really wanted stability he would have put a bonus on stable deposits, while reducing the interest.
Basically stable deposits would get the same interests rate, and unstable would get less.

But as far as I know, he's not doing that. So imo either his business model is less profitable (and it's not related to funds stability) , either he just doesn't want to give you that much money anymore because the ponzi is collapsing too fast (depending on your opinion on what pirate is doing)

[koin]

5% weekly, that's something like 1164% annualized I think? Still well into classical-ponzi territory.

same level of risk (unable to withdraw principal plus any reinvested interest).

there's now a much longer period before new investment or reinvestment will break even.

i wonder what time it is on the ponzi doomsday clock.  it must be getting close to 11:59.

[koin]

those who have already withdrawn their original principal might be thinking they can't lose.  they might want to read this:

If the games were unlicensed and illegal, any transactions from the games were void. Investors’ money handed to winning players like Maguire could be clawed back through civil suits.

http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-08-13/ponzi-mastermind-who-lost-clients-millions-in-hollywood-poker-breaks-silence-new-details-inside-games-played-by-tobey-maguire-ben-affleck-and-matt-damon

[Shadow383]

those who have already withdrawn their original principal might be thinking they can't lose.  they might want to read this:

If the games were unlicensed and illegal, any transactions from the games were void. Investors’ money handed to winning players like Maguire could be clawed back through civil suits.

http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-08-13/ponzi-mastermind-who-lost-clients-millions-in-hollywood-poker-breaks-silence-new-details-inside-games-played-by-tobey-maguire-ben-affleck-and-matt-damon

There's no legal framework for doing "claw-back" of bitcoins.

If stability is the issue then wouldn't it make sense to incentivise based on the stability of accounts (such as the 0.5% bonus for account balance staying within a certain range) rather than on the overall size of accounts?

[unclescrooge]

those who have already withdrawn their original principal might be thinking they can't lose.  they might want to read this:

If the games were unlicensed and illegal, any transactions from the games were void. Investors’ money handed to winning players like Maguire could be clawed back through civil suits.

http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-08-13/ponzi-mastermind-who-lost-clients-millions-in-hollywood-poker-breaks-silence-new-details-inside-games-played-by-tobey-maguire-ben-affleck-and-matt-damon

Oh shut up fascist. I have no problem with ponzi talks and whinnings, but don't drag the parasites that be into this, thanks.

[gene]

Interesting turn of events. Even so, the core ponzi scam can probably continue for some time, along with the various leeching schemes.

Clawbacks can't happen unless operators and other participants are positively identified. However, if someone slips up, it is possible that a dedicated set of doxers could trace things back quite a ways. Most people do not have the combined skill and discipline to maintain perfect anonymity. With any luck, the trail will permit for some to be identified.

[Clipse]

Interesting turn of events. Even so, the core ponzi scam can probably continue for some time, along with the various leeching schemes.

Clawbacks can't happen unless operators and other participants are positively identified. However, if someone slips up, it is possible that a dedicated set of doxers could trace things back quite a ways. Most people do not have the combined skill and discipline to maintain perfect anonymity. With any luck, the trail will permit for some to be identified.

We know what pirate looks like and also his name, unless he gets plastic surgery and lives in the form of Michael Jackson its even more unlikely he would be able to just vanish.

[drakahn]

http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html lol, same proof?

[gene]

Interesting turn of events. Even so, the core ponzi scam can probably continue for some time, along with the various leeching schemes.

Clawbacks can't happen unless operators and other participants are positively identified. However, if someone slips up, it is possible that a dedicated set of doxers could trace things back quite a ways. Most people do not have the combined skill and discipline to maintain perfect anonymity. With any luck, the trail will permit for some to be identified.

We know what pirate looks like and also his name, unless he gets plastic surgery and lives in the form of Michael Jackson its even more unlikely he would be able to just vanish.

Really? What is his name? Source?