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

[elux]

I actually asked Maged at one point to post it, because obviously, if there's something that can prove something besides hunches and coincidences, it should be brought to light.  He basically replied back about how he didn't have anything definite or something along those lines (my memory fails me, I'm looking for the thread/post).

I also have yet to get a response from him after asking about his 'proof' as well. As soon as I brought it up and suggested that evidence would change my stance, there were no more replies.

Dear imsaguy:

• Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence.
• You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof
• Just lose hope already!

[1714249164]

1714249164

[1714249164]

1714249164

[1714249164]

1714249164

[1714249164]

1714249164

[1714249164]

1714249164

[imsaguy]

Dear elux:

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.

[Maged]

It was decided that it was pointless to post the information after Pirate closed down. The information, had I been allowed to share it, would have shown that with a little starting capital to pay initial investors (less than a few thousand BTC), a ponzi scheme with the inflow and outflow that we observed from Pirate would have not just been possible, but also extremely profitable because more deposits were consistently coming in than what was going out. In fact, the more we called it a ponzi, the more deposits there were.

Like I said, it was never proof of anything. It only showed that this would have been profitable as a ponzi scheme, directly disproving the belief that if this was a ponzi it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

[Micon]

1)  BurtW, ...

3)  The arrogance and outright lies he spread make me sick.

All right Micon - that's a friend of mine you are speaking about. Do you have proof that BurtW has lied about anything? Please quote.

And what about your lies, hmmmm? Provide evidence for the following blind assertions you made in a single post:

"BurtW helped Pirateat40 funnel 100k's of BTC to his scam via PPT bonds" - hint - you've already been corrected in this very thread.

"never invested his own monies" - while I could be anyone claiming anything, I know this assertion to be false. But most importantly, where's your evidence? You do not have any, because you are lying. Making it up as you go along.

In the course of just a couple weeks, you've gone off uncountable times half-cocked with wild assertions that are provably false. With never a mea culpa, apology, or retraction. I think you mean well in general, but your buffoonery is casting a lot of collateral damage. Put that thing away before somebody really gets hurt.

1)  retraction - looks like BurtW was not as smart as i thought.  if he fired his own BTC and set up the PPT system AND posted that it for sure wasnt a ponzi in his sig and i almost forgot about the fake $10k Bet thread.....  im now thinking this is a guy that Believed Pirate lies in totality

2)  i think we need to add up some #'s and see how Big of a co-conspirator BurtW is.  looks like he will rank #2 to payb.tc.  I should have ran the math first or phrased it different, but its a considerable sum.  how many BTC are the total of the last round of bonds? those are all Pirate profit now.

3) my main assertions are full-cocked, and all look to be 100% true (are you reading the same thread?) this was about Pirate being a total Ponzi schemer paying 7%/wk and it would go boom soon - and it went boom

[hgmichna]

… If you've been following #btcst you'd know that he hasn't disappeared, and has stated his willingness to sacrifice his own profit soon if he can't make progress with the initial plan. …

I see, and everybody can see, that you are trying to help the pirate spreading his lies.

So what's new?

[Micon]

Micon, now you have done it.

what was the total btc lost on the current issues of PPT bonds? surely you know and wont be as arrogant as to say "look it up yourself" or "not your info" like payb.tc

[JoelKatz]

For the entire duration of this debate, I've been of a mind that it's impossible to know one way or the other without concrete evidence. I still hold that stance.

It's really this simple:

Every legitimate investment provides investors some way to reasonably assure themselves that their money was in fact invested in something that has a reasonable expectation of making a profit. Every legitimate investment provides investors a way to assure themselves that claimed profits were in fact earned from investments that actually turned a profit and that any claimed losses were in fact incurred by investments consistent with the fund's claimed investment strategy. Every legitimate investment provides a sufficiently detailed description of how funds will be invested to allow investors to make realistic assessments of risk. Risk is never just categorized as "high" or "low" but the specific risks are identified so that investors can make rational decisions about how to diversify their portfolio to manage excessive exposure to common risks.

In contrast, Ponzi schemes never provide investors with any way to know where their money is going. They never provide any way to establish the source of purported profits. There is never any way for investors to assess the level of risk, the specific risks, or the connection between those risks and the amounts their investment will lose. Ponzi schemes always promise absurdly high returns relative to risks and generally hand wave and give vague explanations of how those returns will be accomplished. A common claim is that the Ponzi operator knows some secret way to make money and that revealing it to others would ruin the opportunity.

Everything I've said above is backed by concrete evidence. I don't think anything there is really even remotely controversial. Now, all you have to do is take what you know about Pirate and match it up against those facts.

This is not rocket science. There is no missing evidence. Everything you need to reach a near certain conclusion is right in front of your eyes, you just stubbornly refuse to see it and claim that all this evidence somehow does not exist.

[Bitcoin Oz]

For the entire duration of this debate, I've been of a mind that it's impossible to know one way or the other without concrete evidence. I still hold that stance.

It's really this simple:

Every legitimate investment provides investors some way to reasonably assure themselves that their money was in fact invested in something that has a reasonable expectation of making a profit. Every legitimate investment provides investors a way to assure themselves that claimed profits were in fact earned from investments that actually turned a profit and that any claimed losses were in fact incurred by investments consistent with the fund's claimed investment strategy. Every legitimate investment provides a sufficiently detailed description of how funds will be invested to allow investors to make realistic assessments of risk. Risk is never just categorized as "high" or "low" but the specific risks are identified so that investors can make rational decisions about how to diversify their portfolio to manage excessive exposure to common risks.

In contrast, Ponzi schemes never provide investors with any way to know where their money is going. They never provide any way to establish the source of purported profits. There is never any way for investors to assess the level of risk, the specific risks, or the connection between those risks and the amounts their investment will lose.

Everything I've said above is backed by concrete evidence. I don't think anything there is really even remotely controversial. Now, all you have to do is take what you know about Pirate and match it up against those facts.

This is not rocket science. There is no missing evidence. Everything you need to reach a near certain conclusion is right in front of your eyes, you just stubbornly refuse to see it, and claim that all this evidence somehow does not exist.

No, pirate didnt supply a prospectus to potential investors.

[Micon]

If you've been following #btcst you'd know that he hasn't disappeared, and has stated his willingness to sacrifice his own profit soon if he can't make progress with the initial plan. Talk is cheap, but we'll see.

in this case the talk is worthless.

as you can read from my previous posts in this thread before it started, the final stage of the scam is the long stall. Pirate has given you his weak excuses, only a few foolishly still hold on to hope.

on the subject of "its not proof" and "you cant be sure he wont pay back" - this is only correct as a technicality.  IMO there is a 99.999999999999999999999999999999%+ chance of pirate default.  the 1-in-100,000,000 lifetimes scenarios are the only chance of payback, like some Sultan of Breunei that i unknowingly put a beat on during WSOP 2009 that pays the Pirate debt in full just so I dont win 1000 BTC from Matt

[hgmichna]

1)  Positive signs that the Stockholm syndrome period is wearing off,  miscreanity finally entertained the idea that Pirate won't pay.

For the entire duration of this debate, I've been of a mind that it's impossible to know one way or the other without concrete evidence. I still hold that stance.
…
Pirate's operation has been ongoing for barely a year. If Pirate does end up paying out, you won't have any wiggle room to backtrack on what you've said; your reputation here will be shattered beyond repair.

I think there is no Stockholm syndrome here. Everybody can find out for himself what to make of these facts:

A lot of people saw right through the fog from the very beginning and instantly began to warn people of the obvious Ponzi scheme.

A huge number of bitcoin users were at least clever enough not to throw their money into the pirate black hole.

A tiny number of bitcoin users were either too greedy or too gullible or too stupid to withstand the lure and paid in.

An even tinier number of people actively supported the Ponzi scheme by preaching obvious falsehoods and arguing relentlessly that the pirate's operation honestly produces 3,300% annual profit, the equivalent of an estimated $50,000 per day. These people showed an extremely high interest that the Ponzi scheme succeeds.

Most or all of them did so because they were part of the operation and profited from it. miscreanity is trying hard, even in the very last days, when the outcome is even more obvious than it had always been, to hold back the hapless investors and give the pirate a few more days to secure his loot.

[miscreanity]

IMO

Right there.

This has one of three outcomes:

• Pirate absconds and cements a position of infamy in Bitcoin history
• He defaults, but continues in the community with a damaged reputation
• Funds are returned, the naysayers are humiliated, and he secures legendary status in Bitcoin lore

None of these have any truly long term effects on Bitcoin as a system; it remains fundamentally sound.

[Frankie]

IMO

Right there.

This has one of three outcomes:

• Pirate absconds and cements a position of infamy in Bitcoin history
• He defaults, but continues in the community with a damaged reputation
• Funds are returned, the naysayers are humiliated, and he secures legendary status in Bitcoin lore

None of these have any truly long term effects on Bitcoin as a system; it remains fundamentally sound.

I agree the bitcoin system remains sound (although it may get some unfavorable press that slows down adoption incrementally). In fact, the system may be even stronger because the next Ponzi will find it harder to build up when evangelists like you will be more widely recognized as the fools and shills you are.

Maged: I know you're not at liberty to discuss the details, but what is the analyzed estimate of the number of coins Pirate got away with? (i.e., the remaining principal minus withdrawn interest)

[makomk]

In contrast, Ponzi schemes never provide investors with any way to know where their money is going. They never provide any way to establish the source of purported profits. There is never any way for investors to assess the level of risk, the specific risks, or the connection between those risks and the amounts their investment will lose. Ponzi schemes always promise absurdly high returns relative to risks and generally hand wave and give vague explanations of how those returns will be accomplished. A common claim is that the Ponzi operator knows some secret way to make money and that revealing it to others would ruin the opportunity.

That's not exactly accurate - there have been Ponzi schemes out there that purport to tell investors where their money is going and where the profits are coming from. Madoff's ponzi was one to a certain extent, as was the Perma-Pave ponzi I mentioned earlier in the thread. One warning sign of a ponzi or other investment scam is that their claims as to where they're getting the money from don't stand up to scrutiny. There's no evidence that their customers have received the products they claim to be selling, or they'd have to have made more trades in a particular market than actually happened, or their sums don't add up, or...

[JoelKatz]

In contrast, Ponzi schemes never provide investors with any way to know where their money is going. They never provide any way to establish the source of purported profits. There is never any way for investors to assess the level of risk, the specific risks, or the connection between those risks and the amounts their investment will lose. Ponzi schemes always promise absurdly high returns relative to risks and generally hand wave and give vague explanations of how those returns will be accomplished. A common claim is that the Ponzi operator knows some secret way to make money and that revealing it to others would ruin the opportunity.

That's not exactly accurate - there have been Ponzi schemes out there that purport to tell investors where their money is going and where the profits are coming from. Madoff's ponzi was one to a certain extent, as was the Perma-Pave ponzi I mentioned earlier in the thread. One warning sign of a ponzi or other investment scam is that their claims as to where they're getting the money from don't stand up to scrutiny. There's no evidence that their customers have received the products they claim to be selling, or they'd have to have made more trades in a particular market than actually happened, or their sums don't add up, or...

So which part did you think wasn't exactly accurate? Read over what I said very carefully. I think you were thinking I said something I actually didn't say. For example, purporting to tell investors where their money is going is perfectly consistent with not giving investors any way to know where their money is going.

[Maged]

Maged: I know you're not at liberty to discuss the details, but what is the analyzed estimate of the number of coins Pirate got away with? (i.e., the remaining principal minus withdrawn interest)

Based on the information we have (which is not complete), he most likely got out with around 200k BTC. However, we never analyzed the last week to get those withdrawal numbers and it's also very likely that most of the BTC was sold at around $5. Worst case, he still got away with half a million USD, although it is more likely closer to $1 million USD.

[MrTeal]

Micon, now you have done it.

what was the total btc lost on the current issues of PPT bonds? surely you know and wont be as arrogant as to say "look it up yourself" or "not your info" like payb.tc

If you include interest, 8640. That's really not fair though, since some of the bonds haven't even matured yet. Just principle, 5760. At a strike price of 1.04 it would be a little more, 6120.

[Shadow383]

Maged: I know you're not at liberty to discuss the details, but what is the analyzed estimate of the number of coins Pirate got away with? (i.e., the remaining principal minus withdrawn interest)

Based on the information we have (which is not complete), he most likely got out with around 200k BTC. However, we never analyzed the last week to get those withdrawal numbers and it's also very likely that most of the BTC was sold at around $5. Worst case, he still got away with half a million USD, although it is more likely closer to $1 million USD.

Do you think this address is plausible?
https://blockchain.info/charts/balance?address=1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM

It's cashed out about 220,000BTC since the collapse.

[hgmichna]

Maged: I know you're not at liberty to discuss the details, but what is the analyzed estimate of the number of coins Pirate got away with? (i.e., the remaining principal minus withdrawn interest)

Based on the information we have (which is not complete), he most likely got out with around 200k BTC. However, we never analyzed the last week to get those withdrawal numbers and it's also very likely that most of the BTC was sold at around $5. Worst case, he still got away with half a million USD, although it is more likely closer to $1 million USD.

I hope that the explanations and warnings here in the forums have spoilt his plans to a significant extent. I'm glad he could not run away with more.

Actually half a million US$ or even $1m is not a good gain for such a monstrous scam even from the point of view of a criminal.

We can thank Micon, Vladimir, JoelKatz, Vandroiy, and more for preventing a much worse outcome. I also admire those who did some cool analysis of the data, perhaps not always publicly visible. All this showed a significant amount of resolve to stand up against a criminal and not simply let him get away with whatever he wanted or had planned. I would still like to see him caught and punished though.

[augustocroppo]

Do you think this address is plausible?
https://blockchain.info/charts/balance?address=1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM

It's cashed out about 220,000BTC since the collapse.

NO!

The user controlling that address is not pirate40!

[Micon]

Do you think this address is plausible?
https://blockchain.info/charts/balance?address=1DkyBEKt5S2GDtv7aQw6rQepAvnsRyHoYM

It's cashed out about 220,000BTC since the collapse.

NO!

The user controlling that address is not pirate40!

1)  really?  seems like it

2)  any proof it's not?