We can no longer access any of the so called "black market" bonds including PPT.A
so now we can't even sell to the 0.32 wall.... it was 0.32 insured - where is the insurance now?
Topic: . - page 2. (Read 67488 times)
I noticed there were some people after liquidity on PPT.A and PPT.B so added some bids at 0.32 to give effect to the insurance for those two bonds.
There isn't a bid wall any longer for PPT.A and PPT.B. What's the plan for creating a bidwall for these assets similar to the one that exists for PPT.E?
Fixed.
I noticed there were some people after liquidity on PPT.A and PPT.B so added some bids at 0.32 to give effect to the insurance for those two bonds.
There isn't a bid wall any longer for PPT.A and PPT.B. What's the plan for creating a bidwall for these assets similar to the one that exists for PPT.E?
It doesnt just affect people who invested in pirate though. You can get screwed if you invested in a fund that claimed to have no pirate exposure now it turns out they did through one of their deposits. This pirate shit has infected the whole market and people are getting burnt who wanted nothing to do with his scam.
With that, I agree. I know of at least one scheme where the line was blurred, but was eventually disclosed, and there are others that have had their liquidity screwed by the sudden closing of BS&T. It is surprising and disappointing, but then perhaps I should not be too surprised. It helps demonstrate the thin economy and that we're still very early in the bitcoin story.
It demonstrates the consequences of fractional accounting. Has nothing to do with a "thin economy" or early phase of bitcoin (cf 2008 financial crisis).
It doesnt just affect people who invested in pirate though. You can get screwed if you invested in a fund that claimed to have no pirate exposure now it turns out they did through one of their deposits. This pirate shit has infected the whole market and people are getting burnt who wanted nothing to do with his scam.
With that, I agree. I know of at least one scheme where the line was blurred, but was eventually disclosed, and there are others that have had their liquidity screwed by the sudden closing of BS&T. It is surprising and disappointing, but then perhaps I should not be too surprised. It helps demonstrate the thin economy and that we're still very early in the bitcoin story.
I think people assumed the PPT operators had more in depth knowledge of him and some of the stuff in his past should raise some red flags.
That's reasonable - like where he explained about the $200 cheque fraud and he worked out how hard it was to sort out the ID theft that occurred at the time? Or that he used to do forex trading (that's on the net) before he did his IT business ventures. I think there would be a big difference if someone had said "invest in BS&T, it's safe" because I don't recall ever actually having seen that. It's always been "warning, stupid high risk you might lose all your money" type of stuff.
I'm not sure who all the PPT operators are, and certainly don't know who some of them are behind their usernames. I have been asked which PPTs people should use because I wasn't keen on running one (other than the GLBSE bonds which were a bit different), and Payb.tc had a nice operation and paid well, so he was probably most visible, but it should not have been hard for people to find a pass-through, and do whatever research they should have.
It doesnt just affect people who invested in pirate though. You can get screwed if you invested in a fund that claimed to have no pirate exposure now it turns out they did through one of their deposits. This pirate shit has infected the whole market and people are getting burnt who wanted nothing to do with his scam.
I think people assumed the PPT operators had more in depth knowledge of him and some of the stuff in his past should raise some red flags.
That's reasonable - like where he explained about the $200 cheque fraud and he worked out how hard it was to sort out the ID theft that occurred at the time? Or that he used to do forex trading (that's on the net) before he did his IT business ventures. I think there would be a big difference if someone had said "invest in BS&T, it's safe" because I don't recall ever actually having seen that. It's always been "warning, stupid high risk you might lose all your money" type of stuff.
I'm not sure who all the PPT operators are, and certainly don't know who some of them are behind their usernames. I have been asked which PPTs people should use because I wasn't keen on running one (other than the GLBSE bonds which were a bit different), and Payb.tc had a nice operation and paid well, so he was probably most visible, but it should not have been hard for people to find a pass-through, and do whatever research they should have.
I noticed there were some people after liquidity on PPT.A and PPT.B so added some bids at 0.32 to give effect to the insurance for those two bonds.
If pirate continues acting like a douchebag and refuses to pay back anyone are you going to release all the info you have on him ? Youve said in the past you know him personally so it would be good to reveal whatever info you have after a lot of people would have invested in his operation based on you recommending him. At what point will you write this off as a total scam and report it to the relevent authorities ?
Most of the information I found has already been provided several times over. I haven't said that i know him personally, but that I know who he is. Repeating it again, I did some research back in April, linked his listed phone numbers to his businesses and ID and satisfied myself who and where he is. Like the other people I have done business with, I did my own research, just like anyone else should have done.
I also think your characterisation of my "recommending" him is overdone, but that might simply be a difference of opinion/interpretation. I've seen that accusation made several times, but not sure where it stems from. I considered the PPT series of assets an interesting idea when Burt suggested it, but haven't tried to mask the fact that it would at some stage come to an end and people would likely be out of pocket on their investment. Given the timing, I've paid out more on PPT than I should have, and will continue to do so until it is cleaned up one way or another.
I think people assumed the PPT operators had more in depth knowledge of him and some of the stuff in his past should raise some red flags.
I noticed there were some people after liquidity on PPT.A and PPT.B so added some bids at 0.32 to give effect to the insurance for those two bonds.
If pirate continues acting like a douchebag and refuses to pay back anyone are you going to release all the info you have on him ? Youve said in the past you know him personally so it would be good to reveal whatever info you have after a lot of people would have invested in his operation based on you recommending him. At what point will you write this off as a total scam and report it to the relevent authorities ?
Most of the information I found has already been provided several times over. I haven't said that i know him personally, but that I know who he is. Repeating it again, I did some research back in April, linked his listed phone numbers to his businesses and ID and satisfied myself who and where he is. Like the other people I have done business with, I did my own research, just like anyone else should have done.
I also think your characterisation of my "recommending" him is overdone, but that might simply be a difference of opinion/interpretation. I've seen that accusation made several times, but not sure where it stems from. I considered the PPT series of assets an interesting idea when Burt suggested it, but haven't tried to mask the fact that it would at some stage come to an end and people would likely be out of pocket on their investment. Given the timing, I've paid out more on PPT than I should have, and will continue to do so until it is cleaned up one way or another.
I noticed there were some people after liquidity on PPT.A and PPT.B so added some bids at 0.32 to give effect to the insurance for those two bonds.
If pirate continues acting like a douchebag and refuses to pay back anyone are you going to release all the info you have on him ? Youve said in the past you know him personally so it would be good to reveal whatever info you have after a lot of people would have invested in his operation based on you recommending him. At what point will you write this off as a total scam and report it to the relevent authorities ?
I noticed there were some people after liquidity on PPT.A and PPT.B so added some bids at 0.32 to give effect to the insurance for those two bonds.
If pirate continues acting like a douchebag and refuses to pay back anyone are you going to release all the info you have on him ? Youve said in the past you know him personally so it would be good to reveal whatever info you have after a lot of people would have invested in his operation based on you recommending him. At what point will you write this off as a total scam and report it to the relevent authorities ?
If you do a buyback for 0.32 then ofc all the info is gone concerning who had what.
Possibly you could give 0.32 as a dividend and IF P' does eventually payout something - buyback the bonds accordingly.
Not doing it in is some way would give you a very nice profit at the expense of your clients and you arent that type of person.
I know it's a mess as far as the contracts and stuff but we are in an unusual situation.
Or you can put bid walls @0.32, so those who want the liquid btc of the insurance now can sell, knowingly losing the rest if pirate finally pays out. And those who prefer waiting can keep their bonds, hoping for the buy back. That's how usagi is handling YARR...
Thank you for the suggestion - I have put up a buy for 3000 at 0.32 and that should keep people happy as they can choose.
I know that the number that will be sold will be modest as hold quite a few having purchased some during the past few weeks. Anyway, catching up on over-night developments (if any).
good idea.
Can someone explain this massive jump in the daily "Total Output Volume"
http://blockchain.info/charts/output-volume
I asked in the pirate address thread and was told it was irrelevant. Can someone explain this massive jump in the daily "Total Output Volume"
http://blockchain.info/charts/output-volume
What will happen if the insurance is paid and P' eventually does pay out , lets say in 2 weeks?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
No.
I have had this question already and considered it. There are many reasons why the answer is "no" and not many why it should or could be yes. When I was pondering this issue again today I did think that you might be able to provide evidence from a GLBSE account that you were subject of the buy-back, but normally insurances don't pay out twice. Also, if P does eventually pay out, it might not be at full 1.28 value so any payment would be discretionary. Worth checking if/when it happens.
This is why I (and I'm sure others) trust you, you worry about doing right by your investors and don't want to screw anyone. Here's hoping you find a good solution though
What will happen if the insurance is paid and P' eventually does pay out , lets say in 2 weeks?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
No.
I have had this question already and considered it. There are many reasons why the answer is "no" and not many why it should or could be yes. When I was pondering this issue again today I did think that you might be able to provide evidence from a GLBSE account that you were subject of the buy-back, but normally insurances don't pay out twice. Also, if P does eventually pay out, it might not be at full 1.28 value so any payment would be discretionary. Worth checking if/when it happens.
If you do a buyback for 0.32 then ofc all the info is gone concerning who had what.
Possibly you could give 0.32 as a dividend and IF P' does eventually payout something - buyback the bonds accordingly.
Not doing it in is some way would give you a very nice profit at the expense of your clients and you arent that type of person.
I know it's a mess as far as the contracts and stuff but we are in an unusual situation.
Or you can put bid walls @0.32, so those who want the liquid btc of the insurance now can sell, knowingly losing the rest if pirate finally pays out. And those who prefer waiting can keep their bonds, hoping for the buy back. That's how usagi is handling YARR...
Sounds good
What will happen if the insurance is paid and P' eventually does pay out , lets say in 2 weeks?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
No.
I have had this question already and considered it. There are many reasons why the answer is "no" and not many why it should or could be yes. When I was pondering this issue again today I did think that you might be able to provide evidence from a GLBSE account that you were subject of the buy-back, but normally insurances don't pay out twice. Also, if P does eventually pay out, it might not be at full 1.28 value so any payment would be discretionary. Worth checking if/when it happens.
If you do a buyback for 0.32 then ofc all the info is gone concerning who had what.
Possibly you could give 0.32 as a dividend and IF P' does eventually payout something - buyback the bonds accordingly.
Not doing it in is some way would give you a very nice profit at the expense of your clients and you arent that type of person.
I know it's a mess as far as the contracts and stuff but we are in an unusual situation.
Or you can put bid walls @0.32, so those who want the liquid btc of the insurance now can sell, knowingly losing the rest if pirate finally pays out. And those who prefer waiting can keep their bonds, hoping for the buy back. That's how usagi is handling YARR...
What will happen if the insurance is paid and P' eventually does pay out , lets say in 2 weeks?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
No.
I have had this question already and considered it. There are many reasons why the answer is "no" and not many why it should or could be yes. When I was pondering this issue again today I did think that you might be able to provide evidence from a GLBSE account that you were subject of the buy-back, but normally insurances don't pay out twice. Also, if P does eventually pay out, it might not be at full 1.28 value so any payment would be discretionary. Worth checking if/when it happens.
If you do a buyback for 0.32 then ofc all the info is gone concerning who had what.
Possibly you could give 0.32 as a dividend and IF P' does eventually payout something - buyback the bonds accordingly.
Not doing it in is some way would give you a very nice profit at the expense of your clients and you arent that type of person.
I know it's a mess as far as the contracts and stuff but we are in an unusual situation.
What will happen if the insurance is paid and P' eventually does pay out , lets say in 2 weeks?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
Will there be any way to pay the difference?
No.
I have had this question already and considered it. There are many reasons why the answer is "no" and not many why it should or could be yes. When I was pondering this issue again today I did think that you might be able to provide evidence from a GLBSE account that you were subject of the buy-back, but normally insurances don't pay out twice. Also, if P does eventually pay out, it might not be at full 1.28 value so any payment would be discretionary. Worth checking if/when it happens.
Jump to: