Topic: A day in the life of a pirate. - page 2. (Read 31744 times)

Give us your best guess of how many BTC pirate currently owes.

My guess here would be that his customers need more than 330 BTC
In other words: the demand for credit is probably growing.

Depends entirely on the risk. But thats not the point here. If pirate can consistently turn 10 BTC in to more than 330BTC per year, then why does he need to keep lending?  It would make sense in the beginning, but by now he should be filthy rich and sitting on a gigantic mountain of bitcoins and so youd expect him at the very least to decrease his debt and therefore lending costs, but he is only increasing it further.

Im not saying these are proof of pirate running a ponzi, but you were posting those reasons why you think its NOT a ponzi. At least let me show why none of those reasons have any value.  You might as well have listed "Pirate says its not a Ponzi".


Like I said, Madoff did the EXACT same thing. You couldnt get in without "invite".
That he refuses to accept new depositors also makes complete sense, it makes life easier for him, but its not like his is limiting the inflow of coins, which is the only thing that matters for a ponzi.


There is nothing unfair about it.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Being able to generate to 3300 or whatever % interest per year on an arbitrary amount of money certainly qualifies as extraordinary in my book.  But if Pirate is legit, why would he even care, Im sure he would be getting a good laugh out of these threads.

P4Man wasn't implying Pirate is running a Ponzi, he was merely refuting the arguments given by ErebusBat with counter examples.

I'm not saying Pirate is running a Ponzi either. In fact, a large portion of my Bitcoin holdings a re on the line stating otherwise. However, I cannot be certain he isn't running a Ponzi scheme based on the information he has released. In the end it all boils done to trust and the risk/reward ratio.

This discussion is really sounding like a broken record though

Not to be rude to a senior forum member, but.....

Just saying "I think he is running a ponzi because if I twist all of these statements around in this way then he *could* be doing it...."

Also comparing his knowledge of forex to madoff is like saying: "A local plumber brutally killed his wife today, therefore the police are arresting all plumbers because they might be murders"

Also if I said limiting deposits I meant to say limiting DEPOSITORS.  And yes he is... I know of someone with a large amount of coin that has been looking for an invite, and yet more stories of people who have given out invites to people who have still not gotten in.

I am not defending pirate, what I am saying is that it is unfair to take things and twist them to how they are not to come up with some big conspiracy scheme.

On the other hand, if you need thousands of bitcoins for a week or so to conduct some kind of business, and you don't want, or can't, buy them on the market - where are you going to get them from? Borrowing is the only option. And borrowing of course means: paying interests.

Which in your opinion is the proper level of interest for lending bitcoins?
You think that 10%/week is too much and there are no people who would be willing to borrow at such a high interest... right?
The thing is that nobody cares what you think in this matter, because it's not you, but the economy (demand & supply of the credit) that drives the interest rates.

Look around. There is an open offer in the lending section Offering relatively large, short loans at 1.5% interest per day.
After one guy commented sarcastically "Generous of you to offer 23,000% APR loans...", the answer was simple: "Such is the state of bitcoin lending".

Since I don't know the pirate in person, I cannot be 100% convinced that he doesn't run a ponzi.
But I strongly believe that such a level of interest rates is indeed the current state of bitcoin lending.
And if what I believe is true, why would he need/want to run a ponzi? It would be just dangerous for him, and simply stupid.
I mean, after all they arrested and sentenced Madoff for 150 year of jail, haven't they?

Hm?
Why isnt he just revealing it?


Does he really? There are a gazillion pass through bonds and other schemes that funnel money to Pirate. Ive not seen any one of those refusing new deposits. It doesnt look to me like he is reducing his holdings. BTW, Madoff also tried hard to give the impression of not wanting to accept everyone's money and making it look like a privilege.


Surely not as much Madoff.


Thats what he says. If you were running a ponzi, it makes perfect sense to spread that kind of disinformation.


Took a while before they snatched Madoff. That said, Im not even sure if it would be illegal with bitcoins.


So he says. Ive yet to see anyone step forward and say they do the same independently . Most other high yielding investments seem to be all about funneling money to pirate.

I don't really want this to turn into a scooby-doo thread, but:

The reason I say locality is because pirate has stated before that others have approached him with the same/similar idea of what he is doing and because they are in differing areas they would not affect each other.  A mystery fur-sure but I don't think it helps.

As I said in another thread I suspect that Pirate's clients might have spread the word around in their business circles about Bitcoin's usefulness. That would explain the local concentration of them.

He could be simply staying at home, using the internet/phone to conduct business with his clients.

He might as well be flying around the country to meet his clients, this way there would be no locality issue.

He is in Texas. My completely facetious and equally valid opinion is that BP is recovering the oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill and selling it, but using Pirate to launder the money to prevent public backlash and avoid having to pay it towards environmental reclamation.

As I posted in another thread, I believe this is correct as well. However what I haven't figured out is how there is so much local volume. If there are many users, how are they so conveniently near him? And, if only one or 2 users, what are they doing with so much money?

I find it funny when people are sure that pirate must be doing something illegal (drug money laundering and ponzi being the two most popular).

I have some questions for you to ask yourself on any theory you, or anyone else, has on pirates operation:

Why doesn't pirate try to hide is real identity?
Because other than the general 'crazies on the internet' problem, he doesn't need to.

Why doesn't he move OUTSIDE the USA?
I would venture to say that since 9/11 the US is probably one of the most monetary hostile countries one could do business in.  With all the AML laws and such they can come in and shut you down in a heartbeat.  If they can link it to terrorism (which isn't hard if they want to) then you don't even get due process.

Why would he risk running such an illegal operation with that risk?  Look at what they did to the BetOnSports guy.... diverted his plane INTO the US then arrested him. 

Why does he limit deposits? 
*If* he were running a ponzi then the more depositors the better.
And as piotr_n pointed out *If* it were drugs then pirate is probably not anywhere near capacity.

"Well if you are so smart then what do *you* think pirate does?"
Honestly I don't know.  And I don't have a problem saying I don't know.  But here is what I believe to be true:

• He has Forex experience
• At least some portion of his business requires locality and face-to-face type transactions
• Despite what others say I don't believe his actions fit a ponzi
• If he were really doing something massively illegal the US could, and would, come in and snatch him in a heartbeat
• He is not thinking 'inside the box'
• He is not alone in what he does, as a few others that he is aware of have also started similar operations
• Maybe the next PetRock ?

I believe that the biggest threat to BS&T is the US GOVT, but not because pirate is doing anything illegal.  We all know that they are not happy with bitcoins worth and growth.  Given the major playor that pirate is in the bitcoin economy I believe they will, when they are ready, sweep in and take it down to 1) attempt disruption and 2) make an example out of pirate.

It would be funny if pirate setup an automated system offshore that would auto cash-out all of the accounts in the event he gets arrested, but that would probably make point #2 harder on him

But 50k BTC is only a few kilos of coke - I believe the weekly consumption is far, far larger all around the world.
And then add all the other drugs that need to be bought in bulk and re-distributed in retail... 50k BTC is probably still too short to cover all the needs of the business
And don't worry: the big drug business is pretty much owned by CIA, so it does have a future...

Just the passthrough listings on GLBSE are around 50k bitcoins. That doesn't include the Pirate passthroughs in the lending section, or people who actually have deposited directly with Pirate.

Everyone assumes there's a risk of default because of paying out 7%.
If the deposits are 10000 bitcoins, then that would be only 700 bitcoins. There are plenty who make a lot more than that pr week. People speak of how much it is pr year, compounded - but that's assuming that he takes on deposits all the time. Even if he does increase his operation, it might be by less or more than these 7%, so there's no backing for such an argument, unless you know the numbers involved.

I apologise for mis-representing your comment.  I also know that you diversify your own funds.

My exposure to PPT is probably just 640 coins that I have lodged in the insurance fund, so that would take me to maybe 25% if I wanted to count it up.
What I was saying is that my decision would be to not invest that additional block of coins directly in Pirate's BS&T, because even thought it might return the same percentage, it needs to have some other elements factored into it.

I suppose the other issue is if you believe all of BS&T deposits are equal.

Here's the actual quote: