Topic: Bitcoin Savings and Trust is probably a Ponzi Scheme: A Petition - page 9. (Read 25616 times)

The people that are heavily invested in the pirate and his derivatives will defend their position to the death and  most others will defend the the other(ponzi) direction ( or else they would feel stupid in not investing in this).

Whatever the truth is the pirate must be smiling from ear to ear while reading this thread ....

Nice link. To quote one particularly relevant paragraph:

Red Flag No. 4: Cheaper to borrow

Doing business the Madoff way was expensive. He returned about 12 percent a year to investors, and this percentage was his cost of doing business. Madoff could have borrowed money at a much cheaper rate, and then done any trading and investing that he chose and could have kept all the profits for himself. This red flag is so obvious that it’s hard to believe Markopolos is the only person who figured it out.

I don't know why anyone is even bothering to argue about this. Investments that aren't illegal or ponzi's have basic disclosures of activity. Show me where any of these disclosures are for any of the investments in Bitcoin? I'd say at this point 100% of the so-called investment schemes in Bitcoin are ponzi-like.

Vladimir's the only person I know so far (let me know if anyone else has done this for investments as I'm not sure how many others there are) who's actually taken things to the next level and gotten a formal investment disclosure in place for the ASIC bunker. This is the kind of crap that reflects poorly on all of us. Nobody talks about how the value of Bitcoin has risen since inception. Nobody talks about Bitcoin's usability. They talk about all the retarded, repeated scams and gullible suckers who will defend their investments in shady and opaque operations "because bitcoin".

We've had mining operators run out with the hardware or others claim that they got stolen, we've had online wallets claim to be hacked, we've got downright ponzis pretend to be arbitrage only to build half-assed arbitrage after-the-fact in order to save face. I've said this before during the BitScalper fiasco and I'll say it again:

Do we really want to support shady, anonymous and opaque shit as a community? If so, please provide a list of benefits of doing so, because in the world I come from, it only represents risk.

You're missing my point entirely.

You're the one that brought up US-centric, ok? Not me. I was simply explaining to you how these financial systems presently function, and how it's a global system, not a US-centric system.

And I do NOT agree with the present system. Don't shoot the messenger.
Why do you think I support bitcoin? Because it has the very virtues to which you allude––virtues that are decentralized and beyond the 'slimy fingers' of the system, such as a debt-based creation mechanism and governmental regulation.

Irrespective of any monetary ideal or the way things ought to be, there's a point where language and terminology does matter, simply to make sure we're all in agreement. You can't change definitions of words willy-nilly and expect to be taken seriously.

What if I agree to sell you ten apples, but I only deliver nine pears? When you object, can I claim you're wrong because I call this fruit an apple and this quantity ten? Sorry, but there are no refunds. These are apples whether you like it or not.

Try altering the meanings of the operands in a math equation and see what happens. Or try it with a programming language.

The only risk is getting away empty handed, like all of you say.
You really think any of the depositors is not aware of that and doesn't accept it?
It's not like he's taking money right and left from any sucker on this forum, because he isn't...

Actually, I had a specific citation in mind for that claim, and when I went to get it, I realized that I had misread it. I retract my claim about any claimed lack of risk. However, I don't think anyone has any idea what the risks are.

If that's true, that's coming from secret information that hasn't been shared with others. So far as I know, nobody but Pirate has any idea what the risks are.

That's typical of many Ponzi schemes. That was, for example, exactly what people said about those how criticized Madoff. http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2012/02/red-flags-pointed-directly-to-madoff/

Who claimed lack of risk, Joel? You?
Don't go around putting words on other peoples mouths.
I'm pretty sure that any of Pirate's depositors is well aware of the risks(and accepts them) and doesn't need you fear mongers to tout it around relentlessly...
The fact is: Most people with a vested interest in whatever scheme Pirate runs don't feel the need to ask or spread FUD about it, so why should any of you feel that need? Butthurt?

What are these other things that can explain the situation? Because I don't know of any. Other than a Ponzi scheme or demented charity, I know of no way to explain the rate of the return and the claimed lack of risk.

I don't deny that it's possible that it's something I cannot think of. In fact, I think it's more likely than not that it's something so strange that I haven't thought of it. But it's not like there are other possible explanations out there. Right now, it's simply unexplained.

Fixed that shit for you...

Attack me all you want, but don't say no one warned you that Pirate is running a ponzi scheme.

[Edited to remove unnecessary sarcasm and invective.]

Completely ignorant comment and therefore
irrelevant in the context of bitcoin.

Basic securities law doesn't differ that much from domicile to domicile, and my comment applies to most major financial jurisdictions. I've worked in many countries including Hong Kong, Cayman Islands, Switzerland, and other financial hubs, and their respective laws are all very similar to those of the United States. In fact, this applies to most countries without much deviation. There are differences here and there (Dodd-Frank, Basel accords, etc), and even differences like Napoleonic law versus English Common law, but overall, the basic foundations of securities laws are the same. Simply put, you have to prove you're not lying about what you're doing with other people's money. That's pretty basic stuff.

I'm not a lawyer.

And we're starting to veer into pointless minutiae.

Nah, I would settle pressuring Pirate to have his business audited by a trusted third party. It shocks me that people are investing in him without this.

Remember, it is not our position to prove that he is a Ponzi - it's his job to prove that he's not.

...unless you live in the US. In the US, as long as you can demonstrate that you had a good-faith reason to believe what you said, no one can do anything to you. This would most certainly qualify.

Good question. It's typically assumed that bonds can be verified by an independent third party and the issuer can pass an audit, or at least have the proper accounting records to submit to an audit. (Who does the audit is another can of worms.)

I don't follow a strict Wall Street definition of financial terminology and think there ought to be flexibility and creativity in economics (hence my support of bitcoin), but there has to be some way of substantiating someone's claims when it comes to handling other people's money for investment purposes--- or at least a general sense that they are who they say they are, and they're doing what they say they're doing. Once that's established, then it's pretty open. That's my opinion. It's up to the individual.

I'm not an expert on financial instruments.

But based on my understanding of sources such as Wikipedia, a bond is pretty much just a publicly traded loan. I think you're using a very narrow definition of what a bond is, and I don't see anything that makes things like TYGRR-BANK not a bond.

No.  

I and others have offered an opposing interpretation of perceived risk.

That's sufficient for me.

I hope to have made people think about their money and their investments in a more critical way.

Again, people are free to invest however they wish.

Also, I'm attempting to get the bitcoin community to take seriously things such as investments, because the greater level of sophistication and legitimacy we can bring to bitcoin the better.

I know of several prominent firms and individuals that are considering supporting bitcoin in a large way, but are concerned that is may devolve into just another HYIP and laundering currency. Sure, all currencies have that aspect. But Satoshi's ingenuity has given bitcoin a potential greater than its predecessors and competitors.

I think it's very likely a Ponzi scheme.

If you put a gun to my head and asked for a yes or no answer, I'd say yes.

I could be wrong, but whatever it is, it's not what he says it is.

If not a Ponzi scheme, then it's something similarly risky.

The level of risk is not being properly conveyed to the investors.

I don't care if someone runs a pyramid or ponzi scheme, or a fund based on trafficking illicit goods, or whatever––as long as they're upfront about the risk.

Even in those very rare instances when genuine market growth can temporarily sustain such incredible returns, the growth is never sustainable. The risk is in the bubble.

Ponzi? Yeah, probably.

And PPT is what exactly???

We're going in circles now.

I can issue a bond UNI.A, an issuance against Unicorn Notional Investments. But so what? It doesn't mean it's a real bond.

We're really talking about loans.

But moving on, I don't see this debate progressing much further.

JoelKatz explained it all incredibly well.

No one is arguing that you or anyone shouldn't be allowed to invest your money however you see fit.

But it's also perfectly reasonable for one to question an investment that bears the hallmarks of fraud.

Very, very well put. This is the heart of the issue.

I would add a footnote that fraudulent investments, such as ponzi schemes, can actually distort price discovery, which can hurt growth in real terms (vis-a-vis nominal terms), create bubbles, and add undue volatility to monetary velocity.

Same as Madoff. Madoff often didn't accept everybody and frequently told people no. Read the article I linked to.

We have absolutely no verifiable evidence that it is a debt issuance against anything at all. It's a guy asking to borrow money over the internet. You think that's a bond?





Don't question the man behind the curtain.