It would have made it impossible for them to ensure that any payments from Pirate on their deposits go to those depositors the contract specified it would go to.
Yes, good. That's exactly what I wanted: payb.tc to take himself out of the loop entirely. But instead of becoming more transparent, he insists on becoming opaque and functioning as a smokescreen for pirate. Conveniently for him, it also keeps everyone from finding out whether or not he is the recipient of ill-gotten gains.
The other depositors shouldn't have any say in what is a matter between payb.tc, pirate, and myself. This isn't a class-action suit, shareholder meeting, jury, or negotiating committee.
Say you and I are the sole depositors in a PPT and we each have 1 BTC invested. Say I'm next in line for a payout and so I'm contractually entitled to the next 1 BTC paid by Pirate on the 2 BTC we have deposited.
Thank you, that is an excellent thought experiment and helps clarify exactly where/why our opinions differ.
To answer your apposite questions:
What purpose could providing that information to Pirate possibly serve other than to allow him to pay you directly?
Providing that information disintermediates payb.tc, dissolving BitcoinMax as a crucial first step in the post-default wind-down. Just as the Madoff feeder funds were eliminated prior to the consequent clawback/settlement phases.
Pirate (acting in the capacity of his own trustee of assets) needs to see how much each account has received to avoid sending anyone ill-gotten gains.
His lawyer insists on this!Besides, Pirate should be paying me directly for several reasons. 1. to avoid the third party risk of payb.tc withholding funds (for whatever reason). 2. so I may negotiate a settlement. 3. so I may take action against him without his using the PPT as a shield or dodge.
how does that not defraud me of my contractual right to that first payment?
Prior to default, that *would* defraud you of that right. But, after the default the contractual obligations no longer apply. That's why it's called a "default," that's what "default" means. Your contractual right to that first payment died with the default. It's gone and it's never coming back.
Now a different set of rules applies.
How can a PPT operator go along with a scheme whole sole purpose seems to be to enable Pirate to defraud his customers out of their contractually guaranteed rights to payments on the collective deposits?
Again, the contractually guaranteed rights to payments on the collective deposits you speak of are...
...not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This PPT is no more! It has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! He's f*ckin' snuffed it!..... THIS IS AN EX-PPT!!
The operator doesn't need to go along with anything once the default is announced, except for what is necessary to dissolve the PPT and allow the trustee and depositors to continue the processes of clawback and settlement.