Topic: [BitFunder] Graet.Loan - Paying 0.05% interest daily - page 15. (Read 53018 times)

Still no reply from Graet? I hope everything is ok.

I hope everything ok his last post was that one. I too would like to see his answers to that.

Supposedly the process to refund is just to contact Graet himself and trade him shares for btc. Though with his surgery and stuff lately people are probably selling under .01 because they don't want to wait for him and they just want their BTC asap.

Why is it that people sell lower than .01/share?  What exactly is the process to get a refund at face value?  Are they just people that want their bitcoin ASAP?

Wish you a speedy recovery.  Would like to see some answer to the concerns raised by Deprived.

Thanks.

Hope your doing great now, Graet. 

Btw, hate to bring this up now, but, do you have a Deathswitch?

sorry, had surgery yesterday (thus been away from internet > 24 hours)
I will address these questions when the anaesthetic is more worn off
Graet

I actually messaged Graet about this before seeing this thread but has not gotten any response back yet.

This whole thing (copy-pasted with error that is not being fixed for days after being pointed out) looks very fishy to be honest, and a lot of money is involved in this.

Two things about that statement by him :

1.  It was just part of what he copied/pasted from namworld's contract - as with all copy/pastes there can be no certainty to what extent the person using someone else's contract actually understands/means what it says.
2.  Not tied to the success of any business means that what he pays you doesn't change based on how well his businesses do.  It doesn't mean that he doesn't have businesses that he expects to make the profit.

What's missing is an unambiguous statement that the funds will be used and kept predominantly BTC-denominated.  The two most risky forms of loans are:

1.  Ones that are taken to invest in someone else's higher-rate paying investment (see pirate).  These ones default if/when the underlying investment turns out to be a scam.  That is NOT the case here.
2.  Ones that are taken to be converted into a different currency for use.  The usual culprit here is loans taken denominated in BTC that are then converted for use into USD.  These default when BTC rises sharply vs USD - as even if the USD-denominated business is very profitable it still can't support the debt at the higher rate.  Examples of this include Bakewell, loads of loans on BTCjam, various other mining outfits (e.g. BTC-Mining in my view) and failed businesses that believe or claim to be BTC-denomnated whilst actually having high USD exposure (e.g. Ziggap).

There's no assurance that 2. isn't the case here.  The funds are for use in some of his businesses - but are they going to remain BTC-denominated?  If not (or if the businesses aren't already profitable) then some assurance should really be provided that he has BTC-denominated assets sufficient to repay the principal in the event the businesses do badly and/or BTC rises sharply vs USD (or whatever currency the loans will be converted to).

I'm only aware of three other ongoing offers comparable to this one:

Namworld's one - which pays a lower rate, isn't currently looking to raise more funds and provides a spreadsheet showing current BTC-denominated assets well in excess of the bond capital.
TradeFortress' loans service - a higher rate than this and used for BTC-denominated loans.
My own bond (which you won't know about as although it's denominated in BTC it's traded in LTC so in the alt section) - which pays a higher rate, is NOT currently selling more and is backed by BTC-denominated assets exceeding loan capital AND by LTC-denominated assets exceeding loan capital.

The key point is that all three hold (or at least claim to hold - outside viewers can't be certain) BTC-denominated assets matching or exceeding the owed capital.  I don't know how much TF's one has in debt - but I know Namworld and mine are both significantly smaller (mine's paused at 250 BTC for now).

If the capital is being used for speculative purposes (e.g. to develop businesses that currently show little/no profit) then that is NOT a problem - so long as he has BTC-denominated assets able to be realised to cover the debt if necessary,  Some assurance on that point would be good.

Am I the only one thinking that this is a scam? Yes, he does appear to have good references, but still, he is requesting a loan currently worth around 225,000 USD or 2,000 BTC. It says that it is not tied to any business being successful or not, so how on earth is he going to raise 0.05% or 112 USD per day starting right away?

For all who did not realize, 0.05% per day is 18.25% per year, which seems somewhat high.

Nope. Not interested in paying more. If people want to switch, I'll just buyback their bonds as per contract.

So will BTC-BOND up its interest now that there's competitor?

 

By the way:
That should be 10 USD per BTC I believe.

just took some shares....will take a bit more if still available in a few weeks when i'm around my cold storage

This also appears to be a good option for rolling the dividends of other ventures. Hadn't heard of CoinLenders, I'll look into it.

I know this is off topic (but it kind of is on topic) - doesn't CoinLenders require a minimum investment of 1btc (off the top of my head, been a while since I looked)? This allows for 0.01.

Nice offering. To those asking about a PT.. Why more counterparty risk? Spend five minuted making an account.

By the way, CoinLenders currently pays out more than this.

Excited to get into this .

add a 0 but it looks like yes .000005

from reading bitfunder there is no 1% fee to buy only sell. does that 1% fee apply to refunds like you intend?

No need to a PT, someone could just open a similar bond and then back it with Graet's shares if they like.