Topic: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" - page 53. (Read 119665 times)

All Ponzis fail eventually

I'm more convinced that Pirate is running a legitimate outfit than I am that it's a scam. How it works is close to how the management of precious metals functions in traditional markets, but less complex. I think that's why Pirate has stated a rapid rise in BTC exchange value would be a threat to BS&T. It might even be viewable as a reverse Ponzi, drawing from other pools of wealth like the USD to enrich Bitcoin holders...

If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. As for fiscal prudence, I have nowhere near my full Bitcoin holdings involved with BS&T and wouldn't recommend that anyone else go whole hog either.

I also think it's become easy to have strong suspicions about virtually any investment opportunity when the very foundations of the current financial system have become thoroughly fraudulent. That said, I won't invest in much of anything dollar or Euro based.

I don't think he's seeking new deposits so much as compromising on the referral entry barrier. With so much demand and the additional layer of counterparty risk involved with the PPT offerings, there are probably a good number of investors whom would prefer to deposit directly with Pirate even if the rate is lower. That also takes some of the pressure off Pirate at the top tier rates.

There are quite a few who have a direct FPS&T account from before it went referral only.

Startups are completely honest about the fact that they are very high risk investments. The majority of startups fail.

So, that was it then? It was only a setup so that you can propose a bet that cannot make you lose any money? If someone takes your bet, you only have to also put 100 BTC into pirateat40 fund at the same time: you'll either win because pirateat40 defaults (you'll get the 100 BTC from your opponent + the interests you got from pirateat40 in the meantime) or win because he doesn't default and you can take your principal back and have multiplied it by a large amount even after you lose the bet.

In fact, you're proposing to buy a 200 BTC insurance against pirateat40 default, for a cost of 100 BTC, valid until the end of 2013, at which date you would have made much more than that. Clever.

I must admit that I'm a little disappointed. I thought you were playing the white knight here, while you were just setting up the atmosphere needed to propose this bet.

Okay, so apparently he paid out 26000BTC in interest last week.

If you had a bitcoin business that was able to produce >1.3 Million BTC per year, would you give such a large chunk of it away?
If he's really making such stellar returns, why is he still seeking new deposits?

Besides, if he was making profit equal to 16% of the entire currency (so far) per year, I'm fairly sure we'd be able to track down somebody he's done business with.

Not necessarily.

Facebook was a derivative of prior social networks. Pirate's operation is a derivative of other financial business models, not necessarily a Ponzi. The early growth patterns are similar, rapidly building an increasing share of their respective markets.

Initial investment in either would return enormous profit (not the FB IPO). Whether it's through capital gains or a huge dividend, the result is the same; we're just accustomed to the "normal" pattern of dividends being paid after the explosive growth phase.

Literally any business could be loosely compared to a Ponzi. A startup begins, grows rapidly until it encounters competition or the limits of its market, then slows or stops growing. The difference is that finance doesn't actually produce anything to support itself with once it hits the limit.

So did Mark Zuckerberg borrow money and pay out 3,000+% interest per year to his lenders?

Just by the way, and it has been said already early on in this thread, if somebody indeed establishes the unlikely ultra-high-yield business, he does not borrow money and distribute the gains. He keeps it for himself.

If pirateat40 had a business that yields 3,300% a year, he could invest one bitcoin and then earn 10 million bitcoins in 4.5 years. Of course he could also invest BTC 10,000 and earn 10 million bitcoins in just under two years. Why would he borrow money from others and give them the gain? Because he's such a good, altruistic person, of course.

Never mind that 10 million bitcoins do not even exist yet.

1)  I live in Vegas
2)  it requires an almost Catholic amount of denial to compare IBM with Pirate's ponzi scheme
3)  what do you believe is Pirate's business unit that makes so much money?

Bitcoin still has no major legal precedents set. Because it is significantly different from traditional monetary systems, it may prove difficult to apply existing rulings without changes being made to them.


Yes, the contractor is the subject. What seems to be the case with claw backs is that workers hired by the contractor are being targeted as well, at least in regard to BS&T.

If the perpetrator has a proven history, responsibility can be broken down into the risk of participating from the victim's perspective based on available information, and the actual commission of the act by the criminal. As you pointed out, there is no getting off the hook for an act of aggression, but there is a subjective scale of sentiment for the victim.


Exactly, remuneration. But in the context of Bitcoin, how are the claw backs accomplished if the individuals cannot be physically forced to give up their part? Also, how is ownership of a Bitcoin address proven any more than the user of an IP address?


I hadn't seen that part.

Care to make a 100 BTC wager with me that we will escrow to a person we mutually agree upon that BCST will default by the end of 2013?  I love free BTC! 

possible scenario how this helps him / connection to shill account theory too:

-- Pirateat40 sets up 10 latops on 10 VPNs with 10 BTC wallets and 10 bitcointalk.org forum accounts, creating them over time / maybe a few at the same time but spreading out sign up dates
-- He posts his BS scheme, talks the slick-talk about how he has super-trading margin lending fake whathaveyous
-- now he can fake 10 initial "investors" with block-chain verifiable deposits to his scheme. 
-- those future 7% interest payments cost him nothing as well, he's just sending the btc back to himself.  but you all see it in the blockchain as interest paid
-- credibility builds, use shill accounts to say how great it is / invite others into "trust accounts" and whatnot. 

Is that an attempt at humor? Or did you *totally* miss the point?

again you guys can't help but make my point.  Pirateat40 needs to have a Facebook-level operation to pay this type of interest.

I don't think it makes any difference what thing of value was exchanged, whether currency or commodity. If you think it makes a difference, please explain why.

As for the onus being on the client to perform due diligence, that does not mean what you think it means. If I hire a contractor to do work on my house, it's my responsibility to do due diligence to make sure I hire a reliable contractor. But if he sets my house on fire, he can't respond, "It was your responsibility to make sure I was a good contractor". That's just silly. That a victim's stupidity made him easy to victimize is only relevant if the question is how much we should feel sorry for the victim and how much we should hate the perpetrator. It doesn't change the victim's right to restitution or the wrongness of the exploitation of the victim. (It's just as bad to rob an idiot as a genius.)

If you kill my cow, you are not expected to resurrect the cow to return to me. You are expected to pay me the value of the cow. The same thing will happen here. If people who were the beneficiaries of fraudulent transfers can be identified, they can be subject to claw backs.

Quite the reverse, charities have historically been major victims of Ponzi schemes, just as they were here. The charity here was subject to a claw back.

Joel - I need help identifying possible shill forum accounts.  I run a 1M+ post poker forum and have since 2004 and understand characteristics of shills and dupes.  I need community members that have been around for a long time here to look through the now locked BCST thread and see if you can identify low post-count users that basically always just suck off Pirate40 and say how great he is and always enthusiastically report their interest was paid.  

Can you or anyone else help me try and identify shills?  I would bet even money they are out there in most of these Ponzi investment threads...

So now you're just old and stupid? Sad.

Tell Mark Zuckerberg there are no investments that return 3000%+ per year.

This applies to a different legal and monetary system than what has applied to Bitcoin so far. In another jurisdiction, the onus may be placed on the client to perform due diligence.

And how would profits be forcibly returned? What if off-blockchain transactions were conducted that broke the chain of ownership? We'd end up discussing taint again.

Also, something good coming from a Ponzi?

1)  My words may have been a bit harsh.  There is a good chance you do not understand the damage you are causing and do not believe what you are doing is wrong.  If you DO know what you doing is wrong, and do it any way to make a small profit then yes I stand by my statement and hate your core being.  I am extremely passionate about scamming / scammers because it happened to me when I was younger / stupider.  I try to tell as many others that will listen what 33 yr old me would have said to 27 yr old me to make me spot the scam as early as possible.

2) I do not consider the possibility I am wrong about this matter.  There is no legit Investment vehicle that returns 3000%+ per year.  Please do not trust me on this matter - ask anyone with a degree in economics.  Ask any accountant you know.  Ask any banker, any stock broker, any CBOE bond trader, google it - seek your own information about this very important point and understand then why I can be so certain.