Topic: Bryan Micon's List of BTC Ponzi Schemes that should not be listed as "Lending" - page 9. (Read 119654 times)

Read over the statement. I don't think it does. I'm not saying all investments are equal. I'm saying we've seen obviously absurdly bad investments that people have taken seriously and been willing to invest in. I believe that indicates a serious problem in the community.

There is nothing inherently different in those two. Either of them could be perfectly legitimate if there's transparency. Both of them are bad investments if there's not. Investors should be careful with both such business plans.

What exceptions are there to the rule that an investment with no transparency or that promises suspicious return relative to risk is almost certainly a scam? (Or, in the rare case where there really does seem to be an unusually good business plan, must at least be evaluated with extremely heightened suspicion to ensure it's not a scam.)

Is that what Clipse was doing all along to make his pool pay?

After all his rudeness on his thread about how we just didn't understand his business plan he was investing his miners' funds in a probable ponzi?

Surprisingly hilarious. Thoroughly entertaining.

Came to hear what Matthew had to say, stayed for Crazier Mike. (Old man cranky call-in.)  

Whenever you start echoing when you talk to a caller on the phone, ask the caller to mute the podcast or kill their speakers for the duration of the call.

Information can be anything. I am looking for evidence. For example, this dumbfuck "mem" is in his gambling thread right now trying to convince me and the world that he has an article where it is mentioned that I am 17 years old (obviously ridiculous) and yet refuses to provide the evidence. This is no different than saying you "know" it's a ponzi. This intellectually lazy mentality is destroying our community. I am aware it walks like a duck, but I have reason to believe it's a chicken with big floppy feet. 

Damn I forgot to ask you this Matt - did you think I was one of the guys that "didn't have enough info to convict" because I went the 100% it's a scam line?

You should add Clipse to this list. He took the money from bonus pool and invested it with pirate without telling anyone or increasing payouts. At least people who invested with pirate knew the risks and got paid for it. He owes me about 90 btc, which was a good chunk of change when I requested payment. To me, this kind of behavior is far worse then selling pirate bonds.

QFT. This should be everyone's signature from now on to remind them of the time they lost $50,000USD to Matthew.

Wow, I remember when MNW first appeared on the forums but I somehow thought he himself forgot that, lol. A +1 to MNW and recommended hearing.

2 hours???

Matt Wright was on the show at the beginning -->  we talk Pirate, Ponzi, his giant bet

http://www.donkdown.com/donkdown-radio-bitcoin-magazine-matt-pirateat40-ponzi-poker-is-skill-it-wasnt-just-bad-luck-all-these-years-crazier-mike/

Quite possible that Micon is actually dumber than George W as well, and I don't say that lightly.

In general, the two main reasons for a company to issue public stock are:

1) To raise capital without having to put cash flow at risk or at better rates than you could otherwise get with an unsecured loan.

2) To establish a consensus value for your company to allow investors to cash out when that meets their personal financial goals without having to find private buyers, go through due diligence, and so on.

OR sometimes the insiders want to reduce risk(to their wealth) and cash in and put some real(not paper) money in the bank. Look at Google- IPO'd for $100, go check what the market thinks it's worth now.

I do like debt(check my responses in D&T's loan thread) as a way to gain capital, but issuing equity(instead of debt) allows a company to weather a down turn much more easily than with large amounts of debt.

I do concede your general premise isn't a bad way to think, but it's certainly not always the case. Remember, diversity(in a portfolio) is the only free lunch.

Also at 7pm PST (in about 2 hrs) I'm going to do a DonkDown radio podcast about the Pirate Ponzi

If I understand you correctly, this is inaccurate, as some borrowers (we were debating vescudero) say they guarantee deposits. They may or may not be lying, but that still makes your statement invalid. Guaranteed pass-throughs ran by anonymous parties are uniformly paying out of their pockets because of the default, what "reality" makes them obey the contract which somehow excludes a known individual?

My other point is, what is the difference between these business descriptions:

• lending out to other borrowers, investing in short term opportunities and investing in other bitcoin projects
• buying and mining with 10 BFL Single's and preordering 10 more Single SC's

Both have the same potential to be a scam. If you would support a bias towards the second one, the effect would be nothing more than making the scammers pick that method instead.

All I'm saying is, your point is less convincing when presented as clear-cut. Even though the basic reasoning is sound, the dismissive approach will continue to lose effectiveness as exceptions to the "rule" increases.


Okay, there may be a collective unconscious thing going on, but I'm not so sure. If we are to avoid a centralized authority AND do business with people we can't pose a physical threat to, it seems to me that short of independent audits and a transparent checklist (rather than a rating maybe?) will be totally ineffective.

My opinion may not have merit, but I haven't seen this perspective presented before, so there.



If you think your comment is anything but redundant, you're as delusional as the ponzi investors.

prolly the giant pirate wallet:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1dkybekt5s2gdtv7aqw6rqepavnsryhoym-94675

Added some emphasis. IPO-ing for a fair price as an established company is stupid as you can loan cheaply instead of selling equity. IPO-ing when the market highly overvalues the business however is great

Liquidity.  Especially during the growth phase.  Last time I check you can't eat a share certificate.

Pirate has effectively defaulted. He failed to pay lenders/depositors at the time he said he would, even with full knowledge of the agreement. Goat's announcement is probably called for, for those who don't keep up on all this drama.

With that said, Goat has a lot of financial incentive to buy his bonds on the market at their current price if he's not worried about Pirate, and I know a bunch of lenders have been enjoying Goat's PPT bonds in the panic (at least for now).

Dude there is a big difference between not investing and starting a fucking crusade.

Every big IPO on the stock market is a scam (why else would the current owners (insiders) sell? And don't say capital because every large business can loan the money quite cheaply). Do you see me posting this on every forum? No, I just don't buy IPOs.