Topic: [CLOSED] ★ VESCUDERO's Risk-free Weekly Term deposits at 1.5% ★ - page 8. (Read 35057 times)

I assume you had them sign a message with their old payment address?

PM sent.

For security reasons, once a return address has been setup I don't allow changes. Otherwise if a hacker gains access to your bitcointalk account she/he could just ask me to send all your coins from the deposit to an address under her/his control.

Fortunately, there are still some easy ways to get this done safely so with a little more effort we can work it out.

EDIT: Return address has been changed after getting through several security checks.

In other words, you take all the risk but keep only a sliver of the profits. If you have the money to guarantee deposits, why wouldn't you just use the guarantee money instead of paying usurious interest rates? It would be like somebody having $50,000 in a safe while they carry $50,000 on their credit cards. There are two possibilities:

1) You are lying about this, in which case nobody should trust you with their money because you are a liar.

2) You are telling the truth about this, in which case nobody should trust you with their money because your financials decisions are idiotic.

I would like to clarify the concept of my risk-free operation at least a little bit to avoid some confusion.

As any other business, my operation has some implicit risks, risks that I am willing to take in order for me to get higher although variable returns, in exchange for paying out fixed interest rates to my investors. Perhaps, instead of risk-free deposit it might be better described as a guaranteed one.

I am always trying to keep my deposit manageable in terms of size and amount of time I can devote to my investors. The primary reason to put a limit in my deposit is to maintain an adequate balance between the time I can devote to my investors and the time I can devote myself to make good investment decisions and make lending operations to keep my business profitable.

Current weekly interest rate could be and will be adjusted accordingly to this criteria.

Fraud is telling people lies to get them to do something or making promises you know you can't keep.

In my humble opinion, promising people "Risk-free" returns is fraud. Even US Treasury Bills are not "risk free."

Fraud is not at all like gambling. If you love investing in Ponzis, then you love paying people to steal things and give them to you.

The concern is, naive people will be suckered into them, lose a lot of money, which will give Bitcoin a bad name. I'm not convinced that it's true though, especially after pirate. Another reason could be a potential chain collapse of legitimate looking businesses because of these investments. Yesterday I met a person who has lost money to pirate while trying to buy coins cash-in-the-mail, apparently the seller was keeping his stash in pirate. If I were convinced that these are Ponzi schemes, I'd say they are stealing money away from legitimate investments that have real potential to grow Bitcoin. So yes, I think there are enough reasons to care, if you suspect it's a scam.

I don't understand, why do you guys care what other people do with their money? I love investing in ponzi's, great returns, just spread your risk and you are fine, its like gambling, don't play with what you can't afford to lose, simple as that.

Please, I would like that from now you pay me interest to this address:

    14JSnBTpAdhT8QVUaeDanp3HgmkKdoGDDa

Thanks
Greetings



Hola:
Por favor Victor. Te agradecería que a partir de ahora me pagues los intereses a esta dirección:

     14JSnBTpAdhT8QVUaeDanp3HgmkKdoGDDa

Un saludo

PONZI ALERT

You cant prove a ponzi. Claiming something is a ponzi is claiming there is no profit generator. How do you prove a negative? The burden of proof lays with whoever says its not a ponzi, primarily of course with the person taking in the deposits,  since that person is claiming there is a profit generator that can produce 1.5% per week. If he cant prove or at the very least feasibly explain  that profit generator, it has to be assumed a ponzi.

To use a Rumsfeld:  absence of evidence is evidence for a ponzi.

To use another "boutade" (*); Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Being able to consistently produce 1.5% profits per week at no risk is certainly an extraordinary claim.

(*) No idea what the correct english word is here for an overused expression.

Maybe it's a language issue (as I'm not native English speaking), but I would never say "Your wife is cheating on you", unless:
- I had sex with your wife.
OR
- I have seen (prove of) someone else having sex with your wife
OR
- someone I really trust told me "His wife is cheating on him".

Avast (anti-virus) says malware on the personal website (could be a false positive, though they are pretty rare, I cannot tell ).  What is up with that?  Could be an infected advertisement, or hack?

High rate of interest.  Steady high rate of interest.  No business model.

He can, and he did. No other conceivable substantial source is known and this has been true of every similar claim in the past. You don't have to rule out every inconceivable alternative to have proven something. Proof doesn't require omniscience, just reasonable certainty.

In context, it's clear that "only" doesn't rule out the possibility that some miniscule amount occasionally comes from some other source. "Only" can mean the only substantial factor or effect. For example, "Don't argue, you'll only make him mad" doesn't mean that you won't also cause air to vibrate.

There is no difference. When a person makes a claim, they are stating that they believe that claim is true. We understand that people are neither perfect nor omniscient.

If I say "Your wife is cheating on you", every rational person who understands the English language knows that I mean that I have reason to believe their wife is cheating on them. You would not conclude that it must be the case that she is in fact cheating on you. Nor would you believe that I was stating that logical proposition just to bring it up for discussion. The most natural interpretation of "Your wife is cheating on you" is that the speaker has reasons that he believes justify believing that your wife is cheating on you. "I think your wife is cheating on you" says precisely the same thing, just more weakly.

There is absolutely no reason he should weaken his warning. In fact, if he could think of any way to make it stronger, he should do that.

Unless you can prove this, you should not use such statements.
Although I appreciate the fact that you are trying to warn people, you should say: 'I think this is a ponzi' or 'I strongly believe this is a ponzi' or 'If this is not a ponzi, I will give you all my money*', but not 'This is a ponzi'

*In case this turns out not to be a ponzi: 1FortegasBd9B255YygTEYTT7GXFjsfqii

I have seen this line of thinking before.  It is important to understand there is no underlying business unit here - weekly interest only comes from new investment. 

Veescudero's "arbitrage opportunity" is a myth - think about it guys - there is only 1 exchange of any size.

Of course at 1.5% weekly, you would need this to last 67 weeks to recoup your investment...

Not really impossible.. it's just very difficult to do so consistently for more than a few months. I've witnessed first hand much higher rates of return for a 6 month period (then they crashed).

Of course if vescudero stops and returns the funds as soon as his arbitrage opportunity disappears, or his trading strategy stops working, assuming the last batch of losses himself, then this can work well for him as a reputation-building exercise. If he expects to do this indefinitely... then it'll probably end up as a ponzi, especially if he tries to cover any losses with more deposits.


So far I've received interest for 3 weeks,  am quite happy with this and think that it's legit. But caution is always advisable.

Mining bonds are expected to decrease in value over time, so this offsets the high interest payments.  They are also exposed to risks like new mining technologies becoming available.

Pirate did this too.

Straight from the Bernard L. Madoff playbook. "Not accepting new accounts/deposits at this time."