Topic: Closing - page 3. (Read 20643 times)

If it's used to purchase debt as previously indicated, how could that liquidity exist?  Why would they pay this kind of interest to sit on cash?

Obsi, can you do a simple liquidity test of your client(s) by simply withdrawing all your investors cash and converting it back to BTC?

Giving it a 99.9% chance of success and having it default tomorrow wouldn't necessarily make him a liar, but it would lead to a lot of accusations that he was nonetheless.  Giving it less than 50% chance could kill liquidity and screw investors who are already in, which would also lead to accusations of one sort or another.  Giving it more than 50% chance would probably redouble the ponzi accusations.  My point is this question is loaded whether you mean for it to be or not.  Unfortunately, "high risk" doesn't give us a percent, but it does mean "high risk" and that information has already been provided.

giving it a greater than 50 percent.  chance to succeed wouldn't make him a liar if it defaults. and I do mean anyone investing now

Even if he had firm reason to believe this operation wouldn't default, answering this question would leave people calling him a liar if it did.  Moreover, even if he could predict the future and expected the operation to default at a given point, the answer to this question would still depend on when you invest and what price you buy in at.

obsi,  would you rate the probability of an investment in this yielding a negative roi higher or lower.than 50% ?

Crap!  Sell Sell Sell!!!

Obsi is ben bernanke

Obsi gave some more information on IRC yesterday.  I don't have logs unfortunately, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I am trying to be as factual as possible here.

Obsi claims:

• Obsi is running a passthrough to a business involving lending and debt purchasing
• This business allows its employees to invest in its operations
• Obsi has organized a passthrough with one of the employees
• Obsi can not reveal the business because others could bypass him and take this opportunity directly.

When the default happens, the investors will get a story. that's cool.

you should report the threats of violence to theymos, there is a line and it seems its been crossed.

Thanks - that's one of my 2 questions answered (that you'drelease the information you have).

The second one was whether you actually HAVE information that reliably identifies those to whom the funds are passed-through.

At one extreme you could be sending funds to someone who you only know as a nick on irc.
At the other you could be passing through to individuals or a company whose identity you know with 100% certainty.

Put simply: how confident (as a %) are you that you are able to identify the name(s) and addresses of those to whom the funds are passed?  Again - not asking for those names/addressess - it wouldn't make sense for you to release them now.

This is another good question where assuming the answer is yes isn't incredibly smart.  I would like to know as well.  I assume you wouldn't have any reason not to share this information if your investment vehicle did default, but would certainly want to know what reason you were going to have if you would.

If this opportunity "gos tits up" will you provide investors with details of the individual(s)/company to whom the funds were being passed?  Do you possess reliable information identifying those individual(s)/company (NOT asking for that information - just whether you possess it in case it's ever needed)?

Whilst I totally agree you wouldn't be liable for any funds if the pass-through fails (provided you've acted in good faith) that should not preclude investors from taking action to recover/pursue funds if you chose not to do so yourself.

My apologies on the incorrect timeframe, I edited my post after reading The00Dustin's post but your reply must have been put in about the same time as well.

Sounds like someone who has issues with anger, investing, and economics. Here's hoping you don't have to deal with the crazies in the future.

I'm certainly not an authoritative voice here, but I'm pretty sure it was less than 12 hours.  Also, considering it was shortly after he posted that he wouldn't be selling more bonds this weekend, I think it is a pretty safe assumption that it was to give people a chance to see that post.

Hey Obsi, any explanation behind the thread locking for about a day several hours?

Edit: Going to sleep doesn't turn a night into a day.

The reason not to put up an askwall is to restore confidence.  That applies whether this is a ponzi or not.

Right now a lot of people are concerned it's a ponzi.  When they see he's not trying to sell more shares they'll say "hey! it can't be a ponzi as he's paying out dividends but not taking in any new money."  Then they'll bid the price up and he can put up a new askwall again (once price gos over 1.0 and people start asking for one).

As I said - that holds true whether what he's doing is a ponzi, a pass-through to a ponzi or a pass-through to a genuine business opportunity.  It's people's perception that matters, not the truth (an increase in price/confidence with no new information divulged doesn't add anything to public knowledge of the truth due to this action making sense whatever he's doing).  When people see the price rise their confidence will rise and those who believe the rewards outweigh the risks (including those who don't consider risk at all) will want to buy before the price gos higher.

Right now, even those tempted to buy are waiting as if the price falls they can buy cheaply - he's trying to remove that option by instilling more confidence in the market.  And if the price rises he can also sell back the shares he bought cheaply himself (assuming he actually bought any - which he probably did) for a profit.

Disclaimer: I hold no shares in this and have no intention of ever doing so (unless it's to flip them for a very fast profit).

In theory it's bad news because you can't buy in at 0.1 without paying fees, however the price is low enough right now that it doesn't matter. Though Obsi, I don't see any reason not to put up an askwall, if no one buys in that's still fine, but it's available to those who want it.

Why is that bad news? For current shareholders it is good news because it means the price can go up instead of being held down at the IPO price.