No, I'm not going to give away my trade secrets publicly.
Is it really that hard to believe I can't make a >12% profit over a month?
Topic: Dank Bank Deposits - dank's soul is claimed! - New music Nov 30th - page 95. (Read 128919 times)
August 30, 2012, 08:31:31 PM
August 30, 2012, 06:07:52 PM
can you give us a vague description of what a typical dank bank investment is ?
before you answer... a new guitar and or lessons is not a valid investment.
before you answer... a new guitar and or lessons is not a valid investment.
Why do I have to repeat myself to the same people? Dank Bank is not a ponzi, it does not function as one. I spend each deposit on investments.
August 30, 2012, 05:31:53 PM
It's all irrelevant if the first party isn't a scammer.
The insurance company has to assess that before accepting to insure an investment. If they miscategorize an investment as honest and accept to insure it, then they have to bear the cost of a scam, and engage legal actions to recover their loss. Of course, a reputable insurance company will ask guarantees and identification from the fund owner.
August 30, 2012, 05:17:15 PM
It's all irrelevant if the first party isn't a scammer.
August 30, 2012, 05:14:30 PM
It does not gurantee they will not lose or steal the money, but it does allow the investor to get money back if that does happen, so the risk is lower. Really, for somebody who is running a "bank", you should know more about stuff like that.
That is all I have to say, I am leaving this conversation now.
Ok, one last comment.
Go take a probability and statistics class.
If the probability of A is x and the probability of B is y, and A and B are independent, then the probability of A AND B is x * y, which is smaller than x. So having a second party behind the first decreases the risk to the investor.
Now I am done.
August 30, 2012, 04:53:09 PM
Yes, having insurance would lower the risk to investors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Since you have no honesty in evaluating the riskyness of your investment, calling yourself honest as a reason to invest in you is just plain wrong.
These are funds for my life, why would I be dishonest? I'm not going to go broke somehow, I'm not even near that position anymore.
And why are you consistently attacking me with your fallacious presumption that I'm a scammer, with not a shred of evidence?
I see you do not know how bank insurance works. Try looking up FDIC or NCUA depoite insurance on wikipedia.
I am not attacking you or calling you a scammer, I am just saying it is dishonest to advertise your bank as "low risk" when it is not, in fact, low risk.
That is all I have to say, I am leaving this conversation now.
August 30, 2012, 04:44:05 PM
Yes, having insurance would lower the risk to investors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Since you have no honesty in evaluating the riskyness of your investment, calling yourself honest as a reason to invest in you is just plain wrong.
These are funds for my life, why would I be dishonest? I'm not going to go broke somehow, I'm not even near that position anymore.
And why are you consistently attacking me with your fallacious presumption that I'm a scammer, with not a shred of evidence?
I see you do not know how bank insurance works. Try looking up FDIC or NCUA depoite insurance on wikipedia.
I am not attacking you or calling you a scammer, I am just saying it is dishonest to advertise your bank as "low risk" when it is not, in fact, low risk.
That is all I have to say, I am leaving this conversation now.
August 30, 2012, 03:55:22 PM
Yes, having insurance would lower the risk to investors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Since you have no honesty in evaluating the riskyness of your investment, calling yourself honest as a reason to invest in you is just plain wrong.
These are funds for my life, why would I be dishonest? I'm not going to go broke somehow, I'm not even near that position anymore.
And why are you consistently attacking me with your fallacious presumption that I'm a scammer, with not a shred of evidence?
I see you do not know how bank insurance works. Try looking up FDIC or NCUA depoite insurance on wikipedia.
I am not attacking you or calling you a scammer, I am just saying it is dishonest to advertise your bank as "low risk" when it is not, in fact, low risk.
August 30, 2012, 03:40:24 PM
Yes, having insurance would lower the risk to investors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Since you have no honesty in evaluating the riskyness of your investment, calling yourself honest as a reason to invest in you is just plain wrong.
These are funds for my life, why would I be dishonest? I'm not going to go broke somehow, I'm not even near that position anymore.
And why are you consistently attacking me with your fallacious presumption that I'm a scammer, with not a shred of evidence?
I see you do not know how bank insurance works. Try looking up FDIC or NCUA depoite insurance on wikipedia.
I am not attacking you or calling you a scammer, I am just saying it is dishonest to advertise your bank as "low risk" when it is not, in fact, low risk.
August 30, 2012, 03:36:28 PM
Can't scupper belief though.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
Just because you have paid back in the past does not guarantee you will pay back in the future. It is downright dishonest to call this low risk.
You can have a person that gives you any/everything you ask for to make you comfortable, and they can always chose to be dishonest and run with the money. The best way to minimize that from happening would be to invest in an honest person, which I am. If you don't believe that, you have issues with trust.
Yes, having insurance would lower the risk to investors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Since you have no honesty in evaluating the riskyness of your investment, calling yourself honest as a reason to invest in you is just plain wrong.
These are funds for my life, why would I be dishonest? I'm not going to go broke somehow, I'm not even near that position anymore.
And why are you consistently attacking me with your fallacious presumption that I'm a scammer, with not a shred of evidence?
August 30, 2012, 03:13:45 PM
Can't scupper belief though.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
Just because you have paid back in the past does not guarantee you will pay back in the future. It is downright dishonest to call this low risk.
You can have a person that gives you any/everything you ask for to make you comfortable, and they can always chose to be dishonest and run with the money. The best way to minimize that from happening would be to invest in an honest person, which I am. If you don't believe that, you have issues with trust.
Yes, having insurance would lower the risk to investors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Since you have no honesty in evaluating the riskyness of your investment, calling yourself honest as a reason to invest in you is just plain wrong.
August 30, 2012, 02:31:23 PM
Why do I have to repeat myself to the same people? Dank Bank is not a ponzi, it does not function as one. I spend each deposit on investments.
August 30, 2012, 02:29:45 PM
A ponzi always pays back until it collapses.
I think by using others deposits to pay outstanding withdrawals, and taking out loans to pay off owed money is not long-term sustainable.
I think this is far from "low risk". Calling it low risk, is scammy.
I think by using others deposits to pay outstanding withdrawals, and taking out loans to pay off owed money is not long-term sustainable.
I think this is far from "low risk". Calling it low risk, is scammy.
August 30, 2012, 02:29:13 PM
Can't scupper belief though.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
Just because you have paid back in the past does not guarantee you will pay back in the future. It is downright dishonest to call this low risk.
You can have a person that gives you any/everything you ask for to make you comfortable, and they can always chose to be dishonest and run with the money. The best way to minimize that from happening would be to invest in an honest person, which I am. If you don't believe that, you have issues with trust.
August 30, 2012, 02:01:59 PM
Can't scupper belief though.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
Just because you have paid back in the past does not guarantee you will pay back in the future. It is downright dishonest to call this low risk.
August 30, 2012, 01:54:40 PM
Can't scupper belief though.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
All of you accusing me of being a poor investment have nothing to back up your conjecture other than fear and paranoia. While I, on the other hand, have continuously followed through with every transaction over the last year, demonstrating time over time reliability and honesty.
August 30, 2012, 12:37:10 PM
money does not appear because you wish it to.
I don't understand? Isn't money just like rock star fame and land deeds? If you will it, it will come.
Ah but the evil critics cause a dark force backlash that has been known to scupper even the most positively thinking pira^H^H^Herson.
-MarkM-
August 30, 2012, 11:09:06 AM
money does not appear because you wish it to.
I don't understand? Isn't money just like rock star fame and land deeds? If you will it, it will come.
August 30, 2012, 10:56:39 AM
Dank's idea of risk and the normal business definition of risk do not match. I wonder what would constitute "high risk" to Dank?
My definition of risk is that if I have your money, I'm going to do whatever I can to get it back to you, no matter what. If you don't trust me when I say that, you probably aren't investing in me anyways.But the risk is not that you will want to pay back, the risk is that you will be unable to pay back. Even if you really, really want to pay back, if you don't have the money you just can't. And that is why this is high risk, money does not appear because you wish it to.
August 30, 2012, 10:16:22 AM
Dank's idea of risk and the normal business definition of risk do not match. I wonder what would constitute "high risk" to Dank?
My definition of risk is that if I have your money, I'm going to do whatever I can to get it back to you, no matter what. If you don't trust me when I say that, you probably aren't investing in me anyways.But the risk is not that you will want to pay back, the risk is that you will be unable to pay back. Even if you really, really want to pay back, if you don't have the money you just can't. And that is why this is high risk, money does not appear because you wish it to.
Jump to: