Actually the person I responded to seemed to say that "Money flowed into Josh's pockets. Money flowed out of Josh's pockets. Livin' large ain't cheap."
That seemed a clear claim that Josh doesn't have much money anymore.
No, my point is that your "argument" looks at the money flowing in, but not the money flowing out. Lots of money flowed into GAW. But lots of money flowed out. Payroll, buying btc.com. Big money flowing in, big money flowing out. Unpaid bills suggest that it flowed out faster than it flowed in.
Josh personally may have had millions flow into his pockets, but Ferraris and private jets and trips to Europe will chew up money pretty fast. That doesn't mean he doesn't still have money. He could be worth millions, he could be bankrupt.
I'm going to ignore you now, until you manage to say something coherent.
Fair point. btc.com was bought before paycoin started, so I don't think we can draw lines that way. Payroll: say around twenty people for a few months (say last 4 months since paycoin and hashstaker, so take a third of a years salary). A quick search shows an average $80,000 for programmers, let's round up to $90,000, divide by three to get $30,000 times 20 people is $600,000. That seems not enough to eat up all the money coming in.
It's possible that Josh spent it all, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me. I agree with you that we don't know how much money he has. I'm not trying to state definite claims about their finances, I'm trying to claim and argue that the theories put forward here aren't consistent on that point. The unpaid bills do imply that they don't have money, but I'm still finding it hard to see how so much money could have been spent. It could have been embezzled away to Josh's accounts, but then why wouldn't he at least pay the small bills?
If a lot of money was pulled out of the company as people are claiming, then that does seem inconsistent with the unpaid bills stuff. There's evidence pointing in a few different directions, as I've said I don't see any consistent theory that would explain both a motive for fraud and the stuff pointing to not having money.
[...]
Well you won't see this then, but could someone who does explain which part of what I posted is "obfuscation"? I'm getting a lot of personal attacks, what have I posted that's incorrect or misleading? I'm happy to change anything that's wrong if someone wants to point it out to me.
Like the bolded part for example.
I said that it doesn't make a lot of sense for the company to make a lot of money, Josh to pull it out, but not pay bills. Do you disagree, or is the problem the way I worded it?
And in general, stop twisting everyone's words, USE YOUR OWN. Post what YOU think is happening, not your interpretations (mostly wrong) of other people's posts. There are facts, there are gaps, why does it bother you so much how the gaps are filled in?
If my interpretations of other posts are wrong (which is possible), I'd like for them to clarify. I often include a question about what was meant, but rarely get a response other than a personal attack. And then my posts are heavily misinterpreted, and I do try to clarify.
"why does it bother you so much how the gaps are filled in?"
I want to know what's going on, and I'm not happy when parts of a theory don't make sense.
