Topic: Issue with Vod - page 3. (Read 3077 times)

And another issue arises when you assume that I had an intent to steal. That is just another assumption blindly made to back your argument.

I can easily assume many things of you, as well. I can assume that you are leaving negative feedback for all users except for a couple of HYIP operators you have decided to work with. I can assume that you are trying to eliminate all competition for HYIPs that have paid you to be left alone. I can assume many things of you just as you can of me. Issues arise when there is no evidence backing those accusations. In Canada, we also have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that dictate an individual is "innocent until proven guilty".

In Canada anyway, the crime is committed once you have the intent to steal.  You don't need to walk out of the store, or even past the cash register, to commit shoplifting.

You're not a stupid guy.  You knew when you started that eventually you would need to steal from some people - your scam could not run forever.  After the crime had been committed you had a change of heart and decided to return all that you had stolen.

If you have such a moral issue with having the word "ponzi" attached to your account, you shouldn't have started one in the first place.  It's not something the community should forget about.  At your request I was nice enough to indicate you are no longer running the scam.  Everything in the trust is fact and not opinion, so it is certainly not trust abuse.

I made my feelings clear with the qualified positive trust that I left for Gladimor after actually reading his trading proposal and approach. I know my trust has no weight but I felt it is important to make the point that knee jerk condemning every single investment scheme on here as a scam becomes counter productive in the end.
I trade derivatives irl and know that the returns that Delta/Gladimor offered are achievable by a trader who understands his market and risk/reward.

The poor joke here is that Vod was 'dared' to leave him negative trust by someone that he had already red tagged. I'd bet, however, that Vod is unlikely to remove the rating because that would mean admitting that not every scheme offering high returns (and unfortunately describing itself as a HYIP, with the negative connotations that that, quite rightly, holds) is a ponzi or a scam.

Summary:
Gladimor outlined a trading scheme, took investors money, provided the projected profits and closed the scheme owing no-one anything after giving notice that he would be doing that.
He doesn't deserve to carry negative trust for that indefinitely and I hope Vod will reconsider.


Give it up, you're like a tape loop.

Is his personal information public? If it's not then of course 19 BTC (if that's the real amount he was holding)  would be enough to run away for a scammer. Any amount worth more than his account would.

If he had the worst intentions he could have kept those 19 BTC, used a small part of that to buy a hero/legendary account and try again. Even if he had intentions to scam at the beginning (that we'll never know) I think the fact he gave the money back should be rewarded somehow. Replacing that negative by a neutral would be a good way.

In that odd example you used the fact the robber's identity is known or not would be a very important point. If the robber got just a little money but he's completely anonymous then he could just keep that little money and try again later if he's a criminal. If he gives the little money back (while being anonymous) then I would think he's really repented. And that example implies he intended to steal from the beginning which we don't know here.

If his personal information is public then that would be a strong reason to give the money back even if he had bad intentions. Anyone let me know if that's the case. That would invalidate my point but I still wouldn't leave a negative 

You can't randomly assume that the sum of 19 BTC theoretically isn't "enough for me", because my intentions from the start were true and legitimate.

You also can't relate a HYIP to a store robbery. Once a robber commits the crime, the wrong has been done just by the action of stealing. Returning what he stole just is a means to clear his conscience.
In a HYIP, the main act isn't stealing. The main act is providing a means for people to receive a return through investment. Returning people's deposits is part of the reason of why people invested in the first place. It is part of the deal- part of the agreement when an investor deposits money. This should be common practice and not viewed as absurd that a HYIP operator returns investors money after some time of operation. Unfortunately, so many scams have occurred that it has twisted the views of many individuals into thinking that returning investor deposits basically seems impossible.

Unless you felt 19btc wasn't enough reward to be "on the run", as in the story.

If this was a ponzi in the first place, I wouldn't have bothered to pay anyone back. I would've kept the 19 BTC in active deposits.

I believe that he actually promised his investors a certain return and subsequently gave his investors such return. At least this is my understanding of the situation.

I also understand that the OP provided evidence of some of his profitable trades that allowed him to pay ponzi-like returns.

Obviously such returns are not sustainable forever, but then again the OP did not promise to pay such returns forever.

So let's say I go and rob the local 7-11.

After completing my robbery, I realize I didn't get as much money as I thought I would.  Certainly not enough to be on the run.

So I return all the cash to 7-11 and call no harm done.  I ask people to forget it even happened.

Is that the way society should work?  Your ponzi failed to gain traction so you shut it down. 

Unfortunately there is really not anything that will be done. Vod is someone that pretty rarely fully understands situations when he leaves negative trust (unless it is something obvious like a new user asking for a no-collateral loan), and fairly rarely changes his mind even when he previously had an incomplete set of information.

Vod is on dooglus's trust list and you can ask dooglus to remove Vod from his trust list, however being a scammer himself, I would highly doubt that dooglus will listen to any kind of reason, as dooglus has a history of ignoring reasonable requests regarding his trust list.

Hi everyone,

I have an issue with Vod accusing me to have run a ponzi, and leaving me negative feedback that states so.

I have recently shut down my HYIP, Delta Investments, after 4 months of operation. I decided to close down for personal reasons, and on that last day, all investors had their money reimbursed as well as with any returns. Around 19 BTC was given back that day (last week).

I believe that makes Delta Investments the first HYIP to have ever successfully ended in that manner.

I messaged him regarding my decision (twice, actually). He hasn't bothered to respond, but however changed the feedback from "Running a ponzi" to another negative "Ran a ponzi that failed".

I have big issues with flat accusations that my HYIP was a ponzi. I provided sufficient evidence of actual trading activity on how I managed to provide returns to my investors (Poloniex trading analysis), throughout the 4 months. If Delta Investments WAS a ponzi, there wouldn't have been enough BTC to cover paying back ALL investors at once. As everyone should know, a ponzi takes the form of a pyramid scheme, and old investors are paid returns of newer investors. Vod should at least know that, considering the magnitude of feedback he has left for hundreds of users.

You can find my formal post on closing down Delta Investments here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13491575

I don't like having a false remark such as "ran a ponzi that failed" to taint my reputation on this forum. Vod is clearly taking a stance that somewhat abuses the trust system right now, bullying users that don't have much trust.