Topic: Loss of Profits, Libel, Team Ponzi and a Pirate (Read 2764 times)

I don't think you've done anything wrong. You haven't been over board on your statements or stalked people from thread to thread.
I suspect that we will see some permabans for trolling, doesn't matter if it go to one side or the other.<sup>*

*</sup>I may be wrong... but I don't think so...

If he couldnt handle 50 000 btc withdrawals in a short time how long will it take to organise 500 000 

I have an African Time Share to sell you.

The thing is that there wasn't really anything being hidden.  Anyone could have done the maths and worked out that pirate wouldn't be able to maintain those returns indefinitely, that rising BTC prices would require him to drop interest rates and that people would withdraw when he dropped interest rates.  All of that was just common sense. 

It would have been highly suspicious if he'd claimed he could maintain his rates indefinitely (to my knowledge he never claimed that) or if he hadn't dropped his rates when BTC prices rose.  This was always going to have an expiry date.  The whole point was to ride the wave and bring it to a close while it was still profitable.  Monday will reveal whether pirate got the timing right or not.

If Pirate actually is running a ponzi, I'm sure the lynch mob community here will find a way to make him walk the plank. As for the future, I think I'll look into the Bitcoin Magazine doing a risk assessment of the monthly GLBSE scams. I wonder if it'd be legal in the UK to even -mention- them in comparison without being shut down for "promoting" them.

Either no one was saved from losing their money in a Ponzi scheme, or no one was saved because no one needed to be saved.

I guess come Monday we'll see.

If anyone decides to sue me, I have evidence that not only did Pirate not lose anything because of Team Ponzi, but he may have actually gained more investment. This closure was entirely because of the rise in price along with the lowering of the interest rates increasing the amount of withdrawals.

Madoff was also never actually caught running a ponzi, despite the almost-irrefutable evidence against him. His ponzi collapsed entirely because of the economic downturn.

It really sucks that we warned all these people and didn't save anybody.

I see, Makes sense.

Any HYIP has a limited lifespan.  If you look at the "legitimate" ones in the lending forum, they plan to run for a fairly short period of time before closing out - at which time the operators will open  new one.  By their very nature, they're not intending to be long term investment funds and beyond some of them offering partial insurance, they promise nothing.  To regard the criticisms made of pirate's HYIP as libel shows a fundamental misunderstanding of his business and the fact that its very nature meant it couldn't operate indefinitely.  The only question was when it would cease to be profitable and what pirate would do when that happened.

At the very least, this whole ordeal has brought to light some real peices of shit on this forum that will be staying on the ignore list indefinitely.

Aside from that its been a fantastic ride

Not even close.  First of all to prove liable/slander (at least in the US) the person making the statement has to KNOWINGLY make a false statement.  The mere fact that the statement is false is not sufficient.  So if someone posted some faked screenshots/records/scanned docs showing Pirate selling the deposited coins and transferring money to a bank account in the cayman islands AND it turned out to be false AND you could prove the person posting it knew it was false (faked it himself) AND that statement caused a loss AND you could prove the loss was directly related to the false statement (coincidence is not correlation under the law either) AND you suffered a loss you would have a case.

Even then it would be very hard to prove and win and the damages likely would be far beyond anything the defendant could be paid so almost certainly the judge would reduce them.

Another way to look at it is IF you run a business that is 100% legit but it utterly indistinguishable from a ponzi scheme then guess what .... the risk that it will be confused with a ponzi scheme and you may suffer a lack of liquidity as a result is a business risk.  A risk that both the operator of the business and the investors should have considered.   Lets assume Pirate operation was 100% legit.  Could he have done anything to mitigate that risk?  Transparency?  Delayed withdrawals?  Working with a smaller pool of high net worth investors?  Since he chose NOT to take steps to mitigate that risk factor and the "investors" decided to ignore that risk factor any losses are solely the fault of the operator and investors.

In short, no.

It's extremely difficult to prevail in a defamation case anyway.  This was a high risk investment and the business model was undeclared.  Speculation about the nature of the pirate's business was absolutely reasonable.  pirate hasn't even suggested that it was such speculation which led to him lowering interest rates (which is what precipitated the run on withdrawals).  Mathematically, it was literally impossible for the 7% return to continue indefinitely so the whole "potential profits" point is moot.

You know, if people are hearing hoofbeats out in rural Nebraska, and loudly claim that they hear a zebra, chances are the courts aren't going to think badly of the guys saying it's almost certainly a horse even if it turns out a local zoo is an animal short...

I've been thinking since the start of the ponzi song, that with the clear lack of evidence and obviously organised attempt to discredit and cause monetary loss to Pirate... Are team ponzi liable for the loss of potential profit to pirate/his lenders?