I think many here are so invested in the "ponzi proposition" that they're refusing to consider other possibilities.
...
Ponzi or not, there's no legal activity that I can think of that would allow paying such returns for any length of time.
We all did exactly what you just did. We considered it, and then rejected it as completely implausible.
So what is it you
know about pirate's op that causes you to reject the possibility of some other non-ponzi scheme, like money laundering or tax avoidance? (not trolling, just curious)
Purely hypothetical...but it seems to me that if one runs in certain circles, one would know plenty of people willing to pay 90, 80, or even 70 cents on the dollar to clean/hide their money. Maybe I'm missing something, but a steady stream of dirty funds wanting to be cleaned would certainly allow
pirate someone to pay his 7%/week by running a BTC laundromat - no ponzi necessary. Further, I think running a laundering scheme via BTC would be pretty durn complex...i.e., it couldn't be unwound quickly/easily/without significant loss if something unexpected occurs.
But even so, it doesn't matter. If something is indistinguishable from a Ponzi, and most likely a Ponzi, you should treat it like a Ponzi. If you have a gun that looks like it's loaded, you should probably treat it like it's loaded.
Hey, I'm all about the "if it walks/talks/tastes/smells like a X, then it is a X" line of reasoning; it's a great rule of thumb that has served me well. But by definition, rules of thumb are not axiomatic.
Again, I'm not trolling or even trying to be argumentative. In fact, if someone held a gun to my head and said "Ponzi or not ponzi....decide or I'll shoot!", I would immediately choose ponzi - whether the gun was loaded or not. Thing is, the more I feel like I'm about to become convinced of something, the more I try to challenge my own assumptions (as long as no one's holding a gun to my head). Since I don't really trust myself to do this on my own, I seek outside help. No other place to do that but this forum, and I fully expect to get flamed, labelled a troll, or otherwise marginalized in the process. Especially on this forum when emotions are running so high.
In this case, my process has led me to the conclusion that it is in no way certain pirate was/is running a ponzi. I see no hard evidence that tips the balance towards ponzi vs some other shady alternative like laundering/tax avoidance/etc. Joel, if you or some other smart mofo can show me the error in my position, all the better for me.
To be sure, I see no compelling argument at all that the operation was conducted legally. If someone who claims to know what pirate was doing would care to offer an explanation to the contrary, I would gladly change my mind. Again, if there was nothing illegal going on, there's no reason why anyone who knew the nature of pirate's op couldn't share it with the community now (given that the op is shuttered).
Just so no one has any ideas about any bias on my part: I've NEVER invested or bought BTC. I currently have a few BTC in a wallet somewheres that I earned via mining a long time ago. I think bitcoin has potential, but only if/when it's used as a
medium of exchange beyond the current pitiful level. When that happens, all the drama related to these "investment" scams will become largely irrelevant to the broader BTC world.
BTC is a legal grey area.
Really?!? Say it aint so! But as Vladimir pointed out, using BTC as a vehicle to facilitate a criminal enterprise doesn't change the legality of the overall operation one little bit.
Duck fallacy!
Har! I mean aarrgh!