Both sold 200 000 mhash
Gigamining 40000 five mhash bonds x 1 BTC = 40000 BTC (0.2 BTC per mhash)
Bitbond 100000 two mhash bonds x 0.6 BTC = 60000 BTC (0.3 BTC per mhash)
Would make sense. Not sure he sold everything at 0.6 BTC tho.
Topic: [POLL] Bitbond (amazingrando) - page 3. (Read 5739 times)
What is the outstanding amount that is owed?
It's a good idea to take a look at the overall size of this scam: He sold 100,000 bonds at 0.6 BTC each (if my memory serves me right). That's a cool 60,000 BTC! Of those only 85% or 51,000 BTC are still backed by GPUs and get their interest payments. 9000 BTC worth of bitbonds are not getting interest payments. The bonds themselves have become almost worthless because of this. If we add the 2369 BTC that Namworld reported missing we get 11,369 BTC + outstanding interest that the not-so-amazingrando managed to make disappear.
Wait, he took more than gigavps?
What is the outstanding amount that is owed?
It's a good idea to take a look at the overall size of this scam: He sold 100,000 bonds at 0.6 BTC each (if my memory serves me right). That's a cool 60,000 BTC! Of those only 85% or 51,000 BTC are still backed by GPUs and get their interest payments. 9000 BTC worth of bitbonds are not getting interest payments. The bonds themselves have become almost worthless because of this. If we add the 2369 BTC that Namworld reported missing we get 11,369 BTC + outstanding interest that the not-so-amazingrando managed to make disappear.
What is the outstanding amount that is owed?
I don't know, you'd have to know the difficulty for each week since GLBSE closed and then calculate the interest from that and add it all up.
What is the outstanding amount that is owed? Is it that difficult to get a traditional short term loan?
This douchebag is providing the same "service" as people like Hashking who outright lied about not being invested in pirate. Bitbond owners are unwittingly involved in a BFL passthrough which will blow up just as the last scam did.
This is a pretty good point. What do the pirate scam and the BFL scam have in common other than the fact that they were financed in (significant?) part through secret/undeclared passthroughs?
Because if there's a pool of shared human resources it's quite likely that a more or less informal but pretty criminal organization is/was running the whole thing.
Currently lent him 2369 BTC for temporary hashing. Long overdue and he's not answering any PM.
He's currently still mining with his GPUs but not paying anyone.
Should be tagged until he resume talks and payments.
He's currently still mining with his GPUs but not paying anyone.
Should be tagged until he resume talks and payments.
This douchebag is providing the same "service" as people like Hashking who outright lied about not being invested in pirate. Bitbond owners are unwittingly involved in a BFL passthrough which will blow up just as the last scam did.
I think you nailed it.
This douchebag is providing the same "service" as people like Hashking who outright lied about not being invested in pirate. Bitbond owners are unwittingly involved in a BFL passthrough which will blow up just as the last scam did.
Is this part of the financing of the BFL scam incidentally?
Most probably yes.
So that's another case of nth-degree scam, or pyramidal scam.
It's not that he sold the same thing twice - it appears he has sufficent mining power to back all his sales.
Where does this appear?I just checked Bitminter and he's mining there with about 170GH/s.
http://bitminter.com/livestats/big
Unless he's also mining somewhere else there seems to be a shortfall. He sold 200GH/s of bonds and 170 is 85% of 200. This is from the OP:
What if you have technical issues/downtime?
I have more than 210 Gh/s operating with a total capacity beyond 300 Gh/s. Should there be any downtime, I will contribute hashes from my personal farm to ensure the full dividend is paid each week.
I have more than 210 Gh/s operating with a total capacity beyond 300 Gh/s. Should there be any downtime, I will contribute hashes from my personal farm to ensure the full dividend is paid each week.
Liar.
Allegedly 15%. For all you know they could be 90%.
True.
Is this part of the financing of the BFL scam incidentally?
Most probably yes.
He's stealing money from 15% of his bondholders
Allegedly 15%. For all you know they could be 90%.
to pre-order ASICs
Allegedly. (Is this part of the financing of the BFL scam incidentally?)
It's not that he sold the same thing twice - it appears he has sufficent mining power to back all his sales.
Where does this appear?
One more thing. He had to pay for the ASICs when he ordered them and he's still mining with the GPUs that he has but he isn't paying our interest. This means that there's probably something else going on that we were not told about.
No, it's worse: he says that he (over)paid a small group of his investors who own 85% of the bonds.
Problem is that he OVERpaid them, since the dividend payments should be equal for all on a per bond basis, and he paid nothing to the other bond owners.
Problem is that he OVERpaid them, since the dividend payments should be equal for all on a per bond basis, and he paid nothing to the other bond owners.
When did he say that?
Regarding coupon payments since GLBSE closed, 85% has been paid to the largest investors (working from largest bondholder down). I would like to be able to pay the remaining 15% immediately, but doing so would mean canceling our ASIC pre-order and losing the pre-order slot.
He's stealing money from 15% of his bondholders to pre-order ASICs and, if they ever get delivered, will then pay most of the income from those ASICs to the large investors who contributed 0% to buy them. If that's not unfair then I don't know what is.
Who vote for answer no?
His large investors who get preferential treatment. The scammer tag for amazingrando is long overdue.
Who vote for answer no?
[snip]
Amazingrando sold bonds promising 105% PPS, then behind investors backs sold again this contract to a second class of bondholder.
In other words, he sold a car to smitty, then turned around and sold a car to bill. Now smitty is complaining, where's my car, and amazingrando is all like
I am working on a plan that will give you a few options including payouts, buyback, and ASIC upgrade. I hope to share details of that this weekend.
That really stinks.
Amazingrando lied to the people who bought bonds from them. He told an actual lie in order to sell more bonds. It wasn't a misunderstanding or a mistake or old data or someone trolling. It was amazingrando telling a lie to rip someone off for his own benefit.
I shouldn't need to tell anyone that's the very definition of a fraud.
Now. Is it true? Is that what he really did, or is this another smear campaign?
Don't think that's quite what happened. What actually happened is:
He started selling bonds in public.
Then sold a bunch privately (i.e. off market - if you look at BTC-MINING you'l see where a large chunk of these went).
When GLBSE went down he used funds that were being held for dividends to buy ASICs - leaving him insufficient cash to pay out the dividends he owed.
He somehow scraped together enough to pay out dividends to the private investors - but was left with insufficient to pay out regular shareholders.
He also then compounded his error by unilaterally announcing that he would no longer be paying dividends - despite it being a fixed-rate bond.
Then when his various fuckups/dodgy dealings were noticed he pretty much vanished.
It's not that he sold the same thing twice - it appears he has sufficent mining power to back all his sales. It's that he went and spent money that should have been paid in dividends on ordering ASICs - which he may well have got away with unnoticed had his ASICs arrived before GLBSE sent out the investors' list.
Obviously it's blatant scamming - both in using other people's funds (the dividend payments) to buy hardware with and then in deciding to just cancel paying further dividends despite continuing to mine. Would guess he's just going to keep stalling until his ASICs arrive then pray he can mine enough BTC to make payments sufficient to avoid/have removed a scammer tag.
No, it's worse: he says that he (over)paid a small group of his investors who own 85% of the bonds.
Problem is that he OVERpaid them, since the dividend payments should be equal for all on a per bond basis, and he paid nothing to the other bond owners.
Problem is that he OVERpaid them, since the dividend payments should be equal for all on a per bond basis, and he paid nothing to the other bond owners.
When did he say that?
Scammer tag, scammer tag time.
Jump to: