Topic: post - page 3. (Read 13665 times)

I'm only just starting to get involved in investing here - but there's something I just don't understand about the decision to insure Pirate bonds in the first place.

Roughly what CPA did appears to be:

You had X bit coins.
You sold insurance on X amount of pirate investment charging 1.5% per week.
You also invested the X bitcoins elsewhere generating naother 1-2% per week.

Possible outcomes each week:

1.  Everything gos well (no pirate default) - you make 2.5%-3% per week on your capital.
2.  Pirate defaults - you lose 98-99% of your X bitcoins.

For the life of me I can't see how this is better than just investing your X bitcoins directly with Pirate (or in a pass-through).  The extra returns you were making from your (supposedly non-Pirate) investment didn't cover the difference between the 2.5%-3% you stood to make each week and the rate you could have got just investing directly into Pirate (whilst still having full exposure to him defaulting). 

The only way the insurance could do better than investing in Pirate was if you only actually had a small fraction of X in actual bitcoins in the first place.  But you didn't do that (and rightly so).

Am I missing something - or was your pirate insurance always effectively a charity offering that accepted pirate risk whilst not delivering anything like the returns of actually investing in him?

Note also that investing direct in Pirate wouldn't introduce the extra risk your insurance added - of default by your other investment targets when Pirate defaults, where you lose X AND owe X to your policy holders.

Eloquently put, Usagi.

Error #1: trusting ANYONE involved in bitcoin who claims to be able to double your money in a year.

Error #2: offering insurance and then recklessly giving that capital away to unknowns offering unrealistic promises.

Error #3: trusting your funds without understanding what was going to be done with them, and thinking that they would not run to the flavor of the month offering 7% per week.

Error #4: bringing your case to the court of public opinion as part of your rationale for failing to honor your commitments.

But take heart... it looks like there are still believing enough souls that want Tinkerbell to succeed with this great insurance ponzi in the sky.

If you have the fortitude to hear a Devil's Advocate you may add me to your round table. I won't lie to you, I won't take your money, I don't offer investments, and I sure as hell will call it a duck when it starts quacking.

So, just to be clear here... you created an asset to provide insurance coverage for investors in a "high risk" investment environment, and then to secure your investors capital, you invested in the EXACT SAME MARKET THAT YOU WERE INSURING??? You were protecting investments by dumping your money into the same investment vehicle?

And now you want to dump the blame off on others who were your "round table" of advisers, or the very same "high reputation" folks that you sent 500 btc sums to, without checking to see what they might do with the funds? Better yet- you carefully selected the dame high reputation folks who were flogging the same investment game that you were insuring against, and you didn't expect them to dump your money into the same scheme?

Either you are nerve dead from the neck up, or the most naive imbecile imaginable. And to start with the whining about how you got done wrong when this is your actions, your poor choices, and your criminally poor decision making? Shameful.

Glad I dumped the hell out of your asset before you showed your true, and grossly incompetent colors.

Of course, regarding the contract between you and the deposit takers, they are in the wrong, and it's their fault.

From the CPA investors' standpoint, it's purely your fault, because you are the responsible party. It doesn't have to be fair, though you knew the risk and you could have easily stored your backing in cold storage. Deflecting these points put you in a worse position in the eyes of us investors.

Instead of this useless exchange, I would rather hear about how you will make it right. I don't want my shares to go to 0 in value, and I don't want them to stay at this price level either. However eccentric, I'd prefer to hear about a plan, a long term plan, that will take this company back on track.

The point we are making is that even if you were lied to, it was your job to know how the money was invested, and it was your job to diversify investments in order to avoid this very situation.

If you left money with people and they are refusing to pay back that is grounds for scammer labels. It would really help if other people could avoid those who turn out to be untrustworthy.

I suggest posting in the scammer accusations section a list of those who need a kick in the balls.

I admire you for payout out on all contracts. I have never said anything against you being honest in your work. You honor your contracts; good, you should.

What I did speak of, is you either improperly evaluated risk or ignored risk in regards to contracts. Clearly, the total risk from all of your contracts was IMMENSE, because now CPA has lost most of it's working capital.  Clearly, the total risk from all of your investments  was IMMENSE, because 4 out of the 5 largest defaulted and now CPA has lost most of it's working capital.


I am not so sure of that. You seem to have made some decisions that have put CPA in a very difficult position.


So you blame the community for having an idea rather than acknowledging it was you who listened to their idea?


You allowed CPA to rest in the hands of several individuals with no official papers/verification of any sort? That seems like that kind of an approach could lead to serious troubles. If they don't provide proof, then that is an immense risk within itself. If they can't provide proof, then how can you make a smart and informed decision when weighing risk and determining an appropriate return? You couldn't have and you didn't.

Traditional insurance companies invest their float extremely conservatively. You attempted to invest your float into 'respectable' individuals that could be considered conservative (relative to most btc risk/returns.) If the funds that those traditional insurance companies invest in misrepresent their holdings, that is fraud and grounds for legal action. With btc-investing that is likely not an option, and that should have been calculated as a major risk and been worked it into your business model.

Please, Usagi, understand that I am not trying to hurt your feelings or be offensive; I enjoy trying create a better dialogue between issuers, investors, and potential investors. I honestly hope through this dialogue we all learn a bit and create some new ideas. I hope that some of the lent money is returned so you can continue and operate a leaner and meaner CPA.

*On a side note: salt can help sterilize a wound and lemon juice can help stop bleeding. The more you know......

The point is: as an insurer, your job is to understand risk; yet you did not.

It does not really matter if you were "forced" to deposit. If you misjudged the risk investing, you would also have misjudged it insuring other people's deposits.

Blame it on the shitty community, if you please; maybe it's so shitty no one in the world could possibly have managed to successfully make business; the fact here is you didn't.

This said, let's just hope not everything is lost and we can all start again, having learnt from our mistakes... CPA is still something the BItcoin world really needs.

I did not join because I don't do partnerships.  Not saying that it is not a bad investment but I like to have control over my investments.  I give free advise and ideas though so feel free to email me if you want.

As for people that give you criticism, advise, or are incapable of living up to their promises; it can affect your reputation in the manner that you respond to them.  There is a fine line between protecting your reputation and losing the reputation you already have by the way you react.

If it is someone is saying you are a scammer, reply that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we can all choose to do business with anyone else we choose in this free market.

I completely agree. Spreading ones-self to thin will always make things difficult. Actuarial Science is extremely complex by nature, and I can not imagine trying to head CPA + other ventures at the same time.

Also, I would suggest to not to do so many different things, NYAN, YARR, CPA, etc, too many projects.  Stick to one thing or delegate your investments from the float out to someone else and give that person a percent of the profits.

I am not a shareholder (yet). I think Usagi is blazing a new frontier here, bitcoins need a way to insure against losses but since this has never been done before it is understandable that the risks are hard to measure. We now know the premiums for insuring deposits in HYIPs should be much higher. Perhaps a more conservative and diversified portfolio of investments would be good, you just need to find somebody trustworthy you can lend the coins to, like me  

I would suggest that a group of people throwing around ideas is a good thing, but that does not mean you have to give up control to these people.  There needs to be one person that calls the shots and that makes the final decisions.  If you want people to help you then that is OK, but I think you need to re-evaluate how you organize your business.  If you need help then give the person willing to help a percentage of the profits.

Having people to advise is fine, but the final decisions have to stop with you.  Look at Bitcoinica, no one knew who was in charge and it all fell apart.  No one is going to put their name behind something that they do not have 100% control of.

Also, who cares what other people feel about you.  Do your work, insure some things, show you are reliable, handle your customers and workers well, and then you will have a good reputation.  If someone  has a problem then try to find a solution to make that person happy.  If that person is unreasonable, then refund them their money and decline any future business with that person.  There is no need to have accusations thrown back and forth between two parties, it does damage to your reputation.

Yes. Though I was a bit more loquacious and long-winded with my post. 

I have never been a shareholder of CPA, so I retracted as I figured he would receive plenty of flak from his actual shareholders.

That was about the extent of it, right?

I decided to send what I posted via PM to Usagi instead.

Interesting. Why did you retract ?

retracted.