Pirate is a genius.
1. The bet takes and pirate defaults: Van makes 5k
2. The bet takes and pirate doesn't default: van loses 5k
3. The bet doesn't take and van goes long: he makes over 8k
4. The bet doesn't take and van does nothing: he is even
Worse!
1. The bet takes and pirate defaults: Van makes 5k and Pirateat40 gets Van to shut up, plus the show improves visibility, if he is lucky the PR even makes the bet a profit even though he loses.
4. The bet doesn't take and van does nothing: he can shout "That loser does not put his money where his mouth is, give me more loans!"
Pirateat40 had little to lose in this. Offering was about neutral-win-win, there was no real bad outcome possible.
It's been going strong for almost a year. You can figure a few benchmarks in terms of timing that would indicate increased levels of maintenance and visibility, which we can roughly correlate to investment activity.
- Manual loans to get up and running at scale, no external communication of balance other than ad hoc email exchanges or IRC queries
- Crappy website that basically showed "current balance, expected balance" with x%/day compounded q3d
- New crappy website
- Payment restructuring to pay tiered rates weekly
- Announced payment restructuring for 'trust' and other accounts
People other than I can dig and put dates to these. I didn't stir in GPUMax for obvious reasons.
I will say that I have a good idea of the total balance through the first few stages. At least, I know a handful people who have larger loans than I do and roughly what they're holding. All were early (comparatively) lenders.
This is why I am very comfortable asserting that you are wrong. You made accusations based on assumptions that you are now discovering may be in error. Unfortunately, you only came to realize this after you put your money on the table.
When you lose, and you will lose, I hope you are capable of manning up and making amends for being not only a douche, but the bag it came in.
This is very valuable intel, and I thank you for it. Though I don't understand how it reduce my chances in the bet, looks like a classical Ponzi inception to me. Now I know its status is more advanced than I assumed, reducing the possibilities for tricks against me.
But what is it with that last sentence? What does "douchebag" mean anyway? That I'm mistaken? Paid by the government to annoy the great pirate? Can we
please pretend we're civilized and use wording that has a meaning beside "Come at me sucker, do the Neanderthal!"
I can live with "jealous". It's still nonsense, but has a remotely sensible model of what I might be thinking. "Douchebag"... I just can't make sense of it other than you being emotionally compromised. The same goes for "son of a bitch", "sucker", "SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK VANDROIY" and whatnot. I can take an insult, but place content into it. "Mental" was also acceptable, it's actually a good hook to act funny.
Anyway, back to topic. If we're past one year, an orderly pay-out is unlikely. A single account starting at 2k would be at >66k by now, an amount BS&T is unlikely to ever pay out. This is good news to me, however it makes the default timing extremely random, since it depends strongly on withdrawal timings of less than 10 people. In addition, these people were not chosen as they are normally in finance.
What I mean by that: people who joined early did not need as many funds to be important now. They are more likely to neglect trading rules that strongly encourage diversification. They might be keeping five-digit BTC accounts with BS&T even though they do not have five-digit BTC wallets. This is usually a grave mistake. For an example of the mathematical problem, see the Kelly Criterion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterionTL;DR: I think the data works in my favor. If you insult me personally, please use a specific accusation like "slander", "jealous" or "mental".