Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 13. (Read 39288 times)

This is off the topic for this thread. Please, publish your rants in the thread you made for me.

What are your "specializations"? I know that lying to people on the internet that you are married when you are actually 100% alone is one of them. What are the others?

(Yes Augusto, I found out. Busted! Haha.)

^ Breasts?

Do you even know what sarcasm means?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sarcasm?q=sarcasm


By the way, I am still curious to know what you are qualified for.

I know that being ignored is one of your main specializations. What are the others?

Welcome back to reality. How was your trip?

If Patrick made this blatant promise for his potential customers, and then later he provided evidence contradicting his initial promises, than a scammer tag should be issued. The investors should open a thread in this section and present the necessary evidence to prove the intention of fraud.

It's not evidence you idiot. Seriously, how do you manage to breathe and type?


You might want to give a look to MPOE bonds then. Quite well defined.


And the evidence just keeps on piling and piling and piling....

The Kraken fund was supposed to be 100% backed by his personal funds. (Note to self: Why would an investment ever promise 100% backing of losses and still send you profits? What's in it for them?)

Well, as it turns out, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

An email was sent by PatrickHarnett two days ago to fund investors that the 100% backing didn't really exist. Since a large percentage of the fund was put into pirate debt, Kraken is now officially in default. The higher of 100 BTC or half the pending balance of each account has already been paid back, from liquidation of personal assets. This allegedly adds up to 75% of the entire fund value. There is still a promise that the remaining 25% will be paid back, if ever recovered from the "toxic" and illiquid assets held.

I'm not sure if the above email should be made public, but any of the Kraken investors can attest to the above. Even if the Starfish BCB issue is ignored entirely, I believe a scammer tag is appropriate purely on the basis of misrepresentation of the Kraken fund.

It is relevant because both participants believed at the time that it was. And there is no evidence that one party was more at fault in this belief than the other. Neither party would have entered into the agreement had they known this. So this is a common mistake.

Well then you've made the first part of my case for me. If they both believed it was sound, yet it wasn't, then that's a common mistake.

When you have a common mistake such that neither participant to a contract would have entered into the contract but for the mistake, unless there's substantially greater fault for the mistake on one side than the other, the parties should split the harm that flowed from the shared mistake. So long as one party isn't significantly at greater fault than the other, it's inequitable to enforce the contract as agreed.

Common mistake doesn't require the mistake to be negligent or culpable. It just requires both parties to be wrong about something critical to the agreement.

Once you agree that both parties had a false belief and that neither party would have entered into the contract without that false belief, the next issue is whether the belief is at the core to the contract. My position is that the discussions that formed the agreement make it clear that the belief is at the core of the agreement -- the contract was premised on the soundness of Patrick's business model and his lack of significant correlated Pirate exposure. Generally, showing that neither party would have entered into the agreement but for the mistaken belief is sufficient to show that it's at the core of the contract. And then the next step is to figure out how to equitably split the damages.

The common sense version of the doctrine is this: A contract states what happens under various conditions. But if neither party believed that a particular condition could happen, then their agreement couldn't have covered what should happen under that condition. (Unless it has specific "catch all" terms of some kind.) Thus, you can't follow the contract to decide what to do in that condition, you have to judge what's fair.

Well, looking at what happened it obviously wasn't (whatever his steps were to ensure his deposits were pirate-free, those steps were clearly woefully inadequate). But what we NOW know isn't particularly relevant to the discussion in this thread.

At the time I had no idea whether it was viable or not.  As stated earlier, I avoid investing in anything where the business is undefined.  With this sort of lending business, the recipients' businesses are unknown to me - hence I can't assess the risk so won't touch the investment.  That's a decision I've made because there's little/no ability and/or willingness for lenders to take action against defaulters - so unless I can be confident there's likely to be no reason for default I won't invest.

The issues isn't whether his business model was sound anyway - it's whether it was KNOWN to be unsound.  We already know that wasn't accepted by all - you've already accepted neither PH or MP knew it (or even believed it) and have yet to demonstrate that any significant number of people believed it.

You forgot to indicate the source of your amazing piece of evidence:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/drawing-contest-win-5-btc-122881

Economy > Marketplace > Services > Drawing contest, win 5 BTC

Of course, where is the evidence which indicates that?

You're cutting out the context which was me arguing that Patrick's business model is fundamentally unsound even just considering uncorrelated risk. I was arguing that there's no way for investors to assess risk and come to any conclusion other than that the risk must be extraordinarily high. Here's what immediately follows the part you quoted:

"Fundamentally, it's this simple: If the fund operator is not making decent money, there's no good explanation for why they'd go to all this trouble and risk other than that it's a scam. If the fund operator is making decent money and not exposing their investors to extreme risk, the first thing they'd do with the money they're making, if they're not an idiot, is pay down all their ultra-high-interest debt."

In other words, Patrick's business model fundamentally makes no sense, the risks would have to be enormous. That's the same thing I'm arguing here.

PH deserves a scammer label for investing customers money into pirate and claiming it was backed by his own funds which turns out to be patently false in the case of Kraken fund at least. He deserves one as much as NcKrazze and others who did exactly the same bait and switch.

Joel, what has changed your opinion since you posted this in the other thread?

In that thread Patrick posted that


That seems to make it fairly obvious that any significant level of default would leave Patrick struggling to repay his depositors in a timely manner.

You literally stated in that thread that investors had no way to assess risk.  Now you seem to be arguing the opposite.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1160524

Do you think Patrick's business model was fundamentally sound? Be honest.

What are you qualified for? What are you credentials? What are your competencies?

That's a cute pic.... at least you can find some humor in this

That's particularly....funny coming from the one and only person actually shown to hold logically inconsistent beliefs in this very thread. Repeatedly.

I believe at this point the only way forward is to place Joel Katz under the tutelage of some sane and respected community member for his own protection, seeing how he is either mentally ill or otherwise very, very confused.

It would be from now on at the very least immoral for anyone to engage in any sort of commerce or transaction with Joel Katz, given what we now know of his mental disabilities.


There's a thread showing the general consensus the other way here.

Note the date of the first Joel Katz posts in there, and note what he bases his sudden knowledge of banking and finance on: some passing remark by Gavin. Apparently discovering in September what "everyone knew" before August is a-ok, and apparently the gospel words of Gavin (who is neither competent to discuss such things as contemplated in the agreement we have before us here, nor was in fact discussing such things as contemplated in the agreement we have before us here) can be bent so that 1.5 = 1 and so forth. Simply put Joel Katz is mentally ill.

The particularly offensive thing in all of this is that the mentally ill (as opposed to rational people) come to make completely irrational statements which, upon being proven both false and logically inconsistent are merely repeated, all this in what is declared to be a defense of reason. And then the poor idiot purports to have taken some sort of higher ground, in his own mind. Sad to watch, really.


My general expectation is that those who cnat raed won't.

In other news, we've commissioned a little art piece to commemorate the ludicrous in this thread. Here it is:



Let us forever remember, aside from the quote starting this post, that computer programmers are not simply on the strength of that to be regarded as competent in any other field, including basic logic, basic law, basic finance or basic anything, in spite of an uncanny ability to produce text strings if given a keyboard - not the only characteristic they share with the proverbial monkeys.

No, my argument is NOT that PH's business method was sound.  My argument is that you aren't entitled to assume that everyone KNEW that he was exposed to pirate risk.  And you sure aren't entitled to expect those PH owes money to to take a large haircut just because somewhere on the forums you and/or your friends posted that PH was incompetent and/or exposed to pirate so they should have taken your word for it over PH's.

I've never invested in ANY of the loan/undisclosed businesses - be it pirate, PH or whoever (sole exception being trading OBSI.HRPT AFTER it had collapsed).  In an anonymous arena like bitcoin I'm just not interested in investing in undisclosed businesses - and loan companies here are undisclosed businesses one step removed from me.  If I don't have the information to assess the risks myself then I simply don't invest (and I invest short-term rather than long-term anyway as most 'businesses' here will never make a profit for long-term investors anyway - e.g. nearly all mining bonds/stocks).

I object to your insistence that you have the right to assert that something was common knowledge whilst, at the same time, also insisting that those directly involved didn't know it.  I also object to you attempting to make some kind of defence for PH which he's never raised or supported himself.  If he has a defence against the claims against him then HE should make it - rather than you dragging his name through the mud claiming he was so obviously incompetent that everyone on the forums knew he was exposed to pirate except himself and MP.  And I finally object to your claim that if someone misrepresents the nature of their assets when making a deal then it's the fault of the other party if that party chooses to believe them.

That's why I'm posting - not because I invested in pirate or PH - so not quite sure what lesson it is I'm supposed to have learned but haven't.