Topic: Why I used to trust Patrick Harnett - page 3. (Read 32654 times)

I agree. If losses are being passed on, then the depositors deserve a full statement of total obligations, total assets, the form of those assets, and any defaults that are being passed on. This serves two important purposes. First, it lets depositors know what they can reasonably expect. Second, it reassures depositors that they are not being scammed and in fact suffered legitimate losses.

mostly agree, although it would be good to know who defaulted and for how much. If you are going to pass losses on to investors, its only fair they know (and can verify) who they owe the loss to.

If it were me, I'd ignore withdrawal requests after default was announced and make pro-rata payments as repayments come in. I don't see anything wrong with splitting your losses with your depositors. Their decision to invest was just as bad as your decision to offer the service.

WifeofStarfish was visiting her father the past few days - sorry, she's not a sockpuppet, but I don't think she'll be jousting with the trolls much.

I've had some loan repayments come in, and will be setting up a batch of pro-rata payments today.  yes, there are a bunch of cascade defaults occurring, and there is a healthy balance of people that have asked for their deposits returned. 

Yeah, that's madness. Best thing to do is payback everyone pro rata now and set dates in the future for additional payments when/if loans are returned.

Of course this is assuming he was really duped and lost his personal money with Pirate before realizing his own lending was in significant risk (which is in doubt, as Joel points out).

I agree. And trying to cause further panic to create an even worse run on  the bank is also unfair.

Merely getting a profit is not enough. CSG would not be responsible in your hypothetical. It would be a closer case if he brokered the deal.

I agree that you do need all the elements that are present here. You can't just take one of them and try to make the same argument.

The Chicken Suit guy profited none the less. I took a coupon from him, for which he gets a flat rate bonus for each one taken/used, along with his hourly rate for advertising inside the suit.

If you start to adjust your hypothetical to match the situation, the conclusion becomes quite the reverse. For example, have the guy in the chicken suit broker the deal taking a cut of your money in the process. Or have the guy in the chicken suit promise to insure you against the very harm that materialized. Or have the guy in the chicken suit state that he has secret reasons to suspect the food is actually safe.

Well, this has taught me alot. I want to thank everyone for their input.

I, myself, just got food poisoning from a Chicken Shack type of place, that people warned me to NOT eat at.

With the knowledge gained in threads such as these, today I will be going after the guy that was dressed up in the Chicken Suit in front of the shop, with the advertising sign on....as this is obviously not a waste of time, versus going after the shop itself, right ?



Thanks guys. I appreciate all of the tips learned here.


Let this be a lesson to Chicken Suit advertising guys everywhere..... I AM COMING FOR YOU.

If you continue to be duped while many people are clearly and patiently explaining to you why and how you are being duped, that's straying into idiot territory.

Considering that he could probably run away with everyone's money, claim that it was all lost, and little to nothing would happen, I agree that it's hard to find too much additional fault. It's not like the people who loaned money to him weren't also warned that he was operating with a business model that was vulnerable to default and there were specific warnings that everyone had much more Pirate exposure than they thought they did.

From the point of view of the community, it won't help to have Patrick suffer more. However, if his depositors all suffer at least a bit, that will likely help the community a lot.

But Patrick is still paying out in full. Unless he still plans on doing that for everyone, that seems unfair.

Yes. Sorry.

I don't think it's unreasonable for everyone to take a haircut.

quoting this before its deleted. Subtract hashkings 1000BTC and Patrick is already in trouble.

Did Harnett default yet? I notice his "wife" hasn't had much to say lately.

Do you mean if he does the latter?  If he does the former, there is no spreading of losses.

I think that's right.

My thoughts (not that anyone asked):

1. WifeOfStarfish reads like a sockpuppet to me. If I were Patrick, I'd not want to show this to anyone.

2. Joel offered the choice that Patrick is a scammer himself or an idiot, but I'd like to offer a marginally kinder alternative, which I think is the truth: he was duped.

If one really believed in Pirate, one would invest almost every scrap of liquidity in him. That doesn't make him an idiot so much as a mark--very smart people can fall for scams. Cult members have higher than average intelligence. It just happens that some people fall for certain stories. Patrick is also a believer in Bitcoin, and he perhaps he wanted to do his best to foster the supposed bitcoin economy. Given the apparent demand for lending and the apparent market for deposits that were supposedly safe from Pirate exposure, perhaps Patrick can up with the idea for Starfish BS. He might have even done what he thought was the honorable thing by putting his own faith in Pirate, and giving the alleged depositors a pure "non-Pirate" opportunity.

If my theory is right, he's a double victim--first from Pirate, and second from many of the borrowers who were unsurprisingly only paying high rates to scam/gamble/invest in Pirate (same difference). The only question to my mind is whether he coughs up the loses himself or passes some of the pain to his usurious creditors. If he does the former latter, especially if he tries to spread the loses evenly, I'm not sure I could fault him.

Thank you, O Magnanimous One.

As the rest of your post was mere repetition of your unsupported assertions, I will reply also with repetition - but of a question, not an assertion. To wit:

Are you claiming you know the finiacials of each lender? Or even of only Patrick, who is being publicly pilloried here in this thread?

EDIT: s/TWo/To/