open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked [BTF] BIG Trust Fund
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Chloyee
Posted - 2009.08.06 20:31:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Chloyee on 06/08/2009 20:33:46
Edited by: Chloyee on 06/08/2009 20:32:11
I don't understand why the valuables can't be returned in the event the person should come back to EVE? I mean you state that it's because you can't be sure it's the same person, but surely a PIN or secret code could remove any doubt. I mean provided the person had the correct PIN, what would it matter who they were, they would have had to have gotten the PIN from the original owner, so they would be a beneficiary as surely as the beneficiaries you would be designated to provide money to. And now that raises another questions, how can you be sure the supposed beneficiaries are who they say they are? I mean how can you be worried about someone's identity in one instance and not in another? That one rule seems more like a play for some nice BPOs, than any claimed sense of concern regarding ownership and identity.

Thoraemond
Minmatar
Far Ranger
Posted - 2009.08.07 02:18:00 - [32]
 

First and most importantly, it is nice to see this development!

Obviously you can run your own business however you see fit. Here are a few suggestions for improvement, any or all of which you might already have in mind. If you are not interested, perhaps this list suggests a niche or two for pilots to launch other Trust Administration operations:
  1. make this service available to all pilots;

  2. allow a Trust's Settlor to be amongst its Beneficiaries;

  3. make BIG's default role more clearly that of a Trustee;

  4. remove the activity requirement for Beneficiaries; and

  5. require unanimous agreement of Beneficiaries to liquidate capital assets.


Make this service available to all pilots, not just those who are retiring
Originally by: TornSoul
'Can/would you do this for me?' I'd like to keep as close to that simple promise/idea as possible, so that it's truly his last will that unfolds (both with the BPOs he left behind, and with the idea itself).

Why does a pilot have to retire to establish a Trust?

The key elements of a real-life trust are often termed 'three certainties': (a) what are the Assets, (b) the Settlor's intent to form a Trust, and (c) who are the Beneficiaries. Of course, to actually form the Trust, the Assets have to be handed over to a Trustee who has accepted the role.

This can all be done regardless of whether or not the Pilot retires.

For clarity, to preclude possible disputes, these key terms of a Trust might be made public (e.g., on these forums) or disclosed to an independent trusted party who can act as a registrar. E.g., EBANK might privately keep a copy of the details of the trust that X sets up, and if some pilot claims to be a Beneficiary who is not getting paid properly by BIG, this could be checked, independent of both that claimant and the Trustee.


Allow a Trust's Settlor to be amongst its Beneficiaries

As in real life, a Settlor could be a Beneficiary for the same trust. (In real life, for practical/tax reasons, a Settlor is rarely the sole Beneficiary of a Trust that he or she capitalizes, but being one of the Beneficiaries is not unusual.)

There is no reason that Trusts in New Eden must be like those in real life, but this is an opportunity to expand the Trust Administration business is a way that is helpful to a new class of Pilots: active.


Make BIG's default role solely that of a Trust Administrator

As currently described, BIG as Trustee looks in some ways like a Beneficiary with a 20% share.

The essential core of BIG's offering seems to be Trust Administration services, so why not just set a Trust Administration Fee of 20% of the net monthly proceeds (or whatever rate with a flat floor)?

If a Settlor wants to, he or she might also name BIG amongst a Trust's beneficiaries.


Remove the activity requirement for Beneficiaries
Originally by: TornSoul
If someone unsubs for a several months without letting us know, they do run the risk of being declared as having abandoned their share. [...] It's hard to set up a hard rule for this.

It is easy to draft such a rule; what is hard is to justify a need for such a rule.

There should be no hardship in paying ISK into the wallets of inactive Pilots, so long as the Trust Administration fee is fair. If 20% isn't enough to cover this effort, make it more.

Pilots have been flying around New Eden for years. Why make it harder to take a sabbatical?


Require unanimous agreement of Beneficiaries to liquidate capital assets

Generally, the Beneficiaries should exercise any discretion in the wind up of a Trust, not the Trustee. They should be able to claim for themselves the assets.

If a Settlor wants to prevent this, he or she could make him- or herself (or BIG) one of the Beneficiaries, forestalling unanimity.

Msgerbs
Gallente
Imperial Assualt Guild
Posted - 2009.08.09 14:43:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: TornSoul

Originally by: Elenos
I still don't see how the idea offers anything to people. Once you have left the game you have empowered a 3rd party to look after your stuff and continue to produce from it and distribute the profits to a beneficiary.

Explain to me how other than trusting the OP, the beneficiaries stand to gain anything from this ?
<snip>
If you had unconditional trust to the third party then it makes sense.



Please read about how this whole thing came about in the first place.
It wasn't my idea, but that of a Settlor who came to me.
So... Trust was there from the outset.
If you don't have that trust, the BTF is not for you - Simple as that.

There's really not much else I can add to put your worries at bay I'm afraid.
Neither of you is reading/comprehending very well.

Elenos seems to somehow think the beneficiaries aren't going to benefit from producing BPOs. (Huh?)

And Tornsoul missed the bit where he said "AND I AM NOT SLATING BIG" or something to that effect.

Come to think of I see quite a few people in here not reading.

Now then, gripes about not reading aside, why can't you give back BPOs? You say "because you cannot be certain it's the same person". Well, as someone else pointed out, you could use a password or PIN to withdraw it. Also, you have no gripes about sending money to a person whose identity is not verified.

I'm afraid this simply doesn't make sense. You're afraid that the Trustor will be hacked and ask for his stuff? What about the beneficiaries? Why can't they be hacked? It's like double standards here just to be able to keep the BPOs. I see very few people investing in something knowing that if they ever come back, they can't get their stuff back.

Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Posted - 2009.08.10 11:41:00 - [34]
 

Nice meta value in this project imo.. GJ Tornsoul..

btw drop in on the lounge coffee and waffles on me..


TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.10.28 22:14:00 - [35]
 

The BTF is still active.

(And I just reset the 90 day lock timer Wink)


Dumb Jerk
Posted - 2009.10.30 19:40:00 - [36]
 

So who is Mr.X?

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.12.11 06:10:00 - [37]
 

Time to beat the clock.

Factoid : BTF has so far paid out over 30 billion ISK.


Katiana Swan
Posted - 2009.12.11 14:35:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Katiana Swan on 11/12/2009 14:35:44
With a single exception, I think this is a really good plan.

Originally by: TornSoul
Roughly quarterly I will check if people are still around, or if I'm simply wasting time and ISK, wiring their share into a black hole.


I very much disagree with this statement. As trustee you should have no right to decide whether or not you are "wasting time and ISK", it's not your ISK to waste. It sounds like an elaborate plan to gather a large pile of t2 bpos and slowly take ownership of them as the trustees wither off or fail to advise they are active within reasonable timeframes.

Of further concern is that these reasonable timeframes haven't actually been determined. You have only just advised in your most recent post that the 90 day timer has been reset. However how much notice do you give to the trustee when checking they are active? Do you send them an evemail after 83 days and then take ownership of the bpo 7 days later? I think if you must go down this path there needs to be a very clear statement and guideline followed by the book to dictate precisely when notices will occur.

If this path has to be taken I would recommend contacting the trustee once per month with a generic email (you would have 3 templates) advising of timeframe for contact remaining. The player can respond at any of these 3 points thereby resetting their 90 day timeframe from the time of their response.

Personally I would strongly recommend against this completely though. You are making money every month off an asset that you haven't purchased (20%). Your comment I quoted above saying you are wasting "time" (you are making 20% income off a free asset) and "ISK" (same as above, you didn't pay for that asset, after manufacture costs you are taking 20% of Net profit) is quite concerning.

As a Settlor can I specify a condition stating that under no condition is the trustee payment to be terminated? If so, will it be honored by the BTF?

Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
Posted - 2009.12.11 14:50:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Katiana Swan
Of further concern is that these reasonable timeframes haven't actually been determined. You have only just advised in your most recent post that the 90 day timer has been reset. However how much notice do you give to the trustee when checking they are active? Do you send them an evemail after 83 days and then take ownership of the bpo 7 days later? I think if you must go down this path there needs to be a very clear statement and guideline followed by the book to dictate precisely when notices will occur.


FYI, the forum automatically locks threads that have gone inactive for 90 days. By posting in them, one can "reset" the "90 day timer".

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.12.13 21:54:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: TornSoul on 13/12/2009 21:55:26
Originally by: Katiana Swan
it's not your ISK to waste.


Correct.
Quite the contrary - It's my duty *not* to waste the ISK.

The goal is to take ISK that would else wise be wasted (by pouring it into a dead account) and distribute it to the other beneficiaries instead.

If *I* was a Donator that's what I would wan't to see happening.
Giving friend A and B the ISK from friend C should friend C no longer need it (quit the game)

--

The timelimit:

As pointed out above, my reference to the 90 day timelimit in my previous posts was with regards to the forum time limit of when threads get's locked.

I must certainly don't expect all the beneficiaries to keep a close eye on this thread Wink

Katiana Swan
Posted - 2009.12.14 01:29:00 - [41]
 

Ok understood, I will leave it at that.

However could you just answer this question?

Quote:
"As a Settlor can I specify a condition stating that under no condition is the trustee payment to be terminated? If so, will it be honored by the BTF?"

Thoraemond
Minmatar
Far Ranger
Posted - 2009.12.14 03:00:00 - [42]
 

It is nice to see that this initiative is ongoing. I remain interested in any response to the improvements I suggested above.

Originally by: TornSoul
The goal is to take ISK that would else wise be wasted (by pouring it into a dead account) and distribute it to the other beneficiaries instead.

If *I* was a Donator that's what I would wan't to see happening.
Giving friend A and B the ISK from friend C should friend C no longer need it (quit the game)

You've described a sensible policy (if C leaves, then the proceeds flow to A and B), and you've pointed out that you would choose such a policy. Perhaps the issue is that such a policy is not the only possible sensible policy.

If I understand correctly, you'd say that 'waste' includes making payments to currently-inactive accounts after after they've been inactive for a certain period, whereas others recognize that currently-inactive accounts might become active again, and so they don't see those payments as necessarily being 'waste'. (To the extent that it's possible to determine that a Pilot has been biomassed, or that a permanent ban has been imposed, that's a different matter, of course.)

It makes sense for someone to say 'I've flown around New Eden for four years, but now I'm going to do something else for a couple of years, and I look forward to having a big accumulation of trust proceeds sitting in my wallet when I return... I'm simply going to let my account lapse, not check my EVE-specific email account, and I'm not going to log in for a long time.'

It also seems quite plausible that people might drift away for a while, perhaps a long while, without putting their affairs in order before they do so. Not everyone's as organized as you!

Allowing each Settlor to determine the relevant policy for his or her own Trust would make the BTF appealing to a larger number of potential clients, in a larger range of circumstances.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only