open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked [EBANK] Not The Announcement - A Tim Burton Film
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (35)

Author Topic

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:37:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Jackie Fisher
Originally by: Liberty Eternal

Also, regarding the API key collection, don't you have a Data Protection Act in your country?


The Data Protection Act applies to in game information?


If I gave someone my API key and my account/computer got hacked because of it, I would take them to court for failing to securely store my information.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:42:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Breaker77
Are any of the older members (since before the Ricdic scandal) still at EBank? If so how are they not responsible for what has happened?

The remaining board members are Athre, Amarr Citizen 155 and SencneS.

Athre was head teller and then appointed acting CEO after the Ricdic incident. Her first move, together with AC155, was to bring me on board to conduct the internal audit that led to the deficit being revealed.

AC155 was in charge of running a venture, and having taken over a venture from Ricdic realised it was in no way profitable and proceeded to liquidate it.

SencneS was effectively a backup Director in charge of payroll.

Neither of their responsibilities saw dereliction of duty, they were in fact the best run divisions in the bank.
Originally by: Breaker77
Was there no system to check up on each other or even view internally loan/debts EBbank had?

There doesn't appear to be. In fact, an unsecured loan just came to light that was issued to a board member (at the time) at a ridiculously low rate of 2%. None of the current board members knew of that decision, nor is there any documentation detailing the reasons for the loan.
Originally by: Breaker77
If there was not such a system in place, is one being worked on to make sure that this situation doesn't happen again in a year?

Yes, internal policies are being worked on. We hope for our Compliance Officer to flesh them out over time.
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
PS: I don't see the horrible loan terms you were offering in the last thread, have you finally realised that they didn't make any sense and have you finally pulled them out?[/justify]

No, they are still active. I will add them to the post when I get a chance.
Originally by: Leneerra
what I consider private is:
2 other chars on my single account

And that is the exact reason for the Limited API requirement. We want to know that information. Why should we pay you out if you're an alt of a loan defaulter or former disgraced board member?

The TOS have changed for the benefit of all account holders, not for the benefit of the staff.
Originally by: Dal Thrax
As somebody who's spend some time in an alliance with Mr. Horizontal, and who invested in E-Bank due to his involvement, I would be very interested in hearing why his accounts were liquidated.

Because he faked 90b worth of deposits in the back-end and attempted to steal that from account holders.
Originally by: Jas Dor
I move that the board consider a resolution to wind up the corporation, liquidate all assets, and make a pro rate distribution to the account holders of all isk received.

Request denied.
Originally by: Proton Power
Is it possible to do what your trying to do with inactive accounts any other way other than via API.

Sure, but that's not the only reason for the API requirement.
Originally by: Proton Power
Instead of 6mths inactivity I would personally say go 8.

The military was something that came up during the vote, and we're willing to listen to this in our discussion group, which will be formed shortly (well, within the next few months).
Originally by: Amaarrah
Can I put my ISK from Suspence account into Checking Account and get 1.5 %? If not when will this be possible?

You can move it there, but interest will not be activated until the conditions outlined in the first announcement are met.
Originally by: Wyehr
]I think they picked 700B ISK since it was slightly more than they have right now. This way, depositors are drawing out earnings rather than reducing the bank's working capital.

Correct, it's also closer to the capital amount the bank can handle effectively at the moment.
Originally by: Wyehr
How about a script to check eve-search for the latest post from each account holder?

The various other reasons, such as identifying alts on accounts, make this suggestion moot.

RothimusPrime
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:43:00 - [123]
 

If any IPO, Bond, Fund, etc changed the terms of the agreement then they would be forever branded a scammer by MD. There is no difference between that and these new changes.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:47:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Dzil
Quote:
Every time we collect 1 user with 1 ISK that was banned, verified by API, that's 1 ISK is removed from the deficit.


This doesn't make sense. If your bank is holding assets associated with RMT, are those assets not liable to be wiped out? Do you have a clear record how much isk was lost by either Ricdic's character or GMs zapping isk? What gives you confidence that further ISK won't be zapped?



Understandable, while I'm sure ISK has been removed from accounts, we KNOW some has. This is an action we're taking to see if there is any banned ISK out there in our accounts. There is a two stage effect here.

1) ISK that a GM removed would have been removed from either EBANK Ricdic or EBANK Corp. Since we have been tracking the EBANK Corp we've captured any GM reversals that may have happened. However, EBANK Ricdic might not have captured them all. If a GM took ISK from EBANK Ricdic it needed to be manually checked because of the way the ISK is removed. So if Ricdic didn't report it (Some he did, but we can't make sure he did them all, we just don't trust he did them all.) The account balance in EBANK would have remained the same. So while EBANK is out the ISK the GM reversed, EBANK's records show that user still has the ISK. This is what we're trying to find out. This is a direct liability reduction on the deficit, EBANK didn't make any gains from this scenario.

2) The other scenario, The account is banned, and the GM's took no actions on the ISK transfers. This is a direct GAIN for EBANK, and we're sure there are accounts like this, like both scenarios really. This means the account is Banned, EBANK got the ISK, and was never removed. While we doubt it will recover all, it should lower the amount of GM Reversed successfully laundered ISK. In which, the RMTer deposited into EBANK, transfer the ISK to someone else, that person withdraw it, and the GM Reversed the original deposit. (EBANK is out twice as much that way).

There is a real need for this, and this is really the only way to get this done.

Liberty Eternal
Tin foil hat aside, I personally don't believe anyone should do anything to provoke CCP. In the past we have petitioned for somethings like the EVEMails that went out to every person. Sure we could have just gone ahead and done it anyway, but we'd risk getting banned. It's just common sense to seek approvals for activities outside the "Normal" expected operations.

Using the EVE forum to collect 9000+ character postings for account activity verification is not good, and is prone to being locked by a Mod. And there is not exactly a set forum for this. We could use General, but it would not be stickied in there, so we'd have to constantly bump it, At some point in time, enough people could report it for spamming and a MOD/DEV/GM lock it out.. :(

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:54:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Brock Nelson
Why not give everyone a chance to withdraw their isk before changing the term of agreement?

Because we don't want to allow those that are in debt to the bank this opportunity.
Originally by: Moya81

Originally by: Ray McCormack
I'm going to let the vote pass as a YES with a clause that we need to obtain further community input and discussion on the final write-off of ISK.

Originally by: Ray McCormack
The Limited API Key requirement is not negotiable, we will not use alternative methods to verify your account status. Failure to provide your Limited API Key will result in your ISK remaining in your Suspense Account for the next few months until it is considered dormant and written off (pending final decisions on that process). I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not change our stance on this.

Your replies are confusing and contradictory...

They're not, the first quote is regarding Suspense Accounts, as denoted by the "pending final decisions on that process" in the second quote.


I have read the rest of the replies up to this point and can't see anything else that warrants a reply from me. Please restate your question or ask for my attention in a further post if I haven't replied to you and feel I should have.



Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:02:00 - [126]
 

SencneS, the game is over for Ebank. You admit that you have no way to verify every account, and also admit that CCP are not going to give you any extraordinary help or access to account information to help you police your customers. Collecting API keys is an abuse of power and a security problem in its own right.

Just as importantly, Ebank seem to have little or no respect for private property rights or contractual agreements. You are re-negotiating the terms as you go along in a high-handed fashion, trying to rebuild your business with isk that belongs to others. In my opinion you have lost your credibility as a legitimate capitalist operation and many others have come to the same conclusion.

No bank or economic system can prosper by ignoring the rights of the wealth-creators. Your moral and contractual obligations are simple - immediately cease the non-voluntary imposition of new terms on your customers and liquidate your holdings so as to return the property you hold to its rightful owners.

SetrakDark
DarkCorp Citizens Holdings
DarkCorp Citizens
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:05:00 - [127]
 

If the API key is non-negotiable, then I don't see much point in debating it. A statement of dislike seems fine, though EBank has little rep to lose at this point, but pushing for a change in policy is wasted effort.

I'm not trying to be condescending, I just think there are other issues that might be worth addressing.

I guess if you really think the pressure will change their minds...I just don't.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:21:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Your moral and contractual obligations are simple - immediately cease the non-voluntary imposition of new terms on your customers and liquidate your holdings so as to return the property you hold to its rightful owners.

The board views it's moral obligations slightly different, and we're willing to make non-voluntary contractual changes when we believe those changes are in the interest of the majority of stakeholders.

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:38:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Your moral and contractual obligations are simple - immediately cease the non-voluntary imposition of new terms on your customers and liquidate your holdings so as to return the property you hold to its rightful owners.

The board views it's moral obligations slightly different, and we're willing to make non-voluntary contractual changes when we believe those changes are in the interest of the majority of stakeholders.



There is no such thing as a non-voluntary contractual change. It ceases to be a contract when the original terms and conditions are changed without negotiation - it is then a forceful imposition. The only possible legitimate reason you may have to do this is to prevent theft, yet even then your method must be proven, efficient and timely.

You have suspended the contractual and private property rights of every single one of your customers. You must accept that you are no longer a functioning capitalistic entity until such time as you are able to restore them. If this is an anti-crime operation, then you must commit yourself to cleaning up accounts as quickly as possible, and then you must return account holdings to their rightful owners and only retain isk through mutual, voluntary agreement.

Don't cross the line from legitimate anti-crime operation to violator of private property rights. You must assure all interested parties that principles of contract and private property are your highest priority if you wish to be accepted as a genuine free-market institution.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:39:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: SetrakDark
If the API key is non-negotiable, then I don't see much point in debating it.

I could lie and tell you we will take your objections into account, but the fact is the decision has been made and will not change. Perhaps some of our account holders appreciate that brutal honesty, if nothing else.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:49:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
If this is an anti-crime operation, then you must commit yourself to cleaning up accounts as quickly as possible, and then you must return account holdings to their rightful owners and only retain isk through mutual, voluntary agreement.

The issue is if we don't enforce the policy across the board then we lose the opportunity to catch those we're after, and we cannot be sure we have caught them all until every account holder supplies their Limited API Key or forfeits their accounts. If they do supply their Limited API Key, then they have accepted the contractual change, albeit under duress. However then they are then able to register their dissatisfaction with that change by withdrawing the ISK from their account or changing their Limited API Key (and only giving it to us once every few months to ensure their account remains active if they merely distrust us).

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:54:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 23/11/2009 17:56:36
Firstly Sencnes idea is way better than the proposed on the announcement.

Now, on the api issue, it is VERY curious that you guys put down the ideas that could not work but do not comment on the ideas that will do, what about the in-game channel and the 0.01 isk deposits? What do you have to object to that? If you want to require apis for future endeavours (and I'm still waiting for the real reason on why you want this), it is ok, but you must offer a way out for the people who do not want to abide by this new TOS.

On the RMT comments, it is just hilarious to hear them and I'm going to put the smoke curtain off right away:
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
I want to use this thread if you don't mind (too many EBank threads around here lately) to ask EBank's guys another question that maybe I've missed too in threadnaughts, but has this crisis been affected by RMT isks banning? And if so, Do you realise you guys are going to work to pay for who illegally obtained and lost money? Or am I missing something?

Originally by: Sencnes
EBANK strives to work with CCP on possible RMT laundering thought EBANK. Any unusual account activity is reported to CCP when a withdrawal is processed. Any direction we are given by CCP we follow. An entity like EBANK with thousands of customers and almost 10 Trillion ISK moving though it's system is undoubtedly monitored heavily by CCP. EBANK also has automatic checks that if GM action is taken on the deposit into EBANK, the system auto shuts down the account, cancels any withdrawal request and changes the users password to a random sequence of characters. Fortunately this was not used very much as manual auditing of transactions by the tellers appeared to work well enough.

Originally by: Sencnes
Sorry, I thought it was clear. If a GM reversed the transaction the Software picks it up, cancels any withdraw request, changes the password, and locks the account. The software actually processes a negative ISK as "GM Action" within EBANK's system. Before you ask I'll answer the next question :)

In the even of ISK being transfered to another account, this is the audit process ALL tellers perform when processing withdrawals. We have an incredible system available to us for this. Any account in which a balance is transfered between any number of accounts. When processing a request if the activity looks suspicious, same IP address, timing, the value of the transfer, previous history with transfers and who they are, length of time the accounts have been opened, age of character in game. We petition the request with CCP. If it's found to be "funny" CCP gives us direction.

CCP have been incredibly helpful for us in this matter, and I would think CCP like it, why wouldn't they? RMT is a major concern for EBANK and CCP. Every possible step is in place to inform CCP of any possibility of RMT via EBANK. We've made it clear in the past, transactions performed with EBANK's systems are heavily logged. These logs are 100% available to CCP at their request.

To put a more blunt point, the deficit is not because of RMT activities. Well apart from the contribution of Ricdic's RMT activities of cause.


Originally by: LaVista Vista
Having dealt with the RMT aspect of things together with tellers for a long time now, I'm going to expand on this

We do have an auditing tool that visualises the movement of ISK internally in our system. However all IP cross-referencing and the like is done manually.

The point about the deficit being partially caused by RMT is very valid. But that would assume we have missed GM reversals which have gone through the system and hasn't been accounted for.

As for us offering data to CCP, we do petition things every so often. However the data EBANK has is inherently unreliable because it can be manipulated with. So while we have offered CCP what we saw as benficial, they would be fools to take it.

Source

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:58:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
If this is an anti-crime operation, then you must commit yourself to cleaning up accounts as quickly as possible, and then you must return account holdings to their rightful owners and only retain isk through mutual, voluntary agreement.

The issue is if we don't enforce the policy across the board then we lose the opportunity to catch those we're after, and we cannot be sure we have caught them all until every account holder supplies their Limited API Key or forfeits their accounts. If they do supply their Limited API Key, then they have accepted the contractual change, albeit under duress. However then they are then able to register their dissatisfaction with that change by withdrawing the ISK from their account or changing their Limited API Key (and only giving it to us once every few months to ensure their account remains active if they merely distrust us).



Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:03:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
Now, on the api issue, it is VERY curious that you guys put down the ideas that could not work but do not comment on the ideas that will do, what about the in-game channel and the 0.01 isk deposits? What do you have to object to that?

How would that identify alts to us?
Originally by: Dzil
Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?

You surely don't expect us to make them public do you? That's hardly the same thing as we're requesting. And every EBANK customer is required to supply those details, Board or Staff membership regardless.

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:05:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
If this is an anti-crime operation, then you must commit yourself to cleaning up accounts as quickly as possible, and then you must return account holdings to their rightful owners and only retain isk through mutual, voluntary agreement.

The issue is if we don't enforce the policy across the board then we lose the opportunity to catch those we're after, and we cannot be sure we have caught them all until every account holder supplies their Limited API Key or forfeits their accounts. If they do supply their Limited API Key, then they have accepted the contractual change, albeit under duress. However then they are then able to register their dissatisfaction with that change by withdrawing the ISK from their account or changing their Limited API Key (and only giving it to us once every few months to ensure their account remains active if they merely distrust us).



This response satisfies me that you are trying to find the right balance between security and property rights. I don't see what else you can do in the circumstances. So long as customers can remove their money after handing their API over, then the only remaining problem is how you will guarantee the privacy and security of their API data, if it even can be guaranteed?






LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:08:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Dzil


Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?

Are you suggesting that every member of the board hands over their limited API key to a trusted auditor to make sure that none of their alts are scammers nor are involved with RMT/is banned?

Sounds reasonable to me, if you pay the fee.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:09:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
So long as customers can remove their money after handing their API over, then the only remaining problem is how you will guarantee the privacy and security of their API data, if it even can be guaranteed?

Just to qualify, they can remove their ISK through a liquidation withdrawal, they won't get the full amount just yet. Or they can wait, and supply their Limited API Key every so often to avoid their account being suspended. Then they can withdraw the full amount when we re-open interest and withdrawals.

We will do our utmost to keep the data we obtain from the Limited API Key private and secure, but for me to promise it is entirely safe would be a lie. Any Admin or Board member on the bank website can see these details, and I can hardly stop them from storing it without my knowledge. I'll let them all know I will be extremely angry and upset if they do though.

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:10:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
The issue is if we don't enforce the policy across the board then we lose the opportunity to catch those we're after, and we cannot be sure we have caught them all until every account holder supplies their Limited API Key or forfeits their accounts. If they do supply their Limited API Key, then they have accepted the contractual change, albeit under duress. However then they are then able to register their dissatisfaction with that change by withdrawing the ISK from their account or changing their Limited API Key (and only giving it to us once every few months to ensure their account remains active if they merely distrust us).
No they can't, because you do not allow withdrawings nor liquidations atm.

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:15:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
but for me to promise it is entirely safe would be a lie. Any Admin or Board member on the bank website can see these details, and I can hardly stop them from storing it without my knowledge.



Sorry but that is totally and utterly inadequate. You need a far more robust security system.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:16:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
No they can't, because you do not allow withdrawings nor liquidations atm.

Patience. They only have to provide their keys when we do allow liquidation withdrawals, or do it every now and then to avoid their accounts being suspended before we do allow withdrawals.

Angus McSpork
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:17:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Dzil


Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?

Are you suggesting that every member of the board hands over their limited API key to a trusted auditor to make sure that none of their alts are scammers nor are involved with RMT/is banned?

Sounds reasonable to me, if you pay the fee.


Sorry, you won't let your customers use a 3rd party auditor, why should you get any preferantial treatment?

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:17:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 18:18:56
What will you do if the api keys reveal a customer to have an alt who is a known scammer/defaulter, albeit not on an Ebank loan? What if the individual has scammed members of the bank staff in a non-Ebank context? Just a hypothetical question that may be relevant to some of your customers.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:19:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Angus McSpork


Sorry, you won't let your customers use a 3rd party auditor, why should you get any preferantial treatment?

Who do you suggest does the checking then?

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:22:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
No they can't, because you do not allow withdrawings nor liquidations atm.

Patience. They only have to provide their keys when we do allow liquidation withdrawals, or do it every now and then to avoid their accounts being suspended before we do allow withdrawals.



With this answer we are back to square one - which is the violation of property rights. Once a customer has been security-cleared, what reason do you have to refuse liquidation?





Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:23:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Sorry but that is totally and utterly inadequate. You need a far more robust security system.

I don't see how we can implement one that still sees the staff members that action withdrawals have access to that information to check for alts on our list of known thieves and loan defaulters.

Can you?

RAW23
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:26:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Angus McSpork


Sorry, you won't let your customers use a 3rd party auditor, why should you get any preferantial treatment?

Who do you suggest does the checking then?


You make them public, obviously. Your argument is that they contain no information that could really be damaging if given to strangers (that is, the staff of Ebank). That being so, there is no danger to you in making yours public.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:28:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: RAW23

You make them public, obviously. Your argument is that they contain no information that could really be damaging if given to strangers (that is, the staff of Ebank). That being so, there is no danger to you in making yours public.

Making information public and giving it to EBANK worlds apart.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:28:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack

Originally by: Dzil
Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?

You surely don't expect us to make them public do you? That's hardly the same thing as we're requesting.


Its exactly what you're requesting. Making them available to even one potential scammer might as well be making them public, right? How are you prepared to assure 9000 API keyholders that your current and future staff harbors no scammers, in light of this past year? Even FX900 broke a contract when he felt morally obligated.




Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:29:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
what reason do you have to refuse liquidation?

Because liquidation is subject to conditions as outlined in the OP that aren't yet met.

Angus McSpork
Caldari
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:35:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Angus McSpork


Sorry, you won't let your customers use a 3rd party auditor, why should you get any preferantial treatment?

Who do you suggest does the checking then?


Hey, you just need to hand them over, ok? You'll have to trust whoever can look at them not to do anything with the information. We just need to make sure none of your alts have ever scammed.

You know the whole "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" thing and all..


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (35)

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