open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked [GLTB] Long Term Bond 350b - Running
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Hieronimus Rex
Minmatar
Infinitus Sapientia
Hav0k.
Posted - 2011.05.02 06:03:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 02/05/2011 05:50:10

*Activates voice of scepticism*

Sorry, but this offering stinks. An anonymous client? Really? If he's asking for 350 billion then he should be prepared to waive his anonymity - unless he's

a) Bad Bobby
b) An imaginary friend

Only last month you were here asking for 100 billion - that folded early [almost instantly!] and lo-and-behold, you're back and upped it to 350 already. And on a final note this offering has the exact same structure of cosmoray's final scam attempt, with the corresponding complete lack of investor security.


Edit: typo


Fair points, but doesn't 350bil seem a little low for a reputation cash out? If he's getting just 1-2% of the ISK handled on 10 trillion in transactions...that's a few hundred billion already, over maybe a year or two?

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2011.05.02 06:31:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 02/05/2011 06:33:38
Originally by: Hieronimus Rex
Fair points, but doesn't 350bil seem a little low for a reputation cash out? If he's getting just 1-2% of the ISK handled on 10 trillion in transactions...that's a few hundred billion already, over maybe a year or two?


Good question, but that's inherently a hypothetical question that we have no means of discovering the answer to. What we can know is that the structure of the offering is flawed because of the "anonymous client" - a mechanism which is easily open to misuse.

khai88
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:18:00 - [33]
 

for me i see this as not a scam, as say at post above if he want to cash out the rep, he just need to offer 3-4% interest and the bond will be fill by now, the reason it havn't be fill and so hard doing it is the very low interest. and i don't believe he will make a stupid mistake like this to scam

Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:27:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 02/05/2011 07:29:06
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 02/05/2011 05:50:10

*Activates voice of scepticism*

Sorry, but this offering stinks. An anonymous client? Really? If he's asking for 350 billion then he should be prepared to waive his anonymity - unless he's

a) Bad Bobby
b) An imaginary friend

Only last month you were here asking for 100 billion - that folded early [almost instantly!] and lo-and-behold, you're back and upped it to 350 already. And on a final note this offering has the exact same structure of cosmoray's final scam attempt, with the corresponding complete lack of investor security.


Edit: typo


..Liberty, no offense, but this post, and a few others (especially the ones directed twords Shar) indicate your lack of MD historical knowledge.

I'm sure you will point out your character creation date, and your account creation date, and MD participation (even just as a non poster) date. Your lack of knowledge in MD culture shows clearly in your posting.

Grendell has a long track record of being a third party for anonymous clients. It's kind of his thing. The third party middleman for security (lolrite?) and anonymity is an accepted practice. Three people come to mind: Chribba, Darkness, and Grendell.

If your questioning Grendell as a "Trusted 3rd party (lolrite?)" in this offering, then you might as well just write off the whole "Trusted 3rd party" custom altogether.

And as for last months 100b offering "that folded early [almost instantly!]" if you look at the thread, it appears the offering closed because the "anonymous client" wanted it to.

And 70b was returned to flakeys.

Who is not participating in this offering.

So is flakeys one of Grendells sleeper alts who has been implanted for years to help Grendell cash out now?

I'm not saying this offering isn't a scam, because, well, it's Eve. Everyone's trying to scam you!

Just saying that Grendell isn't John Q McSpacebux coming to the MD forums looking for low hanging isk.

And that your MD knowledge sucks. No offense of course.








Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:31:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
What we can know is that the structure of the offering is flawed because of the "anonymous client" - a mechanism which is easily open to misuse.

Assume Grendell will hold a huge amount of public isk and assets at some point during this loan. Accept that there is no security and all you have is Grendell's word. Accept that he is willing to act as a third party to people from all backgrounds including any and all from whatever list of villains you wish to name.

Does the identity of any one person from the rogues gallery of Grendell's clients really make that much of a difference?

While I can understand the concern that the anonymous client does not exist and it is all just a ruse, what does that really matter? Along that line of questioning all you really care about is the existance, value and security of 410b in collateral. Given you are going to have to take Grendell's word for that then we are really just back to where we started.

It's a 350b unsecured offering with a person who will also hold a large but unknown and unknowable amount of public isk and assets in parallel.

I agree that it isn't an ideal offering, but I really do not think that the anonymous nature of the client is anywhere near the top of the list of things to worry about.

Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:32:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Syds Sinclair
Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 02/05/2011 07:29:06
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 02/05/2011 05:50:10

*Activates voice of scepticism*

Sorry, but this offering stinks. An anonymous client? Really? If he's asking for 350 billion then he should be prepared to waive his anonymity - unless he's

a) Bad Bobby
b) An imaginary friend

Only last month you were here asking for 100 billion - that folded early [almost instantly!] and lo-and-behold, you're back and upped it to 350 already. And on a final note this offering has the exact same structure of cosmoray's final scam attempt, with the corresponding complete lack of investor security.


Edit: typo


..Liberty, no offense, but this post, and a few others (especially the ones directed twords Shar) indicate your lack of MD historical knowledge.

I'm sure you will point out your character creation date, and your account creation date, and MD participation (even just as a non poster) date. Your lack of knowledge in MD culture shows clearly in your posting.

Grendell has a long track record of being a third party for anonymous clients. It's kind of his thing. The third party middleman for security (lolrite?) and anonymity is an accepted practice. Three people come to mind: Chribba, Darkness, and Grendell.

If your questioning Grendell as a "Trusted 3rd party (lolrite?)" in this offering, then you might as well just write off the whole "Trusted 3rd party" custom altogether.

And as for last months 100b offering "that folded early [almost instantly!]" if you look at the thread, it appears the offering closed because the "anonymous client" wanted it to.

And 70b was returned to flakeys.

Who is not participating in this offering.

So is flakeys one of Grendells sleeper alts who has been implanted for years to help Grendell cash out now?

I'm not saying this offering isn't a scam, because, well, it's Eve. Everyone's trying to scam you!

Just saying that Grendell isn't John Q McSpacebux coming to the MD forums looking for low hanging isk.

And that your MD knowledge sucks. No offense of course.




Oh yes, there should be MD elite who are above reproach and questioning Rolling Eyes We've all seen how well that works. Rolling Eyes

How dare he question valued MD icons like Cosmoray!.. oh wait..

Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:34:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
What we can know is that the structure of the offering is flawed because of the "anonymous client" - a mechanism which is easily open to misuse.

Assume Grendell will hold a huge amount of public isk and assets at some point during this loan. Accept that there is no security and all you have is Grendell's word. Accept that he is willing to act as a third party to people from all backgrounds including any and all from whatever list of villains you wish to name.

Does the identity of any one person from the rogues gallery of Grendell's clients really make that much of a difference?

While I can understand the concern that the anonymous client does not exist and it is all just a ruse, what does that really matter? Along that line of questioning all you really care about is the existance, value and security of 410b in collateral. Given you are going to have to take Grendell's word for that then we are really just back to where we started.

It's a 350b unsecured offering with a person who will also hold a large but unknown and unknowable amount of public isk and assets in parallel.

I agree that it isn't an ideal offering, but I really do not think that the anonymous nature of the client is anywhere near the top of the list of things to worry about.


..[See post above].

Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:36:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
..MD presence grind..


Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..I'm not saying this offering isn't a scam, because, well, it's Eve. Everyone's trying to scam you!..

..Just saying that Grendell isn't John Q McSpacebux coming to the MD forums looking for low hanging isk...



Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:43:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Syds Sinclair
Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
..MD presence grind..


Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..I'm not saying this offering isn't a scam, because, well, it's Eve. Everyone's trying to scam you!..

..Just saying that Grendell isn't John Q McSpacebux coming to the MD forums looking for low hanging isk...





What does it matter who he is then? You either think some people are above reproach, or that nobody is. MD "culture" has a long running tradition of allowing for enormous scams because once someone gets enough "rep" they become unquestionable.

And then some people think that every offering should be seen on its own merits. Merits which this one is missing other than the attachment of Grendell's name.

And, as pointed, some MD personalities are actually scammers (cosmo, Bad Bobby, ricdic, etc) ::shock::

But hey, whiteknight away!

You should invest if the offering is that good, by the by. Nothing like putting your money where your mouth is.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:47:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
But hey, whiteknight away!

Your response is entirely disproportional to his actual post.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:51:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..[See post above].

I think you may have missunderstood on what side my opinion of Grendell falls.

I have, do and will continue to use Grendell and Chribba as 3rd parties for various deals. I do not use Darknesss because he shares corp/alliance history with me and thereby disqualifies himself as being acceptable to some 2nd parties.

I'm sure you can see that for me the need for a trusted 3rd party can be extremely frequent. They are essential. A necessary evil maybe. Without them I could not run a large and profitable part of my business.

Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.02 07:55:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
But hey, whiteknight away!

Your response is entirely disproportional to his actual post.



Petition it to the UN.

Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 08:19:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..[See post above].

I think you may have missunderstood on what side my opinion of Grendell falls...

...I have, do and will continue to use Grendell and Chribba as 3rd parties for various deals...

...need for a trusted 3rd party can be extremely frequent. They are essential. A necessary evil maybe. Without them I could not run a large and profitable part of my business.



..Exactly what my post was trying to illustrate. Of the 3rd parties that are available, necessary evils they may be, Grendell is one of them, one who has a forum documented (for better or for worse) 10t in 3rd party transfers.

Of course, buyer beware.

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2011.05.02 08:30:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 02/05/2011 08:42:11

Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..Liberty, no offense, but this post, and a few others (especially the ones directed twords Shar) indicate your lack of MD historical knowledge.


Even if true, this is not a logical way to refute a premise - you have to refute the actual premise I made [that the offering is structured in a way that is unsafe]. I'm sure you didn't mean to make a deliberate ad hominem but even if it was accidental, that's what you've done Wink

Originally by: Syds Sinclair
I'm sure you will point out your character creation date, and your account creation date, and MD participation (even just as a non poster) date. Your lack of knowledge in MD culture shows clearly in your posting.


Again, an unrelated side-issue, and not a conversation I will be having with you anyway. If you have knowledge, demonstrate it.


Originally by: Syds Sinclair
Grendell has a long track record of being a third party for anonymous clients. It's kind of his thing. The third party middleman for security (lolrite?) and anonymity is an accepted practice. Three people come to mind: Chribba, Darkness, and Grendell.

If your questioning Grendell as a "Trusted 3rd party (lolrite?)" in this offering, then you might as well just write off the whole "Trusted 3rd party" custom altogether.


I know he has a long track record but this is not a guarantee of security, although it should certainly be taken into account.

However I'm questioning the structure of the offering - I did the same thing in Cosmoray's Hegel Angel case and received similar responses, but I pushed on because the structure of the offering was objectively flawed, and remained so no matter who was offering it.

Also, it's hardly an attack on an entire tradition if I just ask some necessary questions about a weak structure of offering Wink

Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..And as for last months 100b offering "that folded early [almost instantly!]" if you look at the thread, it appears the offering closed because the "anonymous client" wanted it to.

And 70b was returned to flakeys.


But this doesn't refute my point - that the offer folded early, and that it has been quickly followed by an offering 3.5 times the size.



Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..So is flakeys one of Grendells sleeper alts who has been implanted for years to help Grendell cash out now?


Rhetorical tangent


Originally by: Syds Sinclair
And that your MD knowledge sucks. No offense of course.



No offence taken - in fact, I'm looking forward to you demonstrating your superior knowledge by solving some of the difficult questions that have arisen in this thread [which should be easy for you].


Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 09:18:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 02/05/2011 09:21:42
Edited by: Syds Sinclair on 02/05/2011 09:19:27
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..Liberty, no offense, but this post, and a few others (especially the ones directed twords Shar) indicate your lack of MD historical knowledge.


Even if true, this is not a logical way to refute a premise - you have to refute the actual premise I made [that the offering is structured in a way that is unsafe]. I'm sure you didn't mean to make a deliberate ad hominem but even if it was accidental, that's what you've done Wink


..I stated this to set a precedent. You are posting from a perspective of clean slate. It is not such a bad perspective, but a such a viewpoint ignores the totality of circumstance.

From my perspective:

Arrow Yes the bond is an unsecured bond, in the aspect that each investor is not holding onto collateral.
Arrow Trusted third parties are an accepted practice.
Arrow Grendell is one of the three topmost third parties.
Arrow For Standards and Practices, the bond is a secured bond.

QuestionIs your hang up with third parties? Don't trust any third party? Wont invest if a third party is involved?

IdeaIf so then all collateral of a secured loan should go directly to the loaner(s). Can't argue with you there.

QuestionIs your hang up not with third parties but with Grendell?

IdeaThen who would you consider a trusted third party?

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: Syds Sinclair
I'm sure you will point out your character creation date, and your account creation date, and MD participation (even just as a non poster) date. Your lack of knowledge in MD culture shows clearly in your posting.


Again, an unrelated side-issue, and not a conversation I will be having with you anyway. If you have knowledge, demonstrate it.


A preemptive counter to a likely defense of my precedent.

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: Syds Sinclair
Grendell has a long track record of being a third party for anonymous clients. It's kind of his thing. The third party middleman for security (lolrite?) and anonymity is an accepted practice. Three people come to mind: Chribba, Darkness, and Grendell.

If your questioning Grendell as a "Trusted 3rd party (lolrite?)" in this offering, then you might as well just write off the whole "Trusted 3rd party" custom altogether.


I know he has a long track record but this is not a guarantee of security, although it should certainly be taken into account.

However I'm questioning the structure of the offering - I did the same thing in Cosmoray's Hegel Angel case and received similar responses, but I pushed on because the structure of the offering was objectively flawed, and remained so no matter who was offering it.

Also, it's hardly an attack on an entire tradition if I just ask some necessary questions about a weak structure of offering Wink


What is a guarantee of security? Serious question as your answer might help advance further discussion.

How much should it be taken into account? On a scale of 1-10? Isn't that rather subjective?

What is weak about the structure? That Grendell secures offers from anonymous borrowers?

Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: Syds Sinclair
..And as for last months 100b offering "that folded early [almost instantly!]" if you look at the thread, it appears the offering closed because the "anonymous client" wanted it to.

And 70b was returned to flakeys.


But this doesn't refute my point - that the offer folded early, and that it has been quickly followed by an offering 3.5 times the size.


My point was that the offer "folded" because the borrower ended the bond. So to you "folded" means..

Arrow Bond offered.
Arrow Bond filled in a day.
Arrow Borrower closes the bond and pays earned interest.

Sign me up for 10 "folded" bonds plx.

Ran out of characters, and beer, so I'll stop now.










Rafia Landras Audeles
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.02 15:31:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Rafia Landras Audeles on 02/05/2011 15:31:12
You know, an idle thought came to my mind, and this being the place it is, I may as well share it.

What happens if one day, Grendell decides to take a break from Eve for a given period of time? (the reason is not important for this exercise). One day, of his own foreseeing, Grendell decides to take a break.

What will he do then? As this thread an numerous others show, the value of rep is decreasing rapidly. People like him, or Darkness (who tried unsuccessfully to launch a bond not long ago) are trusted on name recognition by people like Syds who point out the "culture of the place".

But once his ambulance chasing act (which happens less and less often than it used to) stops, so does his relevance.

Newer people don't respect said "culture" and have learned to distrust institutions based on "he is an unquestionable elite".

The only way to cash out his reputation then, is to do so at a point previous to his departure. and a low interest offering would allow to pay difidents on a ponzi structure leaving him a way to come back if he changes his mind without burning his bridges.

Just some idle thoughts.

But the relevant fact here is that beyond his word, we can't know that the blueprints exist. And the value of someone's word in Eve seems to be.. surprisingly close to negative these days.

Without a second party with its own corp history, subscription length and recognition how can one evaluate the existence of the collateral then?

And even if he wasn't out to cash out his rep, what stops him from giving himself a loan of 350 b isk at a low interest without any collateral ever existing?

I think the time of trusting people with over a third of a trillion isk mrely because they want it is long past.

"Elite" or not.

Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.05.02 16:17:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
But the relevant fact here is that beyond his word, we can't know that the blueprints exist. And the value of someone's word in Eve seems to be.. surprisingly close to negative these days.

Without a second party with its own corp history, subscription length and recognition how can one evaluate the existence of the collateral then?

And even if he wasn't out to cash out his rep, what stops him from giving himself a loan of 350 b isk at a low interest without any collateral ever existing?

You are overcomplicating your thinking with talk about the collateral.

Whether the collateral exists is unknown and unknowable therefore any question involving the collateral is pointless.

Distill it down to what you know about the offering.
Originally by: Bad Bobby
It's a 350b unsecured offering with a person who will also hold a large but unknown and unknowable amount of public isk and assets in parallel.

Do you trust Grendell under those terms or do you not?

Are you willing to accept the offered ROI or are you not?

The answer for some will be yes and the answer for some will be no.

Making it any more complicated than that does not really get you anywhere because you are simply asking questions that cannot be answered under the terms of the offering.

Any minor detail you might gain by squeezing a more complete discription from Grendell will only allow you to make minor adjustments to the risk profile. This will not allow you to escape the fact that MD ROIs do not allow you to accept anything more than the most minimal of risks because a loss in one investment can wipe out the return on your entire portfolio.
Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
the time of trusting people with over a third of a trillion isk mrely because they want it is long past.

You may wish that it was so but reality will not bend to those wishes.

Grendell
Technologies Unlimited
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:10:00 - [48]
 

Wow lots of posts while I was asleep!Embarassed Before I get to the questions and concerns I'd like to ask everyone to stay on topic and be polite and respectful to each other. Pretty please.Wink

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

*Activates voice of scepticism*
Sorry, but this offering stinks. An anonymous client? Really?



As a 3rd party, I deal with a lot of different scenarios. Each scenario tends to vary depending on the clients requests. In this scenario the client wishes to remain anonymous. Ideally the client would be known publicly, like in the transaction I secured for Varo Jan in his purchase of The One Stop Mining Shop for 150b.

The client has his reasons for wanting to stay anonymous, I understand them and I will garner to his request. It's as simple as that.

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

Only last month you were here asking for 100 billion - that folded early [almost instantly!]



It didn't fold, it was closed out properly and there was no set duration. The client anticipated it would take longer to pay off then it did. Here's the link since you must have missed it. Thread.

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

and lo-and-behold, you're back and upped it to 350 already.



Don't forget that it was actually 225b first -> then 100b -> now 350b. (The links in my main post)Smile

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

And on a final note this offering has the exact same structure of cosmoray's final scam attempt, with the corresponding complete lack of investor security.



The investor security here is is my word on the value and possession of collateral. My "structure" has always been being a middle man in a transaction, I have no intention of running a business like Cosmo. Same as the last 2 offerings posted here, same as any of the 3rd party transaction I handle for the major alliances in eve and individual super cap pilots. My word is the offered security. If you are not comfortable with that as a security, there's no point in beating a dead horseLaughing. You may not be comfortable with this offering, luckily this forum has many others I'm sure you can find very comfortable. Maybe in the future I'll have one you can feel comfortable with. Until then, maybe next time.Wink

Originally by: Hieronimus Rex

Fair points, but doesn't 350bil seem a little low for a reputation cash out? If he's getting just 1-2% of the ISK handled on 10 trillion in transactions...that's a few hundred billion already, over maybe a year or two?


Not that this would instill confidence in you or others but, I have a tendency of undercharging clients.Embarassed Sometimes I'll even do things for free if I'm just in the right mood. Also if it's only a few seconds of work.Laughing

I do make a fair amount of isk from my 3rd party service but, it's the least of my incomes. Don't forget I've been playing eve for quite some time. So I've had the opportunity to to come across a lot of great deals and golden times. One of them buying out all the investors in the OSM deal, now making me the only investor in the company. It cost me 250b, but imo was worth every penny.

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

Good question, but that's inherently a hypothetical question that we have no means of discovering the answer to. What we can know is that the structure of the offering is flawed because of the "anonymous client" - a mechanism which is easily open to misuse.


Any structure has a flaw. But every structure has it's strengths and weaknesses. I very much agree that it is open to misuse, can't argue that. The only thing I can say there is to my above replies to you.

Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:12:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
Edited by: Rafia Landras Audeles on 02/05/2011 15:31:12

..are trusted on name recognition by people like Syds who point out the "culture of the place"..




..Take note that I never have, or probably ever will invest in an offering, secured by Grendell or not. To me the pittance interest is not worth any amount of risk.

Furthermore, the time taken to research an offering, decide if it's worth it, and continually checking up the status could be spent in game making a much larger amount of isk with less risk.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how much you don't like the "trusted 3rd party" system, a whole lot of other investors do. You either fall in line or abstain. I have chosen to abstain.

In closing, the only name recognition I have is that the denizens of MD recognize Chibbra, Darkness, Grendell, Breaker77, VV, RAW23, and a few others as securing methods. I can't beat em, and I won't be joining em.

Grendell
Technologies Unlimited
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:15:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Grendell on 02/05/2011 17:22:44
Originally by: khai88
for me i see this as not a scam, as say at post above if he want to cash out the rep, he just need to offer 3-4% interest and the bond will be fill by now, the reason it havn't be fill and so hard doing it is the very low interest. and i don't believe he will make a stupid mistake like this to scam


Sadly 3-4% won't be possible for this particular offering, as much as I'd like it to be. I am quite confident it will fill over time. it will just be a slow process.Smile

Originally by: Syds Sinclair




Thank you for your compliments and support.Razz

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles

What does it matter who he is then? You either think some people are above reproach, or that nobody is. MD "culture" has a long running tradition of allowing for enormous scams because once someone gets enough "rep" they become unquestionable.

And then some people think that every offering should be seen on its own merits. Merits which this one is missing other than the attachment of Grendell's name.



I'll have to agree with you here, as much as I love the support from some for me here. I have to stand by the fact I believe nobody is beyond reproach or question. Everyone should be open to public questions and concerns when dealing with public investors. Which is why I welcome any questions or concerns, and will happily try to address them as best I can.

Originally by: Rafia Landras Audeles
Edited by: Rafia Landras Audeles on 02/05/2011 15:31:12
You know, an idle thought came to my mind, and this being the place it is, I may as well share it.

What happens if one day, Grendell decides to take a break from Eve for a given period of time? (the reason is not important for this exercise). One day, of his own foreseeing, Grendell decides to take a break.

What will he do then? As this thread an numerous others show, the value of rep is decreasing rapidly. People like him, or Darkness (who tried unsuccessfully to launch a bond not long ago) are trusted on name recognition by people like Syds who point out the "culture of the place".



Very good question!
If I ever decided to take a break during this likely long offering, I'd either A) Close it out early if Possible (would take some time) or B) Find a suitable 3rd party that the investors and client are comfortable with, such as Chribba, Darknesss, Tornsoul, etc


SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:18:00 - [51]
 

This actually raises a good question here. Assuming the anonymous client is Bad Bobby, where does Grendell fall in line. From a reputation standpoint, which is better. To honor the contract or honor morality? Might appear mutual but not exclusive.

If the contract is honored, it enabled any 3rd party to work with people who have scammed the public. Clearly 3rd party is not going to put themselves in the position in which they would lose wealth or integrity, so holding collateral would be vital. At which point, they could work with any scammer, make a public anonymous offer, and if the scammer scams again, the 3rd party has collateral in order to pay back the contracted amount. That's solid integrity which promotes people to trust the 3rd party, sure they lost value and where scammed, but the blow is softened because the 3rd party honors the contract.

If morality comes into play, 3rd party would out right refuse to work with the scammer.

I think the best move would be to be a 3rd party but don't do anonymous offers. If you think about it, what if Grendell offers to do a public bond for 200B for BB. And Grendell has Titan BPOs in his possession, BB can still use them, but it's locked down to a Grendell alt.

Would you invest, assuming the interest etc is to your liking?


flakeys
The Great cornholio's
Paper Tiger Coalition
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:24:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: SencneS
what if Grendell offers to do a public bond for 200B for BB. And Grendell has Titan BPOs in his possession, BB can still use them, but it's locked down to a Grendell alt.

Would you invest, assuming the interest etc is to your liking?




Not even with a 150 % interest rate a month .

Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:29:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: SencneS


If morality comes into play, 3rd party would out right refuse to work with the scammer.






..Gotta love the moral angle! What's the next critique of business? Feelings? Emotional attachment to an offering?

Grendell
Technologies Unlimited
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:37:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: SencneS
This actually raises a good question here. Assuming the anonymous client is Bad Bobby, where does Grendell fall in line. From a reputation standpoint, which is better. To honor the contract or honor morality? Might appear mutual but not exclusive.

If the contract is honored, it enabled any 3rd party to work with people who have scammed the public. Clearly 3rd party is not going to put themselves in the position in which they would lose wealth or integrity, so holding collateral would be vital. At which point, they could work with any scammer, make a public anonymous offer, and if the scammer scams again, the 3rd party has collateral in order to pay back the contracted amount. That's solid integrity which promotes people to trust the 3rd party, sure they lost value and where scammed, but the blow is softened because the 3rd party honors the contract.

If morality comes into play, 3rd party would out right refuse to work with the scammer.

I think the best move would be to be a 3rd party but don't do anonymous offers. If you think about it, what if Grendell offers to do a public bond for 200B for BB. And Grendell has Titan BPOs in his possession, BB can still use them, but it's locked down to a Grendell alt.

Would you invest, assuming the interest etc is to your liking?




Personally as a 3rd party, I try and keep myself away from questionable scenarios where there might be a big grey area. As a 3rd party I have the luxury of being able to pick and chose my clients and contracts, which makes that much easier.Wink

I have in the past opted out of questionable scenarios, just like Chirbba has, and I'm sure many other 3rd parties have.

But that does not mean that I will refuse to work with somebody who has scammed in the past. If BB came up to me and asked me to secure something like a supercap transfer or any other transaction. I would likely have no problem with that, so long as there isn't a grey area that I don't want to meddle in. Morals have no place in a business transaction in progress. But you can opt out of the transaction if you feel it is questionable. I've done it and as stated before I'm certain many other 3rd parties have as well.


Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:39:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 02/05/2011 17:42:51
Quote:

In closing, the only name recognition I have is that the denizens of MD recognize Chibbra, Darkness, Grendell, Breaker77, VV, RAW23, and a few others as securing methods. I can't beat em, and I won't be joining em



Why should you "beat us"?
It's really like RL trading: I comfortably accept the fact that many EvE people are scammers and they need to become well known in order to attract others.
I also comfortably accept that others will never scam, most of them will never post on MD, others do.

All what you need to do is a Risk:Reward operation and see if your risk profile is compatible with the de facto situation.

IE in case of Grendell I'd have no issue sending some money if only the "reward" part of the deal was not so completely out of the market.

I got 7.5% on multiple 110% collateralized bonds where I am so damn sure because I am the collateral holder none the less.

So, when I compare such total safety, such pleasing interest rate with this investment, my stomach hurts. It's not even just a matter of lack of collateral, it's just way too unrewarding.


Quote:

This actually raises a good question here. Assuming the anonymous client is Bad Bobby, where does Grendell fall in line. From a reputation standpoint, which is better. To honor the contract or honor morality? Might appear mutual but not exclusive.



This is easy: don't accept the contract at all so you won't have temptations.

Edit: involountarily been there, learned the hard way with that GS fake director affair.

Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:49:00 - [56]
 

..By beat em I mean I cannot change the system. By join em I mean there is no offering I am willing to risk my ISK on unless I am in possession of all collateral.

This viewpoint is primarily from the position that I have more lucrative and less risky ways of making a satisfactory income.

Should I become an investor player and have to enter the game, then I would have to alter my viewpoint and accept a higher risk profile. As it is now my risk profile is 0.

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2011.05.02 20:43:00 - [57]
 

Grendell - That's good to know, and your answer is worthy of the reputation you uphold.

To answer my own question, if you where offering up a 200b ISK bond for BB and held more then 200B collateral and the interest was acceptable, I would likely invest. Partly because I wasn't scammed by BB (I sold my shares long before the scam happened) and the fact that particular bond is covered up to or above the requested amount. I don't think many could make a solid argument for the bond being risky. About the best argument would be delays selling the collateral.

Morals don't have a much room in business, but it's nice to think that a trusted businessman has some thought to not hide publicly admitted and proudly self proclaimed scammers. I do like the idea that there is some sort of moral integrity is part of every business. Just as the 3rd party has the ability to turn down the business, the 3rd party has the ability to make some of, lack of a better word, "Standards". If I were in your shoes I wouldn't deal with the public on behalf of an anonymous party. I know thats not conducive to business, but open and honest with no hidden or gray areas is better in my opinion.

Don't take this personal, you do a better job then most, and you have a consistent presence in MD and other forums. I just don't like the idea that if I choose to invest I could be assisting someone who has scammed me. So I personally avoid anonymous offers.

Liberty Eternal
Posted - 2011.05.02 20:56:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Grendell

The investor security here is is my word on the value and possession of collateral. My word is the offered security.


Some tangible and objective security can be offered in addition to that by structuring the offering in a safer way.


Originally by: Grendell
If you are not comfortable with that as a security, there's no point in beating a dead horseLaughing. You may not be comfortable with this offering, luckily this forum has many others I'm sure you can find very comfortable.


It's really not about how "comfortable" I am Wink


On which note - it would take 2 minutes to disclose the identity of the client to a trusted third party, just to confirm that the client does actually exist. Would you be prepared to do that for your investor's security?

Syds Sinclair
Posted - 2011.05.02 21:06:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Liberty Eternal



On which note - it would take 2 minutes to disclose the identity of the client to a trusted third party, just to confirm that the client does actually exist. Would you be prepared to do that for your investor's security?


..Lol wow! But then what trusted third part would the second trusted third party disclose the information to, just to confirm that the client does exist?

Then what trusted third party would the third trusted third party disclose the information to, just to confirm that the client does exist?

And that the previous two trusted third parties are still trustworthy.

Man, so this is how rituals and archaic bureaucreacies are made.


Grendell
Technologies Unlimited
Posted - 2011.05.02 21:11:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Grendell - That's good to know, and your answer is worthy of the reputation you uphold.

To answer my own question, if you where offering up a 200b ISK bond for BB and held more then 200B collateral and the interest was acceptable, I would likely invest. Partly because I wasn't scammed by BB (I sold my shares long before the scam happened) and the fact that particular bond is covered up to or above the requested amount. I don't think many could make a solid argument for the bond being risky. About the best argument would be delays selling the collateral.

Morals don't have a much room in business, but it's nice to think that a trusted businessman has some thought to not hide publicly admitted and proudly self proclaimed scammers. I do like the idea that there is some sort of moral integrity is part of every business. Just as the 3rd party has the ability to turn down the business, the 3rd party has the ability to make some of, lack of a better word, "Standards". If I were in your shoes I wouldn't deal with the public on behalf of an anonymous party. I know thats not conducive to business, but open and honest with no hidden or gray areas is better in my opinion.

Don't take this personal, you do a better job then most, and you have a consistent presence in MD and other forums. I just don't like the idea that if I choose to invest I could be assisting someone who has scammed me. So I personally avoid anonymous offers.



Thank you for your compliments.Wink


Originally by: Liberty Eternal

On which note - it would take 2 minutes to disclose the identity of the client to a trusted third party, just to confirm that the client does actually exist. Would you be prepared to do that for your investor's security?


If that's what is required, I would do it in a heartbeat. I would have to first speak to my client to confirm it is something he would accept. I'm assuming Chribba would be the best option here? Either way, I'll ask my client first, before I speak on his behalf. I'll keep you posted on that Liberty.Razz


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

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