open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Losses, Gains, Loans, Scams, & Getting Out ... A Discussion Thread
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2011.09.06 12:58:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Can you perhaps tell me how you would engage in detail with Elise's claims?

You are trying to change minds, and not necessarily Elise's. In other words it is a debate and you should make your points deftly and demolish your opponent's arguments through the use of rhetoric. It is not a philosophy class where you are trying to impress your teacher with your logical arguments. I'm afraid most of your readers lost interest long before you made your point.

Personally I hate it when philosophers start with "let me restate my opponents position . . ." because that always seems weak.

Tekota
The Freighter Factory
Posted - 2011.09.06 13:16:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Claire Voyant
You are trying to change minds, and not necessarily Elise's.

I'd suggest that the opposite is true. Investing and borrowing continues apace on MD, Raw's position is really for the continuation of the status quo, 'tis Elise's argument that the system should change. I'd suggest that the onus is upon those attempting change to prove or to at least inspire the case for it.

Originally by: Claire Voyant
In other words it is a debate and you should make your points deftly and demolish your opponent's arguments through the use of rhetoric.

Oh now I love a great speech, I admire the skill and the passion. However rhetoric alone is insufficient, it must have some substance - one cannot simply deny cold hard truths through rhetoric. Unless you're a state governor for Alaksa. Perhaps it's a healthy disdain for spin but I find myself deciphering political statements more and more and being disappointed at the lack of meat on the bones of a few choice words (written not by the utterer).

Originally by: Claire Voyant

I'm afraid most of your readers lost interest long before you made your point.

"Most" is probably correct. Personally I've enjoyed this thread more than I thought I would, and if something interests me then everyone else be damned :o)

Originally by: Claire Voyant

Personally I hate it when philosophers start with "let me restate my opponents position . . ." because that always seems weak.


Now this I am completely with you on. It reminds too much of the political "Well I think the real question here is.....". Perhaps argument has been corrupted by spin too much.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 13:29:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Tekota

Originally by: Claire Voyant

Personally I hate it when philosophers start with "let me restate my opponents position . . ." because that always seems weak.


Now this I am completely with you on. It reminds too much of the political "Well I think the real question here is.....". Perhaps argument has been corrupted by spin too much.


It's true that this approach is often abused but it is also the case that anyone pretending to engage with someone else's argument without doing this is merely deluding themselves. It is impossible to proceed in any way apart from on the basis of one's own understanding of the argument. Restating the position is simply to identify how one understands the position and gives one's interlocutors a chance to correct any misconceptions. I fully expect Elise to tell me I have failed to accurately represent her view on at least some points but without me first explicitly restating the view any errors in my interpretation will remain concealed. Restating simply makes those errors explicit and correctable.

The political use of this approach is another matter entirely. Politicians tend to use it to deliberately misrepresent their oponents positions.

Claire - one your other points Tekota said most of what I wanted to say.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.06 13:36:00 - [94]
 

Oh ****...this has gotten really big...

Just from glancing over the bulk of your initial new response, my gut instinct is that this discussion will continue to be fruitful, as most of your responses are developing along lines that I also believe constitute the proper framework for the core issues we are discussing.

That said, it will be a little while. :P

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2011.09.06 14:10:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Tekota
Originally by: Claire Voyant
You are trying to change minds, and not necessarily Elise's.
I'd suggest that the opposite is true. Investing and borrowing continues apace on MD, Raw's position is really for the continuation of the status quo, 'tis Elise's argument that the system should change. I'd suggest that the onus is upon those attempting change to prove or to at least inspire the case for it.

Actually, the Raw/Elise argument completely diverted a very interesting thread that tried to propose changes to fix some obvious problems with the status quo. Somehow that got diverted into dump the whole system vs. everything is fine as it is.

Clearly some people really like the status quo. Perhaps the large numbers of scams means they can get a higher rate of interest for their investments if they can continue to avoid the scams. Maybe others are working on scams of their own. Others have walked away from public investments altogether, finding ways to make use of their own capital or make private investments.

Maybe the people that want to tweak the system are misguided, but it is hardly their obligation to argue against either Elise or Raw's argument against Elise. Raw's argument was basically that the status quo is working for him and maybe two other people. That is hardly an argument for not improving the system.


Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.06 14:26:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Elise DarkStar on 06/09/2011 14:40:12
Actually, my core argument, which I never fully laid out properly (sorry, I wasn't expecting a detailed response :P), isn't that some collective "we" should charge the metaphorical Bastille. Rather it's that there's an inside class who think they're being "good" when in reality they're just serving their own ends, financial, psycho-emotional, or both at the cost of the casual and uninitiated.

Raw seems to be under the impression that there is an onus on me to support this assertion, whereas I am perfectly happy to just let it fester in people's minds.

That said, however, Raw in turn made some counter-assertions that needed to be addressed, and the discussion seems to, I believe, be continuing along a generally productive track.

Edited out an unnecessary qualifier.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.06 15:31:00 - [97]
 

@Raw

Originally by: RAW23
A Concession


Cool.

Originally by: RAW23
to the universalised claim that MD investing as a whole is valueless.


That was never my claim. My claim is that it is a comparatively poor way of making ISK considering risk, reward, time/effort, and capital absorption (with the deeper claim that this paucity is misrepresented by a select and vocal few who defy the irrationality specifically for the sake of defying it, as well as the monetary and status benefits this institution of false impression gives them).

Originally by: RAW23
Some Contextual Comments (the rest)


Instead of arguing for or against factors involved in my formulation, you are actually arguing completely within them. Learning time, "ramping up", etc, are all elements about which one can find facts or make approximations and assumptions. This content is precisely what a properly formatted discussion about the comparative merits of investing should look like.

As discussed, the problem is that you seem to be seeking some universal answer, yes or no. The easiest approach would be to find the necessary combination of elements (there may be more than one) above which investing actually becomes a comparably viable way of making money. As an aside, I wouldn't be so hasty to throw away capital absorption, as this is probably your only hope of ever coming close to overtaking activities like mission-running or incursions.

Originally by: RAW23
The rest


No, unfortunately that was not my argument. My argument is that investing is a fundamentally poor way of making money based on the returns, the risks, the time and effort involved, and the capital it can absorb. Specifically in spite of this fundamental paucity, a small group of people are creating an illusory "island" of quality investing to serve their own financial and egotistical desires. Furthermore, if not for this group creating this illusion, "investing" would not even exist as the institution that it currently is. The vocality and incestuous institutional authority of this group perverts the impressions of the casual and uninitiated, ultimately to their detriment.

Interestingly, the skew of your arguments are really moving towards my core point here. You are making money because you are pretty much the cornerstone of this vocal and incestuous institutional authority, and you are propagating this practice because you are a winner both financially and in terms of status. However, this winning comes at the cost of others who would be much better off making money in a myriad other ways.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that this narrative needs to be further substantiated. While it would strengthen my narrative to demonstrate in detail the poor quality of investing as a means of making money, I really can't be bothered. Furthermore, I am that confident in my claim that it's honestly not worth the time in my mind to prove myself right. I am wide open to be proven wrong, or even a convincing argument considering the high bar that "proof" requires, but again I doubt anyone will else will sit down to do it properly either.

Now, people are more than welcome to turn their noses at unsubstantiated narratives. However, I would remind them that this is also precisely what my argument is countering. This isn't a case of a new theory countering some well-established theory. Rather I am offering an additional and complimentary explanation to what, in my mind, is a wide-open and contentious debate. You could disagree with my narrative and still believe that investing is a bad idea, you just wouldn't believe that it is necessarily skewed by a self-serving and self-appointed elite.

Tekota
The Freighter Factory
Posted - 2011.09.06 16:16:00 - [98]
 

Oh crap, because now I find myself agreeing with Elise and Raw, and to some extent Claire too.

Is investing a valid way of making isk?
Yes. I think sufficient demonstrations have been given that some people make money long term investing and enough anecdotal evidence and common sense strongly suggests this is not all down to blind luck.

Is investing a comparatively poor way of making isk?
Yes. I suspect there'll be little argument on that one as interest rates must always be lower than that which can be reasonably attained by an individual through other ventures.

Is investing as an activity bolstered by reasons other than the purely financial?
Yes. I think, whether consciously or subconsciously a lot of us, whether lenders or borrowers be, enjoy a little of the psycho emotional effect whether one calls that role playing or ego-fiddling.

Is investing as an activity bolstered by prevelant individuals thereby "suckering in" the inexperienced to their fiscal misfortune?
Arguably, yes. Again with a hefty qualifier that said individuals won't necessarily know or intend this. We've all seen bonds fill up a little quicker after an "MD name" makes a pledge. This wanders dangerously close to the "MD elites" topic that I recall being prevelant when I first started and which, whilst waxxing and waning never really goes away. Many of the "MD elites" who were around (and busily denying the existence of "MD elites") when I started have gone on to scam, fail at maths, or burn out mid-bond. My perception (and it is only that), is that there does remain an "MD elite" mindset and we do have fresh(ish) MD elites today; again just my perception but I think the MD elite effect is considerably diminished from my early days (and that this is a good thing); I recall a time when asking the most politely worded but probing questions of (for example) certain EBank employees of the day would result in an army of fanbois rising up instantly to pour a veritable torrent of bile upon thee for daring question such people. That doesn't happen any more. More or less.

Should we just let it die? Can it die?
No to both. No it can't die because regardless of game whether finance heavy or not, there will always be side and background deals and metagaming. And we shouldn't let it die because, well it's fun. And yes that does heavily indicate you have a solid point when you suggest that emotional reasons have as much to do with investing as fiscal. Monopoly, the board game, everyones played it. Probably at Christmas when the tax of spending time with relatives becomes almost unbearable but everyone feels they should do something together. Quite how the birth of little baby jesus is accompanied by games of rampant capitalism is beyond me - perhaps it's just my house. Anyway, half the rules of Monopoly are written down and plain to see. The other half are the shady background deals, the "I'll let you off paying rent there if you sell me Old Kent Road", and secretly plotting with your sister to bankrupt your kid brother. Good wholesome family christmases in the Tek household :o) Eve is the same, it's part of the game, will always be part of the game.

Can we improve it?
Yes.

How?
Umm. Well. That one's trickier. I've mentioned elsewhere that the new customisable API is potentially a great step forward in removing many of the valid sounding excuses scammers can make to hide their intent. But if that does reduce risk then it may likely result in lower rates as a result, and we're back to whether this is a worthwhile pursuit to make isk or just something to do for fun.



I'm lost, I'm not really arguing anything any more :o)

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.06 16:31:00 - [99]
 

Very well argued, and you've said nothing that I would fundamentally disagree with.

I have always maintained that if people are truly having fun, scam or legitimate, investor or "businessman", win or lose, then by all means play until you barf for all I care.

My point is that I perceive "the game", in this sense, to be far more sinister than those at the top would lead themselves and others to believe. Now, if they are willing to admit this, and that they do it in spite of, with consideration of, or for this very reason, then I again have no issue.

The institution is essentially a quasi-pyramid scheme. Not exactly, but similar in the sense that those at the top benefit from a far greater number of feeders who are losing at the bottom, and almost exclusively due to being a first-mover and not through any real effort that directly or indirectly affetcs the entire pyramid either positively or at least neutrally. Furthermore, like any pyramid scheme, without fresh feeders at the bottom who do not understand how the system functions and have not yet been burnt, the entire system would collapse.

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2011.09.06 17:20:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
Very well argued, and you've said nothing that I would fundamentally disagree with.

I agree also.

As for the "sinister" aspect of MD I would have to say that it appears to be even closer to the surface than Elise implies. I think some investors know they are indirectly benefiting from scams and are happy to keep it that way. We need to explode the myth of the investor community coming together to protect the innocent and naive. No one here wants "safe" investments and we are just blowing steam when we have those discussions.

Tekota
The Freighter Factory
Posted - 2011.09.06 18:08:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Claire Voyant

As for the "sinister" aspect of MD I would have to say that it appears to be even closer to the surface than Elise implies. I think some investors know they are indirectly benefiting from scams and are happy to keep it that way. We need to explode the myth of the investor community coming together to protect the innocent and naive. No one here wants "safe" investments and we are just blowing steam when we have those discussions.


Whoa there a second. This bit I do struggle with. Presumably your thought process is that scams benefit the savvy investor by driving up interest rates allowing those "in the know" to pick up relatively safe investments at good rates whilst allowing those less knowledgable to fall to scams?

If so, I can *kind* of see some logic in that but I feel it simply doesn't play out in practice. "Safe" investments routinely fill at 3%, and are routinely picked up by people with a record of savvy investment - sure they pick up on the better looking 10% ones too but that's because they're forum *****s more than anything.

And I'd say the investment community *does* come together to protect the innocent and naive. With only mild effectiveness true, but part of that responsibility does rest with said newcomers. Obvious or seriously flawed proposals are routinely pulled apart both from some suprisingly perceptive and damn intelligent trolling, some calmer analysis of flaws from other members of the "investment community" and some of the regular or common garden troll. Now undoubtedly some, many even, get through - but everything I've seen has me believe that the community as a whole is genuinely attempting to raise the standard of offering and teach newcomers some common things to look out for. The effectiveness of that is certainly up for debate.

Forgive me if I get a little personal here. Further up I posted my wins and losses in investment - coming in at a net loss (yay me) thanks to being scammed by Lui Kai. Now obviously I recognise your name as a result of that debacle; I still feel a bit grumpy on that loss and given that you suffered more at his hands than I, I'm wondering if that very bad experience has jaded you to the whole process more so than if that one had paid off?

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2011.09.06 18:46:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Claire Voyant on 06/09/2011 18:48:08
Nah, that was simply a case where I let my personal feelings and swollen wallet get in the way of my better judgment and my general cynical nature.

What I am talking about is more the lack of any serious discussion about improving MD investments. I think the successful investors know there is a lot more capital available than quality investments and they are happy to see investors scared away by scams.

They are happy to collect 3% per month on "safe" investments but no one mentions that it is equivalent to 42.6% per year with compounding.

They invest in the early bonds of rep builders knowing they will see the scam bond coming a mile away.

So are they out for themselves or do they really want to help others? When they post negative or skeptical comments about an offering do they have ulterior motives?

I don't usually rant about this stuff, but the whole discussion of the "status quo" (and some earlier comments in this thread) just ticked me off.

Tekota
The Freighter Factory
Posted - 2011.09.07 02:54:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Claire Voyant

Nah, that was simply a case where I let my personal feelings and swollen wallet get in the way of my better judgment and my general cynical nature.


In that case, please accept my apologies. There was arguably a little of me projecting my own feelings on that one.

Originally by: Claire Voyant
What I am talking about is more the lack of any serious discussion about improving MD investments. I think the successful investors know there is a lot more capital available than quality investments and they are happy to see investors scared away by scams.


I think to a large extent this is due to us all being down this path for many years now and realising that there is very little we can do. There isn't, and isn't likely to be, any mechanism that CCP could or would offer that will improve the starting position. However I do genuinely think that there are on again off again attempts to improve or at least maintain some rudimentary standard. I facepalm every time I see a zero-post alt get given a bill+ on trust whilst refusing to name any alts or disclose any API information. Hell, a recent-ish one I even questioned at an initial 50m, and that char went to biomass shortly after getting paws on cash.

But anyway - Customisable API is with us. I do have hope that this will at least remove some of the excuses potential scammers can currently use with some justification. It is up to the community to ensure that this sees some use and I truly think it can be used to effectively raise the bar a little on effort required to scam. Won't necessarily affect odds of scam, but might raise the cost (in workload, preparation and intelligence) required to scam. I even made my first wall-o-text on the new forums in an attempt to see our new home start off on a fractionally better track.

Originally by: Claire Voyant
They are happy to collect 3% per month on "safe" investments but no one mentions that it is equivalent to 42.6% per year with compounding.


Now, with the full disclosure that I have an outstanding debt a large part of which is financed at 3%, I think 3% is a frankly terrible rate. Just about any mineral market will easily digest multiple tens of billions and will reliably see a 3% swing at some point in a month - and there you're just gambling the swing, not the swing + your entire principal. However, I can see that 3% is better than 0% and if one has neither the means, knowledge, or (more likely) the boredom threshold to make use of a given chunk of cash I can see how after appropriate risk analysis the transaction becomes, if not appealing then at least, acceptable.

I can see logic in the argument that current investors are worried by a race to the bottom if standards improve. I'd counter by claiming we're already there and have been a long while. Hell, EBank back in the day had gazzilions at 1% (or was it 1.5%, can't remember - either way, barrel scrapingly low).

Originally by: Claire Voyant
They invest in the early bonds of rep builders knowing they will see the scam bond coming a mile away.


Now this is something I've only come to appreciate myself in the last year or so; it's definitely something that experience gives a nose for, if not exactly one of sniffer-dog standards. I'll acknowledge a problem here, although I don't think it's anything to do with experienced investors slyly creeping off to allow the newbies to take the fall, rather an issue of nobody wanting to call scam on someone who's reliably paid back their last 8 bonds. We're quite good at roasting new offerings but decidedly polite to the more established. I'd like to maintain politeness but step up scrutiny - I think the community is notably better at doing this than it was back at the height of the "MD elite" days but I concede improvements could be made.

Jaxx McCoy
Posted - 2011.09.07 06:05:00 - [104]
 

I started reading this thread for its initial subject. Despite the somewhat derailing argument between Raw and Elise, I agree with Tekota's succinct and well written conclusion.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2011.09.07 06:24:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 07/09/2011 08:36:46
Originally by: Tekota
Originally by: Claire Voyant

As for the "sinister" aspect of MD I would have to say that it appears to be even closer to the surface than Elise implies. I think some investors know they are indirectly benefiting from scams and are happy to keep it that way. We need to explode the myth of the investor community coming together to protect the innocent and naive. No one here wants "safe" investments and we are just blowing steam when we have those discussions.


Whoa there a second. This bit I do struggle with. Presumably your thought process is that scams benefit the savvy investor by driving up interest rates allowing those "in the know" to pick up relatively safe investments at good rates whilst allowing those less knowledgable to fall to scams?

If so, I can *kind* of see some logic in that but I feel it simply doesn't play out in practice. "Safe" investments routinely fill at 3%, and are routinely picked up by people with a record of savvy investment - sure they pick up on the better looking 10% ones too but that's because they're forum *****s more than anything.

And I'd say the investment community *does* come together to protect the innocent and naive. With only mild effectiveness true, but part of that responsibility does rest with said newcomers. Obvious or seriously flawed proposals are routinely pulled apart both from some suprisingly perceptive and damn intelligent trolling, some calmer analysis of flaws from other members of the "investment community" and some of the regular or common garden troll. Now undoubtedly some, many even, get through - but everything I've seen has me believe that the community as a whole is genuinely attempting to raise the standard of offering and teach newcomers some common things to look out for. The effectiveness of that is certainly up for debate.

Forgive me if I get a little personal here. Further up I posted my wins and losses in investment - coming in at a net loss (yay me) thanks to being scammed by Lui Kai. Now obviously I recognise your name as a result of that debacle; I still feel a bit grumpy on that loss and given that you suffered more at his hands than I, I'm wondering if that very bad experience has jaded you to the whole process more so than if that one had paid off?


This thread has lots of words, let's bring in something tangible.


I disagree on 3%. Investee reliability is not the only factor. Investor knowledge and experience counts even more. The 3% crowd went for Bad Bobby, don't forget that.

I have 100% investment success rate and only 2 cases I went as low as 4% was for Shar (I'd borrow Shar for 0%) and Candy Oshea (fully collateralized and I kept collateral and again, Candy is an exquisite person). I usually got more, up to 10% (Serene Python). I am sure there are many others who did better than me (Flakeys, Taram Caldar, RAW23 come to mind).


About being jaded / influenced by unlucky investments, it's a sign of unexperienced investor. Every trader / investor should consider losses as operational costs, you just factor them in and harden up. It's also what I mean with my former post about 2 kinds of people. Those with constructive mood will adjust, the others will show discontent and will try discouraging the others basing on subjective, personal situation, that is they do exactly the opposite of what rebutted to me (i.e. to bring some monday quarterback boring wall of text).

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2011.09.07 14:13:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
This thread has lots of words, let's bring in something tangible.
...
Those with constructive mood will adjust, the others will show discontent and will try discouraging the others basing on subjective, personal situation, that is they do exactly the opposite of what rebutted to me (i.e. to bring some monday quarterback boring wall of text).

Success!

Atima
Minmatar
House of Marbles
Posted - 2011.09.07 14:54:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

This thread has lots of words, let's bring in something tangible.



lol

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:08:00 - [108]
 

Finally, something tangible from VV that I can sink my teeth into.

OMNOMNOM

Rolling Eyes


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

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