Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 00:05:00 -
[121]
Sorry to see Kwint's Bond shut down - was one of the most reliable and long running.
If you launch a new one, I would like to place a reserve here.
Now what happens as EBANK has lost about a third of their passive/investment monthly income? --
|
Ufl
Caldari EastWest Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 00:38:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar
Now what happens as EBANK has lost about a third of their passive/investment monthly income?
They roll over and die like a badly managed corporation should.
|
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 01:15:00 -
[123]
Ok so somebody has rediscovered the real life idea of a debt offset in EvE. I'm sure if anyone ever decided to write a thesis or paper over the EvE economy they will love this thread. Do we really need 5 pages of angst on this though? E-Bank defaulted to their customers, anyone who owes ebank an unsecured debt will likely default (and TBH I'm not sure they're going to return collateral on a secured loan at this point either). Bottom line is e-bank should have liquidated their loan portfolio months ago.
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari Flux Technologies Inc SRS.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 02:34:00 -
[124]
Been catching up my reading and I have to stay I'm with Kwint on this. To sum it up
Kwint has isk in Ebank Ebank has isk in Kwint's IPO
EBank stops/lowers interest payment on Kwint's isk Kwint pays interest on EBank's isk
Ebank locks up Kwint's isk Kwint locks up EBank's isk
Seems pretty simple, not sure why anyone would disagree with the whole an eye for an eye situation.
Closed until further notice
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 04:27:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Brock Nelson Been catching up my reading and I have to stay I'm with Kwint on this. To sum it up
Kwint has isk in Ebank Ebank has isk in Kwint's IPO
EBank stops/lowers interest payment on Kwint's isk Kwint pays interest on EBank's isk
Ebank locks up Kwint's isk Kwint locks up EBank's isk
Seems pretty simple, not sure why anyone would disagree with the whole an eye for an eye situation.
EBANK has more ISK invested in Kwint then Kwint has invested in EBANK.
Really the most logical solution and one that if anyone disagrees with need not reply is.
Kwint pays interest on EBANK's investment beyond the investment Kwint has in EBANK.
Not going to use real numbers here... but an example would be....
Kwint has 50B in EBANK EBANK has 50B in Kwint.
EBANK was paying 1.5% monthly so Kwint would have 750mil(Flat 1.5% interest) a month. Kwint pays (Don't know lets assume 2%) monthly so EBANK would have got 1B a month from Kwint.
Since Kwint believes EBANK owes them 750mil per month, then the real solution is much more simple then what was done is Kwint's payment to EBANK be 250mil per month.
It's sad to see someone shut down a good IPO over a dispute, when the shutdown effects EVERYONE not just the two parties. Really the correct cause of less resistance and remain beneficial to all those around is to have Kwint's EBANK interest deducted from the payment to EBANK each month.
This whole thing has is just another disenchanted feather added to the cap of Secondary Market failure in EVE :(
Amarr for Life |
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 04:40:00 -
[126]
Ray forced my hand here and here.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer How do you suggest we resolve this?
We just sold your shares. Now what?
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Acknowledge that you still owe your customers interest on their money and start reflecting that in account balances.
No, we don't negotiate with financial terrorists. Your move.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 05:18:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Brock Nelson Seems pretty simple, not sure why anyone would disagree with the whole an eye for an eye situation.
QFT!! I would invest with Kwint if I had the ISK laying around to do so.
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 05:51:00 -
[128]
Kwint, Should I assume that you haven't been logging in or that you don't wish to respond to my evemail? Titan BPC Auction Thread |
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 05:55:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Kwint, Should I assume that you haven't been logging in or that you don't wish to respond to my evemail?
As I mentioned earlier this week, I'm away from home and have limited to access to eve-playing computers. I have not logged in since paying out the debt, it's nothing personal. My apologies though, you know I'm always happy to chat with friends.
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 06:01:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Kwint, Should I assume that you haven't been logging in or that you don't wish to respond to my evemail?
As I mentioned earlier this week, I'm away from home and have limited to access to eve-playing computers. I have not logged in since paying out the debt, it's nothing personal. My apologies though, you know I'm always happy to chat with friends.
I figured, and was hoping, that was the case. I'll talk to you when you get back. Have a safe trip. Titan BPC Auction Thread |
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari Flux Technologies Inc SRS.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 08:06:00 -
[131]
Originally by: SencneS Stuff
I know it's not exactly an eye for an eye but Kwint tries to make it that way and whatever is left over, he or EBank should pay for the remainder. I don't know what is the numbers here but if EBank has 2b in Kwint and Kwint has 1b in EBank, then Kwint should pay EBank 1b back.
So, that's pretty much what I'm seeing here and I'm just kind of wondering why there's a whole lotta discussion over this issue.
Closed until further notice
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 08:56:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Brock Nelson Been catching up my reading and I have to stay I'm with Kwint on this. To sum it up
Kwint has isk in Ebank Ebank has isk in Kwint's IPO
EBank stops/lowers interest payment on Kwint's isk Kwint pays interest on EBank's isk
Ebank locks up Kwint's isk Kwint locks up EBank's isk
Seems pretty simple, not sure why anyone would disagree with the whole an eye for an eye situation.
Yea im with kwint and brock on this one!
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 09:11:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Brock Nelson
I know it's not exactly an eye for an eye but Kwint tries to make it that way and whatever is left over, he or EBank should pay for the remainder. I don't know what is the numbers here but if EBank has 2b in Kwint and Kwint has 1b in EBank, then Kwint should pay EBank 1b back.
So, that's pretty much what I'm seeing here and I'm just kind of wondering why there's a whole lotta discussion over this issue.
I hope Kwint sees the same thing as you Brock I really do. I also have the same curiosity, a lot of discussion over what would appear to be the most logical and simple choice turned into a complex and devastating action..
Amarr for Life |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 09:25:00 -
[134]
Sencnes, I think you missed the whole pont kwint was trying to make. He did not care about his personal isk invested in ebank, nor the difference in intrest owed. He was taking issue with the principal of the whole thing. Which you could have read in his posts in this thread.
More intresting i find, some of the people siding with kwint controlling publicly funded operations that ebank owns shares in. I wonder if they will take action too.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 12:45:00 -
[135]
Edited by: RAW23 on 27/12/2009 12:49:00
Originally by: SencneS
EBANK has more ISK invested in Kwint then Kwint has invested in EBANK.
Really the most logical solution and one that if anyone disagrees with need not reply is.
...
This whole thing has is just another disenchanted feather added to the cap of Secondary Market failure in EVE :(
Firstly, I'm really not sure why you think you can tell people on a public forum that if they don't agree with you they need not reply to your post. Obviously, it would be nice if everyone agreed with you all the time but I'm afraid that's rather unlikely in the climate created by EBANK's recent decisions and actions.
Secondly, why the hell should Kwint pay the balance of the interest owed. The situation is simple - EBANK defaulted on its debt and publicly refused to negotiate with Kwint, going so far as to at least claim that it had removed his leverage by divesting itself of his bonds in such a way as to attempt to ensure that Kwint would be unable to gain a resolution other than that forced on him by EBANK. Now that he has responded by successfully forcing a resolution that is not in EBANK's favour you have the nerve to say he has remaining obligations to the bank? His obligations to you disappeared the moment you defaulted, breached the contract between you and Kwint (as well as all your other customers), and then attempted a public power play that, yet again, backfired (although I'm sure Ray didn't want that money anyway). It seems, however, that you are likely to get the balance of the debt back, at some point, but this is down to Kwint's desire to do the right thing. Since EBANK ripped up the contract between you and him, he no longer has any technical obligation to you.
If Kwint had more money in his account than the amount of his debt would EBANK continue to pay interest on the balance if Kwint stopped paying his interest? Of course not. But in any case, is the position you suggest here endorsed in any way by the bank or is it just hot air? If the bank endorses it, then everyone who has both debt and credit with the bank seems to be entitled to offset their interest in the way you suggest. If this isn't bank policy, please could you stop confusing the discussion with meaningless statements.
Finally, can you also cut out this crap about the failing secondary market, please? You seem to append it to the end of all your posts and blame everything you don't like on it. Plenty of good bonds get launched every month. There are scams, there are flames, but most of the people who contribute to this forum do so in a useful way. The trolls and flamers are in the minority, despite the fact that they can be quite vocal. The current biggest issue that threatens the secondary market is the attempt by a certain institution to tear up their ToS, rewrite their obligations and fail to pay their debts, whilst at the same time trying to present themselves as a still-legitimate going concern. If EBANK's approach catches on, the secondary market will die completely, so I suggest you look inwards if you seek the source of problems with the market and not imply that the fault lies with those who dare to criticise the running of the largest failed venture eve has seen. Those who won't simply take it when EBANK shoves their policies up their customer's arses are the people who are trying to defend some minimum standards in the secondary market. They are not the problem.
I know this may sound a bit harsh but please, get off your high horse and join the rest of us down in the muck that your institution has created.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 18:56:00 -
[136]
Both of you are not looking at the greater implementations..
You both realize you're both saying that people should abandon their responsibilities in the name of the greater good for the collective community.
Let me tell you about a little thing called Moral Fiber or more importantly integrity.
While what I'm about to say seems Hypocritical because of EBANK there is a very very distinct difference here, I'll explain.
Both of you are saying "It's OK for public debtors to arbitrarily deny any one person or entity payment because that person or entity is unable to repay it's debt to the public."
The difference is, Kwint can pay his complete debt, EBANK can't. There is no way EBANK would be able to pay it's debt in the entity, Kwint can.
Maybe both of you should consider the implantations of what you're supporting before commenting further. I might remind you both that not all ventures are successful even if run completely fraud or scam free but suffer from disaster or alter game environment.
If you really want to travel this immoral road then I'm sorry to say the no one will ever run an IPO ever again, and CCP might as well delete this sub section of the forum.
Personal responsibility for debt repayment is something everyone needs to hold close if they ever have hope for the Secondary Market in EVE. These are the principle that have bound me to EBANK. It's not the first time I have made sure a corporation which had debt with anyone have done the right thing.
The CEO of an ex-corporation took on a contract for the alliance to buy POS Fuel. The fuel was purchased by me (as I was in Jita at the time) and delivered to the CEO of my corporation for transportation out to 0.0. However the CEO never did, and more importantly told the Alliance to go f-off.
I pay that debt personally even though I wasn't part of that alliance or the corporation that stole the POS fuel any more. It's call Moral Fiber, and what you're suggesting goes against every part if good honest moral fiber. Kwint is in the position to pay it's public debt in full and to pay it's debt to EBANK, EBANK is not in the same position.
I hope both of you realize what it is your not only suggesting but supporting.
Amarr for Life |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 19:13:00 -
[137]
Originally by: SencneS
The difference is, Kwint can pay his complete debt, EBANK can't. There is no way EBANK would be able to pay it's debt in the entity, Kwint can.
Personal responsibility for debt repayment is something everyone needs to hold close if they ever have hope for the Secondary Market in EVE. These are the principle that have bound me to EBANK.
And these are the same principles that determined me to support Ebank's cause.
Black Sun Empire |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 19:31:00 -
[138]
Originally by: SencneS Both of you are not looking at the greater implementations..
You both realize you're both saying that people should abandon their responsibilities in the name of the greater good for the collective community.
No. I'm saying that once one party to a contract breaks that contract, the other party no longer has any responsibilities to them (at least, no contractual responsibilities).
Originally by: SencneS
Let me tell you about a little thing called Moral Fiber or more importantly integrity.
While what I'm about to say seems Hypocritical because of EBANK there is a very very distinct difference here, I'll explain.
Well, yes, it is rather hypocritical but also quite funny.
Originally by: SencneS
Both of you are saying "It's OK for public debtors to arbitrarily deny any one person or entity payment because that person or entity is unable to repay it's debt to the public."
No. In its basic form I'm saying that if an entity breaches its contractual obligations to you as an individual, you no longer have any reason to fulfil your contractual arrangements with that entity. Defaulters don't get a free ride just because they can't pay. A trickier question is whether anyone with an outstanding loan with EBANK but who did not have any money in EBANK should repay their loan. In this case, I think they probably should, up to a point. The problem is, EBANK is currently going beyond just not having the money to pay its debts. It is also now stealing money from its depositors, in the form of account expropriations (unless this policy has been changed) and reneging on agreed interest payments whilst it continues to operate as a private business with an operational plan aimed at making it run again as a profit making entity. So, if it continues to follow these policies the bank will be a scam institution and as such, no one would be morally obligated to return any outstanding loans (unless directly to the bank's creditors, as the bank has shown itself, so far, to be untrustworthy as far as looking out for its creditors interests is concerned) as to do so would be to provide support for a scam. If EBANK were to acknowledge its debts and pledge to honour them, or if it was to enter into liquidation, the situation would be rather different.
Originally by: SencneS
The difference is, Kwint can pay his complete debt, EBANK can't. There is no way EBANK would be able to pay it's debt in the entity, Kwint can.
EBANK can't, Kwint can. This is not relevant. If EBANK acknowledges that it can never repay its debts in full it should close, plain and simple. I don't see any reason why EBANK should be allowed to survive if its survival is only possible if it writes off debts without the creditors' permission. EBANK is a private institution. Why should it get any special treatment in this regard? A failed business is a failed business. And a business that states that it will never be in a position to repay its debts is a failed business. You need to get your head round the idea that you are not a public institution acting only in the interests of the public. You are a private company, have chosen to remain a private company, and cannot be viewed as anything other (currently) than a failed private company. Again, if you chose to go into liquidation and explicitly appointed a board aimed at dealing with your liabilities, rather than returning the bank to its former glory, you would be in a different position. In that position I would expect people to honour their debts, minus any money that you owe to them.
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 19:36:00 -
[139]
Originally by: RAW23
No. I'm saying that once one party to a contract breaks that contract, the other party no longer has any responsibilities to them (at least, no contractual responsibilities).
You seem to have a lot of time to devote to anarchistic ideals, RAW23, but shouldn't you be running an offering or something like that? You know, your last offering, the one that's definitely not a scam.
Black Sun Empire |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 19:44:00 -
[140]
Quote:
Maybe both of you should consider the implantations of what you're supporting before commenting further. I might remind you both that not all ventures are successful even if run completely fraud or scam free but suffer from disaster or alter game environment.
If you really want to travel this immoral road then I'm sorry to say the no one will ever run an IPO ever again, and CCP might as well delete this sub section of the forum.
I'm afraid I can't follow your reasoning here. You seem to think that I'm saying people can disregard their debts whenever they feel like it. I am not. I'm saying that if one party breaches their contract they cannot then expect the other party to honour their end of the deal. This is not particularly revelatory and will in no way lead to the collapse of the secondary market. It only threatens offerings and institutions who rely for their continued survival on defaulting on their own debts whilst carrying on taking payments for their credits.
Quote:
Personal responsibility for debt repayment is something everyone needs to hold close if they ever have hope for the Secondary Market in EVE. These are the principle that have bound me to EBANK. It's not the first time I have made sure a corporation which had debt with anyone have done the right thing.
And yet you haven't resigned from an organisation that has explicitly set aside its responsibilities for debt repayment! In fact, you are hear arguing that EBANK should be able to default on its debts with impunity.
Quote:
story
This does not constitute moral fibre as you were under no moral obligation here. It does constitute an act of significant generosity, for which you are to be congratulated. But the EBANK situation is rather different. You are asking Kwint, effectively, to return money to the defaulting institution (your CEO, in the story). To make a real analogy, you would have to ask Kwint to return his outstanding debt directly to the bank's creditors (which he may well do). What you did not do is wait for your CEO to cash out and spend the stolen goods and then give him the money with the request that it be handed over to the people he defaulted on in the first place.
|
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 20:02:00 -
[141]
Originally by: SencneS Both of you are not looking at the greater implementations....
This is satire, right?
Please tell me that wasn't a serious post?
You seem to have confused reality with, well, I don't quite know what so I'm really just going to assume it's your idea of a joke.
Also, I believe the word you are looking for is implications. Whatever you meant, you are rather egregiously misusing "implementation." On it's behalf I implore you, cease and desist.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 20:10:00 -
[142]
Originally by: YouGotRipped
And these are the same principles that determined me to support Ebank's cause.
I really want to get ****ed at you for ****ting up my thread and start *****ing to a mod that you're trolling and **** posting and arguing absurdly contradicting positions just to try to get a rise out of me but I've got to be honest, you're doing it pretty damn well and it's really quite amusing. It's some of the best trolling I've seen in MD in quite a while.
Credit where credit is due.
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 20:15:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer arguing absurdly contradicting positions
Give it some time, Kwint. In 5-10 years you'll see things differently.
Black Sun Empire |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 20:25:00 -
[144]
Edited by: SencneS on 27/12/2009 20:26:23 sigh...
I'm sorry to say I will not continue with this thread.
Kwint - All I have to say to you is "I thought you where a more honorable person then this, and your actions disappoint me." Not that it means much to you I know but really what you're doing is no better then anyone else that has committed fraud.
RAW - I haven't resigned from EBANK because I have what I believe is good moral fiber. Alone I have no hope of every paying back all EBANK's debt. While I voted to freeze accounts and interest it was a unfortunate requirement. Sometimes the best possible hope to do the right thing needs a hard choice and I stand behind that choice. If you want to question my integrity and moral fiber, then go right ahead, but be aware I always take the high road and do everything in my power to make sure the most correct action is taken. If that means I need to sit in EBANK and be the subject of ridicule, belittling and out right offensive attacks in me and what I stand for then so be it.
Salutations to all, enjoy the rest of this downward spiral of a thread.
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 20:39:00 -
[145]
Originally by: SencneS Edited by: SencneS on 27/12/2009 20:26:23 sigh...
I'm sorry to say I will not continue with this thread.
Well, I suppose you did warn us not to reply to your post if we disagreed with you. But why don't you stick around for a bit longer and try to answer some of the substantive points that have been made here. As to questioning your moral fibre, that was not my intention. I was merely throwing back at you the language you deployed against Kwint and myself. I don't think you lack moral fibre but I do think you are misguided and that your actions as an ongoing member of the EBANK staff are not, in fact, in line with the very principles that you yourself laid out here. So, inconsistent and misguided is the worst I have to say about you. But I do honestly believe that you are doing what you think is the right thing.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 21:02:00 -
[146]
Originally by: SencneS
sigh...
I'm sorry to say I will not continue with this thread.
Kwint - All I have to say to you is "I thought you where a more honorable person then this, and your actions disappoint me." Not that it means much to you I know but really what you're doing is no better then anyone else that has committed fraud.
I'm sorry but have I somehow crossed over to the bizzaro world where the bank that explicitly and repeatedly defrauds its customers and defaults on its debts is the victim and the guy trying to force them to acknowledge their obligations by legal means is "immoral"????????
Seriously, I'm pretty far from home right now, have I somehow crossed some inter-dimensional border and arrived in a world where honoring your word is immoral and screwing your depositors is the defensible action?
I think I need to find some Rubi Red Slippers and quick!
There's no place like home. There's no place like home....
|
Angus McSpork
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 21:03:00 -
[147]
Originally by: SencneS
Kwint - All I have to say to you is "I thought you where a more honorable person then this, and your actions disappoint me." Not that it means much to you I know but really what you're doing is no better then anyone else that has committed fraud.
--snip--
Salutations to all, enjoy the rest of this downward spiral of a thread.
Coming from an ebank employee these 2 points are incredibly rich. (If I have to explain to you why I sincerely doubt you'd understand the answer, tbh)
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 21:47:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer the bank that explicitly and repeatedly defrauds its customers and defaults on its debts is the victim
The argument is one-sided and lacks perspective.
Lets have a look what happened:
1. A director tried to fraud the bank to the tune of 90bill. 2. Same directory happens to be the director of an alliance who was extended a loan(And yes, in hindsight it was stupid and yadadada, but it is what it is) that was defaulted on 2. Ricdic commited theft and took 275bill in pure ISK, and unknown billions worth of assets 3. Another director steals assets from the bank 4. Ray is hired to try and correct the past mistakes and work EBANK into a position where full recovery can be achieved.
You say that it's defraud, I say that it's responsible mangement to not let risk the solvency of EBANK, preventing a COMPLETE and unrecoverable collapse.
It's unfortunate that ISK has to be locked down and nobody likes the fact it had to be done.
And let me make the point again about this "obligation" you keep going on about:
The obligation, until the fact EBANK is at a point where said obligation can be honoured, is irrelevant. Sure, if we had excess development time to go ahead and retroactively create an account(Which couldn't be touched) that would show all accumilated interest, then it might be an option.
However for now, developer time is scarce and the immediate result is not going to change anything. If the board agrees that it's not going to break the bank's neck again to allow people to withdraw said interest, then it's not exactly impossible to apply said interest after the fact.
But as long as developer resources are scarce and commiting to paying full interest at this point in time is outright suicide on the books, then my opinion is that it has no tangible effect on anybody, but a few egos.
It's easy to sit on a high horse when you're not the one who had to take "hostage" 2trill ISK, which in reality is just 700billish. I can see how you can jump to the conclusion that it's just a simple case of defraud, but that's an oversimplification and rather insulting to the people carrying out the recovery.
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 21:53:00 -
[149]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 27/12/2009 21:55:46
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
Originally by: SencneS
Kwint - All I have to say to you is "I thought you where a more honorable person then this, and your actions disappoint me." Not that it means much to you I know but really what you're doing is no better then anyone else that has committed fraud.
I'm sorry but have I somehow crossed over to the bizzaro world where the bank that explicitly and repeatedly defrauds its customers and defaults on its debts is the victim and the guy trying to force them to acknowledge their obligations by legal means is "immoral"????????
You have a personal debt towards Ebank (the result of subtracting the isk in your account from the amount loaned to you at a miserably low rate) that still stands irrespective of whether or not Ebank is able to pay its depositors.
In case you no longer want to pay the interest I strongly suggest you get in touch with Ebank representatives and return the rest of the loan; the money can be put to better use and speed up the bank's recovery.
Am I reaching you in that bizzaro world of yours?
Black Sun Empire |
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 22:02:00 -
[150]
Originally by: LaVista Vista good post
This is good stuff, and I hope people respond respectfully.
I think a lot of people don't differentiate between pre-scam EBank and post-scam EBank, and while I disagree, I don't blame them.
I think that's where the big disconnect between what you're saying and what Kwint is saying. Despite the internal house-cleaning, for many people EBank remains the same institution that did defraud depositors.
I will also add that there were alternatives to the locking of deposits, so I can't agree that EBank had no other choice and that this is the best of possible outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |