|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
   |
Posted - 2009.05.05 03:35:00 -
[1]
Forgive me if this is incorrect as I haven't been as active here as normal.
But did you guys spend the past 6 pages drilling Ji Sama about all different possible ways the plan could fail, risk assessment etc? Then, after all this drilling on Ji Sama you wire billions of isk to Caleb?
Again, forgive me if this is incorrect but I don't believe Caleb has ever run a public ipo/bond or been entrusted with public funds. If this is correct, then you guys have just completely missed the biggest security risk of them all. Caleb only showed up in MD a few months back. Whilst his posts have been plentiful were they worth 24 billion isk?
Tell me I am missing something here and you guys didn't just take a giant risk after all that crap in pages 1-6 |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.05 04:16:00 -
[2]
Yeh Caleb it wasn't a dig at you at all, just a concern that after all those mechanisms at the last second a middle man was chosen without history of this kind of thing.
Well, after this venture Ji Sama will either be stuck with no isk and a 20b debt or you will be known as trusted to at least 20b  |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.05 10:31:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Ji Sama
i dont think thats fair tbh..
SCS was announced on the first page as the broker.
besides this isnt solely a trust based investment!
Care to show me where it was announced on first page as a broker? I searched SCS and SCC and only found reference that they would come in and clean up in the event of your disappearance.
This could have (and still could) blow up if Caleb decides to run with the cash. Will you remain liable for the debt if this happen Ji Sama? Have you done any background check on Caleb? Has an auditor checked out Caleb prior to receipt of funds? Has it been made clear from the start that Caleb would be in holding of 20+ billion isk?
I really don't want to screw with Caleb because I personally think he is ok, but he has been somewhat untested and you are risking the public's funds on someone unrelated and unlisted in the IPO (or at least not clearly clarified).
If you can't counter this claim don't try, just accept a mistake was made, update your OP, make sure existing people are aware of this (which really they should be as they sent the cash to Caleb already) and move forward. I think both Ji Sama and Caleb have shown potential to do great things in the future so consider the constructive criticism as building you up to make sure you putty up all those cracks. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.07 03:27:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lecherito
As for the criticism directed toward the SCC in regards to their fostering of an overly trust based investment mentality, I ask you, exactly which investments in EvE do not revolve 100% around trust? -L
I think you missed the point I was making. At no point through the process were people informed that not one but two people would have access to the funds (3 if you count his director friend). The IPO seeker and a trustee who had yet been trusted with anything.
Point is, people investing should have known from the start that the trustee was being used so that they could make a suitable decision on whether or not to invest based on their analysis of the parties involved. It really doesn't matter who the trustee was, what matters is how it wasn't advised to shareholders in the IPO or following documentation. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.07 03:28:00 -
[5]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
I can vouch for BOTH Caleb and Ji Sama.
So are you stating officially right here that if either of these characters default or scam through this offering you will repay the entire debt or be responsible for the whole debt? |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.07 05:43:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Ricdic on 07/05/2009 05:43:16
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Ricdic
Originally by: LaVista Vista
I can vouch for BOTH Caleb and Ji Sama.
So are you stating officially right here that if either of these characters default or scam through this offering you will repay the entire debt or be responsible for the whole debt?
Last time I checked, the word "vouch" meant nothing of that sort.
Quote:
to attest; guarantee; certify (usually fol. by for): to vouch for someone in a business transaction.
Thats from dictionary.com
You can see there can be many insinuations with the word vouch, hell there was a long MD thread on it where it was somewhat agreed that Vouch meant to guarantor.
Heres the thread I started, you can see the a large group of the participants believe that a vouch means a guarantee of sorts. So with you saying "vouch" above without clarification it can be incredibly misleading.
--------------------
Your response either way clarified that you had nothing more than a character reference on those two and won't be liable for any issues that arise as a result of scam/failure etc.
--------------------
That is necessary to avoid misleading investors into a false sense of security LV. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.07 06:19:00 -
[7]
So you didn't read that thread?
If you aren't guaranteeing their operation then it's a character reference? |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.07 06:41:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Athre
Ric, are you saying every single person you have characterally vouched for you will pay back any of them that have scammed? wow that EIB tab is pretty big :D
Actually yes thats exactly what I am saying. Oh, and I never vouched for EIB.
My point wasn't that LV wanted to state his support but that his statement was open to interpretation as per the other 3 page thread I linked that he failed to read.
Again, he has quoted just above poorly worded information that doesn't actually determine if he is liable or not.
See the Wylker IPO for understanding on how a vouch can be seriously misinterpreted (people vouched for him and were then *****ing and moaning when others tried forcing them to repay the debt).
This is common sense people. If a statement can be misinterpreted, just clarify it. Don't be sooks and whingers, just make sure it's clear so it doesn't come back to bite you in the ass in the future. |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.07 08:24:00 -
[9]
Now read the Wylker IPO thread and take note at the people going nuts at those who vouched for Wylker and even some who had war declared on them as a result. It isn't really up for debate as to the true meaning of the word vouch, the only thing of importance is to clarify your position when using the word (as regardless it has been shown via dictionary.com that it is easily misinterpreted if not clarified).
Why are you arguing this point? Not that a 'vouch' locks you into anything, just that it needs to come with clarification... |
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 23:41:00 -
[10]
Let's talk about this a little bit:
Quote:
This plan involves heavy investment in secondary market. It has been uncovered that Ji Sama has an alt who is CEO of an known investment corporation. It may be relevant to mention if this alt corporation has any involvement in this particular plan.
Quote:
This was a big red flag IMHO, and while TMP is not propped up by these investments at all, there is a secondary risk because of this. Technically anything that could happen to this investment corporation can affect TMP as well. Something investors should weigh heavily. IÆll leave Ji Sama to explain this out in detail and any risk mitigation that has or will be taken.
So according to the above, you are an alt of someone here who runs a public IPO/Bond already? How much is that bond valued at? Who is the character? I think previous bond/ipo history and listing of current operations is crucial and extremely important.
I don't want to throw 30b at someone who already has an 80b bond here. So please advise, I don't think it's fair to keep something as integral as this hidden in a corner. How well does the other IPO/Bond perform? Are investors happy? Has it been meeting stated returns? Exceeding Returns? Is it secured? If so how much?
It is quite disturbing seeing the lack of people on MD questioning these kinds of thing, most notably that investors aren't even asking the questions. Frankly I think these so called investors enjoy gambling more than they do investing.
Nothing against Ji Sama here but we need to know what public operations you are currently running. |
|
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 00:55:00 -
[11]
Ok main things to learn from this:
1) The broker option added an extra layer of risk with no real benefit
2) Sending funds after completion of audit without conditions imposed is an issue (would have been avoided anyway if number 1 wasn't in use)
3) The investment corporation probably should have been listed or at least clarified. From speaking with LaVista it seems it's just a private investment amongst friends. Had this been clarified (either in audit or prior) I wouldn't have requested all that extra information. I thought it was a regular public operation Meredian? was running on.
4) Audit Delays caused confusion however were unavoidable.
A few other things
Now this could have failed spectacularly. Current investors need to count their lucky stars. This could have easily backfired on a few of the points above and all your cash could have been lost. You were all lucky that Ji Sama and Caleb seem to be legitimate. I am glad it all worked out but it needs to be stressed that this cannot become the standard as it can be abused heavily.
LV contacted me on MSN asking why I am trolling this thread. It's not trolling, it is me wanting to make sure the standard protocols are not bypassed as that sets precedent and always leads up to a scam.
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Tleilex Developments
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.05.16 01:34:00 -
[12]
Agreed with Maxwell. What's done is done. Let's just hope we learn from it in the future. |
|
|
| |
|