| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
   |
Posted - 2009.05.22 23:45:00 -
[1]
I have data from all the IPO/bond launches since Jan 1st 2007.
In that time EVERY unknown (new player to MD with no recognised reputation) who has refused an audit has SCAMMED,
wait for it....
100% of the time.
When are investors going to learn that throwing money at new businesses without thorough checking is as good as the Jita "send me ISK and I return 2:1".
Any new business that launches who:
1. Refuses audit
2. Has audit done by unknown or friend
3. Gets surly to your legit questions
4. Asks you to leave thread ("nothing constructive to say please leave, etc")
5. Locks thread
Don't invest.
I can't say that, but if you do invest at least be careful what you invest in.
Over 500B has been scammed in the last 30 months in this forum.
Please notice that most of the old timers on the MD forum have learnt the hard way from poor investments and have stayed well clear of the obvious scams. Most checks performed on new IPO's aren't done to cause trouble but to reduce our risk of being scammed.
All new IPO's/bonds HAVE to be treated as SCAM until proven otherwise. The questioning and abuse might seem harsh but it sorts the true CEO's from the scammers.
What do I know, invest away and lose your cash!!!
|
Dzil
Caldari
Second Quadrant Ice Division
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 00:04:00 -
[2]
That is a pretty powerful statistic. Could you share the specifics? I'd like to audit your research, if you don't mind ;)
------------------------------
In EVE, when someone undercuts you, they're a lemming.
When you undercut someone else, it's skill/effort/manipulation.
|
Frenden Dax
Dax Acquisitions
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 00:06:00 -
[3]
This won't stop the morons who invest like so: "GEEZ U PEOPLEZ R SO MEAN 2 HIM STUPID ELITISTS. i'll take 50 shares :) :) :) you seem trustwurthy willing to trust u :)"
|
Vikarion
Caldari
White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 00:15:00 -
[4]
The first and most important illusion to dispel when investing is that you are somehow "special".
In short, most of us go around with an unconscious belief that we are somehow better at making judgments than the rest of the crowd, and that our perceptive abilities and our charm will enable us to recognize scams.
Second, the idea that people are good or decent leads one into many snares. Many will say that they think others are scumbags, yet expect non-evil results. To invest wisely, you must truly accept that all people are self-interested rather than charitable.
My guidelines, anyway.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 00:43:00 -
[5]
nice write up cosmo. thanks for taking the time to do this, reported for lack of glue.
also, only one thing i disagree with, you dont have to treat every new IPO/Bond as a scam. that is what created this sour atmosphere in the MD.
you should however be critical and ask questions etc.
but thats not the same as calling every new IPO/Bond manager a scammer.
personally i was very offended the first time i came here, and was called a scammer.
why? because its so far away from my person, and its an attack on my integrity.
however feel free to launch attacks at business plans etc.
nice job cosmo...
 Quote:
The SCC-LOUNGE is now offering Secure Commerce Services @ www.scc-lounge.wordpress.com
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari
XERCORE
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 00:56:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ji Sama
only one thing i disagree with, you dont have to treat every new IPO/Bond as a scam. that is what created this sour atmosphere in the MD.
you should however be critical and ask questions etc.
but thats not the same as calling every new IPO/Bond manager a scammer.
personally i was very offended the first time i came here, and was called a scammer.
why? because its so far away from my person, and its an attack on my integrity.
however feel free to launch attacks at business plans etc.
Agreed.
Its perfectly acceptable to think of all offerings as scams until proven otherwise but actually calling what is in fact a poor but legitimate first a attempt a scam can drive off people that actually have something to contribute and just generally degrades the forum and any sense of decorum it has left. I realize I have not exactly helped the sour atmosphere lingering over MD but that doesn't mean I want it that way. That said, it's hard to treat the sixth or seventh terrible thread of the day with kid gloves. 
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 01:01:00 -
[7]
Not being scammed is too much work. Its one of the reasons I am semi retired now. I have never been scammed before, mostly because I am extremely paranoid but it gets to you after a while, always checking and always looking is exhausting.
|
RJ Nobel
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 01:28:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dzil
That is a pretty powerful statistic. Could you share the specifics? I'd like to audit your research, if you don't mind ;)
Seconded. I've been collecting similar data, but not for that long. Evemail me if you'd prefer to not publish the data.
Otherwise, thanks for the thread. I wouldn't have thought that investors would ever have to justify their evaluation criteria, but your numbers ought to help a few people better understand things.
|
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 01:29:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 23/05/2009 01:31:37
While we are letting the cynicism run rampant, you might as well say this:
Q: How to get 100M in EVE secondary market?
A: Start with 1B
Even with all said bases covered in OP thread, the chance to scam seems very high >< . Makes me wonder why anyone would invest in the first place. Chance to lose seems much larger than any of the piddlewinks interest that is currently being offered by most Bonds/IPOs
The title of the post should be "How to lose your money (invest at all)"
-GV
Edit: Added in a couple more sprinkles of cynicism
|
RJ Nobel
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 01:57:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
Makes me wonder why anyone would invest in the first place. C
Personally, I enjoy looking for investments as a hobby. It's not much different than running a fantasy stock portfolio. The IPO/bonds offered in MD are interesting to read through, critique, and occassionally invest in. I've heard MD referred to as a forum for roleplaying capitalists. Unfortunately, for every imaginary tycoon, you have five imaginary scam artists, hence the "rampant cynicism".
Unlike some people, I'm not offended by scammers. It's kind of like playing cops-n-robbers - everyone has a side to be on, but it's just a game.
To answer your question: You should invest, or at least consider investing, if it's FUN.
|
eVaLF
Delivery Luck
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 02:15:00 -
[11]
I still have some isk for you :)
-----
POS FUEL DELIVERY & HIGH & LOW SEC FREIGHTER SERVICES |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 02:26:00 -
[12]
I would say you got everything correct there cosmo..
Just personally I would differentiate a LOT between "expecting" a scam, and overtly and repeatedly stating and claiming an IPO to be a scam.
A bit of a dif between an accused party and a suspect. In this harsh environment ALL are on the suspect list until cleared of all charges, but we could be a bit more civil in the way this suspicion is raised. The torches and pitchfork approach is damaging to growth of the secondary markets.
</rant>
- Money is Love -
Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 02:46:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
The torches and pitchfork approach is damaging to growth of the secondary markets.
No, this is what prevents others from blatantly damaging the secondary market as much. The market becomes more healthy the safer it is, and the entry barrier for safe(ish) profit is lower. This is damaged by scams and failed ventures.
However, the secondary market will only grow as healthy as its supporting structure. Since CCP will give us none, it's entirely up to the community to do what it can. Despite people being emotionally abused on MD, it's what is best for the market. I know you and others want things to be more sunshine and roses, but you're talking about giving money to people without game-based assurances in one of the harshest pvp MMOs in existence. By definition, we need to be brutal. Wanting things to not be brutal is working against your goal of a healthier market.
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 02:56:00 -
[14]
You could have said that way shorter.
"I must be cruel only to be kind, thus bad begins and worse remains behind"
Still claiming that bullying and bad tude is good for business is not just a wrong assumption, its a barrier for game experiences.
We want the entry to be full of trials and a good gauntlet running, not a berlin wall (to the younger crowd)
- Money is Love -
Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 04:16:00 -
[15]
Edited by: corestwo on 23/05/2009 04:16:13
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
You could have said that way shorter.
"I must be cruel only to be kind, thus bad begins and worse remains behind"
Still claiming that bullying and bad tude is good for business is not just a wrong assumption, its a barrier for game experiences.
We want the entry to be full of trials and a good gauntlet running, not a berlin wall (to the younger crowd)
Not to derail but is this really such "ancient" history that the link would be necessary? 
-------------
Goonfleet Investment Banking - Bringing you the spoils of Delve!
Search Corestwo and Goonfleet Investment Banking under "issued by" on contracts for the current item list! |
Amarr Citizen 155
Alternative Methods Research Group
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 04:34:00 -
[16]
Originally by: corestwo
Edited by: corestwo on 23/05/2009 04:16:13
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
You could have said that way shorter.
"I must be cruel only to be kind, thus bad begins and worse remains behind"
Still claiming that bullying and bad tude is good for business is not just a wrong assumption, its a barrier for game experiences.
We want the entry to be full of trials and a good gauntlet running, not a berlin wall (to the younger crowd)
Not to derail but is this really such "ancient" history that the link would be necessary?
I'm afraid so. As a teacher I can tell you that most of my students MIGHT have heard about the Berlin wall but would have no idea wtf the deal was with it. One of my students had to complete EOI testing (end of instruction) and he asked me what the "New Deal" was and why it was a big deal. I was amazed to learn that his history class didn't get past WW1 because they ran out of time in the school year (they always had time for movies though). He had heard of Vietnam simply because of the jokes made on shows like Southpark or other such TV shows.
In short, don't overestimate the intelligence and knowledge of youth. Oh and BTW, most of my students range in age from 16-22.
Quote:
Ricdic (about starting ebank, July 2007): Think of it as a miniature EIB done right. I cannot see this getting anywhere near 700b any time in the future tbh.
|
Ricdics
Tleilex Developments
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 04:36:00 -
[17]
Something just as important a statistic.
Of all the audits performed in the history of the MD forums, none have stolen any personal data or used them for their own benefit. So for all those people using the excuse "they might steal my trade routes", this is a non issue when using this statistic combined with the one at the top with Cosmoray. |
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 06:06:00 -
[18]
Do the people who invest in auditless ipo/bonds even read these threads?
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven
this thread is obviously going places
|
Vikarion
Caldari
White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 06:18:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Professor Leech
Do the people who invest in auditless ipo/bonds even read these threads?
It is doubtful. I've found that ignorance combined with arrogance tends to breed continued arrogance.
|
Khatrina Entara
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 06:31:00 -
[20]
While I might be rather new to the trading (And I was never very big on forum posting until recently so I'm quite the unknown person with a three day old trading character) scene myself I know quite a few people who have been wanting to launch an IPO/Bond (or whatever you bigwig investors call it) but refuse to do so just because of the way new IPO's are treated. Seems to me that with the way things are being treated the only people willing to launch an IPO are the ones wanting to scam.
|
Kaiserf
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 06:48:00 -
[21]
Hi cosmoray,
Thanks for the post. Does what is says on the tin, etc. etc.
What really got me curious is that you mentioned you had records of all bond and IPOs issued since Jan 1st 2007. I was wondering you also had records of the returns on all issues from that date?
Those types of records would really help me with some of the questions I've had about the secondary market and have put into the thread I started here. I had assumed that the community was too disjointed to have assembled such a resource.
Thanks,
Kaiserf
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 07:46:00 -
[22]
I am not at home at the moment, so I don't have all my files here.
When I get back in a couple of weeks I will send out my updated data.
|
Frenden Dax
Dax Acquisitions
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 08:56:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Khatrina Entara
I know quite a few people who have been wanting to launch an IPO/Bond (or whatever you bigwig investors call it) but refuse to do so just because of the way new IPO's are treated.
Well maybe if people had a coherent, working business plan, didn't flat out refuse to undergo an audit, and weren't hostile and uncommunicative when cross-examined by members of MD, things would be different. Additionally, many if not most of the recent offerings have been attempted scams (mostly clearly discernible as such), so the fact that they got torn to shreds isn't really remarkable.
|
Varo Jan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 09:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ricdics
Something just as important a statistic.
Of all the audits performed in the history of the MD forums, none have stolen any personal data or used them for their own benefit. So for all those people using the excuse "they might steal my trade routes", this is a non issue when using this statistic combined with the one at the top with Cosmoray.
How did you verify that claim categorically for every single auditor and his alts?
Did Xabier (sp?) use info from audits for his own benefit?
On another matter, how many audited IPOs (a) turned out to be scams or (b) did not meet IPO targets in one form or another, such as sub-par returns or late dividend payments to name a couple.
|
azalea anastasia
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 09:14:00 -
[25]
Interested in seeing statistics on scams with and without audit.
So say X amount of scams with no audit for X amount of isk , y amount of scams with audit for y amount of isk.I think it'll give a whole different look on this.
|
Draylan Poltrin
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 11:37:00 -
[26]
While it is all very well having all these checks/audits for new IPOs, where are the checks and audits on existing investments?
Also, what about the others that were grilled/trolled/called scam that turned out more than okay (From EGSE data; -R.E- ; 1248 ISK per share returning 80957.14 per share - 6486.95% ROI - must be the best performer ever).
The following are not being targeted specifically, just used as examples from the info available.
From RESX data; AATP (last dividend 2009.03.17), EMFI (last dividend 2009.03.25), DATAC (last dividend 2008.09.05), FIMD (last dividend 2009.04.14), ZERO. (last dividend 2008.02.03).
Ray's bond changed from in-game dividend payments to manual and no more was heard of it, and now Kwint is changing his terms (I would have thought changing the return on an existing fixed return bond should not be up to the bond issuer).
So, what do you call a investment that does not meet up to its promises/dividends/buybacks?
Waiting for cosmoray's info to see how the non-scammers have performed/are performing.
|
Draylan Poltrin
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 11:47:00 -
[27]
Originally by: RJ Nobel
Seconded. I've been collecting similar data, but not for that long. Evemail me if you'd prefer to not publish the data.
Cosmoray has said he will be posting his info, and I think that anyone who has something similar should do the same. Afterall, it will not hurt anyone but the "bad guys", and will be beneficial to the Eve community.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 12:45:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Draylan Poltrin
AATP (last dividend 2009.03.17)
AATP purchased another BPO and is repaying loans, no dividends or management fees will be issued until that is done. Currently we still owe about nine billion.
Originally by: Draylan Poltrin
Ray's bond changed from in-game dividend payments to manual and no more was heard of it
My bond was always meant to be a manual payment. It is also closing in two days, a fact that has been advertised for six months. What more would you like to hear?
| Auction Prowler |
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 12:55:00 -
[29]
i would like to hear.... everybody was kungfu fighting.. dadadadadadadaaaaaa.
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
Dzil
Caldari
Second Quadrant Ice Division
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 13:55:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Ricdics
Something just as important a statistic.
Of all the audits performed in the history of the MD forums, none have stolen any personal data or used them for their own benefit. So for all those people using the excuse "they might steal my trade routes", this is a non issue when using this statistic combined with the one at the top with Cosmoray.
I have a difficult time understanding how you could prove that.
------------------------------
In EVE, when someone undercuts you, they're a lemming.
When you undercut someone else, it's skill/effort/manipulation.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:08:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Dzil
I have a difficult time understanding how you could prove that.
It's an assumed truth, call it intuition. Innocent until proven guilty, eh?
| Auction Prowler |
Esharan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:14:00 -
[32]
Originally by: cosmoray
I have data from all the IPO/bond launches since Jan 1st 2007.
In that time EVERY unknown (new player to MD with no recognised reputation) who has refused an audit has SCAMMED,
wait for it....
100% of the time.
When are investors going to learn that throwing money at new businesses without thorough checking is as good as the Jita "send me ISK and I return 2:1".
Any new business that launches who:
1. Refuses audit
2. Has audit done by unknown or friend
3. Gets surly to your legit questions
4. Asks you to leave thread ("nothing constructive to say please leave, etc")
5. Locks thread
Don't invest.
I can't say that, but if you do invest at least be careful what you invest in.
Over 500B has been scammed in the last 30 months in this forum.
Please notice that most of the old timers on the MD forum have learnt the hard way from poor investments and have stayed well clear of the obvious scams. Most checks performed on new IPO's aren't done to cause trouble but to reduce our risk of being scammed.
All new IPO's/bonds HAVE to be treated as SCAM until proven otherwise. The questioning and abuse might seem harsh but it sorts the true CEO's from the scammers.
What do I know, invest away and lose your cash!!!
Yea I don't believe for a second you have all the statistics on this. I highly doubt that in the last 2 years not a single IPO launch who has refused those has been legit. Statistically that would be nearly impossible with the amount of IPO launches. BTW: Wouldn't be hard for you to fabricate some bogus statistics in the next few weeks to make it seem like you actually did this.
/scam thread ftw.
|
Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:16:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Esharan
/scam thread ftw.
I remember why I stopped reading MD.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:20:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Dzil
I have a difficult time understanding how you could prove that.
It's an assumed truth, call it intuition. Innocent until proven guilty, eh?
hahahaha..... innocent untill.... hahhahahhaha.. proven guilty?
why should that courtesy be extended to auditors.
im all for auditors, but saying that they have NEVER misused the info is just a blatant lie.
you cant help but get inspired etc. or get a few tips and pointers when you audit others.
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:26:00 -
[35]
For those interested here was my report on 2008, when I analyzed all IPO's and bond launches during the year.
I completed a full write up, and down the posts I posted links to google docs with some raw data. The links should still work.
2008 data original thread
raw data
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:32:00 -
[36]
RE: Auditors
I can say to a fair degree of certainty that Kazuo, Kazzac, Shar, Bad Bobby, Brock Nelson have never abused any information divulged to them for purposes of an audit.
There are several other auditors out there also but I do not have as much working knowledge about them.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:37:00 -
[37]
cosmo it wasnt an attack against the auditors as such, but saying that you dont get inspired by a good business plan, og some nice statistic would imo be a lie.
you cant control your creative thoughts that way.
im not saying that its infact a misuse as such, but they have used, some of the data they have collected over the years.. and thats imo ok...
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:39:00 -
[38]
Your faith in humanity is appallingly low. Also, courtesy? Basic human right I say.
| Auction Prowler |
Doctor Whiteface
Snow Blind Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 14:44:00 -
[39]
Originally by: cosmoray
RE: Auditors
I can say to a fair degree of certainty that Kazuo, Kazzac, Shar, Bad Bobby, Brock Nelson have never abused any information divulged to them for purposes of an audit.
There are several other auditors out there also but I do not have as much working knowledge about them.
I would say that basic logic says you cannot canonically prove a negative, and that in many ways that's why MD seems to run on "+/- rep" as it's a way to bolster logic failure on negative proofing.
That said, I am inclined to believe that, while some IPOs/bonds/secondary investments with audits are ultimately scams, the benefit of audit is that it makes collusion required for the scam to work, which in a risk management sense vastly decreases the likelihood of risk.
|
NupetietVer
Arkons of Myth
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 15:26:00 -
[40]
Look up my Rat Project. Only invest when you can afford to lose it, and maybe someone will actually not be a scammer.
Rat Project
|
Muad' Dib
Gallente
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 16:29:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: corestwo
Edited by: corestwo on 23/05/2009 04:16:13
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
You could have said that way shorter.
"I must be cruel only to be kind, thus bad begins and worse remains behind"
Still claiming that bullying and bad tude is good for business is not just a wrong assumption, its a barrier for game experiences.
We want the entry to be full of trials and a good gauntlet running, not a berlin wall (to the younger crowd)
Not to derail but is this really such "ancient" history that the link would be necessary?
I'm afraid so. As a teacher I can tell you that most of my students MIGHT have heard about the Berlin wall but would have no idea wtf the deal was with it. One of my students had to complete EOI testing (end of instruction) and he asked me what the "New Deal" was and why it was a big deal. I was amazed to learn that his history class didn't get past WW1 because they ran out of time in the school year (they always had time for movies though). He had heard of Vietnam simply because of the jokes made on shows like Southpark or other such TV shows.
In short, don't overestimate the intelligence and knowledge of youth. Oh and BTW, most of my students range in age from 16-22.
They'll make good soldiers for the Army that obey all the orders and think the ideea of a prisoner of war convention signed by many countries is pure sci-fi ... what's the problem, best way to dumb down the ppl.
---
I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 16:44:00 -
[42]
Investing in EVE means trusting someone you met in a video game with the results of your previous efforts.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
flakeys
Tier 3 Technologies Inc
Lazy is our middle name
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 18:06:00 -
[43]
Originally by: cosmoray
RE: Auditors
I can say to a fair degree of certainty that Kazuo, Kazzac, Shar, Bad Bobby, Brock Nelson have never abused any information divulged to them for purposes of an audit.
There are several other auditors out there also but I do not have as much working knowledge about them.
You can not say that with any degree of certainty.I trust the names you mention as much as you but there is NO WAY to verify if any info they have gotten from doing an audit is misused in any way.The only one who can know is the auditors themselves.
So saying in here the auditors will never abuse or have never abused any info they have gotten through doing audits is just a wild assumption.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 18:25:00 -
[44]
Its entirely possible that some of us have abused any information we've gleamed. Its something that cannot be totally written off honestly, since the chance even if small is there.
But I can speak for myself when saying that any information I have at my hand when I have an audit is more or less useless to me.... even if you do happen to be building capitals. |
Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 19:21:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
But I can speak for myself when saying that any information I have at my hand when I have an audit is more or less useless to me.... even if you do happen to be building capitals.
There are very few scenarios where the information available via an audit would result in any kind of substantial risk to a well-run business. Any kind of danger would require too little reward, too much work, and too much carelessness on the IPO manager's part to be any threat, unless the business plan isn't very good to start with.
Really the only thing I can think of that's remotely risky is the locations of low-sec or 0.0 POS to be blown up, and as MD has already established ventures relying on such things are terrible ventures and shouldn't be run in the first place.
If there's some kind of risk beyond that, you're probably doing it wrong.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 19:47:00 -
[46]
Quote:
Well maybe if people had a coherent, working business plan, didn't flat out refuse to undergo an audit, and weren't hostile and uncommunicative when cross-examined by members of MD, things would be different. Additionally, many if not most of the recent offerings have been attempted scams (mostly clearly discernible as such), so the fact that they got torn to shreds isn't really remarkable.
TBH in RL transactions and financial operations, you don't face a committee that looks more like Spanish Inquisition than possible financial partners.
There's beyond "detached professionalism" here, there's almost palpable and spasmodic hostility.
In fact, and playing several PvP MMOs teached me the instinct, I smell fear. Lot's of it. Beyond healty diffidence.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 19:57:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Well maybe if people had a coherent, working business plan, didn't flat out refuse to undergo an audit, and weren't hostile and uncommunicative when cross-examined by members of MD, things would be different. Additionally, many if not most of the recent offerings have been attempted scams (mostly clearly discernible as such), so the fact that they got torn to shreds isn't really remarkable.
TBH in RL transactions and financial operations, you don't face a committee that looks more like Spanish Inquisition than possible financial partners.
There's beyond "detached professionalism" here, there's almost palpable and spasmodic hostility.
In fact, and playing several PvP MMOs teached me the instinct, I smell fear. Lot's of it. Beyond healty diffidence.
QFT
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 19:59:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
TBH in RL transactions and financial operations, you don't face a committee that looks more like Spanish Inquisition than possible financial partners.
Absolute *******s. You've obviously never done business in real life. Ever heard of the Dragons' Den? Real negotiations are often way more cut-throat than that.
MD is not a bank, go there if you want fair, polite treatment.
Come to the public with a half-arsed proposal and expect to be called out rather harshly.
Kitchen, heat, GTFO.
| Auction Prowler |
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:11:00 -
[49]
oki ill gtfo then and gbtw because im a noob and i need to l2p, kek....
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:13:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Ji Sama
oki ill gtfo then and gbtw because im a noob and i need to l2p, kek....
Good argument. 
| Auction Prowler |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:14:00 -
[51]
I have run 2 companies IRL, I never felt treated like that even when asking for delaying reimbursment to the 2 banks I used.
Do you live in some tribal country that they cutt your throat like that?
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:18:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
I have run 2 companies IRL, I never felt treated like that even when asking for delaying reimbursment to the 2 banks I used.
Well, as I said, banks aren't exactly private investment, which is what MD is.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Do you live in some tribal country that they cutt your throat like that?
Actually, yes.
It's slightly better than some pseudo-capitalist first world country.
| Auction Prowler |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:22:00 -
[53]
Quote:
Well, as I said, banks aren't exactly private investment, which is what MD is
Well, here the banks are quite extensive in the checks they do.
They just treat you with formality and detachment, something I can understand.
The active hostility, instead, that is not off a serious institution.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:24:00 -
[54]
The difference is the banks want, need, your business. The role is reversed here.
| Auction Prowler |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:27:00 -
[55]
Quote:
The difference is the banks want, need, your business. The role is reversed here.
Then this is not MD, this is a charity, where beggars use clever arguments and auditing to cry some money out off you.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:30:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
The difference is the banks want, need, your business. The role is reversed here.
Then this is not MD, this is a charity, where beggars use clever arguments and auditing to cry some money out off you.
That makes no sense at all.
| Auction Prowler |
Clara Mismer
Minmatar
Gulfonodi Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:34:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
I have run 2 companies IRL, I never felt treated like that even when asking for delaying reimbursment to the 2 banks I used.
Do you live in some tribal country that they cutt your throat like that?
in real life you probably had to give away tangible,physical assets, or seizeable assets for collateral - in eve that isnt really possible.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:37:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 23/05/2009 20:44:55
Originally by: Clara Mismer
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
I have run 2 companies IRL, I never felt treated like that even when asking for delaying reimbursment to the 2 banks I used.
Do you live in some tribal country that they cutt your throat like that?
in real life you probably had to give away tangible,physical assets, or seizeable assets for collateral - in eve that isnt really possible.
And being rude and spiteful on new enterpreneurs by default, is a valid surrogate for giving away tangible assets / collateral?
If not, it's gratuitous bossing around. You are not in the "pro 2004 vets circle"? You are crap unless proved otherwise.
Edit:
I mean by example
Thread "XXXX industries issues 4B IPO"....
Reaction that I'd expect:
"I noticed you don't mention about an audit. You know, this is a quite harsh and unregulated game, so before I commit to an investment I'd require for an audit to be performed by a 3rd party and the results reported here".
What I see:
"WHAAARGH YOU NOOB you are a scammer, you did not call for an audit (of course only made by the "right" people), you are gonna rob us, don't you recall in 2007 guy XXXX scammed 600B blah blah blah.
Followed by 5-6 similar answers.
|
Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:43:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
And being rude and spiteful on new enterpreneurs by default, is a valid surrogate for giving away tangible assets / collateral?
If not, it's gratuitous bossing around. You are not in the "pro 2004 vets circle"? You are crap unless proved otherwise.
All that any of this comes down to is that you are of the class of EVE players who take real world sensibilities into an online game and can be "offended" by what people say to them. While I'm all for not being a jackass to random people for lols, welcome to the internet. The way I see it you have two choices: be offended and pout, changing nothing except for feeling grief yourself and maybe amusing others, or learn to brush past and continue acting with reason, making the best of a situation and improving it despite others, not in order to change them.
|
RJ Nobel
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:43:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
I have run 2 companies IRL, I never felt treated like that even when asking for delaying reimbursment to the 2 banks I used.
Do you live in some tribal country that they cutt your throat like that?
I've started and operated privately and publically funded companies in the United States, and I'd say that the "reviews" that occur on MD are miniscule compared to the level of review in the real world. Ever had an FBI Special Agent interview your neighbors from eight years ago, or ask your high school teachers about your personality? Ever had to sit through a panel polygraph session? Ever had to provide comprehensive (as in 100-200 page) business plans for review by industry-specific analysts? How about qualifying for and maintaining a personal errors-and-ommissions insurance policy for $9m? I've had to go through all of that, along with the rejections, sometimes polite and sometimes not, that go with soliciting funding for a new enterprise. If you're asking for a large sum of money, you better be prepared to properly explain how you'll use that money.
And here's the rub: in my opinion, drawing a parallel between real world investments and MD investments is, well, absurd. Eve is a video game that offers a player-driven economy and a player-developed set of rules for the secondary market. The rules are quite clear to anyone who does the research: offer a good plan, get an audit, and respond to concerns in a mature, responsible manner. Anyone who can't meet those three points is either not trying, or a scammer.
In my opinion, MD is chock full of investors, most of whom lurk without contributing to the regular discussion, that are desparate for quality investments. Anyone who wants to start an honest investment project just needs to do the research and present a reasonable plan. That's not asking too much, is it?
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:53:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Selene D'Celeste
All that any of this comes down to is that you are of the class of EVE players who take real world sensibilities into an online game and can be "offended" by what people say to them.
thats a fallacy imo...
when i come to these forums i write as myself the person behind Ji Sama.
its not about getting offended or not.
its about being respectful towards others. its about being CONSTRUCTIVE vs being DESTRUCTIVE...
just because the world (internet) is filled with asshats doesnt give you the right or the reason to become one yourself, rise above the masses.
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 20:59:00 -
[62]
Quote:
I've started and operated privately and publically funded companies in the United States
All of this roboant seriousness did not save the States off that little recent financial debacle.
If you read George Soros essay you see how some institutions who should have been actually *functional* in their checks (but they were controlled and controllee... figures) were not, despite all of the formality.
Quote:
Ever had an FBI Special Agent interview your neighbors from eight years ago, or ask your high school teachers about your personality? Ever had to sit through a panel polygraph session? Ever had to provide comprehensive (as in 100-200 page) business plans for review by industry-specific analysts?
Yes, and it's protocol. Something which is to do like a duty, but they did never treat me like s****in the process.
Quote:
In my opinion, MD is chock full of investors, most of whom lurk without contributing to the regular discussion, that are desparate for quality investments. Anyone who wants to start an honest investment project just needs to do the research and present a reasonable plan. That's not asking too much, is it?
Then, those investors should also look in a mirror and see that the concept of "this is a game" applies also to the enterpreneurs asking for investments.
No one loves being considered a crappy scammer by default, expecially in a game where those calling them are just other internet anonymous themselves.
|
RJ Nobel
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 21:20:00 -
[63]
My point is that any quality review of an investment should be uncomfortable. If it's not, then the auditor isn't probing deeply enough.
That being said, I agree, this is just a game, and we shouldn't be applying real-world standards to the critique of any proposal.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
No one loves being considered a crappy scammer by default, expecially in a game where those calling them are just other internet anonymous themselves.
Valid point. However, if we don't default to scam until proven otherwise, then the default is trust until proven otherwise. I personally believe that trust is earned, not given away freely, and therefore I have to default to scam until proven otherwise. If you can provide a more logical analysis of the exchange of trust and money, please do so.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 21:24:00 -
[64]
Quote:
Valid point. However, if we don't default to scam until proven otherwise, then the default is trust until proven otherwise. I personally believe that trust is earned, not given away freely, and therefore I have to default to scam until proven otherwise. If you can provide a more logical analysis of the exchange of trust and money, please do so.
I see 3 degrees:
1) You are a scammer
2) I cannot trust you yet, nothing personal, please submit an audit.
3) I fully trust you.
I fully endorse 2 and 3, but I also see people going for 1. Not all, not many, but still a couple per investment thread.
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 21:32:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
"WHAAARGH YOU NOOB you are a scammer, you did not call for an audit (of course only made by the "right" people), you are gonna rob us, don't you recall in 2007 guy XXXX scammed 600B blah blah blah.
Please supply me a link to a post similar to your concocted one. I think in fact you are over dramatising the whole thing. We're a lot more clear, precise and straight-forward than the response you propose.
| Auction Prowler |
RJ Nobel
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 21:42:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
I see 3 degrees:
1) You are a scammer
2) I cannot trust you yet, nothing personal, please submit an audit.
3) I fully trust you.
I fully endorse 2 and 3, but I also see people going for 1. Not all, not many, but still a couple per investment thread.
I can agree with that approach. Personally, I think the response to the "scammer" accusation is an exceptionally good way of evaluating a person's business ability. A person with a sound business plan can address the accusation with rational evidence - consult my audit, review my previous offerings, look at the strength of my plan, etc. Someone without a solid plan, or the experience to execute the plan, will respond to the accusation immaturely - "omg, you're so mean", "an auditor might steal my idea", "troll me? F that, I'm gonna troll YOU", etc. Accusing someone of something is a surefire way to gauge their ability to handle high-stress situations.
In short - if you're going to ask for large sums of money, don't take the "scam" accusation personally. Take the accusation as an opportunity to sell yourself and your plan.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 21:44:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Selene D'Celeste
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
But I can speak for myself when saying that any information I have at my hand when I have an audit is more or less useless to me.... even if you do happen to be building capitals.
There are very few scenarios where the information available via an audit would result in any kind of substantial risk to a well-run business. Any kind of danger would require too little reward, too much work, and too much carelessness on the IPO manager's part to be any threat, unless the business plan isn't very good to start with.
Really the only thing I can think of that's remotely risky is the locations of low-sec or 0.0 POS to be blown up, and as MD has already established ventures relying on such things are terrible ventures and shouldn't be run in the first place.
If there's some kind of risk beyond that, you're probably doing it wrong.
Exactly, even in a trading scenario much of what you see has already happened. Which more or less is useless in any trading venture. |
Vikarion
Caldari
White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.23 22:03:00 -
[68]
Perhaps it is obnoxious to say this, but I've always felt that everything comes down to the fact that the bond operator is asking others for money.
If you want to get their money, you do what they ask. If you can't take a bit of abuse, then don't offer a bond or IPO.
It's that simple.
|
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 00:07:00 -
[69]
I like the fact that this thread has caused a lot of arguement. This means that there is plenty of issues that people think still exist.
There are some things that I have learnt in MD and Eve and need saying. (these are my opinions)
1. People try to compare Eve to RL investing. IMO you can't do this, as if in RL you SCAM (defraud) you face the real possibility of jail time or other serious consequenses. In Eve there are is no down side to scamming apart from loss of reputation, but if you don't care about that it is not important.
2. Auditing does have value. An audit will not stop scamming but acts as an extra security check to a new business launch.
e.g. A player wants to become a cap ship builder. An audit will show if the character can even build a cap ship.
Small details like this don't guarantee success but they help to breed confidence in the business manager.
IMO most people who present a sound business plan, answer questions intelligently without surliness and submit to an audit typically get funding and create a good business that rewards the player and investor.
Those players who don't follow this path have failed to develop a business plan that will work, or have attempted to scam or successfully done so.
There is no need to be scammed from your ISK, just follow some simple rules.
1. Ask questions
2. Get an audit
3. Do a background check
4. Make a reservation pending clarifications (audit, other)
5. Invest
It is not to difficult.
|
Clara Mismer
Minmatar
Gulfonodi Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 00:25:00 -
[70]
Originally by: cosmoray
*stuff Removed*
There is no need to be scammed from your ISK, just follow some simple rules.
1. Ask questions
2. Get an audit
3. Do a background check
4. Make a reservation pending clarifications (audit, other)
5. Invest
It is not to difficult.
The only scam these simple precautions wont guard against is burnout - I am sure there are some legitimate business that turn scam. At some point people can loose their passion and when your doing your own thing it means you stop or do less. When your work is tied to an investment you can't easily stop unless another can fill in for you. At that point you weigh your enjoyment Vs. reputation in a game you are burnt out on and the idea to walk away becomes a possibility where it may not have existed before.
Some people also suffer from the I am making others rich and want a bigger piece of the pie syndrome, I am sure there are other reasons as well.
Bottom line we play this to do something different that we enjoy - when the game isn't fun it is time to do something different for a while, business owners rarely have that option. (there's a business idea in there somewhere for rental corp management)
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari
Flux Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 05:10:00 -
[71]
I probably regret saying this later but:
It's good to scam once in a while. Why? 2 reasons;
1. Keeps us on our toe
2. Allows us to fine tune IPO/bond standards. While it's true that the standard of "detecting" scams from IPO/bond post, audit results is not perfect; anybody that follows the standard practice can still result in screwing everyone.
Everybody can toot their horn all they want and demand strict standard and SOP for business manager to follow when it comes to bonds/ipo, there is absolutely no way to prevent scams. Period.
Blueprint Store |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 13:23:00 -
[72]
I was reading this disclaimer off an IRL financial facility offer.
"Having said all that, it is important to remember that as profitable as the [omissis] market is, it still carries all the risks involved with financial trading. You should always be aware of the risk, and never risk money that you can't afford to lose."
Isn't it incredibly similar to the standard "EvE disclaimer"?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 14:45:00 -
[73]
Oh, btw.
CAP4U wasn't audited, ever. Granted a good portion of it was locked down with Ricdic, I could easily have scammed it anyways.
LVM launched December 2007. It was a 20bill bond, which I quickly expanded to double the size. It was never audited, and it didn't scam.
|
Mme Pinkerton
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 15:37:00 -
[74]
tl;dr - a lengthy quotation without new content
this thread so much reminds me of
Quote:
" Because of this completely ideal existence of money, man cannot detect what is counterfeit in any material other than his own person and must himself become counterfeit, obtain credit by stealth and lies, and this credit relationship both on the side of the man who trusts and of the man who needs trust, becomes an object of commerce, an object of mutual deception and misuse.
Here there is still plain in all its clarity the mistrust that is the basis of economic trust, the mistrustful consideration of whether to give credit or not, the spying into the secrets of the private life, etc. of the person seeking credit; the betrayal of temporary difficulties in order to ruin a rival through the sudden shaking of his credit. "
methinks K. Marx would have fitted quite nicely into MD 
" Credit is the economic judgement on the morality of a man. " |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 17:27:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
methinks K. Marx would have fitted quite nicely into MD
If Marx was alive to participate here, he'd like be a smoth talking scammer. |
Varo Jan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 21:46:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Vikarion
Perhaps it is obnoxious to say this, but I've always felt that everything comes down to the fact that the bond operator is asking others for money.
If you want to get their money, you do what they ask. If you can't take a bit of abuse, then don't offer a bond or IPO.
It's that simple.
You are one hundred percent correct. What you said is obnoxious, and dead wrong.
On the one hand you have people looking for a place to park their money at a rate better than the paltry ones on offer from the "banks". On the other hand you have people with a business or a business idea who want to grow, but lack the readies to do it themselves today. Both parties need each other.
Let¦s take a hypothetical case. Say Trader711 has done his research, spotted an opportunity, developed a business plan - and now he approaches MD for funding. Putting it in EVE terminology - MD has zero standings in his eyes, neither neutral nor positive.
The first thing that happens when he gets through the door is some git jumping on his chair and squealing, "EEK! SCAMMER!!" How do you think Trader711 is going to react?
Next, some pompous prat tells him he¦s a nobody solely because he¦s never posted in MD, so kindly leave the club. Excuse me? MD is a forum on EVE, open to anybody who has paid his subscription.
Trader711 perseveres. He presents his plan and stands ready to be questioned thoroughly about it. But instead of logical and reasoned questions he¦s asked to bend over and be abused. This is the point at which Trader711 realises he¦s not dealing with reasonable adults, he¦s dealing with schoolboy bullies lacking any comprehension of business, and completely mannerless into the bargain.
He leaves. Both sides lose out.
Now do you understand why I found your post obnoxious in the extreme? Lose the holier-than-thou attitude. All you¦re doing is ensuring that people don¦t bother to approach MD - and that will ensure that a "secondary market" never develops. By all means set standards, such as audits, proper business plans, and so on - and apply them across the board to each other as well as to newcomers. But lose the childish attitudes.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 22:14:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Varo Jan
I'M TELLING YOU TO GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO SCAMMERS!
Maybe you should stop acting like a self-righteous ****.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven
this thread is obviously going places
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 22:47:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Professor Leech
Originally by: Varo Jan
I'M TELLING YOU TO GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO SCAMMERS!
Maybe you should stop acting like a self-righteous ****.
try reading what he said, one more time....
he made a great post imo, and i agree with it 100%
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 22:58:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Ji Sama
Originally by: Professor Leech
Originally by: Varo Jan
I'M TELLING YOU TO GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO SCAMMERS!
Maybe you should stop acting like a self-righteous ****.
try reading what he said, one more time....
he made a great post imo, and i agree with it 100%
There are valid points in there. However, accusations, lack of trust and acting like man-babies are all typical of eve. Telling MD to start behaving like well-balanced individuals when people ask for their isk is too ridiculous to comprehend.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven
this thread is obviously going places
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 23:19:00 -
[80]
haha, well said Mr Leech :D
Though i would still say that we can change this if we want to... :D
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
Packtu'sa
Nabaal Construction and Industrials Corp
|
Posted - 2009.05.24 23:38:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Vikarion
Perhaps it is obnoxious to say this, but I've always felt that everything comes down to the fact that the bond operator is asking others for money. If you want to get their money, you do what they ask. If you can't take a bit of abuse, then don't offer a bond or IPO. It's that simple.
You are one hundred percent correct. What you said is obnoxious, and dead wrong.
I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with Vikarion's sentiment. I am really not an investor; for a couple months I managed a small portfolio of investments, but my activity in MD is as a fund manager. I rather enjoy the pressure that MD puts on; it's really not hard to do your research, figure out what the community expects of you, and deliver a solid investment. When I launched my first bond, I made sure I was thorough, polite, and prepared. Vikarion is absolutely correct; if you come asking for money, you need to understand who you're asking from, and you need to understand what they expect of you. If you cannot deliver to their satisfaction, you don't deserve their money or, more importantly, their trust.
Packtu'sa
Founder/CEO, Nabaal Construction and Industrials Corp [NCIC] |
Vikarion
Caldari
White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 00:16:00 -
[82]
As I see it, Varo Jan, your argument against my statement stems less from actual analysis of the harms an antagonistic relationship may bring about, and more from an emotional desire to not be "mean". Nonetheless, I will do my best to show why I disagree with you.
First, money is not free. If ISK were nearly valueless - i.e., if scamming didn't really hurt investors - then investors wouldn't even be here, trying to come to conclusions on the best way to weed out scammers.
Therefore, I must come to the conclusion that the capital we possess is of great value. And, in any investment, my first goal is the preservation of my capital.
Furthermore, I must approach every investment with the understanding that I possess the means to multiply my capital personally, with almost no risk, or to utilize a bank to multiply my capital with very little risk. This is also true for every other investor.
Therefore, your assertion that I, or any other investor, need bond operators is actually false. I do not need to invest in bonds, they are merely a time-saving means of increasing my capital at a greater rate than a bank would.
However, the inverse is not true. Bond operators do need the capital I and others provide. And yet, I have virtually no assurance that they will not go marching off with my funds without a backwards glance. With new bond operators, the risk is even more pronounced: they have no reputation to maintain, no experience, etc.
Since my objective is and must be the preservation of my capital, it falls to investors such as myself to carefully examine in every way possible the offerings provided. And since the greater number of IPOs/Bonds are scams, I will assume that the bond operator is a scammer until I receive assurances to the contrary.
Personally, I don't believe the questions posed in such threads as this one are unreasonable. Nor do I think that the comments in 720's first or second offerings were unreasonable.
What harms the secondary market more than anything else is the presence of scammers. Most of the reliable bond operators and CEOs on this forum have developed a thick skin and can handle the tough questions that are asked of them. Many of them had to deal with the same criticisms.
What I want is for everyone who desires to offer a bond on this board to run the gauntlet of criticism and skepticism that will weed out the scammers. If it weeds out a few legitimate offerings as well, so be it. However, most of those who have responded politely and complied fully with accepted standards have been helped as much as was reasonable.
Financial markets are not a children's playground where you have a teacher making everyone play and talk "nice". I want my money to be safe. To take a recent example, both Stardust CEO and 720 have conducted bonds recently, and both faced criticism. Stardust did what he could to alleviate concerns, and recently began a large bond which he has so far fulfilled according to terms. 720 did not comply with the criticisms that were brought against him, and, unsurprisingly, he recently made off with 7 billion. I cannot be sure that Stardust will never scam, but because he weathered the flames and performed, I trusted him far more.
Eve is a game, yes, but I approach my financial investments in it the same way I approach those in life: with a skeptical eye and critical questions. I don't need to invest in bonds. I want to, but not unless you are willing to undergo critical examination and prove yourself many times over. I wish every investor would think like this. You wouldn't have people investing in Bernie Madoff or those like him if we did.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 18:14:00 -
[83]
Quote:
Therefore, your assertion that I, or any other investor, need bond operators is actually false. I do not need to invest in bonds, they are merely a time-saving means of increasing my capital at a greater rate than a bank would.
However, the inverse is not true. Bond operators do need the capital I and others provide. And yet, I have virtually no assurance that they will not go marching off with my funds without a backwards glance. With new bond operators, the risk is even more pronounced: they have no reputation to maintain, no experience, etc.
There's a little logical fallacity in this.
*If* you don't need to invest because you can make the money anyway - just slower....
...the bond issuers also don't need to get any money, they also can raise their funds by themselves - just slower.
The investor <-> bond issuer is a mutual agreement to both raise their potential.
Else the talk is like those girls that believe they don't need men. Of course they don't, nor men need them as well. But they still go together in the end, for mutual benefit.
Quote:
What harms the secondary market more than anything else is the presence of scammers
No, what harms the secondary market is that the game lacks of financial guarantee mechanisms. Scammers are a natural fruit of it.
Quote:
What I want is for everyone who desires to offer a bond on this board to run the gauntlet of criticism and skepticism that will weed out the scammers. If it weeds out a few legitimate offerings as well, so be it
This is called "throw away the baby with the wash water".
Now, if you'd see 1000 perspective bond issuers a day, you could happily keep 10 and let the others go.
But I don't see 1000 a day.
Quote:
I wish every investor would think like this. You wouldn't have people investing in Bernie Madoff or those like him if we did
Madoff offered a *realistic* interest and the ratings were sky high.
Madoff would be compared to one of the EBANK / <put here other super-presigious name> people and thus could do whatever he wanted (he did).
The "auditors" did not find out about him till it was too late.
In this case, you'd have followed a perfect audit and top notch ratings and would have lost your money like everyone else.
|
RJ Nobel
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 18:38:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Madoff offered a *realistic* interest and the ratings were sky high.
Madoff would be compared to one of the EBANK / <put here other super-presigious name> people and thus could do whatever he wanted (he did).
The "auditors" did not find out about him till it was too late.
In this case, you'd have followed a perfect audit and top notch ratings and would have lost your money like everyone else.
I would advise you to do a little more research before making analogies like this. Madoff was successful in large part because he offered consistent returns far above what the market was producing, or was even capable of producing:
Quote:
Concerns about Madoff's business had surfaced as early as 1999, when financial analyst-whistleblower Harry Markopolos informed the SEC that he felt it was legally and mathematically impossible to achieve the gains Madoff claimed to deliver. Others felt it was inconceivable that his growing volume of accounts could be competently serviced by his documented accounting/auditing firm, a three-person firm with only one active accountant.
There is ample evidence to show that many industry insiders suspected Madoff and that the "auditors" (the SEC) repeatedly failed to properly investigate Madoff. Madoff had some of the highest hedge fund returns in the nation, and yet not ONE major investment firm had holdings with him. Instead, most of Madoff's clientele consisted of small investors who heard about Madoff through personal networking. In other words, Madoff was running a scam quite similar to the ones commonly offered on MD: take money from those willing to invest based on appearances, rather than detailed information.
|
Vikarion
Caldari
White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 18:41:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
There's a little logical fallacity in this.
*If* you don't need to invest because you can make the money anyway - just slower....
...the bond issuers also don't need to get any money, they also can raise their funds by themselves - just slower.
The investor <-> bond issuer is a mutual agreement to both raise their potential.
Incorrect, actually. To earn, say, 10 billion running missions could take an unacceptable amount of time. If a person is capable of financing a venture without a public offering, then they should do so. Public financing should always be a last resort, unless you are doing it for fun, in which case, the criticism is part of the fun.
While you are correct that the arrangement is a mutual agreement to increase profit on both sides, that doesn't change the fact that it is an inherently imbalanced relationship with one side taking on almost all of the risk. Thus, the side taking the risk has the right to demand whatever they need in order to justify that risk.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Else the talk is like those girls that believe they don't need men. Of course they don't, nor men need them as well. But they still go together in the end, for mutual benefit.
Actually, people go together because of irrational thought processes conducted under the influence of powerful hormones designed to maintain the species. If those did not exist, it is very unlikely people would bind together in any intimate way.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
No, what harms the secondary market is that the game lacks of financial guarantee mechanisms. Scammers are a natural fruit of it.
I assumed that we were speaking "within the box". Neither you nor I can change the game mechanics, so trying to refute my point by jumping outside the immediate environment is a straw-man. Of course guarantees would be nice. However, what we are discussing is what is/is not working and being used inside this sandbox.
However, even if this were not the case, you are still incorrect. If there were no scamming, there would be no need for anti-scamming guarantees. The existence of the offense precedes the creation of a regulation against it.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
This is called "throw away the baby with the wash water".
Now, if you'd see 1000 perspective bond issuers a day, you could happily keep 10 and let the others go.
But I don't see 1000 a day.
No, I would only be "throwing out the baby with the bath water" if it was true that it is impossible to start a new IPO. As others have proved, given a good business model and the humility to start small, it manifestly is not.
It seems to me that you have the impression that a dearth of opportunities to invest is worse than passing over a few scammer. To respond to that, I would point out that not being able to invest still leaves you with your capital. Being scammed relieves you of even that.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Madoff offered a *realistic* interest and the ratings were sky high.
"Realistic"? As I recall, he consistently offered high returns no matter the market condition. If that did not raise some red flags...
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Madoff would be compared to one of the EBANK / <put here other super-presigious name> people and thus could do whatever he wanted (he did).
The "auditors" did not find out about him till it was too late.
In this case, you'd have followed a perfect audit and top notch ratings and would have lost your money like everyone else.
Wellllll...let's see how your analysis stands up against, say, an accounting of the facts.
Oooh, looks like there were quite a few red flags that were conveniently ignored. Including an under-done audit. Oh my.
The failure to detect Madoff stems from an accepted lack of transparency in his business dealings, and an unreliable, possible incapable auditing process.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 18:45:00 -
[86]
Since you want to play the Wikipedia wars, I suggest you take your own advice:
http://translate.google.it/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fit.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBernard_Madoff&sl=it&tl=en&hl=it&ie=UTF-8
"Compared to other hedge funds Madoff not boasted profits of 20-30% but stood at a more reasonable return of 10% a year but remained constant irrespective of the market"
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 18:53:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Estel Arador on 25/05/2009 18:54:34
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Since you want to play the Wikipedia wars, I suggest you take your own advice:
http://translate.google.it/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fit.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBernard_Madoff&sl=it&tl=en&hl=it&ie=UTF-8
"Compared to other hedge funds Madoff not boasted profits of 20-30% but stood at a more reasonable return of 10% a year but remained constant irrespective of the market"
I don't really want to get involved, but why for Pete's sake would you link to a google translation of an Italian wikipedia entry on an American citizen?!?
Is it because the English wikipedia entry has this to say?
Quote:
Madoff's annual returns were "unusually consistent,"[55] around 10%, and were a key factor in perpetuating the fraud.[56] Ponzi schemes typically pay returns of 20% or higher, and collapse quickly.
(Note the "Ponzi schemes" in the English version as opposed to "hedge funds" in the Italian version, quite a difference in meaning.)
FREE! jumpclone service - Now 416 locations! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 19:12:00 -
[88]
Quote:
I don't really want to get involved, but why for Pete's sake would you link to a google translation of an Italian wikipedia entry on an American citizen?!?
Original:
"Rispetto agli altri hedge funds Madoff non vantava profitti del 20-30% ma si attestava su un pi· ragionevole rendimento del 10% annuo che per= rimaneva costante a prescindere dall'andamento del mercato.[6]"
Notice the original says "hedge funds". The articles are effectively different, despite being on the same site. The translation was in order not to burden English spoken people about reading in a foreign tongue themselves. |
Vikarion
Caldari
White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 19:17:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
I don't really want to get involved, but why for Pete's sake would you link to a google translation of an Italian wikipedia entry on an American citizen?!?
Original:
"Rispetto agli altri hedge funds Madoff non vantava profitti del 20-30% ma si attestava su un pi· ragionevole rendimento del 10% annuo che per= rimaneva costante a prescindere dall'andamento del mercato.[6]"
Notice the original says "hedge funds". The articles are effectively different, despite being on the same site. The translation was in order not to burden English spoken people about reading in a foreign tongue themselves.
I'm afraid it doesn't change the fact that your "evidence" is actually proof of my contention that intense scrutiny is a good thing. I also note that you ignored my point about the auditing.
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 19:24:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Estel Arador on 25/05/2009 19:24:27
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Notice the original says "hedge funds". The articles are effectively different, despite being on the same site. The translation was in order not to burden English spoken people about reading in a foreign tongue themselves.
The fact that two wikipedia-entries can contradict eachother is a point which illustrates the reliability of Wikipedia very well, but that was not the main point. My point was more 'if you're posting on an English language forum why not use the English wikipedia for information in English on an individual from an English-speaking country'?
FREE! jumpclone service - Now 416 locations! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 20:11:00 -
[91]
Quote:
Incorrect, actually. To earn, say, 10 billion running missions could take an unacceptable amount of time. If a person is capable of financing a venture without a public offering, then they should do so. Public financing should always be a last resort, unless you are doing it for fun, in which case, the criticism is part of the fun
Again, you go "just a bit too far" and assume stuff that is not granted.
If I industrial get refused my bond nothing prevents me from switching to trading, grind the money and found the factory.
Or did I miss something about traders only trading, industrials only playing industry, mission runners only mission running?
Quote:
Thus, the side taking the risk has the right to demand whatever they need in order to justify that risk.
"Demand whatever" denotes a less than pleasant way to achieve the same objective you could also engage with reasonable and educate - yet firm - requests.
Quote:
Actually, people go together because of irrational thought processes conducted under the influence of powerful hormones designed to maintain the species. If those did not exist, it is very unlikely people would bind together in any intimate way.
Mechanicistic vision of something that can perfectly happen without any hormones. After all, living alone like a dog is less productive and nice than sharing "the burden". You put in onto the usual sexual thing, when whole organizations have arisen for mutual benefit with no hormones involved.
Quote:
I assumed that we were speaking "within the box". Neither you nor I can change the game mechanics, so trying to refute my point by jumping outside the immediate environment is a straw-man
You can't get changes "within the box" if you don't talk about the matter till eventually a developer gets convinced to implement that.
People talked about how cool would have been not being forced logging for every skill => they implemented queues.
People talked about how cool would have been to save / load fittings => they implemented saved fittings.
People talked about how cool would have been to save the overview not to remake it for every account => they implemented the overview export.
Now *we* can be the "people" and talk about how cool having a guarantee system would be => they may decide to implement it.
Quote:
However, even if this were not the case, you are still incorrect. If there were no scamming, there would be no need for anti-scamming guarantees. The existence of the offense precedes the creation of a regulation against it.
I don't agree at all. If there was no scamming (ie game day zero, hour 00:00:00) and there's a lack of game facilities to prevent it from taking roots, it'll eventually dawn on someone the ability to exploit it.
Quote:
No, I would only be "throwing out the baby with the bath water" if it was true that it is impossible to start a new IPO. As others have proved, given a good business model and the humility to start small, it manifestly is not.
YOU throw the baby with the bath water, others don't, hence IPOs could still be done without you and even with a lower security enough that you'd throw the baby with the bath water.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 20:12:00 -
[92]
Quote:
"Realistic"? As I recall, he consistently offered high returns no matter the market condition. If that did not raise some red flags...
Apparently he knew the first commandment in scamming: "be moderate, don't be an instant wh¦re".
Most scammers can't wait and manifest their malign plan very early because they don't know how to gamble.
The guy had a previous "legit" prestige activity and kept a low profile enough to convince investors he was *maybe* a front runner (no one would care *too much* since they focused more on their increased money than about the exact means it was build up with).
The guy also egregiously marketed himself with a score of donations and charity sponsorship.
All of this more than countered a "maybe suspicios 10% return, but who knows".
Quote:
Wellllll...let's see how your analysis stands up against, say, an accounting of the facts.
Oooh, looks like there were quite a few red flags that were conveniently ignored. Including an under-done audit. Oh my.
The famous retrospective "discovered after" ignored cassandras? They were just that, ignored.
Exactly like a prominent MD poster or even auditor could have some "unceremoniously outsider talked behind" red flag but let's see how anyone would react. "He's too many years he's leader of <XXX>". "He is founder of <YYY> he cannot really be bad". "His reputation speaks for himself".
In fact, and THIS is a fact, he DID succesfully scam the billions. The red flags? Nice collection, none cared.
Quote:
The fact that two wikipedia-entries can contradict eachother is a point which illustrates the reliability of Wikipedia very well, but that was not the main point. My point was more 'if you're posting on an English language forum why not use the English wikipedia for information in English on an individual from an English-speaking country'?
Ockam razor.
|
Vikarion
Caldari
White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 21:10:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Again, you go "just a bit too far" and assume stuff that is not granted.
If I industrial get refused my bond nothing prevents me from switching to trading, grind the money and found the factory.
Or did I miss something about traders only trading, industrials only playing industry, mission runners only mission running?
Running missions was just an example. The point is, if you can operate without public financing in any reasonable time frame, you should do so. Investors decrease the profit of a bond operator. Thus, asking for money publicly should be the last option considered.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
"Demand whatever" denotes a less than pleasant way to achieve the same objective you could also engage with reasonable and educate - yet firm - requests.
I don't think that the majority of responses to IPOs on the MD forum are inappropriate. There are several stickies on how to present bond offerings. If a bond operator is incapable of doing due diligence on simply presenting his bond, why should I assume that he is capable of successfully running anything else?
When people have presented a well thought-out business plan in a professional format, they have been treated, on the whole, fairly politely. Sometimes too politely. When they do not, they've been referred to the correct way to do things. Typically, it's when they refuse to comply to those requests that they suffer ridicule, and rightly so.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Mechanicistic vision of something that can perfectly happen without any hormones. After all, living alone like a dog is less productive and nice than sharing "the burden". You put in onto the usual sexual thing, when whole organizations have arisen for mutual benefit with no hormones involved.
This is not necessarily true. Living and working with someone else is only better if they are trustworthy and willing to exert as much effort as oneself. That is, in effect, what we are trying to do here.
If someone asked me for a date, but had no job, still lived with their parents, and had no plans beyond "get out and do something", I'd walk away. Same here.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
You can't get changes "within the box" if you don't talk about the matter till eventually a developer gets convinced to implement that.
People talked about how cool would have been not being forced logging for every skill => they implemented queues.
People talked about how cool would have been to save / load fittings => they implemented saved fittings.
People talked about how cool would have been to save the overview not to remake it for every account => they implemented the overview export.
Now *we* can be the "people" and talk about how cool having a guarantee system would be => they may decide to implement it.
Yes. However, that is neither the purpose nor the topic of this thread, which is about avoiding scams. And, in the larger view, CCP want scamming to be possible. Adding guarantees is counter in nature to what they have advocated in times past.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
I don't agree at all. If there was no scamming (ie game day zero, hour 00:00:00) and there's a lack of game facilities to prevent it from taking roots, it'll eventually dawn on someone the ability to exploit it.
I was making a larger point from a universal principle: the offense precedes the regulation. If no one ever scammed, we would never think to have rules against it.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
YOU throw the baby with the bath water, others don't, hence IPOs could still be done without you and even with a lower security enough that you'd throw the baby with the bath water.
The idiom is indicative of a whole-sale rejection of a positive thing along with an associated rejection of a negative trait. I don't refuse to invest, I refuse to invest in what I see as questionable investments. |
Vikarion
Caldari
White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.25 21:16:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
"Realistic"? As I recall, he consistently offered high returns no matter the market condition. If that did not raise some red flags...
Apparently he knew the first commandment in scamming: "be moderate, don't be an instant wh¦re".
Most scammers can't wait and manifest their malign plan very early because they don't know how to gamble.
The guy had a previous "legit" prestige activity and kept a low profile enough to convince investors he was *maybe* a front runner (no one would care *too much* since they focused more on their increased money than about the exact means it was build up with).
The guy also egregiously marketed himself with a score of donations and charity sponsorship.
All of this more than countered a "maybe suspicios 10% return, but who knows".
Quote:
Wellllll...let's see how your analysis stands up against, say, an accounting of the facts.
Oooh, looks like there were quite a few red flags that were conveniently ignored. Including an under-done audit. Oh my.
The famous retrospective "discovered after" ignored cassandras? They were just that, ignored.
Exactly like a prominent MD poster or even auditor could have some "unceremoniously outsider talked behind" red flag but let's see how anyone would react. "He's too many years he's leader of <XXX>". "He is founder of <YYY> he cannot really be bad". "His reputation speaks for himself".
In fact, and THIS is a fact, he DID succesfully scam the billions. The red flags? Nice collection, none cared.
Yes, the problem with Madoff, and the point I was making, is that no one examined his enterprises closely and critically enough!
There was evidence to discover - one mathematician only took 5 hours to figure it out. But no one was willing to be rude enough or brave enough to throw up red flags.
In short, you just agreed with my point. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 00:02:00 -
[95]
Quote:
Running missions was just an example. The point is, if you can operate without public financing in any reasonable time frame, you should do so. Investors decrease the profit of a bond operator. Thus, asking for money publicly should be the last option considered
This is a "bear" statement imho.
If someone believes he can remove some barriers by asking for an investment (ie to upgrade to higher earning a piece assets) and thus bypass some months worth of "grinding", I'd welcome him to try.
Quote:
When people have presented a well thought-out business plan in a professional format, they have been treated, on the whole, fairly politely. Sometimes too politely
I am totally persuaded that if a successful previous 10B bond individual opens a next bond, he's really treated with velvet gloves even by prominent people.
Those who are new - aka fresh blood - I beg to differ.
Sure nothing has to be discounted off them and trust is earned, but sometimes you see replies on the verge of comic.
Maybe gulping the dirt in silence is seen as an act of being strong in some countries, in others it's seen as offensive act of humiliation and not accepted so readily.
Quote:
And, in the larger view, CCP want scamming to be possible. Adding guarantees is counter in nature to what they have advocated in times past.
They also want unconsensual PvP yet let people do the MWD trick, let frigates being basically immune off low sec camps, provide for stealth transports.
Basically they give the "issue" (being ganked) but the instruments for a skillful player to mitigate them.
Now, what is the instrument given to mitigate trade issues? Would it need to be "the mother of all the guarantees"? No, just "as little as guarantee as possible for a skillful player to mitigate the damage".
As of now, instead, the only mitigation is pre-emption, which works pretty well against scammers but has also that "toss the baby with the wash water" side effect.
Quote:
I was making a larger point from a universal principle: the offense precedes the regulation. If no one ever scammed, we would never think to have rules against it
Imho in a game, the developers make the rules *before* players can even play it the first day. Offense follows (lack of) regulation.
Quote:
Yes, the problem with Madoff, and the point I was making, is that no one examined his enterprises closely and critically enough!
No, not only that. The problem with Madoff is that he worked at PR so well that he effectively became resilient to the effects of red flags. Being prudent and not stupidly short on his greed made it all more difficult, because numbers would be dubious but not smacking false.
He got prestige, he got known, he got a great image marketer, he was the filantropist a la George Soros... so the poor "lessers" who tried and open people's eyes about him went overlooked.
Quote:
There was evidence to discover - one mathematician only took 5 hours to figure it out. But no one was willing to be rude enough or brave enough to throw up red flags.
In short, you just agreed with my point.
No, I don't agree (or, better, the matrix of my agreements XOR yours <> 0). He DID have evidence, he DID have people on his tracks but he was perfectly able to sell himself as being "beyond some dubious minor numeric details".
I do believe that in a rough way we agree on lots (including the far above) but with different shades of grey.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 05:00:00 -
[96]
well argumentet Vaerah...
tbh it just looks like he is stating the exact opposite of you every time you make a logic valid argument....
time waster imo..
/me pukes from people with finite truths!
Quote:
"Lecherito on Market Discussion: Though I have to go down on the record as saying that I'm convinced the majority of the MD community is ******ed" |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 06:20:00 -
[97]
On an unrelated matter, I am off for a work travel so I won't be able to participate further till new advice.
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 17:02:00 -
[98]
Simply readable for V's use of emphatic statements and exclusive or. 
Long but interesting.. Come back soon V
- Money is Love -
Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 04:57:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Ricdics
Something just as important a statistic.
Of all the audits performed in the history of the MD forums, none have stolen any personal data or used them for their own benefit. So for all those people using the excuse "they might steal my trade routes", this is a non issue when using this statistic combined with the one at the top with Cosmoray.
What an entirely ludicrous thing to try and claim. What are we supposed to take you on your word? Doesn't this sound a little strangeà well familiar at least. Since we could never prove that you have taken advantage of any trade route, you can claim that you have not?
Originally by: cosmoray
RE: Auditors
I can say to a fair degree of certainty that Kazuo, Kazzac, Shar, Bad Bobby, Brock Nelson have never abused any information divulged to them for purposes of an audit.
There are several other auditors out there also but I do not have as much working knowledge about them.
But obviously you could never prove that. We could probably never prove differently, howeverà that claim is completely ridiculous. And the worry of some IPO/Bond managers is still a legitimate claim.
I guess it doesnÆt matter that all of you stand to lose the most if you were exposed so imagine that, you defend yourselves and try and make ridiculous claims. I would have loved to see someone else try and make a claim like that and the sort of flame you all would have put on him.
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Its entirely possible that some of us have abused any information we've gleamed. Its something that cannot be totally written off honestly, since the chance even if small is there.
But I can speak for myself when saying that any information I have at my hand when I have an audit is more or less useless to me.... even if you do happen to be building capitals.
Yeah, I bet. And once again, I guess we should take you on your word that you have not.
I guess we should call for full API audits on the auditors in order to insure that they are not abusing their positions in MD community and then audit the auditors that are auditing the auditors to make sure they are not abusing that position either. And so on. (kidding)
Frankly, I am not trying to insult anyone at all. I, especially, am not trying to insult any of the auditors as the service is appreciated and somewhat valuable. The fact of the matter is that audits can prove that someone, within reason, does have a trading/manufacturing business and can justify the sums that they are trying to extract from MD. This is valuable information and a service that should be available to investors. There is a risk that private information could be gleamed from audits and at the end of the day and it is entirely trust by the IPO/Bond issuer to the auditor he selects ( or the one that is free within a few months).
However, there have been successful IPO/Bonds that did not have an audit performed and it should not be absolutely mandatory. I guess it is cute that you all push for people to use your service and to pay you for it? I wish I could insert myself into transactions like that (LOL RL bond rating companies).
Cosmoray's advice is sound and should be taken into account, however, following it to the dot or downright vindictively flaming anyone that is trying to start out is wrong and causes there to be a very tiny secondary market.
-GV
|
Biruni Khan
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:32:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Estel Arador
Edited by: Estel Arador on 25/05/2009 19:24:27
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Notice the original says "hedge funds". The articles are effectively different, despite being on the same site. The translation was in order not to burden English spoken people about reading in a foreign tongue themselves.
The fact that two wikipedia-entries can contradict eachother is a point which illustrates the reliability of Wikipedia very well, but that was not the main point. My point was more 'if you're posting on an English language forum why not use the English wikipedia for information in English on an individual from an English-speaking country'?
"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."
|
Varo Jan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 22:20:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Vikarion
As I see it, Varo Jan, your argument against my statement stems less from actual analysis of the harms an antagonistic relationship may bring about, and more from an emotional desire to not be "mean". Nonetheless, I will do my best to show why I disagree with you.
Wrong. My contention is that your belief that you have a right to rip a new bond/IPO offerer a new one is counter-productive, pure and simple.
Quote:
Therefore, your assertion that I, or any other investor, need bond operators is actually false. I do not need to invest in bonds, they are merely a time-saving means of increasing my capital at a greater rate than a bank would.
Well, if you read through some old threads, you¦ll find that some MD regulars disagree with you. Sooner or later you will plateau, either because you are unable to scale up or because you don¦t have the time.
Oh, and don¦t assume the three(?) banks are as safe as houses. They are totally unregulated, one has admitted to being scammed, they don¦t produce full accounts, and they¦re not audited by independent parties.
Quote:
However, the inverse is not true. Bond operators do need the capital I and others provide.
I disagree. MD is competing with other potential sources of capital. It is not the sole provider of capital. I wouldn¦t be surprised if the SCC-Lounge outstrips MD soon as a provider of capital.
Quote:
Since my objective is and must be the preservation of my capital, it falls to investors such as myself to carefully examine in every way possible the offerings provided. And since the greater number of IPOs/Bonds are scams, I will assume that the bond operator is a scammer until I receive assurances to the contrary.
Carefully examine - yes. Abuse - no. Try that approach in RL and you won¦t get very far.
What statistics do you have to back up your claim that most are scams? Is it 90% of all offerings in the last three years, or some such?
As I said in my first post, I agree absolutely with a thorough examination, including an audit. What I disagree with is the contention "scammer until proven otherwise." Where I would start is with neutral standings, and I¦d modify that stance depending on how the IPO offerer responds to questions.
|
carmo pereira
Super Bock Mini
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 11:37:00 -
[102]
nice post cosmo!
but i disagree with some points.
it is clear that every bond/ipo must have clear objectives, prove that the manager is not trying to leave the country with the money...
but in my case, when i started to read this forum, i usualy think that are people taking advantage on others...
when you make an audit, you put the plan on clear. you realize what that person is trying to do, and is very simple to ruin that, or pass the information on others...
last days i've read the post on that starfleet member raising an 3months ipo with 9B. some players just gave money without audit, and i see that for me, is not possible to run against that kind of ipo.
but you can see in other prism. with a 5% interest, he has to give every month 450M to investors... 5% fixed interest is not low for a well knowned trader??? what's the point of having trouble making a good text, with some pink lines, if the scam is realy you are being like "robed". you give 1B and you'l get 50M in a month? ... please...
in this game the main core of not being scammed is to trust.
you may have a perfect transaction log, but nothing gives you 100% certain of nothing. in business you have 40%luck + 60%opportunity.
at this point i have not seen a good investment launched. (in the view of the investor).
what i am doing to change this?
an ipo, that an investor receives a percentage on their investment.
look:
player a : 60M
player b : 40M
in the end with 100M i'll get 200. then i split according to percentage. 60% to player a, and 40% to player b.
why i never saw i ipo like this?
check my ipo: Trade Inc
carmo
----
Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, and the problem is I do not know which half
Lord Leverhulme 1851-1925, British founder of Unilever and philanthropist |
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 11:49:00 -
[103]
I think the important thing to remember when investing is to build up the trust in the business manager.
Does an audit have a gaurantee? no. It does help confirm a few facts (the IPO might be a cap ship production, and the character skills show that the toon can indeed build cap ships).
All the little checks build up to give a picture on the manager. An audit and questions are just 2 pieces in that chain.
It is all about trust. If I don't trust, I don't invest.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:34:00 -
[104]
Originally by: cosmoray
It is all about trust.
How about developing an IPO/Bond trust rating score?
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:43:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Originally by: cosmoray
It is all about trust.
How about developing an IPO/Bond trust rating score?
I've mulled it in my head, but some of the road blocks that have come up are.
What sort of block standards would you use to judge?
What criteria would those standards use?
Who would decide which standards go and stay?
Who controls what gets put on the rating?
With such a small community in terms of lending, and a community that is as transient and fluid as we are I think attempting any sort of boiler plate rating would ultimately be like trying to herd cats.
But at the same time I think it warrants discussion about how it could if it all, or if it could in some modified form |
carmo pereira
Super Bock Mini
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:30:00 -
[106]
1. one way is to put all ipo/bond system into eve itself.
not using the shares in corps, but using something designed to the trade system. with that you can make something credible.
2. you can make something like a trade consortium. with 10 or 20 members, deciding who can make ipo/bond (trhu votes).
3. we can continue to support scam and non-transparent ipo's.
if other game areas receive update's and patches, why not trade to?
carmo
----
Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, and the problem is I do not know which half
Lord Leverhulme 1851-1925, British founder of Unilever and philanthropist |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:52:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
I've mulled it in my head, but some of the road blocks that have come up are.
What sort of block standards would you use to judge?
What criteria would those standards use?
Who would decide which standards go and stay?
Who controls what gets put on the rating?
...
I was thinking of putting together an open poll for people to rate the IPOs/Bonds business and manager(s). The poll could look something like this:
Your Profile
1) Your risk tolerance (0 = hate to loose one ISK, 10 = donÆt care to loose all my ISK)
2) Do you tolerate change (0 = do not accept change, 10 = I welcome every change no matter what)
3) Ventures ownership (0 = has no stake in any venture, 10 = has a considerable stake in several ventures)
Rate the Business
1) Your experience with the business market (0 = zero, 10 = very experienced)
2) Potential business failure (0 = very unlikely, 10 = very likely)
3) Business plan (0 = none at all, 10 = well explained/written)
4) Overall business market (0 = very hard to succeed, 10 = very easy to succeed)
Rate the CEO
1) How well do you know the CEO (0 = not at all, 10 = real life friend)
2) Potential CEO scamming the Fund (0 = very unlikely, 10 = very likely)
3) Potential CEO stealing from the Fund (0 = very unlikely, 10 = very likely)
4) CEO transparency (0 = none at all, 10 = very good)
5) CEO communication (0 = none at all, 10 = very good)
We will need to weight certain questions according to the investorÆs profile and come up with an average rating score for each business.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |