EVE Search - [EBANK] Not The Announcement

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Market Discussions

[EBANK] Not The Announcement - A Tim Burton Film

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.22 18:57:00 - [1] Am I understanding this correctly? To maintain my ebank isk balance i have to provide you with a limited api key. To withdraw my isk I have to provide you with a limited api key. If I give yo my api key i implicitly gicve you permission to store the corporation and character details on all the chars on that account. I have to take your word for it you will not take (and store) other information availeble. and you claim you want the key as a proof of account activity. If I withdraw I get roughly 30% of my account balance returned. Considering your past unilateral policy changes with no opt out options other than writing off all my isk I am not inclined to provide ebank with this information. However I can understand your desire to check if any of my chars on the same account defaulted a loan with you. I wonder if a third party service to verify my account is active and none of my chars have dafaulted a loan is an option fr a one time liquidation request of my account. Also, will you keep a list of outstanding and verified liquidation requests to be enacted as soon as funds are availebe (as per your terms for availebility)?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.22 19:49:00 - [2] So you expect me to give you may api info to: Perhaps give me access, at some time in the future, provided I act fast enough when you publish that money is availeble for liquidation. At a time you do provide me access you return to me to somewhere between 1 and 1.5B (cannot even check how much exactly it has become without an api) of the isk I left with you because I believed your reprisentatives when you said everything will be ok after ricdic ran with it. To refrain from personal attacks I will not add my personal opinion on the liquidation option(s) you offer. But I am not going to give you my api key to perhaps get a fraction of my isk back. Your offer is not worth the time I spent reading your announcement. You forgot to add the ebank to the list of loan defaulters.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.22 20:09:00 - [3] I can accept a 30% refund. I understand your need for some secureties. but I no longer trust you so you are not getting my api key. And i most certainly cannot accept the first to read a news statement that money is now availeble will be the first served. My account is active (my posts prove this). I am willing to accept an audit by a third party to verivy none of the chars on any of my accounts have defaulted or even have an ebank loan (easy check as you ave that list of defaulters and all the chars on all my accounts are older than ebank and not on your lists) I am asking for a one time liquidation just keep the list of verified withdrawal requests and work your way down the list so people know what they can expect. The way you are going about this you are not providing any securities, nor any form of predictebility for your once loyal customers.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.22 20:21:00 - [4] I did not invest, I deposited isk in a savings account to get intrest I stupidly believed you when you said everything will be ok after ricdic. I believed you when you said i would be able to withdraw on demand. I believed you when you said you would pay me intrest on my deposit. Now I should believe you on your current claims? Why? What is different?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.22 21:23:00 - [5] Normally on changing tos people have an option to opt out. I would love to opt out. I would have loved to opt out the previous time you changed tos. You know what. If I would be guarantteed liquidation within say a week I might still be intrested But your offer to add my api to what you hold hostage on me already without any guarantee of actual withdrawal is pathetic. I would love to get that roughly 30% liquidation offer. Posting here already proves my account is active (people can have forum bans without game bans, but not the other way around) so you do not need my api to prove what you stated you want it for. should you desire it I will arrange third party verifiaction that I did not scam ebank. The money was deposited from this char into my account and never transferred to another account. so shat do you still want my api for? and when can I get MY isk?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.22 21:46:00 - [6] what I consider private is: 2 other chars on my single account my personal isk balance(s) skill list on each char standings I set any other api information not listed as availeble but availeble none the less not that any information found there should be of any concern to them, nor do I expect them to bother to look. I absolutely loathe the way they treat me. They lied to me I do not deal well with that And I am agry with myself for noth withdrawing MY isk when i learned of their ongoing liquidity problems Now they claim they just want this bit of information and they dangle my own isk in front of me as bait. and it is just bait. There is no balance availeble at this time for withdrawals according to the rules they now impose There is no term specified to proces a liquidation request. So even if I provide them with the api they so clearly desire I get nothing, except that they will not declare my isk gone in 3 months time. And I have little intrest in changing the api key in the aplications I use after I block ebanks access Oh and smooth implication that my only desire to refuse my key is RTM related, without actually stating just that. I never broke your TOS, nor CCP's. you broke your own tos and now you present your customers as bad guys. well done.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.23 06:08:00 - [7] Amaarrah, ebank has stated they will only resume paying intrest when they are fully solvent again. the bank is nowhere near solvent, so you will not be getting intrest if I understand ebank policy correctly. I may be sypathetic to the situation ray and the current board members have found themselves in, and understand that eve is a game. The time people put in is suposed to be for fun. I realy doubt any of this has been fun for them. I respect their willingness to try and bring this thing to an appropriate conclusion. But that does not mean I will meekly accept whatever they claim as nessecairy. I think that their requirement for an api key is rediculous. I think the lack of a withdrawal que to be processed as funds become availeble is unaccepteble I think the total lack of a timeframe to process liquidation requests is silly. Their reasurences the api will not be abused are worthless. while the ebank site may be on a fixed ip there is nothing to prevent them from taking my api key from their own database for whatever purpose they see fit, routed trough whatever proxy they choose. And all I can do is moan on the forums if they do it in some careless way where they leave proof it was them. ebank has held my isk hostage without any form of compensation for months now. They now want more information on me without which they will eventually unilateraly declare my deposits void. Even if I provide this information they want I have no asurences on when I will get whatever part of MY isk they deem reasoneble returned nor will I start receving compensation for them holding on to my isk. Or in short and simple. ebank, the organisation that has impolitely and consistendly been breaking their own promises (and reasurences), now wants my api key, which they promise not to abuse. In exchange I get their promise that they, at some undetermined time in the future, will allow me to try to get some of my isk returned. And you expect me to cheer them and be happy?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.23 08:30:00 - [8] so basically this is another randsom demand by ebank. Either give us your api or your isk is gone. You could have put that in your board statement, at least that would be clear immedeately. On top of that the way you say you will process liquidation requests is absurd. and I am not talking about the percentage that is offered, but the your statement that you will not keep a list of verified withdrawal requests to be processed in turn but opt to go for a mad scramble whenever you publish there is a few isk availeble. Why do you do it this way, I can see no benefit aside from the option to privately inform preferred customers just before the possible release of funds To me it feels as if you are just throwing up extra hurdles between me and MY isk hoping I will forget about it.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.23 11:42:00 - [9] They may call it gift, but that is not how I will label it. My thoughts are more in line with raw23's post Besides, they will only refund isk if they get their assets above 700B, something they have not been able to do for 3 months now. Every tme they have a an increase in asset value there is always an equal or bigger devaluation, so this whole liquidation discusion seems pretty moot anyway. The biggest net profit you list over the last month is in the theoretical value of unsold titan bpc's. the biggest asset you have is a titan bpo. The biggest percentage profit you score is in shares you hold as some kind of mutual fund. You do not do deposits, and write of the deposits if people do not adhere to tos changes you publish after the deposits were made you do not do withdrawals. Even after 3 months you are still unable to determine if and how much isk your bank backed ventures made Why do you still call yourself a bank?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.23 13:06:00 - [10] Should such an agency excist I may have a debt I want them to collect for me What kind of fee on successful reclaiming would be accepeble?

Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.23 19:41:00 - [11] and there I somehow pressed cancel and lost my verbose rant... Lets put sommething in the open. You are not asking my api to allow me to witdraw any because the only liqidation option you offer is currently inactive (below your self imposed asset limit) So you are forcing me to provide you with my api just to keep my money listed as mine, nothing more. Other things that were in my rant. - Sencnes, if yo are so worried about server loads, the .01 isk deposit validation is probebly the least demanding on both your system as well as on the eve servers. - People can get banned for other reasons than rmt. - your customers are not the criminals - If you want to veryfy my legitemacy for a withdrawal we can talk about it, but I am not going to give you my api to keep you from stealing my isk.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.23 21:08:00 - [12] sencnes, considering that isk laundring requires transfers within ebank, how about accounts that only have deposits and withdrawals to and from the originl account creator? ah who am I kidding, veryfying that would be to much work. I mean an entire query to write that would list all untarnished accounts is far to much work. As you probebly havent run that query already, have you? But you are not intrested in providing the best possible service to your customers. You are trying to write off as many liabilities as you can while putting a nice pr spin on it.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.23 21:51:00 - [13] sences, I would love to take the money back from the people that stole from me. however I have no loan with ebank, let alone a loan with an undervalued or absents collateral. As far as I know my account shows no transfers to any account not directly connected to me (only sweep to savings back to me again). I can also prove my eve account is active (my posts here for instance). so why are you threatening to zero my account? oh wait, if my alts had an ebank acount that might be a risk, I can see some validity there, but my alts are not banned either an independant audit would easely verify they never ever even had an ebank account and exist to long for me to have had another alt there while ebank existed
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.23 22:18:00 - [14] Edited by: Leneerra on 23/11/2009 22:21:10 And what if someone is under a temp ban for rude language? does that mean he forfeits his ebank balance? I will ask what chribba would ask for an audit to veryfy none of my alts have any delings with you. that way we perhaps have an accepteble option for those that are unwilling to provide you with an api key. checking 2 names against a list of 9000 should not be too expensive and you can even add a surcharge for using this liquidation option But even if that was an accepteble option. You are not keeping a list of verified withdrawal/liquidation requests. So I still would have no indication when i'd get my isk. Will you change your liquidation policy in this and provide your customers with with a reasonable option to liquidate in an honest fasion that does not require them to be able to respond within 5 minutes of you guys posting a surplus on your 700b limit? edit: sorry do not know the auditor you mentioned sencnes
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.24 06:37:00 - [15] I hope you are happy with the writeoff in liabilities you expect from this ray. But i realy do not think that a bank that unilateraly changes its tos has any viabilty. The only consistency ebank has shown over its existence is broken promises and unreleased promised features. A realy nice basis for a bank Give us your money, if we cannot make it work we will just change the rules. And if you do not like it we will just accuse you of anything socially unaccepteble at that time.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.24 07:24:00 - [16] Sencnes, I can tell you my reason, should you be intrested you continuously change requirements. First you state you will only take char and corp names, but then later on you post you will take standings as well. Having had over 2 months to prepare this statement i fail to see why it could have been an oversight. btw I did not see it listed on your site as part of the information you take, you may want to amend that. but as to my reason. You, as ebank, broke your word (repeatedly) and now yo ask me to trust you with more than you already have from me. Sorry but I cannot. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." is pretty much a motto I live by. oh and I take back that I hope ebank gets from this what they want, I am curious what you will think of next to boost your effective income beyond that measly 2.5% you are scoring currently. I understand you do want to call your tour at ebank a success, ray. And I understand you are not looking forward to spending 12 years with them. Nice rewrite of your origial mission statement though, insteady of offering all your clients their money back only ensuring that your remaining clients get their isk back.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.25 10:20:00 - [17] and how about: 7) what guarantees do we have you will ignore your answers next week and start taking other information. and to all chiding me for having ultirior motives to hide my alts. At least 2 people within ebank are aware of one of my alts even if they may not have stored the information. I am however very unwilling to trust them with the information that can be gained on him, even with the limited api key. the other one is just to forum post keeping them unrelated to me or my alt. should it become possible to get char transfers for plex then I might be swapping my main to a new account to get my isk back, but that would possebly require 5 plex (1 to start an account, 2 to swap over and 2 to swap back) the revenue on it would have to be more than the cost.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.25 15:18:00 - [18] Originally by: Allvan Harl Folks, you're whining more than carebears do when they run into pirates and lose their ship and pod. Harden the f*** up people. This is life so deal with it. Stop crying about your API key. Do what you have to do in order to get your money back. Ray and gang, thanks for working at getting eBank up and running again. If an API key is all you need, congrats, you got it. Use it well to reduce your risk of being scammed. You should look into a reward program for people who decide to sit this out and leave their money in the bank when the bank needed them the most. If you want to compare it to ingame actions then it is more akin to becoming a part of a lv4 corp and then getting podded in your faction (not officer) fitted mission ship by the director of the corp. Then again, something could be said for it being akin to low sec piracy as well. I mean you know there are risks when you give someone else your isk (enter at your own peril), and I guess ebank could be compared to a bunch of..
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.26 00:29:00 - [19] He may promise to only take char and corpname info, but there is no way we could prevent it if he took more. We can then change our key, but only after the information theft occurs. Also, should our api be pulled from another ip than ebanks, then we have no proof that it was their wrong doing. After all, someone could have arrganged the information theft after the api key was delivered to ebank to make them look bad. Ray, I think I am going to provide Chribba with my full api key, and ask him to clear my account completely from the list of your known accomplices. If you provide him with the names of all account holders I will even ask him to veryfy that none of my other characters even have an accounts with ebank and are so old that no char in existence before them could have had any business with ebank. What I would expect from you in return is that you allow me to liquidate at the first possible opertunity, against the normal going rate at that time. Should you agree to these terms (and keep them) I will cease posting, complaining etc in threads about ebank.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.26 11:54:00 - [20] Should an api key exist that only supplies character names (and corp names and even corp history) then I would accept handing that key over to ebank under duress. (I would still consider it unethical, but a randsom worth paying for access to my account)

Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.27 00:12:00 - [21] you do realize that ccp would have to develop this though right? good idear alhtough this is not the first time I hear people ask for customizeble api access. Also alt names + corp would be a very desireble api option for security checks upon joining a new corp. So there is more than one source of demand for ccp to develop this (no more photoshopped login screens etc).
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.28 06:18:00 - [22] Dear ebank, It saddens me to see the state your organisation is in, especialy in light of your heroic efforts to pull it trough. Should one of the previous ceo's have had balls the size of your current one and frozen assets when the first theft occured it might even have been salvageble, as a working bank. As I see it you do not need to rewrite your TOS, they are just not worth the storage space you keep them on, if you yourself do not apply them if you consider them inconvenient. Why should any future customer of your organisation ever expect you to honor your new TOS? What would keep you from simply changing them again? You may still draw in the occational new customer in the future. In my opinion no person should deposit isk with an organisation that so blatently disregards their own documentation, that is so clearly describing the rights of themselves and their customers, and expect to get any of it back. Please prove me wrong and explain to me why the situation here is different. Tell me how I, as an outsider to your proces and organisation, can see the proof of difference. With kind regards, A worried customer of your organiation.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.28 07:02:00 - [23] Dear ebank, I am not worried by your websie being outdated, I can surely understand your focus elsewhere considering your situation. I am worried by you considering your own TOS outdated and subject to onesided change for convinience. As far as I understand a TOS is supposed to describe the rules to which both parties of an agreement are supposed to keep. Such one sided changes as your organisation has been making to their activly applies terms of service might, by an outsider, be described in very unflattering terms. By now I, as an outsider, can no longer determine what you organisation actually is. I can see the verbal claims you make about the process you are in, as well as the mutual name calling and verbal fencing that is going on. But as I was thought the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am, by now desperately, looking for proof that your organisation is what it claims to be. All circumstantual evidence is by now pointing directly in another way. As to your invitation to join your organisation, I am apprehensive. No for the amount of work, but for the ethical implications of being part of your organisation. It may come as a shock to you, but from a critical customers viewpoint some of your actions seem wildy unapropriate, especially in light of the type of organisation you claim to be. Should I ever agree to mix up my personal ethics with those of your organisation, then i might ned even strickter enforceble assurences than I would ever dream of demanding as a customer of your organisation. For now however my point remains the same. How can we, as outsiders, see proof of your claims. What assurenes do we have for the future, if you break your former assurences so easely With kind regards, Still a worried customer.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.29 07:47:00 - [24] Well done TS. I would use this service to provide ebank with the automated access to my charname(s) (and corp + corphistory). TS tends to stick to the letter of his agreements and the posted rules in ths agreement seem pretty clear, so I would trust him with my api key.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.29 08:16:00 - [25] It seems he currently offers access to all, or just one char. any key giving you 2 (or 3) chars is giving you the information you insist on. a way to identify what type of key is handed over by the receaver, as well as many other costumization options, and a management page where you can see what keys you currently have active would be nice additions. Then again ccp themselves have customizeble key access listed in their development backlog. Use of this proxy could show them demand for this feature and help prioretize it. But a working proxy also reduces the need to build it directly, allowing them to focus on other stuff. will provide the filtered key (all chars) as soon you you can use them
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.29 22:28:00 - [26] Both TS and ebank have had their share of critisisms. howerver most of the time, if people complain with TS it is because he kept to the letter of a made agreement. (agreement as in: rules are posted and the other party signifies acceptance either explicitly or implicitly(by transferring isk according to protocol))
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.30 07:03:00 - [27] Will you post it here once you accept Bleeped api's? Not that there is much need to hurry left, pretty soon the api will be down for the update and probebly wil remain so untill later this week.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.01 18:19:00 - [28] Edited by: Leneerra on 01/12/2009 18:28:09 hmm, 250B in api verified accounts, 350B in pending withdrawals, 1300 B in suspense accounts Either you were right in accusing your customer base or some other people than just the 63 complaining here do have a problem with giving you their api. edit: unless the other 62 are extreemly rich...
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.02 14:01:00 - [29] Originally by: Dzil Originally by: Kalrand For what its worth, I think sucking at PR is a prerequisite for being on your payroll. I believe they found everyone with a silver tongue either negligent or embezzling funds. I wonder if you can draw a real life parralel to that?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.04 22:18:00 - [30] when are you going to accept bleeped api's? Or do you like the 12xx bil in suspense accounts?

Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.06 12:20:00 - [31] I am not so sure I like sencnes her proposal. I could be misunderstanding, but: The longer term untill the isk is moved to a suspense account does not realy impress me. Charging the account for isk storage, reducing the amount into nothingness eventually is as outrageous as declaring it void is. Just under 1200b still in suspense accounts, and it looks like the majority of the recent api verifications all have their is in impending withdrawals. Any news on using bleeped api to verify your account?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.18 17:47:00 - [32] seems they now only have a bit over 600b in assets, dropping to a 31.something% in coverage? And still no word on when the bleeped api will be supported.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.18 23:27:00 - [33] YGR, I disagree, a Bank has an obligation to redeem the accound held with the bank regardless how long the person has been missing, as long as he can provide proof of his identity. Even if an accountholder has died the value in the account usually follows normal laws for inheritence. In that light demanding corporation information is a good thing as in eve assets are usually inherited by the corporation the person is in on his final death. Especially considering ebank was at one time profiled as an option for people that temporarely leave the game. I suspect the majority of the suspended account holders do not even know ricdic stole money or is not even part of ebank anymore (asuming they still know they have extra isk in a bank in this game that was called ... eve right?). But that does not invalidate their claim on the money regardless how inconvenent this may be to the current board of ebank. I oppose ebank in their current choices. I refuse to give them direct acces to my api. Not because I want to hide my alt, they already know my alt. I simply refuse to give someone who does not keep his word access to anything. If a bank does not keep its word then what is the use of the institute. ebank still has not returned the isk deposited after the accounts were locked down even though Ray himself even has stated over 14 days ago that it should have been taken care of. They have stated weeks ago they would implement the bleeped api as soon as possible. But they do have time to appear on radio shows, explain in great detail the events around ricdics theft (again). But they pass on explaining things that in my mind are far more importand. Why is it accepteble that a person that has stated he guarantees a loan is not kept to his word or at least asked to keep his word? How come ebank seems to have a policy where they accept a loan as fully repayed if the principal is repayed, but not all the intrest? In my opinion those issues pretty much explain all by themselves why ebank was not succesfull as a bank.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.24 10:04:00 - [34] To your suggestion of us setting you a deadline, what would be the use when you: a. do not keep to the deadlines you set yourself b. do not keep the promises you make anyway.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.24 11:21:00 - [35] Originally by: Ray McCormack What promises have I made? Quote: The next announcement is due February 15th to March 1st, so expect it in April sometime. or maybe I should just point to the one promise you do keep Originally by: ebank TOS Should EBANK find itself operating under special circumstances, as defined by the current Chairman of the Board, any of the above mentioned terms and conditions can/will be modified based on the needs of the EBANK organization. Those modifications may not necessarily be immediately available in the above mentioned terms and conditions due to unplanned delays in updating the Terms and Conditions section of the EBANK website. Furthermore, modifications to the Terms and Conditions made under special circumstances can be implemented retroactively (11/27/2009). Wich basically translates in to: "I will do as I see fit, no holds barred" or "Ignore everything in the TOS above and below this statement because they do not apply anyway"
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.24 13:33:00 - [36] Ray, This is where you seem tolie Originally by: It is our intent to see the Bank restored to full liquidity, to re-open interest accounts and ensure our long-term sustainability as the leading financial institution in EVE. because nothing you have been able to achieve over the last 3 months has brought you a single step closer to that goal. People do not willingly deposit their isk in an institute that tells you upfront that they will write your deposit off if you do not pay attention for a while. They do not accept it if you selectively roll your debt over to a person that does not seem to be able to react because he is not even made aware of the originating problem let alone the situation as it is now. They do not accept a 1 month waiting period to solve an eronous deposit, you ought to be able to enact or refuse it in a 1 week period even considering the situation the bank is in. You cannot expect people to honor your claims to property if you effectively ignore theirs while insulting them by only pretending to honor their claims on you
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.24 13:41:00 - [37] I guess that is where our perception differs.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.25 08:16:00 - [38] I wonder if other parties, that could choose to deal with ebank as ebank has dealt with its accountholders will follow kwints example. To Anna fangirl, an Institute that mostly pays investor profits out of new investments, leaving the latest investors to deal with the debt is called a ponzi. you call them a great institute, but if you look at it from the outside they never realized any of the things that would have made them great. Their highly acclaimed internal security failed, as the lack of oversight and finally the outright theft by their founder left the bank crippled. None of the (initially) prommised features were ever realzed beyond some nifty, now meaningless numbers on a website. The bank has been dieing in a coma for 9 months now. Heroic measures have been tried and failed, now only experimental medicine remains. What they will bring back from the grave, if they succeed, is not the friendly ebank we knew, but a frankenstein approximation.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.27 09:32:00 - [39] lol, ebank personel asking publicly run corporations to keep their word. Laughed at your own TOS lately?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.29 15:16:00 - [40] lets aregue ebank here and kwint in kints thread, as was suggested by others before. Also since it seems ebank is now slightly more inclined to answer i will rehash some of the questions asked by many that intrest me most at this time. 1)What reasons other than not being able to pay them does ebank have for not registring intrest owed 2)If the answer to 1 is just "cannot pay" then why is ebank not declared bankrupts and liquidated? 3)Ebank seems to consider voiding currently inactive accounts different from theft. Can you explain to us why you think this way? (I would like a more complete answer than some of these account are banned(RMT) or from defaulters. You must have reasons to consider the affected percentage significant if that is all there is to it)

Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.29 16:47:00 - [41] Sencnes, 1) Can you explain how ebank sees recovery. Because to me ignoring part of the outstanding debt and claiming all has been repayed is somewhat of a holow victory. I am not trying to troll but to me it sounds not disimilar to putting all accounts in a jar, seleting a few at random, repaying those and declairing everything repayed. On what grounds does ebank differentiate between the principal and the intrest that is owed on that principal over the time accountholders have no access to their isk at all. I fail to see a conection to the profitebility of your current endavors and the original contractual obligations (your original tos) . We never got any extra (except a small promotional offer at 1337 accounts) when ebank made more than the percentage we agreed on deposit, So I do not see, from a contractual viewpoint, why we should accept any less now. (I agree with some other posters a bank is free to set their intrest percentage provided they make the isk withdrawable, even when that withdrawal is at a reduced percentage due to the current deficit ). 2) If you could pay intrest in full then liquidation is not an issue. The length of recovery (provided the owed intrest is payed in full) is also immaterial (on a purely financial reasoning at least). Again, if ebank cannot pay the full intrest owed, then it is in my opinion a bankrupt organisation. liquidation would in my opinion be the only valid choice under those conditions because it will never be able to forfill the original contractual obligations and therefore never be able to repay in full the isk that is owed. You seem to reason from a position where one debt is treated differntly from another debt without explaining why this is accepteble. question 2b) Based on your number of 25% monthly returns on the current 35% of actual account value. That would indicate a possible recovery in a total of 5 (more?) months (asuming compounded growth). Nothing shown in the public numbers over the last 3 months shows anything even close to these kinds of returns. Can you elaborate on these very intresting numbers? 3) commendeble you personally want to retain the obligation to repay currently inactive accountholders. ebank as an institute still seems have the idear that it would be accepteble to do so as a policy. Again. I cannot understand such an action unless there is a reason to differentiate between indevidual accounts. Also I do not expect ebank to issue such a policy accepted by the board without a grounded reasoning behind it. As a board member you must have seen those reasons in the proposal to have been able to vote on it. Can you lift a bit of the veil on that reasoning, or is it just to expediate virtual recovery of the bank, as your answer to kalrand seem to suggest ps I ignored raws post for now to continue on the answers you gave already
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.30 08:56:00 - [42] Graic, 1) you are wrong, the bricks and mortar are a website and an ingame infrastructure to produce revenue. Liquidation if the ingame infrastructure is possible I think, but expensive (char transfers are not cheap, so there is even an rl cost attached) 2) luckely some employee (Sencnes) seems to be winning some of that goodwill back by providing information and an ear to the comunity and ebank depositors. 3) I disagree with your viewpoint in this, and I hope a majority of the comunity here does as well. 4) If you void accounts on the basis of your reasoning you are scamming, or at least that is how it reads to me. None of the current board seem at this time willing to take actions the people in md see as scamming. We all understand that a business can fail and that we take losses in those circumstances, but if ebank wants to continue as an entity to make profit in the future, attracting new depositors they cannot undertake the action you suggest, or at least not in the manner you are suggesting. Sencnes was providing intresting information here, i suggest you read at least raw's and her posts on the last 2 pages before you post more.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.30 13:14:00 - [43] 2) It is still a start in the right direction. perhaps a supportive response can help them continue on the same path. 3) It is unethical. you are sugesting they ignore the powerless depositors and only deal (favorably) with those in a position to strike back at them. 4) Again the same as point 3. If they are to retain anything from it themselves they ought tou have payed off all valid liabilities. All the assets ebank has at this time (this includes the website and all the (customer) information retained in there) does not cover all outstanding liabilities. The software for the website was (in part) developed by people that did get isk as (partial?) compensation for their work so it is (in part) an asset of the organisation. even some of the rl cost to maintain the site has been payed by customers and visitors. If you want to make some kind of invalid form of liquidation then they could for instance publicize a liquidation statement at 12:00 eve time (=gmt) on a tuesday and divide the availeble assets between all the depositors that respond within an hour. Such a liquidation and division of assets is as valid and fair as the division you are suggesting, perhaps even more fair depending how you look at it. I agree with you that in rl not all creditors are treated the same, but there creditors have the option to refuse and take the business to court, perhaps resulting in a more favorable judgement, or a bankrupcy declaration on the corporation in question. In eve there is no such option except pblic outcry. If ccp offered an option to differentiate why an account is currently inactive be it unpayed, in dispute (this could include temporary bans, protective account locking etc), or permanently banned (no recourse left availeble) then ebank could write off all permanent bans. they could also state in their tos that they do not offer intrest to accounts that are currently unpayed and/or accounts that are currently in dispute. however, no such option is offered by ccp, so no such differentiation can be made by ebank.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.01.04 07:01:00 - [44] Sencnes, recovery without compensating for lost intrest would not be a complete recovery automatically. You (ebank) have made an arbitrary decision on where you consider recovery complete. You could have picked any level and stamp it with the label recovery, but that does not make it so. It is just some arbitrairy number at which you have decided, without any form of negotiation with te people you actualy owe isk to (or some form of representation), to consider your debt repayed. You owe me 4.something Bil isk + intrest, because that is the agreement we had when you froze my assets and disallowed me access to what is mine. Until I say your debt is cleared with me I will consider you in default. If you claim you payed it all and ignore my claim, I will consider you scammers. That does not mean we could not settle the outstanding debt at anything less than a full repayment, but it does mean I have to accept your settlement proposal, as much as you have to accept it, for it to be considered a complete recovery by me and I do not think I am the only person thinking like that.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.02.22 20:40:00 - [45] Going from 35.67% liabilities ratio to a staggering 35.56% in 3 months is impressive. It is by far the slowest fall in ebank nett worth I have seen in your public financial figures ever since this whole crisis started. Well done. PS: If you are going to reply that your internal figures show something different, then why did you invite us victims and the general public as a whole to follow your total lack of published progress. I never should have believed the public and personal reasurrances all would be well by the former management and the other people on ebank I did business with, after publication of the ricdic theft.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.03.15 23:22:00 - [46] But please implement big's censored service before you start closing it down. I still want my 4.something B isk, I still think you owe me and all your depositors intrest over the period where you locked acounts as it was not a liquiation lock. And I still do not trust you even with my limited api key. tbh I think I also want your api keys so I can avoid ever doing business with any of you or your alts again.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.03.16 07:05:00 - [47] Sencnes, Lets say we have a different opinion on who did what. I will give you a small oversight of the experience on my end. Short story ebank: We are safe, you get 3 (later 1.5)% which is not much but we are safe ebank: We do not need oversight, we are private, your deposit is safe and will be honered even if a theft occurs. ebank: Theft ocurred, but we are ok and will recover. ebank: We are in trouble and we are locking accounts ebank: We suspend intrest payments and change the tos ebank: your account is now worth roughly 35% ebank: We are working hard on recovery, here have some data we do not keep updated ebank: Give us more info or we will void your deposit ebank under forum pressure: here have a theoretical withdrawal option currently unavaileble because we have less than an arbitrary number of isk availeble ebank 6 months after lockdown: public data still shows less than 3% monthly growth, with corrections we are still below the arbitrary limit. Profits that may push us over are not published ebank: Be nice to us we try hard. To be honest even without the abusiveness displayed by ebank on occation. You think it is so strange I want to avoid doing business with people that cange the rules after they have controll over my isk?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.03.16 16:45:00 - [48] Scencnes Just add in rays recurring abusive posts. The repetedly failed deadlines by the current management, set by the current management. A director that remained onboard till after the account lock and the public declaration of 35% solvability cashing himself out at 100% with little public outcry from the management. Not a single sign of ebank holding a guarantor of an unsecured 250B loan accountable for his guarantee. Bland acceptance of defaulters that only repayed enough in repayments and intrest to cover most of the principal. And your story is pretty close to the truth. However the fact that people stole from you, something you so proudly claimed to protect yourself from, does not make your theft from me accepteble in any way. Sorry you see it differently. Your support of the haiti initiative probebly was a nice idear, this is the first time I heared about this option though, where was it published?
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.03.16 23:59:00 - [49] leona, Are you actually offering to pay, to have acces to part of your own isk, for a venture on which you accept all the risk, to the level you even forfeit the isk they keep, if you fail. With this venture you will work, to make isk to pay off their debt to you. hmm, should ebank not be intrested I think we could work something out, most likely with conditions a bit more favorable to you than what I understand from your post.
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.03.17 08:04:00 - [50] I think there is still speculation as to how much of the current liabilities of ebank is to people that no longer play and have no intention of returning. Not because ebank is waiting them out, but because they had already quit eve before ricdics scam. PS ray, I may have started my account with ebank because I trusted ricdic (and Shar Tegral even more). I did not withdraw my isk in the 3% account during the bankrun because the risk seemed accepteble with all the assurances of Hexx and the ebank staff, and I wanted to support ebank at that time But my money was (still) in ebank because I trusted Hexx and AC155 and even you when it was announced you would become the new director. At the beginning of the account freeze I asked if there were means in which I could help, for instance by making isk cheaply availleble to ebank. there was no intrest, nor were guarantees posible at that time so I luckely avoided that.

Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.03.17 17:16:00 - [51] Sencnes, It is not personal, but if you see Ray's average post, the majorety of ac155's post with regards to ebank over the last halve year, then I hope you understand when I say I want nothing ever to do with them after I retrieve what remains in my account. I would avoid all others just for association. You realy should not read any critisism directed at ebank as directed at you personally. My beef is mostly with the betrayal by the former management (both hexx and ricdic), the inabillity to remain civil or keep his own deadlines by ray. Basicaly it is about people making promises and not keeping the promises they made. Rays abraisive posting is just a irritating side issue and would probebly be meaningless if he just kept the promises he himself makes (other than his promise to be verbally abusive).
Leneerra Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.03.17 18:40:00 - [52] Ray, not sure what more you could do, but your statement is the first time I read someone actually asked him to honor his guarantee. In the past I read remarks such as 'we earned enough on their business' Perhaps adding him to the list of defaulters (not sure you keep that updated, nor if you need more administration) and your former director too. However please stop making promises you do not keep. If you promise to do something do it, or just stop making promises. I know you cannot simply reroute all your api calls trough bleep even if that would be a working sollution, because you would implicitly give big access to the api data of people that never gave that information to big. But it does make it look like implementing bleeb should be incredibly simple. It makes your statement to do it later that same afternoon very believeble. But if you still do not manage to implement it in a 3 months period afer your promise to do it ater that day, then it invokes very different emotions. Please stop posting deadline you are not 1000% sure of making. Please stop changing promises you make to people that have no other way to vent their displeasure on this or the dead public ebank forum. Because the people that have isk in ebank have no other option but to swallow. Being forced to swallow does not mean we love you for it. I even understand why some people would use alts to post with, with no trace to their ebank millions. Asfor your behaviour towards raw32.. Maybe he woud be one to take into the fold and serve as your ethics advisor and public relations manager, but he would probebly demand that you'd actually listen to him.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.