|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:05:00 -
[1]
Ray, quick question about account sales.
example:
Seller is willing to sell me their 1B ISK account for an agreed amount. When transfer happens 5% fee comes out of the 1B, so I recieve 950M ISK?
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:36:00 -
[2]
Does the EBANK Board have a time frame for when they expect to return EBANK to when there are 0 liabilities (when all customer money is available at 100% of original value).
Rough estimate is fine.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:31:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: cosmoray Rough estimate is fine.
Sometime before the Mayan calendar ends.
Fair enough.
When I look through EBANK's financials it seems you guys are making at about 15-20B a month in returns and your other investments (ventures) seem to be growing.
That rate of return implies that to return to 100% NAV would take around 4-5 years.
Some people may start to cash out when you hit 700B which has an impact on cash flow, although you get to write off about 70% of the account balance. Chances are people will take this and your max NAV in the medium term will be 700B.
You are also hoping people don't bother logging in and providing API keys (people who leave game for a time), so you can write off a large chunk of cash.
So for people holding their accounts for the long term it looks like about 2-3 years minimum for FULL repayment.
How many of the EBANK board are still going to be playing in 2011/2012. Can you be bothered to do it for that long? Is it still worth the work for a few years?
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 05:55:00 -
[4]
I have 1M ISK in EBANK. I give EBANK permission to cancel it now instead of waiting 6 months. Not going to provide API keys or do any account purchases or trading.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:14:00 -
[5]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: TornSoul
Someone using two (or more) different accounts won't be "cought out" with an API key check anyhow (different keys for each account).
I think this is a very ill-adviced idea and in the long run will actually hurt EBANK more than anything else that have been going on.
Has BMBE ever had problems with RMT? Maybe issue with depositors that has defaulted loans on alts, yet gains interest on the ISK in their account?
While you point out an inherent flaw, the flaw doesn't mean that we shouldn't take every precaution possible. You'll find that a lot of people create EBANK accounts with alts on a single account in order to over-come the 6bill limit we had.
As for the "fact" that it will hurt EBANK, people seem to miss that this is done in order to recover sooner rather than later. It does mean that we have to require cooperation from customers, and it might be equal to taking people's isk "hostage". But it comes down to perspective. From our perspective, we make sure that we can confirm that people are in good standing with CCP and are able to use the ISK.
Say that we have 100bill worth of ISK that was owned by people who's banned, who will never withdraw their ISK? We'd have to make 100bill EXTRA before people could get their ISK back. That takes time.
The API is simply the easiest option. There's very little information worth anything. And people can monitor what data EBANK pulls(Just find the IP of the EANK server and match against that).
The suggestion of a channel is more labour intensive than taking an API key. And so is doing it manually through evemail, for instance.
Few categories of people unfairly affected:
1. What about the depositors who may now be on active service. They will not be able to access their account during the six month period.
2. People who invested in EBANK while they took a break from the game
EBANK made a big deal about how it would be a HUGE benefit to people leaving the game for extended periods of time knowing that their ISK would be available when they returned to the game.
I know EBANK has to make changes to run the bank, but I don't like this measure of enforced API handover, nor do many of your customers.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:17:00 -
[6]
I personally don't think EBANK has the right to take investor funds.
I know that Block has funds that are relating to Furybank BMBE probably has shareholders that are no longer around I have at least 2 shareholders that I know of, don't play anymore.
It is not our business to appropriate the ISK or shares from Dormant/expired accounts.
The way I would deal with it if you really have to(if it could be coded).
1. Send an e-mail to each account holder giving a list of options for their accounts, that includes updating the account. 2. When logged in - give 3 options. - Liquidate (under Ray's conditions), - Keep long term (do nothing) - Third option is non response.
If no response after six months then cancel.
This shows how many customers want out, want to stay and how many dormant. No need for API.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: cosmoray I personally don't think EBANK has the right to take investor funds.
I know that Block has funds that are relating to Furybank BMBE probably has shareholders that are no longer around I have at least 2 shareholders that I know of, don't play anymore.
It is not our business to appropriate the ISK or shares from Dormant/expired accounts.
The way I would deal with it if you really have to(if it could be coded).
1. Send an e-mail to each account holder giving a list of options for their accounts, that includes updating the account. 2. When logged in - give 3 options. - Liquidate (under Ray's conditions), - Keep long term (do nothing) - Third option is non response.
If no response after six months then cancel.
This shows how many customers want out, want to stay and how many dormant. No need for API.
Block does have Furybank funds... Funds which he knows FuryBanker will probably never request. But BSA Still uses those funds, it's a little different here. BMBE same goes for BMBE, the entity still holds the funds. You still use those funds of those two people? You want to be called a saint, Block, TS, and You should return those funds to the account and call it good, that way everyones dividends are effected for a positive change.
If you do, and I know this is slightly different. The ISK those funds where not done as a ISK Laundering event :( Sure it's similar, but not quiet the same. Which is why I want to get peoples opinions..
I would settle for permanent archiving, written off on EBANK's liabilities, and if at a later date the account becomes active again, the account is restored. I know others in EBANK don't want that. If that is what you think, then as I said in my EBANK SencneS post..
NOW IS THE TIME TO BE A PART OF EBANK POLICY CREATION USE IT WISELY
P.S. Emailing accounts is not an option, sure we could get a very very small handful of accounts that people gave their email address to. We could notify those that have their email address in EBANK, that'll only be a small sample of accounts though. Not enough people gave their email address, so it's not really a viable option.
Then how do people know to submit the API key.
If you can't gaurantee to contact ALL account holders how can you change policy on them.
If you think stating it on forums is valid then you can allow people to log in to their accounts with the options I stated.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:16:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Give us your Limited API Key or forfeit your ISK, it is that simple. No sugar coating.
This is the worst statement I have heard the whole time.
I now know how you will return peoples cash, you will do it by destroying accounts without API verification (whether you coat it with the RMT or banned accounts or scammers excuse)
If you did it through growth the projection is too long (about 18B a month reinvested into loans and ventures returning 6% gives a return of about 3-4 years).
This is a stealth approach that punishes customers further. Liquidate or work the money back but this destruction via API is the worst approach.
For what it is worth keep my money because I am not handing over my API.
question: Should every business manager ask for limited API keys to prove that shareholders are still current and that haven't previously defaulted on loans or scammed the IPO/bond manager.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 14:54:00 -
[9]
Now that EBANK had decided to require API keys to maintain your bank account, I have a question:
HOW DOES EBANK INTEND TO COMMUNICATE THIS TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT READ MD FORUM?
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 06:55:00 -
[10]
Been looking at the EBANK financials today, and what still amazes me is that EBANK was meant to be the safest investment and the BOD would look after your money.
Well it seems the old BOD provided loans (with no collateral requirement) to just about anyone who asked. I mean general newbold is in there, and his was one of the most obvious SCAMS out there.
Investing in Eve is a trust business and EBANK trusted everyone. I would love to know who approved the loans to some of these people (was it all Ricdic?).
|
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 01:16:00 -
[11]
Scences I do understand that running what is left of EBANK is a very difficult proposition. Whatever route you chose to run the bank would result in controversy.
The problem is that you responded to criticism on the forums with surly posts, this just created more angst against EBANK. The proper response would have been no response.
If EBANK had stated that using the limited API verification was the only way forward and left it at that you could have moved on, but all of you have responded with "fake customer relation letters", jokes, general flames which are all the things that are guaranteed to make matters worse.
The current situation is that because of your joke responses about standings and other posts, no one is truly sure of the "REAL" justification for the use of API codes (which is private information). You had a policy with the best intentions in mind but absolutely blew it.
If the end result is that EBANK wipe a large number of accounts (refusal to hand over API data) and works the debt away via that route it will look like you cheated your goal of returning the funds.
I think in light of this "PR DISASTER", you guys should think about changing this policy because your attempts at PR have resulted in the destruction of what was left of EBANK's faltering reputation.
At this point even if you reach your goal (in whatever timeframe), the bank will essentially be dead as soon as customers can get their money out. Reaching the goal may be personally rewarding to you, but you will have months/years of abuse ahead of you and whatever happens a trashed reputation at the end.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 21:07:00 -
[12]
SencneS I do hope you are not interested in a job becoming a diplomat or a mediator.
You may be great in Eve with numbers, running businesses and utilising game mechanics but you do need to get some communication lessons.
You do have a frightening ability to annoy, alienate, confuse EBANK's entire customer base or any potential customers or interested parties.
You would serve EBANK better if you dropped any PR responsibilties and bowed out of EBANK threads.
We know this won't happen, so please carry on with your chaos.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 16:17:00 -
[13]
I have been deciding what to do about my EBANK account for the last month. I decided to enter my limited API details as the lesser of the two evils.
I don't want EBANK to get away with wiping out account balances to repair the balance sheet.
I am all set up my 1.123M ISK is sitting in the sweep account
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:09:00 -
[14]
Interesting reading SencneS.
1. I agree with zeroing "dead" accounts. 2. I agree with some form of API to get rid of fraud. 3. I don't agree in wiping "inactive" accounts
The questions I have about EBANK are:
1. What do you think is a reasonable time frame for recovery, also considering the average life of a gamer is under 1 year. 2. Is there a clear path forward to earn the money. At what points is this reviewed and decided if the recovery plan is on goal.
In my mind if full recovery can't be completed by end of 2010, EBANK should be liquidated. At any time that the BOD doesn't think the recovery couldn't be completed by end of 2010 it should be liquidated. All personal recovery goals (athre I thinked stated it would be a great accomplishment) should be secondary to what is best for customer.
If it is clear that the bank is to be liquidated, announce a close date and that the money will be divided between the accounts that have been API verified on a weighted basis. On the liquidate date, reset all "active" accounts to the percentage of recovery and allow withdrawals. All other accounts closed.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 22:01:00 -
[15]
In my mind a path to recovery should be treated as a business project, and in this case the BOD are acting as project managers. BOD should agree on path forward and if the interim targets are not met then the alternative liquidation plan should be put forward.
It should have goals, and be a gated project (stop, go, no-go) at various points along the process.
A path for EBANK in my mind would be:
1. Set a attainable turnaround time to minimise further customer impact. Reach final liquidity (current account balance - fraud) at say December 31st 2010 (anything longer would basically destroy most accounts as people would be leaving the game before turnaround)
2. Hire new personel by January 30th 2010, including PR person
3. Have completed API implementation by March 31st 2010
4. Reassess timing of goal 1 after API implementation
5. Have 800B in assets at April 1st 2010, and review current operation to maximise profit.
6. Change business model if not generating expected returns
7. Have 1T in assets at July 1st 2010
8. Have 1.3T in assets at September 30th 2010, plus business review
9. Aim for 1.7T in assets at december 31st 2010
10. Turn on account functionality Jan 1st 2011 (if all account holder withdraw their choice)
If along any of these major gates the project is falling behind then EBANK should be liquidated and account balances adjusted to the correct percentage of assets, and all account holders paid out.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 03:14:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: cosmoray In my mind a path to recovery should be treated as a business project, and in this case the BOD are acting as project managers. BOD should agree on path forward and if the interim targets are not met then the alternative liquidation plan should be put forward.
It should have goals, and be a gated project (stop, go, no-go) at various points along the process.
A path for EBANK in my mind would be:
1. Set a attainable turnaround time to minimise further customer impact. Reach final liquidity (current account balance - fraud) at say December 31st 2010 (anything longer would basically destroy most accounts as people would be leaving the game before turnaround)
2. Hire new personel by January 30th 2010, including PR person
3. Have completed API implementation by March 31st 2010
4. Reassess timing of goal 1 after API implementation
5. Have 800B in assets at April 1st 2010, and review current operation to maximise profit.
6. Change business model if not generating expected returns
7. Have 1T in assets at July 1st 2010
8. Have 1.3T in assets at September 30th 2010, plus business review
9. Aim for 1.7T in assets at december 31st 2010
10. Turn on account functionality Jan 1st 2011 (if all account holder withdraw their choice)
If along any of these major gates the project is falling behind then EBANK should be liquidated and account balances adjusted to the correct percentage of assets, and all account holders paid out.
Read their balance sheet. Add 10% to assets, which is Ray¦s best case scenario. Look at the mix of assets and the returns on those assets - and you¦ll realise your suggested plan is completely unattainable.
Writing off deposits and/or writing down deposits by 65% is not a recovery plan either.
I am not worried if MY plan is unattainable. I want EBANK to come up with a plan. If their plan doesn't look good it should focus their minds on liquidation or at least explain to their customers what it looks like.
If the numbers in the plan show a pay off in 2012 then that is clearly unacceptable, and the bank should be liquidated NOW. By 2012 the amount of deposits in the bank that belong to active players will be under 500B.
The clock is already ticking on expired/dead accounts and this will accelerate with time.
In my mind if the time is after 2010 EBANK should be liquidated.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 18:53:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CompTrekkie Edited by: CompTrekkie on 12/01/2010 18:41:37 Edited by: CompTrekkie on 12/01/2010 18:32:04 Edited by: CompTrekkie on 12/01/2010 18:31:46 I got all exited and then :-(. I put all my info in as requested and my 600Mil is not there. Just ~713k in the suspense account. The only thing I can think of is that when the hold was first but on the accounts I tried to withdraw before I knew what was going on. The account showed it had left my balance but was in a hold status and never released. Now after the changes it is just gone and not credited to my account!
Any help or others with this issue?
*EDIT*
Ok I see the issue. I looked at my withdraws and the amount I tried to withdraw is still showing as pending from 5 months ago and the little I had left in my account was transferred to the suspense account. Is there a way to get the ISK that is pending put back in my account?
V/r Comp
*EDIT 2*
Ok should have looked at back a few pages. I see there are aothers with this issue as well.
This brings up a great point.
When will EBANK put the money held in pending withdrawals back into people actual accounts.
Some people who have provided API details are looking to cash their accounts in the deal offered by IHAFS, and are being held up by the pending withdrawl state.
This really needs to be actioned as it has been sitting for months.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 20:11:00 -
[18]
If I have followed the EBANK rules correctly they will soon be at 100% capital requirements.
We are close to the 6 month adendum on API details, so at 6 months all those accounts that don't have API verification will be wiped.
Those who have API verified accounts should be able to draw on those accounts. A run on the bank occurs and the assets liquidated and API verified accounts get 100%, non API verified get nada.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:35:00 -
[19]
Will there come a point when the board have to start being realistic about recovery.
August 2009 total assets = 600 - 700B ISK March 2010 total assets = 700 - 800B ISK
The return on most investments is not good. Titan BPC program/BMBE/Bonds all yield under 5% and that is 436B ISK in assets.
About 20B per month in income means a return to 2T in assets in 60 months, which is 5 years. Might be a bit quicker with re-investment but it is clear the path to full recovery will be beyond 2012/13.
At some point (should be 2010) you should get serious about winding up and giving the money to the API verified people.
The only way this will be a successful turn around is by people leaving the game and defaulting their money.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 03:57:00 -
[20]
The problems I have are:
1. Recovery will take years
2. Most account holders will have left game
3. Because only a "few" account holders spoke up against the BOD plans, BOD took as a sign that their plan was best (BOD didn't consider people not responding for other reasons - shock, arguing doesn't help, frustration, wrote the money off, indifference, etc..)
4. BOD didn't ask what customers wanted, no vote was offered
5. Last year BOD members talked about the "achievement" of recovery (Athre specifically did), which is emotion and personal ego getting in the way of business and what is best for customer
I have two hypothetical questions for the guys running EBANK:
If you knew that getting back to 100% took until December 2012 would that be acceptable to you?
Do you think it would be acceptable to your customers?
|
|
|
|
|