Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 14:56:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ray McCormack on 22/11/2009 15:13:38
Statement from the Board
Confirmation of Intention
The Board of Directors and Staff would like to reiterate their commitment to recovering all ISK lost due to the mismanagement of previous Directors. 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.
However we accept the desire some people may have to gain access to their ISK now, rather than wait for us to return it to its full value. And we're willing to cater for this by allowing both account sales and liquidations. Skip to the paragraphs below if that is what you're here for.
We would like to take this opportunity to state that the current Board is in no way responsible for the financial position the bank finds itself in. Those remaining on the Board have had their roles and activities under the previous management thoroughly reviewed and have been cleared in full of any wrong doing. The new administration will no longer tolerate the salacious remarks attempting to besmirch their reputations and will retaliate by calling you names.
Let it be noted there was strong objection to the above paragraph being included in this announcement, however the Board decided to keep it in an effort to highlight how bad the Chairman's sense of humour is. Oh and AC155 says /finger to some of you..... you know who you are.
Policy Changes and Points of Interest
Limited API Key * The Board has decided to implement an API key requirement for all accounts in order to ensure the associated characters are neither dormant nor suspended, as would be the case with ISK farmers banned by CCP. This will be a continuous requirement, and you will be denied access to any Bank services if your account is not verified. That means should your game account go inactive or your API Key change you will no longer have access to the standard functionality on our website. * By supplying EBANK with you Limited API Key you give us permission to store your account Character and Corporation details.
Suspense Accounts * To cater for the above requirement, all account balances will be consolidated into a suspense account. You will only be allowed to transfer or withdraw ISK from this account once you have provided your limited API key. After six months any balances remaining in suspense accounts will be written off. * In the future, any accounts not accessed within three months will have all their balances transferred to this suspense account and the balance will be written off six months after the transfer.
Double Interest * It was recently discovered (by Ambo) that on two occasions interest had been paid twice on the same day. A brief investigation followed that established this had happened several times over the years, resulting in an extra ten and a half billion ISK being credited to saving and checking accounts and an additional nine billion against loan accounts. It has been decided that the double interest on the saving and checking accounts will be reversed automatically (at a later date), however the additional loan interest will only be reversed on request.
Loan and Account Write-Offs * Yesterday we wrote off a dozen or more defaulted loans (details provided below) to an amount just in excess of 150b. Several had already been defaulted. * We also zeroed the balance on several accounts, such as Mr Horizontal and Anastasia Heron. This amounted to a tidy sum of 115,705,136,342.80. * This severely affected the Balance Sheet, the nett effect being a 5% drop in our NAV over Liabilities ratio, from the previously recorded percentage of just over 40% to 35.67%.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:01:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Ray McCormack on 22/11/2009 15:14:29 Account Sales & Liquidation Methods
Account Sales * Account Sales will occur through the Account2Player Transfer interface (see the Move Money menu on the EBANK website). This is to avoid additional coding changes. All sales will need to be verified and registered with the Bank, no sales may occur without this verification. A verification fee of 5% will be levied against the sale, and is payable by the seller. Should the buyer wish to refund the fee, that is their decision and the bank cannot be held liable for them breaking this agreement. * This does mean that legitimate A2P transfers will have the same fee levied, unfortunately this fee is non-refundable and our suggestion to you is to wait until the sales fee is no longer applicable and is returned to the standard 0.5%. No discussion will be entered into, do not use this service if you don't want to pay the 5% fee.
Liquidation Methods * EBANK has agreed to offer account holders access to limited liquidation withdrawals. ISK will become available for withdrawals once per month as profit above an asset valuation of 700b becomes available. The value of the actual withdrawal will be established as the percentage difference between our estimated NAV and known liabilities. A liquidation fee of 10% will be levied against all such withdrawals. * We advise that these NAV estimations are not entirely accurate, and could be wrong either way by as much as 10%, thus you could be loosing up to 20% by taking this option. * We will advise when these withdrawals will be allowed each month, and withdrawals will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. Once all available capital above the 700b limit is liquidated, any remaining withdrawals will be cancelled and you will have to wait until the next month to attempt a liquidation withdrawal.
Defaulted Loans
Recently several loan holders were contacted to resolve the status of their outstanding debt, only two bothered to reply. One indicated they had defaulted on their loan due to real life issues, and advised we could liquidate his collateral to recover our losses. The other was skilzrulz, and in his usual, charming way indicated his contempt for your ISK by attempting to evade the issue by labelling the bank as a scam. Below follow the details of those that have defaulted on loans from EBANK. Individual threads will be moved to a public section of the EBANK forums for your perusal.
exernastia 275,000,000,000.00 skilzrulz 83,644,420,216.66 skilzrulz 17,302,791,695.37 skilzrulz 6,437,708,734.99 skilzrulz 9,021,006,053.61 Admiral Leyton 13,494,870,247.84 Amonse 268,039,004.39 Andrivullar 2,705,266,675.23 Aryana Orinogu 1,062,131,542.38 Cirillo 4,900,000,000.00 Chucker Harris 532,969,349.29 Ferrosa 1,028,826,814.34 General Newbold 677,624,852.31 HoRnY CoRnY 16,000,000,000.00 ISK InterStellarCredit 793,687,448.99 Lubimchik 10,000,000,000.00 Kara Rhane 6,945,236,426.37 Manson Forte 1,139,584,190.67 MerNeith 107,272,975.87 michael weels 4,304,153,257.23 Mother Clanger 790,000,000.00 MrT123 550,652,311.51 TheFazMan 400,000,000.00 Rar Ettrak 1,372,385,449.96 Ramadawn 167,914,293.37 Red Crown 1,600,000,000.00 SAMMOTTRAM 857,142,436.93 Sage Eveo 5,421,505,307.10 Officer Seller 3,600,000,000.00 Officer Seller 5,000,000,000.00 ohpo 3,800,000,000.00 ohpo 4,200,000,000.00 Tablaren 5,838,951,749.59 TheFazMan 2,000,000,000.00 Trente Reznor 6,009,527,264.54 Imogen Avox 3,150,000,000.00
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:03:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ray McCormack on 22/11/2009 15:15:37 The amounts above may not reflect the original defaulted amount, they are what the loan balance was at the time the default was recorded on our system, or the current loan balance if the account has not yet been marked as defaulted, and thus include additional interest charges. If you feel your name is listed erroneously, please contact me to discuss. If you have information regarding any of the individuals mentioned above that could be beneficial to EBANK, please contact me. If you need some suggestions on how to mix alcohol and various juices, please contact me.
Recovery Progress
Our progress has been steady over the past few months as the various venture entities are consolidated. We've already seen the benefit of this consolidation by easily and quickly being able to downsize one arm of the venture and ramp up another. I expect the success of this management style to powerhouse our recovery.
We would love to offer you income reports from the various divisions, but due to other more pressing requirements those have fallen by the wayside. Once the internal audit is complete (yes, it's still ongoing) they will be worked on as a priority. For now you can assess our periodic updates to our progress by monitoring the Public Financials.
Recruitment
EBANK is a diverse collection of individuals, all with different reasons for (still) being here. We often argue, quite illogically, due to our differing passions, but we're united behind one common cause, to see EBANK restored to its former glory. And we want you to help, by joining us on this glorious and noble quest. These various roles need filling, perchance you might fill one of them?
Loan Officer Your roles are to both respond to loan requests and actively market the loan division.
Sales Representative Your duty (lol) is to maintain a forum presence to assist with sales.
Advertising Agent You are responsible for the sale and management of advertising contracts on our website.
Help-desk Agent Your task is to manage and maintain our support system, relaying tickets to the relevant people.
Compliance Officer This middle management position will have you establishing and enforcing various policies and procedures.
Social Responsibility Officer Another management position that will see you ensuring the bank and its staff are operating in an ethical, responsible manner.
Knowledge Officer It's your job to analyse all aspects of the bank, asking one question: ISK! How can we make more?
Investment Manager Manage our share portfolio.
Developers We're redeveloping from scratch, this is your chance to become part of a team that is building the tools of the future. (Am I selling it hard enough? Basically we want you code monkeys to make our stuff work.)
Press Officer Clearly we fail at PR, maybe you're a communications major and want to show us how it's done?
To begin the recruitment process, sign-up on our forums and contact one of the current Directors expressing your interest in any of the above positions.
Next Update
The next announcement is due February 15th to March 1st, so expect it in April sometime.
Yours Sincerely, Ray McCormack EBANK Chairman - On Behalf of The Board of Directors
|
flakeys
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:03:00 -
[4]
Is this a wii sex toy add? ...
|
Lecherito
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:27:00 -
[5]
So ebank threads are to be informative and reasonable from now on? That is most surely disappointing.
-L
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: flakeys Is this a wii sex toy add? ...
I'm not going to bite, mate - I've had my fun, now it's down to business.
|
Utemetsu
Caldari Parahelion Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:36:00 -
[7]
I spoke with LaVista Vista, a member of Ebank, about the announcement. Listen to it here.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:37:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Utemetsu I spoke with LaVista Vista, a member of Ebank, about the announcement. Listen to it here.
Shameless plug is shameless :D GJ mate!
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:44:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
The Board has decided to implement an API key requirement for all accounts in order to ensure the associated characters are neither dormant nor suspended, as would be the case with ISK farmers banned by CCP. This will be a continuous requirement, and you will be denied access to any Bank services if your account is not verified. That means should your game account go inactive or your API Key change you will no longer have access to the standard functionality on our website.
I donÆt understand this, especially the continuous requirement part.
DoesnÆt logging into an ebank account verify that the user is still active? To verify that the person is not banned surely verification is not required on a continuous basis, just at the time the account holder wishes to do something.
What are the consequences for non verification on a continuous basis? Just not being able to use ebank website functionality û not exactly a hardship under current circumstances.
Is this a precursor to ebank æclosingÆ all non verified accounts?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:49:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jackie Fisher What are the consequences for non verification on a continuous basis? Just not being able to use ebank website functionality û not exactly a hardship under current circumstances.
Just that. It means you can't withdraw or transfer ISK.
Originally by: Jackie Fisher Is this a precursor to ebank æclosingÆ all non verified accounts?
Yes, as is stated in the Suspense Account part of the announcement.
The rest of your questions are just technical in nature, how we achieve the end goal isn't really that much of an issue.
|
|
Ataraxa
Gallente Trolltech Research Ltd.
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:00:00 -
[11]
3...2...1 Run on the bank.
I know I am amongst them.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:05:00 -
[12]
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?
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:12:00 -
[13]
"A liquidation fee of 10% will be levied against all such withdrawals."
Perhaps I dodn't understand the liquidation fee. Does that means that all withdrawls will be charge a 10% withdrawal fee even if I don't intend to liquidate?
Liquidation Fee = Withdrawl Fee ?
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:19:00 -
[14]
ôIn the future, any accounts not accessed within three months will have all their balances transferred to this suspense account and the balance will be written off six months after the transfer.ö
How do you define access? Simply login into EBANK?
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:20:00 -
[15]
Originally by: cosmoray When transfer happens 5% fee comes out of the 1B, so I recieve 950M ISK?
Correct.
Originally by: Block Ukx Does that means that all withdrawls will be charge a 10% withdrawal fee even if I don't intend to liquidate?
No, because normal withdrawals are frozen, so it won't apply. Any withdrawal for the foreseeable future will be treated as a liquidation withdrawal. The fee is in fact 5% though, the same as the account verification fee for sales.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:24:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Block Ukx How do you define access? Simply login into EBANK?
Yes.
|
Ataraxa
Gallente Trolltech Research Ltd.
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:27:00 -
[17]
Quote: * EBANK has agreed to offer account holders access to limited liquidation withdrawals. ISK will become available for withdrawals once per month as profit above an asset valuation of 700b becomes available. The value of the actual withdrawal will be established as the percentage difference between our estimated NAV and known liabilities. A liquidation fee of 10% will be levied against all such withdrawals. * We advise that these NAV estimations are not entirely accurate, and could be wrong either way by as much as 10%, thus you could be loosing up to 20% by taking this option.
Can somebody please translate that into normal speech ? I have trouble following the language there - especially the bolded part. :(
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:36:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ataraxa Can somebody please translate that into normal speech ? I have trouble following the language there - especially the bolded part. :(
Currently our asset value stands at 680b. Once it exceeds 700b we will use that additional ISK, if it is free, to action withdrawals.
The withdrawals will be treated as liquidations of your account, and you will get a percentage of your withdrawal instead of the full amount.
The percentage will be our assets (700b) over our liabilities (1.9b) less a 5% fee, which would give you just over 30% back.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:36:00 -
[19]
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.
|
Mme Pinkerton
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:40:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Block Ukx How do you define access? Simply login into EBANK?
Yes.
Great, so people who would otherwise have invested idle cash into your bank for the time they are abroad, taking a break from EVE, think they have left the game or whatever will in the future not bother with EBANK or withdraw their money before going afk for extended periods of time.
You realize that the "look how much money you would have after 2 years, if you just left it sitting in your EBANK account" was one of the major selling points of EBANK, don't you?
Granted, you get some short-term gains from expropriating idle customers - but this happens at the expense of seriously nerfing the long-term profitability of EBANK. (this policy change will lead to less long-term investments, so you will have to maintain a higher liquidity ratio which again leads to less money being available to actually earn the interest on your customers' balances).
oh wait - in the long run we're all dead, anyways ... but imho that's not something management should assume in its decision-making process.
" Credit is the economic judgement on the morality of a man. " |
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:41:00 -
[21]
Originally by: cosmoray Rough estimate is fine.
Sometime before the Mayan calendar ends.
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:47:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Jackie Fisher Is this a precursor to ebank æclosingÆ all non verified accounts?
Yes, as is stated in the Suspense Account part of the announcement.
So it does.
Will ebank be mailing all account holders to warn them of this change of policy?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:49:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton Great, so people who would otherwise have invested idle cash into your bank for the time they are abroad, taking a break from EVE, think they have left the game or whatever will in the future not bother with EBANK or withdraw their money before going afk for extended periods of time.
You realize that the "look how much money you would have after 2 years, if you just left it sitting in your EBANK account" was one of the major selling points of EBANK, don't you?
Granted, you get some short-term gains from expropriating idle customers - but this happens at the expense of seriously nerfing the long-term profitability of EBANK. (this policy change will lead to less long-term investments, so you will have to maintain a higher liquidity ratio which again leads to less money being available to actually earn the interest on your customers' balances).
oh wait - in the long run we're all dead, anyways ... but imho that's not something management should assume in its decision-making process.
I'll reply with my final post in the vote thread on our internal forums.
Quote: I'm going to let the vote pass as a YES with a clause that we need to obtain further community input and discussion on the final write-off of ISK.
So you're more than welcome to offer viable alternatives and solutions to the problems you raise.
|
Ataraxa
Gallente Trolltech Research Ltd.
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 16:58:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Currently our asset value stands at 680b. Once it exceeds 700b we will use that additional ISK, if it is free, to action withdrawals. The withdrawals will be treated as liquidations of your account, and you will get a percentage of your withdrawal instead of the full amount. The percentage will be our assets (700b) over our liabilities (1.9b) less a 5% fee, which would give you just over 30% back.
Thank you for explaining this to a non-native speaker =)
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 17:00:00 -
[25]
Quote:
General Newbold 677,624,852.31
Overall, seeing how widespread his scams were, it's not bad for a 5 minutes work of making an alt. Not bad at all. - Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 17:01:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Jackie Fisher Will ebank be mailing all account holders to warn them of this change of policy?
Yes, as will we in the future when their accounts are suspended after three months, and again before they are written off after six months. Email, not EVEMail.
|
Mme Pinkerton
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 17:17:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Mme Pinkerton on 22/11/2009 17:22:23 Edited by: Mme Pinkerton on 22/11/2009 17:19:53 Edited by: Mme Pinkerton on 22/11/2009 17:18:11
Originally by: Ray McCormack
So you're more than welcome to offer viable alternatives and solutions to the problems you raise.
My suggestion would be to:
- create a statistical model of the behavior of these idle balances based on past transaction records
- determine the approximate amount of ISK that will probably never be withdrawn based on that model in regular intervals
- book that amount as nonrecurring earnings & book a safety margin into a reserve fund for unexpected withdrawals
- if more money is actually requested than forecasted by your model and your reserve fund runs dry, book this as unexpected/
exceptional expenses against the reserve fund and serve the request
- install a policy for adjusting the ratio that goes into the reserve fund based on the fund's current contents and past utilization
This way you would get the truly inactive balances out of your balance sheet (at the manageable risk of running into liquidity problems) without further expropriation of customers.
(if you look close enough, my proposal is sort of a Ponzi scheme, but the promise of paying out whenever requested should be enough to keep the influx of idle cash running )
edits: confusing the sides of my balance sheet edit 3: the reserve fund is thought as debt that is paid back through unexpected withdrawals within the safety margin
" Credit is the economic judgement on the morality of a man. " |
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 17:33:00 -
[28]
I am very impressed with the liquidation option, as well as mostly everything else (but I'm not really interested in the rest besides the account suspension).
However, the fees seem extremely unjustified to me. If you're concerned about ending up as an exchange for EBank speculation, then a fee for plural sales or liquidations seems justified, but I don't see how charging these hefty fees on 1 time sales or liquidations can be interpreted as anything but a punishing disincentive for withdrawing already decimated deposits.
Considering that these cash-out options are meant to mollify some of the anger over staying open for self-interested reasons, these fees seem to defeat a lot of that purpose by making the cash-out options unnecessarily poor. As it stands, I don't think people will nor should appreciate the options, even if they choose to execute them.
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:17:00 -
[29]
Edited by: SentryRaven on 22/11/2009 18:17:52
Quote: Defaulted Loans
Recently several loan holders were contacted to resolve the status of their outstanding debt, only two bothered to reply. One indicated they had defaulted on their loan due to real life issues, and advised we could liquidate his collateral to recover our losses. The other was skilzrulz, and in his usual, charming way indicated his contempt for your ISK by attempting to evade the issue by labelling the bank as a scam. Below follow the details of those that have defaulted on loans from EBANK. Individual threads will be moved to a public section of the EBANK forums for your perusal.
Defaulted Loans Section can now be viewed for registered users. --------
|
Bluebeard
Minmatar LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:18:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Bluebeard on 22/11/2009 18:20:43 Most of the statement looks quite good, but I'm not happy about the closing of dormant accounts. A number of people deposited isk into Ebank, with the intention of claiming it back many years later.
By changing the terms and conditions of the account in this way (by basically stealing the account balance), the only way I could see an account holder agreeing to this change, is by offering them the opportunity to close their account for full value. As this is obviously not going to happen, then I propose that instead of deleting the accounts, you move the balances into a 'frozen' status and have a period of say 1 - 3 months (from the point where the Account holderasks for the account to be restored) before the account is returned to normal status and can be accessed.
This will allow you to effectively writeoff those accounts, but still cater for the few people that return demanding their deposits.
Also, if I've been charged double interest on any of my loans, then please take this as notice, that I would like those charges refunded.
|
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:31:00 -
[31]
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?
|
Johnny Ringo
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:36:00 -
[32]
Ray, I sent you a message by evemail but I wanted to ask here too. I requested a withdrawl of my isk after the account freeze went into effect, and for all this time that withdrawl request has shown as "pending". Now my account shows as empty, including the "Suspension account." (I have uploaded my API.) Just wondered if you could check on this. Am I missing something, or as my isk disappeared because there was a withdrawl request pending when you revamped the page?
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:40:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Johnny Ringo Ray, I sent you a message by evemail but I wanted to ask here too. I requested a withdrawl of my isk after the account freeze went into effect, and for all this time that withdrawl request has shown as "pending". Now my account shows as empty, including the "Suspension account." (I have uploaded my API.) Just wondered if you could check on this. Am I missing something, or as my isk disappeared because there was a withdrawl request pending when you revamped the page?
Without disclosing too much on this forum (this is why we have a HelpDesk), your account is missing the pending withdrawal ISK which you initiated from your checking account. The amount is still in "limbo", because it was issued after the announcement of the account freeze.
I am told, It will be moved to Suspense or Sweep once current pending withdrawal requests will be cancelled, to open for new withdrawal requests that are meant to be liquidation requests.
In other words, your ISK is there, but currently not in your account but "in transfer". We will cancel your withdrawal soonÖ and you will be able to re-withdraw if you wish to liquidate the account as described in Ray's announcement. --------
|
Johnny Ringo
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:48:00 -
[34]
Cool - thanks a bunch.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 18:57:00 -
[35]
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)?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:04:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Bluebeard you move the balances into a 'frozen' status and have a period of say 1 - 3 months (from the point where the Account holderasks for the account to be restored) before the account is returned to normal status and can be accessed.
This was proposed in the Director vote for this issue. It seems the most feasible solution, but would need to be used in conjunction with Pinkerton's suggestion of a statistical model to quantify what this is amount is likely to be.
Originally by: cosmoray 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?
Magic 8-ball says ask a better question.
If you double your income estimates though, which is closer to what I believe we're more than capable of achieving, then - along with the various other possibilities you mentioned - it's likely we can reach our goal much sooner than your're suggesting.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:11:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Leneerra Am I understanding this correctly?
Yes.
Originally by: Leneerra I have to take your word for it you will not take (and store) other information availeble.
Moving forward we will start storing personal Standings.
Originally by: Leneerra I wonder if a third party service...
No.
Originally by: Leneerra 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)?
No. All outstanding withdrawal requests will be cancelled each month just before we re-open liquidation withdrawals. We will then process all the withdrawals we can, the remaining withdrawals will be left in limbo until the next run where they will be cancelled again.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:22:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton wow
I've juggled this idea around, and I have to say that it is pretty brilliant in both concept and detail. Some final form of this idea will definitely solve the issue.
Well done.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:42:00 -
[39]
Originally by: SetrakDark However, the fees seem extremely unjustified to me.
There are a variety of reasons to justify the fees, ranging from the work involved to ensuring we don't lose out due to incorrect valuations, and because of the negative effect it has on our working capital.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:49:00 -
[40]
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.
|
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:52:00 -
[41]
I can understand your frustration and disappointment, but no one left at EBANK is responsible for the position you find yourself in; we're simply trying to offer you the best possible solutions under the circumstances.
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:01:00 -
[42]
Props to Ray and the Ebank staff for creating a (at least seemingly) viable path towards getting the business back on its feet, very impressive work
|
Breaker77
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:04:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Ray McCormack but no one left at EBANK is responsible for the position you find yourself in
That is the one big question I do have. Are any of the older members (since before the Ricdic scandal) still at EBank? If so how are they not responsible for what has happened? Was there no system to check up on each other or even view internally loan/debts EBbank had?
If there was not such a system in place, is one being worked on to make sure that this situation doesn't happen again in a year?
|
Jadun
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:06:00 -
[44]
yo ho
I will be leaving my isk in ebank at least untill 12/2013. just hope that the intrest payments will start up again before that time.
Beside all the tears. Me thinks that a lot of people in EBank are doing a lot of hard work.
So let me give you all a thanks.
Jadun
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:09:00 -
[45]
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.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:12:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Leneerra 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.
You are able to view access logs for the API. And given that there's very little actual information that is "sensitive" from the limited API key(Skills, wallet size), I can't see the problem.
I would assume that the code in question only pulls the Characters.xml.aspx API, which will give a list of characters on the account and their characterID. If it's not the case, you will be able to tell and call us out on being dirty spys or whatever will make you feel better
But really. It's not uncommon for corporations to require an API key. If you can't risk giving out what corporation you are in, why could you investing in EBANK?
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:21:00 -
[47]
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?
|
Terrible Karma
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:52:00 -
[48]
Why am I reminded of Nigerian Bank scams? Oh ...
Lagos, Nigeria. Attention: The President/CEO
Dear Sir,
Confidential Business Proposal
Having consulted with the EBank Board of Directors and based on the information gathered from the EBank financial audit(TM), I have the privilege to request your assistance to release your deposit at the rate of 0.30 isk per 1.0 isk in deposits. The above rate resulted from an under-invoiced contract, executed, commissioned and paid for about five years (5) ago by a foreign contractor. This action was however intentional and since then the fund has been in a suspense account at EBank.
We are now ready to return the funds and that is where you come in. It is important to inform you that as civil servants, we are forbidden to operate your Eve account; that is why we require your assistance. The total sum will be shared as follows: 70% for us, 25% for you and 5% for local and international expenses incidental to the transfer.
The transfer is risk free on both sides. I am the CEO of EBank. If you find this proposal acceptable, we shall require the following documents:
(a) your API key. (b) your private e-mail ù for confidentiality and easy communication.
(c) your Eve login and password.
The business will take us thirty (30) until the end of the Mayan Calendar working days to accomplish.
Please reply urgently.
Best regards Ray McCormack
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:57:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Leneerra 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?
The option is with you. At this point you have the option to forfeit your deposit in EBANK or to provide the information we ask for.
You will call it "taking my ISK for ransom", we will call it "change of our Terms of Service", but however you might want to call it, you will still only have those two options left.
Originally by: Terrible Karma Why am I reminded of Nigerian Bank scams? Oh ...
Lagos, Nigeria. Attention: The President/CEO
Dear Sir,
Confidential Business Proposal
Having consulted with the EBank Board of Directors and based on the information gathered from the EBank financial audit(TM), I have the privilege to request your assistance to release your deposit at the rate of 0.30 isk per 1.0 isk in deposits. The above rate resulted from an under-invoiced contract, executed, commissioned and paid for about five years (5) ago by a foreign contractor. This action was however intentional and since then the fund has been in a suspense account at EBank.
We are now ready to return the funds and that is where you come in. It is important to inform you that as civil servants, we are forbidden to operate your Eve account; that is why we require your assistance. The total sum will be shared as follows: 70% for us, 25% for you and 5% for local and international expenses incidental to the transfer.
The transfer is risk free on both sides. I am the CEO of EBank. If you find this proposal acceptable, we shall require the following documents:
(a) your API key. (b) your private e-mail ù for confidentiality and easy communication.
(c) your Eve login and password.
The business will take us thirty (30) until the end of the Mayan Calendar working days to accomplish.
Please reply urgently.
Best regards Ray McCormack
Your account has been credited with 1 lolcat. I laughed. :) --------
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:09:00 -
[50]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Leneerra 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.
You are able to view access logs for the API. And given that there's very little actual information that is "sensitive" from the limited API key(Skills, wallet size), I can't see the problem.
I would assume that the code in question only pulls the Characters.xml.aspx API, which will give a list of characters on the account and their characterID. If it's not the case, you will be able to tell and call us out on being dirty spys or whatever will make you feel better
But really. It's not uncommon for corporations to require an API key. If you can't risk giving out what corporation you are in, why could you investing in EBANK?
Only thing you get from the api record is an IP, people can not know it is you who is retrieving data, nor prove it. You have already said that you could in the future retrieve the personal standings data. You are not limiting and compromising yourselves to retrieve only characters and corporations and even if you do, nothing stops you from changing that unillaterally in the future, since you have already done that you can not appeal to the good faith of people on you. Using the api key is a good step, but you don't have the right to impose it on your old customers. That said I would like to hear from Leneerra what information accesible by the limited api he considers sensitive and should be kept from eBank accesing it. It is also very curious that you are now using the word investing. You guys have used multiple times the argument of eBank not being an investment to maintain a lot of (imo) undeserved rights under the umbrella of private venture. PS: I don't see the horrible loan terms you were offering in the last thread, have you finally realised that they didn't make any sense and have you finally pulled them out? _+_ "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
EVEwatch Sidebar soon |
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:15:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
Using the api key is a good step, but you don't have the right to impose it on your old customers. That said I would like to hear from Leneerra what information accesible by the limited api he considers sensitive and should be kept from eBank accesing it.
It is also very curious that you are now using the word investing. You guys have used multiple times the argument of eBank not being an investment to maintain a lot of (imo) undeserved rights under the umbrella of private venture.
First of all, our old "customers" also include people involved with RMT. That's a fact. In order to cover our ass, using the API key is a must. I really think that's all there is to it. It's a necessary evil.
As for the investing vs. depositing: I'm tired. Call it whatever you want. It's all just semantics and really makes no difference now, does it?
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:23:00 -
[52]
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?
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:30:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 22/11/2009 21:34:21
Originally by: LaVista Vista First of all, our old "customers" also include people involved with RMT. That's a fact. In order to cover our ass, using the API key is a must. I really think that's all there is to it. It's a necessary evil.
You are right on the RMT and that's why I said It's a good step (I've raised my concerns on the past on eBank working to pay RMT people), but Leneerra is active and has proved it by posting here. It can be also proved by speaking from the character in-game, when ccp bans an account such things can not be done, so you can not hide behind that to force api keys. Again I'd like to hear what information could be bad to provide with the limited api key, personally I don't see much, but if such information exists, you should provide an alternate method to liquidate from people who don't trust you with sensitive information. Quote: As for the investing vs. depositing: I'm tired. Call it whatever you want. It's all just semantics and really makes no difference now, does it?
That have always been my point, it doesn't matter how you call it, you have people's money and because of that people should retain certain rights. _+_ "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
EVEwatch Sidebar soon |
Jane Retail
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:33:00 -
[54]
Regarding Skilzrulz... He's trying to sell his Hulk BPO (110b). That's were your money is at. Nice reputation gain
|
Mme Pinkerton
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:42:00 -
[55]
On the day EBANK has expropriated enough of its customer base to be finally able to reopen its doors a big part of the current population of MD will not be frequenting this forum anymore.
But there will be lots of new young & enthusiastic players who are convinced that this time everything will be different, eager to invest in those who are trying to build castles in the swamp
... and there will be those left of EBANK staff who cannot bear to acknowledge their own failure, who want to prove the world that their ideas were the right ones, that their effort & time was not wasted, who long to see their own names restored in MD
... and finally there will be a few disgruntled naysayers trolling the threads of EBANK employees, the narrow-minded who are unable to see the grand vision of the secondary market as put forth by Hexxx, those who are simply incapable of believing in progress & sandbox.
I think New EBANK's future could be a very bright one (at least for the first two years or so)
" Credit is the economic judgement on the morality of a man. " |
Dear Abby
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:45:00 -
[56]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus
Using the api key is a good step, but you don't have the right to impose it on your old customers. That said I would like to hear from Leneerra what information accesible by the limited api he considers sensitive and should be kept from eBank accesing it.
It is also very curious that you are now using the word investing. You guys have used multiple times the argument of eBank not being an investment to maintain a lot of (imo) undeserved rights under the umbrella of private venture.
First of all, our old "customers" also include people involved with RMT. That's a fact. In order to cover our ass, using the API key is a must. I really think that's all there is to it. It's a necessary evil.
As for the investing vs. depositing: I'm tired. Call it whatever you want. It's all just semantics and really makes no difference now, does it?
It would probably be simpler to just state that Ebank since it is involved in virtual property of CCP requires validation that you have an account in good standing with CCP.
The reason they are using the word investing is because you are essentially buying into and out of a bond - the interest paid to you is derived from in game market activities. Investing is the right term even if it seems odd to use with a name that has bank in it.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:46:00 -
[57]
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.
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 22:27:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Leneerra
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.
Quite indeed, that is the main purpose of this. If you do not wish your ISK to be removed from the pool of liabilities, then you will have to provide your API key. The other option will be to forfeit your account balance in full.
You may find this outrageous and unfair, whatever term you may want to use. In short, we are acknowledging that you have uttered your disapproval on these measures, but those will remain the options that are available.
And related, answering another question in this thread: You will be able to see what we are using your API key for as the EBANK IP is static and will never change. You should therefore be able to see which methods we are calling on the API Server. --------
|
Cordin Hamir
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 22:30:00 -
[59]
Where to begin on this long awaited announcement? I don't think anyone is in any doubt that ALL of those originally involved in EBANK in a senior position were some combination of corrupt, incompetent, lazy or unbelievably naive. I fully accept that the current board are not responsible for EBANK's position that said, however, the way that this whole issue has been handled is appalling. It has been clear for some time that the main (possibly only) interest of the Board of Directors (BoD) has been to try and make EBANK a viable business again - not to try and do the best for it's customers (or saps as we should probably be known). A short term freeze on accounts followed by some rationale consultation with depositors to try and determine what they wanted to do with THEIR money would have been reasonable. Instead we have a complete freeze followed by months of next to zero feedback and then an announcement that half makes it sound as if the depositors are the crooks! The position of the BoD appears to be that morally all of the money is theirs (I accept that physcially it is!) and that the depositors have only such rights as they decide to give out. Any bank (especially in a game like Eve) runs primarily on trust , on this basis there is no chance whatsoever of EBANK ever reviving.
|
Dal Thrax
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 22:40:00 -
[60]
As somebody who's spend some time in an alliance with Mr. Horizontal, and who invested in E-Bank due to his involvement, I would be very interested in hearing why his accounts were liquidated.
|
|
Capitalist Swineherder
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 22:50:00 -
[61]
I'm really going to miss that 800K and change I had left in the bank once my account is wiped for inactivity. I'd feel dirty making somebody process the liquidation request to get 30%, minus fees, of that out.
|
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 22:52:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Jas Dor on 22/11/2009 23:01:46
Originally by: LaVista Vista
I would assume that the code in question only pulls the Characters.xml.aspx API, which will give a list of characters on the account and their characterID. If it's not the case, you will be able to tell and call us out on being dirty spys or whatever will make you feel better
But really. It's not uncommon for corporations to require an API key. If you can't risk giving out what corporation you are in, why could you investing in EBANK?
I can see some folks with heavy involvement in EvE politics, for example certain former BoB members, not wanting to disclose their account mains, especially if dropping several billion isk into an account.
Given recent security lapses at E-Bank resulting in the current situation and the inability of E-Bank to maintain a confidential banking relationship with it's customers I move that the board consider a resolution to wind up the corporation, liquidate all assets, and make a pro rate distribution to the account holders of all isk received.
(I further note that EBank is heavily invested in Titan BPO's, neglect to act forthrightly and sell these BPO's has benefited the political alliances that various board members are involved in, while leaving the account holders with assets about to get nerfed into oblivion).
|
Proton Power
Amarr Luck Yourself Into Isk
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 23:26:00 -
[63]
2 Comments -
1) Is it possible to do what your trying to do with inactive accounts any other way other than via API. I am not sure that is a good move as I know many that will not want to give this up. I can understand both sides to this though, so just curious if you have tried to come up with other solutions for this.
2) Instead of 6mths inactivity I would personally say go 8. Why? Well many people that play Eve are in the Military, most go on 6mth/7mth deployments, making Ebank a no longer useful place to pur there isk for that time frame. If you go 8 they could still consider using your accounts. Or another posibility would be some sort of check mark or communication so that people going away for a pre-determined amount of time can still utilize your accounts without the worry of losing isk if they can't log into your website, but still plan on being active when they get back. If you need more clarificaiton on this will gladly try to help some more here.
|
Amaarrah
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 23:39:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Amaarrah on 22/11/2009 23:45:04 Edited by: Amaarrah on 22/11/2009 23:40:41 Thanks EBANK for doing your best. Had a nice chat with LaVista at FANFEST and sadly Leneera who was present and being just nice turns out to be a ****er on the FORUM. Hope all the ****ers will stay away from this post which enables us to talk business. This is a nice game, enjoy it at best.
Question for EBANK: Can I put my ISK from Suspence account into Checking Account and get 1.5 %? If not when will this be possible? The announcement says nothing about this (possibility).
EDIT: Apparently it works. I am back where I was a few months ago with over 1 bill in a checking account. If thats the case, good show EBANK.
|
SoLongEVe Havefun
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 00:11:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Admiral Leyton 13,494,870,247.84
i can just tell you now that leyton hasnt been in game for at least 4 months, so your not likely to get much out of him.
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 01:45:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Limited API Key * The Board has decided to implement an API key requirement for all accounts in order to ensure the associated characters are neither dormant nor suspended, as would be the case with ISK farmers banned by CCP. This will be a continuous requirement, and you will be denied access to any Bank services if your account is not verified. That means should your game account go inactive or your API Key change you will no longer have access to the standard functionality on our website. * By supplying EBANK with you Limited API Key you give us permission to store your account Character and Corporation details.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Leneerra I have to take your word for it you will not take (and store) other information availeble.
Moving forward we will start storing personal Standings.
Originally by: LaVista Vista First of all, our old "customers" also include people involved with RMT. That's a fact. In order to cover our ass, using the API key is a must. I really think that's all there is to it. It's a necessary evil.
I support the idea of checking that accounts are active, but I disagree with various aspects of your implementation.
First, Leneerra has a valid point about the API. You don't need the API for your stated purpose of ensuring the account is active, as any forum/ingame communication also would suffice. Why do you say that fighting RMT requires API access, when there are so many other options? I don't see why you would need or should have details on our characters' skills, wallets, corporations, standings, etc. You aren't even promising to take only the necessary information. Instead, you want to retrieve and store information that may be completely unrelated to bank operations.
Second, the requirement that accounts are accessed every 3 months discourages long-term deposits which would be beneficial to the bank.
Also, why did you choose 700B as the limit for liquidation withdrawals? Is there an advantage to having 700B? If anything, I would expect that having less ISK would make it easier to increase your percentage return.
|
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 02:21:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan I support the idea of checking that accounts are active, but I disagree with various aspects of your implementation.
First, Leneerra has a valid point about the API. You don't need the API for your stated purpose of ensuring the account is active, as any forum/ingame communication also would suffice. Why do you say that fighting RMT requires API access, when there are so many other options? I don't see why you would need or should have details on our characters' skills, wallets, corporations, standings, etc. You aren't even promising to take only the necessary information. Instead, you want to retrieve and store information that may be completely unrelated to bank operations.
Second, the requirement that accounts are accessed every 3 months discourages long-term deposits which would be beneficial to the bank.
Also, why did you choose 700B as the limit for liquidation withdrawals? Is there an advantage to having 700B? If anything, I would expect that having less ISK would make it easier to increase your percentage return.
Percentage return isn't relevant here. Apologies, but I just can't bring myself to type out the reasons why.
I think they picked 700B ISK since it was slightly more than they have right now. This way, depositors are drawing out earnings rather than reducing the bank's working capital.
By the way, I'm not too keen on giving up my banking alt's API keys either. I understand that it is an automated method that saves them from the tedium of thousands of convos and checking each depositor off one by one. But I still don't like it. How about a script to check eve-search for the latest post from each account holder? I bet you could talk Chribba into building you a custom interface...
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 02:34:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Wyehr
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan I support the idea of checking that accounts are active, but I disagree with various aspects of your implementation.
First, Leneerra has a valid point about the API. You don't need the API for your stated purpose of ensuring the account is active, as any forum/ingame communication also would suffice. Why do you say that fighting RMT requires API access, when there are so many other options? I don't see why you would need or should have details on our characters' skills, wallets, corporations, standings, etc. You aren't even promising to take only the necessary information. Instead, you want to retrieve and store information that may be completely unrelated to bank operations.
Second, the requirement that accounts are accessed every 3 months discourages long-term deposits which would be beneficial to the bank.
Also, why did you choose 700B as the limit for liquidation withdrawals? Is there an advantage to having 700B? If anything, I would expect that having less ISK would make it easier to increase your percentage return.
Percentage return isn't relevant here. Apologies, but I just can't bring myself to type out the reasons why.
I think they picked 700B ISK since it was slightly more than they have right now. This way, depositors are drawing out earnings rather than reducing the bank's working capital.
By the way, I'm not too keen on giving up my banking alt's API keys either. I understand that it is an automated method that saves them from the tedium of thousands of convos and checking each depositor off one by one. But I still don't like it. How about a script to check eve-search for the latest post from each account holder? I bet you could talk Chribba into building you a custom interface...
If atomating is the problem you can use an specific in-game channel where people has to talk and be recorded by the logs on certain hours, then you automatice from there. You can use Eve chat watch for that, look at the tech lab to find it. _+_ "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
EVEwatch Sidebar soon |
Brock Nelson
Caldari Flux Technologies Inc SRS.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 02:41:00 -
[69]
Seems like a solid plan, just one thing:
Why the change in term of agreement? Everyone abide by EBank's term before and now, you guys changed the term while holding account holder's isk hostage. Why not give everyone a chance to withdraw their isk before changing the term of agreement? Especially for those that doesn't want to give EBank their API key?
Tools for Research Business
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 02:44:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Wyehr Percentage return isn't relevant here. Apologies, but I just can't bring myself to type out the reasons why.
I think they picked 700B ISK since it was slightly more than they have right now. This way, depositors are drawing out earnings rather than reducing the bank's working capital
Percentage return probably wasn't the right term. What I meant was the amount of money they are making over EBANK's total liabilities - the percentage in terms of liabilities, not working capital. I hope you agree that this is the relevant factor. The idea was that by allowing liquidation withdrawals, they are decreasing working capital, but decreasing liabilities even more thanks to the 5% fee.
|
|
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 02:58:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Wyehr Percentage return isn't relevant here. Apologies, but I just can't bring myself to type out the reasons why.
I think they picked 700B ISK since it was slightly more than they have right now. This way, depositors are drawing out earnings rather than reducing the bank's working capital
Percentage return probably wasn't the right term. What I meant was the amount of money they are making over EBANK's total liabilities - the percentage in terms of liabilities, not working capital. I hope you agree that this is the relevant factor. The idea was that by allowing liquidation withdrawals, they are decreasing working capital, but decreasing liabilities even more thanks to the 5% fee.
Keep in mind that I'm not affiliated with the bank at all, other than the ISK that my alt deposited. I get all my information from these threads and the balance sheet (linked in the second post).
They only have 61 billion ISK liquid; the other 620 billion are invested. They really can't set the bar much lower than 700 billion or they lose what little liquidity they currently have. I don't know what they intend to do with that liquidity, but it is probably more useful right now than the percentage fee.
To be quite honest, I don't understand the liquidation process they are proposing. The way I read it is that I can request a liquidation which zeros my account, and in return I get
payout = [my account nominal value] * ([estimated NAV] / [current liabilities]) * .95 Anyone else have any insight?
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 03:25:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Wyehr
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Percentage return probably wasn't the right term. What I meant was the amount of money they are making over EBANK's total liabilities - the percentage in terms of liabilities, not working capital. I hope you agree that this is the relevant factor. The idea was that by allowing liquidation withdrawals, they are decreasing working capital, but decreasing liabilities even more thanks to the 5% fee.
Keep in mind that I'm not affiliated with the bank at all, other than the ISK that my alt deposited. I get all my information from these threads and the balance sheet (linked in the second post).
They only have 61 billion ISK liquid; the other 620 billion are invested. They really can't set the bar much lower than 700 billion or they lose what little liquidity they currently have. I don't know what they intend to do with that liquidity, but it is probably more useful right now than the percentage fee.
To be quite honest, I don't understand the liquidation process they are proposing. The way I read it is that I can request a liquidation which zeros my account, and in return I get
payout = [my account nominal value] * ([estimated NAV] / [current liabilities]) * .95 Anyone else have any insight?
Why does liquidity matter when normal withdrawals are frozen and liquidation withdrawals can be limited as necessary? Every liquidation withdrawal increases the NAV/liabilities ratio. It is more useful to pay out available ISK in liquidation withdrawals than to invest it, especially since their current ROI is so low.
I think that formula for payout is correct.
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 04:31:00 -
[73]
Another thought: when a player makes a withdrawal, it is probably unnecessary to check that his account is active, since he can't access the ISK anyways if his account is inactive. You can still write off dormant deposits based on whether he has logged into the EBANK web site. Therefore, there is no need to check that the EVE account is active, except for transfers to other players, which most players do not need to use.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 05:16:00 -
[74]
The Limited API Key requirement is not negotiable, we will not use alternative methods to verify your account status. Failure to provide your Limited API Key will result in your ISK remaining in your Suspense Account for the next few months until it is considered dormant and written off (pending final decisions on that process). I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not change our stance on this.
I will reply to the other questions and suggestions later this evening.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 05:21:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Jas Dor
I can see some folks with heavy involvement in EvE politics, for example certain former BoB members, not wanting to disclose their account mains, especially if dropping several billion isk into an account.
What are you trying to say? It looks to me like you are saying that I'm a former BoB member Yet all characters I own are fully disclosed.
Quote: (I further note that EBank is heavily invested in Titan BPO's, neglect to act forthrightly and sell these BPO's has benefited the political alliances that various board members are involved in, while leaving the account holders with assets about to get nerfed into oblivion).
Wow, get your tinfoil hats guys!
I'm sorry, but that's just silly.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 05:55:00 -
[76]
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.
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 06:00:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Tesal on 23/11/2009 06:03:44 Whats with all the middle fingers?
Also...
What collateral is for sale now?
Will there be EBank collateral auctions any time, and if so how will you go about that?
I heard rumors about you selling non-performing loans as well, any truth to that?
*edit Its also common practice for Bank disclosure to announce names of people who are about to lose their money in a bank for not claiming their stuff. You should announce a list of people and how much isk they stand to lose on MD prior to seizing their assets. This way their friends have a chance of getting a hold of them.
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 06:08:00 -
[78]
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?
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 06:15:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Leneerra 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?
I just thought of something, posting on the forums proves your account isn't banned right?
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Moya81
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 06:17:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Ray McCormack I'm going to let the vote pass as a YES with a clause that we need to obtain further community input and discussion on the final write-off of ISK.
Originally by: Ray McCormack The Limited API Key requirement is not negotiable, we will not use alternative methods to verify your account status. Failure to provide your Limited API Key will result in your ISK remaining in your Suspense Account for the next few months until it is considered dormant and written off (pending final decisions on that process). I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not change our stance on this.
Your replies are confusing and contradictory...
|
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 06:21:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Tesal
I just thought of something, posting on the forums proves your account isn't banned right?
Yep. As does sending an evemail, or transferring .01 isk, or any number of other non-invasive, more agreeable methods.
But this way sounds a lot more hilarious. I anxiously await further announcements, timed in such a way as to prevent all of this nonsense from fading out of the collective consciousness into obscurity. ----------------
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 06:39:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Tesal
I just thought of something, posting on the forums proves your account isn't banned right?
Yep. As does sending an evemail, or transferring .01 isk, or any number of other non-invasive, more agreeable methods.
But this way sounds a lot more hilarious. I anxiously await further announcements, timed in such a way as to prevent all of this nonsense from fading out of the collective consciousness into obscurity.
I don't think that is why though, I think they want to make sure they don't give isk to people who already stole from the bank. Mr Horizontal probably set up dummy accounts where you will need the API to make sure they are not him.
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 07:02:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Tesal I just thought of something, posting on the forums proves your account isn't banned right?
*edit Easier than doing all the API crap. Just an idea.
They know that as it has already suggested, and this Ray's quote proves that they want the API key for another reason not related with RMT. If I'm wrong I would like to hear why API key is strictly neccesary and no other method can be used. Originally by: Ray McCormack The Limited API Key requirement is not negotiable, we will not use alternative methods to verify your account status. Failure to provide your Limited API Key will result in your ISK remaining in your Suspense Account for the next few months until it is considered dormant and written off (pending final decisions on that process). I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not change our stance on this.
I will reply to the other questions and suggestions later this evening.
Saying that it is not negotiable without giving any reason is just another great example of how eBank is, all that talk about change and transparency is just a big lie, all I see is the same opacy and unillateral forced decisions as before. The only change I see in eBank is that now they are saying some numbers for the public show. It is possible that it is a PR problem, but if it were that It has been made on purpose. It is impossible to handle PR so bad unless you do it on purpose, I would apply to the PR to help on that issue, but what's the point when there is no desire to inform the public? The other thing that refrains me from doing so being of course your illustrated dictatorship where the people to whom you owe all eBank is and whom money shapes eBank has no word and is punished for raising their concerns. What have changed within eBank besides it's board? _+_ "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
EVEwatch Sidebar soon |
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 07:16:00 -
[84]
The API key verification came up as an idea originally to combat RMT, it also had the side benefit of linking alt accounts within ebank for loan forfeits so that additional loans could not be given out, and so asset recovery could be made on those forfeits.
While the posting/0.1 isk transfer/whatever to say you are active suggestions are nice (and partially helpful), not everyone is able to log in at required time nor choose to post on forums, API was the easiest, had the best coverage and most automatic way we could do it.
I fully understand why people wouldn't want to give up their API key for this, but the information contained in what we are accessing is purely for automating purposes, we are not going to sit there and examine the data - there is simply way too much info even if we cared to look through it.
Basically it comes down to trusting us not to misuse that data, and while I understand that is asking a lot in light of previous management of the bank, keep in mind that we are not running this bank for personal gain at this point - the amount of work/time being put into this is purely to get it back up and running and get YOUR isk back to you. We make nothing out of it (other than some weird sense of satisfaction of solving a problem, at least for me).
So, as others have already said, if you don't want to give up your limited API key, fine, but your accounts will be zero'd as it's the only way we can secure the bank from future RMT problems as well as help guarantee bad loans from effecting you. ----------------------
My Blog |
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 07:20:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Ray McCormack After six months any balances remaining in suspense accounts will be written off.
I believe that's the kicker there. In six months we'll see all the inactive accounts closed and the attached liability written off, placing the bank in better shape to provide for the remaining active accounts.
I'm curious, were I to access my account now, provide my current limited API key, then log off and change my API key, would that then take me out of 'suspended' status ?
-----------------------------------------------
- Who Dares, Wins
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 07:48:00 -
[86]
I want to dedicate this for eBank. Originally by: Ray I'll refrain from commenting (it would just be sarcastic anyway, right?) until the various bits and bobs that need to be in place for it to be posted are (in place).
Now that you are back from being an extreme *******, I would like to put this again to you to consider if you truly want to "recover all ISK lost due to the mismanagement of previous Directors", but at the same time "ensure our long-term sustainability as the leading financial institution in EVE" and by sustainability I mean customer base. And please stop saying "return (the money) to its full value" because that is just fallacious, since you frozen acounts it is impossible to do that due to the isk losing the increasing value that it would have in time. 1B today would be more than 1B in a month or year. There it goes again, loaning people their own isk in a way that let's them use it without losing them as customers and letting people who can make money better help you to close the hole: "Or you could let people get 25-30% of their isks (a fixed percentage of eBanks money value) charging them slightly more interest than the returns you make, revised monthly and payed from their eBank acount, forcing you to keep transparency and proper acounting. Let them put their money back when they see you are making it better. Restrict transactions timing to avoid liquidity problems. Put that bank machine of yours to work again.
This way the people who can make more money than you will help you to fill the gap while not unbinding themselves from ebank, and at the same time you keep people interested about the evolution of eBank from month to month, instead of discussing the number of years it will take for eBank to recover while stealing their money. If you want to bet for eBank, let people bet against you. If you don't want to bet for eBank, liquidate and give people their money."Since you are charging them slightly more than what your returns are you must have no problems paying people, since you are increasing your profits with every loan you make and the more people that retires their money, the more easy it becomes to make money for you and the more you can charge to people who loan their own money. Put enough time between requesting loans and getting the monney to let you maintain liquidity and let people decide the fate of the bank. When you prove them that you can make money better than then, people will regain the comfidence in you. If you can not make money better than your customers, you shouldn't have the money in the first place. _+_ "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
EVEwatch Sidebar soon |
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 07:58:00 -
[87]
Lets see what Skulled has to say lately. I think this guy had something to do with that guy, whats his name...ah yes, I remember now, Mr Horizontal. He sounds a remarkably like a Goon.
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 08:29:00 -
[88]
Personally, I'm in favor of the "Sending .01 to verify activity" method. I currently have .01 isk locked in Ebank that I would like back.
Some might call this "sending good money after bad" but I figure, "In for a penny, in for a second penny" ----------------
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 08:30:00 -
[89]
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.
|
Ambo
I've Got Nothing
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 08:59:00 -
[90]
Woohoo! Mentioned in an ebank post!
Anyway, I think all the ideas for getting things back on track are very good. I expect a very large portion of ebank's debt to be written off in 6 months time.
I do wonder though, how many people will turn up in 6+ months, looking to discover how ebank is doing, only to find that all their isk has been written off without them ever knowing anything about it. --------------------------------------
|
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:01:00 -
[91]
Sofar I've actually had no problems with how EBANK has tried to solve their problems.
But demanding API keys is too much.
And the stated reasons for why doesnt really hold water imo.
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.
Please EBANK, do reconsider and try and come up with something else instead.
From an ease of coding perspective I think the suggestion made of simply logging a chat channel (and search for the names - this is easily automated) is the simplest solution that would satisfie just about everyone (EBANK and customers)
BIG Lottery |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:19:00 -
[92]
I'm totally going to run my next IPO by recieving investments, and rather than payout dividends, just keep track of it as interest. Once the dust settles a few months later after people sink their money in, I'll say "Give me your API keys and EVEMail me every 6 months or I run off with your money!"
Brilliant!
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:22:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
Brilliant!
Thank you! --------
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:27:00 -
[94]
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.
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:30:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 23/11/2009 10:31:09
Originally by: SentryRaven
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
Brilliant!
Thank you!
Serious! If EBank pulls this off, given it's size and notoriety, and retains enough support from the MD notables, it'll change the face of investments, and legitimise changing business rules on the fly to essentially ransom customers/investors and play them against each other. People throw money at someone, who then lays out some ground rules, and is the judge of who wins and who loses.
I honestly can't think of anything more fantastic and simultaneously hilarious at the same time.
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:34:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
I honestly can't think of anything more fantastic and simultaneously hilarious at the same time.
We aim to please. --------
|
Aerilis
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:44:00 -
[97]
As a depositor with a significant amount of isk in ebank, I would just like to take a moment to thank Ray and all current board members for doing what they can. I may not agree with all the policy changes/the way they're doing things, but they deserve a lot more than the **** they're getting for the work they're doing.
At the end of the day, its just pixels.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:04:00 -
[98]
Please stop talking about "voiding", "suspending" or "writing off" the isk in people's accounts. Any account that is closed has had its isk stolen. Period. I have a bond going at the moment. If I were to change the terms and conditions for any reason at all, impose new requirements on my investors, and then keep the isk of anyone who refused to fall into line, I would have stolen this isk. The fact that EBank calls itself a bank and likes to use semi-technical terms does not change the facts of what it is trying to do here, which is taking other people's isk without their permission so as to make their own balance sheet look better.
The idea that this helps customers because the remaining customers will get their isk back sooner is completely fallacious and based on a distinction between two classes of customer. The first class can have all their isk expropriated in order to help the second class. The strategy is not one aimed at helping customers - it is one aimed at keeping some ebank customers happy by scamming the account contents from others. There is no possible way in which the expropriation of account balances can be thought of as anything other than a scam on those account holders.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:16:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 23/11/2009 11:16:48
Quote:
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?
1) I missed the CCP ultimatum to EBANK about sorting out their RMT depositors or forced closure.
So, unless it's your unilateral decision for some commendable-yet-not essential "catch the farmer" operation *now*, the RMT is an excuse.
Better would be to be just honest and say: "we are going to leverage on RMTs with their huge wallets not to dare to feed us their API key so we have some serious big amounts of "free" money we know they will never claim back with this "give API" entry barrier.
2) I missed how by giving an API, the same guys who were smart enough to create fake alt games were not smart enough to create them off multiple separate accounts.
What happens when "(purely fictional) Mr Vertical" claims ISK back with 10 different APIs that you did not previously catch?
3) Another obvious thing I miss: it's laughably easy to figure out how the "no ones" won't have a problem giving you their API to get back their 200M they mined in so many hours.
At the same time, conversely, it's totally predictable to figure out how the "fat wallets" won't want to give you out their privacy because they value it more than the (now theoretical, hence easier to part off) 5B they have in your coffers.
Net result: wealthy people will basically gift EBANK some solid billions and this cannot be something random, I figured it out in 3 minutes that it'd end up like that.
Grand total result: unclaimable billions off RMT farmers plus "refuse to be ransomed" billions off wealthy players.
Ultimately it kinda works to move equity into usable funds. The result is a much quicker bank recover, but then, it shows that the bank did not change that much in their ways of conducting business.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:42:00 -
[100]
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?
|
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:47:00 -
[101]
So did skillrulz provide collateral? If not, I'd like a loan for 90 bil please. I promise to pay.
Luv,
Jovial |
Utemetsu
Caldari Parahelion Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:49:00 -
[102]
I think, mind you thats 'think', that the reason behind the massive number of defaulted loans is the complete lack of a debtor agency. There's really no consequence having your loan default, aside from a credability hit. What I think would behoove EBANK is a collection arm -- a group of PvP folks who would chase after those that ran away with their money and get it back or cause some kind of ruccus with the debtor. If there's consequence, then they'll pay their loans. Just a thought.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 13:00:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 23/11/2009 13:00:04
Quote:
I think, mind you thats 'think', that the reason behind the massive number of defaulted loans is the complete lack of a debtor agency. There's really no consequence having your loan default, aside from a credability hit.
Actually you should exactly turn the reasonment 180¦:
Since it's well known there's no consequence at defaulting a loan, precautions should be taken not to end up in the situation of needing a debtor agency.
Quote:
What I think would behoove EBANK is a collection arm -- a group of PvP folks who would chase after those that ran away with their money and get it back or cause some kind of ruccus with the debtor. If there's consequence, then they'll pay their loans. Just a thought.
Alts (like for the pluri-defaulted General Newbold) and station hugging alts are never going to suffer off any retaliation. And biomass is the quick solution to credibility hits.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 13:06:00 -
[104]
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?
|
Katiana Swan
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:04:00 -
[105]
Well the biggest default by far is the KIA one (Exernastia) and to the best of my knowledge that pilot, her corporation and alliance are all flying around like nothing has changed (other than their increased wallet balances).
EBANK should have hired mercenary forces against them but also now that details and information has been public for months you would think that ebank customers would also be interested in damaging their operations in the hopes to reclaim some of their funds back.
I was reading the last ebank forum thread and the last week or so comprising of about 2-3 pages of haikus would have seemed to indicate most people dont actually care about getting their money back.
That or the people on the market discussion forum mostly didnt have a large investment into ebank in the first place (players who reside in alternate areas of the game?)
I think ebank could just about turn on ability to withdraw entirely with the exchange rate set at 30% and they would still easily be able to hold things running without issue. I think a lot of the money in ebank now is from characters who either no longer play, gave up on ebank after hearing about the thefts or forget they have money there.
My belief is that in 6 months we will see ebank write off debt to the tune of at least 500 billion isk due to people not meeting the requirements (entering API keys or logging in within 3 months).
That is precisely why I think ebank is doing things this way. Make it hard to keep your money accessible so it is far easier to recover from the deficit. I guess it's a valid tactic but in my opinion it still amounts to theft.
Had the terms been set this way before someone signed an account, then it would be their own fault, but they weren't. I hope at the absolute least, all ebank customers are being emailed and/or evemailed with a copy of the statement on page 1.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:14:00 -
[106]
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.
|
Dasola
Minmatar Equitatus Of Apocalypse Maru Ka'ge
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:24:00 -
[107]
Just wondering if ebanks board would be willing to publish their own limited apikeys so we (customers) can verify that their accounts are active and ho we are really dealing with.
After all they demand our apikeys for "verification" purposes, so surely we have right to demand same. --- We mine, we grind, we build, we destroy Always recruiting new industrial minded players, ingame contact: Dasola |
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:26:00 -
[108]
I'm also starting to see some serious problems arising between buyouts and liquidations. I could buyout 40b worth of discounted deposits at say 20-25% of face value then clean out the liquidations at the start of the next month. Then I can buy up more for 20-25% from everyone who thought they could liquidate at 35%+, rinse and repeat.
|
Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:03:00 -
[109]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
First of all, our old "customers" also include people involved with RMT. That's a fact. In order to cover our ass, using the API key is a must. I really think that's all there is to it. It's a necessary evil.
Nope. Sending 0.01 ISK is as good as a method to check that an account is still active.
And yes many people alts, skillpoints and wallet balance are confidential. -- 081014 : emoragequit, char transfered to a friend, 090317 : back to original owner blog |
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:21:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Katiana Swan I was reading the last ebank forum thread and the last week or so comprising of about 2-3 pages of haikus would have seemed to indicate most people dont actually care about getting their money back.
That only means that Ray's strategy on being an ***hole was starting to be successful, just look at the 40 previous pages. _+_ "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
EVEwatch Sidebar soon |
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:30:00 -
[111]
Quote: We would like to take this opportunity to state that the current Board is in no way responsible for the financial position the bank finds itself in. Those remaining on the Board have had their roles and activities under the previous management thoroughly reviewed and have been cleared in full of any wrong doing.
Can we get more information around this piece, or consolidate the conclusions? Bits of information have been scattered across many threads. In ebank customers really don't have a say in who is running this show. However, ebank employees' involvement in other projects and future launches could be suspect without a very clear picture of their innocence in this matter.
My point of view is that the order of blame looks something like this:
[Tier 1]First, there are the theives/issuers of defaulted loans which may be called out. These are the folks that directly lost customer's money, and in most cases profited from it.
[Tier 2]Once this isk is accounted for (not necessarily recovered, but at least the gap explained) - what is left? Here there is an opportunity for senior management to step up and take accountability for losing the remaining funds. Senior management/BoD members may not have been directly responsible for losing the funds, but had the most say in placing those thieves in their positions without enough oversight to stop/contain them.
[Tier 3]Finally, if there are remaining unaccounted funds that no one is willing to be responsible for, responsibility should be shared by all involved parties. Obviously this is not the same as someone stealing the money, but they are still tainted by the fiasco.
Now - it would be ideal that all funds could be accounted in tier 1 - that is that ebank could identify at least where every missing penny went, and who authorized or left the barn door open to allow it to happen. It would be acceptable if we had more folks like Hexxx that stood up and took blame for what happened. It would be a shame to see all of ebank's former employees, many who really are innocent of any wrongdoing, misconduct or irresponsibility, to be tainted by their involvement with the bank.
Ideally, I would like to see an itemized list by who would fall in each category, and what isk they would be accountable for in that category.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:31:00 -
[112]
Originally by: RAW23
The idea that this helps customers because the remaining customers will get their isk back sooner is completely fallacious and based on a distinction between two classes of customer. The first class can have all their isk expropriated in order to help the second class. The strategy is not one aimed at helping customers - it is one aimed at keeping some ebank customers happy by scamming the account contents from others. There is no possible way in which the expropriation of account balances can be thought of as anything other than a scam on those account holders.
Could not have put this better myself.
Accounts, bonds and investments remain the property of the investor and can NEVER be legally or morally expropriated without permission.
All "locked" ebank accounts are STOLEN PROPERTY which the directors have no right to dispose of without the express permission of the property holders. Ebank continues to violate the principles of private property rights whilst pretending to be some kind of capitalist institution. It is not. Anyone using, disposing of, expropriating or otherwise modifying or taking it upon themselves to use the property of others without their express permission is a thief, engaged in a criminal act.
Ebank is a criminal/anti-capitalist institution that doesn't understand the basic principles of property and contract rights that a bank is supposed to be founded upon.
|
EBANK SencneS
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:35:00 -
[113]
This thread is also being used to collect opinions and options for :Account Closings:
The Issue:- As LVV has said there is a good chance EBANK holds ISK from accounts that have been banned for RMT. Where does this come from? After EBANK announced that it is freezing accounts, we got word that RTM forums where lighting up with EBANK Threads about frozen accounts. While this is not "Great" evidence, we can't ignore that what got a good amount of ISK locked away on Ricdic it's possible when Ricdic's RMT activity uncovered a massive RMT ring, all because we petitioned a questionable withdrawal, days later massive amounts of banning took place. (The last line was my opinion of observed events). Logic would conclude that EBANK does hold ISK that came from RMT accounts being banned.
Every time we collect 1 user with 1 ISK that was banned, verified by API, that's 1 ISK is removed from the deficit.
So... we have the Issue and the reasons why API was inacted. While there are other ways to show accounts are active, you have to keep in mind one simple thing..
There are 9000+ Characters registered with accounts in EBANK. A forum post for verification proves you're active and not banned, and while I would personally monitor a thread about it, I'm not sure CCP would like it. Everyone needs to consider that anything to verify account HAS to come from EVE some how. Because of the 9000+ accounts any way we do this we have to consider that CCP might not like it at all. You HAVE to remember that, you HAVE to consider this when posting "Other ways" to verify active status.
Think of the load on the CCPs server for a forum post. For me, I would need to post 3 times to verify my three characters on ONE account. A lot of user have 3 characters all registered I would wager. Where do we post this "Verification" thread? "Hey CCP We're going to post a thread for pure verification of account activation, where do we put this?" You see the problems.
We can't and people forget this all the time. EBANK suffers from one thing. SHEER SIZE, it limits us in what we can do, period.
Account closing:- This one of the things I pushed back on, One of EBANK's big sales points was "Store your ISK if you plan on leaving EVE for a while." I like that selling point and I want to keep it. So I'm going to post what I proposed on, with a few things added.
1) Accounts inactive time goes from 3 months to 6 months. So you can be idle for 6 months before ISK is moved into a Suspend account, which has not interest. 2) An option is added to every account "Hold my account" The user checks this option to prevent the account from closing, 3 months after being moved into suspended status. There is a monthly fee for this, 1% per month. Meaning every 30 days from 9 Months of inactive status, 1% of your account is removed from you balance until you have nothing left. Users that do not check this option will get the account balance cleared after 9 months. 3) EBANK Archives the account rather then closes it down, IT removes the liabilities from it's list, closes the account but archives the balance. It stores that balance for 6 additional months. After the 6 months are up it removes the archive and the ISK is totally written-off. 4) EBANK includes a minimal account balance. 5,000 ISK in Homage of the 5,000 starting ISK. Once your account balance is below 5,000 ISK after it reaches a suspended status it closes the account and writes-off. Yes, this would also include the "Hold my account" option, if you account balance is 5,000 or below it gets written off and closed.
This is my proposal, however I would greatly like public opinion of this and any ideas or consideration with any plan.
If you like what I proposed simply post "I like SencneS Idea" or "I like it but it needs to be...." etc.
Be honest and clear, this policy is not set in stone, and it have been voted to collect public opinion before finalization.
Now is your time to help form EBANK policy, use it wisely :) SencneS Board of Directors EBANK |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:49:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
Originally by: Ray McCormack The Limited API Key requirement is not negotiable, we will not use alternative methods to verify your account status. Failure to provide your Limited API Key will result in your ISK remaining in your Suspense Account for the next few months until it is considered dormant and written off (pending final decisions on that process). I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not change our stance on this.
I will reply to the other questions and suggestions later this evening.
Ah, you're entering the intel selling business then? If not why do you want to gather so much information?
That's my takeaway too. Classic EVEconomics: whoever's holding the isk gets to make the rules.
This feels like a scam: you're ransoming your customers for information with their account balances they trusted you with. I don't think the onus is on the customer to prove anything, at this point.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:50:00 -
[115]
As it is unlikely that anyone will be able to get any money out anytime soon (except those that deposited after the account freeze, about 104 billion ISK* of them - and they jump through the hoops) why not wait for Dominion/Moondoggie and use CCP's IGB trusted/verification system?
I do not understand how a limited API can be used to track RMT (surely CCP's job) as it does not give wallet access and at least one (ex?) EBANK employee HAS RMT'd so where is our reciprocal improved safety? Afterall, anyone of the past or present (and the past but still present) Board of EBANK could be a Ricdic alt unless you all give us your limited APIs.
* Strange figures Total deposits 2009.08.28; 9,963,023,961,104.58 Total deposits 2009.11.19; 10,067,160,342,355.50 BUT Total deposits 2009.11.22; 9,953,856,206,012.77
-- --
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:56:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar As it is unlikely that anyone will be able to get any money out anytime soon (except those that deposited after the account freeze, about 104 billion ISK* of them - and they jump through the hoops) why not wait for Dominion/Moondoggie and use CCP's IGB trusted/verification system?
That system is really damn easy to spoof.
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:57:00 -
[117]
Quote: Every time we collect 1 user with 1 ISK that was banned, verified by API, that's 1 ISK is removed from the deficit.
This doesn't make sense. If your bank is holding assets associated with RMT, are those assets not liable to be wiped out? Do you have a clear record how much isk was lost by either Ricdic's character or GMs zapping isk? What gives you confidence that further ISK won't be zapped?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:09:00 -
[118]
Notice how the communist Ebank claim a spurious "but this is backed by CCP" by saying things like - "I'm not sure CCP would like it" and "We have to consider that CCP might not like it at all"
No actual quotes, statements, policies or facts backing up this position though is there? You are trying to give the impression your position has been forced on you by CCP, but has it really?
Also, regarding the API key collection, don't you have a Data Protection Act in your country?
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:19:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Basically it comes down to trusting us not to misuse that data
Do you know how much intel is worth?
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:30:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Also, regarding the API key collection, don't you have a Data Protection Act in your country?
The Data Protection Act applies to in game information?
|
|
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:32:00 -
[121]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Marcus Baltar As it is unlikely that anyone will be able to get any money out anytime soon (except those that deposited after the account freeze, about 104 billion ISK* of them - and they jump through the hoops) why not wait for Dominion/Moondoggie and use CCP's IGB trusted/verification system?
That system is really damn easy to spoof.
He doesn't mean the current system which is, as you point out, really damn easy to spoof. He is talking about a new validation system that lets a webserver verify through some method that the headers from the IGB are legit. Last I heard, the initial release of the new IGB will not include validation, but the devs know how useful it would be and hope to add it in the future.
While I really do hope that the ebank folks come up with a less invasive procedure, it sounds like they are pretty much set on this course.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:37:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Jackie Fisher
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Also, regarding the API key collection, don't you have a Data Protection Act in your country?
The Data Protection Act applies to in game information?
If I gave someone my API key and my account/computer got hacked because of it, I would take them to court for failing to securely store my information.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:42:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Breaker77 Are any of the older members (since before the Ricdic scandal) still at EBank? If so how are they not responsible for what has happened?
The remaining board members are Athre, Amarr Citizen 155 and SencneS.
Athre was head teller and then appointed acting CEO after the Ricdic incident. Her first move, together with AC155, was to bring me on board to conduct the internal audit that led to the deficit being revealed.
AC155 was in charge of running a venture, and having taken over a venture from Ricdic realised it was in no way profitable and proceeded to liquidate it.
SencneS was effectively a backup Director in charge of payroll.
Neither of their responsibilities saw dereliction of duty, they were in fact the best run divisions in the bank.
Originally by: Breaker77 Was there no system to check up on each other or even view internally loan/debts EBbank had?
There doesn't appear to be. In fact, an unsecured loan just came to light that was issued to a board member (at the time) at a ridiculously low rate of 2%. None of the current board members knew of that decision, nor is there any documentation detailing the reasons for the loan.
Originally by: Breaker77 If there was not such a system in place, is one being worked on to make sure that this situation doesn't happen again in a year?
Yes, internal policies are being worked on. We hope for our Compliance Officer to flesh them out over time.
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus PS: I don't see the horrible loan terms you were offering in the last thread, have you finally realised that they didn't make any sense and have you finally pulled them out?[/justify]
No, they are still active. I will add them to the post when I get a chance.
Originally by: Leneerra what I consider private is: 2 other chars on my single account
And that is the exact reason for the Limited API requirement. We want to know that information. Why should we pay you out if you're an alt of a loan defaulter or former disgraced board member?
The TOS have changed for the benefit of all account holders, not for the benefit of the staff.
Originally by: Dal Thrax As somebody who's spend some time in an alliance with Mr. Horizontal, and who invested in E-Bank due to his involvement, I would be very interested in hearing why his accounts were liquidated.
Because he faked 90b worth of deposits in the back-end and attempted to steal that from account holders.
Originally by: Jas Dor I move that the board consider a resolution to wind up the corporation, liquidate all assets, and make a pro rate distribution to the account holders of all isk received.
Request denied.
Originally by: Proton Power Is it possible to do what your trying to do with inactive accounts any other way other than via API.
Sure, but that's not the only reason for the API requirement.
Originally by: Proton Power Instead of 6mths inactivity I would personally say go 8.
The military was something that came up during the vote, and we're willing to listen to this in our discussion group, which will be formed shortly (well, within the next few months).
Originally by: Amaarrah Can I put my ISK from Suspence account into Checking Account and get 1.5 %? If not when will this be possible?
You can move it there, but interest will not be activated until the conditions outlined in the first announcement are met.
Originally by: Wyehr ]I think they picked 700B ISK since it was slightly more than they have right now. This way, depositors are drawing out earnings rather than reducing the bank's working capital.
Correct, it's also closer to the capital amount the bank can handle effectively at the moment.
Originally by: Wyehr How about a script to check eve-search for the latest post from each account holder?
The various other reasons, such as identifying alts on accounts, make this suggestion moot.
|
RothimusPrime
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:43:00 -
[124]
If any IPO, Bond, Fund, etc changed the terms of the agreement then they would be forever branded a scammer by MD. There is no difference between that and these new changes.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:47:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Dzil
Quote: Every time we collect 1 user with 1 ISK that was banned, verified by API, that's 1 ISK is removed from the deficit.
This doesn't make sense. If your bank is holding assets associated with RMT, are those assets not liable to be wiped out? Do you have a clear record how much isk was lost by either Ricdic's character or GMs zapping isk? What gives you confidence that further ISK won't be zapped?
Understandable, while I'm sure ISK has been removed from accounts, we KNOW some has. This is an action we're taking to see if there is any banned ISK out there in our accounts. There is a two stage effect here.
1) ISK that a GM removed would have been removed from either EBANK Ricdic or EBANK Corp. Since we have been tracking the EBANK Corp we've captured any GM reversals that may have happened. However, EBANK Ricdic might not have captured them all. If a GM took ISK from EBANK Ricdic it needed to be manually checked because of the way the ISK is removed. So if Ricdic didn't report it (Some he did, but we can't make sure he did them all, we just don't trust he did them all.) The account balance in EBANK would have remained the same. So while EBANK is out the ISK the GM reversed, EBANK's records show that user still has the ISK. This is what we're trying to find out. This is a direct liability reduction on the deficit, EBANK didn't make any gains from this scenario.
2) The other scenario, The account is banned, and the GM's took no actions on the ISK transfers. This is a direct GAIN for EBANK, and we're sure there are accounts like this, like both scenarios really. This means the account is Banned, EBANK got the ISK, and was never removed. While we doubt it will recover all, it should lower the amount of GM Reversed successfully laundered ISK. In which, the RMTer deposited into EBANK, transfer the ISK to someone else, that person withdraw it, and the GM Reversed the original deposit. (EBANK is out twice as much that way).
There is a real need for this, and this is really the only way to get this done.
Liberty Eternal Tin foil hat aside, I personally don't believe anyone should do anything to provoke CCP. In the past we have petitioned for somethings like the EVEMails that went out to every person. Sure we could have just gone ahead and done it anyway, but we'd risk getting banned. It's just common sense to seek approvals for activities outside the "Normal" expected operations.
Using the EVE forum to collect 9000+ character postings for account activity verification is not good, and is prone to being locked by a Mod. And there is not exactly a set forum for this. We could use General, but it would not be stickied in there, so we'd have to constantly bump it, At some point in time, enough people could report it for spamming and a MOD/DEV/GM lock it out.. :(
Amarr for Life |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:54:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Brock Nelson Why not give everyone a chance to withdraw their isk before changing the term of agreement?
Because we don't want to allow those that are in debt to the bank this opportunity.
Originally by: Moya81
Originally by: Ray McCormack I'm going to let the vote pass as a YES with a clause that we need to obtain further community input and discussion on the final write-off of ISK.
Originally by: Ray McCormack The Limited API Key requirement is not negotiable, we will not use alternative methods to verify your account status. Failure to provide your Limited API Key will result in your ISK remaining in your Suspense Account for the next few months until it is considered dormant and written off (pending final decisions on that process). I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not change our stance on this.
Your replies are confusing and contradictory...
They're not, the first quote is regarding Suspense Accounts, as denoted by the "pending final decisions on that process" in the second quote.
I have read the rest of the replies up to this point and can't see anything else that warrants a reply from me. Please restate your question or ask for my attention in a further post if I haven't replied to you and feel I should have.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:02:00 -
[127]
SencneS, the game is over for Ebank. You admit that you have no way to verify every account, and also admit that CCP are not going to give you any extraordinary help or access to account information to help you police your customers. Collecting API keys is an abuse of power and a security problem in its own right.
Just as importantly, Ebank seem to have little or no respect for private property rights or contractual agreements. You are re-negotiating the terms as you go along in a high-handed fashion, trying to rebuild your business with isk that belongs to others. In my opinion you have lost your credibility as a legitimate capitalist operation and many others have come to the same conclusion.
No bank or economic system can prosper by ignoring the rights of the wealth-creators. Your moral and contractual obligations are simple - immediately cease the non-voluntary imposition of new terms on your customers and liquidate your holdings so as to return the property you hold to its rightful owners.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:05:00 -
[128]
If the API key is non-negotiable, then I don't see much point in debating it. A statement of dislike seems fine, though EBank has little rep to lose at this point, but pushing for a change in policy is wasted effort.
I'm not trying to be condescending, I just think there are other issues that might be worth addressing.
I guess if you really think the pressure will change their minds...I just don't.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:21:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Your moral and contractual obligations are simple - immediately cease the non-voluntary imposition of new terms on your customers and liquidate your holdings so as to return the property you hold to its rightful owners.
The board views it's moral obligations slightly different, and we're willing to make non-voluntary contractual changes when we believe those changes are in the interest of the majority of stakeholders.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:38:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Your moral and contractual obligations are simple - immediately cease the non-voluntary imposition of new terms on your customers and liquidate your holdings so as to return the property you hold to its rightful owners.
The board views it's moral obligations slightly different, and we're willing to make non-voluntary contractual changes when we believe those changes are in the interest of the majority of stakeholders.
There is no such thing as a non-voluntary contractual change. It ceases to be a contract when the original terms and conditions are changed without negotiation - it is then a forceful imposition. The only possible legitimate reason you may have to do this is to prevent theft, yet even then your method must be proven, efficient and timely.
You have suspended the contractual and private property rights of every single one of your customers. You must accept that you are no longer a functioning capitalistic entity until such time as you are able to restore them. If this is an anti-crime operation, then you must commit yourself to cleaning up accounts as quickly as possible, and then you must return account holdings to their rightful owners and only retain isk through mutual, voluntary agreement.
Don't cross the line from legitimate anti-crime operation to violator of private property rights. You must assure all interested parties that principles of contract and private property are your highest priority if you wish to be accepted as a genuine free-market institution.
|
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:39:00 -
[131]
Originally by: SetrakDark If the API key is non-negotiable, then I don't see much point in debating it.
I could lie and tell you we will take your objections into account, but the fact is the decision has been made and will not change. Perhaps some of our account holders appreciate that brutal honesty, if nothing else.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:49:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal If this is an anti-crime operation, then you must commit yourself to cleaning up accounts as quickly as possible, and then you must return account holdings to their rightful owners and only retain isk through mutual, voluntary agreement.
The issue is if we don't enforce the policy across the board then we lose the opportunity to catch those we're after, and we cannot be sure we have caught them all until every account holder supplies their Limited API Key or forfeits their accounts. If they do supply their Limited API Key, then they have accepted the contractual change, albeit under duress. However then they are then able to register their dissatisfaction with that change by withdrawing the ISK from their account or changing their Limited API Key (and only giving it to us once every few months to ensure their account remains active if they merely distrust us).
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:54:00 -
[133]
Firstly Sencnes idea is way better than the proposed on the announcement. Now, on the api issue, it is VERY curious that you guys put down the ideas that could not work but do not comment on the ideas that will do, what about the in-game channel and the 0.01 isk deposits? What do you have to object to that? If you want to require apis for future endeavours (and I'm still waiting for the real reason on why you want this), it is ok, but you must offer a way out for the people who do not want to abide by this new TOS. On the RMT comments, it is just hilarious to hear them and I'm going to put the smoke curtain off right away: Originally by: Krathos Morpheus I want to use this thread if you don't mind (too many EBank threads around here lately) to ask EBank's guys another question that maybe I've missed too in threadnaughts, but has this crisis been affected by RMT isks banning? And if so, Do you realise you guys are going to work to pay for who illegally obtained and lost money? Or am I missing something?
Originally by: Sencnes EBANK strives to work with CCP on possible RMT laundering thought EBANK. Any unusual account activity is reported to CCP when a withdrawal is processed. Any direction we are given by CCP we follow. An entity like EBANK with thousands of customers and almost 10 Trillion ISK moving though it's system is undoubtedly monitored heavily by CCP. EBANK also has automatic checks that if GM action is taken on the deposit into EBANK, the system auto shuts down the account, cancels any withdrawal request and changes the users password to a random sequence of characters. Fortunately this was not used very much as manual auditing of transactions by the tellers appeared to work well enough.
Originally by: Sencnes Sorry, I thought it was clear. If a GM reversed the transaction the Software picks it up, cancels any withdraw request, changes the password, and locks the account. The software actually processes a negative ISK as "GM Action" within EBANK's system. Before you ask I'll answer the next question :)
In the even of ISK being transfered to another account, this is the audit process ALL tellers perform when processing withdrawals. We have an incredible system available to us for this. Any account in which a balance is transfered between any number of accounts. When processing a request if the activity looks suspicious, same IP address, timing, the value of the transfer, previous history with transfers and who they are, length of time the accounts have been opened, age of character in game. We petition the request with CCP. If it's found to be "funny" CCP gives us direction.
CCP have been incredibly helpful for us in this matter, and I would think CCP like it, why wouldn't they? RMT is a major concern for EBANK and CCP. Every possible step is in place to inform CCP of any possibility of RMT via EBANK. We've made it clear in the past, transactions performed with EBANK's systems are heavily logged. These logs are 100% available to CCP at their request.
To put a more blunt point, the deficit is not because of RMT activities. Well apart from the contribution of Ricdic's RMT activities of cause.
Originally by: LaVista Vista Having dealt with the RMT aspect of things together with tellers for a long time now, I'm going to expand on this
We do have an auditing tool that visualises the movement of ISK internally in our system. However all IP cross-referencing and the like is done manually.
The point about the deficit being partially caused by RMT is very valid. But that would assume we have missed GM reversals which have gone through the system and hasn't been accounted for.
As for us offering data to CCP, we do petition things every so often. However the data EBANK has is inherently unreliable because it can be manipulated with. So while we have offered CCP what we saw as benficial, they would be fools to take it.
_+_ "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. "
EVEwatch Sidebar soon |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:58:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal If this is an anti-crime operation, then you must commit yourself to cleaning up accounts as quickly as possible, and then you must return account holdings to their rightful owners and only retain isk through mutual, voluntary agreement.
The issue is if we don't enforce the policy across the board then we lose the opportunity to catch those we're after, and we cannot be sure we have caught them all until every account holder supplies their Limited API Key or forfeits their accounts. If they do supply their Limited API Key, then they have accepted the contractual change, albeit under duress. However then they are then able to register their dissatisfaction with that change by withdrawing the ISK from their account or changing their Limited API Key (and only giving it to us once every few months to ensure their account remains active if they merely distrust us).
Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:03:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Now, on the api issue, it is VERY curious that you guys put down the ideas that could not work but do not comment on the ideas that will do, what about the in-game channel and the 0.01 isk deposits? What do you have to object to that?
How would that identify alts to us?
Originally by: Dzil Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?
You surely don't expect us to make them public do you? That's hardly the same thing as we're requesting. And every EBANK customer is required to supply those details, Board or Staff membership regardless.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:05:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal If this is an anti-crime operation, then you must commit yourself to cleaning up accounts as quickly as possible, and then you must return account holdings to their rightful owners and only retain isk through mutual, voluntary agreement.
The issue is if we don't enforce the policy across the board then we lose the opportunity to catch those we're after, and we cannot be sure we have caught them all until every account holder supplies their Limited API Key or forfeits their accounts. If they do supply their Limited API Key, then they have accepted the contractual change, albeit under duress. However then they are then able to register their dissatisfaction with that change by withdrawing the ISK from their account or changing their Limited API Key (and only giving it to us once every few months to ensure their account remains active if they merely distrust us).
This response satisfies me that you are trying to find the right balance between security and property rights. I don't see what else you can do in the circumstances. So long as customers can remove their money after handing their API over, then the only remaining problem is how you will guarantee the privacy and security of their API data, if it even can be guaranteed?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:08:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Dzil
Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?
Are you suggesting that every member of the board hands over their limited API key to a trusted auditor to make sure that none of their alts are scammers nor are involved with RMT/is banned?
Sounds reasonable to me, if you pay the fee.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:09:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal So long as customers can remove their money after handing their API over, then the only remaining problem is how you will guarantee the privacy and security of their API data, if it even can be guaranteed?
Just to qualify, they can remove their ISK through a liquidation withdrawal, they won't get the full amount just yet. Or they can wait, and supply their Limited API Key every so often to avoid their account being suspended. Then they can withdraw the full amount when we re-open interest and withdrawals.
We will do our utmost to keep the data we obtain from the Limited API Key private and secure, but for me to promise it is entirely safe would be a lie. Any Admin or Board member on the bank website can see these details, and I can hardly stop them from storing it without my knowledge. I'll let them all know I will be extremely angry and upset if they do though.
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:10:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Ray McCormack The issue is if we don't enforce the policy across the board then we lose the opportunity to catch those we're after, and we cannot be sure we have caught them all until every account holder supplies their Limited API Key or forfeits their accounts. If they do supply their Limited API Key, then they have accepted the contractual change, albeit under duress. However then they are then able to register their dissatisfaction with that change by withdrawing the ISK from their account or changing their Limited API Key (and only giving it to us once every few months to ensure their account remains active if they merely distrust us).
No they can't, because you do not allow withdrawings nor liquidations atm.
EVEwatch Sidebar soon "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. " |
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:15:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Ray McCormack but for me to promise it is entirely safe would be a lie. Any Admin or Board member on the bank website can see these details, and I can hardly stop them from storing it without my knowledge.
Sorry but that is totally and utterly inadequate. You need a far more robust security system.
|
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:16:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus No they can't, because you do not allow withdrawings nor liquidations atm.
Patience. They only have to provide their keys when we do allow liquidation withdrawals, or do it every now and then to avoid their accounts being suspended before we do allow withdrawals.
|
Angus McSpork
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:17:00 -
[142]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Dzil
Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?
Are you suggesting that every member of the board hands over their limited API key to a trusted auditor to make sure that none of their alts are scammers nor are involved with RMT/is banned?
Sounds reasonable to me, if you pay the fee.
Sorry, you won't let your customers use a 3rd party auditor, why should you get any preferantial treatment?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:17:00 -
[143]
Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 18:18:56 What will you do if the api keys reveal a customer to have an alt who is a known scammer/defaulter, albeit not on an Ebank loan? What if the individual has scammed members of the bank staff in a non-Ebank context? Just a hypothetical question that may be relevant to some of your customers.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:19:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Angus McSpork
Sorry, you won't let your customers use a 3rd party auditor, why should you get any preferantial treatment?
Who do you suggest does the checking then?
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:22:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus No they can't, because you do not allow withdrawings nor liquidations atm.
Patience. They only have to provide their keys when we do allow liquidation withdrawals, or do it every now and then to avoid their accounts being suspended before we do allow withdrawals.
With this answer we are back to square one - which is the violation of property rights. Once a customer has been security-cleared, what reason do you have to refuse liquidation?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:23:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Sorry but that is totally and utterly inadequate. You need a far more robust security system.
I don't see how we can implement one that still sees the staff members that action withdrawals have access to that information to check for alts on our list of known thieves and loan defaulters.
Can you?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:26:00 -
[147]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Angus McSpork
Sorry, you won't let your customers use a 3rd party auditor, why should you get any preferantial treatment?
Who do you suggest does the checking then?
You make them public, obviously. Your argument is that they contain no information that could really be damaging if given to strangers (that is, the staff of Ebank). That being so, there is no danger to you in making yours public.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:28:00 -
[148]
Originally by: RAW23
You make them public, obviously. Your argument is that they contain no information that could really be damaging if given to strangers (that is, the staff of Ebank). That being so, there is no danger to you in making yours public.
Making information public and giving it to EBANK worlds apart.
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:28:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Dzil Why is the ebank customer being held to this higher standard of trust/disclosure than the ebank board? Where are YOUR limited API keys?
You surely don't expect us to make them public do you? That's hardly the same thing as we're requesting.
Its exactly what you're requesting. Making them available to even one potential scammer might as well be making them public, right? How are you prepared to assure 9000 API keyholders that your current and future staff harbors no scammers, in light of this past year? Even FX900 broke a contract when he felt morally obligated.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:29:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal what reason do you have to refuse liquidation?
Because liquidation is subject to conditions as outlined in the OP that aren't yet met.
|
|
Angus McSpork
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:35:00 -
[151]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Angus McSpork
Sorry, you won't let your customers use a 3rd party auditor, why should you get any preferantial treatment?
Who do you suggest does the checking then?
Hey, you just need to hand them over, ok? You'll have to trust whoever can look at them not to do anything with the information. We just need to make sure none of your alts have ever scammed.
You know the whole "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" thing and all..
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:37:00 -
[152]
A couple of issues about the api 'thing' I don't understand:
1) If the purpose is to verify the existence of 'bad' alts, why is there a need to maintain the api holding? What does it mean that you're going to use them to examine standings information in the future?
2) I don't see the problem with all members of the board posting their limited API for 24 hours so that the existence/identities of their alts can be verified. Trust should be a two-way street.
KB KB
Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:38:00 -
[153]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: RAW23
You make them public, obviously. Your argument is that they contain no information that could really be damaging if given to strangers (that is, the staff of Ebank). That being so, there is no danger to you in making yours public.
Making information public and giving it to EBANK worlds apart.
You must be thinking of the reputation ebank held before it scammed a couple trillion isk and froze everyone's accounts. Let me bring you up to this year:
Ricdic Mr. Horizontal Hexxx
These three all would have had access to customers public API keys in the scenario you outline above.
Therefore, I've chosen my trusted list of auditors. Any one of them is welcome to check your bank staff's API keys. I eagerly await the results.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:38:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Leneerra I have to take your word for it you will not take (and store) other information availeble.
Moving forward we will start storing personal Standings.
Does that mean the intention is to 'flag' people who have set positive standings to characters known to have defrauded Ebank?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:41:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Dzil
Therefore, I've chosen my trusted list of auditors. Any one of them is welcome to check your bank staff's API keys. I eagerly await the results.
I don't see any list.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:43:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal what reason do you have to refuse liquidation?
Because liquidation is subject to conditions as outlined in the OP that aren't yet met.
Your conditions amount to a refusal to liquidate the capital of your bank as this is a limited offer paid for through profits. This capital however belongs to account holders and is not the property of Ebank.
You have seized the money of your customers, and are offering limited liquidation to some of your customers based on the profits you have made from seizing their assets - profits that also belong to your customers and that you don't have the right to use for your liquidation scheme.
This is poor corporate governance and violates the fundamental principles on which capitalism is built. You are not a bank with customers, running on contract, respecting private property laws so long as you continue to forcibly retain your customer's assets like this. There is no place in free-market capitalism for an entity with a method of operation and an ideology like this.
The priority of proper corporate governance in this situation is simple; oversee the bank's movement into a liquid state, security check customers, then do the right thing and return capital to its rightful owners. You can then rebuild with what is left.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:47:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal This is poor corporate governance and violates the fundamental principles on which capitalism is built. You are not a bank with customers, running on contract, respecting private property laws so long as you continue to forcibly retain your customer's assets like this. There is no place in free-market capitalism for an entity with a method of operation and an ideology like this.
Welcome to EVE, did you happen to read the game blurb?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:50:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal This is poor corporate governance and violates the fundamental principles on which capitalism is built. You are not a bank with customers, running on contract, respecting private property laws so long as you continue to forcibly retain your customer's assets like this. There is no place in free-market capitalism for an entity with a method of operation and an ideology like this.
Welcome to EVE, did you happen to read the game blurb?
So all standards and principles go out the window because this is EVE? Could you explain to me how your planned expropriation of account balances differs from a scam given that it will capture not only those who have defaulted on debts but also anyone who is not willing to be blackmailed into handing over sensitive private data?
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:55:00 -
[159]
How about we get Fitz VonHeise to verify account activity.
He is well know, trusted I would believe.. Anyone have any objections with using Fitz VonHeise as the API Checker??
Note that I have not seeked EBANK's approval, not Fitz VonHeise's approval for using or suggesting this. I am just offering up a person whom I would take the word of if they are say who they are and are currently active..
Should we persue Fitz and ask him if he would want to perform the verification?
Amarr for Life |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:56:00 -
[160]
Originally by: RAW23 Could you explain to me how your planned expropriation of account balances differs from a scam given that it will capture not only those who have defaulted on debts but also anyone who is not willing to be blackmailed into handing over sensitive private data?
Unfortunate collateral damage due to someone's ill-fitting mistrust. No system is perfect, this is the closest we'll get to achieving our goal of revealing thieves' and defaulters' remaining accounts.
|
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:57:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal This is poor corporate governance and violates the fundamental principles on which capitalism is built. You are not a bank with customers, running on contract, respecting private property laws so long as you continue to forcibly retain your customer's assets like this. There is no place in free-market capitalism for an entity with a method of operation and an ideology like this.
Welcome to EVE, did you happen to read the game blurb?
Quite a flippant answer, I was expecting a better response than that.
Corporations and banks are run on some fundamental principles which cannot be violated. In violating these principles you cease to have the right to be called a bank - you are running a parody of a bank that is involuntary and doesn't respect private property.
If you wish your bank to be succesful, you need to run it through mutually voluntary contract. Currently, you are an anti-capitalist in my book. Why should anyone pay back a loan to an organisation that forcibly expropriates assets?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:01:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Corporations and banks are run on some fundamental principles which cannot be violated. In violating these principles you cease to have the right to be called a bank - you are running a parody of a bank that is involuntary and doesn't respect private property.
Then so be it. I'm not going to be bound by real-world fundamentals that have no bearing under these circumstances. Your arguments would go as far as to see us having recourse against the former management for their embezzlement and theft. No such thing exists, this world does not conform to the standards of yours.
|
Dagny Bronstein
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:03:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Currently, you are an anti-capitalist in my book. Why should anyone pay back a loan to an organisation that forcibly expropriates assets?
... because otherwise he won't get back his collateral and all ISK his more obvious alts have deposited will be expropriated by EBANK.
Originally by: Karl Marx The bourgeois economists have a vague notion that it is better to carry on production under the modern police than it was, e.g., under club-law. They forget that club-law is also law, and that the right of the stronger continues to exist in other forms even under their 'government of law'.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:10:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Corporations and banks are run on some fundamental principles which cannot be violated. In violating these principles you cease to have the right to be called a bank - you are running a parody of a bank that is involuntary and doesn't respect private property.
Then so be it. I'm not going to be bound by real-world fundamentals that have no bearing under these circumstances. Your arguments would go as far as to see us having recourse against the former management for their embezzlement and theft. No such thing exists, this world does not conform to the standards of yours.
Not true. You have decided of your own free will to deny ownership to your account holders. No-one forced you to do this, and a catch-all "there's no ethics in EVE" position is cynical and evades the real issue.
You ask people to pay back loans - an ethical principle You ask people to give you API for security - an ethical principle You ask people to invest in you - an ethical principle
You have ethics when it suits you - and you cannot build something by contradiction. If you expect customers to invest in you or pay back loans, then you are showing a belief that property belongs to you - ie that private property has an owner and must be respected. You are also showing belief in a contract - that people must do what they agree to do.
Business ethics is not a one-way street - you cannot believe in private property when calling in a loan then not believe in it when you are seizing someone else's money. If you don't believe in private property rights or capitalism, then how do you expect to pay out loans and have them returned? How do you expect to attract investors?
I hope you will rethink your cynical attitude and come to understand that as a bank, you must enforce and advance the rights of private property above all else. I hope that everyone who owes you a loan defers repayment until you change your policy, and that any potential investors refuse to invest in you until you change your policy to one based on sensible capitalism.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:18:00 -
[165]
Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 19:19:37 Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 19:18:08
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Corporations and banks are run on some fundamental principles which cannot be violated. In violating these principles you cease to have the right to be called a bank - you are running a parody of a bank that is involuntary and doesn't respect private property.
Then so be it. I'm not going to be bound by real-world fundamentals that have no bearing under these circumstances. Your arguments would go as far as to see us having recourse against the former management for their embezzlement and theft. No such thing exists, this world does not conform to the standards of yours.
Not true. You have decided of your own free will to deny ownership to your account holders. No-one forced you to do this, and a catch-all "there's no ethics in EVE" position is cynical and evades the real issue.
You ask people to pay back loans - an ethical principle You ask people to give you API for security - an ethical principle You ask people to invest in you - an ethical principle
You have ethics when it suits you - and you cannot build something by contradiction. If you expect customers to invest in you or pay back loans, then you are showing a belief that property belongs to you - ie that private property has an owner and must be respected. You are also showing belief in a contract - that people must do what they agree to do.
Business ethics is not a one-way street - you cannot believe in private property when calling in a loan then not believe in it when you are seizing someone else's money. If you don't believe in private property rights or capitalism, then how do you expect to pay out loans and have them returned? How do you expect to attract investors?
I hope you will rethink your cynical attitude and come to understand that as a bank, you must enforce and advance the rights of private property above all else. I hope that everyone who owes you a loan defers repayment until you change your policy, and that any potential investors refuse to invest in you until you change your policy to one based on sensible capitalism.
I ... I ... I seem to find myself in complete agreement with Liberty!
Ray - Don't you think it constitutes gross mismanagement to put together a plan that is underpinned by the premise that EBank is a trustworthy institution in good standing with the community of its customers when it so manifestly is not? To call a refusal to trust EBank "ill-fitting" seems ridiculous given the reality of the current situation. Given your present actions how can anyone have any confidence that api information will not be used to strong-arm them in the future, as account balances are being used now?
If you manage to write off (read: steal) say, half the outstanding account balances, knowingly including many belonging to customers who are at no fault at all, will you consider this a success or a failure for the plan?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:24:00 -
[166]
Originally by: RAW23 will you consider this a success or a failure for the plan?
I consider nothing of this to be a success or a failure, it's the best of an extremely bad situation.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:27:00 -
[167]
Originally by: RAW23
I ... I ... I seem to find myself in complete agreement with Liberty!
Welcome to the winning side
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:30:00 -
[168]
Omg people. I totally hate being the bearer of bad news but after reading 5+ pages of delicious idiocity I have decided the best most can hope for is an epic reformation of ebank scam part deux.
P.s. I am merely an observer and not a shareholder. Ebank will dissolve and somebody controlling the isk will take it. Do not argue with me. It is not just human nature when Internet ships are involved but it, more importantly, is eve nature. |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:32:00 -
[169]
Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 19:33:15 Edited by: RAW23 on 23/11/2009 19:32:54
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 will you consider this a success or a failure for the plan?
I consider nothing of this to be a success or a failure, it's the best of an extremely bad situation.
Way to evade the question!
You must have made some projections when considering this course of action. How many legitimate accounts do you expect to see wiped due to this move? At what percentage would you accept that you are no longer acting in the best interests of your customers?
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:33:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Welcome to the winning side
Doubtful, at best. --------
|
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:34:00 -
[171]
Liberty's overall point is correct, despite the nauseating ideological overtones. However, this issue is long-dead. People argued that the decision to stay open will require actions whose consequences will result in a useless institution. EBank has decided to ignore these arguments and proceed regardless.
While Liberty wasn't around at the time, the issue is still already decided. I would save your incisive objections for 1-2 years from now when EBank attempts to spin this debacle in their favor.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:41:00 -
[172]
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.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:44:00 -
[173]
Originally by: LaVista Vista 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?
Tsk tsk Vista - BMBE is not a deposit bank. Surely you know this
Originally by: LaVista Vista
As for the "fact" that it will hurt EBANK
Sigh - Please don't put words in my mouth. I quite clearly wrote "I think" - Hence simply offering my opinion on the matter, and not in anyway dressing it as "fact". But I stand by that opinion - And I think the many replies to this thread on the API key issue goes some ways as to show I'm probably not completly wrong - Or at least alone in thinking so.
Originally by: LaVista Vista
The API is simply the easiest option.
Agreed. But "easiest option" doesn't make it the "most correct/proper option".
Originally by: LaVista Vista
There's very little information worth anything
Now *you* are trying to pass of something you *think* as "fact". As this thread abundantly shows, thats very much a subjective view.
Originally by: LaVista Vista
The suggestion of a channel is more labour intensive than taking an API key.
Labour intensive? You need to write some initial code (which really shouldnt take much time), and then it runs automated. No extra "labour" needed.
Originally by: LaVista Vista
And so is doing it manually through evemail
Agreed. Anything that can't be automated is not worth bothering with in the first place. (Although with the new mail system - part of "New Eden" (formerly COSMOS) it might actually be doable - But would probably be messy)
<continued> BIG Lottery |
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:50:00 -
[174]
Now I understand full well that
a: You wish to avoid defaulters to withdraw ISK they have on other EBANK accounts. b: You wish to avoid RMT'ers to withdraw ISK.
Those *are* your stated reasons for this (API key) meassure right? Else please correct me.
oh and
c: Trying to re-coup idle/dead ISK that will never be claimed - To get a much needed ISK infusion into EBANK.
I'm not sure "c" has openly been used as a justification for this (API key) meassure though. But more a "co-incidential side effect". I've read the whole thread, and that's at least the impression I'm left with - If I misremember this, feel free to correct me (with a reference)
-------
Now...
a: Fair enough (read on however) And *this* is the *only* reason for needing API key's.
b: Frankly, unless CCP has asked you to act on this, this is none of your (EBANK) business nor concern. RMT is to be handled by CCP and no one else. Period.
To me it looks like an "a" or "c" in disquise tbh.
c: If you had come right out and said that this is a major part of your reasoning for wanting the API keys (to check for "dead" accounts - banned accounts, or people having left the game) I would have liked that much more.
Or maybe you did. Kinda.
Originally by: LaVista Vista
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.
However : To verify if an account is "dead" (banned) or not, you *do not* need API keys.
-------
Let me return to "a"
Just how many outstanding loans do EBANK have?
Aka just how many persons can possible "cheat" EBANK by having multiple accounts - Some with positive balances, and some with loans.
Ie. have you actually tried to calculate how much you can possible gain back from defaulters (by seizing their positive accounts)
Tbh. I think the ISK amount will be pretty damn low. Which invalidates option "a" altogether, and hence the need for API key.
Let me reason why I *think* (not a "fact" tyvm) this:
Scenario A: From the get go I'm deliberatly trying to scam EBANK on a 50B ISK loan. Lets say I actually manage to get the ISK.
Would I dare *risk* having other accounts with a positive balance in EBANK? That would be utterly stupid. If I was going to scam 50B from EBANK I would make damn sure they didnt have any of *my* ISK at hand.
Scenario B: In good faith I take out a 50B loan with EBANK. I get the loan. My business venture fails - And I decide to tell EBANK they aren't getting a penny back.
In this case I *needed* the 50B ISK. It thus stands to reason I would not have billions of ISK sitting iddle in other EBANK accounts.
I honestly can't think of a scenario where someone defaulting/scamming on a loan with EBANK would have substantial amounts of ISK stashed away elsewhere in EBANK accounts.
Thus eliminating the "a" reason for wanting the API key completly.
Only "c" is left, and that doesnt require an API key.
BIG Lottery |
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:52:00 -
[175]
Meh...API is necessary, but I wouldn't give it to all the EBank staff. It needs to be just one person, they need to verify alts, and then delete it. This could also be done with a 3rd party to verify the API as well. OZ is probably the best person to hold this information. Data security is a legit issue. Steps can be taken to minimize exposure.
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:56:00 -
[176]
Didn't read much beyond the OP. Thread probably going to hell because its EVEBANK.
However, considering the state EBANK is already in, its actually a reasonable way to go about it, and restores a lot of faith in the good-will of the upper-staff.
The only problem is at a mere 10% loss off account (as opposed to account face value * current NAV / total obligations) and first come, first serve, there will be a stampede of people cashing out each month: the offer suffers from being both limited and perhaps almost too good (in that those who get out are effectively being hugely favored over those who are too slow to get on the cash-out list each time NAV goes over 700). Never thought I'd be criticizing them for making the liquidation offer too good, too early .
The killing of inactive accounts also makes some sense: if people have stopped playing EVE it behooves both the bank and all investors still playing the game to have those accounts written off the books.
|
Dumb Jerk
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:00:00 -
[177]
Torn, perhaps there's a D and E. It would be an excellent way to:
D. Discourage investors from reclaiming their ISK if they have other alts on the account they feel the need to keep secret.
E. Find out who some of the alts are that've been giving them so much grief on the forums. (I'm sure you'd love to know some too. )
I think the more relevant critique of the API requirement is that any thief/scammer worth his salt keeps his scam characters on a different account. |
Whoopie DooDah
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:04:00 -
[178]
exernastia 275,000,000,000.00 ............ ............... ..................
REALLY?
i'm sorry, there's dumb and then there's you.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:12:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Dumb Jerk D. Discourage investors from reclaiming their ISK if they have other alts on the account they feel the need to keep secret.
Just becomes another dead account then - (Sorta) covered by "c" (And no I don't think EBANK is *that* deceiving about their reasons)
Originally by: Dumb Jerk
E. Find out who some of the alts are that've been giving them so much grief on the forums. (I'm sure you'd love to know some too. )
I personally prefer *not* to know actually. Might be someone (the person) I like, thus making it hard for me to keep disliking the character. Would spoil the fun Can't answer on EBANK's behalf ofc - But again, I doubt they're that deceiving about their reasons.
I happen to know most of the EBANK people - And they're good people. Doesnt mean I agree with them on everything - And in this particular case I think they've made an error in judgement about the API key issue - And is thus calling them out on it.
Originally by: Dumb Jerk
I think the more relevant critique of the API requirement is that any thief/scammer worth his salt keeps his scam characters on a different account.
I mentioned that in my very first post in this thread. Should probably have included it again. But it's so obvious so.. *shrug*
BIG Lottery |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:16:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Dumb Jerk Torn, perhaps there's a D and E. It would be an excellent way to:
D. Discourage investors from reclaiming their ISK if they have other alts on the account they feel the need to keep secret.
E. Find out who some of the alts are that've been giving them so much grief on the forums. (I'm sure you'd love to know some too. )
I think the more relevant critique of the API requirement is that any thief/scammer worth his salt keeps his scam characters on a different account.
This. And even if they didn't, it's 15 bucks to do a character transfer, right? So anyone with more than a PLEX's worth of ISK owed to ebank is going to cap their losses at 300 mil and recover the debt.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:36:00 -
[181]
Originally by: TornSoul b:
It's not really because we want to "help" CCP with RMT hunting, it's because if we let RMTers withdraw ISK from EBANK, then later down the road, CCP catches up with them and reverses a heap of transactions EBANK is left out in the cold with a negative balance.
Here is how I believe RMTers used EBANK in order to launder ISK.
1) They deposit ISK into EBANK under Mr. X 2) Mr. X transfers ISK from Mr. X and Ms. A 3) Ms. A requests a withdrawal.
Here is what happens later.
1) GM ISK Hunter, checks Mr. X 2) GM ISK Hunter finds out Mr. X purchased said ISK from Mr. EIS 3) GM ISK Hunter reverses transaction from Mr. EIS to Mr. X 4) GM ISK Hunter finds out Mr. X deposited the ISK into EBANK. 5) GM ISK Hunter reverses the ISK from EBANK.
End result is... EBANK which has already processed a withdrawal to Ms. A, finds out a GM Reversal has taken place and we're out the original deposit.
Amarr for Life |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:40:00 -
[182]
I really had faith in Ebank up untill this day :( Accusing its clients of fraud and rmt, every single client is a suspect.
I agree with TS, its just an excuse to take peoples ISK. Its obvious, what about people taking a break? Cosmo addressed this, but it was never answered. People now have to prove to ebank that they arent rmting and commiting fraud....
GG.... I know it isnt so, but it just looks like an excuse to scam real clients, out of their hard earned ISK!
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:44:00 -
[183]
Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 20:45:00
Originally by: Ji Sama what about people taking a break? Cosmo addressed this, but it was never answered.
It was by me, check on the 4th page I think.
Edit:- http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1218519&page=4#112
Looking for input to prevent idle ISK from getting cleared off accounts..
Amarr for Life |
Tsang Chou
Tsang Chou Bonds
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:44:00 -
[184]
This thread is now official: Ji Sama has posted her speculation.
Rubber stamp it, folks!
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:48:00 -
[185]
Originally by: SencneS Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 20:45:00
Originally by: Ji Sama what about people taking a break? Cosmo addressed this, but it was never answered.
It was by me, check on the 4th page I think.
Edit:- http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1218519&page=4#112
Looking for input to prevent idle ISK from getting cleared off accounts..
I read you attempt to answer this, and you have done the best job so far. Though it is not your job to investigate RMT. period! You reversed the burden of proof, people have to prove now that they arent rmting and defrauding you, it was never a problem before, you KNEW people opened more accounts to get around the 6B limit, even ebank staff used this "workaround"
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
General Wolfe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:51:00 -
[186]
Edited by: General Wolfe on 23/11/2009 20:51:33 What about withdrawals in the "pending" pile? I have checked my account and as described in your statement my checking balance has been moved to the suspended account but I also have 250,000,000isk which is pending withdrawal has not moved to the suspended account. Do you intend to pay this out or is it an oversight and these sums need to be transferred too?
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:56:00 -
[187]
@SencneS
I understand the mechanism.
But I honestly hope you don't think that Mr. X and Ms. A would be on the same account. That would kinda defeat the purpose of the ISK transfer in the first place.
Aka. API key check won't catch this in any way what so ever - and thus is an invalid (excuse?) reason for demanding the API key.
------------
Originally by: Ji Sama I agree with TS, its just an excuse to take peoples ISK.
Ah - Let me just clarify what I'm saying (as the above "paraphrasing" isn't quite what I'm saying)
What I (among other things) are saying is that I *think* EBANK really want's to null *dead* accounts. I personally think this is perfectly fine and justifiable - if the accounts are *truly* dead ofc.
What I *am* opposing is the way they intend to check if an account is dead or not (requireing API key)
EBANK don't even claim that an API key is necessary for this part of the process - Simply that it's "easiest". This doesnt sit well with me.
I've always worked with : "Do what's right, not what is easiest"
BIG Lottery |
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:02:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Ray McCormack The new administration will no longer tolerate the salacious remarks attempting to besmirch their reputations and will retaliate by calling you names.
Lol, I love Ray. He makes this so much more fun.
-GV
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:03:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Ji Sama Though it is not your job to investigate RMT. period!
We're not investigating RMT that's the hurdle people are having problems on. Everyone needs to clear that thought from their mind, we are not running an RMT investigation here. We're running an account validity investigation, which just happens to be killing several birds with one stone.
The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn. Then at a later date when CCP catch up process the reversals and EBANK is out those billions of ISK. That is pretty much it. That's the extent of our so called RMT investigation. People who have already been caught by CCP and perma-banned. All we want to know is who they are, so when the GM's Reversal hammer hits EBANK we're not getting sucked into a deeper deficit.
I would hope EVERYONE would agree this is a worthy cause.
Amarr for Life |
Torsten Hjaltland
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:05:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Torsten Hjaltland on 23/11/2009 21:05:50
Originally by: General Wolfe Edited by: General Wolfe on 23/11/2009 20:51:33 What about withdrawals in the "pending" pile? I have checked my account and as described in your statement my checking balance has been moved to the suspended account but I also have 250,000,000isk which is pending withdrawal has not moved to the suspended account. Do you intend to pay this out or is it an oversight and these sums need to be transferred too?
I have 500,000,000 isk in a pending withdrawal not moved to the suspense account is this ISK accounted for in your sums?
|
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:07:00 -
[191]
Agreed and understandable SencneS.
But please see that those characters simply won't be on the same account.
Thus no need for API Key.
BIG Lottery |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:08:00 -
[192]
No matter how Ebank tries to spin it, by writing off accounts that refuse to provide it with their limited API key, ebank will NOT achieve its stated goal of returning customers account balances in full.
What's the difference between returning 50% to all customers, or 100% to half of your customers?
It just becomes a selective scam at that point, instead of a failed business. You're selecting to return money only to those that vouch faith for you. Sound familiar? It should: that's the exact play LRN/YGR used. Anyone here look back on that business thinking they should invest again?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:08:00 -
[193]
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.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:11:00 -
[194]
Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 21:11:47
Originally by: TornSoul But I honestly hope you don't think that Mr. X and Ms. A would be on the same account.
No... No no no no no.. LOL
Ok I'll give, maybe some, but given the HIGHLY illegal nature of RMT, I would bet more often then not, that people use alt, disposable accounts. People believe that if they use a alt on an alt account CCP will not catch them. So I would be really surprised if RMT happens on the "same" account.
Another edit coming. Please hold.
Amarr for Life |
KapnKaboom
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:13:00 -
[195]
Ha! The only thing that could possibly make this thread better would be if we could get a few folks on here to post some sob stories about how having their isk frozen has ruined them and their lives.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:17:00 -
[196]
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.
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:18:00 -
[197]
We had that in the other thread, before it became a haiku contest. Flamewarrior I believe. It really didn't improve the thread quality, iirc.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:21:00 -
[198]
Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 21:22:10
Originally by: Leneerra 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?
Actually it is already there, and anyone in EBANK* (Edit) can see it. It even has a nice little visual picture of it :)
These people have one thing to fear... If they have stolen/defaulted ISK from EBANK. That's it. If you where running an IPO and you found out someone who stole from you gave you x amount of ISK as an alt would YOU take it?
Amarr for Life |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:24:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Dzil No matter how Ebank tries to spin it, by writing off accounts that refuse to provide it with their limited API key, ebank will NOT achieve its stated goal of returning customers account balances in full.
What's the difference between returning 50% to all customers, or 100% to half of your customers?
It just becomes a selective scam at that point, instead of a failed business. You're selecting to return money only to those that vouch faith for you. Sound familiar? It should: that's the exact play LRN/YGR used. Anyone here look back on that business thinking they should invest again?
This tbh.
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:28:00 -
[200]
@cosmoray
"BMBE probably has shareholders that are no longer around" Most likely. Not much I can do about that though as it's impossible to get back the shares.
However, The BIG Deal has a similar problem. The way I deal with it there is that if a client repeatedly doesn't pick up their weekly BPC's, I mail them that I've suspended their "account" (and thus I don't pay out any more weekly BPC's)
Note that I *suspend*, not cancel, their account.
This means that they can come back later and "re-activate" their account, and they simply pick up where the left of (note : They don't get whatever prints they've missed out on in the mean time) The "record" for re-activating is close to a year (ie. the client had been gone for nearly a year).
Now, I consider this an extreme service that I offer, and I'm not suggesting that EBANK does the same with their ISK accounts.
But.. It's an option
BIG Lottery |
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:28:00 -
[201]
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.
I agree with this suggestion.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:32:00 -
[202]
Originally by: SencneS
The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn. Then at a later date when CCP catch up process the reversals and EBANK is out those billions of ISK. That is pretty much it. That's the extent of our so called RMT investigation. People who have already been caught by CCP and perma-banned. All we want to know is who they are, so when the GM's Reversal hammer hits EBANK we're not getting sucked into a deeper deficit.
I would hope EVERYONE would agree this is a worthy cause.
The worthiness of the cause has nothing to do with the means used to attain it. I asked before but didn't get a response. When the board did its projections on this, what figures did you come up with? What proportion of innocently placed isk do you expect to go up in flames as you seek to protect yourself against possible future actions from CCP and also take your own punitive action against defaulters?
And again, I would like to ask how the BoD would differentiate this theft of innocent customer's funds from a scam carried out on these customers, especially in light of the fact that customers were encouraged to put money in EBank accounts precisely so they could take time away from the game?
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:36:00 -
[203]
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.
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:39:00 -
[204]
Originally by: SencneS
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.
DO THIS!!
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:40:00 -
[205]
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.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:41:00 -
[206]
Originally by: SencneS If an account is found to be Banned which API can reveal, and we find out that, account transfered ISK to another character, and that characters ISK was frozen, then guess what, We'll be reversing that transfer as well.
Just as CCP does Transfer withdrawals, any account that matches this will have the same thing. Lets say someone purchased 1B, deposited it, transfered it to an account which 2B in it. That character which is NOT banned will not get that 1B ISK, it will get removed because the banned account it came from is a 1B ISK liability to EBANK.
Uhm... An account can be temp banned... But nvm that for now.
I hope you are not saying that you are reversing transfers simply because the originator account got banned?
Unless EBANK has been deducted the amount deposited (thus indicating RMT or similar nefarious activity) by the originator acount EBANK has lost no ISK, and has no reason to reverse anything.
BIG Lottery |
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:42:00 -
[207]
Originally by: SencneS Edited by: SencneS on 23/11/2009 21:16:56
Originally by: TornSoul But I honestly hope you don't think that Mr. X and Ms. A would be on the same account.
No... No no no no no.. LOL
Ok I'll give, maybe some, but given the HIGHLY illegal nature of RMT, I would bet more often then not, that people use alt, disposable accounts. People believe that if they use a alt on an alt account CCP will not catch them. So I would be really surprised if RMT happens on the "same" account.
Another edit coming. Please hold.
While this may seem like a "Why use API since they will be on alt accounts" You must have read my post in which we found out that EBANK got word that RMT forums where HOT with threads about EBANK Account freezing. EBANK keeps awesome records, both where the ISK came from and where it went and even has little visual paths etc.
If an account is found to be Banned which API can reveal, and we find out that, account transfered ISK to another character, and that characters ISK was frozen, then guess what, We'll be reversing that transfer as well.
Just as CCP does Transfer withdrawals, any account that matches this will have the same thing. Lets say someone purchased 1B, deposited it, transfered it to an account which 2B in it. That character which is NOT banned will not get that 1B ISK, it will get removed because the banned account it came from is a 1B ISK liability to EBANK.
Wait. What?
So, I give you the API key for my banned RMT alt account, and then you cancel all transfers from that account to other active accounts?
Anyone see the problem(s) here?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:42:00 -
[208]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 23/11/2009 21:43:49
Originally by: SencneS
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.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Jackie Fisher Will ebank be mailing all account holders to warn them of this change of policy?
Yes, as will we in the future when their accounts are suspended after three months, and again before they are written off after six months. Email, not EVEMail.
Originally by: SencneS
If an account is found to be Banned which API can reveal, and we find out that, account transfered ISK to another character, and that characters ISK was frozen, then guess what, We'll be reversing that transfer as well.
No, the API sure can't reveal that. That would be a breach of CCP's Privacy Policy
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:48:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Wyehr
Wait. What?
So, I give you the API key for my banned RMT alt account, and then you cancel all transfers from that account to other active accounts?
Anyone see the problem(s) here?
Heh, I like the way you think.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:48:00 -
[210]
Originally by: RAW23 The worthiness of the cause has nothing to do with the means used to attain it. I asked before but didn't get a response. When the board did its projections on this, what figures did you come up with? What proportion of innocently placed isk do you expect to go up in flames as you seek to protect yourself against possible future actions from CCP and also take your own punitive action against defaulters?
And again, I would like to ask how the BoD would differentiate this theft of innocent customer's funds from a scam carried out on these customers, especially in light of the fact that customers were encouraged to put money in EBank accounts precisely so they could take time away from the game?
Some accounts can already be linked, as they have the same email address etc. Not 100% sure if we've cross checked this or not. I deliberately stayed out of it as I knew I was being investigated myself. I knew everything I had ever done was under the microscope and I didn't want to hinder or sway the investigation. Call it conflict of interest.
The issue is there is no current way to capture everyone that has a banned account. I don't see any "projections" at all. We just know people are banned and we expect some of those people have ISK in EBANK. We also KNOW people whom have defaulted loans in EBANK have alt accounts with ISK in them. But we don't know who.
I actually expect not much from banned accounts personally. What I do expect is a LOT of ISK from people who have stolen or defaulted a loan from EBANK. Now I could be wrong and it be the other way around, but I fully expect if those people have the integrity to put in the API, and let us capture the fraud/stolen/defaulted ISK they may have more then they realized.
We're not going to claim the ENTIRE account. If someone defaulted a 1.2B loan and they have 3B in an alt account, we're just going to take 1.2B out of their account, we're not going to take all 3B.
As for the "Long term thing" I'll say it again - Now is the time to effect EBANK policy, propose an alternative. Don't just say "Keep the ISK in suspended account, it has to remove from our liabilities. We can't have 500B ISK in accounts that just sits there as a liability.
Amarr for Life |
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:51:00 -
[211]
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
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:55:00 -
[212]
Originally by: SencneS 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.
This is exactly how I handle "The BIG Deal" accounts (as detailed above) So I would support this. But as I wrote, I consider this an extreme service.
So perhaps, "suspend" the account first (EVE mailing the account holder of the action) - No interest etc paid while suspended. If the account holder hasnt returned to have his account re-activated withing 6/9/12 months, then close it.
Originally by: SencneS
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.
EVE mail - Not RL mail. BIG Lottery |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:56:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Leneerra 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
I fully understand your frustration.
I know for a fact that you are not banned, is not a chinese farmer and all that. Either that, or you are a well-spoken robot
While it could be an option to allow staff members to give a green light for accounts to be verified without API key, it's really a slippery slope. Where do we set the line? How much time is members of staff going to spend being bugged by people? Doesn't that cause inequality for ebank customers?
Sadly, for now, a heavy-handed policy is the best way. I would like to see revisions and more options implemented, but that might take time.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:57:00 -
[214]
Originally by: SencneS 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.
LVV, Read into why that was said.. That was more of an "It's not a great idea, because we have so few email accounts." Not that we're not doing it. It captures so few accounts sure it's in there but it's next to useless. It's not a great way to notify everyone as almost everyone doesn't have an email address in their account :(
Originally by: LaVista Vista
No, the API sure can't reveal that. That would be a breach of CCP's Privacy Policy
Why am I thinking it does then.. I thought it returned like a 0 status of something if it was banned which wasn't there if it was just ended. If I'm wrong so be it, but I thought that was the only real way to check for a banned account.
Amarr for Life |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:04:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Leneerra 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
Which is why I suggested Fitz VonHise(SP) :)
I would totally accept his word on the status of peoples accounts if everyone issued him their APIs.
*Waited 5 minutes to post that :)
Amarr for Life |
Giz S
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:09:00 -
[216]
FOR EVERYONE WORRIED ABOUT GIVING OUT YOUR LIMITED API KEY
You can submit your limited api key to EBANK, then just request a new limited api from CCP once the ebank api has been validated. this way, they dont get to store all your information in the future if they dont already do it once they get it initially.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:18:00 -
[217]
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
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:23:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Giz S FOR EVERYONE WORRIED ABOUT GIVING OUT YOUR LIMITED API KEY
You can submit your limited api key to EBANK, then just request a new limited api from CCP once the ebank api has been validated. this way, they dont get to store all your information in the future if they dont already do it once they get it initially.
I want to hire this guy as a security consultant.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:29:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Leneerra 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
Don't know that guy either - probably just as he isn't loud on the forums ;)
The liquidation policy itself creates the issue of ebank's BoD potentially lining up for withdrawl requests just before the announcement release. I doubt they would do that (probably having way too much fun making everyone elses isk back to worry about their own, atm) - but nonetheless a guarantee against insider trading (or withdrawing in this case) would be nice.
Don't know why you're hiring an ethics officer - this board will happily tell you if you're doing anything that could be construed as unethical :P
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:45:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Tesal It needs to be just one person, they need to verify alts, and then delete it.
The funny thing is that eBank has already stated that they want to store the data, why? Originally by: Ray How would that identify alts to us?
This is the first (or second) time you said something about finding defaulting people, only after pressure. Why didn't you said that those were the reasons instead of talking about RMT? Quote: The issue is there is no current way to capture everyone that has a banned account. I don't see any "projections" at all. We just know people are banned and we expect some of those people have ISK in EBANK. We also KNOW people whom have defaulted loans in EBANK have alt accounts with ISK in them. But we don't know who.
If that is the case why did you say this? I'm amazed no one has commented on this given the statements eBank is doing now that goes completely against what they said there. By the same people. You are saying now that you need to adress the RMT when you said it was solved more than a month and a half ago. You lie either now or then, and there should go whathever credibility you could have. But again scammers get investments too, so we'll see if people have half a brain. All I see is the same lack of transparency all over the wall. The same eBank that did whathever they wanted to because they are a private institution. The same institution that got all that stolen money through empty words without facts behind them.
EVEwatch Sidebar soon "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. " |
|
Enterthe Nameyoudesire
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:49:00 -
[221]
ahahahahahaahahahaha
you pubbies all whined to high heaven when we told you you were being scammed
i'm actually amazed you figured it out by now
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:08:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Digging up past statements.
Since I said them, I'll answer you..
There was a lot that was given to us that we later found out was just not the case. Mr. H who coded most of the site said a lot of things which we all took for granted, we came to find out most of those things where not there. He also tried to fraud the system of over 90B ISK, so we don't believe any of the old systems any more. This is an extremely WISE choice. Why would we want to keep any system a person who tampered with it to try and steal 90B? You're reading too deep for something that isn't there. There is no way a good reason to keep the old system that was coded by someone who tried to commit fraud...
You can take that however you like, either accept and embrace the change for the good, or dwell on the past which was made and designed by a fraud. The choice is yours.
Amarr for Life |
EvilweaselSA
Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:12:00 -
[223]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Digging up past statements.
Since I said them, I'll answer you..
There was a lot that was given to us that we later found out was just not the case. Mr. H who coded most of the site said a lot of things which we all took for granted, we came to find out most of those things where not there. He also tried to fraud the system of over 90B ISK, so we don't believe any of the old systems any more. This is an extremely WISE choice. Why would we want to keep any system a person who tampered with it to try and steal 90B? You're reading too deep for something that isn't there. There is no way a good reason to keep the old system that was coded by someone who tried to commit fraud...
You can take that however you like, either accept and embrace the change for the good, or dwell on the past which was made and designed by a fraud. The choice is yours.
its amazing to me you guys strung them along this long
this isn't even trying man, you wouldn't last a day in the goonswarm scamming legion
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:19:00 -
[224]
Originally by: EvilweaselSA its amazing to me you guys strung them along this long
this isn't even trying man, you wouldn't last a day in the goonswarm scamming legion
Well, I wouldn't join the scamming legion in the first place, the path of honesty and a good reputation is lined with ISK.
There is no string here, if people just hold out, eventually they'll get their ISK back, it doesn't mean much I know but hey, that's what the intention is.
Amarr for Life |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:29:00 -
[225]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: EvilweaselSA its amazing to me you guys strung them along this long
this isn't even trying man, you wouldn't last a day in the goonswarm scamming legion
Well, I wouldn't join the scamming legion in the first place, the path of honesty and a good reputation is lined with ISK.
There is no string here, if people just hold out, eventually they'll get their ISK back, it doesn't mean much I know but hey, that's what the intention is.
That sorta contradicts your statement on API keys. What happens to your customers that are unable to entrust you with their keys?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:30:00 -
[226]
Ah ha, but they not only have to hold out, they also have to give you their api keys, first born child and prove that they have not been rmting or even thinking of defrauding you.
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:37:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Dzil That sorta contradicts your statement on API keys. What happens to your customers that are unable to entrust you with their keys?
Take a breath Dzil - breath in... breath out.... What now?
The goonie said "It's amazing to me you guys strung them along this long" meaning like all goonies they believe everyone is scamming everyone else. This is saying is like dangling a carrot in front of the mule.
To that I said "No string here", although I could have said "No carrot here" but the reference would be lost. This is different then "No strings attached". Go back to eating some more golden goodness in waffle shape, you need a clear head :)
Amarr for Life |
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:42:00 -
[228]
Edited by: Kalrand on 23/11/2009 23:42:28
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Dzil That sorta contradicts your statement on API keys. What happens to your customers that are unable to entrust you with their keys?
Take a breath Dzil - breath in... breath out.... What now?
The goonie said "It's amazing to me you guys strung them along this long" meaning like all goonies they believe everyone is scamming everyone else. This is saying is like dangling a carrot in front of the mule.
To that I said "No string here", although I could have said "No carrot here" but the reference would be lost. This is different then "No strings attached". Go back to eating some more golden goodness in waffle shape, you need a clear head :)
Actually, this has been a pretty obvious "string them along for the lulz" since about the time of the Ricidic thing.
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:53:00 -
[229]
Question - what would be ebank's position if I offer a service to anonymously take characters on to a second account, validate them with my API, and transfer them back?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Cordin Hamir
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:54:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Your moral and contractual obligations are simple - immediately cease the non-voluntary imposition of new terms on your customers and liquidate your holdings so as to return the property you hold to its rightful owners.
The board views it's moral obligations slightly different, and we're willing to make non-voluntary contractual changes when we believe those changes are in the interest of the majority of stakeholders.
Utter rubbish you have no idea what the majority of the stakeholders want and have gone out of your way to avoid trying to find out. It is posible that the majority wish the BoD to continue to try and recover the maximum percentage of isk possible no matter how long it takes - it is equally possible that the majority would just like you to liquidate now, you Ray DO NOT know and to keep pretending that you are acting solely in the interest of this 'majority view' is just garbage.
EBANK is dead - it has lost any last shreds of respect it may have had, those currently involved are also (I believe) on a very steep and slippery slope reputation wise.
|
|
Amaarrah
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:56:00 -
[231]
Edited by: Amaarrah on 23/11/2009 23:56:50 Come to think of it. 8 pages of frustrated "customers" in one single day. Do some of them have a real life? I hope for EBANK's sake these people are not the foundation EBANK is building on. If so, then I would feel sorry for the hard work EBANK is doing. These kind of customers will never be satisfied. For weeks on end its the same bunch that always find anything to complain. So, I have a lot of respect for the way Ray and the bankers handle this topic and the problems they face. I sincerely hope the bank is building on credit from more positive minded players.......
|
EvilweaselSA
Weasel Enterprises Ltd GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:31:00 -
[232]
Originally by: SencneS
The goonie said "It's amazing to me you guys strung them along this long" meaning like all goonies they believe everyone is scamming everyone else. This is saying is like dangling a carrot in front of the mule.
you're horrible at analogies you should never try them again
but no, everyone's not scamming everyone else, there are the scamees (the people in this thread) too
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:33:00 -
[233]
Originally by: SencneS Since I said them, I'll answer you..
There was a lot that was given to us that we later found out was just not the case. Mr. H who coded most of the site said a lot of things which we all took for granted, we came to find out most of those things where not there. He also tried to fraud the system of over 90B ISK, so we don't believe any of the old systems any more. This is an extremely WISE choice. Why would we want to keep any system a person who tampered with it to try and steal 90B? You're reading too deep for something that isn't there. There is no way a good reason to keep the old system that was coded by someone who tried to commit fraud...
You can take that however you like, either accept and embrace the change for the good, or dwell on the past which was made and designed by a fraud. The choice is yours.
Thank you very much for your answer, now we can proceed to discuss LVV involvement. The thing is that you are the guys who lied or lie there or here, not Mr H. You said whathever was neccesary then and I believe you say it now. Why should people think you deserve to be believed now?
Your mascarade behind Mr. H makes no sense and it is the same masquerade you used with Ricdic to hide further missmanagement, althought it was pointed out that the numbers didn't match at that time and I don't remember you publishing the right numbers on where did the money went.
You have said in this very thread that "The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn.", but LVV said that he was personally dealing with the RMT aspect of things together with tellers, implying that he was tracking money transfers between accounts as you was saying was the norm in the post he was answering to, so he supposedly used the software and saw it working. For a long time. His own words. How can Mr. H be responsible of those statements?
How is that you found that the code was not there when you have said that you used and kept track of RMT through it? Personally. Not Mr. H. You say that the code is unrelieable now but you said you saw it working then. And all the other software is based on the same code.
EVEwatch Sidebar soon "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. " |
Breaker77
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:42:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Giz S FOR EVERYONE WORRIED ABOUT GIVING OUT YOUR LIMITED API KEY
You can submit your limited api key to EBANK, then just request a new limited api from CCP once the ebank api has been validated. this way, they dont get to store all your information in the future if they dont already do it once they get it initially.
When the initial API pull is done they grab the character names and corps the other 2 characters are in and then turn around and sell that info to others.
You change your API and guess what, EBank still has that names of those characters 10 years later.
Idiot
On a serious note though.
What is to stop a character with 20 billion in EBank and has a loan default character on the same account from simply doing a character transfer to move one of those characters to another account? Guess what, they have their 20 billion back and all the ISK they defaulted on.
How do you solve that?
Will account holders have to submit valid government IDs, signing a release for CCP to release all your account information, and tell them the name of your dog??
THE API IS USELESS
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 01:03:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Thank you very much for your answer, now we can proceed to discuss LVV involvement. The thing is that you are the guys who lied or lie there or here, not Mr H. You said whathever was neccesary then and I believe you say it now. Why should people think you deserve to be believed now?
Your mascarade behind Mr. H makes no sense and it is the same masquerade you used with Ricdic to hide further missmanagement, althought it was pointed out that the numbers didn't match at that time and I don't remember you publishing the right numbers on where did the money went.
You have said in this very thread that "The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn.", but LVV said that he was personally dealing with the RMT aspect of things together with tellers, implying that he was tracking money transfers between accounts as you was saying was the norm in the post he was answering to, so he supposedly used the software and saw it working. For a long time. His own words. How can Mr. H be responsible of those statements?
How is that you found that the code was not there when you have said that you used and kept track of RMT through it? Personally. Not Mr. H. You say that the code is unrelieable now but you said you saw it working then. And all the other software is based on the same code.[/justify]
Not sure exactly what your confusing here.. We don't know if accounts that currently in EBANK have in the past committed RMT, just as others have said, it's not our job, and we don't work for CCP or have access to CCP information, so we can't even if we wanted to.. What is our job is prevent EBANK from losing ISK BECAUSE of RMT. If an account is banned now, for whatever reason, and the GM's have not reversed any transactions then that COULD happen down the road. This is one of the things we're trying to prevent with API. If people are unable to supply working APIs then the account moves into a suspended status, in which they have 3 months to make it working. If they don't then the "Account closure process" is initiated, which EBANK is seeking some public opinion on. (See my EBANK SencneS post for more information)
It seems like you're mixing two thing up.
Just so you understand we do not know who is banned.. This is a way to weed out those people. We do not want those people with Banned accounts transferring ISK to active accounts and withdrawing that ISK. If the GM's having actioned the RMT Reversal yet, how do we know RMT has taken place?
I can't speak for LVV, but I can say as a Teller everyone works with everyone to work out any questionable activity. I don't see why you think this is something bad, or we have some sort of sinister motive behind it.
It was proven that Mr.H defrauded EBANK and tried to get away with 90B ISK not trying to hide behind a fraud, if that's what you think then, ok, whatever.
Amarr for Life |
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 02:20:00 -
[236]
Quote: What is our job is prevent EBANK from losing ISK BECAUSE of RMT.
How do you lose money if the transaction has not been reversed? If it has you have closed the account. And why would GM ban an account for RMT and not revearse transactions? That makees no sense. You do not solve anything here because there is nothing to solve, as you have said it's not your job to find RMT and any found by ccp is already handled without api. Quote: I can't speak for LVV, but I can say as a Teller everyone works with everyone to work out any questionable activity. I don't see why you think this is something bad, or we have some sort of sinister motive behind it.
I didn't say that, do not put words in my mouth that I have not said. What I said is that the things you are pretending you need the api for you did it already without the api. Quote: It was proven that Mr.H defrauded EBANK and tried to get away with 90B ISK not trying to hide behind a fraud, if that's what you think then, ok, whatever.
I did not expressed my opinion on Mr.H, wich is no good btw. He defrauded, but that has nothing to do with the RMT code. Jesus, you are almost as good as the best scammers at twisting facts. In resume: I do not confuse anything (that you have adressed at least) and you read what you want from my words to answer whathever you want to. I'll try to put it simpler for you, some facts to be quoted with this same words if you want to answer: - RMT banned accounts do have their transactions revearsed and you check that trough software.
- Any other RMT that happens is not your job to find and you won't do it with the api.
- If ccp bans an account for any other reason that is not RMT and do not revearse tansactions you lose nothing.
- You try to justify the change to api because you say Mr.H code is not reliable, but you have your own staff saying that they used it for a long time successfully.
- You have no problem with the rest of the code made by Mr.H.
- You state that "The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn." and that is why you need the api.
- You said and LVV backed that you did investigate those transfers through an "incredible system available to us". "This is the audit process ALL tellers perform when processing withdrawals".
- You implied that these mechanisms did not exist when the answer you gave to my concerns was that "There was a lot that was given to us that we later found out was just not the case."
- LVV stated that he personally had been dealing with RMT for a long time with the tellers using the tools you talked about, so you can not say Mr.H said it was there but it wasn't.
- You say that "If the GM's having actioned the RMT Reversal yet, how do we know RMT has taken place?" right after saying It's not your job to find out to justify apis.
- The api will not help you when investigating transfers because it provides nothing to go further with the facts mentioned above.
- You tried to blame Ricdic for more than what he did, all eBank problems when it was later obvious that more money was missing.
- You have not yet said where that money went (I assume this, since you have not corrected that bit from my post).
- You tried to blame Mr.H for more than what he did.
There are more facts, but this will be enough for now. Next time try to adress the things I say instead of trying to deviate the attention, please. Seeing this I want to recommend people to see the whole picture and to think for themselves, and anyone with an loan to not give eBank a cent until all the inconsistencies have been addressed and/or the payments happens.
EVEwatch Sidebar soon "It is the unofficial force ù the Jita irregulars. " |
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 02:49:00 -
[237]
Ok, I have read the entire thread up to this point, and I see several points that remain unaddressed. While I am supportive of the overall idea, there are numerous problems.
There have been several differing statements on the intended use of the API keys. The stated reasons are:
- Prevent depositors who are in debt to EBANK from withdrawing their ISK
- Combat RMT
- Prevent banned players from transferring ISK to another EBANK account in order to withdraw it
- Check whether accounts are active so that deposits by banned or inactive players can be written off
Here are some of the relevant quotes:
Originally by: Omber Zombie The API key verification came up as an idea originally to combat RMT, it also had the side benefit of linking alt accounts within ebank for loan forfeits so that additional loans could not be given out, and so asset recovery could be made on those forfeits.
Originally by: EBANK SencneS Every time we collect 1 user with 1 ISK that was banned, verified by API, that's 1 ISK is removed from the deficit.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Leneerra what I consider private is: 2 other chars on my single account
And that is the exact reason for the Limited API requirement. We want to know that information. Why should we pay you out if you're an alt of a loan defaulter or former disgraced board member?
Originally by: SencneS The thing that relates to RMT, is preventing all those Banned Accounts with billions of ISK in it, getting transfered to new accounts and withdrawn. Then at a later date when CCP catch up process the reversals and EBANK is out those billions of ISK. That is pretty much it. That's the extent of our so called RMT investigation. People who have already been caught by CCP and perma-banned. All we want to know is who they are, so when the GM's Reversal hammer hits EBANK we're not getting sucked into a deeper deficit.
Originally by: SencneS I actually expect not much from banned accounts personally. What I do expect is a LOT of ISK from people who have stolen or defaulted a loan from EBANK. Now I could be wrong and it be the other way around, but I fully expect if those people have the integrity to put in the API, and let us capture the fraud/stolen/defaulted ISK they may have more then they realized.
Continued in 5 minutes...
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 02:56:00 -
[238]
None of these reasons are satisfactory:
- Prevent depositors who are in debt to EBANK from withdrawing their ISK
If a player took out a loan from EBANK, whether with the intent to repay it or to scam, he would not leave ISK in EBANK. If he intends to scam, he would withdraw it prior to the scam to ensure he has it, and if the loan is legitimate then he wouldn't keep ISK in EBANK with much lower interest rates than the loan interest rates. Additionally, if a player was stupid enough to actually have deposits when he defaulted, he could hide his alts by transferring the character.
- Combat RMT
The API key doesn't help EBANK combat RMT. I'm not sure if this is a reason anymore. Initially, SencneS thought the API revealed whether an account was banned. SencneS later stated that fighting RMT was not really EBANK's job.
- Prevent banned players from transferring ISK to another EBANK account in order to withdraw it
My previous post addresses this:
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Another thought: when a player makes a withdrawal, it is probably unnecessary to check that his account is active, since he can't access the ISK anyways if his account is inactive. You can still write off dormant deposits based on whether he has logged into the EBANK web site. Therefore, there is no need to check that the EVE account is active, except for transfers to other players, which most players do not need to use.
Also, the API key does not show that an account is banned, only that the account is inactive. Checking whether an account is active can be done in numerous ways other than the API key.
- Check whether accounts are active so that deposits by banned or inactive players can be written off
Again, the API key is not required.
I also feel that EBANK does not have sufficient protection of our information's privacy and security. Originally by: Ray McCormack We will do our utmost to keep the data we obtain from the Limited API Key private and secure, but for me to promise it is entirely safe would be a lie. Any Admin or Board member on the bank website can see these details, and I can hardly stop them from storing it without my knowledge. I'll let them all know I will be extremely angry and upset if they do though.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Sorry but that is totally and utterly inadequate. You need a far more robust security system.
I don't see how we can implement one that still sees the staff members that action withdrawals have access to that information to check for alts on our list of known thieves and loan defaulters.
Can you?
Why do staff members need to see that information? A much better method would be to automatically compare the character names to the names on this list: it reduces the staff workload, reduces information exposure, reduces the chance of human error, and so on.
Originally by: LaVista Vista The API is simply the easiest option. [...] The suggestion of a channel is more labour intensive than taking an API key. And so is doing it manually through evemail, for instance.
None of the verification needs to be manual. Monitoring of forum posts, chat channels, and .01 ISK transfers can all be automated.
Originally by: Omber Zombie While the posting/0.1 isk transfer/whatever to say you are active suggestions are nice (and partially helpful), not everyone is able to log in at required time nor choose to post on forums, API was the easiest, had the best coverage and most automatic way we could do it.
You don't need to make a withdrawal if you are not able to log in.
Continued in 5 minutes...
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 03:08:00 -
[239]
There have also been conflicting statements on what information would be accessed, stored, and used by EBANK.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Leneerra I have to take your word for it you will not take (and store) other information availeble.
Moving forward we will start storing personal Standings.
Originally by: LaVista Vista 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).
Originally by: Omber Zombie I fully understand why people wouldn't want to give up their API key for this, but the information contained in what we are accessing is purely for automating purposes, we are not going to sit there and examine the data - there is simply way too much info even if we cared to look through it.
Basically it comes down to trusting us not to misuse that data, and while I understand that is asking a lot in light of previous management of the bank, keep in mind that we are not running this bank for personal gain at this point - the amount of work/time being put into this is purely to get it back up and running and get YOUR isk back to you. We make nothing out of it (other than some weird sense of satisfaction of solving a problem, at least for me).
LaVista and Omber Zombie seem to be saying that EBANK does not intend to access unnecessary data. LaVista said we can monitor what data EBANK accesses. However, Ray has stated that they will take and store information other than character names that may be completely unrelated to bank operations. Why does EBANK need information on personal standings? Can you clarify what information you intend to access and how it will be used?
Anyways, that is the end of the section on the API keys. I know Ray said that the decision is final and not negotiable, but I think that making irreversible decisions is never a good idea, especially when made before fully discussing alternative solutions.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Wyehr ]I think they picked 700B ISK since it was slightly more than they have right now. This way, depositors are drawing out earnings rather than reducing the bank's working capital.
Correct, it's also closer to the capital amount the bank can handle effectively at the moment.
Considering the low profit EBANK is making on its 700B ISK, why do you think it is the amount the bank can handle most effectively?
I still think that the requirement that accounts are accessed every 3 months discourages long-term deposits which would be beneficial to the bank. Perhaps you could allow a form of CD for long-term deposits, and only have the 6-month limitations on normal accounts.
|
Katiana Swan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 03:49:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Moving forward we will start storing personal Standings.
Stuff
I think Ray was saying that in jest.
On your other points I agree on most of them, just wanted to throw the above in there, I am sure Ray can clarify if he feels like it.
|
|
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 03:51:00 -
[241]
In case you missed it, RMT interacts with Ebank in two steps:
First step: RMTer deposits money. Second step: RMTer transfers money and someone else withdraws it.
Ebank takes a double hit if both transactions happen and only the first is reversed. This potential double hit is a valid concern for management and (other) depositors alike. It has nothing to do with Ebank fighting RMT, per se. Also note that if we assume that CCP doesn't have access to Ebank data, they are unable to see the second step as a RMT transaction, since nothing in CCPs data connects the depositor with the withdrawer. (I'm pretty sure that isn't a word, but I can't think of a better one.)
Ebank seems to be taking the position that they are unwilling to honor accounts funded by RMT deposits whether the initial deposit has been reversed by CCP yet or not. See post #193. I think plenty of us will agree with that position.
That said, I still think that the API requirement is, well, misguided. In my previous reply (post #206) I tried to show that the API key will not help this in any way.
If CCP has reversed the RMT's deposit, Ebank knows about it and can cancel the transfers to other accounts (assuming the destination accounts weren't withdrawn prior to the freeze).
If CCP hasn't reversed the deposit, but did ban the account, the associated Ebank source accounts will get flushed regardless of the verification method used, and the destination accounts will be unaffected.
If CCP hasn't reversed the deposit, and did not ban the account, Ebank presumably has no better knowledge and will allow that account to be liquidated or withdrawn like every other account.
Let us pretend that the API server responds to queries on banned accounts with "403 OMG!BANZ0r3D", giving Ebank clear and undeniable proof that an account is banned. Now, the question becomes this: what possible motivation does an ISK seller have to log into Ebank's website so that they can provide the API key of their banned account?
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:01:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Kapila Parthalan on 24/11/2009 04:03:28
Originally by: Katiana Swan
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Moving forward we will start storing personal Standings.
Stuff
I think Ray was saying that in jest.
On your other points I agree on most of them, just wanted to throw the above in there, I am sure Ray can clarify if he feels like it.
I also thought so, but it is unclear.
Originally by: Wyehr Now, the question becomes this: what possible motivation does an ISK seller have to log into Ebank's website so that they can provide the API key of their banned account?
They wouldn't have any motivation, but the point is that checking that the account is active prevents them from withdrawing their ISK. Because the check is there, they won't bother to attempt a withdrawal. Edit: By withdrawal, I mean a transfer to another EBANK account, followed by a withdrawal. Obviously, if you are banned, a withdrawal doesn't help you. This is why it is sufficient to check that the account is active for transfers only.
|
Thoraemond
Minmatar Far Ranger
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:02:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Proton Power Instead of 6mths inactivity I would personally say go 8.
The military was something that came up during the vote, and we're willing to listen to this in our discussion group, which will be formed shortly (well, within the next few months).
On 'further community input and discussion on the final write-off of ISK': I would be tempted to do something like Mme Pinkerton suggested. I.e., leave all the liability on the books (for accounts you think are defunct) and use some sort of internal discounting to arrive at your working figures for management of the bank.
As at least a nod toward the legitimacy of any input-gathering, hopefully the clock won't start running on this 'countdown until EBANK breaches a lot of EBANK-client commitments to inequitably convert a lot of ISK' until after the consultation with the discussion group has concluded. á á
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:03:00 -
[244]
People have faith in banks because they trust that the bank will return their money when they ask for it. EBANK has already broken this fundamental trust and is even going to the extreme to charge an excessive amount for withdrawals. The more you continue EBANK, the more you are enforcing the notion that customers have no choice when it comes down to investments. Nothing you do will ever satisfy your customers.
You should seriously consider closing down EBANK and start a new bank taking into account the lessons learned from this mess. The more you continue to force yourself onto people the more people are going to recent EBANK. Right now you are loosing credibility very fast and soon will reach the point of no return where no one will ever invest with anyone involve with EBANK.
If you think you canÆt open a new bank, then why you think is better to force EBANK onto its customers? You should liquidate and have ôactiveö players claim their ISK via eve email to ensure accounts are active. Anyone not emailing within one month should be consider inactive and will not get paid û forfeit their ISK. If the total claims are larger than the bankÆs NAV, then paid a pro-rated amount.
I donÆt believe any customer is happy with the present situation, and while the closing down proposal seems extreme, at least people will have closure.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Varo Jan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:03:00 -
[245]
Originally by: Ray McCormack We would love to offer you income reports from the various divisions, but due to other more pressing requirements those have fallen by the wayside. Once the internal audit is complete (yes, it's still ongoing) they will be worked on as a priority. For now you can assess our periodic updates to our progress by monitoring the Public Financials.
You¦re planning to add to your overhead by recruiting at least ten members of staff - and yet none of those positions is for a financial bod. Fire the amateur who prepares your Public Financials and recruit someone who at least can tie up financial statements.
How long have you been in charge? Three months plus some? It takes a public company in RL two weeks to be externally audited, including the management letter. I accept that whoever is conducting your internal audit is not an accountant, but seriously, EVE accounts are significantly simpler than RL accounts. Something is not right there.
Income reports for the various divisions, which can only mean your ventures, because everything else is immaterial, *is* one of your most pressing requirements. Don¦t you understand that?
Here¦s a summarised, revised version of your forecast P&L: Loan Interest - 6,798,789,237 (6.21% of 109,463,246,858) Advertising - 403,000,000 Dividends - 1,737,958,735 Ventures - 0 (0% of 64,077,132,578)
Net Income - 8,939,747,972
Costs ???
Accumulated Loss (1,227,305,023,202)
Years required to cover loss - 11.44
I¦ve excluded Titan BPCs on the basis they are ad-hoc sales, not monthly. However, significant elements are missing. First, you haven¦t included any costs, and you must have some and will have considerably more if you recruit large numbers of staff. Second, you haven¦t shown any revenue from Ventures. By the way, why is the ventures value different from the Balance Sheet? Ditto for investments.
You are unlikely to significantly increase your loans portfolio. Advertising is immaterial. Investments are unlikely to rise significantly. Ventures should generate better returns than any other source. And yet you consider divisional income reports unimportant.
I¦ve left out the obvious one. Sleight of hand on deposits. And I think you know what I mean there.
One last suggestion. Split the accumulated losses in two - losses up to the date you took over, and profits/losses since.
|
Tiberizzle
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:15:00 -
[246]
Quote: EBank has little rep to lose at this point
|
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:38:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Wyehr Now, the question becomes this: what possible motivation does an ISK seller have to log into Ebank's website so that they can provide the API key of their banned account?
They wouldn't have any motivation, but the point is that checking that the account is active prevents them from withdrawing their ISK. Because the check is there, they won't bother to attempt a withdrawal. Edit: By withdrawal, I mean a transfer to another EBANK account, followed by a withdrawal. Obviously, if you are banned, a withdrawal doesn't help you. This is why it is sufficient to check that the account is active for transfers only.
So, if we can see that the API isn't more useful than any other form of verification, why not pick one of the many options that is less repugnant?
|
Chalrynn Illyndar
White Whales
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:39:00 -
[248]
My question on the matter, is why not just send a log of all the money transfers to one of the various GM's who is involved with the RMT? It would at least help on CCP's end since I imagine there is no way for them to actually tell EBANK anything due to their EULA/Privacy policy.
This is also likely the issue EBANK is having, They have Deposits from 50 people for various amounts and they just see "-50,000,000.00 [GM ISK REMOVAL]" with no reference to where it was from so they have to write it off as a loss while the isk is actually sitting in one of those 50 people's account. Depending on how it's handled on the GM's side it could mean a number of things... Was it one 50 million isk transaction? Two 25 million isk transactions...? Etc.
But, Random Joe depositing isk later withdrawing isk without any transactions in between is definitely not laundering anything. A 0.1 isk deposit would verify the activity of the account in this situation.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:39:00 -
[249]
Edited by: SencneS on 24/11/2009 04:42:59
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus How do you lose money if the transaction has not been reversed?
It could one day be reversed?... Unless you're suggesting we gamble on the fact that it will never be reversed. I don't sounds too risky to me but whatever works for you. If you want us to gamble with public ISK then I'll take your suggestion under light consideration.
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus What I said is that the things you are pretending you need the api for you did it already without the api.
It's not the same.. What LVV did was petition most questionable transactions. We felt it wise to have a single source for questionable transactions, if he did more I'm not but we all worked on questionable stuff, but if a petition was used LVV filed it I believe.
*RMT banned accounts do have their transactions revearsed and you check that trough software. - Half right, the initial check had to come from EBANK Ricdic, He needed to report it, Mr.H then used something he programed to reverse the transaction enter records etc. It said way back in that thread you dug up that it was manual checking the software did some things not all. Keep on dwelling on this it does wonders for a system now obsolete.
*Any other RMT that happens is not your job to find and you won't do it with the api. - huh? Let me make this clear because you must be missing it. I could give two turds if people RMT, in fact I don't care if it's in EVE legal or not. The issue is not us to HUNT for RMT, it's to PREVENT RMT from effecting EBANK. Why this is so difficult for you to understand I'll never know.
*If ccp bans an account for any other reason that is not RMT and do not revearse transactions you lose nothing. - OK... Then address this in the "What should happen to suspended accounts. This is specifically addressed there.
*Mr. H's code - The code has been reworked. Some things are clear, work and don't need changing, others did, others where questionable. Point is, questionable code should be kept in.. Why would we.. Not sure why this is difficult for you.
*...and that is why you need the api. - Yes.. It's one of the reasons, not all of them, and you say I'M twisting your words..
*The "System" - You're really hung up on the past obsolete system. Look whatever your grudge is stop beating around the bush and post it. Some of that was not coded by Mr.H (OH god I've opened another can for you to harp on) the important part the actual "Reversal" part was done by Mr.H, he did all the reversals with his stuff. The easy to use tools to help us determine if it was questionable was done by our current devs. You continue to bring this up like you think know something, out with it, come on, get to the point. Because I can't see it yet.
*You say that "If the GM's haven't actioned the RMT Reversal yet, how do we know RMT has taken place?" right after saying It's not your job to find out to justify apis. - We have to know If we get a reversal shouldn't we know
*You tried to blame Ricdic for more than what he did, all eBank problems when it was later obvious that more money was missing. - Getting banned and removing what he claims to be about 60B in raw ISK along is MORE then he did. Ricdic has ISK and assets in banned characters we can't touch, sorry his "bill" is more then just 250B he claimed to have taken. <- Note "CLAIMED"
*You tried to blame Mr.H for more than what he did. - No, just what he did, tried to take 90B ISK, and created some questionable code which is obsolete.
If you see more let me know.
Edit:- had to cut down a lot but I'll add some *'s
Amarr for Life |
Remus Kurgan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:43:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: RAW23
I ... I ... I seem to find myself in complete agreement with Liberty!
Welcome to the winning side
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Currently, you are an anti-capitalist in my book.
Oooooh, are we playing Cold War EVE edition????
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 05:24:00 -
[251]
Message from the heart...
This is an endeavor to create an solid fully trusted banking system, where thieves, scammers, and RMTers would have to put forth 200% more effort to get around in and use. Anyone that believes requesting limited API is bad, really saddens me.
Forget for a second that this is EBANK and consider this..
A website in which people can goto and check to see if the person they are dealing with has at any point the past been associated with any known "Virtual EVE Criminals". A site you can enter the name of and it reports back, "Fully verified, no criminal activity"
Wouldn't that be what people would want to see?
Now look at it from EBANK'S perspective, four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way. Has had hundreds of Billions of ISK defaulted loans, has had possibly hundreds of billions lost due to RMT. Why wouldn't anyone running ANY IPO, Bank, or investment only want to deal with people they know for a fact haven't been a part of ANY lost occurred. All in the name of security and offers benefits like quicker deficit recovery, monumental security for EBANK, and the ISK it holds.
Now I can see why people push so hard against it, I really can. But surely to have a place in which you can use and anyone that uses it is "verified" seems attractive. Doesn't anyone look at the larger picture anymore.
I guess a visionaries hope of a Utopian place where everyone is "Good" and not a Thief, Scammer, or RMTer is just a foolish one.
Amarr for Life |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 05:27:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Katiana Swan I think Ray was saying that in jest.
I also thought so, but it is unclear.
I wasn't.
Originally by: Varo Jan It takes a public company in RL
Everyone's an expert. Does that mean you're volunteering to do them for us? I have other more pressing concerns currently, no point in having flashy financials if all the figures are zero.
Originally by: Varo Jan Don¦t you understand that?
Thanks, you'll find I mentioned that in the OP, but kudos for being able to point out the obvious.
------
Regarding the API stuff, I read most of the posts. I ignored the ones made by that angry guy with all the bold and underline, he's clearly got issues. None of the arguments have changed my mind on the matter though, the Limited API Key requirement will not change and is in place for the multitude of reasons already mentioned.
Give us your Limited API Key or forfeit your ISK, it is that simple. No sugar coating.
We will however make accommodation for those returning to claim their ISK, accounts will not be written off completely and will be available after a brief freeze period after being re-opened. We'll finalise that decision over the next few months and let everyone know.
One thing everyone needs to understand is I have nothing to hide, I will be brutally honest about every decision made by the bank - I have no need to hide anything as it's quite obvious I'm a ***** that will just do whatever he thinks is best.
|
Corporate Thief
Caldari Code Triage
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 05:44:00 -
[253]
Edited by: Corporate Thief on 24/11/2009 05:44:51 SencneS, your post needs more puppies to be honest.
This game wouldn't exist in nearly as entertaining a fashion if it were a Utopia; the whole point is that it isn't. Honestly, though, I offer my services to people who consider themselves morally superior to me. It's bad business and frankly ironic that I shouldn't be allowed to use EBANK when one of the current BoD is a repeat customer of mine...
*Edit: Spelling errors I missed ---
Who wants to make me a Sig? Mail me in-game! \O/
Originally by: CCP Soundwave Gather around young ones, Uncle Soundwave will tell you the tale of Icelanders and their receding hairlines.
|
Angus McSpork
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:03:00 -
[254]
Originally by: SencneS Message from the heart...
This is an endeavor to create an solid fully trusted banking system, where thieves, scammers, and RMTers would have to put forth 200% more effort to get around in and use. Anyone that believes requesting limited API is bad, really saddens me.
Forget for a second that this is EBANK and consider this..
A website in which people can goto and check to see if the person they are dealing with has at any point the past been associated with any known "Virtual EVE Criminals". A site you can enter the name of and it reports back, "Fully verified, no criminal activity"
Wouldn't that be what people would want to see?
Now look at it from EBANK'S perspective, four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way. Has had hundreds of Billions of ISK defaulted loans, has had possibly hundreds of billions lost due to RMT. Why wouldn't anyone running ANY IPO, Bank, or investment only want to deal with people they know for a fact haven't been a part of ANY lost occurred. All in the name of security and offers benefits like quicker deficit recovery, monumental security for EBANK, and the ISK it holds.
Now I can see why people push so hard against it, I really can. But surely to have a place in which you can use and anyone that uses it is "verified" seems attractive. Doesn't anyone look at the larger picture anymore.
I guess a visionaries hope of a Utopian place where everyone is "Good" and not a Thief, Scammer, or RMTer is just a foolish one.
/golf clap
However, there are many issues and problems with what you're doing.
Your suggestion of a website about 'virtual EVE Criminals' sounds great and all--IF IT WAS VOLUNTARY from the ground up. However, you're going to hold 9000 accounts' ISK hostage in a no-negotiations manner. In Ray's own words "Give us your Limited API Key or forfeit your ISK, it is that simple. No sugar coating". This is not a voluntary exchange for new accounts only or even a new bank. Give us what we want or we'll scam you.
This is ESPECIALLY egregious given that (I believe) ebank staffers have came and said they cannot gaurantee the safety of the API information only that we are to trust the same organization that, in your own words, has had "four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way".
In the instances of past directors who gamed the eBank system.. Would the API key really have somehow stopped it?
This whole API thing is just a simple way of getting people ****ed off enough to not bother claiming what they entrusted your institution with. And it is still so easy to get around it isn't funny if someone wanted to spend a little RL money.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:16:00 -
[255]
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.
|
Varo Jan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:27:00 -
[256]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Varo Jan It takes a public company in RL
Everyone's an expert. Does that mean you're volunteering to do them for us? I have other more pressing concerns currently, no point in having flashy financials if all the figures are zero.
Son, if I¦d wanted to ram my experience down your throat, I¦d have done so. Learn to read between the lines.
No, I¦m not volunteering - you couldn¦t afford me, and I wouldn¦t join or work for a corp whose ethics are highly questionable.
Flashy financials? Now you¦re being silly. Try simple, accurate financials, which you need to run a business.
Quote:
Originally by: Varo Jan Don¦t you understand that?
Thanks, you'll find I mentioned that in the OP, but kudos for being able to point out the obvious.
The obvious is what you are not doing. But I take my hat off to you on one thing - you are very good at throwing up smokescreens.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:37:00 -
[257]
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.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 06:45:00 -
[258]
Originally by: cosmoray 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.
I would have thought this answer would have been answered by your own history of actions :)
While I don't hold it against you in any way, you took information that was gained by disclosure to recover ISK you lost to a scammer. While the methods are different the result is exactly the same.
Even though I have not run a personal IPO in the past, part of the reasons why I didn't was I didn't feel I should be rewarding those that pay for my shares with ISK Stolen from someone else.
We see far far too many unknowns buy shares/bonds from people, I assumed it was because they wanted the main to remain anonymous. I thought and did the same thing for a while, didn't want some people to know what I owned. In the end I found it to be stupid to be honest. Who cares if someone knows I own x amount of shares in y company. Yet people believe this is private information which should be kept with the up most secrecy.
I guess it's always me looking at it from the point of view I have done nothing wrong, nothing to hide, and believe I have conducted myself in an honorable way. Anyone that doesn't want their alts exposed in my opinions is a short list of reasons why.
1) They have scammed with the alt. 2) They do questionable business with an alt. 3) They are part of alliances with conflict of interests and both alliances don't check API to make sure they are not spys (rare but I guess it could happen) 4) They want to remain anonymous so they can troll the forums every so often.
Well, 1- I've never done, 2- I could careless if people knew I ninja salvages, I do sometimes. 3-No alliances here, besides I think it's a stretch considering the paranoia of some alliances 4- Hell I troll on this character.
I guess it's all about enlightenment, eventually people will be enlightened enough to realize that anonymity will only take you so far, to get the extra step you need to become transparent, or at least behave in a transparent nature.
Amarr for Life |
Mme Pinkerton
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 07:11:00 -
[259]
/me is worried she will lose all the ~50.000 ISK she has deposited with EBANK
I have two accounts with EBANK created by different characters, say A and B.
A and B have transferred money between each other (and have probably given EBANK the same email address, but I cannot check that atm).
A and B have been on different EVE accounts.
A has been biomassed. B is still active.
Does this mean I do RMT?
|
Angus McSpork
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 07:14:00 -
[260]
Originally by: SencneS
I guess it's always me looking at it from the point of view I have done nothing wrong, nothing to hide, and believe I have conducted myself in an honorable way. Anyone that doesn't want their alts exposed in my opinions is a short list of reasons why.
1) They have scammed with the alt. 2) They do questionable business with an alt. 3) They are part of alliances with conflict of interests and both alliances don't check API to make sure they are not spys (rare but I guess it could happen) 4) They want to remain anonymous so they can troll the forums every so often.
Well, 1- I've never done, 2- I could careless if people knew I ninja salvages, I do sometimes. 3-No alliances here, besides I think it's a stretch considering the paranoia of some alliances 4- Hell I troll on this character.
I guess it's all about enlightenment, eventually people will be enlightened enough to realize that anonymity will only take you so far, to get the extra step you need to become transparent, or at least behave in a transparent nature.
How about
5) It is none of your business what I do on my other characters or what my wallet balance is or what my personal standings are or any other thing the limited API can show you?
I've did nothing wrong either yet I will not simply roll over and bare my entire game life over to you. You guys can't even trust your own directors with your primary function (you know manage money) yet 9000 accounts are just supposed to hand over their APIs no questions asked so you can manage their ingame information?
Hell, you guys (ebank) can't even give a straight answer as to what you'll do with the information (some says to verify that the account hasn't been banned, others say it is to verify that a known ebank defrauder isn't on the account and Ray insists he wasn't joking about keeping track of people's standings). When asked how you would keep the information the API provides locked down the answer was basically "well, security is *really* hard, golly gee".
There have been quite a few well thought out less intrusive methods to accomplish what your claimed goals are. However it is still scamtasticly "We're requiring all sorts of absurd things in the hopes of simply driving away our customers so we can steal their ISK".
I did have to laugh when even the BoD weren't willing to share their APIs the way they are DEMANDING their customers do.
|
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 07:24:00 -
[261]
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.
|
jna
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 08:25:00 -
[262]
Originally by: SencneS Now look at it from EBANK'S perspective, four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way.
Now look at it from the EBANK Customer's perspective, four of the old Directors all either scammed, abused or defrauded EBANK in some way.
Problem: Unwilling to return customer ISK? Solution: Demand, for reasons varied, rambling, useless, unclear and totally exploitable, people's limited API keys to verify and store their alts, lightly salted with a self-stated inability to guarantee the security of said API information. When customers rightly go 'wtf?' extend this programme to include personal standings.
And the next time you run out of money due to internal fraud, scams, abuse or just plain old-fashioned loan defaults, what's the next step? Demand full API keys, in the knowledge that another X customers will forfeit their money to continue propping things up?
Originally by: SencneS Why wouldn't anyone running ANY IPO, Bank, or investment only want to deal with people they know for a fact haven't been a part of ANY lost occurred. [snip] ...surely to have a place in which you can use and anyone that uses it is "verified" seems attractive.
And that verification system would have stopped the 4 ex-directors of EBANK abusing, scamming and defrauding their customers how, exactly?
Anyone who deals in data should really understand that a partial picture of the "truth" - an EBANK limited-API-key 'verification' - is actually much, much more dangerous to EBANK (and others) than the current situation.
Anyways, where do I 'opt-out' of this hilarious experiment in trolling your customer base, whilst not having my failure to participate label me as an RMTer on some visionary, Utopian 'verification' system? ------------------------------------------------- Caeleste naves interretis res gravissimas sunt |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:39:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus Thank you very much for your answer, now we can proceed to discuss LVV involvement.
What do you want to know?
I did the data-gathering from our database and resolved the issues with GMs.
As for the "incredible audit tool", we have a system that visualizes ISK movement. While tellers are able to see the email and most recent IP and headers, that's that's about the extent of what tellers can see.
Login history is done manually. And doing a cross-check across the whole database is done manually.
Other than that, I fixed things when they broke, which happened quite often due to the API being fairly buggy.
Quote: any RMT account that has been banned and reversed transactions has been already caught by the software.
No RMT is caught by software, but human caution.
Quote: but LVV said that he was personally dealing with the RMT aspect of things together with tellers, implying that he was tracking money transfers between accounts as you was saying was the norm in the post he was answering to,
I dealt with RMT, yes. I didn't track money but when a teller raised the red flag, where I'd step in and pull all relevant data and present it to the teller and work with them to make sense of it all.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:42:00 -
[264]
Quote:
If any IPO, Bond, Fund, etc changed the terms of the agreement then they would be forever branded a scammer by MD. There is no difference between that and these new changes.
AFAIK the "regular" IPO / bonds etc. are tied to the proponent's name. In this case we have an institution going beyond those governing it.
EBANK <> its directors, in fact most of the various bad apples are gone.
Another factor is that on scammed bonds / IPOs the proponent tends to disappear and the money with him. In the case of EBANK there has been some heads replacement and the money looks not immediately lost beyond return.
Quote:
Originally by: Krathos Morpheus -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, on the api issue, it is VERY curious that you guys put down the ideas that could not work but do not comment on the ideas that will do, what about the in-game channel and the 0.01 isk deposits? What do you have to object to that? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would that identify alts to us?
How do you believe that a true scammer / launderer would not use alts off different accounts? It's like the 101 of scamming. What will the API key do for that?
Quote:
How about we get Fitz VonHeise to verify account activity.
Could I see an audit off him or something?
Quote:
Liberty's overall point is correct, despite the nauseating ideological overtones. However, this issue is long-dead.
I see it in a simple light: the cows have left the corral already.
Now, there's a space cow boy (pun intended!) that offers to bring some cows back and on his own terms.
Being this an unconsensual PvP game with allowed scamming and whatever, his terms are like "I will do it like this or you can GTFO".
End of ideology and high philosophy.
Quote:
Originally by: LaVista Vista --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The suggestion of a channel is more labour intensive than taking an API key.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labour intensive? You need to write some initial code (which really shouldnt take much time), and then it runs automated.
Let me give my 0.01 cents of godlike programming skillz:
1) Start EvE and leave it open. 2) Get people to talk random stuff, ie "Hi, I exist". 3) At the end of the day, take the resulting chat log file (I havey yet to see them truncated, in any case this can be fixed by relaunching EvE 3-4 times a day, quite a low stress) and use grep or a free editor with parametric "find" like Notepad++ to get the names out. It's not so hard to feed those names to a join SQL query and find out who's in and who's not.
Quote:
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.
It'd not be being a saint, but a proper deal honor.
Quote:
Come to think of it. 8 pages of frustrated "customers" in one single day. Do some of them have a real life?
Maybe 1% are customers, 99% no life trolls. Or bored at work.
Quote:
If you think you canÆt open a new bank, then why you think is better to force EBANK onto its customers?
If only people would read my posts. At the first pages I already detailed what people keep repeating right now (ie how convenient is to have people choose not to validate). In another thread I also explained why they want to force EBANK
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:46:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Let me give my 0.01 cents of godlike programming skillz:
1) Start EvE and leave it open. 2) Get people to talk random stuff, ie "Hi, I exist". 3) At the end of the day, take the resulting chat log file (I havey yet to see them truncated, in any case this can be fixed by relaunching EvE 3-4 times a day, quite a low stress) and use grep or a free editor with parametric "find" like Notepad++ to get the names out. It's not so hard to feed those names to a join SQL query and find out who's in and who's not.
That's still more work than pulling the Characters.xml.aspx and checking that the character exists on the account.
It also requires people to log in-game. The API doesn't require that.
|
jna
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:57:00 -
[266]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Let me give my 0.01 cents of godlike programming skillz:
1) Start EvE and leave it open. 2) Get people to talk random stuff, ie "Hi, I exist". 3) At the end of the day, take the resulting chat log file (I havey yet to see them truncated, in any case this can be fixed by relaunching EvE 3-4 times a day, quite a low stress) and use grep or a free editor with parametric "find" like Notepad++ to get the names out. It's not so hard to feed those names to a join SQL query and find out who's in and who's not.
That's still more work than pulling the Characters.xml.aspx and checking that the character exists on the account.
It also requires people to log in-game. The API doesn't require that.
Personally, I find logging into Eve and sending 0.1 isk to the EBANK deposit account simpler than logging into the Eve website account management section, getting my API keys, logging into the EBANK site, pasting them into your interface etc. etc.
Why isn't a deposit good enough? Ignore the spurious 'defaulted loan account character linkage' line, which (as already shown numerous times) doesn't hold water. ------------------------------------------------- Caeleste naves interretis res gravissimas sunt |
Katiana Swan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:00:00 -
[267]
To those who are considering sacrificing large amounts of isk due to not wanting to provide their API, why not counter EBANK's demands by creating a new account and moving your character to that one then releasing the API.
It is by no means a good process and shouldn't have to happen at all but if it comes down to losing billions of isk surely this is the best option?
As far as I can determine you would be looking at a $20 transfer fee along with the cost of a GTC (assuming you don't have another account without confidential data on it).
I don't agree at all with the way EBANK is doing things, just wanted to throw this out there as a viable alternative to losing all your funds.
Sencnes another reason why people may not want to provide their API is if they have an alt or second main on the account in say an industrial corporation. With KIA having been proven to be the cause of probably 30%-50% of the collapse of EBANK, do people really want to allow KIA members who also work at EBANK the ability to see this kind of information? What if say Leneera has a second character with a BoB hidden industrial corporation on the account and SentryRaven takes the information to use against them?
I am not saying this will happen, but someone in this position would surely show concern that it's possible after the failures thus far that have occured with any remaining ebank staff from the previous era.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:07:00 -
[268]
Originally by: jna
Why isn't a deposit good enough? Ignore the spurious 'defaulted loan account character linkage' line, which (as already shown numerous times) doesn't hold water.
I disagree that it has been shown as not holding water. People write it off because "smart scammers has their alts on other accounts", but you realize that people who default loans aren't scammers, nor all that smart often. They aren't Riethe or anybody like that.
It's a barrier to entry for people who have defaulted loans. Fine, it might not yield any results at all. But simply not doing it on that account seems irresponsible.
That's not to say that it's not intrusive to ask for an API key. But one could use the old "If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem"-argument.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:12:00 -
[269]
Quote:
That's still more work than pulling the Characters.xml.aspx and checking that the character exists on the account.
I am sure that you see by yourself that "it's more work" is not a responsible answer when it's yours institution who caused customers damage.
Quote:
It also requires people to log in-game. The API doesn't require that
Let's put up a poll about which of the two alternatives would be more popular and accepted?
I mean, if the API was a safe 100% mean to discern scammers off "legit" guys, it'd be a bitter medicine. But it's not 100% safe and people will publish (they did already) ways to spoof / bypass it.
Result: legit customers annoyance to the extreme, breach in their perceived privacy while those who have something to hide will just send you an immaculate API born off character transfer or were just smart enough to keep accounts separate in the beginning. - Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
jna
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:19:00 -
[270]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
That's not to say that it's not intrusive to ask for an API key. But one could use the old "If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem"-argument.
It is intrusive, and that argument doesn't wash either - by your (SencneS') own admission 4 old directors of the bank "scammed, abused and defrauded EBANK in some way". It's a question of who you trust with your data on your current wallet balance; your complete skillset, skillpoints, skill in training and skills in queue; your clone grade; your current implants; your personal standings with individuals, corps and alliances; your roles in the Corp, your hangar access rights; the corp divisions, the corp wallet names etc etc. And EBANK's institutional track record with the trust issue isn't exactly covered in glory.
You can't guarantee the security of the data, so who are your tellers going to be? Which alliances are they in? What purposes are they going to use this data for? What gaming implications does that have for me?
I can't answer that question, but neither can you. And therein lies the issue.
------------------------------------------------- Caeleste naves interretis res gravissimas sunt |
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:53:00 -
[271]
Edited by: Ji Sama on 24/11/2009 10:54:22 My problem is because its mandatory in regards to the API. You have changed horses midstream. I understand why you are doing it, i just disagree with you in doing it. You can keep the ISK i have in your accounts, the whole 600K, all of them, take it i say!
OMFG; I was invaded by a engrish spelling demon!
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 11:01:00 -
[272]
Well i have the solution to the problem, to show some good faith; the ebank staff will give their own personall api keys, of all their accounts, to every single ebank client, that give them thier api. Something for something.... Then they can prove to the ebank clients, that they arent rmting or trying to defraud. Or have known scammer alts.
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
Varo Jan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 12:01:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Ray McCormack We would like to take this opportunity to state that the current Board is in no way responsible for the financial position the bank finds itself in. Those remaining on the Board have had their roles and activities under the previous management thoroughly reviewed and have been cleared in full of any wrong doing. The new administration will no longer tolerate the salacious remarks attempting to besmirch their reputations and will retaliate by calling you names.
I¦ll assume that you meant us to take most of that statement seriously. The current board is responsible for the financial position of the bank from the date you took over. A P&L (excluding exceptional items) for the period since you took over would show if you've improved the financial position - or made it worse.
You haven¦t finished your internal audit. You don¦t prepare divisional P&Ls, which means you have no idea if your venture managers are competent. You haven¦t had an external audit by an independent party. So you¦re in no position to claim that the remaining directors are squeaky clean, or competent. Have you checked their full APIs on all characters?
Quote: It was recently discovered (by Ambo) that on two occasions interest had been paid twice on the same day. A brief investigation followed that established this had happened several times over the years, resulting in an extra ten and a half billion ISK being credited to saving and checking accounts and an additional nine billion against loan accounts. It has been decided that the double interest on the saving and checking accounts will be reversed automatically (at a later date), however the additional loan interest will only be reversed on request.
So someone outside the bank uncovered the flaw. That casts doubt on your competence.
As for your decision to only reverse double interest on loans on request, that says two things. First, it confirms that you have the PR skills of a blunt brick. Second, it¦s unethical. Do the right thing. For once.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 12:18:00 -
[274]
Edited by: RAW23 on 24/11/2009 12:24:41 Edited by: RAW23 on 24/11/2009 12:20:43
Originally by: LaVista Vista
That's not to say that it's not intrusive to ask for an API key. But one could use the old "If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem"-argument.
This "argument" is fundamentally based on two problematic premises. Firstly, the rejection of any legitimate private sphere at all. The government wants to install cctv camera's in everyones' houses. If you accept the nothing to hide/nothing to fear position you have no grounds on which to reject such an intrusion. If you reject the government's right to do this then you do, in fact, accept that it is legitimate to keep certain information to yourself, even if it is not information that you need to be fearful about revealing.
Secondly, the argument is premised on the complete trustworthyness of the institution and people that will receive the information. Someone suggests the BoD should make their apis public. They support this with the argument, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Board members object on the grounds that this is not really true as there may be people within the receiving group (the public) who they might need to fear because they will use the information inappropriately. Of course, the same argument goes the other way. There is only nothing to fear if, not only do you have a "clean record", but also if the institution can be 100% trusted not to misuse the information (something that Ray has said, quite accurately, that he can not guarantee). So, in the absence of such trust there is indeed something to fear.
In summary, people will only have nothing to fear if they both a) believe that there is no right to private information at all, and b) trust the relevant authority completely. Finally, any reader of Orwell will recognise this argument as the basis on which the society in 1984 rests. When the desire for security is allowed to override all other fundamental rights in the name of "making us safe", terrible things can happen (for a non-fictional example, see the penetration of the Stasi into East German life during the Communist period).
On a separate note, no one at EBank has yet answered my question about how they would distinguish stealing the contents of an innocent customer's account if they are unwilling to be blackmailed into giving up their api key from scamming that individual.
And finally, if they go ahead with this and expropriate account balances for failure to comply with arbitrarily imposed changes to the terms of service, will the remaining respected figures that frequent this forum (such as Cosmo and VV) officially call scam on this or will you be willing to deal with those involved in the future as if they have not simply stolen money from depositors?
|
Jowen Datloran
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 13:08:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 24/11/2009 13:09:20
Originally by: Ji Sama Well i have the solution to the problem, to show some good faith; the ebank staff will give their own personall api keys, of all their accounts, to every single ebank client, that give them thier api. Something for something.... Then they can prove to the ebank clients, that they arent rmting or trying to defraud. Or have known scammer alts.
This I will fully agree to. "I will show you mine if you show me yours".
After all,
Originally by: LaVista Vista
And given that there's very little actual information that is "sensitive" from the limited API key(Skills, wallet size), I can't see the problem.
Well, at least EBANK has moved from something I would recommend to rookies to invest their spare ISK in to something I would recommend them to stay far away from. Losing your spare ISK to a scam is a small deal, revealing sensitive character information unnecessary to strangers just to be able to access your own ISK is not.
The strong smell of deceit and scam has not decreased with this EBANK announcement at all, quite the opposite. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 13:16:00 -
[276]
Quote:
will the remaining respected figures that frequent this forum (such as Cosmo and VV) officially call scam on this or will you be willing to deal with those involved in the future as if they have not simply stolen money from depositors?
Thank you for the appreciation, but I have to make a precisation: I am not a judge nor I feel free to classify people or things I don't know enough of, nor everyone in EBANK shares the same degree of responsibility about what happened.
My personal opinion on the whole matter is quite clear and stated in many places. I don't need to write "scam" somewhere for something under the eyes of everyone, nor "auditor" means "some godlike judge outside of question". I can write some acceptable accounting pieces of text for bonds, I can hold some items but I am no important MD Elite nor I want to become one.
I could say some subjective and personal statements, where I see a person who really gave herself just to see her hard work crumble, I can see another person just too... mild to have done bad (or good) for EBANK and another who could be honest but got the diplomacy of a truck and this brings him more bad than good.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 13:27:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
will the remaining respected figures that frequent this forum (such as Cosmo and VV) officially call scam on this or will you be willing to deal with those involved in the future as if they have not simply stolen money from depositors?
Thank you for the appreciation, but I have to make a precisation: I am not a judge nor I feel free to classify people or things I don't know enough of, nor everyone in EBANK shares the same degree of responsibility about what happened.
My personal opinion on the whole matter is quite clear and stated in many places. I don't need to write "scam" somewhere for something under the eyes of everyone, nor "auditor" means "some godlike judge outside of question". I can write some acceptable accounting pieces of text for bonds, I can hold some items but I am no important MD Elite nor I want to become one.
I could say some subjective and personal statements, where I see a person who really gave herself just to see her hard work crumble, I can see another person just too... mild to have done bad (or good) for EBANK and another who could be honest but got the diplomacy of a truck and this brings him more bad than good.
Sure. What I mean, though, is will you, for instance, raise a red flag in any audit you do that involves the auditee being connected with the individuals that have voted for expropriation of account balances? Will you consider these individuals to be known scammers for audit purposes? I'm not concerned with the first wave of Ebank problems, just with these current proposals.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 14:32:00 -
[278]
The problem won't exist, because they won't ask me to audit them. Some have their own trusted consultants (like for SencneS proposed guy), the others won't ask me anyway.
In the improbable case they'd ask:
- those who scammed I won't accept to work for them.
- those who are selling their "raise the bank again for revenge" painting it like it's in the depositors interest will be flagged so.
- the one I have no proof of doing anything but her duty will have a green flag for her efforts in the good and in the bad times.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:02:00 -
[279]
Let's be honest:
This is a collosal pile of crap. Most of the people still on the board were involved in the blatant incompetence, if not corruption, that caused this in the first place. No matter how many times you state differently; it does not mean it is true.
You are effectively demanding people give you personal information to maybe, sort of, eventually get their deposits. It is their money. Not yours. It is there money. Do you understand the difference?
LIQUIDATE THE BANK AND GIVE THE DEPOSITORS BACK THEIR DAMN MONEY -- or present discounted assets.
You are all hypocrits, if not worse. The proposals you came up with just make the situation worse. It is not your money, it is their money. I think it is quite obvious that the customers want you to liquidate. Why offer this BS option and charge ridiculous fees? These options amount to theft and extortion.
Is this solution pulpable to anyone that currently doesn't have their hands in the isk?
-GV
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:30:00 -
[280]
I'm sorry some of you dislike me so much, I really do. /me hangs his head in shame.
|
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:35:00 -
[281]
It all boils down to this
- Retroactively demanding API keys, simply isn't acceptable.
Whatever the intentions, good or bad, whatever the justifications, whatever the percieved "overall benefit", the above statement is fact.
It's really that simple.
---
And Ray, I know damn well that you personally would never accept if anyone did this to you. You would tear them a new one post-haste. So don't be such a hypocrite please (I've just realised that this is actually what bugs me the most about all of this - Apart from the fact itself)
I still consider you a BIGun, but dang.. it's getting tenuous. Hypocrisy simply can't co-exist with that tag. (This particular remark might not mean anything to the masses, but I know Ray know what it means)
BIG Lottery |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:35:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Ray McCormack I'm sorry some of you dislike me so much, I really do. /me hangs his head in shame.
Imho you should focus a bit less on playing "aggro magnet" and find out if there's a more appetible alternative to providing API, or at least an alternate method (make it with a cost maybe?) for those who really don't like to expose their characters. There has to be a position that makes all happy, I don't think your customers are asking you the (dispro) moon. - Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:43:00 -
[283]
Consolidated replies.
Corporate Thief - Funny you mention that, EVE is indeed a wild west type of game, which is why a Utopia would be highly unique. You statements actually support the need for a place that is highly verified characters. Thanks :)
Angus McSpork - "Would the API key stopped Board members from stealing?" - It wouldn't have stopped the sinister activities of the past board members no. But, it will prevent them from taking MORE of what they have already taken.
Mme Pinkerton - No, you'd be safe, because I know who you are. If say Cosmoray deposited 5B into EBANK, transferred it to say Corporate Thief (LOL) I wouldn't class that as unusual. Even if Cosmoray transferred it to a complete unknown, that to me doesn't say anything either. If an unknown 2 day old character transfers 5B to Cosmoray, I would look up who the unknown is. Inform EBANK that it looks funny and I've eve mailed Cosmoray and to not process the withdrawal. Get his answer, if I didn't like it I would petition CCP find out if it's legit, wait until they come back. So no normal activity is not, just highly unusual stuff like this gets flagged.
Angus McSpork - That was covered by "3" besides, the remaining staff and BOD have proven their loyalty to EBANK, I believe we all take the same motto... "We don't care who you work for or what side you're on; your ISK holds the same value as everyone elseÆs."
jna - Same question as Angus McSpork, please read his answer. "Anyways, where do I 'opt-out' of this hilarious experiment in trolling your customer base, whilst not having my failure to participate label me as an RMTer on some visionary, Utopian 'verification' system?" You asked a question so I should answer; You can opt out of what you call trolling by reading what was already said. No one is labeling you an RMTer, EBANK is taking steps to make it that Utopian system, either you go along with making a Utopia or you get left behind, that is ALWAYS optional, see you in Utopia! :)
Vaerah Vahrokha - Fitz VonHeise runs "The Thieves of EVE" List, his would have similar objectives as us, if a known thief is on his list and is reported via API, and then I'm sure he would update his list. Not that I think he would do anyway, the task is way too big to do manually.
Ji Sama - Be careful what you ask for because I WOULD release my API in exchange for your API. I can't speak for others but I have nothing to hide, like I said before, I'm enlightened enough to know anonymity will only get you so far. In order to go that next step you HAVE to become transparent. All of MD wants IPO/Bonds/CEO and their business to be as Transparent as possible. Why shouldn't EBANK seek the same transparency from customers when the business EBANK does is directly affected by those customers?
Not directed at anyone.
Growing MD and the secondary market to a secure standard in which scammers and thieves have to work harder to operate is a worthy cause. Who wouldn't anyone want to know the person they are dealing with hasn't been a thief before? EBANK suffers for many things; it was founded on trust and became highly trusted. When that happened it became too big to really operate without issues.
People pushed, we would cap accounts, but people kept asking "When will it be re-opened?" The demand for that "Trustworthy" location was incredible and still is in high demand. Someone said "It's a two way street" Yet when EBANK tried to create that two way street in an area that will take secondary market to the next level it's meet resistance and trolling from the very same people that demanded a two way street in the first place.
Eventually someone was just going to have to lay the street and tell people, if you want on it, you have to pay the toll.
That toll is your limited API.
Amarr for Life |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:44:00 -
[284]
Originally by: TornSoul It all boils down to this
- Retroactively demanding API keys, simply isn't acceptable.
Whatever the intentions, good or bad, whatever the justifications, whatever the percieved "overall benefit", the above statement is fact.
It's really that simple.
It's more of a pick two:
API Keys/Keeping the Ebank name/Not scamming
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:53:00 -
[285]
Originally by: SencneS Consolidated replies.
rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble
That toll is your limited API.
Spoken like a true pirate. This post really belongs in C&P at this point.
Charging someone to return assets you siezed is criminal. Whether that charge is in isk, information, or unreasonable labor.
You do bring out one good point though: sharing your API doesn't justify this action. It lubes it up a bit at least, but it's still violating.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:56:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus LIQUIDATE THE BANK AND GIVE THE DEPOSITORS BACK THEIR DAMN MONEY -- or present discounted assets.
There are severe liquidity and fungibility problems with their current assets. Have you seen their public financial statements? If they closed today, you would get roughly 3% back now, and between 0 and 20% back at some unknown point in the future. That is not much different than the current proposal, except that you wouldn't have to pay the $20 to transfer your character to a new account.
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus I think it is quite obvious that the customers want you to liquidate.
This is far from obvious. There are 9,000 accounts. There are 280 posts in this thread. Even if every post was from a unique account holder, and if every post was in favor of liquidation, that would still be only about 3% of the accounts.
The API thing is bad, I agree. But whining and throwing tantrums isn't going to improve the situation for anyone. Calling the present board incompetent and corrupt isn't going to help either. Assuming that you are right (a position not supported by any evidence that I've seen), the only ISK that you are going to get is ISK that they donate to you because they want to.
|
RaTTuS
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:59:00 -
[287]
api keys won't do squat - a quick transfer and they are worthless -- 3 Titans Lottery EB | Capital |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:05:00 -
[288]
Quote:
I can't speak for others but I have nothing to hide, like I said before, I'm enlightened enough to know anonymity will only get you so far. In order to go that next step you HAVE to become transparent. All of MD wants IPO/Bonds/CEO and their business to be as Transparent as possible. Why shouldn't EBANK seek the same transparency from customers when the business EBANK does is directly affected by those customers?
I did not think I'd live long enough to see such a statement off an EBANK representative. - Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:16:00 -
[289]
Originally by: TornSoul - Retroactively demanding API keys, simply isn't acceptable.
Circumstances dictate otherwise TS. The bank has been subjected to some of the largest thefts and defaults in EVE history, it has seen transactions faked in the back-end by previous directors - there is no way I can stand by and watch those responsible get away with further ill-gotten fains if there is the slightest chance I can prevent that.
As bitter a pill as this is to swallow, there is no other alternative available to me that would see me able to gain access to such information as alternative characters.
The argument that those responsible are too intelligent to fall into such a simple trap doesn't hold water with me. Straw man says the locations of the largest government money spinners next to taxes are freely available on the internet, they even paint them bright yellow so as you drive passed you can wave for the camera.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:22:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote: I can't speak for others but I have nothing to hide, like I said before, I'm enlightened enough to know anonymity will only get you so far. In order to go that next step you HAVE to become transparent. All of MD wants IPO/Bonds/CEO and their business to be as Transparent as possible. Why shouldn't EBANK seek the same transparency from customers when the business EBANK does is directly affected by those customers?
I did not think I'd live long enough to see such a statement off an EBANK representative.
I 100% agree with that post. To such an extent that AATP was the first public company to release it's full API details (bar shareholder information) to the public.
EBANK will follow suit to a certain degree if I have anything to do with it (and I do, so it will).
|
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:38:00 -
[291]
Edited by: TornSoul on 24/11/2009 16:41:30
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: TornSoul - Retroactively demanding API keys, simply isn't acceptable.
Circumstances dictate otherwise TS.
I agree completly that circumstances dictate drastic measures - You'll get no beef from me on that part.
It still doesnt change that
- Retroactively demanding API keys, simply isn't acceptable.
My point being : To come out of this "cleanly", you need to offer people an alternative.
If you do so, I think many (not all) will accept offering up their API keys, as they are no longer being strong armed to do so. Lots of the opposition stems (imo) from the simple fact that people hate being strong armed into something (look in the miror eh), and they will oppose it on that ground alone.
Offer up an alternative - See what happens.
As a "finger in the ground test" you could simply offer that people contact you (EBANK staff) in your channel. It wouldnt require any extra coding work or similar. If you get overwhelmed, you can call it off again (as it was just a "test" afterall"). Then it's ofc back to the drawing board for another alternative (to API keys).
But honestly, I doubt you'd be overwhelmed. Doing it this way requires a bit of work on behalf of the account holder (tracking down a teller) afterall, so only those that vehemently oppose giving out their API key will bother, the rest will simply offer up their API key as that's the easier option.
As has been pointed out, theres only some 280 posts in this thread, and by far not that many different posters.
Some scammers (et al) might get away, but face it, you are not going to catch all of them anyhow. Only the really stupid ones.
Why not give it a try?
It would leave everyone happy.
BIG Lottery |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:41:00 -
[292]
Originally by: TornSoul Why not give it a try?
It doesn't supply me with one of the key requirements, access to the information about someone's alternative characters.
|
Dasola
Minmatar Equitatus Of Apocalypse Maru Ka'ge
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:42:00 -
[293]
Edited by: Dasola on 24/11/2009 16:45:57 There was court case in germany some time ago where judge confirmed that virtual assets are protected by real ownership laws.. But i quess we eu players could always file court xase against ebank for illegal assets witholt without permission or something. Sure would make nice headlines about eve again.
After all that is the case here, ebank is withoilding other people assets and refuses to release them. You want to play bank, do it with your own isk. Ebank is lost allready.
aaa found it: court case --- We mine, we grind, we build, we destroy Always recruiting new industrial minded players, ingame contact: Dasola |
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:44:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: TornSoul Why not give it a try?
It doesn't supply me with one of the key requirements, access to the information about someone's alternative characters.
Neither does the API key.
My alt is on a new account and has handed in his API key. Who is he (or she)?
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:49:00 -
[295]
Edited by: TornSoul on 24/11/2009 16:57:31
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: TornSoul Why not give it a try?
It doesn't supply me with one of the key requirements, access to the information about someone's alternative characters.
Correct - In those few (my postulate) cases where people chose to do it like I suggest. But with everyone else you will.
A few, of those few, might be scammers you'd really like to catch (but thus won't) But on the other hand, there will be scammers you won't catch with the API keys either.
So you are accepting (out of necessity, due to the mechanics of multiple accounts) that you won't catch all even with the API keys. Accepting not catching a few, of the few, using my suggestion doesnt seem that different.
Besides : You won't catch those *anyhow* (so it's not like you are letting someone get away that you could have cought otherwise) - If they got enough ISK at stake to warrant doing a character transfer....
EDIT : Hell, those prefering not to offer up their API key, and contact you directly instead : That could actually be an indicator to you to take an extra carefull look a their transaction history, to see if anything "funky" is going on.
If it's simply an alt of someone owing EBANK ISK, and who hasnt made any transactions, you won't be any the wiser ofc.
But as has been abundantly pointed out, nor will you with an API key check (due to the possibility of character transfers)
BIG Lottery |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:56:00 -
[296]
Originally by: SencneS
Ji Sama - Be careful what you ask for because I WOULD release my API in exchange for your API. I can't speak for others but I have nothing to hide, like I said before, I'm enlightened enough to know anonymity will only get you so far. In order to go that next step you HAVE to become transparent. All of MD wants IPO/Bonds/CEO and their business to be as Transparent as possible. Why shouldn't EBANK seek the same transparency from customers when the business EBANK does is directly affected by those customers?
I dont know why i should be carefull, everyone but my mother have my api! But i do think it would be a nice show of faith, make your API's public. It show you have nothing to hide, and per the Lvv comment, it is only people who have something to hid that wont share thier api..
@RAY Ray i understand what you are doing, i really do. But you fail to adress the most important question imo. Would you have stood for this, if you where on the client side?
If anyone else did this with their business, they would be lynched. Freezing payments for 6 mths, changing the TOS, selective payouts etc etc.
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:57:00 -
[297]
Originally by: SencneS
Mme Pinkerton - No, you'd be safe, because I know who you are. If say Cosmoray deposited 5B into EBANK, transferred it to say Corporate Thief (LOL) I wouldn't class that as unusual. Even if Cosmoray transferred it to a complete unknown, that to me doesn't say anything either. If an unknown 2 day old character transfers 5B to Cosmoray, I would look up who the unknown is. Inform EBANK that it looks funny and I've eve mailed Cosmoray and to not process the withdrawal. Get his answer, if I didn't like it I would petition CCP find out if it's legit, wait until they come back. So no normal activity is not, just highly unusual stuff like this gets flagged.
Angus McSpork - That was covered by "3" besides, the remaining staff and BOD have proven their loyalty to EBANK, I believe we all take the same motto... "We don't care who you work for or what side you're on; your ISK holds the same value as everyone elseÆs."
At least the endless contradictions are being consolidated into each posting.
KB
Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:59:00 -
[298]
TS, I thought on all these points when the requirement was first mentioned a few months back. However I am happy with the reasons for its justification despite the arguments against them.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:05:00 -
[299]
Edited by: TornSoul on 24/11/2009 17:07:10
Originally by: Ray McCormack TS, I thought on all these points when the requirement was first mentioned a few months back. However I am happy with the reasons for its justification despite the arguments against them.
I'm extremely sad to read that.
As I just *know* you would never accept it being done to yourself.
---
I guess theres a first time even for this.. Sigh.
/end
BIG Lottery |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:08:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Ji Sama Would you have stood for this, if you where on the client side?
I am on the client side and I was the first person to provide my Limited API Key.
|
|
Mephistocles
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:13:00 -
[301]
Originally by: Ray McCormack I am on the client side and I was the first person to provide my Limited API Key.
Sorry, you are not on the client side. You might have an account, but handing over your api key to yourself is a bit different than what everyone else is being forced to do.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:14:00 -
[302]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Ji Sama Would you have stood for this, if you where on the client side?
I am on the client side and I was the first person to provide my Limited API Key.
Providing you API to yourself isnt the same. But fair enough, ill step down, and stop trolling..
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:18:00 -
[303]
Providing it subjects me to the same perceived risks that everyone else is seeing.
Unless the argument is directly against my personal trustworthiness, in which case there is nothing I can do.
|
jna
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:20:00 -
[304]
You do, however, have slightly more control over who else gets to see the API data than I do. Or are you saying you don't have any control over staff recruitment, internal security procedures etc? ------------------------------------------------- Caeleste naves interretis res gravissimas sunt |
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:23:00 -
[305]
The real question is : Would Ray stand for trying to be forced to do something he would not like to do.
Answer (and I guarantee you this is correct) : No, he would most definitely not.
Hence : A hypocrit.
BIG Lottery |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:24:00 -
[306]
Originally by: jna You do, however, have slightly more control over who else gets to see the API data than I do. Or are you saying you don't have any control over staff recruitment, internal security procedures etc?
How does that protect me from those same risks though? Maybe it does assuage my fears some knowing that I have some actual control over who sees my information. But I don't think the argument here is over trust.
|
jna
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:32:00 -
[307]
As far as I see it, the argument is twofold.
Firstly (for me), it's a trust issue. Most everyone on MD trusted EBANK for a very long time, and I personally never thought I'd see that trust collapse so immensely, across so many people. "Once bitten, twice shy", "Fool me once, shame on you etc" and other useless homilies.
Secondly, I resent - as I believe you would too - being strong-armed, with no other option presented, into doing something I don't want to do, to get access to what was mine in the first place. It's blackmail, pure and simple.
------------------------------------------------- Caeleste naves interretis res gravissimas sunt |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:33:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Ray McCormack But I don't think the argument here is over trust.
No, I'm pretty certain the argument over the past 10-11 pages is in fact, over trust.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:34:00 -
[309]
Originally by: TornSoul The real question is : Would Ray stand for trying to be forced to do something he would not like to do.
Answer (and I guarantee you this is correct) : No, he would most definitely not.
Hence : A hypocrit.
Forcing someone to do something they don't like isn't the issue here. I'm forcing account holders to have their ISK frozen within the bank, something I (as a customer) certainly don't like.
Do I like all of the suggestions we're implementing at EBANK? No. Does it make me a hypocrite that I remain or merely a good team player? You can't go through life only implementing or abiding by rules you like, that's impossible.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:40:00 -
[310]
Originally by: jna Secondly, I resent - as I believe you would too - being strong-armed, with no other option presented, into doing something I don't want to do, to get access to what was mine in the first place. It's blackmail, pure and simple.
Of course I would resent that, but needs must. Nothing will be palpable to everyone. The Board is in the proverbial space between a rock and a cricketer's box. We have to make the unpopular decisions we feel will benefit the whole. You can argue against our right to make those decisions, but we're mandated to make them. The alternatives are often worse, and whichever option we choose will never be perfect.
Originally by: Dzil
Originally by: Ray McCormack But I don't think the argument here is over trust.
No, I'm pretty certain the argument over the past 10-11 pages is in fact, over trust.
Then as stated I'm subject to the same risks associated with that trust now, having supplied my Limited API Key in the same way we're asking account holders to.
|
|
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:45:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Ray McCormack TS, I thought on all these points when the requirement was first mentioned a few months back. However I am happy with the reasons for its justification despite the arguments against them.
You might as well delete my offer to volunteer as compliance officer. The one condition I had clearly cannot be met.
Note: second person pronouns should be assumed as collective rather than personal.
I know you are working to make the best of a bad situation that you did not cause, and I'm not going to pretend that I don't appreciate your efforts in all of this.
On the other hand, several dozen people have already spoken out about the API key requirement, and to put it bluntly every alleged "reason" or "justification" you have offered for it has been soundly demolished, most of them several times over. It simply will not achieve any of the goals that you give as justification, except for those goals that can be achieved through far less intrusive and far less offensive means.
I wish you well, but I don't see any point in pretending that I would be a useful contributor to an organization that behaves without reason.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:56:00 -
[312]
With freezing the accounts you had no choice - In order to achive the goal you selected (we spoke about this remember...)
You could have gone for another goal, but you chose this one (keeping EBANK alive), doing that you where left with no choice.
---
In this case, the goal you have chosen, actually leaves you with choices.
But for reason that defy logic, you have chosen to rule out all options except one (API key).
It has repeatedly been demonstrated here that the goal you are trying to achieve, *can not* (to it's fullest) be achieved with the chosen method (API key)
*And* alternative methods, that will allow you to achive just as much of the goal (as API key will), has been presented to you.
You however refuse to include these.
---
No Ray - The two situations are not similar.
Not by a long shot.
Blackmail, as mentioned, sadly fits the bill well.
BIG Lottery |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:56:00 -
[313]
Originally by: Wyehr I wish you well, but I don't see any point in pretending that I would be a useful contributor to an organization that behaves without reason.
Just because those reasons don't match your own doesn't mean we are without. There is more to operating as part of a team than wanting only your reasons at the fore.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:02:00 -
[314]
Originally by: TornSoul It has repeatedly been demonstrated here that the goal you are trying to achieve, *can not* (to it's fullest) be achieved with the chosen method (API key)
Then it will be achieved to it's least.
TS, you're aware of how much your opinion and respect means to me, I'm sure others do. So let this be an indication of the conviction I have in supporting this and the other decisions that the Board has made.
We will not get everything right, and perhaps this is one of those decisions we'll look back on in the future with some regret. But for now we are united in our belief that this is the best solution possible in the circumstances.
|
Frances Victoria
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:09:00 -
[315]
Two suggestions:
* One The one reason for requiring a Limited API key is to check that a customer does not have any alts that have been known to scam/defraud/steal-from EBANK. Is that correct or not?
Assuming that is correct, do you have a list of such characters you wish to blacklist?
Assuming you do, how about you give that list to a trusted third-party. Customers can then supply their API keys to that same third-party. This person can then compare each customer's alts against your blacklist, and tell you that they are clean.
Does this satisfy every requirement you have for wanting your customer's API keys? If not, what else do you need?
(Let's drop the issue that this third-party might want paying, for now. If that would be the only reason not to do this, I'm sure suitable compensation could be arranged)
(Incidentally, would you care to make this list public. After all, I'm sure we'd all like to avoid doing business with them)
* Two How about you carry on as you are. At such as point in the future as you are in a position to offer a full withdrawal, only then do you request an API key, in order to authorise said withdrawal.
Now, you might say "But then that means the time taken to achieve a healthy balance would be much longer, as we have to be able to cover potential withdrawals that would never happen". Fair point. But what if every customer came back with a clean API check? You'd be no better off anyway. You wouldn't be able to write off any liabilities. When you are in a position to give me back whatever money of mine you hold, I'll give you my API key so you can check I'm clean. |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:09:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: TornSoul It has repeatedly been demonstrated here that the goal you are trying to achieve, *can not* (to it's fullest) be achieved with the chosen method (API key)
Then it will be achieved to it's least.
So you're willing to admit that this won't be a very effective tactic for achieving your stated ends but you are still going to implement it despite the "collateral damage" it will cause in wiping out the account balances of many legitimate customers? In order to recover what will probably be a very limited amount of the isk stolen from the bank (the bank's customers really) you will, yourself, steal more isk from customers who have already suffered a great deal of loss. What will you do if the amount recovered is less than that which is wiped as collateral damage in the process?
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:09:00 -
[317]
I'm just curious, what is the projected revenue from sales of the api keys, or has this not been discussed yet internally. There is a very active and quite lucrative market for these, as you are probably aware. Full keys are nice yes, but the useful value of a limited key is these days far higher because of the lower entry level of use.
If no projections or considerations were made and interest arises, please by all means evemail me for selection and batch quotes.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:17:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Frances Victoria Assuming that is correct, do you have a list of such characters you wish to blacklist?
The list of defaulters listed in the OP, plus Mr Horizontal and his horde of alts (mentioned in a previous announcement) along with Anastasia Heron.
Originally by: Frances Victoria Does this satisfy every requirement you have for wanting your customer's API keys? If not, what else do you need?
No, because that would set a precedent of us requiring third-party intervention for everything we should (ideally) be trusted for, such as loan collateral, ISK in accounts, etc. Not much point in a bank in EVE without trust (and yes, I'm aware of the irony there).
Originally by: Frances Victoria At such as point in the future as you are in a position to offer a full withdrawal, only then do you request an API key, in order to authorise said withdrawal.
That's just a matter of timing. You could withhold your API Key for the next six months, provide it to us once to keep your account active and change it immediately after that. In another nine months you could do the same, by then we should be closer to having a clearer picture of when full withdrawals will be allowed if they aren't already by then.
|
Weltact
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:18:00 -
[319]
Does this api thing of yours support api proxies?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:24:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Weltact Does this api thing of yours support api proxies?
No, because a proxy could fake the results.
|
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:24:00 -
[321]
Originally by: iP0D I'm just curious, what is the projected revenue from sales of the api keys, or has this not been discussed yet internally. There is a very active and quite lucrative market for these, as you are probably aware. Full keys are nice yes, but the useful value of a limited key is these days far higher because of the lower entry level of use.
If no projections or considerations were made and interest arises, please by all means evemail me for selection and batch quotes.
This man who is named after a piece of consumer level personal electronics *has something worthwhile to say*!
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:24:00 -
[322]
That's a fun catch 22. You need information on how many legit accounts you will payout under the new policy before you can offer any promises of withdrawls. Customers with corp alts/supercap holders/whatever other dirty secrets need those ETAs and estimate early withdrawl %s to determine whether it's financially worth transferring the character off the account to recover the isk in a bank balance.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:37:00 -
[323]
You know I think sometime people like to argue about anything that is outside the range of normal operation anyway.
If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active.
If we had said "Post on our forums and use the API Forum Verification Software" which just does a single character check and doesn't store the data. We'd hear how "If it's already verified why do we need to re-verify"
If we had said "The ISK is locked until we receive an EVE Mail stating you're active." We'd get people complaining that it will take too long because one person would have to handle all the evemails and that one person would be SO backlogged it could take weeks to get caught up.
If we had said "Use a third party auditor, send them you API Key, and they will check to see if any characters are on the black list" we'd hear people say the same thing as they are here. "That's Private info, the Auditor could do x and y etc etc."
Each and every one of those things could be called "Strong Arming" and every one of those things has limitations or some sort of discomfort to the customer. It really didn't matter what we suggested first, it would have been meet with LOADS AND LOADS of resistance.
My Grandfather was too smart for his own good, Professor, Advance math and physics, but he lacks social interaction. Yet there is one thing he always said "If it's going to hurt no matter what happens, go with the one that will yield the biggest reward."
Limited API give EBANK everything it needs without beating around the bush, no matter what we suggested or came up with people would have complained anyway. So the biggest reward should and will be the objective.
People have already feed their APIs in, those people who realize the benefit of verified customers are sitting pretty good right now. If you can't get past the need to keep your Characters private, and you have not stolen from EBANK, then I'm sorry, I guess it's a lost cause..
Amarr for Life |
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:40:00 -
[324]
Originally by: SencneS
If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active.
I think you are quite wrong about this.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:46:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this.
lol no kidding.
The "everyone will complain no matter what, so all complaints are equally invalid" argument is stillborn.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:47:00 -
[326]
Originally by: SencneS You know I think sometime people like to argue about anything that is outside the range of normal operation anyway.
If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active.
If we had said "Post on our forums and use the API Forum Verification Software" which just does a single character check and doesn't store the data. We'd hear how "If it's already verified why do we need to re-verify"
If we had said "The ISK is locked until we receive an EVE Mail stating you're active." We'd get people complaining that it will take too long because one person would have to handle all the evemails and that one person would be SO backlogged it could take weeks to get caught up.
If we had said "Use a third party auditor, send them you API Key, and they will check to see if any characters are on the black list" we'd hear people say the same thing as they are here. "That's Private info, the Auditor could do x and y etc etc."
Each and every one of those things could be called "Strong Arming" and every one of those things has limitations or some sort of discomfort to the customer. It really didn't matter what we suggested first, it would have been meet with LOADS AND LOADS of resistance.
My Grandfather was too smart for his own good, Professor, Advance math and physics, but he lacks social interaction. Yet there is one thing he always said "If it's going to hurt no matter what happens, go with the one that will yield the biggest reward."
Limited API give EBANK everything it needs without beating around the bush, no matter what we suggested or came up with people would have complained anyway. So the biggest reward should and will be the objective.
People have already feed their APIs in, those people who realize the benefit of verified customers are sitting pretty good right now. If you can't get past the need to keep your Characters private, and you have not stolen from EBANK, then I'm sorry, I guess it's a lost cause..
The problem with this is that whilst some people may have complained a bit with regards to the other options, you have chosen the most intrusive and most complaint-worthy choice. As to your grandfather's little proverb, Professor or not, he has clearly failed to take into account the possibility of different degrees of hurt being balanced against a given reward. Once you factor in the hurt as a variable alongside the reward you will see that this claim can be used to justify any amount of hurt at all.
The problem is not JUST the requirement for the api key but also, and more fundamentally, the threat to unilaterally expropriate other people's money if they refuse to do what you say. This is simply blackmail turning to theft if and when the blackmail fails.
I accept that you have proposed an alternative to complete wiping of accounts and I strongly support something along these lines and/or the lines suggestede by Mme. Pinkerton. But, for the third or fourth time I'll ask, how does the EBank BoD distinguish technically between taking the contents of people's accounts and scamming those people. I would really like to know the theory behind the distinction. Or do you accept that it is just dressed up theft?
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:51:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this.
Small problem is we'll never know, but given the level of hostility people throw at EBANK, I would have taken a bet that if we had lead with that first it would have been 11 pages of whines and trolls as well. That post I just made wouldn't be that it would be "We could have asked for Limited API, but I'm sure everyone would feel that was too much as well!"
You see the problem. I admit 0.10 ISK is not much, but in a crowd of people all hanging out to slam EBANK against the wall, even the littlest pebble of information is all that is needed to warrant a flame suit :)
Amarr for Life |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:51:00 -
[328]
Edited by: Ji Sama on 24/11/2009 18:52:31
Originally by: SetrakDark
Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this.
lol no kidding.
The "everyone will complain no matter what, so all complaints are equally invalid" argument is stillborn.
This ^^
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this.
Small problem is we'll never know, but given the level of hostility people throw at EBANK, I would have taken a bet that if we had lead with that first it would have been 11 pages of whines and trolls as well. That post I just made wouldn't be that it would be "We could have asked for Limited API, but I'm sure everyone would feel that was too much as well!"
You see the problem. I admit 0.10 ISK is not much, but in a crowd of people all hanging out to slam EBANK against the wall, even the littlest pebble of information is all that is needed to warrant a flame suit :)
Yea because we are all in here to see Ebank fail, that would really help us here in the secondary market.. I think you are tired... Step down for today, you did a good job! The best so far, from any ebank staff!
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:55:00 -
[329]
Everyone who disagrees with extremely contentious policies and gets heated over weak or evasive responses is a troll.
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:56:00 -
[330]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Kalrand I think you are quite wrong about this.
Small problem is we'll never know, but given the level of hostility people throw at EBANK, I would have taken a bet that if we had lead with that first it would have been 11 pages of whines and trolls as well. That post I just made wouldn't be that it would be "We could have asked for Limited API, but I'm sure everyone would feel that was too much as well!"
You see the problem. I admit 0.10 ISK is not much, but in a crowd of people all hanging out to slam EBANK against the wall, even the littlest pebble of information is all that is needed to warrant a flame suit :)
Would it be that difficult to simply offer the choice? .10 isk, or your public API key?
I mean hell, .10 ISK times 9000 accounts is 900 isk: I'll finance it. No no, keep your wallets in your pants guys, I got this.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Amsen Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:59:00 -
[331]
Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone. Titan BPC Auction Thread |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:01:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone.
gives ac155 the /finger
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
Phoebe Halliwel
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:02:00 -
[333]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Frances Victoria Assuming that is correct, do you have a list of such characters you wish to blacklist?
The list of defaulters listed in the OP, plus Mr Horizontal and his horde of alts (mentioned in a previous announcement) along with Anastasia Heron.
When you originally "outed" all of Mr H's alts, it was confirmed by LVV somewhere in here that IP addresses were used to identify and link the accounts (in addition to the unusual transactions which had been flagged). Have you not repeated this process for all former directors and loan defaulters? If so you should have a smaller pool of accounts flagged for inspection. Request API keys from those accounts rather than the majority is one suggestion.
Regarding the RMT issue; provisioning for any losses due to this should have always been part of Ebank's financial policy, in addition to Loan defaults. It shouldn't be too late to institute an RMT-related bad debt provision now, if you have records and can make an estimate on the ratio of reversed transactions. Another way to handle these; if for example, Ebank has 20b next month which can be processed for withdrawls, and account holders are contacted and set a limit they can withdraw, as a test amount, if GM's remove the ISK after the fact, it may catch and eliminate a chunk of RMTers early on without a massive hit for the bank (I am assuming here that GMs will only remove the withdrawn ISK, or do they withdraw all the ISK Ebank currently holds for that character/reverse the original deposit?).
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Frances Victoria Does this satisfy every requirement you have for wanting your customer's API keys? If not, what else do you need?
No, because that would set a precedent of us requiring third-party intervention for everything we should (ideally) be trusted for, such as loan collateral, ISK in accounts, etc. Not much point in a bank in EVE without trust (and yes, I'm aware of the irony there).
It's not so much irony as unrealistic. You appear to be talking about Ebank as an ongoing financial service, where the consensus of opinion is the reverse. You're not in the "ideal" position to expect trust at the moment. Investors aren't particularly interested in whether a 3rd party damages Ebank's integrity, they just want their ISK back as fast as possible and their information to be kept private. You appear to be placing Ebank concerns over those of your customers, which only makes the situation worse. If the API info was sent to a trusted 3rd party, and tbh there's really only Chribba who could be classed as trustworthy enough for something this size, this may be unpalatable to Ebank but could calm some of the investors down.
|
jna
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:08:00 -
[334]
Originally by: SencneS You see the problem. I admit 0.10 ISK is not much, but in a crowd of people all hanging out to slam EBANK against the wall, even the littlest pebble of information is all that is needed to warrant a flame suit :)
I realise that I'm not everyone, but I certainly gave vocal support to the 0.1 isk transfer a few pages back. No problem with that at all. It's what I had already agreed to and done simply by opening an EBANK account, which required an isk transfer to an EBANK clearing character. It's called Business As Usual, and I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
Originally by: SencneS If you can't get past the need to keep your Characters private, and you have not stolen from EBANK, won't give into blackmail then I'm sorry, I guess it's a lost cause.. we've stolen your money.
Fixed it for you. ------------------------------------------------- Caeleste naves interretis res gravissimas sunt |
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:12:00 -
[335]
Whats with all the middle fingers? Its like you are intentionally trying to make people mad.
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 19:23:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Tesal
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone.
Seriously, if you want to have a business out of this debacle, stop. Why would I give this person my API keys? There is no respect for the customer there.
I know, what a bastard. AC you should be ashamed. Next time knock.
|
Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:00:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Wyehr I wish you well, but I don't see any point in pretending that I would be a useful contributor to an organization that behaves without reason.
Just because those reasons don't match your own doesn't mean we are without. There is more to operating as part of a team than wanting only your reasons at the fore.
I don't mean "reason" as "motivation". I mean "reason" as "logic". My condition wasn't that my reasons be foremost, my condition was that the organization's reasoning be robust.
I will use the unambiguous synonyms for the rest of this post, just to be clear.
It is very clear that you have some motivation for requesting this information. You are sticking to your motivations in the face of a great public unhappiness, which shows strong conviction.
What isn't clear to me is what your motivation is. There have been many publicly stated motivations for this requirement, but none have survived even trivial scrutiny. So either you have a motivation that hasn't been stated, or you are standing by an illogical decision.
Out of pod, I work for an organization large enough to have policy committees. We have pages and pages of policies that I disagree with. While I often lose the debates on what the goals should be, I never let them implement a policy that doesn't logically advance those goals.
|
Katiana Swan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:05:00 -
[338]
I can see both sides of the argument here. Why not a very simple compromise with the exact same end result?
Ok, so it appears to have been confirmed that a handful of people don't want to provide their API to the EBANK corporation as a whole however would be happy to provide it to a trusted 3rd party. This appears to be stemmed off the possibility that they believe one or more current staff may still be corrupt etc.
These people have shown willingness to provide the API, just not to the collective EBANK. The solution should be dead obvious here.
1) Keep your standard API requirement as Option 1. You will find that 90-95% of your customers will utilise it.
2) For those not wanting everyone at EBANK to see their API they have the option of private verification. A small list of EBANK employees who have put their hands up to do manual verification. This only needs to be 3 or 4 people (I would suggest those who shouldn't have existing trust related concerns from previous administration such as: Ray, Athre, Omber Zombie).
Anyone wanting to request manual verification by one of the listed staff WILL be required to pay a premium (makes sense, want manual additional work done, you pay for it). The price can be determined by EBANK but I would probably charge somewhere in the order of 15m-25m per manual verification.
This money should go directly (or at least a portion of it) to the staff members making these manual activations.
I believe a very very small percentage of the customers at EBANK will request this option however it will be found suitable for a few. While I can't speak for Leneera, her main concern was providing the information to a pile of people however she may find it suitable to provide the API to a single entity such as Omber Zombie.
It should be a really simple solution. When setting up API verification in EBANK customers web interfaces, include an administrator ability to "verify" an account.
---------- The only way this wouldn't work would be if EBANK wanted to store this API data long term for uses such as future data extraction, future loan requests or linking of accounts together which has not been requested here and would definitely not be accepted by those entering their API data. ----------
TLDR : Manual activation ability with customer choice of which EBANK staff member processes API check. Fee payable for manual verification.
This simple solution should be in EVERYONE'S best interests and resolve every problem mentioned in the past 11 pages.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:08:00 -
[339]
Quote:
If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active.
What about you EBANK (collectively) start putting yourselves in your customers shoes? You should raise golden bridges to keep the most of them, not to dismiss ideas a la "no luck sorry".
You state you are doing all of this for the best of the depositors... then do it for the most of them as possile.
If sending API keys is ok but sending 0.01 ISK is also ok and so is joining a chat and talking, try ease those 9000 guys a bit and let *them* choose.
Is it more work? Sure! Does it answer to your depositors so that many more are covered and not blackmailed about either giving their API key or GTFO? Sure it does!
I really don't get this continuous "we are doing this for the best of the depositors" when one second later you slam their face with an API hammer, and API hammer which is *not* the one way to do the job.
That is, you are alienating people that you did not need to. - Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:10:00 -
[340]
*eats some popcorn*
So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect.... --------
|
|
Katiana Swan
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:15:00 -
[341]
Originally by: SentryRaven So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....
I recommend you never start a business in real life or even work in any customer/client facing environment.
|
SentryRaven
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:18:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Katiana Swan
Originally by: SentryRaven So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....
I recommend you never start a business in real life or even work in any customer/client facing environment.
Nah, it's fine. I am a BofH in RL. No problem whatsoever... :) --------
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:25:00 -
[343]
Originally by: SentryRaven
Originally by: Katiana Swan
Originally by: SentryRaven So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....
I recommend you never start a business in real life or even work in any customer/client facing environment.
Nah, it's fine. I am a BofH in RL. No problem whatsoever... :)
Ha, i am a HotBL IRL, and normally i play scout/rikki and pawn pubs!
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:28:00 -
[344]
A good PR man would probably tell you guys to stop debating the other side. Make a statement along the "we appreciate your concerns and input, but firmly believe that our policy is necessary and correct." Then close with a "we encourage people to post their comments and opinions, but we will no longer be responding to this specific issue".
If you're acting unilaterally, then just state your position and walk away.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:29:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Katiana Swan
Originally by: SentryRaven So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....
I recommend you never start a business in real life or even work in any customer/client facing environment.
Since the bank is different, people are different but the sarcasm-superior attitude remains the same, I suggest to everyone to stop trying giving suggestions or anything and let them go boil in their own brood.
After all who are we to them if only an useless inconvenience to joke about? Let it go and sink in peace. It's not even logic to post a "our way or the highway" in a public facility called "forum" maybe because it's made for dialogue. Should just display a link to their own web site official announcement, of course with no feedback link or anything. Not needed, not wanted anyway.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:35:00 -
[346]
Originally by: SentryRaven *eats some popcorn*
So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....
Really at the point ebank has a client's money in an uncollateralized contract, nothing is negotiable.
I hope future clients remember that.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 20:35:00 -
[347]
Helm of the Black Legion aka. HotBL
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
Bluebeard
Minmatar LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 21:11:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Dzil
Originally by: SentryRaven So after 12 pages, people are still debating over something that is not negotiable? Respect....
Really at the point ebank has a client's money in an uncollateralized contract, nothing is negotiable. I hope future clients remember that.
The biggest problem I can see is the scaring away of the people that might want to take out loans from Ebank.
With the unilateral changes and the Bank staffs refusal to consider any other options, I cannot see anybody in their right mind, wanting to take out a decent sized loan, say 40bil, with 60bil of collateral, as there is a definite risk of that collateral being locked (due to another non negotiable change), despite the loan being paid off.
If Ebank is going to survive, then it needs the account holders to have faith that they will get their isk back, but even more, it needs people trusting enough to take out loans and pay interest.
If the account holders have no trust, then the Bank will die when accounts are fully reopened. If people are afraid to take out loans, then the Bank will never recover, to be able to reopen.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 21:34:00 -
[349]
Still waiting for at least one member of the EBank staff to attempt to differentiate their plan to expropriate account balances from a simple act of theft/scam.
LVV said she could make that distinction in the SCC Lounge earlier today but then chose not to actually give her reasoning. Is there anyone who will even try to make the case that you are not outright stealing from depositors if you wipe their accounts?
|
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 22:03:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Ray McCormack I'm sorry some of you dislike me so much, I really do. /me hangs his head in shame.
Ray, I like you bro. I would gladly give you some pancakes. I understand you are put into a bad situation and are trying to make the best of it. But this doesnÆt excuse this garbage proposal.
Originally by: SencneS
remaining staff and BOD have proven their loyalty to EBANK
ThatÆs funny and it probably points to the decisions made over the past months. Their loyalties should be with their DEPOSITORS and not to the bank institution itself.
To the proposal in general:
Retroactive application of a vastly different Terms of Service to depositors so that they may recover a hugely discounted amount of ISK that you owe them due to blatant incompetence is wrong. Period. This is WITHOUT the carrot and stick you attach; which make it worse.
Forcing depositors to give personal information in order to have the chance at recovery, maybe sometime eventually, of ISK they entrusted to you is extortion.
If they choose to not give you information, they forfeit their account balances. This amounts to blatant theft.
You effectively give depositors the choices of being extorted or being stolen from. Bravo. I cannot imagine an actual reason why this would seem appropriate to anyone, for any reason.
Your incompetence, at best, caused the loss of 70% of the value of money. If someone wants to get the remaining 30%, they will be charged a ridiculous fee on top of being forced to provide API information. And they are only given this option when you have enough funds to do it. Please tell me how this is anyway, shape or form better than simply liquidating all assets and giving everyone, without information, their ISK back. Given your suspect policies and procedures that have caused this mess, it is a joke for you to now put the burden on depositors.
-GV
|
|
Kushan
Caldari Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 23:27:00 -
[351]
Thanks for the update, Ray.
<insert salacious remark>
Out of curiosity, did the investigations into additional revenue streams bear any fruit? It still looks like that is going to be one of your major stumbling blocks.
|
Remus Kurgan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 23:29:00 -
[352]
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
To the proposal in general:
Retroactive application of a vastly different Terms of Service to depositors so that they may recover a hugely discounted amount of ISK that you owe them due to blatant incompetence is wrong. Period. This is WITHOUT the carrot and stick you attach; which make it worse.
Forcing depositors to give personal information in order to have the chance at recovery, maybe sometime eventually, of ISK they entrusted to you is extortion.
First of all, it's not personal information, it's basic information on the characters on your account. There is a BIG difference. Second, extortion is threatening someone to obtain money. As your money is already gone, I don't think your definition qualifies.
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
If they choose to not give you information, they forfeit their account balances. This amounts to blatant theft.
The blatent theft was Ricdic. This has already happened, so how can they steal our money again?
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
You effectively give depositors the choices of being extorted or being stolen from. Bravo. I cannot imagine an actual reason why this would seem appropriate to anyone, for any reason.
Again, not extortion. Ray is asking for basic account information which most players feel completely safe punching into computer programs. Why is everyone freaking out about their limited APIs?
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus
Your incompetence, at best, caused the loss of 70% of the value of money. If someone wants to get the remaining 30%, they will be charged a ridiculous fee on top of being forced to provide API information. And they are only given this option when you have enough funds to do it. Please tell me how this is anyway, shape or form better than simply liquidating all assets and giving everyone, without information, their ISK back. Given your suspect policies and procedures that have caused this mess, it is a joke for you to now put the burden on depositors.
-GV
It is not the policies of Ray that have caused this mess. It is quite unfair to accuse him of being the reason that EBANK is not solvent just because he discovered the problem. I for one am completely in favor of this system since it does the best to ensure that the right people get their deposits paid back, if not in full then as much as possible. I think that the proposals Ray has put forward are extreme, but required in this situation to ensure that people who have screwed the system and caused this problem don't see a cent of ISK back in their wallets. I would rather send my API through a secure website to an institution I've already used than bring in some type of 3rd party for approval.
And if people don't want to lift a finger to get their money back, they should've considered the risks they take using EBANK in the first place. I have no sympathy for them.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 23:47:00 -
[353]
Application for the post of Social Responsibility Officer submitted.
|
Jowen Datloran
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:00:00 -
[354]
Conclusion:
So EBANK turns out to be one of the biggest scams in EVE rivaling the accomplishments of GHSC. Though, the goal of this scam is not directly aimed at ISK but API information which makes it quite unique and a first in trying to achieve API information on a greater level.
We need ISD to step in to cover the success of your scam. Awesome guys, awesome. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
|
petra piper
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:05:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Remus Kurgan First of all, it's not personal information, it's basic information on the characters on your account. There is a BIG difference.
Originally by: Remus Kurgan Again, not extortion. Ray is asking for basic account information which most players feel completely safe punching into computer programs. Why is everyone freaking out about their limited APIs?
You, surely, play a different Eve from me and many others.
In my Eve, allowing someone to know (ie):
a) The name of an alt with freighter skills and a highsec research POS (wardec and take out the POS), b) That I have a lot more skillpoints than my current med clone and should be suicided on sight next time I'm seen in a shuttle, c) That I've just fitted a decent Crystal set in my head, d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD), e) That I'm an amazing Leadership skill tree pilot with Fleet Command V, and use of a locator agent might tell you where the fleet is, f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to, g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv) ... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.
And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.
You're either very uninvolved in some of the "endgame" (meta, political etc) content of Eve, or you're incredibly uninformed.
Given:
Originally by: Remus Kurgan The blatent theft was Ricdic. This has already happened, so how can they steal our money again?
I go for "uninformed".
|
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 00:21:00 -
[356]
Here's a riddle:
How many members of the EBank staff (BoD, etc) are full time employees of EBank?
Answer: None
The EBank staff that people are verbally abusing are essentially part-time volunteers at this point. They are giving their personal time to get EBank back on its feet
Ray has already explained that the Limited API is the quickest method they could implement to verify live accounts.
This will allow the bank to clear bank accounts for those people who have been banned or have left the game. In turn, knowing how much ISK sits in active accounts will help the bank know when it has reached viability again, so it can give people their money back.
As long as there is a method where absent account holders can reactivate their account, that should be good enough for most people.
EBank's money is gone, most of it anyway. Their operation was unsustainable, and now most of our ISK is gone. If EBank tried to hew to its existing policies, it would never be revived.
Ray and associates are trying to get our funds back, while reworking the EBank operation. They're not trying to rescue a sinking ship - they are trying to raise one from the bottom of the sea. Any and all promises made by EBank were broken by the previous managers.
I'm glad that Ray (and staff) have come to the conclusion that he can't conceivably rescue everyone's ISK. Instead he's put in place policies to drop inactive accounts, allow early withdrawals at a discounted rate, and allow users to sell their accounts to speculators. These were all things that customers asked for on this forum.
It seems like half the posts here are just people who enjoy kicking a sick dog. Those same people are the ones surprised when the dog snarls and bites back.
/wall_of_text
-----------------------------------------------
- Who Dares, Wins
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 02:29:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Wyehr
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan They wouldn't have any motivation, but the point is that checking that the account is active prevents them from withdrawing their ISK. Because the check is there, they won't bother to attempt a withdrawal. Edit: By withdrawal, I mean a transfer to another EBANK account, followed by a withdrawal. Obviously, if you are banned, a withdrawal doesn't help you. This is why it is sufficient to check that the account is active for transfers only.
So, if we can see that the API isn't more useful than any other form of verification, why not pick one of the many options that is less repugnant?
Yes, this is exactly my argument. See post #236.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Katiana Swan I think Ray was saying that in jest.
I also thought so, but it is unclear.
I wasn't.
In that case, can you answer my previous question: Why does EBANK need information on personal standings? In addition, can you answer my other questions from post #238?
Originally by: LaVista Vista That's still more work than pulling the Characters.xml.aspx and checking that the character exists on the account.
It also requires people to log in-game. The API doesn't require that.
It isn't that much more work. If you are unwilling to write the code to do this, why should we trust that you are willing to write the code to keep our API data secure? Also, I have already addressed the argument that an in-game log in is required: "You don't need to make a withdrawal if you are not able to log in."
Originally by: Ray McCormack The argument that those responsible are too intelligent to fall into such a simple trap doesn't hold water with me.
I think you are overestimating their stupidity. It really doesn't take that much thought to realize that EBANK will know your alt is blacklisted and to take the necessary precautions.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: TornSoul It has repeatedly been demonstrated here that the goal you are trying to achieve, *can not* (to it's fullest) be achieved with the chosen method (API key)
Then it will be achieved to it's least.
TS, you're aware of how much your opinion and respect means to me, I'm sure others do. So let this be an indication of the conviction I have in supporting this and the other decisions that the Board has made.
We will not get everything right, and perhaps this is one of those decisions we'll look back on in the future with some regret. But for now we are united in our belief that this is the best solution possible in the circumstances.
I would very much appreciate if you told us what makes you so convinced that this is the best decision. Your arguments so far are unsatisfactory.
Originally by: SencneS You know I think sometime people like to argue about anything that is outside the range of normal operation anyway.
If we had asked for 0.10 ISK (minimal EVE allowed transfer amount) we'd be hearing the same people say about how we're asking for MORE ISK just to verify they are still active.
Even if I had to transfer 0.1 ISK to verify my account every day, and I planned to continue for 100 years, it adds up to the tiny sum of 3650 ISK. Your argument is invalid. The extra bit of work that would be required of the customer is a much bigger problem with this idea than the ISK itself.
I think it is very important that EBANK clearly states its policy on what information will be accessed or stored and how that information will be used. I actually think that the API key check is ok, as long as it is reasonably justified and you do not access or store data that should be kept private or that is unnecessary for bank operations. So far, however, your posts have not indicated that this is true.
|
Remus Kurgan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 04:18:00 -
[358]
Originally by: petra piper
Originally by: Remus Kurgan First of all, it's not personal information, it's basic information on the characters on your account. There is a BIG difference.
Originally by: Remus Kurgan Again, not extortion. Ray is asking for basic account information which most players feel completely safe punching into computer programs. Why is everyone freaking out about their limited APIs?
You, surely, play a different Eve from me and many others.
In my Eve, allowing someone to know (ie):
a) The name of an alt with freighter skills and a highsec research POS (wardec and take out the POS), b) That I have a lot more skillpoints than my current med clone and should be suicided on sight next time I'm seen in a shuttle, c) That I've just fitted a decent Crystal set in my head, d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD), e) That I'm an amazing Leadership skill tree pilot with Fleet Command V, and use of a locator agent might tell you where the fleet is, f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to, g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv) ... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.
And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.
You're either very uninvolved in some of the "endgame" (meta, political etc) content of Eve, or you're incredibly uninformed.
Given:
Originally by: Remus Kurgan The blatent theft was Ricdic. This has already happened, so how can they steal our money again?
I go for "uninformed".
What's a bigger risk for you, providing a small group of people with details about your characters or transferring billions of ISK to an organization that will hold it and pay you more later?
I'm not saying the data isn't important, but I doubt any of the above mentioned items are going to occur and ruin the game for you. Ultimately, it's each depositors decision whether or not to go ahead with providing their API.
Perhaps I don't take the "game" quite as seriously as you do. I'm also choosing to trust Ray, I'm sure many will not.
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 05:20:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Tesal
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone.
Seriously, if you want to have a business out of this debacle, stop. Why would I give this person my API keys? There is no respect for the customer there.
I know, what a bastard. AC you should be ashamed. Next time knock.
And this. What. Why?
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 05:55:00 -
[360]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Why does EBANK need information on personal standings?
Think of it as us creating a "known accomplices" list.
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Considering the low profit EBANK is making on its 700B ISK, why do you think it is the amount the bank can handle most effectively?
Because with our current members it is possible to run a profitable venture of 200b ISK. Add that to our Fixed Assets and Loan Portfolio and you will get close enough to 700b for it to be used as a nice, round figure.
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan I would very much appreciate if you told us what makes you so convinced that this is the best decision. Your arguments so far are unsatisfactory.
The reasons already stated are what have convinced me. If those don't satisfy you then we'll need to agree to disagree, I can't exactly invent reasons to satisfy you and it's not my responsibility to satisfactorily justify each and every bank decision to every single customer.
|
|
Breaker77
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 06:01:00 -
[361]
Since no one answered my previous question, I'll ask it again
If someone has an outstanding loan of several billion ISK and they transfer the depositor character to a new account the API is useless. How do plan on accounting for that??
|
Mme Pinkerton
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 08:12:00 -
[362]
Edited by: Mme Pinkerton on 25/11/2009 08:14:14
Originally by: Drab Cane They are giving their personal time to get EBank back on its feet
There is your misunderstanding - in my perception the vast majority of people posting in this thread (who are not EBANK employees) don't want EBANK put back on its feet, but rather liquidated and shut down.
If you take away all the fancy arguments, there's the key conflict between customers and management:
management has committed itself to restoring EBANK no matter what, while customers would rather see some cash in their wallet than have the EBANK fail train going into the next round of catastrophes.
EBANK is in a state of insolvency and it has evidently lost the trust required for a successful banking operation (atm it seems that just about every 3rd party application enjoys more trust than EBANK).
Any reasonable person would shut down this time- and ISK-sink asap; only the EBANK BoD does obviously not belong to the set of reasonable persons.
I get the impression that EBANK's business model is driven by the BoD's desire for retribution against those people writing posts like this one (you know those who have never achieved anything on their own - or were just not stupid enough to sink vast amounts of time into a failing institution - and now assume the right to utter reasonable criticism concerning EBANK).
And while the pursue of retribution might involve the plan to restore access for some customers later on (so they can claim to have successfully rescued the bank), it is hard to see how this leads to a path of actions that are generally in the customers' best interest.
But then, as I have quoted Marx in a previous post, "club-law is also law" - at this point the discussion revolves mainly about semantics: is EBANK staff considered to be thieves, scammers, extortioners or heroes... The balance of power is clear enough.
PS: leaving the interests of customers' completely aside, I still think it would be better for MD as a whole to see EBANK go down. IMO EBANK staff taking the money and running away would have a much healthier effects on the "secondary" market than EBANK reopening its doors to draw the next round of customers into its Ponzi-scheme. Increased regulation seldom works against perverse incentives (but just leads to circumvention of said regulation) - and I don't see how the incentives for EBANK staff (or the staff of any other bank in EVE) to become thieves have changed in any way. IPOs, bonds, banks and the like only make sense for as long as you can make more money (for you!) using lent capital than using only your own assets. The only way for Ray to make more money/time running EBANK than minding his own business is using EBANK to scam customers out of their ISK - and it's the same with any other decent-sized banking institution imaginable in EVE.
|
Angus McSpork
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 08:47:00 -
[363]
Edited by: Angus McSpork on 25/11/2009 08:52:48 Edited by: Angus McSpork on 25/11/2009 08:52:22
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Why does EBANK need information on personal standings?
Think of it as us creating a "known accomplices" list.
Isn't this just way, WAY outside of the charter, scope and intent of a bank?
After all, the only thing more powerful than ISK in this game is information. Information you're trying to scam, I mean extort, I mean ask, I mean demand for from 9000 account holders. (its been a long couple of threads but I'm sure I read an ebank rep claim they had 9000 accounts)
And for what proclaimed purpose? To make sure that 4 ex-BoD members aren't trying to bilk more ISK out than they already have and to supposedly try to get ISK back from the *36* people you listed as defaulted on loans--40 people in total if I counted right. Now assume that each of them had 2 accounts FULL of alts that you could somehow track down with the limited API--that would be 6 characters per scammer/deadbeat so now we're talking 240 characters. Let's further assume that for some reason EVERY alt/main of said scammers/deadbeats had an account with ebank. That would make 240/9000 bank accounts max. That would mean 2.6% of account holders under very unlikely circumstances are who you're supposedly after.
All that has to be given up to protect from such baddies is the the trading schemes, business venture information, wallet balance, skill sets, asset lists, locations and standings lists of the other 97.4% of ebank customers.
Seriously, nobody has been able to trust your bank with, you know, ISK (you know, the ONE thing that IS in the charter, scope and intent of a bank). So why in the world should anyone trust you with information that can be stolen even easier* than ISK yet much more damaging if/when it is stolen?
*At least ISK being stolen should leave some trail at any half-assed financial institution ingame. API keys can simply be copied with no trace at all.
Edit: Actually, looking at the original list of loan defaulters there are a few duplicates so it is actually less than 2.6% of account holders being offered as the 'reason' for this latest scam.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 09:00:00 -
[364]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
If you take away all the fancy arguments, there's the key conflict between customers and management:
management has committed itself to restoring EBANK no matter what, while customers would rather see some cash in their wallet than have the EBANK fail train going into the next round of catastrophes.
Here's the thing:
If customers at large go ahead and take up the offer to liquidate their accounts at 20%, then EBANK will end up effectively liquidated.
If everybody goes ahead with liquidating the accounts, the ISK withdrawn vs. the NAV of EBANK ought to end up even by a 10% margin or so.
That could force EBANK to liquidate. But EBANK wants to honor the deposits of the people who wants 100% back. Everybody else is welcome to take up the offer of liquidation.
|
Bitter Veteran
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 09:34:00 -
[365]
If E-Bank was my dog i would hold it in a bucket of water until it stopped struggling and finally died.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 09:44:00 -
[366]
Originally by: Bitter Veteran If E-Bank was my dog i would hold it in a bucket of water until it stopped struggling and finally died.
Dear Bitter Veteran,
Thank you for your insightful and positive comment. We appreciate your feedback and will make sure to take it into consideration.
Please do not hesitate to post again.
Best Regards LaVista Vista
|
Dasola
Minmatar Equitatus Of Apocalypse Maru Ka'ge
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 09:47:00 -
[367]
Edited by: Dasola on 25/11/2009 09:51:42 So far i havent seen any answers to related the api key and its use on ebank, other then mysterious "we want it for something".... As pointed out it really dosent solve ebanks problems since char transfers are allowed.
What i would like to get answers is these: 1. What information on api will be accessed and why 2. What information is stored from that api access 3. Ho has access to that stored information and api keys 4. How is access to those information monitored in order to reveal any misconduct in behalf on bank staff 5. How is api and stored information secured agains outside parties gaining access to it within ebanks systems 6. how can we the customers trust that you dont sell that information to outside
I can understand theyre trying to save ebank. but i think method they have choosen leave much to desire. witholding peoples money, not paying interest, no clear timeline to allow withdrawals, extortion, stealing, etc...
In real world if bank changes its tos and i dont aprove, atleast i get my money back when they cansell my account. Ebank demands api to verify active or the steal it. --- We mine, we grind, we build, we destroy Always recruiting new industrial minded players, ingame contact: Dasola |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 10:20:00 -
[368]
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.
|
Black Omne
Caldari House Of BlackStar Semper-Mortis
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:33:00 -
[369]
Just a simple question, when withdrawals become available for say, 30% of value, etc, if a bunch of people take advantage of that does that bring the bank closer to being able to pay out 100% for those people that stick with it for the long term? I apologize for my lack of financial knowledge, I can balance my check book and that's about it.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:38:00 -
[370]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 25/11/2009 11:40:20
Quote:
What's a bigger risk for you, providing a small group of people with details about your characters or transferring billions of ISK to an organization that will hold it and pay you more later?
I'd value the knowledge about a jump freigther alt, his location in 0.0, the location of a corp POS a bit more than 2-3B personal wallet savings...
The fact there's people with 0.0 alliances involved with EBANK personnel is not to understimate.
Quote:
I get the impression that EBANK's business model is driven by the BoD's desire for retribution against those people writing posts like this one (you know those who have never achieved anything
That is why in another thread I said imho ATM there's one person with the characteristics to be a new auditor, and now you now who am I thinking about.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 13:54:00 -
[371]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan I would very much appreciate if you told us what makes you so convinced that this is the best decision. Your arguments so far are unsatisfactory.
The reasons already stated are what have convinced me. If those don't satisfy you then we'll need to agree to disagree, I can't exactly invent reasons to satisfy you and it's not my responsibility to satisfactorily justify each and every bank decision to every single customer.
Perhaps these reasons could be better framed around the priorities of the bank. It's a hard pill to swallow that after freezing accounts for this long and keeping a hard stance on returning accounts to full liquidity, that ebank is now of the position that it is acceptable to default some of its debts as collateral damage in a witch hunt.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 13:58:00 -
[372]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Bitter Veteran If E-Bank was my dog i would hold it in a bucket of water until it stopped struggling and finally died.
Dear Bitter Veteran,
Thank you for your insightful and positive comment. We appreciate your feedback and will make sure to take it into consideration.
Please do not hesitate to post again.
Best Regards LaVista Vista
HAHA! Awesome! That's how it's done. I lold.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 14:02:00 -
[373]
It's looking more and more like a case of burning down the house in order to kill the c.ockroaches.
Killing the c.ockroaches I can agree with - But there are alternatives to burning down the house.
Current management refuses to acknowledge this unfortunatly.
I'm thus forced to change my, up until now supportive, opinion on current management.
Originally by: TornSoul - Retroactively demanding API keys, simply isn't acceptable.
*c.ockroaches is a banned word... sigh... /me shakes head BIG Lottery |
Dasola
Minmatar Equitatus Of Apocalypse Maru Ka'ge
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 14:13:00 -
[374]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 25/11/2009 11:40:20
Quote:
What's a bigger risk for you, providing a small group of people with details about your characters or transferring billions of ISK to an organization that will hold it and pay you more later?
I'd value the knowledge about a jump freigther alt, his location in 0.0, the location of a corp POS a bit more than 2-3B personal wallet savings...
The fact there's people with 0.0 alliances involved with EBANK personnel is not to understimate.
Indeed, temptetion to miscondict will rice it head when someone sees opportunity to gain extra armstrenght to their allaince in war. What better way to use ebanks intelligence database then strike your enemy down in any ways bossible. Take down pos there, jump freightere here, etc....
And to my understanding ebank has not asked can they keep that money for time being to release it later in full. They just made decision without consulting anyone, leading to everyones counts being freezed over for undetermined lenght of time. To me that sounds like fraud at least.
And top of that they plan to steal your money unless you obey their terms. How about real world terms: if bank cant cover deposits it goes bankcropt and closes aftersold all assets and payd back to investors what it could. Right now theyre playing other peoples money and without permission to do so. Just becose you have seat in banks BoD, dosent give you right to steal and blackmail your investors.
One thing that troubles me is that ebank plans to keep all isk with relates to non active accounts. Its not their money to keep. If im away for year or two and ebank still operates i have full right to expect my money to be there still. Not be scammed by ho ever has had decicion rights in banks BoD at time.
And if they find banned accounts related to for example rmt? What happens to that isk if gm has not reversed? Its criminal profits witch should be turned over to ccp. Thats how real banks operate.
--- We mine, we grind, we build, we destroy Always recruiting new industrial minded players, ingame contact: Dasola |
Allvan Harl
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 14:25:00 -
[375]
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.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 14:50:00 -
[376]
It is clear that Ebank are following a strategy that may be called "political realism" rather than "market capitalism". In the context of EVE this may well be the best way. However, it is a sad failure of the free market methods most of us would want to see implemented.
Having said that, it is not a total failure. Putting capitalist concepts to one side, the methods and ethics that Ebank are currently following are more-or-less exactly right for the situation. Ebank is engaging in actions that through history could largely be classified as "State building".
Don't run too fast to call this a scam. Ray is creating a solid central bank - or at least he will emerge with one if he continues his current policy. Granted, he is doing it with money expropriated without voluntary consent, and with a mandate that is obscure at best - but such is the nature of realpolitik.
Such State-building actions are often necessary before capitalism can establish itself. The cause is worthy, and the Ebank board may well prove to be more intelligent, ruthless and capable than we think. Time will tell.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 14:54:00 -
[377]
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?
|
Breaker77
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 14:57:00 -
[378]
Edited by: Breaker77 on 25/11/2009 14:57:49
Originally by: cosmoray HOW DOES EBANK INTEND TO COMMUNICATE THIS TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT READ MD FORUM?
I believe LVV said they would be sending out e-mails to thouse who had registered them on the EBank forums, however many people that reaches it's hard to say.
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:08:00 -
[379]
Edited by: Dzil on 25/11/2009 15:08:51
Originally by: cosmoray 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?
I'm confident the remaining denizens of the internet can find a picture of the middle finger extended without reading MD.
Edit - damn you Cosmo and your spacing schemes...
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:09:00 -
[380]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal It is clear that Ebank are following a strategy that may be called "political realism" rather than "market capitalism". In the context of EVE this may well be the best way. However, it is a sad failure of the free market methods most of us would want to see implemented.
Having said that, it is not a total failure. Putting capitalist concepts to one side, the methods and ethics that Ebank are currently following are more-or-less exactly right for the situation. Ebank is engaging in actions that through history could largely be classified as "State building".
Don't run too fast to call this a scam. Ray is creating a solid central bank - or at least he will emerge with one if he continues his current policy. Granted, he is doing it with money expropriated without voluntary consent, and with a mandate that is obscure at best - but such is the nature of realpolitik.
Such State-building actions are often necessary before capitalism can establish itself. The cause is worthy, and the Ebank board may well prove to be more intelligent, ruthless and capable than we think. Time will tell.
Realpolitik?
Your treatise on capitalism and banks is crap. Ron Paul 2012 am I right? Or maybe you were dropped on your head as a child? Maybe both?
EBank is not now, has never been, nor will it ever be, a Central Bank. The Central Bank is CCP Bank. They control the isk supply. It will also never be a State.
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:18:00 -
[381]
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..
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:19:00 -
[382]
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 25/11/2009 15:21:51
Originally by: Tesal
Realpolitik?
Your treatise on capitalism and banks is crap. Ron Paul 2012 am I right? Or maybe you were dropped on your head as a child? Maybe both?
EBank is not now, has never been, nor will it ever be, a Central Bank. The Central Bank is CCP Bank. They control the isk supply. It will also never be a State.
No it's pure Karl Marx actually - if you study the history of economic development you will see that waves of expropriation and violence were often necessary prerequisties for the establishment of working economic systems. Those who acquire a monopoly on such force can legitimately be considered to be the pillars of an emergent State. Not too difficult to grasp as concepts.
There is a certain logic in Ebanks actions. From what I can gather of the mind-set of Ray and the Ebank board then if they are not scammers, they will be following a script that is not radically different to the summary I outlined above.
Edit: also your USA-centrism is quite funny - I have no idea who Ron Paul is, and also not every central bank is like the Fed - ie currency and inflation oriented. There is a much wider historical definition for a central bank than this.
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:32:00 -
[383]
Ron Paul was a candidate for the USA presidential election in 2008. Without derailing ebanks thread (in due time folks, in due time) - a lot of his supporters became overnight political critics because they read something on the internet.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:39:00 -
[384]
Quote: Account Sales * Account Sales will occur through the Account2Player Transfer interface (see the Move Money menu on the EBANK website). This is to avoid additional coding changes. All sales will need to be verified and registered with the Bank, no sales may occur without this verification. A verification fee of 5% will be levied against the sale, and is payable by the seller. Should the buyer wish to refund the fee, that is their decision and the bank cannot be held liable for them breaking this agreement. * This does mean that legitimate A2P transfers will have the same fee levied, unfortunately this fee is non-refundable and our suggestion to you is to wait until the sales fee is no longer applicable and is returned to the standard 0.5%. No discussion will be entered into, do not use this service if you don't want to pay the 5% fee.
Is there a minimum balance?
Will this 5% fee also apply if you are moving balances between your own known characters on the same account, which ebank is requiring you to register?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Varo Jan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:55:00 -
[385]
@ Ray
How much collateral is EBank holding against the possibility of loan defaults? Is that collateral held passively, or are you making use of any such assets to derive income that benefits the bank? Is collateral shown on the balance sheet? If so, where?
|
Dasola
Minmatar Equitatus Of Apocalypse Maru Ka'ge
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:56:00 -
[386]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal Ray is creating a solid central bank - or at least he will emerge with one if he continues his current policy. Granted, he is doing it with money expropriated without voluntary consent, and with a mandate that is obscure at best - but such is the nature of realpolitik.
How could it ever become central bank when no one in their right mind will trust their money on it? After all they have proven that they are willing to hold your money indefinetly and even steal it if you dont meet their requirements. Thats not what banks do.
If real politik would have anything to do with it, ccp (as in closest thing we have for real government) would have moved in allready and closed down entire ebank.
They claim theyre running bank, maybe they should start acting like running a bank instead of biggest scam in eve history.
If theyre really running bank then they would have some idea how long hopefully it takes until they can re-open normal bank functions so people can have their stolen money back. Its not loaned to them since they hijacked it without asking and theyre not promised any compensation on keepeing the money either.
And still no published BoD apikeys so we could confirm that they have no scam alts, goons, ebank loan defaults, etc... --- We mine, we grind, we build, we destroy Always recruiting new industrial minded players, ingame contact: Dasola |
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:58:00 -
[387]
Originally by: Dasola And still no published BoD apikeys so we could confirm that they have no scam alts, goons, ebank loan defaults, etc...
Whats wrong with goons?
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 16:05:00 -
[388]
How about complete liquidation, purchase 1000+ GTCs and donate them to Child's Play?
KB
Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 16:07:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Kalrand
Originally by: Dasola And still no published BoD apikeys so we could confirm that they have no scam alts, goons, ebank loan defaults, etc...
Whats wrong with goons?
I'm not sure why it matters at this point. Suppose you see a goon, old enemy, or someone you have a hidden vendetta against. What are you going to do? Request your money back?
Ebank's position is clear: /finger. Don't forget it.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 16:11:00 -
[390]
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 25/11/2009 16:12:44
Originally by: Dasola See above post
Read through the postings of the Ebank directors, particularly Ray's. They are not following a free-market script, that is clear. It is possible they are scamming of course, but even that has little relevance to their inevitable outcome, which is that of significant geopolitical entity.
From reading the Ebank director's posts, it seems clear to me that their vision is similar to the vision of those who build States and that is why I suggest that they are engaging in an exercise that is similar to State-building. Now, the precise nature of the State or States in Eve is difficult to determine, but I am willing to bet that Ebank will be a part of one soon enough.
Edit: edited down for size
|
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 16:11:00 -
[391]
Originally by: Dzil
Ebank's position is clear: /finger. Don't forget it.
Hardly. It's closer to "bend over". But, at least they've consistently applied that policy to their customers.
|
Keiko Shizuka
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 17:19:00 -
[392]
Your statement reads as if you want to cancel as many accounts as possible in order to avoid having to pay people the money you owe them. If someone objects you mention the terrori^H^H^H^H^H^H^H RMT traders in an effort to scare people into submission.
If this is what the BoD is like you should all be ashamed of yourselves. EVE might be a game, but trust isn't. Ray and certain other EBANK employes seem to have a very lighthearted take on all of this.
If you truly want to gain goodwill you will find less intrusive ways to "verify" accounts and you'll start treating your customers with respect.
|
Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 17:42:00 -
[393]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Circumstances dictate otherwise TS. The bank has been subjected to some of the largest thefts and defaults in EVE history, it has seen transactions faked in the back-end by previous directors - there is no way I can stand by and watch those responsible get away with further ill-gotten fains if there is the slightest chance I can prevent that.
So you'd rather steal the money of people who value their alts identities more than the balance on their account than not pursuing your vendetta, victimizing them further. -- 081014 : emoragequit, char transfered to a friend, 090317 : back to original owner blog |
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 17:56:00 -
[394]
The whole idea that people would steal hundreds of billions of isk from EBank and then turn around and deposit the money back into the bank through their alt because it is obviously such a great investment is patently absurd on the face of it.
|
KapnKaboom
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 18:23:00 -
[395]
This thread is a riot! All this bickering and whining is truely internet comedy gold!
|
The Critique
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 18:24:00 -
[396]
Here is my personal opinion.
Ray- You are a thief, liar and have a disregard for E-Bank customers. Your PR skills suck, your people skills obviously
suck and you ability to get this tired story into a positive light has dwindled to below 0. You are nothing more then a
Bernard Madoff at this point. You will never turn this Bank around and you know it. People will jump ship as soon they can
if they haven't already. The people willing to buy E-Bank shares might ultimately get turn a profit however small.
Although I will say watching your mannerisms lately it really seems like you are degenerating into a pawn that really
doesn't give a flying **** about what happens next. Therefore I would not be surprised if you took what is left and ran. I
think if you did that people would respect you more then they do now. If you are ultimately going to turn things around I
suggest you start right now with an attitude adjustment. I am sure I speak for most when I say I have no respect for you,
which represents a 100% decrease over the last 4 months. If you do not want to take my advice you don't have to but it is
a shame to see you flush, what little hope E-Bank customers did have down the drain with your manners.
I personally think the bank will never recover.... At least not with you as it's leadership. I understand you have
the *****iest JOB in EvE but you volunteered for it Mr. Obama and now it is time for you to make good on your promises.
Hopefully you'll hand Extortion-Bank over to someone who can look at the situation with a level head. Make sound decisions,
meet deadlines as promised, apologize for mistakes, shortcomings, and misgivings. Someone that understands that the
customer is always right and equally important. I feel that you will not miraculously change into the person E-Bank needs,
nor will you admit the bottom line here. YOU FAIL
|
Remus Kurgan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 18:25:00 -
[397]
Originally by: petra piper
d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD), f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to, g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv) ... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.
And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.
Where is this information in the limited API?
The limited API has "character sheet and skill training information only" according to CCPs website. There is nothing in those spreadsheets showing wallet information, market transactions or corporation wallet information. Am I missing some hidden CCP documentation that you have?
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 18:39:00 -
[398]
Originally by: Claire Voyant The whole idea that people would steal hundreds of billions of isk from EBank and then turn around and deposit the money back into the bank through their alt because it is obviously such a great investment is patently absurd on the face of it.
Well no, to be fair the scheme would look more akin to Mr. H or an equivalent director gone bad creating false accounts with isk that was never deposited, then collecting off them in a distributed, less likely to be noted fashion as ebank supposedly generates profits.
One of the negative side effects of this method is ebank will never know what portion of those funds was truly fabricated, and what was stolen from its clients. I guess maybe that makes it easier.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Amaarrah
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 18:51:00 -
[399]
Thanx KapnKaboom. Placed some comment along these lines earlier. These people here are not the fine customers that EBANK, or any bank for that matter. Loved about the Madoff comment. This shows that many people dont understand and surely dont wanna see the implementation of a clear, honest and strict (yeah sure) policy. Madoff (typical for failing US financial policies, its lack of any kind of proper monitoring and all the virues of the New World when it comes to disastrous High Finance) was the cause. Ray came in after tha pyramide became known, is now cleaning up, organizing and issueing strict clear policies. As an old fashioned conservative I say: first get the cash in than spend it and never believe soft heelers they make stinking wounds and hide behind some kind of ideological blabber, always points the finger away from themselves, turn it to others. If you think of it. Maybe the old Divide is a good measure to understand this whole thread. Its RL all over again but then in a game / a game for Pete¦s sake.....
|
Phoebe Halliwel
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 19:11:00 -
[400]
Originally by: Remus Kurgan
Originally by: petra piper
d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD), f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to, g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv) ... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.
And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.
Where is this information in the limited API?
The limited API has "character sheet and skill training information only" according to CCPs website. There is nothing in those spreadsheets showing wallet information, market transactions or corporation wallet information. Am I missing some hidden CCP documentation that you have?
List of info that can be pulled via the limited api is here
Not sure why "wallet balance" isn't listed as "Limited" because I'm pretty sure eve-mon pulls that through via the limited key.
|
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 19:17:00 -
[401]
Aye, it's just a game. And this is just a forum talking about said game. While people may sound a bit worked up here - I wouldn't characterize posting about a topic on the internet as going too far. Just as it's just a game, it's also just a forum.
The trolls criticizing the whiners for whining are of course recursively whining about the whining.
It can be fun to draw comparisons between the emergent behaviors in EVE and real life. I like to discuss these things even without a penny vested in ebank.
As to the rest: I'm in the court now that ebank has stolen all your isk. If, when, how and on what terms they give it back will never change that fact.
Till the next announcement/haiku thread, Dzil
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Remus Kurgan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 19:59:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel
Originally by: Remus Kurgan
Originally by: petra piper
d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD), f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to, g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv) ... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.
And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.
Where is this information in the limited API?
The limited API has "character sheet and skill training information only" according to CCPs website. There is nothing in those spreadsheets showing wallet information, market transactions or corporation wallet information. Am I missing some hidden CCP documentation that you have?
List of info that can be pulled via the limited api is here
Not sure why "wallet balance" isn't listed as "Limited" because I'm pretty sure eve-mon pulls that through via the limited key.
Wallet balance is jumbled into information on the Character sheet page. But no market transactions are on there. Thanks for the linkage!
|
Keiko Shizuka
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 20:09:00 -
[403]
Originally by: Remus Kurgan Wallet balance is jumbled into information on the Character sheet page. But no market transactions are on there. Thanks for the linkage!
petra didn't mention wallet info from what I can see. You can see changes to the balance though, which is what petra referred to. So yes, everything petra listed can be retrieved with the limited API.
|
Remus Kurgan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 21:19:00 -
[404]
Edited by: Remus Kurgan on 25/11/2009 21:19:17 edit: quotes
Originally by: petra piper
d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD), f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to, g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv) ... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.
And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.
Originally by: Keiko ****uka
Originally by: Remus Kurgan Wallet balance is jumbled into information on the Character sheet page. But no market transactions are on there. Thanks for the linkage!
petra didn't mention wallet info from what I can see. You can see changes to the balance though, which is what petra referred to. So yes, everything petra listed can be retrieved with the limited API.
Petra mentions corp hangars and wallet divisions, none of which is revealed in the limited API. Petra also mentions names of the wallet divisions for a corp or alliance, also not in the limited API. As to what someone spends ISK on, you can retrieve the current wallet of a player, but all it will show is the balance. If you were to log that over time, you might see a large change, which also might be linked to skill training, but that is overall change for the last hour. I could've bought a Nyx, I also could've bought 16-20 Capital BPOs for research and building. So, no, not everything Petra listed can be retrieved with the limited API.
|
Mephistocles
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 21:46:00 -
[405]
Originally by: Remus Kurgan Petra mentions corp hangars and wallet divisions, none of which is revealed in the limited API. Petra also mentions names of the wallet divisions for a corp or alliance, also not in the limited API. As to what someone spends ISK on, you can retrieve the current wallet of a player, but all it will show is the balance. If you were to log that over time, you might see a large change, which also might be linked to skill training, but that is overall change for the last hour. I could've bought a Nyx, I also could've bought 16-20 Capital BPOs for research and building. So, no, not everything Petra listed can be retrieved with the limited API.
Actually, that info can be pulled from the limited api. If you see here the wallet divisions and hangar division names can be pulled. If I'm not mistaken the wallet divisions are only pulled if the character has the accountant (or similiar i.e. director/ceo) role.
|
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 21:46:00 -
[406]
Ray's trying to see how many hoops he can make you jump through before you realize what is actually going on.
|
Remus Kurgan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 22:23:00 -
[407]
Originally by: Mephistocles
Originally by: Remus Kurgan Petra mentions corp hangars and wallet divisions, none of which is revealed in the limited API. Petra also mentions names of the wallet divisions for a corp or alliance, also not in the limited API. As to what someone spends ISK on, you can retrieve the current wallet of a player, but all it will show is the balance. If you were to log that over time, you might see a large change, which also might be linked to skill training, but that is overall change for the last hour. I could've bought a Nyx, I also could've bought 16-20 Capital BPOs for research and building. So, no, not everything Petra listed can be retrieved with the limited API.
Actually, that info can be pulled from the limited api. If you see here the wallet divisions and hangar division names can be pulled. If I'm not mistaken the wallet divisions are only pulled if the character has the accountant (or similiar i.e. director/ceo) role.
Interesting.....so, from what I can see, the wiki page indicates the limited API has wallet divisions (assuming a character has corp granted access) and it shows titles, but not ISK value or hangar divisions. Or is "divisions" and "wallet divisions" supposed to indicate that both are there and accessible?
Does this seem broken to anyone else? This does not indicate that any of that information is made available from the limited API. The only statement on CCPs page (not the wiki page) is that it "Allows access to character sheet and skill training information only. Use this for applications such as skill change notifiers."
Can someone verify via their limited API and a 3rd party application that corp information is actually downloaded and viewable?
|
Mephistocles
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 22:31:00 -
[408]
Originally by: Remus Kurgan [Interesting.....so, from what I can see, the wiki page indicates the limited API has wallet divisions (assuming a character has corp granted access) and it shows titles, but not ISK value or hangar divisions. Or is "divisions" and "wallet divisions" supposed to indicate that both are there and accessible?
Does this seem broken to anyone else? This does not indicate that any of that information is made available from the limited API. The only statement on CCPs page (not the wiki page) is that it "Allows access to character sheet and skill training information only. Use this for applications such as skill change notifiers."
Can someone verify via their limited API and a 3rd party application that corp information is actually downloaded and viewable?
"Divisions" are the corp hangar names. "Wallet Divisions" are the corp wallet names.
|
Remus Kurgan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 22:50:00 -
[409]
Originally by: Remus Kurgan Edited by: Remus Kurgan on 25/11/2009 21:19:17 edit: quotes
Originally by: petra piper
d) That I've just finished Gallente Carrier V, plan on finishing Fighters V next, and have just spent 16B isk on something (although to be fair you might not immediately think of a Nyx XD), f) What corp hangers and wallets I have access to, g) What the director renamed the 5th corp wallet to yesterday ("The Dining in NOL Fund", obv) ... and many more examples, is potentially disastrous to me, my corp and maybe my alliance. This is just off the top of my head, and I'm in no-way a meta-game 'dark arts' specialist.
And all this data is provided by the *limited* API key, which you appear to think only gives out tiny amounts of non-sensitive information. I suggest you read the documentation. It might be non-sensitive to you, but it might be highly sensitive to me.
Originally by: Keiko ****uka
Originally by: Remus Kurgan Wallet balance is jumbled into information on the Character sheet page. But no market transactions are on there. Thanks for the linkage!
petra didn't mention wallet info from what I can see. You can see changes to the balance though, which is what petra referred to. So yes, everything petra listed can be retrieved with the limited API.
Petra mentions corp hangars and wallet divisions, none of which is revealed in the limited API. Petra also mentions names of the wallet divisions for a corp or alliance, also not in the limited API. As to what someone spends ISK on, you can retrieve the current wallet of a player, but all it will show is the balance. If you were to log that over time, you might see a large change, which also might be linked to skill training, but that is overall change for the last hour. I could've bought a Nyx, I also could've bought 16-20 Capital BPOs for research and building. So, no, not everything Petra listed can be retrieved with the limited API.
Okay, so modification of my previous statement. Petra, you're right, I'm wrong. It would've helped if CCP had accurate data on their "official" web page documenting APIs. CCP, seriously, fix this!!! It would not take much.
|
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:49:00 -
[410]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
Originally by: Drab Cane They are giving their personal time to get EBank back on its feet
There is your misunderstanding - in my perception the vast majority of people posting in this thread (who are not EBANK employees) don't want EBANK put back on its feet, but rather liquidated and shut down.
Actually, I agree with you here. Ray and associates should have saved themselves time and aggravation by liquidating EBank and giving it a decent burial.
Ray was brought on staff to fix EBank, and discovered just what a mess it is in. Instead of throwing in the towel, he made the decision to save everyone's ISK, to try and keep the promises that EBank had made. Heroic, but impractical. Much like a company going through bankruptcy, he has frozen the claims of his debtors while attempting to restructure the operation so all debtors could be paid back.
After realizing what a monumental task he was attempting, he has begun making concessions, both to the customers and to reality.
Regarding the API key, EBank would be best served if they would confirm that only the character sheet API is used, only character names are recorded, and that the API key is not accessible to general staff. And if that is not the case, let the community know how it used and what measures are used to keep the API key as safe as possible.
Ray, EBank is your baby now. There's no way you're going to appease everyone, but please take a few steps to show the rational majority that you are doing your best on our behalf.
-----------------------------------------------
- Who Dares, Wins
|
|
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:18:00 -
[411]
Quote: Regarding the API key, EBank would be best served if they would confirm that only the character sheet API is used, only character names are recorded, and that the API key is not accessible to general staff. And if that is not the case, let the community know how it used and what measures are used to keep the API key as safe as possible.
It's already been stated once that they intended to store information regarding a char's API, including standings which makes absolutely zero sense. Your own personal standings (among other info being stored) should play zero factor in your account.
Never invested in Ebank, after seeing how this is being handled, any remote possibility of me even considering it has been destroyed (lolbanks). This entire thread should be stickied for posterity and used as a prime example of how not to perform damage control or customer service.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:29:00 -
[412]
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.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 05:24:00 -
[413]
Originally by: Drab Cane Ray, EBank is your baby now. There's no way you're going to appease everyone, but please take a few steps to show the rational majority that you are doing your best on our behalf.
Agreed. The Board will draft the final API policy this weekend and release it next week sometime. It'll be no different to what has already been stated, however this will be an official, unambiguous version clearly outlined in our TOS.
Originally by: Leneerra Should you agree to these terms (and keep them) I will cease posting, complaining etc in threads about ebank.
I can't accept those terms Leneerra, there is no negotiation over the Limited API Key requirement (in case I hadn't made it clear before).
|
Dasola
Minmatar Equitatus Of Apocalypse Maru Ka'ge
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 05:40:00 -
[414]
Edited by: Dasola on 26/11/2009 05:42:12
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Drab Cane Ray, EBank is your baby now. There's no way you're going to appease everyone, but please take a few steps to show the rational majority that you are doing your best on our behalf.
Agreed. The Board will draft the final API policy this weekend and release it next week sometime. It'll be no different to what has already been stated, however this will be an official, unambiguous version clearly outlined in our TOS.
Funny, some how i would have expected policy to be made before you start to demand api keys, not afterwords. I do how ever hope your policy will adress all questions i have asked about api policy atleast. Ho has access to what and why, how its monitored that theres no abuse, security conserns, etc...
I quess its better brake things first and try cook up something to justify wrong decisisons afterwords.
by the way, if any of your former customers refuses to accept your new "tos" will you return hes/her money when you cansell your account agreement with them? Just curous since thats how banks usually operate. --- We mine, we grind, we build, we destroy Always recruiting new industrial minded players, ingame contact: Dasola |
Thoraemond
Minmatar Far Ranger
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 08:39:00 -
[415]
Originally by: Ray McCormack The Board will draft the final API policy this weekend and release it next week sometime. It'll be no different to what has already been stated, however this will be an official, unambiguous version clearly outlined in our TOS.
Please at least make it possible for people to see the details of their accounts on a read-only basis without providing any API information. á á
|
Gwendoline Paget
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 09:20:00 -
[416]
I'd like to thank everyone who tried to persuade the EBank staff that this "non-negotiable" limited API key requirement is very bad idea. It saddens me to see that EBank doesn't care anymore, and having followed this thread I'm pretty sure they knew this would follow their announcement and they counted on people not supplying their API (for whatever reasons - giving someone my API data just makes me feel uncomfortable, not that there is really anything of interest to hide in my case).
I always liked EBank, not for the interest they paid (I never withdraw anything, and apparently never will), but for trying to run a "good" bank. Silly me...
|
F90OEX
F9X Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 09:57:00 -
[417]
"Half a loaf is better than no bread"
GJ Ray
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 10:19:00 -
[418]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Drab Cane Ray, EBank is your baby now. There's no way you're going to appease everyone, but please take a few steps to show the rational majority that you are doing your best on our behalf.
Agreed. The Board will draft the final API policy this weekend and release it next week sometime. It'll be no different to what has already been stated, however this will be an official, unambiguous version clearly outlined in our TOS.
So this whole thread is not "official"?
Apologies if the language is not as condescending or abusive as some of the EBANK staff are capable of, but here goes;
I am stating that I refuse these new Terms and Conditions and requesting the return of ALL of my account contents, as per any financial institution, one of which you claim to be.
While I realise what a mess that EBANK is in, and do not give a flying fig anymore, I am unlikely to receive all my money back (which kind of makes you thieves by default).
I want at least 40% (after transfer fees*) as offered by IHAFS and which I cannot action myself as you deny me account access, and have not fixed the money being locked in "pending withdrawal" yet (or last time I was able to check) even if I could access it.
*Transfer fees - Supply your other character details by limited API to access your own money and EBANK will charge you for this service. This is the first example of the sale of your API information and if an indication of how EABNK will treat it, how many more times will this happen after EBANK get it? -- --
|
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 10:46:00 -
[419]
Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 26/11/2009 10:54:25 Wait...
How is this different from a scam?
I have been trying to distinguish this from a scam and I cannot. Maybe because you are further getting more info before you call scam? 2 part scam? Maybe 3 part? Good show, although I would have gone with an urgent need for capital and anyone that wants to see their isk again must deposit 25% of their account balance.
There is no reason to not have independent party verification for all purposes you require. It is obvious you have alterior motives." No one is ever seeing a dime unless they dance and touch their noses and transfer your soul. Otherwise we keep all of your money."
obvious scam is obvious.
-GV
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 11:13:00 -
[420]
So here is me wondering:
Say that the API allowed you to create a key that ONLY allowed to pull the names of the characters on an account. Would it be acceptable if EBANK requested that?
|
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 11:21:00 -
[421]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar So this whole thread is not "official"?
Yes it is.
Originally by: Marcus Baltar I am stating that I refuse these new Terms and Conditions and requesting the return of ALL of my account contents, as per any financial institution, one of which you claim to be.
Request denied.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 11:33:00 -
[422]
Originally by: LaVista Vista So here is me wondering:
Say that the API allowed you to create a key that ONLY allowed to pull the names of the characters on an account. Would it be acceptable if EBANK requested that?
Requesting it would be fine. Demanding it on pain of having one's account balance stolen would not, this constituting blackmail and theft, plain and simple.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 11:38:00 -
[423]
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: LaVista Vista So here is me wondering:
Say that the API allowed you to create a key that ONLY allowed to pull the names of the characters on an account. Would it be acceptable if EBANK requested that?
Requesting it would be fine. Demanding it on pain of having one's account balance stolen would not, this constituting blackmail and theft, plain and simple.
Dear Raw23,
Thank you for answering the question, rather than just keep on going "OMFG EBANK IS TRYING TO STEAL FROM ME".
It's great to see that people are truly reasonable and are not just being raging forum *****s.
You have renewed my faith in humanity.
Yours sincerely, LaVista Vista
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 11:41:00 -
[424]
Looks like Dominion evemail API addition saves your API key problem.
Simply make a dummy share-holder vote by a placeholder character in EBANK, with the vote "EBANK: You must reply to this message to keep your account active and not risk losing your deposit".
Then when everyone replies, harvest the character names in the evemails using the mail API. Problem solved!
Of course, this doesn't address the issue of people on military leave etc. That could simply be solved by sending the dummy vote every X months and then disable after 2 x X months non-response.
The fully service minded approach is to offer both ;)
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store. CSM 4 Candidate - Vote for Serenity Steele |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 11:52:00 -
[425]
Edited by: RAW23 on 26/11/2009 11:55:11
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: LaVista Vista So here is me wondering:
Say that the API allowed you to create a key that ONLY allowed to pull the names of the characters on an account. Would it be acceptable if EBANK requested that?
Requesting it would be fine. Demanding it on pain of having one's account balance stolen would not, this constituting blackmail and theft, plain and simple.
Dear Raw23,
Thank you for answering the question, rather than just keep on going "OMFG EBANK IS TRYING TO STEAL FROM ME".
It's great to see that people are truly reasonable and are not just being raging forum *****s.
You have renewed my faith in humanity.
Yours sincerely, LaVista Vista
Of course, given that EBANK has so far failed to outline what it is that distinguishes their plan from outright theft (despite the tabling of alternatives by Mme. Pinkerton and by a member of your own board) "OMFG EBANK IS TRYING TO STEAL FROM ME" seems a perfectly reasonable point to dwell on. If you think you can make the distinction, please at least make the attempt. At the moment it seems like you can't even be bothered to try to persuade people that this does not constitute theft.
BTW - If you had an EBANK account but were unwilling to provide your api key (a hypothetical, I know), how would you describe EBANK's actions in taking possession of the contents of your account?
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 11:54:00 -
[426]
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)
|
FlameWarrior
Gallente Hall Of Flame H Y E N A
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 12:36:00 -
[427]
so what it's going to happen ??? as this
01/09/2009399,990,000.00Pending 31/08/2009610,184,800.64Pending
doe it mean i m going to be charge of 5% of this amount of isk i try to withdraw 2months ago ?? or wht is going to happen ? Yoyo !LOTTERY MAN IS HERE ! |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 15:00:00 -
[428]
Originally by: FlameWarrior doe it mean i m going to be charge of 5% of this amount of isk i try to withdraw 2months ago ?? or wht is going to happen ?
No, all pending withdrawals will be cancelled before we start the first liquidation withdrawal cycle.
|
FlameWarrior
Gallente Hall Of Flame H Y E N A
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 15:41:00 -
[429]
so if i m withdrawing the amount on tops right ? will i have to pay 10% or 5% ? fee ? Yoyo !LOTTERY MAN IS HERE ! |
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 16:19:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Leneerra 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)
I would agree to this as well. However, as stated, under duress.
BIG Lottery |
|
Phelan Votronski
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 18:18:00 -
[431]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
That's not to say that it's not intrusive to ask for an API key. But one could use the old "If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem"-argument.
Uhhhmm yeah right that worked so well for fascist countries...
Just had to quote this little gem. Among the stupidest things said in eve-o this year.
|
Amaarrah
|
Posted - 2009.11.26 21:43:00 -
[432]
Mwaaaaah. Just woke up. Bickering is still on. Wow, best sailormen are always standing on the dockside. Pages of bla-bla-bla with the same song while EBANK gets better and stronger with more tighter tactics to smoke the wheelers-deelers out of the business. Wow. API limited key - a new toy for the same song still wrong tune. Go ahead EBANK flush out the whiners and build up a better transparant banking system. Judging from the number of whining ****s and the EBANK database the people in this thread are a minority. Let them go their part EBANK.... Not worth energy!
P.S. As a professional historian. Phelan Voronsky ... you said fascist? Looked through my Nolte, Kershaw and other notable authors on this historical topic, I can only say, sorry Votronski you better leave history out of this!
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 00:12:00 -
[433]
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).
|
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 04:58:00 -
[434]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Edited by: LaVista Vista on 23/11/2009 05:36:45
Originally by: Jas Dor
I can see some folks with heavy involvement in EvE politics, for example certain former BoB members, not wanting to disclose their account mains, especially if dropping several billion isk into an account.
What are you trying to say? It looks to me like you are saying that I'm a former BoB member Yet all characters I own are fully disclosed.
I'm saying that folks such as known alliance leads have a right to privacy when it comes to banking and should NOT have to disclose where there ISK rests: Need I remind you that ties to Band of Brothers provided one of the main causes for the attack on assets of ISS, the ultimate result being the loss of billions in invested shareholder capital. Prior events have shown that becoming a major generator of passive wealth for a 0.0 alliance subjects an investment to attack from other 0.0 alliances. Banking secrecy works both ways. While E-Bank as a neutral investment vehicle must remain open to all by the same token your account holders have the right to expect that the bank will take no action that might lead to the collection of statistics showing any 0.0 entity to have a an above average exposure to E-Bank and thus render E-Bank a legitimate target in 0.0 warfare.
EDIT: Being slightly more awake, I realize that your argument is really sort of... strange. I can think of a single person who fits that bill slightly. But it's not a secret who his main is
Quote: (I further note that EBank is heavily invested in Titan BPO's, neglect to act forthrightly and sell these BPO's has benefited the political alliances that various board members are involved in, while leaving the account holders with assets about to get nerfed into oblivion).
Wow, get your tinfoil hats guys!
Does or does not E-Bank have two or more Titan BPO's, researched at at least ME 1 if not higher which E-Bank has engaged in BPC sales to various alliances?
|
Clementina
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 05:13:00 -
[435]
Originally by: Leneerra 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.
Actually, it sounds like the kind of thing Chribba could develop. I can envision it working like this
(1) Chribba sets up a server that take requests that look exactly like Eve API requests, except they go to like http://www.veldspar.com/api?<whatever> instead, and use a hexidecimal number that is not at all the same as the Eve API key number. (2) Chribba's server determines if the API request returns resources that the API key owner actually wanted returned. If so, it uses the real API key (Which the API key owner stored ahead of time, and maybe even had encrypted) to request said resources from the real API server. If the API request would return information that the API key owner did not want shared, it does nothing. (3) Chribba's server returns to the client the information that it got from Eve's API server if it bothered to get any information in step 2. If it did not bother to get any information in step 2, it returns the error message that one would get if one used an API key that was no good.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 05:26:00 -
[436]
If there was a trusted third party that provided a granular level of access to the API like this we would be willing to use them as an alternative to providing us with your Limited API Key - providing certain technical conditions were met.
|
Dal Thrax
Thrax Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 05:33:00 -
[437]
Just a thought on a saying from the real life banking world "your first loss is always your best" or in other words take it on the chin and don't keep shoveling money into a dead deal. About the only thing if value E-Bank can ask for at this point is information, nobody is going to given them isk (other than 0.01 isk offered to establish that an account holder is still active). I think I'll just stand on my first loss and not follow it up with my API key thank you very much.
|
Clementina
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 06:21:00 -
[438]
I should say something about the actual announcement.
Should a person give their API key to EBANK, in order to gain access to their money?
Probably not.
Let's be real here, EBANK pretty much lost your money, that or had it stolen outright by grifters like Riddic. The money more or less gone. Some of it never even existed, rather it was unearned interest applied to your account, or Mr Horizontal's especial database entries. Smoke and mirrors are being thrown about about 'maybe' letting people withdraw when the Net Asset Value is high enough in Ray McCormack's estimation. I would not hold your breath.
The stuff about Real Money Traders is more smoke and mirrors. It's calculated to exploit your revulsion concerning that particular form of commerce to make you agree to irrational stuff.
Remember most of the affiliates of this bank scammed and walked away with boatloads of isk. Money was taken by these kats, information will be leaked by them too. Also Eve banks are pretty stupid, they don't pay enough interest to compensate for the astronomical risk, and can't earn enough money to even pay the interest (Or principle in this particular case) they promise.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 06:39:00 -
[439]
Originally by: Clementina
Originally by: Leneerra 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.
Actually, it sounds like the kind of thing Chribba could develop. I can envision it working like this
(1) Chribba sets up a server that take requests that look exactly like Eve API requests, except they go to like http://www.veldspar.com/api?<whatever> instead, and use a hexidecimal number that is not at all the same as the Eve API key number. (2) Chribba's server determines if the API request returns resources that the API key owner actually wanted returned. If so, it uses the real API key (Which the API key owner stored ahead of time, and maybe even had encrypted) to request said resources from the real API server. If the API request would return information that the API key owner did not want shared, it does nothing. (3) Chribba's server returns to the client the information that it got from Eve's API server if it bothered to get any information in step 2. If it did not bother to get any information in step 2, it returns the error message that one would get if one used an API key that was no good.
Such services already existed. Ix Forres had one, for instance.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 06:55:00 -
[440]
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?).
|
|
RaTTuS
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 08:10:00 -
[441]
Chribba's EvE Board does Character Stuff - I'm Sure if you asked nicely he could [for a price] provide you with Character names for each account - if that is all you want
-- 3 Titans Lottery EB | Capital |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 08:52:00 -
[442]
Originally by: Ray McCormack If there was a trusted third party that provided a granular level of access to the API like this we would be willing to use them as an alternative to providing us with your Limited API Key - providing certain technical conditions were met.
I don't think it's hard to do this, but who is going to do this? In case good old Chribba is unavailable, it's clear that people don't trust EBANK but... who would they trust then? - Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Keiko Shizuka
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 11:11:00 -
[443]
Originally by: RaTTuS Chribba's EvE Board does Character Stuff - I'm Sure if you asked nicely he could [for a price] provide you with Character names for each account - if that is all you want
The more time passes the more I get the feeling that certain people in EBANK really do want the Limited API and won't accept any substitute no matter what, showing zero interest in even investigating compromises or alternate solutions. The possible reasons for that peculiar behavior worry me.
|
Vladimir Frye
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 18:14:00 -
[444]
So I see now that I can't even see if I still have money left in my account until I hand over a set of API keys. E-Bank has proven themselves to be liars, cheats and thieves. Now you add extortion to the list. All in the name of "RMT Protection". Perhaps you'll add that it helps protect our children to that BS excuse as well.
I have a better idea: NO. You've already proven yourselves untrustworthy. You get nothing more from me. I trusted you with my ISK while I was away from the game for a few months and look what it got me. Your trust factor is zero and I believe your stated reasons as much as I believe the rest of your lies.
On August 25th when you initiated your masterful scam, I had 714,237,593.81 in my account. Steal away E-Bank..
|
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 22:13:00 -
[445]
I'm not entirely sure what the issue with the API key is...
So EBANK can see who my alts are. Big deal, the only times I even post with them is when I'm at a public computer where my default character settings aren't saved and I forget to select the right one manually.
Of course, if you create alts for the express purpose to make an arse of yourself in the anonymity of the net... heh, then you will see no sympathy from me Mind, not like EBANK would even /care/ what you do with your alts, I would imagine they got better things to do than to amuse themselves over a game of "who is who on CAOD".
So EBANK can see what skills I have and what I am training. Big deal, send me an ingame mail and I'll happily tell you. This information is relevant or even interesting to anyone how?
This whole thing is about as much of an outrage as being asked to provide a legit photo ID when going to an IRL bank and opening an account there. Oh no, that ID has your EYE COLOR on it! The sheer scale of possible abuse of that information is... oh wait
API key provided, works as intended - good luck on the restoration process, EBANK team.
Signature? What signature? |
Breaker77
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 22:26:00 -
[446]
Originally by: Ishina Fel I'm not entirely sure what the issue with the API key is...
They can find out your alts, what corp/alliance they are in, and what skills you have.
So you can no longer have that unknown Titan pilot that is also senior director in [insert name of major alliance].
No one gives a **** about forum whoring with alts, it's the privacy of not having people running locator agents on your alt waiting for him to log on to get a Titan KM.
|
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 22:28:00 -
[447]
Thanks - I will keep this in mind whenever I'll log onto my Titan pilot
Signature? What signature? |
Phoebe Halliwel
|
Posted - 2009.11.27 23:58:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Ray McCormack If there was a trusted third party that provided a granular level of access to the API like this we would be willing to use them as an alternative to providing us with your Limited API Key - providing certain technical conditions were met.
Is that an "if/maybe" or will Ebank actually take steps and approach people?
If Chribba is unavailable, perhaps there are others that may be willing. I don't know whether TS would want to get involved with this, but he has acquired a reputation for being a stickler for the rules (no offence intended). A few others spring to mind. Obviously 100% won't be satisfied either way but if Ebank is indicating a willingness to negotiate a little to uphold its new security policies it's a step that should appease some investors. At which point it would be nice to see other reputable MD ppl step up and actually use that rep to help the community. Maybe a bit optimistic, but worth asking.
|
Tegeran
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 03:35:00 -
[449]
I don't want to wade too deep in this mess, but I thought I'd offer up possible compromise for people to fight over.
If, instead of giving plain-text names, a proxy gave a strong, appropriately- (and randomly-) salted cryptographically-secure hash for each alt and standing name, it would make it reasonably easy for EBANK to discover if someone's alts match a list of "known-bad" characters, while making it infeasible to discover the name of "innocent" (well... un-caught) alts.
Assuming, for sake of example, that the hashes were 40,000-pass SHA512 and had a salt that made precomputation infeasible (several bytes, at least), and that EBANK had 10,000 alt hashes, it would take at least 160-200 CPU seconds on modern hardware to compare a given character name against the entire database. Pretty feasible to run whenever someone "signs up", or when you have a confined set of "suspects" (assuming you've got a couple of CPU cores, dump 50 names into the queue and go have lunch).
But if you're trying to divine the names of every alt of every person with an EBANK account, you'd either be doing a brute-force search (completely impractical), or dumping the name of every character you can find into the queue. If you had, say, 50,000 character names, it'd take at least two weeks with 8 cores going flat-out 24/7. Then you have the difficulty of actually assembling the list...
And these numbers can be tweaked... No reason you can't do 100,000 passes of the hash algorithm, for example, but at some point you do make signup checks impractical.
Anyway, just a thought... |
Catarrh Ague
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 04:17:00 -
[450]
Ray,
I note the following from section 8 of the EBANK Terms and Conditions:
òEBANK reserves the right to modify this document at any time, but will ensure that any negatively affected customer's [sic] will be notified in advance and given the option to remove all funds from their EBANK account as a direct result of those negative changes.
I was not notified of the requirement to provide my limited API prior to the institution of this requirement. I hereby call upon EBANK to fulfill this provision of the EBANK Terms and Conditions and return all monies that I have on account with EBANK.
Best regards, Catarrh
|
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 04:21:00 -
[451]
Originally by: Catarrh Ague Ray,
I note the following from section 8 of the EBANK Terms and Conditions:
òEBANK reserves the right to modify this document at any time, but will ensure that any negatively affected customer's [sic] will be notified in advance and given the option to remove all funds from their EBANK account as a direct result of those negative changes.
I was not notified of the requirement to provide my limited API prior to the institution of this requirement. I hereby call upon EBANK to fulfill this provision of the EBANK Terms and Conditions and return all monies that I have on account with EBANK.
Best regards, Catarrh
rofflemao
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 04:36:00 -
[452]
Originally by: Catarrh Ague Ray,
I note the following from section 8 of the EBANK Terms and Conditions:
òEBANK reserves the right to modify this document at any time, but will ensure that any negatively affected customer's [sic] will be notified in advance and given the option to remove all funds from their EBANK account as a direct result of those negative changes.
I was not notified of the requirement to provide my limited API prior to the institution of this requirement. I hereby call upon EBANK to fulfill this provision of the EBANK Terms and Conditions and return all monies that I have on account with EBANK.
Best regards, Catarrh
Catarrh Ague,
Thanks for your help in identifying sections of the ToC that are in need of updates. Your keen eye for detail could be of great help to the EBANK staff in updating our documentation and we encourage you or others interested to apply for one of the positions we are hiring for.
In regards to your request, I'm sorry but special circumstances apply and your request is denied at this time.
Kind regards, Amarr Citizen 155 Titan BPC Auction Thread |
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 05:10:00 -
[453]
Edited by: Breaker77 on 28/11/2009 05:10:31
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: Catarrh Ague Ray,
I note the following from section 8 of the EBANK Terms and Conditions:
òEBANK reserves the right to modify this document at any time, but will ensure that any negatively affected customer's [sic] will be notified in advance and given the option to remove all funds from their EBANK account as a direct result of those negative changes.
I was not notified of the requirement to provide my limited API prior to the institution of this requirement. I hereby call upon EBANK to fulfill this provision of the EBANK Terms and Conditions and return all monies that I have on account with EBANK.
Best regards, Catarrh
Catarrh Ague,
Thanks for your help in identifying sections of the ToC that are in need of updates. Your keen eye for detail could be of great help to the EBANK staff in updating our documentation and we encourage you or others interested to apply for one of the positions we are hiring for.
In regards to your request, I'm sorry but we have decide to scam all the ISK that have been deposited.
Kind regards, Amarr Citizen 155
|
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 05:56:00 -
[454]
Quote: òEBANK reserves the right to modify this document at any time, but will ensure that any negatively affected customer's [sic] will be notified in advance and given the option to remove all funds from their EBANK account as a direct result of those negative changes.
Quote: Oops, yeah we need to change that.
Quote: Ensure - to make sure, certain, or safe : guarantee
Ebank, guaranteeing your isk is gone.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 06:09:00 -
[455]
Why are people still referring to EBank as an institution with something to lose? Get your ****ing ISK out and stfu.
/drunkrant
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 06:18:00 -
[456]
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.
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 06:32:00 -
[457]
Deer Leneerra
Thanks for your concern regarding our T&C. I'm sorry that you missed the sarcasm of my modification to the T&C. I thought it was more than obvious that the T&C listed on our website was outdated considering it lists interest rates and other information that is not valid in the current EBANK environment. We are also short staffed, the current employees are more concerned with the health of the bank and the recovery effort than we are with updating information on our website. It's not because we don't want to, its because we are busy with more important matters.
If you feel you could fill this void in our staff, please submit your application or send an evemail to Ray or Athre.
Regards, Amarr Citizen 155 Titan BPC Auction Thread |
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 06:35:00 -
[458]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Deer Leneerra
Thanks for your concern regarding our T&C. I'm sorry that you missed the sarcasm of my modification to the T&C. I thought it was more than obvious that the T&C listed on our website was outdated considering it lists interest rates and other information that is not valid in the current EBANK environment. We are also short staffed, the current employees are more concerned with the health of the bank and the recovery effort than we are with updating information on our website. It's not because we don't want to, its because we are busy with more important matters.
If you feel you could fill this void in our staff, please submit your application or send an evemail to Ray or Athre.
Regards, Amarr Citizen 155
...that was actually pretty good...genuinely good.
not as easy as /finger though
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 07:02:00 -
[459]
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.
|
Frenden Dax
Dax Acquisitions
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 07:23:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Thanks for your help ... I'm sorry ...Kind regards
Who are you, and what have you done with AC155.
Originally by: Karanth Or, in other words, random people can't usurp rights from government because they are insane/bitter/vengeful/made of potato salad.
|
|
Tiberizzle
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 07:38:00 -
[461]
Edited by: Tiberizzle on 28/11/2009 07:40:07
Originally by: SetrakDark
Originally by: Catarrh Ague Ray,
I note the following from section 8 of the EBANK Terms and Conditions:
òEBANK reserves the right to modify this document at any time, but will ensure that any negatively affected customer's [sic] will be notified in advance and given the option to remove all funds from their EBANK account as a direct result of those negative changes.
I was not notified of the requirement to provide my limited API prior to the institution of this requirement. I hereby call upon EBANK to fulfill this provision of the EBANK Terms and Conditions and return all monies that I have on account with EBANK.
Best regards, Catarrh
rofflemao
Wait, isn't that a mutually binding legal agreement you're roffling your ass off with? Eve may be a game, but your site isn't a part of this game, and neither is that agreement.
So, I've got an amusing idea for anyone with 300M or more frozen in E-Bank, some time to blow, and a casual interest in the law: sue them. Presumably E-Bank fails to appear, you get a default judgement, maybe a lein on Ray's car or his wages garnished for a GTC
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 08:26:00 -
[462]
Quote: 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.
I would have similar concerns. The only people that would app for a position at ebank at this point are those either too morally empty to care ebank scammed its customers, or too stupid to see it. The good news, Ray, is there's definitely hope for a large organization of mindless crooks with a few brilliant sociopaths at the top: just ask goonswarm.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
mishkof
Caldari Hmmzor.
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 09:00:00 -
[463]
Let me state this to any noobies currently confused by all of the "bank" talk. If you put your money in a bank within the current eve universe under the current game mechanics and expect it to be around after approximately 18 months it will all get scammed.
These guys are not geniuses, they are simply regurgitating old scams. The terminology, and procedures have been in place for many years now. They are not originial or special. They are not a snowflake. In fact I implore you to take the OP's statement, plagerise it, and get your own money from eve noobs.
That is all.
|
Dagny Bronstein
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 09:11:00 -
[464]
Originally by: Dzil The only people that would app for a position at ebank at this point are those hoping to rob ebank of its remaining assets.
fixed that for you.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 09:11:00 -
[465]
Originally by: Tiberizzle stupid stuff
Your claims are pure comedy gold, keep up the good work.
/me shudders to think of anything bad happening to his Nissan...
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 09:26:00 -
[466]
Originally by: Tiberizzle .....sue E-Bank for the value of a GTC/subscription. I'm no lawyer, but it would appear that most of their recent policy changes fall under that clause, and so practically all of their clients are legally (IRL, not lollerskates sandbox whinetition) entitled to the full value of their accounts. Presumably E-Bank fails to appear, you get a default judgement, maybe a lein on Ray's car or his wages garnished. Man, that would be lulzy.
lulzy indeed . You do realize that any court system would defer to CCP's TOS considering the object of value in this case would be ISK. Which holds no value in real life. Lets assume a Judge actually didn't dismiss the case and fined the plaintiff for contempt and wasting the courts time. They would HAVE to be confined to the TOS CCP set out in EVE.
You know what I'm just going to stop right there because I can't stop laughing about this. In fact I would urge anyone anywhere that feels that strongly to attempt what Tiberizzle says, just make sure you record everything and give us the court case number so we can look up the transcript.
Amarr for Life |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 09:46:00 -
[467]
Originally by: Tiberizzle
Wait, isn't that a mutually binding legal agreement you're roffling your ass off with? Eve may be a game, but your site isn't a part of this game, and neither is that agreement.
So, I've got an amusing idea for anyone with 300M or so frozen in E-Bank, some time to blow, and a casual interest in the law: sue E-Bank for the value of a GTC/subscription. I'm no lawyer, but it would appear that most of their recent policy changes fall under that clause, and so practically all of their clients are legally (IRL, not lollerskates sandbox whinetition) entitled to the full value of their accounts. Presumably E-Bank fails to appear, you get a default judgement, maybe a lein on Ray's car or his wages garnished. Man, that would be lulzy.
Edit: **** it, make it class action, see if you can bankrupt them
Dear Tiberizzle,
It has come to my attention that you are looking to bring justice over EBANK, a serious internet spaceship bank, in the court of law. Please let me state that I feel sorry for your loss, as I realize that internet spaceships are in fact serious business.
Please let me know your terms to drop this case. We are deeply sorry for any inconvinience that the account freeze has caused, and would like to offer you a replacement Ibis or Velator as compensation while liquidity is restored.
Best Regards, LaVista Vista
|
PostmasterGeneral
Minmatar yo i'm posting
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 10:50:00 -
[468]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Tiberizzle
Wait, isn't that a mutually binding legal agreement you're roffling your ass off with? Eve may be a game, but your site isn't a part of this game, and neither is that agreement.
So, I've got an amusing idea for anyone with 300M or so frozen in E-Bank, some time to blow, and a casual interest in the law: sue E-Bank for the value of a GTC/subscription. I'm no lawyer, but it would appear that most of their recent policy changes fall under that clause, and so practically all of their clients are legally (IRL, not lollerskates sandbox whinetition) entitled to the full value of their accounts. Presumably E-Bank fails to appear, you get a default judgement, maybe a lein on Ray's car or his wages garnished. Man, that would be lulzy.
Edit: **** it, make it class action, see if you can bankrupt them
Dear Tiberizzle,
It has come to my attention that you are looking to bring justice over EBANK, a serious internet spaceship bank, in the court of law. Please let me state that I feel sorry for your loss, as I realize that internet spaceships are in fact serious business.
Please let me know your terms to drop this case. We are deeply sorry for any inconvinience that the account freeze has caused, and would like to offer you a replacement Ibis or Velator as compensation while liquidity is restored.
Best Regards, LaVista Vista
you im posting corporation has several top notch attorneys that are waiting for your class action today!
|
Lecherito
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 10:51:00 -
[469]
Dear Tiberizzle,
It has come to my attention that you are looking to bring justice over EBANK, a serious internet spaceship bank, in the court of law. Please let me state that I feel sorry for your loss, as I realize that internet spaceships are in fact serious business.
Please let me know your terms to drop this case. We are deeply sorry for any inconvinience that the account freeze has caused, and would like to offer you a replacement Ibis or Velator as compensation while liquidity is restored.
Best Regards, LaVista Vista
So LVV openly admits that anyone with funds invested in Ebank have, in fact, taken a loss?
-L
|
Cordin Hamir
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 11:05:00 -
[470]
A few people (Amarash in particular) keep lashing out at anyone who is not slavishly supportive of all that the BoD does so I just thought I would make a few points:
1. I think a lot of the reason that there is so much anger and reaction against the BoD is not because of the loss itself but the very arrogant and high handed position taken by the BoD - we may as well moan and curse EBANK as there has been NO attempt to enter a dialogue with EBANKs customers (victims/saps/gullible idiots - pick your own term), instead the BoD rules by fiat "this is what we are doing and b*gger off if you don't like it".
2. I am not sure if the BoD realise this but the folks that are left as customers and are complaining now, are (for the most part) the people that LIKED EBANK and had faith in it. After the Ricdic scandal we were the ones who believed the rubbish put out by LVV, Hexx etc. that everything was fine and that EBANK had no serious problems (how stupid we look now it is obvious that all of those assurances were spouted by people who did not have a clue what was actually happening). So essentially the BoD has shafted those who were loyal to the bank and, it would seem, have turned a fairly high percentage of these people entirely against the bank.
3. Personally I have no great problems handing over a Limited API key for my character with an EBANK account but I can fully understand that this is VERY problematic for a lot of people - especially as there seems no rationale justification for it - again the BoD issues an ultimatum and just expects dumb obedience. Either the BoD truly holds its customer base in contempt or this really is a scam.
Having said the above I will also say I disagree completely with any attempt to try and take these issues into RL with talk of suing folks etc. - Eve is just a game, getting angry in game or on the forums is fine but that's where it should stop.
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 12:52:00 -
[471]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Tiberizzle .....sue E-Bank for the value of a GTC/subscription. I'm no lawyer, but it would appear that most of their recent policy changes fall under that clause, and so practically all of their clients are legally (IRL, not lollerskates sandbox whinetition) entitled to the full value of their accounts. Presumably E-Bank fails to appear, you get a default judgement, maybe a lein on Ray's car or his wages garnished. Man, that would be lulzy.
lulzy indeed . You do realize that any court system would defer to CCP's TOS considering the object of value in this case would be ISK. Which holds no value in real life. Lets assume a Judge actually didn't dismiss the case and fined the plaintiff for contempt and wasting the courts time. They would HAVE to be confined to the TOS CCP set out in EVE.
Actually, in English law at least, this would not be the case. A judge or magistrate would be perfectly entitled to set aside CCP's TOS if they were felt to be unreasonable (the TOS could, for instance, demand a pound of flesh from anyone who leaves the game; even if customers signed up to this a judge would simply discount it as an unreasonable condition). And they may well do so with regards to CCP's views on the rl value of in game objects (someone mentioned, in another thread, a case in Germany recently where something smilar had happened). But putting all this to one side, Tiberizzle is clearly trolling for a reaction, as he often does. Whatever problems anyone has with EBANK, I doubt many people would want to see Ray lose his Nissan over a game, even were this route feasible.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 13:40:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Cordin Hamir the very arrogant and high handed position taken by the BoD
An unfortunate interpretation of the approach we have to take to the situation.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 14:06:00 -
[473]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Cordin Hamir the very arrogant and high handed position taken by the BoD
An unfortunate interpretation of the approach we have to take to the situation.
Its fairly obvious that Cordin is referring to the attitude taken by the BoD with regards to their position. Nothing in the situation mandates that you have to respond to public criticism with condescencion, sarcasm, stone-walling and name-calling, whatever your view on the necessity of the actions you are taking.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 14:16:00 -
[474]
Originally by: RAW23 Nothing in the situation mandates that you have to respond to public criticism with condescencion, sarcasm, stone-walling and name-calling, whatever your view on the necessity of the actions you are taking.
It's not my aim to win the PR battle, someone else can do that for me. But it's fairly obvious that our reactions to certain suggestions and individuals should not be interpreted as our overarching position.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 14:32:00 -
[475]
Edited by: RAW23 on 28/11/2009 14:34:39
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 Nothing in the situation mandates that you have to respond to public criticism with condescencion, sarcasm, stone-walling and name-calling, whatever your view on the necessity of the actions you are taking.
It's not my aim to win the PR battle, someone else can do that for me. But it's fairly obvious that our reactions to certain suggestions and individuals should not be interpreted as our overarching position.
Unfortunately it looks like your reactions to certain suggestions and individuals have much more to do with a desire to avoid having to address those suggestions or deal with the questions posed by those individuals than with any other factor. You might now dislike those who ask difficult questions but your dislike neither validates your chosen forms of response nor negates the validity of the issues they seek to have addressed. Given that your current plans (although I see you are now sensibly back-peddling on at least some of the more objectionable features) constitute a range of actions that no business in EVE, so far as I'm aware, has previously carried out whilst remaining a legitimate business, I would have thought that you would really want to get stuck in to the issues raised, rather than sidestepping them, as this is the only way you can hope for your actions to be found acceptable by the public.
BTW - If the CEO of a company does not aim to win the PR battle, then the PR battle is already lost. Unless you change tack your only hope of recovering any reputation for your institution lies in public forgetfulness and the fairly rapid turnover of players in MMOs. This approach may well get you back to where you started but it is hardly ethical. If you appoint me to the position of Social Responsibility Officer I will do my best to steer you right on such issues.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 14:38:00 -
[476]
Originally by: RAW23
BTW - If the CEO of a company does not aim to win the PR battle, then the PR battle is already lost. Unless you change tack your only hope of recovering any reputation for your institution lies in public forgetfulness and the fairly rapid turnover of players in MMOs. This approach may well get you back to where you started but it is hardly ethical. If you appoint me to the position of Social Responsibility Officer I will do my best to steer you right on such issues.
Ray isn't the CEO.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 14:45:00 -
[477]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: RAW23
BTW - If the CEO of a company does not aim to win the PR battle, then the PR battle is already lost. Unless you change tack your only hope of recovering any reputation for your institution lies in public forgetfulness and the fairly rapid turnover of players in MMOs. This approach may well get you back to where you started but it is hardly ethical. If you appoint me to the position of Social Responsibility Officer I will do my best to steer you right on such issues.
Ray isn't the CEO.
I stand corrected. Chair? President? In any case, he is currently the public face of the company and also appears, from an outsider's perspective, to be the guy in charge, whatever his title may be officially. Out of interest who is the CEO or fills that role in EBANK?
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 14:48:00 -
[478]
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: RAW23
BTW - If the CEO of a company does not aim to win the PR battle, then the PR battle is already lost. Unless you change tack your only hope of recovering any reputation for your institution lies in public forgetfulness and the fairly rapid turnover of players in MMOs. This approach may well get you back to where you started but it is hardly ethical. If you appoint me to the position of Social Responsibility Officer I will do my best to steer you right on such issues.
Ray isn't the CEO.
I stand corrected. Chair? President? In any case, he is currently the public face of the company and also appears, from an outsider's perspective, to be the guy in charge, whatever his title may be officially. Out of interest who is the CEO or fills that role in EBANK?
Ray is the Chair and Athre is the CEO.
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 16:27:00 -
[479]
Why should I give you my limited API?
Even if I give it to you, EBANK, all I can do is look at how much money you are denying me access to.
Questions.
Why does your P&L include income that has not been received?
Why are the ongoing (deferred) salaries not being included?
Why does your share portfolio value the Datacore shares so high?
Why is the loss analysis not being updated?
This is the second unilateral change in TOS that I am being forced to accept with no provision for backing out without acceptance. What is stopping you from doing it again? Anticipating your likely answer; why should I trust that you will not do it again and again?
Rhetorical question: If I knew of someone that had EBANK money (not an account in EBANK) what proof of identity would you, the EBANK BoD, provide, before its return?
BTW - I have not yet received an email, in-game or IRL, informing me of these new changes. As you are not letting me view my account I cannot tell you if there was a RL email address, but I am pretty sure there was. --
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 16:33:00 -
[480]
Originally by: Frenden Dax
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Thanks for your help ... I'm sorry ...Kind regards
Who are you, and what have you done with AC155.
Sorry, it was a fleeting sense of maturity and a willingness to help those that do not want help.... it has passed.
/finger
Titan BPC Auction Thread |
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 17:06:00 -
[481]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Why does your P&L include income that has not been received?
Don't interpret that as an accurate P&L, it's an indication of estimated income and started off as a cash flow statement. The fact it made it so far eventually became a decision for me to either offer what you see or nothing. Nothing is worse than something.
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Why are the ongoing (deferred) salaries not being included?
Because they haven't been finalised.
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Why does your share portfolio value the Datacore shares so high?
What should we value them at? I haven't looked at share prices since that list went public.
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Why is the loss analysis not being updated?
Because it hasn't, what does it need to be updated with?
Originally by: Marcus Baltar This is the second unilateral change in TOS that I am being forced to accept with no provision for backing out without acceptance. What is stopping you from doing it again? Anticipating your likely answer; why should I trust that you will not do it again and again?
We probably will do it again. How's that for anticipating our likely answer?
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Rhetorical question: If I knew of someone that had EBANK money (not an account in EBANK) what proof of identity would you, the EBANK BoD, provide, before its return?
I don't understand the question.
Originally by: Marcus Baltar BTW - I have not yet received an email, in-game or IRL, informing me of these new changes. As you are not letting me view my account I cannot tell you if there was a RL email address, but I am pretty sure there was.
That's because we haven't sent one yet.
Marcus, I'd be happy to do a mano-a-mano interview about my part in the secondary market if that's what you'r gunning for?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 17:13:00 -
[482]
Originally by: RAW23 If you appoint me to the position of Social Responsibility Officer I will do my best to steer you right on such issues.
You would be required to work in close conjunction with various other parties responsible for their domain and your views may not always be universally accepted. How would you deal with that?
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 17:36:00 -
[483]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Rhetorical question: If I knew of someone that had EBANK money (not an account in EBANK) what proof of identity would you, the EBANK BoD, provide, before its return?
I don't understand the question.
I think he is asking that if he knew of someone that owed EBank ISK (loan, ect...) what information would the BoD at EBank reveal to get it paid back (API, ect...).
Could be rather interesting if EBank is forced to go through the same hurdles as everyone else in order to be paid back on it's loans.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 17:39:00 -
[484]
Originally by: Breaker77 I think he is asking that if he knew of someone that owed EBank ISK (loan, ect...) what information would the BoD at EBank reveal to get it paid back (API, ect...).
I guess I'm being stupid, but I still don't understand the question?
|
Tamahra
Gallente Danke fuer den Fisch
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 17:43:00 -
[485]
[facepalm]
Is this idiocy still going on..... just forget about your money people. you will never ever get it back.
ok let me sum this new (apparently successfull) scam up: Scammer X promises to repay everything (some day somewhere in the future), that the victims had already thrown at him, but ONLY if they throw even more at him.
[/facepalm]
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 17:51:00 -
[486]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Breaker77 I think he is asking that if he knew of someone that owed EBank ISK (loan, ect...) what information would the BoD at EBank reveal to get it paid back (API, ect...).
I guess I'm being stupid, but I still don't understand the question?
i wont understand that you dont understand why you cant understand the question
Vote Z0D For CSM
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 18:02:00 -
[487]
Edited by: SencneS on 28/11/2009 18:02:22
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Rhetorical question: If I knew of someone that had EBANK money (not an account in EBANK) what proof of identity would you, the EBANK BoD, provide, before its return?
What would you like I guess is the question? If it's a free ride from the API Requirement that will not happen.
I assume you're asking for a "finder's fee", Well like all finder's fees IF you have information which will recover ISK from defaulted loan. Then I guess EBANK may be able to make arrangements for a part of the recovered ISK to be paid as a finders fee.
Mind you, we never considered the "Rat-out" factor MD might have so we never talked about finders fees. So this is by far not solid in any way, and this type of deal would need BoD approval..
Amarr for Life |
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 18:05:00 -
[488]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Breaker77 I think he is asking that if he knew of someone that owed EBank ISK (loan, ect...) what information would the BoD at EBank reveal to get it paid back (API, ect...).
I guess I'm being stupid, but I still don't understand the question?
If I understand correctly, it looks like he's asking whether ebank would give out information on its characters/accounts in order to collect on a loan.
I would assume the answer is yes... otherwise it seems silly to hold any of your debtors in contempt or default when you have failed to offer them your limited API keys to prove you aren't scammers.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 18:09:00 -
[489]
Originally by: Dzil If I understand correctly, it looks like he's asking whether ebank would give out information on its characters/accounts in order to collect on a loan.
Give out information on who's characters/accounts?
This isn't being asked very succinctly in my mind. Spell it out for me, draw pictures.
|
Dzil
Caldari Waffle Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 18:25:00 -
[490]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Dzil If I understand correctly, it looks like he's asking whether ebank would give out information on its characters/accounts in order to collect on a loan.
Give out information on who's characters/accounts?
This isn't being asked very succinctly in my mind. Spell it out for me, draw pictures.
Do you prefer PPT or MS paint?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
|
Mme Pinkerton
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 18:29:00 -
[491]
Edited by: Mme Pinkerton on 28/11/2009 18:30:16
Originally by: Ray McCormack
This isn't being asked very succinctly in my mind. Spell it out for me, draw pictures.
Person A has money from EBANK (insufficiently collateralized loan). He would really, really like to pay it back to EBANK. But he has heard nasty rumors that EBANK staff & BoD consist of scammers ... and he doesn't like the thought of funding scammers
Luckily he has recently learned about the Limited API key. Having the API keys of EBANK staff/BoD would allow him to check, if they are alts of known scammers or not.
If EBANK staff & BoD members are no scammers, he can happily get rid of the EBANK ISK in his wallet. If they deny his request for the keys though, they obviously have something to hide ... and being the honest person he is, person A will just donate the ISK to EVE University.
nice picture?
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 18:35:00 -
[492]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Give out information on who's characters/accounts?
This isn't being asked very succinctly in my mind. Spell it out for me, draw pictures.
10/10 would read again.
I gave you the first play at it because well, the question was worded very vague.
Now go ransom some carebears to recover everyones ISK
Wait, you've already done that.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 18:50:00 -
[493]
How is recruitment going? It doesn't seem like you guys have a lot of people right now, not compared to the amount of work you have to do anyway.
What's the general plan for making money over the next few months? I notice ventures are up, which is good. The kind of returns you guys need are going to be hard to get from loans. Any plans to bring in a badass trader or two to put the isk to use?
Not expecting an official statement, just casually curious.
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 19:10:00 -
[494]
Originally by: SetrakDark Any plans to bring in a badass trader or two to put the isk to use?
There's only one thing that can bring about Ebank's collapse. Letting in a scammer. hahah
Black Sun Empire |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 19:19:00 -
[495]
Originally by: YouGotRipped
Originally by: SetrakDark Any plans to bring in a badass trader or two to put the isk to use?
There's only one thing that can bring about Ebank's collapse. Letting in a scammer. hahah
Hey YGR! Where have you been?
Are you suggesting that hiring you to make ISK for EBANK is going to make it collapse?
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.28 19:27:00 -
[496]
Originally by: SetrakDark Not expecting an official statement, just casually curious.
Hey, if you want to chat look me up ingame or via email on [email protected].
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 07:28:00 -
[497]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 If you appoint me to the position of Social Responsibility Officer I will do my best to steer you right on such issues.
You would be required to work in close conjunction with various other parties responsible for their domain and your views may not always be universally accepted. How would you deal with that?
I appreciate that I would not simply get to dictate EBANK's ethical policy. As to how I would react if I didn't get my own way, it would depend on the reasons provided by the other parties and the issues at hand. If decisions are made that fail to take account of the ethical dimensions of the relevant issues then I will loudly point out that these need to be considered. I will only consider an issue closed when EBANK can provide an ethical justification for its actions, which I will help formulate, even if it is not an action I would support myself (I do not consider there to be a single philosophical framework that has all the answers and I am not so arrogant to believe that any views I hold must of necessity represent the truth of things). What I will not consider acceptable is a simple statement that we will be doing X with no credible attempt to justify it from an ethical perspective at all. I would also urge the BoD to take ethical questions into account at the earliest stages of their decision making. I will not consider it to be acceptable to formulate policy first and then fit the ethics to the policy as convenient. Rather, EBANK will need to establish its own set of ethical principles which will help guide all decision making.
In extreme cases of disagreement, I might feel obliged to resign. For instance, I would lobby strongly for a reworking of the originally suggested expropriation of account balances in favour of a model along the lines of that suggested by SencneS. However, if I failed to get my way on this issue I would resign on the day that the board first carried out a direct and non-reversible theft of an account's contents (unless, of course, someone else is able to provide convincing arguments for why this should be considered an ethically legitimate act). This is because, whilst it is a practical necessity to understand that not all decisions in any institution will be in line with one's own views, I hold certain ethical principles of my own that will not allow me to remain part of an organisation that takes part in certain acts, unless someone can first convince me that my own principles are flawed or that the institutions actions do not, in fact, fall under the rubric of my principles.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 07:37:00 -
[498]
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel
Originally by: Ray McCormack If there was a trusted third party that provided a granular level of access to the API like this we would be willing to use them as an alternative to providing us with your Limited API Key - providing certain technical conditions were met.
Is that an "if/maybe" or will Ebank actually take steps and approach people?
<snip> I don't know whether TS would want to get involved with this, but he has acquired a reputation for being a stickler for the rules (no offence intended).
Done.
Have a look at BLEEP
It works excactly like the EVE API - The only difference is the domainname (http://bleep.big-eve.com as opposed to http://api.eve-online.com)
The website itself still needs some finishing touches - But the functionality is there.
I think this should be very usefull for all those forums that requires a (Limited) EVE API key, to ascertain it's a valid EVE char signing up.
With this, people no longer need to expose more info than necessary.
I'll get a prober thread started for the service later. (I'll link it here when I get around to it)
BIG Lottery |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 07:47:00 -
[499]
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.
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 07:57:00 -
[500]
Thanks TS. However there needs to be a way for me to require the user to provide the key for all their characters and not just one.
|
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 08:12:00 -
[501]
Added a <bleep filtered="true" /> node, that gets added to the XML if BLEEP has touched the content in anyway (ie. removed chars from the output).
If people use the BLEEP key that shows all chars, this node will *not* be present.
This way you can check if you got all character info or not.
Will this suffice, or would you prefer a different mechanism?
BIG Lottery |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 08:16:00 -
[502]
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
|
Ray McCormack
Kisoken Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 08:20:00 -
[503]
Originally by: TornSoul Will this suffice, or would you prefer a different mechanism?
That should be fine thanks. I will code and test this afternoon with an aim to having it live this evening.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 08:28:00 -
[504]
Edited by: TornSoul on 29/11/2009 08:34:01 This may or may not be usefull info for when you plan your code:
If BLEEP is supplied with a userID and/or apikey it can't find in the BLEEP DB, those values are passed straight on to the EVE API to deal with.
This means a: That EVE API takes care of any error messages (this was the main reason for this functionality) b: That if you give BLEEP your EVE API keys (instead of BLEEP keys) then those gets passed straight on to the EVE API - and thus a valid result is still returned (i.e. just as if you had called the EVE API directly)
The consequence of b) above is that coders dont have to distinquish between EVE API keys and BLEEP keys - Simply give them to BLEEP and you'll get the correct data regardless if it's actaully an EVE API key or a BLEEP key.
Ie. in your code you don't have to test for which URL to call.
Does that (explanation) make sense...
I think it's kinda neat
May or may not be helpfull - But there it is.
EDIT : And I'm errr going to bed now, so it will be some hours before I'll be able to reply to any questions. Been up all night doing this litte thing... Took a wee bit longer than anticipated - As always
BIG Lottery |
Kaaii
Caldari KaaiiNet Holding Executor Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 13:43:00 -
[505]
Do I read this right?
That providing a limited api, gets your suspended account isks available to be withdrawn?
According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there. kieron Director of Community Relations,
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 14:50:00 -
[506]
Originally by: LaVista Vista So here is me wondering:
Say that the API allowed you to create a key that ONLY allowed to pull the names of the characters on an account. Would it be acceptable if EBANK requested that?
I think that this is acceptable. It is much better than providing access to all the limited API information.
Thanks TS for the BLEEP service; this seems to be exactly what is needed.
Originally by: Ray McCormack The Board will draft the final API policy this weekend and release it next week sometime. It'll be no different to what has already been stated, however this will be an official, unambiguous version clearly outlined in our TOS.
I eagerly await this information. Has your stance on the API changed now? Will you only require access to the character names and allow us to use a service like BLEEP to limit access?
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 15:19:00 -
[507]
I highly recommend all affected parties pool together isk and hire multiple mercs to deal with this situation.
Your isk is gone and ray/ebank leadership is merely keeping it open to pull off the final master stroke.
This is Germany, January 1945. If you can't see it then just keep doing what you are doing..hoping and let Berlin, April 1945 happen.
jovial
Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 15:33:00 -
[508]
Originally by: Jovialmadness I highly recommend all affected parties pool together isk and hire multiple mercs to deal with this situation.
Wardecing characters that never undock is like trying to walk through a wall with no openings. Yeah you can do it, but it's really stupid as you will never acomplish anything.
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 15:43:00 -
[509]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: Ray McCormack The Board will draft the final API policy this weekend and release it next week sometime. It'll be no different to what has already been stated, however this will be an official, unambiguous version clearly outlined in our TOS.
I eagerly await this information. Has your stance on the API changed now? Will you only require access to the character names and allow us to use a service like BLEEP to limit access?
I would be willing to use BLEEP if it was acceptable.
However, my balance was stuck in "pending withdrawals" which means I cannot do anything with it until you release it so nothing would have changed except I could again see how much money you are withholding.
Fixed the links from this post;
Mme Pinkerton had the best idea of what I meant by the rhetorical question (although I would put the ISK on an alt and biomass them and it). Which leads to an interesting question - as soon as the first ISK is seized from a legitimate account that has not supplied an API (refusal, absence, whatever reason) does that mean that all EBANK staff and account holders need to be added to the Thieves of EVE list? --
|
Catarrh Ague
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 15:58:00 -
[510]
AC 155,
While I appreciate your offer to apply to work for EBANK, I don't believe that my moral standards can be lowered enough to countenance: unilateral changes to terms of service, freezing of accounts, and subsequent ransoming of viewing access (let alone withdrawal rights) through the demand of an API key.
I echo Leneerra's point, it's not that the T&C is outdated, it's that you guys keep moving the goalposts.
Ray,
Your stated purpose is to restore EBANK. Would it be more accurate to say that you wish EVE to have a trustworthy financial institution? That strikes me as a higher, more worthy (and achievable) goal, as compared to chasing lost ISK (which, as many have noted, is only internets moneys).
If you agree, don't you believe that closing down EBANK as gracefully as possible and starting a new institution, informed by the lessons learned from EBANK, would be a better way to achieve the goal? The lack of trust in EBANK seems to be an insurmountable obstacle to making any bank sporting the EBANK name a going concern.
Best regards, Catarrh
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 17:57:00 -
[511]
Originally by: TornSoul Have a look at BLEEP
This is nice, and in no way a troll or anything :)
If people would rather use a third party to verify their accounts, then I don't have a problem with this, but people should also be see that EBANK's willingness to use this service really shows just what we where after YOUR CHARACTER NAMES ONLY!
It's actually comical, we've been calling everyones "bluffs", asking everyone to come to us with alternatives and people did nothing but whine and troll, instead of offering a solution that fills their own needs and EBANK's. I'm not talking about just listing a solution like "Why don't you get..." no, this IS a solution, not a suggestion as everyone else was happy to stand on a soap box and proclaim for their ideas.
Thank you, really truly thank you TornSoul for this. I know it's been a threadnought full of troll, but out of EVERYONE ELSE, YOU alone came up with a workable solution to a problem everyone had for a simple Character check. Awesome.
Amarr for Life |
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 18:24:00 -
[512]
Edited by: Breaker77 on 29/11/2009 18:24:48
Originally by: SencneS It's actually comical, we've been calling everyones "bluffs", asking everyone to come to us with alternatives and people did nothing but whine and troll, instead of offering a solution that fills their own needs and EBANK's. I'm not talking about just listing a solution like "Why don't you get..." no, this IS a solution, not a suggestion as everyone else was happy to stand on a soap box and proclaim for their ideas.
It's not about coming up with a solution, but a solution that both EBank and it's customers would have trust in. What if Yih or Gen Newbold had came up with the exact same solution at TS. Would anyone have used it??
The solution was easy, finding the person to implement it was hard.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 18:44:00 -
[513]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: TornSoul Have a look at BLEEP
This is nice, and in no way a troll or anything :)
If people would rather use a third party to verify their accounts, then I don't have a problem with this, but people should also be see that EBANK's willingness to use this service really shows just what we where after YOUR CHARACTER NAMES ONLY!
It's actually comical, we've been calling everyones "bluffs", asking everyone to come to us with alternatives and people did nothing but whine and troll, instead of offering a solution that fills their own needs and EBANK's. I'm not talking about just listing a solution like "Why don't you get..." no, this IS a solution, not a suggestion as everyone else was happy to stand on a soap box and proclaim for their ideas.
Thank you, really truly thank you TornSoul for this. I know it's been a threadnought full of troll, but out of EVERYONE ELSE, YOU alone came up with a workable solution to a problem everyone had for a simple Character check. Awesome.
Someone has come along and provided a solution for a problem you created with your own new policies. Now, you seem to be suggesting that this somehow invalidates the criticisms raised against your initial plan (which was declared to be non-negotiable and that Ray explicitly said could not be outsourced to a third party because that would mean conceding that there is a lack of trust in EBANK). EVERYONE ELSE merely whined, you say, while someone else actually did some work. Of course, TS should be roundly thanked for this, but the idea that this in anyway supports your initial position or your dismissive attitude towards the whingers (without whom you would not have actually changed your policy on this issue) is incredibly perverse.
No, you have not been calling everyone's bluffs, asking for people to come up with solutions, at least until very recently. Rather, your chair has been saying that on this specific point there would be no compromise and no negotiation. If you had started off by saying what your aims were and asking for solutions you would have got a very different response from the one you received. Instead you chose to issue what you claimed was a non-negotiable diktat. To now rewrite history so as to portray yourselves as open to negotiation on this issue goes beyond disingenuous.
It should be noted that TS's help to you in this area came with an acknowledgement that he didn't approve of the duress you were placing your creditors under. TS solved a problem that YOU should have solved. He got you out of an ethical problem that YOU had created for yourselves by deciding that your objective of recovering stolen isk was more important than the rights of your customers. I assume that in the absence of a solution provided by somebody outside your organisation you would have continued with your earlier "non-negotiable" plan.
SencneS - while I like your posts in general and have appreciated those that have been posted outside the EBANK threads, this particular one is a perfect example of why people find the BoD to be high-handed and arrogant when it comes to dealing with criticisms.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 18:50:00 -
[514]
Originally by: SencneS unnecessary and deluded revisionist damage control
One of your dumber and more self-deluded posts, which is saying a lot.
|
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 19:00:00 -
[515]
"Official" BLEEP thread
Use this for discussions about BLEEP (that aren't relevant to this thread as such)
BIG Lottery |
Phoebe Halliwel
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 19:23:00 -
[516]
Originally by: TornSoul
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel
Originally by: Ray McCormack If there was a trusted third party that provided a granular level of access to the API like this we would be willing to use them as an alternative to providing us with your Limited API Key - providing certain technical conditions were met.
Is that an "if/maybe" or will Ebank actually take steps and approach people?
<snip> I don't know whether TS would want to get involved with this, but he has acquired a reputation for being a stickler for the rules (no offence intended).
Done.
TS - many thanks and that really is one of the most positive things I've seen on these forums. Also thanks should go to Ray from investors and other people in MD for actually taking up this and moving it forward
@ SencneS agree with the praise for TS but don't agree with the "soapbox" comment. You chose to metagame on the forums, but don't appear to have the maturity to actually deal with people without resorting to vindictive little comments. In which case you should avoid posting in Ebank threads, or post with an alt, because your character is associated with and represents that institution. That's not to say I'm any better, but I'm new to forums, didn't chose to participate in a large scale public investment fund (and, and, and I have many excuses). Not so much directed at you, but AC and Ray in particular... if you are really working towards saving Ebank, why the forum fu? Does it improve Ebank's chances? Or does it provide personal satisfaction? Or... do you have an agenda in annoying your customers at this moment?
Either way there have been plenty of comments here which have not been trolling which Ebank staff have chosen to ignore. Ray suggested months ago that some sort of group could be created to liaise with Ebank staff. Simply reading through this thread and seeing who is still commenting without too much forum scoring mentality and making suggestions; there are plenty of people still paying attention. I'm thinking TS, Mme Pinkerton, Setra, Dzil, Cosmo, Block, Varo, Tesal and maybe some others that haven't remarked much but are clearly lurking based on other threads. If Ebank staff are really commited to recovering, create that group and propose announcements to them on the Ebank forums, somewhere private, before you make an announcement. It might save 20 pages of screaming if they have some decent ideas. This strategy TS has created, why the hell couldn't Ebank staff imagine this may be more desirable than customers handing API Keys direct to them? Are they really so deluded they believe they are still considered trustworthy enough for this info? Obviously you can conduct discussions in private anyway, but it shows some respect for your customers if you make a concerted, visible attempt to improve the current situation, with a little less sarcasm and e-peen.
/me goes back to writing bad Haikus
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 19:24:00 -
[517]
RAW23, You do realize that the very first post I made in this thread was telling people that this is the time to help form EBANK policy, give us your solutions.
How that could be twisted into "until very recently" is a bold and careless statement.
In case you want to see it again, it's post 112 of this thread. Considering this thread was made while I was sleeping then I had work the next day it was as quick as I could post in this thread. Someone suggested "Release our API's" To which I responded "I would give you my API in exchange for yours", with in an hour of that post, Ray posted a BoD Vote to release our Limited API to the public.
I say "calling peoples bluffs" because everything that people asked for as a counter to what we where asking for, WE WANTED. Yet no one but TS actually produced a solution, everything up until that point in time was just a suggestion. You have to realize this, well I hope you realize it.
One thing you should know about me by now is I tell people exactly what I think, if I think people are whining, they are whining in my opinion. I'm not going to try and sugar coat my opinions of something or someone. Sure, most of the time I'll try be nice, but this whole thing just stink..
You're damn right I'm going to prise TS for a solution everyone one else would rather demand from others, then produce it themselves. Truth hurts when criticism is given back, I'm sorry it offended you or anyone else, but I'm not going to say sorry for saying it.
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 19:57:00 -
[518]
Originally by: SencneS RAW23, You do realize that the very first post I made in this thread was telling people that this is the time to help form EBANK policy, give us your solutions.
How that could be twisted into "until very recently" is a bold and careless statement.
In case you want to see it again, it's post 112 of this thread.
There are a few problems with this. Firstly, you proposed an alternative and invited solutions to the question of account balances being wiped NOT to the api issue (at least as I read the post). My understanding that you were not inviting alternatives to the api issue was confirmed by Ray's repeated and explicit statements that this was non-negotiable. As he said, he was being brutally honest - give us your apis or forfeit your isk; there will be no change in this policy only a formalisation; this policy is non-negotiable. So, even if we do read your post 112 as inviting contributions on the api issue this in no way appeared to be official EBANK policy. (Could you explain why Ray said the position was non-negotiable if you were, in fact, as an institution, actively soliciting alternatives?)
Now, in your last post you talk about "we" rather than "I". Even if your call for alternatives should have been taken as applying to the api issue, it is clear that it was not a call being put out collectively by the institution, even if you personally may be credited with a greater degree of engagement with the public. Talking about "we" in this context seems entirely inappropriate. Could you direct me to any posts from anyone else on the BoD that ask for alternatives to the api? I can point to lots that say no alternatives will be considered. I said "very recently" referring to LVV's post asking if people would accept a less intrusive solution.
Originally by: SencneS
I say "calling peoples bluffs" because everything that people asked for as a counter to what we where asking for, WE WANTED. Yet no one but TS actually produced a solution, everything up until that point in time was just a suggestion. You have to realize this, well I hope you realize it.
You seem to be implying here that the responsibility for solving this problem lay somewhere other than with the BoD. Your own proposed solution was unacceptable so where do you get the nerve to castigate other people for not doing what it was your responsibility to do in the first place.
Originally by: SencneS
You're damn right I'm going to prise TS for a solution everyone one else would rather demand from others, then produce it themselves. Truth hurts when criticism is given back, I'm sorry it offended you or anyone else, but I'm not going to say sorry for saying it.
I apologise if I gave the impression that I was personally offended or hurt by your criticism. I was not. I do, however, find the attitude taken by EBANK at the moment to be extremely distasteful. Of course, when you give me the Social Responsibility job I'll be more than happy to help you out re: the correct ethical tone to take when talking to the public. I'll give you some early tips though - you might want to start with humility.
|
Shipszoom
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 20:30:00 -
[519]
so i just came back to eve, it's nice to see i got UBER jacked while i was gone..
anyway, i provided my api key and requested a withdraw, when do i get some money and how much of it will i get?
also, i'm just glad karma doesn't depend on state intervention. (and transcends online games too!)
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 20:44:00 -
[520]
Originally by: RAW23 You seem to be implying here that the responsibility for solving this problem lay somewhere other than with the BoD. Your own proposed solution was unacceptable so where do you get the nerve to castigate other people for not doing what it was your responsibility to do in the first place.
This is the part that bothers me the most. EBANK had a problem it needed to solve, to solve that problem it came up with a solution. That solution was meet with an abundant amount of posts all singing the same tune. The issue is, not matter how EBANK came up with it people where going to have issues with whatever was suggested.
The goal was asking for some information that a majority of paranoid people find private. There is no way EBANK could have come up with a publicly accepted alternative to giving them that so called "Private" information.
The end result is the same - Either you enter your API in EBANK and they collect the names of your alts, or you use the BLEEP solution and EBANK still get the names of your alts.
While I'll admin withholding ISK is an unfortunate requirement, either solution used results in the same information in the same hands. In actuality, the BLEEP solution means TS can harvest the information. I don't believe for one second he would, but the reality is, he could.
I posted in this thread about "What we could have posted" and what I thought would be the general public outcry. So I'll do it again here.
If we had gone to TS first, got all this setup, released it, had TS confirm it, had the source code posted. I truly believe people would have posted similar thoughts. It's called know your history. No matter how people attempt to "release" something, spin it, sugar coat it, MD and the epic history that is here, all points to the same thing. Whoever said it, has a motive, and that motive is ALWAYS sinister.
Doesn't even need to be about EBANK, could be about anything, anyone, even every day old, "What is up with x, in y??"
If my faith in the general public seems rather sad, it's because of years of posting and observing how MD treat everything. It's honestly disappointing that no matter the intention, the passion to do anything is lost in a sea of conspiracy theorists, cynics, and trolls.
I'm SencneS, and I have no faith in MD's ability to NOT complain, no matter what was suggested.
Amarr for Life |
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 21:29:00 -
[521]
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 29/11/2009 21:31:33
Quote:
I'm SencneS, and I have no faith in MD's ability to NOT complain, no matter what was suggested.
Wow,, you've actually never dealt with customers before hey? Because customers always complain, no matter how backwards you bend for them, and how irrational their thought pattern is. Stacking shelves for a year or two is enough time to learn that pretty quick, and I was surprised when becoming a software developer didn't change that one bit.
EBank's customers are being just that, customers. Luckily for EBank, their customers are in zero position to fight back, unlike any other conceivable RL situation.
|
Varo Jan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 21:45:00 -
[522]
Originally by: SencneS While I'll admin withholding ISK is an unfortunate requirement,
An unfortunate requirement? Just call it what it is. EBank is bankrupt. It became bankrupt through a combination of fraud, the complete absence of controls and managerial incompetence.
You¦re not withholding ISK. You don¦t have it. You lost it. It disappeared. Maybe, if people are lucky, you may be able to return 25 cents on the dollar, sometime in the future.
Quote: either solution used results in the same information in the same hands. In actuality, the BLEEP solution means TS can harvest the information. I don't believe for one second he would, but the reality is, he could.
Here¦s the thing. TS runs a successful bank. TS is respected. You, Ray and the others preside over a failed bank. You are not trusted. Those of you who remain from the old crew have not been cleared by an independent party, so the possibility remains that you are inept or fraudsters. You (plural) could be as white as the driven snow, but we don¦t know that for sure. What is certain is that asinine posts from yourself, La Vista and AC don¦t count in your favour. Ray came in with much goodwill from MD. He proceeded to fritter that all away by his high-handedness, total absence of social skills, and just plain silly posts. Given the length of time he¦s been in charge, there are now questions about his competence.
Bottom line? Don¦t try passing the buck to MD posters. The onus is on you to perform, for a change.
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 21:46:00 -
[523]
Originally by: SencneS If people would rather use a third party to verify their accounts, then I don't have a problem with this, but people should also be see that EBANK's willingness to use this service really shows just what we where after YOUR CHARACTER NAMES ONLY!
This is not true. Ray repeatedly stated that the API policy was non-negotiable. I asked whether EBANK intended to access data other than character names, such as personal standings, and Ray responded affirmatively. Ray also indicated that EBANK would not accept a third-party service. I am glad that Ray has changed his stance on this policy, but you should not be pretending that you wanted this solution all along.
Originally by: SencneS It's actually comical, we've been calling everyones "bluffs", asking everyone to come to us with alternatives and people did nothing but whine and troll, instead of offering a solution that fills their own needs and EBANK's. I'm not talking about just listing a solution like "Why don't you get..." no, this IS a solution, not a suggestion as everyone else was happy to stand on a soap box and proclaim for their ideas.
Actually, people did offer several alternatives, including ISK transfers, ingame chat, and EVEMail.
Originally by: SencneS I say "calling peoples bluffs" because everything that people asked for as a counter to what we where asking for, WE WANTED. Yet no one but TS actually produced a solution, everything up until that point in time was just a suggestion. You have to realize this, well I hope you realize it.
One thing you should know about me by now is I tell people exactly what I think, if I think people are whining, they are whining in my opinion. I'm not going to try and sugar coat my opinions of something or someone. Sure, most of the time I'll try be nice, but this whole thing just stink..
You're damn right I'm going to prise TS for a solution everyone one else would rather demand from others, then produce it themselves. Truth hurts when criticism is given back, I'm sorry it offended you or anyone else, but I'm not going to say sorry for saying it.
Unfortunately, few of us could have produced this solution, because running an API proxy requires trust.
Originally by: SencneS The goal was asking for some information that a majority of paranoid people find private. There is no way EBANK could have come up with a publicly accepted alternative to giving them that so called "Private" information.
The end result is the same - Either you enter your API in EBANK and they collect the names of your alts, or you use the BLEEP solution and EBANK still get the names of your alts.
Actually, my problem with the EBANK policy was that EBANK was not just collecting the names of our alts, but also other information that I consider private and think EBANK shouldn't have.
Originally by: SencneS While I'll admin withholding ISK is an unfortunate requirement, either solution used results in the same information in the same hands. In actuality, the BLEEP solution means TS can harvest the information. I don't believe for one second he would, but the reality is, he could.
The difference is that he stated
Originally by: TornSoul I (TornSoul, BIG-CEO) will never use those key's to obtain other information from the EVE API (i.e. info from other EVE API pages).
|
Coconut Joe
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 21:55:00 -
[524]
Hello Ray, in response to your posting on 22/11/2009 @ 16:52:11 on the front page, I think that you need to create a little FAQ about what the limited API key is, what information it allows you to read, what it does NOT allow you to read, and how they can reset the API password after you've checked so you can read it at a later date.
I notice that a lot of the posts people are making about the API are worried about what you'd do with the information. I personally think there's hardly anything to be worried about it all, but I've read the API, the worried people haven't, and might not even understand it if they're not technical.
Perhaps you could use the info on this page to base the FAQ on?
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 22:18:00 -
[525]
Originally by: Coconut Joe Hello Ray, in response to your posting on 22/11/2009 @ 16:52:11 on the front page, I think that you need to create a little FAQ about what the limited API key is, what information it allows you to read, what it does NOT allow you to read, and how they can reset the API password after you've checked so you can read it at a later date.
I notice that a lot of the posts people are making about the API are worried about what you'd do with the information. I personally think there's hardly anything to be worried about it all, but I've read the API, the worried people haven't, and might not even understand it if they're not technical.
Perhaps you could use the info on this page to base the FAQ on?
Actually, there is a lot of information available with the limited API key. See posts #354 and #404.
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 22:20:00 -
[526]
Originally by: SencneS It's honestly disappointing that no matter the intention, the passion to do anything is lost in a sea of conspiracy theorists, cynics, and trolls.
You seem to be making the mistaken assumption that your "passion to do" endebts the community to praise you for it, or prohibits them from calling your passion a self-serving circle-jerk of roleplay nonsense. This is true of any public endeavor. A public endeavor that's standing between a person and their own produce infinitely moreso. ----------------
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 22:28:00 -
[527]
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))
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.29 23:29:00 -
[528]
As an MD posted I take my post about MD posters in GREAT offence. How DARE I post that I think the group that I'm a part of complain and argue! The insult, just who do I think I am! Why I am going to reply to my post and tell myself that I am wrong, that I am the reason I am complaining about the group I'm in. OMG THE NERVE!!
/role play
You know ever public face company has a hero and a villain.
What if I said "Everything I posted today was posted to direct the public hostility toward myself, so when Ray posts that BLEEP is available, people are so occupied with dislike that when they hear some GOOD news it makes it sound so much better. Self sacrifice for the greater cause."
Now take your very first thought about that, and post it.
PROVE ME WRONG! Prove to me that MD doesn't makes people argumentative :)
You know, regardless of what was said and done, EBANK gets what it needs, the solution to it's problem. Pointing out personal disappointment with the way the entire community handled a simple problem is not wrong, or bad. If you believe otherwise, then see my Role Playing above!
Amarr for Life |
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 00:34:00 -
[529]
Originally by: SencneS Pseudo-psychological nonsense.
----------------
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 01:05:00 -
[530]
Originally by: SencneS
You know, regardless of what was said and done, EBANK gets what it needs, the solution to it's problem. Pointing out personal disappointment with the way the entire community handled a simple problem is not wrong, or bad. If you believe otherwise, then see my Role Playing above!
This is what is staggering. I do feel for you and the other directors who have seen a labour of love trashed by a few a-holes who you thought were friends and were reliable. However, when members of EBANK's BoD post about their disappointment with the argumentative nature of the MD community in a thread in which their institution has proposed unilateral changes to their TOS, unrealistic demands for depositors' personal information, and has threatened to simply take the isk of those who don't fall into line ... well, it's difficult to get one's head around it, to be honest, especially when you do fundamentally believe that the present BoD are people of good will who are actually trying to solve a difficult problem.
I admit that there probably should be more personal sympathy for those EBANK staff who have lost more than just money in the debacles of recent months, but really, to then have those individuals suggest that the wider community is at fault for challenging plans that amounted to extortion and theft tends to strip away any latent sympathy for the position they are in.
And please don't expect us to take seriously the idea that you proposed a completely unworkable plan and declared it non-negotiable simply in order to spur some creative thinking from the public. If this is true, then you have undermined the possibility of anyone taking seriously any EBANK announcement in the future, given that we might expect any announcement to be another example of such sophisticated social engineering. If it is not true then your post, in which you suggest the possibility, is rather worrying from at least two possible perspectives. It might be taken as a blatant cover up of a major mistake that could have been solved by a proper consultation process in the beginning or, alternatively, as yet another example of inappropriate sarcasm in response to genuine concerns. None of these options look particularly good on you and I genuinely hope that there is a more flattering spin that can be put on these remarks.
And again, I would urge you to look at the posting history of those who have been most critical in this thread. You will see that at least some of us have tried to mitigate the overly combatative nature of some discussions in MD and the overly cycnical and sceptical approach that often prevails here. Now, you can either adopt a victim complex and ask why such posters might suddenly bother spending time posting in this thread in a more critical manner than most of their other posts, coming to the conclusion that they just hate EBANK and want to see its staff suffer, or you could ask yourselves why people who don't troll or try to put people down or insult people would turn up in this particular thread and make a lot of noise. You might come to the conclusion that it is something about what has been proposed here and the way that this proposal has been communicated that has angered people rather than there being a widespread conspiracy to give you guys a hard time for no reason at all.
|
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 01:16:00 -
[531]
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.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 01:39:00 -
[532]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 30/11/2009 01:40:51 Problems of treating customers like sub-standard idiots, suggestions like poisoned rubbish, criticism like a personal offense:
- You turn YOUR reputation to dust (which you could maybe care little for)
- Unsolvent / fraudolent defaulters now are not seen as "criminals" but as "they scammed some scammers / some guys that by their conduit don't attract any emphathy or support.
After all, everyone cares if a newspaper posts: "Guy XX scams Royal Einstein Academy Of Science" (ie something with stellar name and history) but "Guy XX scams two sausages off Tommy the Hot Dog vendor in the block" causes no care against XX. That is you ruined your own deterrent and "retribution" vs those who robbed you.
- You introduce a stressful and one sided new clause and ask for help. You get it and then proceed to charge against those who made you notice how your clause was unacceptable but DAMN THEM they don't have the solution nor the "rep" to propose something and have it accepted both by you and the depositors. In the meanwhile everyone see TS having pampered your diapers, you should just have thanked the person a lot without further recriminations, when the full responsibility of everything is exclusively, only, irreparably yours.
Now, in the eyes of those able to see beyond the horripilant PR and completely clownish replies, your plan can work and is probably as good as it can get. But you are working extremely hard to make everyone else not appreciate your efforts and actually despise you.
Just saying, in case you missed it.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 04:04:00 -
[533]
Is anyone having problems verifying their accoutn on E-Bank? This is what I get when I try to verify.
Server Error in '/' Application.
Nullable object must have a value.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.
Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: Nullable object must have a value.
Source Error:
The source code that generated this unhandled exception can only be shown when compiled in debug mode. To enable this, please follow one of the below steps, then request the URL:
1. Add a "Debug=true" directive at the top of the file that generated the error. Example:
<%@ Page Language="C#" Debug="true" %>
or:
2) Add the following section to the configuration file of your application:
<configuration> <system.web> <compilation debug="true"/> </system.web> </configuration>
Note that this second technique will cause all files within a given application to be compiled in debug mode. The first technique will cause only that particular file to be compiled in debug mode.
Important: Running applications in debug mode does incur a memory/performance overhead. You should make sure that an application has debugging disabled before deploying into production scenario.
Stack Trace:
[InvalidOperationException: Nullable object must have a value.] System.ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource resource) +56 System.Nullable`1.op_Explicit(Nullable`1 value) +32 User_profileUpdate.UpdateProfileButton_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e) +771 System.Web.UI.WebControls.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e) +115 System.Web.UI.WebControls.Button.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +140 System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(IPostBackEventHandler sourceControl, String eventArgument) +29 System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +2981
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 04:28:00 -
[534]
I had a much larger post here, but I thought I'd cut it down to something smaller.
People have singular complaint over the last page... They all dislike the opinion I have of the general MD population. Note here it's MY PERSONAL opinion, I've never said "EBANK thinks.." or "EBANK believes" are you all out of your mind? I have an EBANK SencneS character for a reason. If I was speaking for EBANK I'd be using that character.
I'd like to say congratulations to all who posted, you've been arguing about a personal opinion. One, mind you, I'm entitled to; just as you're entitled to your opinions, about me and EBANK for that matter. The difference is, while I take your opinions of EBANK under advisement and work to resolve those issues, and believe me if only you knew what I try to do.. The opinion you have of me, means nothing to me, that's not arrogance, there is no way in hell I'll allow what people say about me to effect me in a way I would stop enjoying EVE. Reputation aside, there is one thing everyone can be assured of, my reputation is disposable to me, as long as my personal honor and integrity remain. Something most of MD would be wise to do. Sometimes you need to hold onto the burning match until it's all burnt out, all to allow you to say "I never dropped that match."
RAW32, I'll address you personally as the posters who followed you keep talking about EBANK, but replying to me for some reason.. - Your posts are almost as long as mine, I like that, it shows one side effect, it shows you mind works a lot, and you have to express it. Like me, I have to express my mind as well. I understand people just fine, that's the problem, I know the situation and why it came to be. But it's still just my opinion. The day we turn on API for people to enter, almost 200 characters entered their API, and returned over 200B ISK to their accounts. Yet only 63 different characters posted in this very thread and I was counting myself twice. This says to me that more people read the forums and don't post, then people that just complain. Even now, the very same people are arguing about my personal opinion. If it looks like it, acts like it, then it is probably it. A group of complaining whiners. <- To be clear, RAW I don't consider you a complaining whiner, you're an exception to the rule.
Amarr for Life |
TrojanFresh
Minmatar The Suicide Kings True Reign
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 04:53:00 -
[535]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRk5YBjXsxE
Just lol every ebank post since this.
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 04:56:00 -
[536]
Originally by: TrojanFresh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRk5YBjXsxE
Just lol every ebank post since this.
I bet you were 2 years late to prom too weren't you. Titan BPC Auction Thread |
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 05:32:00 -
[537]
Originally by: SencneS
People have singular complaint over the last page... They all dislike the opinion I have of the general MD population. Note here it's MY PERSONAL opinion, I've never said "EBANK thinks.." or "EBANK believes" are you all out of your mind? I have an EBANK SencneS character for a reason. If I was speaking for EBANK I'd be using that character.
That's just not true. You've been posting in this thread, primarily with this character, responding to questions regarding EBANK. I stopped counting at 15 posts with SencneS but I'm sure there are a lot more. Regardless, whether you speak with this character or your official EBANK character, it reflects on EBANK. People will not distinguish between the two, nor should they. EBANK doesn't think we're stupid, its just the people that run it that do - does the difference matter?
I think this recent turn has been rather unfortunate. You have normally been the more level-headed voice of EBANK and the only one that gave the impression they are genuinely interested in customer input/feedback - and I think most people have noticed that. Personally, I just think this was a momentary hiccup.
Overall, EBANK has really improved its customer relations since the last thread. Ray and AC155 are keeping it professional (for the most part) even if its not always reciprocated. And SencneS is very professional 99% of the time.
I think this recent round of debate and potential compromises of the API key issue is a good sign. Most customers have probably come to accept most of their isk is gone at this point (they may not be happy about it, but they probably accept it) and my guess is they just want some input and say in the process going forward.
Some lash out at you because thats the only option you've left them. They can't vote on any changes, they can't even "vote" with their ISK by taking it out of the bank. The more you find ways to give the customer base a sense of control again, the better for everyone involved.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 05:33:00 -
[538]
Originally by: SencneS
I'd like to say congratulations to all who posted, you've been arguing about a personal opinion. One, mind you, I'm entitled to; just as you're entitled to your opinions, about me and EBANK for that matter. The difference is, while I take your opinions of EBANK under advisement and work to resolve those issues, and believe me if only you knew what I try to do..
Congratulations.
You have been putting out your opinion as hard facts. People jumped on you and you are now backpedaling because you got more flames than you expected. I think that's what we call a succesful troll on the internets.
You have been posting ad hominems left and right on top of that.
I don't know what you tried get out of posting. Either you are trolling to your hearts content or you are being ignorant to the fact that it's just damaging EBANK right now.
|
Lui Kai
Better Than You
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 05:53:00 -
[539]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Smackdown
Oh snap. ----------------
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 06:05:00 -
[540]
Anyone that knows me and Sencnes knows that we tend to agree on end results but disagree on how to get there. We also tend to get annoyed by one another whenever we post. With that being said, can anyone really say that Sencnes words could hurt EBANK at this point? I mean seriously, he could come in here and say "F**K customers and F**K customer service, I don't like you all anyways" and it wouldn't really change the situation that EBANK is in.
Now that he has said his opinion, which he is entitled to do even if it annoys some of us, could we all get back to *****ing and moaning about EBANK already?
/finger Titan BPC Auction Thread |
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 06:36:00 -
[541]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Anyone that knows me and Sencnes knows that we tend to agree on end results but disagree on how to get there. We also tend to get annoyed by one another whenever we post.
I can attest to this 100% :)
To everyone else, you know what I don't look for prise or anything, I've known for a long time that a public business is a thankless job. Set by the public who have high expectation to please them, and zero tolerance for anything outside those expectations. This whole page started out because I mixed a thank you to TS with a personal disguised statement about the rest of MD. If that doesn't say something about MD's issues, then I don't know of a more plain in your face example of why I have that opinion.
Enlightenment about the type of people you deal with is both a curse and a reward. The reward is clarity, and freedom from frustration. The curse is, that enlightenment may be the single biggest disappointment imaginable.
However, AC155 makes a great point, enough about my public outcry for pure disgust in MD's self debilitating capacity. Back to EBANK. Enjoy!
Amarr for Life |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 07:03:00 -
[542]
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.
|
Dzil
Caldari RED DESCENT
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 07:16:00 -
[543]
Originally by: SencneS
I can attest to this 100% :)
To everyone else, you know what I don't look for prise or anything, I've known for a long time that a public business is a thankless job. Set by the public who have high expectation to please them, and zero tolerance for anything outside those expectations. This whole page started out because I mixed a thank you to TS with a personal disguised statement about the rest of MD. If that doesn't say something about MD's issues, then I don't know of a more plain in your face example of why I have that opinion.
Enlightenment about the type of people you deal with is both a curse and a reward. The reward is clarity, and freedom from frustration. The curse is, that enlightenment may be the single biggest disappointment imaginable.
However, AC155 makes a great point, enough about my public outcry for pure disgust in MD's self debilitating capacity. Back to EBANK. Enjoy!
Ebank's dead and a scam. Not much left to talk about till you open up partial withdrawls to the customers that agreed to your new BOHICA policy.
For what it's worth RAW23, I completely agree with you - Sencnes' attack on MD for not inventing a solution to a problem they created, and their chair characterized as non-negotiable, was completely absurd. The follow up ad hominem attacks are typical of a scammer grasping for any kind of face saving argument and too proud to apologize to those he/she so dispises. The only reason to continue to press the point is there are some in MD so completely bat**** blind that even this glaring neon sign won't deter them from continuing to funnel their isk down a toilet.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 07:53:00 -
[544]
Originally by: Dzil
For what it's worth RAW23, I completely agree with you - Sencnes' attack on MD for not inventing a solution to a problem they created, and their chair characterized as non-negotiable, was completely absurd. The follow up ad hominem attacks are typical of a scammer grasping for any kind of face saving argument and too proud to apologize to those he/she so dispises. The only reason to continue to press the point is there are some in MD so completely bat**** blind that even this glaring neon sign won't deter them from continuing to funnel their isk down a toilet.
Sencnes didn't represent EBANK from what I can tell. He clearly stated it was his OWN opinion.
But I completely agree with you that it was absurd what was posted.
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 14:04:00 -
[545]
Quote: Wardecing characters that never undock is like trying to walk through a wall with no openings. Yeah you can do it, but it's really stupid as you will never acomplish anything.
not that I doubt that statement but it's just as bad as giving billions to someone you know never undocks too. |
Coconut Joe
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 21:18:00 -
[546]
Edited by: Coconut Joe on 30/11/2009 21:21:51
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Actually, there is a lot of information available with the limited API key. See posts #354 and #404.
Hello Kapila Parthalan,
I would point out that apart from petra piperpiper's point 'a' (discovering your alts) and 'g' (corp hanger /wallet identify information), for a sizable amount of people of Eve, you could deduce that information from killboards. You can't do anything for 'a', but as for 'g' if it really meant that much to someone, they could leave their corp, supply their API key for verification by Ebank, reset their API, and then rejoin the corp? Could it not be said that this is an inconvenience, not a massive invasion of privacy?
|
Katiana Swan
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:16:00 -
[547]
The news article at www.eve-tribune.com is very interesting to read. It shows a couple of peoples different perspectives on the issues ebank faced and even ricdic put a long comment in there. Can the ebank staff confirm his statements? I mean the ones regarding ebank, not his personal story in there.
My concern after reading that, has Ray taken the position ricdic had? It seems that ricdic was doing a lot of different tasks and that burn out combined with the other things he listed was a factor in the scam. Could we see the same thing happen in a couple of years if roles aren't properly delegated among staff?
|
EBANK SencneS
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:42:00 -
[548]
Originally by: Katiana Swan The news article at www.eve-tribune.com is very interesting to read. It shows a couple of peoples different perspectives on the issues ebank faced and even ricdic put a long comment in there. Can the ebank staff confirm his statements? I mean the ones regarding ebank, not his personal story in there.
My concern after reading that, has Ray taken the position ricdic had? It seems that ricdic was doing a lot of different tasks and that burn out combined with the other things he listed was a factor in the scam. Could we see the same thing happen in a couple of years if roles aren't properly delegated among staff?
Ricdic did one thing that he didn't say in his comment. He put a lot of the responsibility on himself. Ricdic was paid for the following. CEO, Loan Officer, Teller, Venture manager, Payroll, Director.
In a way he was a victim of his own doing. At the start he took EVEMails from people, he did all the loans, he did the tellering, he did Marketing stuff, He did venture management, he did Investments, he Managed EBANK's staff (Well tried to at least). All at his request, the BoD was just a oversight comity in the simplest form. Burn-out was talked about many times on the Board. As EBANK got larger, he started letting go of things. Tellering which in the peek would get close to 800 withdrawals a month each one manual process, and requires the teller to check the account to see where the ISK came from, check the withdrawal amount against the "Give Money" box in EVE. Out of all the tasks I can say from personal experience that Tellering is extremely stressful. Paranoid about making a mistake could cost the Bank billions, with nothing but a pray the customer would be kind enough to give it back.
Later he brought on Loan Officers, Proton Power and SentryRaven, and a few others. EBANK receives even today several requests for loans a day, each one requires you to meet in game, talk about it, collect collateral, give collateral back, sell collateral from defaulted loans etc. Again another important job that a simple mistake could cost billions. Venture Managers where brought on, (Proton Power, AC155) to help handle the multi-hundred billion ISK ventures, fuel POSes, Monitor Sell orders etc.
Before Ricdic ran off, his responsibilities where... Transferring ISK to tellers when the tellers "Draws" where empty. Running a Titan BPO/Copy venture. The rest was handled by systems or others.
Yes, he did a lot at the start, because he wanted it, he wanted it all. As it got too large, EBANK did things like Give him tellers, give him loan officers, give him venture managers. While I agree with one short fall from the staff, Ricdic wanted out, we knew it, every time he posted it someone took over something else of his, why because he said "I can run this no problem". We opened up a "Helpdesk" website for people to open support tickets to help manage the amount of EVEMails he was getting etc, so all he had to do was tell people to log a ticket.
This is why I don't think it'll happen that way again. As the article says a "participatory model" we all participate in our own time to the recovery process. It's going to take a long time no matter what, Ray, AC155, Athre, myself, are all in a corp in EVE, running manufacturing jobs, market activity, research, invention, the works! Myself with 1 pewny little indy alt with the help of the massive research slots available to us, have generated 1B ISK profit this month. Sounds horrible considering the deficit, but that's me using what others aren't using, the BIG money makers, I'm just using the scraps.
The "work load" is extremely distributed compared to "The Ricdic Show" it once was. While burn-out is still and always will be a concern, several things in place now that wasn't there in the past release a lot of that stress. That is about the only assurances I can give.
SencneS Board of Directors EBANK |
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 00:24:00 -
[549]
Originally by: Katiana Swan
www.eve-tribune.com
I just read a couple parts of the EBANK story there, including the interview with Ray. The part that really struck me was this:
"We've had some people contact us saying they need that ISK to pay for a GTC to keep playing. And if they don't get that ISK they can't play anymore, and every single director and staff left at the bank is aware of that."
I'm not sure where you guys are with the policy of deleting inactive accounts, but I hope you will take these people into account when deciding on that policy. There may be people whose accounts go inactive due to not being able to access their isk in EBANK. If they eventually are able to afford to get back online, I hope their ISK will be waiting for them so they can continue playing.
Just wanted to point this out in the event it had been overlooked thus far.
|
Alex555
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:34:00 -
[550]
Originally by: EBANK SencneS ...generated 1B ISK profit this month...
Is this for real? Or is it a kind of sarcasm? If it is sarcasm than I donÆt think that it is an appropriate time and place. if it is for real then I have pity for ebank lenders (a person who's got a deposit in eve bank system is a lender to the system). People I think u can do better. U have bunch of isks under yourà, well, in your hands. Get smarter, use them better. Eve bank canÆt afford making so called passive income through copying. Time is limited. Tick-tack, tick-tackà
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:53:00 -
[551]
Edited by: RAW23 on 01/12/2009 13:53:16
Originally by: Alex555
Originally by: EBANK SencneS ...generated 1B ISK profit this month...
Is this for real? Or is it a kind of sarcasm? If it is sarcasm than I donÆt think that it is an appropriate time and place. if it is for real then I have pity for ebank lenders (a person who's got a deposit in eve bank system is a lender to the system). People I think u can do better. U have bunch of isks under yourà, well, in your hands. Get smarter, use them better. Eve bank canÆt afford making so called passive income through copying. Time is limited. Tick-tack, tick-tackà
You're kidding right? EBANK can't afford to not make passive income in addition to its active income. The whole thing about the passive income streams is they don't get in the way of the active ones (and they also tend to be pretty low risk). If EBANK were failing to use all their resources then that would be a serious cause for complaint.
|
Alex555
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 14:19:00 -
[552]
the word "only" is missed there. they can't count just on passive income
|
Sarah Dent
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 14:44:00 -
[553]
I simply do not understand why anyone would trust their ISK to a bank. The protection mechanisms are simply not here, and any tomfoolery can go unnoticed for months or years.
|
Seraphina Oriana
The White Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 14:52:00 -
[554]
I haven't finished reading this topic as yet (I'm at page 11) but one of the big gripes is the security of the API in that it can be seen by staff.
Why not simply encrypt the key in the database so it can't be deciphered. Make your script that takes it, and compares it to the API and recalled the XML sheet for characters and displays them only to the viewer.
I don't know how possible this is - if at all - if CCP can't work with encrypted keys, then ask Chribba to act as a third party - keys are provided to him and encrypted, Ebank sends encrypted key to ChribbaHQ > ChibbaHQ takes the encrypted key, gets the unencrypted one, does the CCP query then forwards the results back to Ebank.
This way Ebank never actually knows what they API keys are as they only have the encrypted one, and will only get the results that Chribba sends (the character list) DEADLY NIGHTSHADE - http://www.clan-oriana.com |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 15:31:00 -
[555]
Originally by: Alex555 1B ISK is not good enough!
Let me explain the statement "Myself with 1 pewny little indy alt with the help of the massive research slots available to me, have generated 1B ISK profit this month."
I spent no ISK apart from the Profit from my activities to make that 1B ISK. Meaning I started with nothing but the unused useless assets EBANK has laying around all over the place. So this is RAW Liquidity added to the Bank. I've been using the oddly abundant amount of mods and "stuff" spread thought out EVE and slowly consolidating them, using them, turning the largest profit available for that item. There was well over 150 BPC that all got invented (None of them ships... that's to come), then those T2 items where all built, and sold. The cost for the materials to invent and produce came from the other activities I have done with the useless inventory. There are more BPCs to invent, more mods sitting in inventory, and with the 1B ISK I've generated I plan on turning that into even more.
All of this is done with assets that where just sitting there, eating up EBANK's liquidity. I know what others are doing, and I can say they are making oodles more then I am, that is for sure, however their Jobs have been to use the little remaining ISK EBANK had liquid. I assigned myself the task to liquidating the junk. I didn't mention it in the post above, because I don't like giving numbers that are not solid. In market orders at the moment I have about 1.1B ISK worth waiting to be sold. It's likely that number will change possibly down, but might go up. Hard to say. What is in EBANK's hangers is defiantly within tens of billions, just needs to be turned into ISK.
Put it this way, the assets left over from what was already picked through by others to "work" make more ISK then I'll EVER be able to make with the massive pile of junk left over. I help the others with their ISK generation when they need a hand, sure. But Idle slots is never a good thing.
Tag line! I'm EBANK's junk yard manager turning trash into CASH!!
Amarr for Life |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:19:00 -
[556]
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...
|
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 20:54:00 -
[557]
Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 01/12/2009 21:05:26
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: SencneS
general nonsense
blatant hypocrisy
Dear LaVista Vista,
I prefer short sentences to long ones when the short ones will still reflect what the long ones are stating. I edited your post to reflect some of the statements you have made.
This is like Bill Clinton *****ing at a staffer for having an affair with an intern in the white house.
Love, -GV
edit: poop, Cosmo already summed up my thoughts. Oh well. I encourage the ongoing theft now known as EBANK and look forward to the public posting of the salaries you are giving for staff to come on the forums and flame everyone; delete the account balances of people that refuse your new Terms of Service or are anaware of such changes; extort those that want a tiny portion of their balance back; charge ridiculous fees after you already lost 70% of thier ISK.
Whatever reputation EBANK, or any of you individually had after the collapse and account freezes is being ****ed away through yet more incompetence and arrogance. You want trust, but you deserve none. You keep people around and pay them salaries after their incompetence put the bank in the position it is in. If you wanted to salvage what was left of your reputation you would have cleaned house early aand apologized for your mistakes instead of viciously attacking any detracters. Even if you restore the bank to allowing full withdrawl - and this is a big if - you only did so through scamming some of your customers and extorting others. On top of this, as soon as people can withdrawal, they will. If you restoree 10% of depositors 100% of the isk because the rest chose to liquidate their balances, it is merely a scam with different clothes on. But alas, you disagree with this so this is all just trolling.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 21:07:00 -
[558]
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.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 22:14:00 -
[559]
Originally by: cosmoray 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 responsibilities and bowed out of EBANK threads. We know this won't happen, so please carry on with your chaos.
The environment in which we're all in makes it difficult to not appear as a personal attack on ones self. I mean take a look at your very post, directed at me specifically with a pointed stick and abrasive statements. Even with the past couple of posts I've been what I believe helpful and did it in a way without any hostility, a lit bit of flare and full is factual data.
I don't know if you just wanted to prove my opinion in a post of not, but this is an exact example of why I have that opinion in the first place. While some may not like a blunt opinion, they are often closer to the truth then a sugar coated passive one. Now, I kindly ask you to stop posting about my personal opinion, if you want to continue to talk about my opinions, fire up a thread in General Discussion, evemail me the link and I'll be more then happy to engage you there.
SencneS
Amarr for Life |
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 22:26:00 -
[560]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: cosmoray 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 responsibilities and bowed out of EBANK threads. We know this won't happen, so please carry on with your chaos.
The environment in which we're all in makes it difficult to not appear as a personal attack on ones self. I mean take a look at your very post, directed at me specifically with a pointed stick and abrasive statements. Even with the past couple of posts I've been what I believe helpful and did it in a way without any hostility, a lit bit of flare and full is factual data.
I don't know if you just wanted to prove my opinion in a post of not, but this is an exact example of why I have that opinion in the first place. While some may not like a blunt opinion, they are often closer to the truth then a sugar coated passive one. Now, I kindly ask you to stop posting about my personal opinion, if you want to continue to talk about my opinions, fire up a thread in General Discussion, evemail me the link and I'll be more then happy to engage you there.
SencneS
For what its worth, I think sucking at PR is a prerequisite for being on your payroll.
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 22:39:00 -
[561]
Originally by: Kalrand For what its worth, I think sucking at PR is a prerequisite for being on your payroll.
Oh I WISH, and got paid according to how many people believed the PR was sucky. I'd be RICH!!
However, really PR is a two fold job, while a vast majority believe PR needs to be around to smooth things over with a silver tongue, it's also there to simply be informative. I honestly doubt anyone can say I haven't been informative about things both past and present, and I will continue to be informative in the future. While the delivery may suck to some, the delivery is not the important part. I believe a slippery delivery can wrongfully sway peoples opinions. A more blunt delivery of factual data is in my opinion what people in here would rather. There is no point in trying to use linguistics skills to sneak something in. Most of MD is too smart to allow that to happen.
Amarr for Life |
Corporate Thief
Caldari Code Triage
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 03:25:00 -
[562]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Kalrand For what its worth, I think sucking at PR is a prerequisite for being on your payroll.
Oh I WISH, and got paid according to how many people believed the PR was sucky. I'd be RICH!!
However, really PR is a two fold job, while a vast majority believe PR needs to be around to smooth things over with a silver tongue, it's also there to simply be informative. I honestly doubt anyone can say I haven't been informative about things both past and present, and I will continue to be informative in the future. While the delivery may suck to some, the delivery is not the important part. I believe a slippery delivery can wrongfully sway peoples opinions. A more blunt delivery of factual data is in my opinion what people in here would rather. There is no point in trying to use linguistics skills to sneak something in. Most of MD is too smart to allow that to happen.
"PR" is short for "Public Relations," which is itself short for bending over backwards to give your customers a warm, fuzzy feeling inside (to use the dictionary, it means promoting goodwill between an Organization and its Customers). Information is information (or news, but to each his own), and using one while branding it the other is like calling the sky green. Yes, you can do it. Yes, if you're talented you can get away with it. However, there exist amongst humans people who are smart enough to know better.
In that sense, delivery is the only thing that matters. I could use an example, but I cba as EBank refused my application to a PR position somewhere around a month ago. Maybe if I hadn't applied to AC on Corp Thief... Anyway, the issue at hand. Just as you feel (rightly) that you shouldn't sugarcoat the news, doing the exact opposite (covering it in human waste) is far worse for your image (which is something any legitimate and self-respecting business/organization/etc should care very strongly about).
Just the humble (albeit valid) opinion of a Thief. More words to follow if you post something worth replying to.
()'s brought to you by:
Code Triage [This Space For Rent] ---
Who wants to make me a Sig? Mail me in-game! \O/
Originally by: CCP Soundwave Gather around young ones, Uncle Soundwave will tell you the tale of Icelanders and their receding hairlines.
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 11:36:00 -
[563]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Kalrand For what its worth, I think sucking at PR is a prerequisite for being on your payroll.
Oh I WISH, and got paid according to how many people believed the PR was sucky. I'd be RICH!!
However, really PR is a two fold job, while a vast majority believe PR needs to be around to smooth things over with a silver tongue, it's also there to simply be informative. I honestly doubt anyone can say I haven't been informative about things both past and present, and I will continue to be informative in the future. While the delivery may suck to some, the delivery is not the important part. I believe a slippery delivery can wrongfully sway peoples opinions. A more blunt delivery of factual data is in my opinion what people in here would rather. There is no point in trying to use linguistics skills to sneak something in. Most of MD is too smart to allow that to happen.
There is a big difference between being factual and direct, and what you guys have been up to. Normally being condescending is a bad way to distribute information.
|
Dzil
Caldari RED DESCENT
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 13:00:00 -
[564]
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.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 14:01:00 -
[565]
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?
|
Tarinara
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 15:46:00 -
[566]
Originally by: Bluebeard <snip>If Ebank is going to survive, then it needs the account holders to have faith that they will get their isk back, but even more, it needs people trusting enough to take out loans and pay interest.</snip>
I'd like to nominate this for the 'LOL of the Day' Award. I'm sure that very few people have any faith in Ebank or of getting any of their ISK back.
"But I provided my API key!!" ... do you honestly believe that's the last hurdle Ebank is going to toss out? Don't hold your breath.
As for my reasons for not wanting to provide an API key: how about 'none of your business'? My Ebank account character had no loans with Ebank ( or anyone else ) and only transferred ISK into and out of Ebank. And now you choose to categorize me as a thief/scammer/RMT King/whatever and I have to jump though hoops to please *you*?! This coming from the 'organization' who is calling out defaulters publicly? Last time I was able to check *you* owed *me* a little over 700mil which *you* have now defaulted on... guess Ebank has been taking customer service lessons from Blizzard and CCP.
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 17:47:00 -
[567]
So, are you accepting Bleeped APIs?
Have you reset the pending withdrawals? --
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 20:47:00 -
[568]
Originally by: Kalrand
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Kalrand For what its worth, I think sucking at PR is a prerequisite for being on your payroll.
Oh I WISH, and got paid according to how many people believed the PR was sucky. I'd be RICH!!
However, really PR is a two fold job, while a vast majority believe PR needs to be around to smooth things over with a silver tongue, it's also there to simply be informative. I honestly doubt anyone can say I haven't been informative about things both past and present, and I will continue to be informative in the future. While the delivery may suck to some, the delivery is not the important part. I believe a slippery delivery can wrongfully sway peoples opinions. A more blunt delivery of factual data is in my opinion what people in here would rather. There is no point in trying to use linguistics skills to sneak something in. Most of MD is too smart to allow that to happen.
There is a big difference between being factual and direct, and what you guys have been up to. Normally being condescending is a bad way to distribute information.
What have you done EBank. I agree with the Goon. You bastards.
never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist |
Sandar Orontur
|
Posted - 2009.12.03 21:53:00 -
[569]
Originally by: SencneS
...
Angus McSpork - "Would the API key stopped Board members from stealing?" - It wouldn't have stopped the sinister activities of the past board members no. But, it will prevent them from taking MORE of what they have already taken.
...
This was in post 282 and I'm sorry, I didn't have the time to read all remaining 9 pages, so maybe this has been addressed:
This sounds like you you're suspecting to find isk from former BoD members on possible alt accounts of them in EBANK. Is THIS the hidden agenda of the whole API thing?
A few posts later, Ray said something which can be interpreted in the same direction:
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Circumstances dictate otherwise TS. The bank has been subjected to some of the largest thefts and defaults in EVE history, it has seen transactions faked in the back-end by previous directors - there is no way I can stand by and watch those responsible get away with further ill-gotten fains if there is the slightest chance I can prevent that.
Interesting that this only was written once things were already heated up quite a bit.
Just my 2 cents, and no I am not, wasn't and won't be affiliated with EBANK and never did business with them (lucky me!). And I wouldn't give anybody my API to prove this
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 22:18:00 -
[570]
when are you going to accept bleeped api's? Or do you like the 12xx bil in suspense accounts?
|
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 16:43:00 -
[571]
Originally by: Leneerra when are you going to accept bleeped api's?
Already asked and not answered here.
Originally by: Leneerra Or do you like the 12xx bil in suspense accounts?
Actually, that seems more like the plan, with them all being written off ASAP ("After six months any balances remaining in suspense accounts will be written off.").
No start date has been set for this process, and the posting date should not be counted as no in-game or RL emails, or other forms of contacting the account holders has been attempted. ("That's because we haven't sent one yet.").
Despite this post ("That should be fine thanks. I will code and test this afternoon with an aim to having it live this evening.") seeming to imply that BLEEP API's are acceptable, none of the numerous posts since by EBANK BoD members have confirmed it.
No attempt seems to have been made to release the account holder's funds locked in "pending withdrawals".
Currently;
EBANK holds 1,909,573,060,629 of depositor's funds. 16.53% : 315,842,705,865 ISK has been API verified. 19.67% : 375,781,189,199 ISK is inaccessible in locked "pending withdrawals". 63.78% : 1,217,949,165,565 ISK is waiting to be written off in "suspense account" With the remaining 0.02% error : 38,191,461,212.58 which is pretty close to the "private" unrecorded EBANK assets ("According to the private sheet, the assets are valuated at - 31,577,934,289 ISK. (This is with every Blueprint marked as "Zero")") used to make an unrecorded 1 billion ISK profit ("with 1 pewny little indy alt with the help of the massive research slots available to us, have generated 1B ISK profit this month."). (Unrelated, possibly, but I find it interesting and it links the posts together ). --
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 17:16:00 -
[572]
To be fair, Ray did say earlier in the thread that they are still considering alternatives to wiping the account balances. Hopefully a solution such as that suggested by Mme. Pinkerton or Sencnes will arise.
|
terry1968
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 22:17:00 -
[573]
hi i am looking to join how do i join so i can get a bank account and do u got a eve in game channel
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 12:20:00 -
[574]
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?
|
FlameWarrior
Gallente Hall Of Flame H Y E N A
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 12:29:00 -
[575]
i though there would be an reverse process where we can do our drawing again ~~ ~!~ but when will it be? Yoyo !LOTTERY MAN IS HERE ! |
FlameWarrior
Gallente Hall Of Flame H Y E N A
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 12:38:00 -
[576]
i though there would be an reverse process where we can do our drawing again ~~ ~!~ but when will it be? Yoyo !LOTTERY MAN IS HERE ! |
Moya81
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 17:15:00 -
[577]
Many months have passed and this is the master-plan presented to get EBANK back and running? Really?
|
Dasola
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 19:29:00 -
[578]
So bleep still not working on ebank? Even noob programmer would have coded it allready. Ebanks BoD care to explain us investors of bank what this holdup? And by the way is there even estimate timetable when bank expects to be back on its feet without scamming investors money? If you have some revenues then im sure you can estimate something.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 19:49:00 -
[579]
Originally by: Dasola And by the way is there even estimate timetable when bank expects to be back on its feet without scamming investors money? If you have some revenues then im sure you can estimate something.
14 years, based on their public financial statements.
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 20:08:00 -
[580]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Dasola And by the way is there even estimate timetable when bank expects to be back on its feet without scamming investors money? If you have some revenues then im sure you can estimate something.
14 years, based on their public financial statements.
I think you're refering to my old estimates. If they really abscond with isk as people retire/quit/go on 6 month hiatus/whatever from the game, expect them to make ~20% in profit annual. With probably a 50+% one time bonus.
|
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 20:10:00 -
[581]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Dasola And by the way is there even estimate timetable when bank expects to be back on its feet without scamming investors money? If you have some revenues then im sure you can estimate something.
14 years, based on their public financial statements.
Unless they pay all interest including that which ought to be accruing now they will not have recovered without scamming investors.
I've supported EBANK for a long time and in certain regards I still do but as a guy who has a few billion held hostage there it would be downright hypocritical of me to demand anything less than what I have from all my other investments: principle plus promised interest. I really want to make excuses for EBANK but if I'm going to look myself in the mirror I have to hold them to the same standard; you are knowingly defrauding your investors of promised interest and it is not okay. You need to pay the interest for the entirety of the time you've been holding people's ISK and if that means you fail then so be it. Better to be a failed business that pays out what it can and moves on than a corrupt business that scams its investors out of promised profits. I know you have the highest of goals but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Either you pay every cent back or you default, you don't get to partially default and pretend you're still the good guys.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 20:37:00 -
[582]
Originally by: Kalrand
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Dasola And by the way is there even estimate timetable when bank expects to be back on its feet without scamming investors money? If you have some revenues then im sure you can estimate something.
14 years, based on their public financial statements.
I think you're refering to my old estimates. If they really abscond with isk as people retire/quit/go on 6 month hiatus/whatever from the game, expect them to make ~20% in profit annual. With probably a 50+% one time bonus.
Actually, they¦re my own estimates extrapolated from their numbers, and assuming the minimum 5% from ventures, which is all they¦re obligated to do. That¦s a conservative take.
The "optimistic" view is more akin to your other numbers - but they¦d be skinning investors to achieve that.
One caveat - they steadfastly refuse to divulge the size of the ventures or the profits they¦re making. Ventures are obligated to return at least 5% (on 88B), but their forecast continues to show zero return.
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 21:11:00 -
[583]
Originally by: Varo Jan Actually, they¦re my own estimates extrapolated from their numbers, and assuming the minimum 5% from ventures, which is all they¦re obligated to do. That¦s a conservative take.
The "optimistic" view is more akin to your other numbers - but they¦d be skinning investors to achieve that.
One caveat - they steadfastly refuse to divulge the size of the ventures or the profits they¦re making. Ventures are obligated to return at least 5% (on 88B), but their forecast continues to show zero return.
It's pretty obvious that we can't assume they're treating the isk in that bank as anything other than something for them to play with. The fact they "give back" 5% is just an accounting thing.
|
Dzil
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 22:43:00 -
[584]
Quote: Better to be a failed business that pays out what it can and moves on than a corrupt business that scams its investors out of promised profits.
That's fair. I stand by they owe back not only principle+interest, but they should be held to pay back all investors and not just those providing API details. If they can prove someone has scammed the bank and based on that doesn't want to pay them back, that's reasonable. Putting the onus on the customer to prove they aren't a scammer should be a last resort only employed as the bank is shutdown.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 23:17:00 -
[585]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Unless they pay all interest including that which ought to be accruing now they will not have recovered without scamming investors.
Better to be a failed business that pays out what it can and moves on than a corrupt business that scams its investors out of promised profits.
Even if EBANK accomplished what they claim to accomplish, they would still only have done so through scamming investors. If you cancel any balances, you scam. If you do not pay back interest, you scam. The goal you all claim to accomplish is impossible through the current policies that you are advocating. Better a failed business, which can be forgiven, than a scam.
-GV
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 16:17:00 -
[586]
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
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 16:34:00 -
[587]
Originally by: Gabriel Virtus If you do not pay back interest, you scam.
Paying out to each account a portion of the ISK they are entitled to (that is, accounts would not be paid back in full, but weighted according to how much ISK their account is supposed to have) and not paying interest is a very bad and failed business. Not a scam.
It's a scam if they keep some ISK. Ricdic did that, at the very least. That part is scam.
Canceling out any balances as a way to correct their books is a scam.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 17:47:00 -
[588]
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.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 17:53:00 -
[589]
Originally by: Leneerra seems they now only have a bit over 600b in assets, dropping to a 31.something% in coverage?
That's just API issues zeroing the liquid ISK, which was around 70b last time I checked.
|
Taram Caldar
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 18:12:00 -
[590]
TBH I don't have a lot of sympathy for ebank investors.
There are 3 simple rules in eve investments 1) Never invest in an unknown without collateral and a full audit. 2) Never invest in a person who associates with scammers. 3) Never invest in a bank.
Violating any 1 of those three will generally cause you to lose isk. Been proven over and over again.
Want a sig made? Contact me in game. Click my sig to see samples |
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 18:47:00 -
[591]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 18/12/2009 18:51:27
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
You need to pay the interest for the entirety of the time you've been holding people's ISK and if that means you fail then so be it.
Now, now, Kwint, let's not forget these guys are working their asses off to recover the isk your best buddy Ricdic RMTed for pocket change. That matter has been dealt with.
Ebank wasn't obliged to report a global debt (in fact it was a stupid thing to do in the first place) since there are a lot of account holders that haven't logged in in a while or have quit the game. Only debt towards active players should be outstanding. Bottom line is the so called problem is not even a problem and the one responsible for suckering in so many of you has gone AWOL.
Black Sun Empire |
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 23:24:00 -
[592]
From this post, dated 2009.12.05 16:43:00;
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Currently;
EBANK holds 1,909,573,060,629 of depositor's funds. 16.53% : 315,842,705,865 ISK has been API verified. 19.67% : 375,781,189,199 ISK is inaccessible in locked "pending withdrawals". 63.78% : 1,217,949,165,565 ISK is waiting to be written off in "suspense account".
Now the figures are;
EBANK holds 1,907,151,971,679 of depositor's funds. 18.63% : 355,335,124,873 ISK has been API verified. 22.61% : 431,278,662,713 ISK is inaccessible in locked "pending withdrawals". 58.75% : 1,120,538,184,092 ISK is waiting to be written off in "suspense account".
2,421,088,950 ISK (1.26%) drop in depositor's funds. 39,492,419,008 ISK (12.5%) increase in API verified account funds. 55,497,473,517 ISK (14.76%) increase in funds inaccessible in locked "pending withdrawals". 97,410,981,473 ISK (7.99%) drop in funds waiting to be written off in "suspense account".
Note: Not all the funds locked in "pending withdrawals" are from API verified accounts, most are from unverified accounts. ("Some are, most aren't.")
Still awaiting information about BLEEP API's acceptability, removal of "pending withdrawals" and updating of EBANK's own public financials. --
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 23:27:00 -
[593]
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.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 01:38:00 -
[594]
Originally by: Dzil
Quote: Better to be a failed business that pays out what it can and moves on than a corrupt business that scams its investors out of promised profits.
That's fair. I stand by they owe back not only principle+interest, but they should be held to pay back all investors and not just those providing API details. If they can prove someone has scammed the bank and based on that doesn't want to pay them back, that's reasonable. Putting the onus on the customer to prove they aren't a scammer should be a last resort only employed as the bank is shutdown.
I agree in principle. However, the fact of the matter is that this business failed long ago. The emperor had no clothes. It did not fail because Ricdic scammed. It failed because past management was amazingly inept and had no clue how to run a business, how to assess risks, how to monitor costs, how to implement effective controls, andandand. It *is* quite possible that some milked the business knowingly.
So don¦t blame Ray for being unable to repay principle and interest. Blame him for not having the guts to take the right course of action - which is to close the business. Once confidence is lost, nothing will save a business. Blame him for behaving like an ostrich and hoping that time will solve his problems.
PS: What are you hiding in the ventures, Ray?
|
Zerixx
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 17:22:00 -
[595]
yeah guys why bother.......virtual money, virtual bank...just write it off.sorted |
Trukkalessa
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 10:15:00 -
[596]
I have just over 2b pending. If I could get 50% then you could write off the other 50% |
Taikun Brunel
Gallente Gecko Enterprises Teldar Paper
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 16:05:00 -
[597]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Dzil PS: What are you hiding in the ventures, Ray?
Why are you bothering to ask Ray questions? He doesn't post here anymore. Not sure he even plays EvE anymore now.
Taikun
|
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 09:09:00 -
[598]
EBANK is trying to use cheap parlor tricks to get the bank back on it's feet. Considering the state the bank is in and the actual money that is owed, even with the parlor tricks or blatant theivery as others like to call it, this will still take 1.23million years.
-GV
|
Riethe
Invictus Sovereignty
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:32:00 -
[599]
This is just beautiful. |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 11:58:00 -
[600]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 21/12/2009 12:00:04
Originally by: Riethe This is just beautiful.
Hey Riethe, where have you been buddy? Oh... you never left.
Black Sun Empire |
|
incedius
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 13:38:00 -
[601]
Evebank sounds like a goverment. Pull a massive scam an then claim to have ridden yourselves of the ones to blaim. Then use the justifaction of fixing other peoples mistakes to change your own rules an regulations to favor yourself. Impose regulations that only people that have already given you there money would agree to. Leave people with no option but to agree with what your selling in the hope they will one day see a small percent of what they paid in returned in some way.
Look at the api. How the heck could you expect people to trust you with there api after the billions that where stolen. Thats so dumb the only reason I can think you would evan suggest it is "we dont expect people to trust us". An the "we dont" statment leads us back to the above paragraph.
|
Riethe
Invictus Sovereignty
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 16:53:00 -
[602]
Originally by: YouGotRipped Hey Riethe, where have you been buddy? Oh... you never left.
We could have just stopped there, but we didn't. We're also adding in the reduced price of 9.95 for the first month if you resubscribe to EVE Online during your free five days.
FIVE FREE DAYS OF EVE ONLINE THE ZEPHYR EXPLORATION SHIP 9.95 FOR THE FIRST MONTH WHEN YOU RESUBSCRIBE
There's no reason NOT to reactivate your account and return to the most dynamic virtual universe in online gaming - EVE Online!
Also, definitely not buddies.
By the way--I definitely called out these ricdic shenanigans back in my scam announcement post.
Just sayin'
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 19:42:00 -
[603]
Originally by: Riethe
Also, definitely not buddies.
Anytime.
Black Sun Empire |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 18:17:00 -
[604]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Recruitment
EBANK is a diverse collection of individuals, all with different reasons for (still) being here. We often argue, quite illogically, due to our differing passions, but we're united behind one common cause, to see EBANK restored to its former glory. And we want you to help, by joining us on this glorious and noble quest. These various roles need filling, perchance you might fill one of them?
Should you wish to fill one of the roles mentioned in the OP, please fill in the application available here.
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 18:58:00 -
[605]
Originally by: Ray McCormack I will code and test this afternoon with an aim to having it live this evening.
This was on 11.29. Since then, there have not been any updates on the status of BLEEP. Has there been any progress? When will this be done?
Originally by: Ray McCormack Agreed. The Board will draft the final API policy this weekend and release it next week sometime. It'll be no different to what has already been stated, however this will be an official, unambiguous version clearly outlined in our TOS.
This was even earlier, on 11.26. Why has this API policy not been released yet, and when will it be?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 19:18:00 -
[606]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan This was on 11.29. Since then, there have not been any updates on the status of BLEEP. Has there been any progress? When will this be done?
I honestly haven't had the time, I've been a bit swamped trying to finish some work projects before my long break (which started today). The only progress has been in my head on how to implement the change in the code. It will be done, dunno, soonish. When do you want it done by?
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan This was even earlier, on 11.26. Why has this API policy not been released yet, and when will it be?
Same again, a proposal has not yet been presented to the board for review and vote. As you can see, we've only today finalised the Q&A for applications; we're going in some random order of importance. It will be done by the time the BLEEP interface is live.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 19:29:00 -
[607]
Ray - Just had a look at the questions you are asking applicants and the code of conduct you want them to agree to. I found the following elements of the code of conduct fascinating.
"Be Considerate. Realise that your actions and words have an effect on others, take those consequences into account when making decisions.
Be Respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners, frustration cannot be allowed to turn into personal attacks. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
Be Constructive. Disagreements and differing views should be discussed constructively; advice should be sought from others to resolve any disputes."
Um. You didn't write that did you? Will you be signing up to your own code of conduct at some point in the future?
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 20:48:00 -
[608]
What measures are in place to prevent a scammer alt from joining Ebank?
Black Sun Empire |
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 21:07:00 -
[609]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan This was on 11.29. Since then, there have not been any updates on the status of BLEEP. Has there been any progress? When will this be done?
I honestly haven't had the time, I've been a bit swamped trying to finish some work projects before my long break (which started today). The only progress has been in my head on how to implement the change in the code. It will be done, dunno, soonish. When do you want it done by?
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan This was even earlier, on 11.26. Why has this API policy not been released yet, and when will it be?
Same again, a proposal has not yet been presented to the board for review and vote. As you can see, we've only today finalised the Q&A for applications; we're going in some random order of importance. It will be done by the time the BLEEP interface is live.
Well, thanks for the updates, even though they are quite late. Those things were scheduled to be done within a week, and it has already been about a month. Hopefully you can actually finish them within the next week or so.
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar Mindstar Technology
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 21:12:00 -
[610]
Originally by: RAW23 Ray - Just had a look at the questions you are asking applicants and the code of conduct you want them to agree to. I found the following elements of the code of conduct fascinating.
"Be Considerate. Realise that your actions and words have an effect on others, take those consequences into account when making decisions.
Be Respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners, frustration cannot be allowed to turn into personal attacks. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
Be Constructive. Disagreements and differing views should be discussed constructively; advice should be sought from others to resolve any disputes."
Um. You didn't write that did you? Will you be signing up to your own code of conduct at some point in the future?
I think these were meant to address ebank employee to ebank employee relationships. Nothing to do with customer service.
KB KB
My blogs: Tastes Like Chicken EvE Meta-Gaming |
|
Phoebe Halliwel
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 21:30:00 -
[611]
Originally by: YouGotRipped What measures are in place to prevent a scammer alt from joining Ebank?
2.What is your favourite colour?
That looks like the likely scammer filter.
|
BlondieBC
Minmatar Galactic Exploration and Missions Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:56:00 -
[612]
Edited by: BlondieBC on 23/12/2009 22:56:17 Wrong thread
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 07:24:00 -
[613]
&A Originally by: YouGotRipped What measures are in place to prevent a scammer alt from joining Ebank?
Subsequent to the Q we will hold interviews where we'll ask people if they are "scammer alts". That should weed them out. Alternatively we shall sit on their faces and fart until they answer honestly.
Originally by: RAW23 You didn't write that did you?
I indeed did, thanks for asking. This is where the SRO and CO would step in and say "Ray, you're being a bit of a ****, stop it". Also, we're still looking for that PR guru, had a couple of apps, need to check the mailbox today. It's possible you won't have to watch me prostrate myself here much longer.
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Those things were scheduled to be done within a week, and it has already been about a month. Hopefully you can actually finish them within the next week or so.
If the bank paid me as well as my job then they would have been done within a day. I wouldn't bank on them being done by this time next week though, it's half nine and I'm already half cut. Give me a reasonable deadline (remember, there are other tasks assigned to me) and I'll stick to it.
Originally by: KaarBaak Nothing to do with customer service.
Customer what?
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 09:24:00 -
[614]
Ray,
It's good to have you back. This barge needs its captain at the helm lest it drift any farther off course.
Would you mind addressing my comments in post 580. Does EBANK intend to repay the interest that ought to have been accruing these past few months? If so, how will that be handled and what guarantees are you making?
I feel that I have to disclose my increasing unease in continuing to pay EBANK interest on Kwint Industries Bonds while they are at the same time refusing to pay me, and for that matter any other investors, promised interest.
It is lamentable though at least understandable that you have trapped my money in an account that pays lower returns than what I borrow at but for you to then simply disavow the interest and continue to hold my funds is unacceptable and highly offensive!
I want to help EBANK recover but if EBANK's position is that money will be held without even honoring the promised rates of return then I can't help but oppose them and if that means nullifying your investment in Kwint Industries then so be it. I'd rather be branded a scammer then quietly pay you to cheat your customers.
I realize how that comes across but I don't mean it as a threat and I certainly don't care about the money. Hell, agree to honor your word and restore the interest right now and I'll donate the few billion in my account.
What I do care about is the principle and the hypocrisy I'm feeling as I pay you dividends every week and get cheated in exchange, knowing full well that I could end the cycle and recoup my capital plus interest and fees to boot. Here I am decrying the practice and yet helping you do it. I don't want to take such a counterproductive action but just the same I've never tolerated hypocrisy before and I don't intend to start now. So, make us both honest men and for better or for worse, let the interest roll.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 09:44:00 -
[615]
How do you propose we pay interest considering we're still trying to recover a massive deficit?
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 10:00:00 -
[616]
Originally by: Ray McCormack How do you propose we pay interest considering we're still trying to recover a massive deficit?
Write down accounts to their pro rata share of the remaining assets and soldier on from there.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 10:04:00 -
[617]
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.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 10:06:00 -
[618]
What promises have I made?
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 10:09:00 -
[619]
Originally by: Ray McCormack How do you propose we pay interest considering we're still trying to recover a massive deficit?
You should be paying interest at an overall rate of what? 2%? 1.5%? 1%? Even with compounding these should not be unattainable numbers. Will it slow your recovery? Absolutely. Will it make it impossible? Unlikely and if that extra 1.5% monthly is what extends the date you're solvent out to infinity then this really ought to be shutdown now.
Certainly, paying the interest adds even more of a burden but it's a burden you must bear and if you can't then it's time to accept it and close the bank. I don't want to start declaring dichotomies everywhere but you have only two valid choices: repay everything or close the bank. You don't get to hold everyone's money for months without paying a cent just to recoup the principle and then declare some sort of victory. It's dishonest as you can see by the absurd unfairness of the situations it's spawning such as me paying you interest while you cheat me out of my, ironically smaller, returns.
So long as not paying the interest makes recovering easier why don't you start erasing interest from before you locked accounts? Why not roll all the interest that's still in EBANK back to zero? The answer is because you know that constitutes stealing from your customers. Yet, it's somehow okay if you only default on the interest accrued after the bank admitted its insolvency?
If you close the bank here and now it's simply a failed venture. If you try to push forward and "recover" by screwing your customers out of months of interest then you haven't recovered at all. In fact, I utterly fail to see the point of going ahead if you don't intend to go all the way. It's questionable whether the bank will have any investors left even if it does honor all of its commitments. Surely, if it intentionally and in fact as a policy defaults on months of interest you can't expect anyone to continue supporting it and if at the end of the day no one wants a thing to do with it and is calling it a scam then why not simply liquidate now?
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 11:21:00 -
[620]
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"
|
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 11:30:00 -
[621]
Originally by: Kalrand
Originally by: Ray McCormack How do you propose we pay interest considering we're still trying to recover a massive deficit?
Write down accounts to their pro rata share of the remaining assets and soldier on from there.
Their finstats don¦t include all remaining assets.
They could sell the Titan BPOs, Titan BPCs, characters, fixed assets relating to Titan copying, and their share portfolio then distribute the cash plus (some of) the seventy billion cash they¦re sitting on to depositors. That¦s close to 500 billion.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 11:58:00 -
[622]
@Kwint
Look at it like in RL:
- Ray got *hired* to save the bank with the bank being the objective not the depositor. This is not much different than a past Hexxx statement said when he was chairman, that is that the bank acted in its interest, not necessarily in the depositors'.
- Those who hired Ray, want to get back. Want to recover from what they feel (own words) as a backstab. Of course this feeling:
a) Does not take into account that they probably had their share of responsibility (but hey, this is a typical human reaction, to refuse / dodge responsibility for the bad, aka the "I won / we lost" effect).
b) Does not take into account that looking at the bank as first value will have consequences later (myopia is another typical human behavior).
Or
b') Take into account the average depositor is an idiot that will easily forget any ill, with some PR, some rubber duck quacking loud enough or who knows. Dealing with idiots and leveraging on that is another widespread custom.
In any case, I think they see the bank as the objective, depositors are welcome to be helped as much as possible but are still expendable.
Furthermore there's also another logic:
Quote:
They could sell the Titan BPOs, Titan BPCs, characters, fixed assets relating to Titan copying, and their share portfolio then distribute the cash plus (some of) the seventy billion cash they¦re sitting on to depositors. That¦s close to 500 billion
is the best for the individuals.
But 500B are what? A successful 2004 player worth of wealth? What does EvE get once they restored 1 player? That is an irrelevant bit?
By restoring an institution (notice I am impersonating logic, it's not what I think, because I could not think to even get myself in their shoes to start with) they restore something grand in EvE, something that is *relevant* and known even outside of the game. Plus the luls of seeing the first pages of the various EvE related web sites camp the "INCREDIBLE: EBANK is back in business!!" title everywhere.
Wanna compare the inner satisfaction for the EBANK BoD at seeing that, compared to selling all and making 1 player worth of cash back and disappear in the oblivion with no noise? And no "perceived status" ego medicine?
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 12:25:00 -
[623]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Certainly, paying the interest adds even more of a burden but it's a burden you must bear and if you can't then it's time to accept it and close the bank.
This has been said a million times. However Ray's head is too far up his own ass to see it. Recovering the ISK to pay back accounts is not enough. If you do not pay out the accumulated interest with those accounts it will still be a failure!!!
Ray has stated he doesn't want to fail. Ray has said interest is suspended. By not paying interest he is failing.
I'm thinking that YGR would be a better choice to run EBank. At least he wouldn't lie to you.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 12:46:00 -
[624]
How am I lying?
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 12:52:00 -
[625]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
They could sell the Titan BPOs, Titan BPCs, characters, fixed assets relating to Titan copying, and their share portfolio then distribute the cash plus (some of) the seventy billion cash they¦re sitting on to depositors. That¦s close to 500 billion
is the best for the individuals.
But 500B are what? A successful 2004 player worth of wealth? What does EvE get once they restored 1 player? That is an irrelevant bit?
Read their balance sheet. You¦ll see that 500B represents around 25% of outstanding deposits. Repaying *all* depositors 25% now is not irrelevant. That 500B is currently tied up in under-performing or non-performing assets, generating some 2 billion per month. They¦d still be left with the loan portfolio and the hidden riches in the ventures to return the remaining 75% plus interest owed to depositors.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 13:33:00 -
[626]
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
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 13:35:00 -
[627]
Leneerra, you're just talking for the sake of the argument now. Nothing you're saying has any relevance to my presumed lies and broken promises.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 13:41:00 -
[628]
I guess that is where our perception differs.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 14:29:00 -
[629]
Ray,
Let me lay the situation bare for you:
EBANK and I both hold a portion of the other's debt and we both owe interest on it. Every week I pay the interest on my debt and every week you essentially tell me to go screw myself. I pay and you thumb your nose at me, denying me not just access to my money but unilaterally declaring your interest to be null and void while mine is still to be paid in full.
From my perspective EBANK is demonstrating a willful and intentional failure to meet their commitments. Not having the funds to honor withdrawals is unfortunate but understandable. Declaring you're no longer going to pay interest is not. In fact, taken in time with your continued insistence that debts to you be honored and the idea that the bank will continue to operate after returning to solvency makes this seem downright malicious. You are at best taking advantage of the situation to limit your future liability and at worst -and I would argue- downright defrauding your customers.
Returning to the point at hand, we both owe each other capital plus regular interest payments. I'm paying, you're telling me "tough luck." How do you suggest we resolve this?
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 14:43:00 -
[630]
Just to clarify a bit further, here's the situation I'm asking for:
I let EBANK hold several billion of my money for as long as they like with me having no control over it and in exchange I get an IOU for 3% monthly.
EBANK has in turn loaned me a couple billion via bonds which I pay them actual cash for at 4.25% monthly.
So, EBANK holds my money ransom giving me an IOU that even taken at facevalue is worth less than what I give them every month in actual cash.
This is the situation I'm trying to cajole you guys into accepting!
|
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 15:30:00 -
[631]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer How do you suggest we resolve this?
We just sold your shares. Now what?
|
Dasola
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 15:32:00 -
[632]
So we the investors still have api requirement to ensure were not scammers, loan defaulters..
How ever i still have not seen ebanks BoD api keys so we the investors could ensure that BoD has no scammers, loan defaulters, alts of pervious management failers.
And yes, i think writing off account balances just becouse owner of sayd account has not being active for a while is stealing.
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 15:38:00 -
[633]
Originally by: Ray McCormack If the bank paid me as well as my job then they would have been done within a day. I wouldn't bank on them being done by this time next week though, it's half nine and I'm already half cut. Give me a reasonable deadline (remember, there are other tasks assigned to me) and I'll stick to it.
I don't really know what a reasonable deadline is. Maybe January 8th? That gives you half a month. Its not like BLEEP support would take much time to code - all you have to do is send the API request to a new place and check for BLEEP filtering, and BLEEP itself takes care of the rest. I hope you begin sticking to your deadlines now, as you have not been doing that well so far.
Originally by: Kwint Sommer From my perspective EBANK is demonstrating a willful and intentional failure to meet their commitments. Not having the funds to honor withdrawals is unfortunate but understandable. Declaring you're no longer going to pay interest is not. In fact, taken in time with your continued insistence that debts to you be honored and the idea that the bank will continue to operate after returning to solvency makes this seem downright malicious. You are at best taking advantage of the situation to limit your future liability and at worst -and I would argue- downright defrauding your customers.
I don't agree that freezing withdrawals is ok, but freezing interest is not. I would greatly prefer being able to withdraw my isk but not having interest to having my isk frozen for what will probably be years with 1.5%-3% interest. Freezing interest also allows EBANK to unfreeze withdrawals sooner, hopefully.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 15:44:00 -
[634]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Maybe January 8th?
Okay. And what are the penalties for failing to meet this deadline? And are there incentives for early completion.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 16:46:00 -
[635]
Edited by: RAW23 on 24/12/2009 16:49:40
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer How do you suggest we resolve this?
We just sold your shares. Now what?
Hang on. Are you serious here? You sold shares that you knew were the subject of a dispute over payment to someone who (presumably) didn't know that? You do realise who will be morally culpable for the purchaser's losses if Kwint goes ahead and ceases to pay the returns? Hint: it won't be Kwint.
I do hope this is just a joke, though, and that you haven't added yet another blot to EBANK's copybook.
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 17:18:00 -
[636]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Maybe January 8th?
Okay. And what are the penalties for failing to meet this deadline? And are there incentives for early completion.
Umm, its not really possible for me to impose any penalties. As for incentives, the earlier you complete this, this sooner people who are willing to use BLEEP but not the API are able to transfer funds, which is good for EBANK because you get a 5% fee.
|
Randlak
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 17:20:00 -
[637]
Edited by: Randlak on 24/12/2009 17:21:04
Originally by: RAW23 Edited by: RAW23 on 24/12/2009 16:49:40
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer How do you suggest we resolve this?
We just sold your shares. Now what?
Hang on. Are you serious here? You sold shares that you knew were the subject of a dispute over payment to someone who (presumably) didn't know that? You do realise who will be morally culpable for the purchaser's losses if Kwint goes ahead and ceases to pay the returns? Hint: it won't be Kwint.
I do hope this is just a joke, though, and that you haven't added yet another blot to EBANK's copybook.
Aren't Kwint's bonds on his ledger?
Edit: Randlak = Kalrand I forgot to change which character this posted as.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 17:20:00 -
[638]
Originally by: RAW23 morally culpable
You're barking up the wrong tree there.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 17:23:00 -
[639]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 morally culpable
You're barking up the wrong tree there.
Too enigmatic. Care to clarify?
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 00:14:00 -
[640]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer How do you suggest we resolve this?
We just sold your shares. Now what?
Now I freeze trading of shares and accuse you of intentionally trying to defraud me and all your other customers. Your turn.
|
|
Athre
Minmatar The Higher Standard
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:23:00 -
[641]
Kwint,
With all due respect. EBANK has stated that all accounts are frozen (yours, mine, everyones) and the present drive is 1) finish accounting 2) deficit recovery. Thats it. We hope to be in a position some day to restart interest accounts after recovering from the deficit. If you would like to show me where we state or infer that we would be backpaying interest,since the all stop freeze, I would like to see it.
|
Eigdig
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:33:00 -
[642]
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 morally culpable
You're barking up the wrong tree there.
Too enigmatic. Care to clarify?
What he just said is that morality has no place in a spaceship game, as long as he gets his ISK in exchange for not caring about you.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:39:00 -
[643]
I am not contradicting that. I do however take issue with it.
I'm paying you promised interest. You are not paying me promised interest. Given the situation I might take an IOU but you aren't even offering that. I'm paying while you're simply declaring you aren't going to bother paying because it makes recovering more difficult. This asymmetry is not acceptable and your attempts both to default on your debt and backdoor your way out of my leverage are not appreciated.
Ray's precipitous action was not appreciated and I am quite tempted to respond to EBANK much the way they have to their customers: I'm doing what's best for me, tough luck.
|
Eigdig
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:50:00 -
[644]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer I am not contradicting that. I do however take issue with it.
I'm paying you promised interest. You are not paying me promised interest. Given the situation I might take an IOU but you aren't even offering that. I'm paying while you're simply declaring you aren't going to bother paying because it makes recovering more difficult. This asymmetry is not acceptable and your attempts both to default on your debt and backdoor your way out of my leverage are not appreciated.
Ray's precipitous action was not appreciated and I am quite tempted to respond to EBANK much the way they have to their customers: I'm doing what's best for me, tough luck.
The real question is why you didn't in the first place. Did you actually think that anyone involved in this is doing anything other than watching out for their own butts?
|
Anna Martinov
Hek Frozen Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:57:00 -
[645]
Originally by: Eigdig
Originally by: Kwint Sommer I am not contradicting that. I do however take issue with it.
I'm paying you promised interest. You are not paying me promised interest. Given the situation I might take an IOU but you aren't even offering that. I'm paying while you're simply declaring you aren't going to bother paying because it makes recovering more difficult. This asymmetry is not acceptable and your attempts both to default on your debt and backdoor your way out of my leverage are not appreciated.
Ray's precipitous action was not appreciated and I am quite tempted to respond to EBANK much the way they have to their customers: I'm doing what's best for me, tough luck.
The real question is why you didn't in the first place. Did you actually think that anyone involved in this is doing anything other than watching out for their own butts?
Maybe some of us believe in them. Maybe some of us believe in something larger than our own butts. Some of us have morals.
We're not all anarchists like you (or is it libertarian, I can never tell).
|
Eigdig
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:57:00 -
[646]
Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 02:00:18 Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 01:58:32
Originally by: Anna Martinov
Originally by: Eigdig
Originally by: Kwint Sommer I am not contradicting that. I do however take issue with it.
I'm paying you promised interest. You are not paying me promised interest. Given the situation I might take an IOU but you aren't even offering that. I'm paying while you're simply declaring you aren't going to bother paying because it makes recovering more difficult. This asymmetry is not acceptable and your attempts both to default on your debt and backdoor your way out of my leverage are not appreciated.
Ray's precipitous action was not appreciated and I am quite tempted to respond to EBANK much the way they have to their customers: I'm doing what's best for me, tough luck.
The real question is why you didn't in the first place. Did you actually think that anyone involved in this is doing anything other than watching out for their own butts?
Maybe some of us believe in them. Maybe some of us believe in something larger than our own butts. Some of us have morals.
We're not all anarchists like you (or is it libertarian, I can never tell).
I'm not willing to believe they're doing anything other than enriching themselves at this point, as that's really all they're seeming to be intrested in doing.
The difference between an anarchist and libertarian is that one of the two enjoys being filthy rich while telling everyone else that's not got it that it's too bad and they need to earn their own way. Which is which I'll leave up to you.
Also, can I get a picture or video of something that's larger than your butt? You know, for reference.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 02:06:00 -
[647]
Here's the compromise I'm offering:
Acknowledge that you still owe your customers interest on their money and start reflecting that in account balances.
In exchange Kwint Industries will keep paying you interest at a markedly higher rate than what we're arguing about and just to prove that this isn't about the money you can zero-out the few billion in my account, interest and all.
You get to write a few billion off and much more importantly when you do get back to solvency you can claim to have actually repaid your investors. The price is agreeing to honor the interest you're already obligated to pay.
|
Anna Martinov
Hek Frozen Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 02:14:00 -
[648]
Originally by: Eigdig Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 02:00:18 Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 01:58:32
Originally by: Anna Martinov
Originally by: Eigdig
The real question is why you didn't in the first place. Did you actually think that anyone involved in this is doing anything other than watching out for their own butts?
Maybe some of us believe in them. Maybe some of us believe in something larger than our own butts. Some of us have morals.
We're not all anarchists like you (or is it libertarian, I can never tell).
I'm not willing to believe they're doing anything other than enriching themselves at this point, as that's really all they're seeming to be intrested in doing.
The difference between an anarchist and libertarian is that one of the two enjoys being filthy rich while telling everyone else that's not got it that it's too bad and they need to earn their own way. Which is which I'll leave up to you.
Also, can I get a picture or video of something that's larger than your butt? You know, for reference.
This is one group that, despite all the naysayers, has stuck around providing a *service* to New Eden for longer than any other I know of, and they deserve to be treated fairly for all the effort they put in. You're hardly the first to make outrageous claims like that, when you haven't even done business with them for all we know.
As far as my butt, this is the best you're getting.
|
Eigdig
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 02:17:00 -
[649]
Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 02:18:45
Originally by: Anna Martinov
Originally by: Eigdig Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 02:00:18 Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 01:58:32
Originally by: Anna Martinov
Originally by: Eigdig
The real question is why you didn't in the first place. Did you actually think that anyone involved in this is doing anything other than watching out for their own butts?
Maybe some of us believe in them. Maybe some of us believe in something larger than our own butts. Some of us have morals.
We're not all anarchists like you (or is it libertarian, I can never tell).
I'm not willing to believe they're doing anything other than enriching themselves at this point, as that's really all they're seeming to be intrested in doing.
The difference between an anarchist and libertarian is that one of the two enjoys being filthy rich while telling everyone else that's not got it that it's too bad and they need to earn their own way. Which is which I'll leave up to you.
Also, can I get a picture or video of something that's larger than your butt? You know, for reference.
This is one group that, despite all the naysayers, has stuck around providing a *service* to New Eden for longer than any other I know of, and they deserve to be treated fairly for all the effort they put in. You're hardly the first to make outrageous claims like that, when you haven't even done business with them for all we know.
As far as my butt, this is the best you're getting.
Well, except for the part of the group that took as much ISK as they could shove into an Interbus Shuttle and run with it, of course. (And the ones that *tried* to pull that one off, but got caught before they could do it, which is epically surprising as the prior and some of the current Ebank employees have proven themselves to be bright shining examples of massive mental denseness to the point I'm somewhat surprised they noticed anything other than some shiny thing laying in the grass.)
Also, if I wanted to lose billions of ISK I could just buy a freighter full of Rattlesnakes and then blow it up somewhere, which would provide a much better *service* than these chuckle, er, wonderfully helpful players have ever managed to do so.
|
Anna Martinov
Hek Frozen Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 02:35:00 -
[650]
Originally by: Eigdig Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 02:18:45
Originally by: Anna Martinov
This is one group that, despite all the naysayers, has stuck around providing a *service* to New Eden for longer than any other I know of, and they deserve to be treated fairly for all the effort they put in. You're hardly the first to make outrageous claims like that, when you haven't even done business with them for all we know.
As far as my butt, this is the best you're getting.
Well, except for the part of the group that took as much ISK as they could shove into an Interbus Shuttle and run with it, of course. (And the ones that *tried* to pull that one off, but got caught before they could do it, which is epically surprising as the prior and some of the current Ebank employees have proven themselves to be bright shining examples of massive mental denseness to the point I'm somewhat surprised they noticed anything other than some shiny thing laying in the grass.)
Also, if I wanted to lose billions of ISK I could just buy a freighter full of Rattlesnakes and then blow it up somewhere, which would provide a much better *service* than these chuckle, er, wonderfully helpful players have ever managed to do so.
You want to blame everyone for a bad apple? Stereotype some more why don't you.
Oh, and burn it to the ground, that's your better alternative?
Out on the street, little orphans, they didn't pay me! Hope your frostbitten teddy bears can keep you warm! Merry &%$@ing Christmas to you too, Mr Grinch!
|
|
Eigdig
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 02:39:00 -
[651]
Originally by: Anna Martinov
Originally by: Eigdig Edited by: Eigdig on 25/12/2009 02:18:45
Originally by: Anna Martinov
This is one group that, despite all the naysayers, has stuck around providing a *service* to New Eden for longer than any other I know of, and they deserve to be treated fairly for all the effort they put in. You're hardly the first to make outrageous claims like that, when you haven't even done business with them for all we know.
As far as my butt, this is the best you're getting.
Well, except for the part of the group that took as much ISK as they could shove into an Interbus Shuttle and run with it, of course. (And the ones that *tried* to pull that one off, but got caught before they could do it, which is epically surprising as the prior and some of the current Ebank employees have proven themselves to be bright shining examples of massive mental denseness to the point I'm somewhat surprised they noticed anything other than some shiny thing laying in the grass.)
Also, if I wanted to lose billions of ISK I could just buy a freighter full of Rattlesnakes and then blow it up somewhere, which would provide a much better *service* than these chuckle, er, wonderfully helpful players have ever managed to do so.
You want to blame everyone for a bad apple? Stereotype some more why don't you.
Oh, and burn it to the ground, that's your better alternative?
Out on the street, little orphans, they didn't pay me! Hope your frostbitten teddy bears can keep you warm! Merry &%$@ing Christmas to you too, Mr Grinch!
No, I'm just willing to apply blame where it's due, and failing that, hey, why not? It's not like there's ANYONE involved in this at any level that's blameless from the people that deposited isk to the people that handled it to the people that thought everything was okay.
Eve is all about hypercapitalism, and the only use for homeless starving orphans is either the work camps, or an alternate food source in a world like this.
|
Anna Martinov
Hek Frozen Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 02:47:00 -
[652]
Originally by: Eigdig
Originally by: Anna Martinov
You want to blame everyone for a bad apple? Stereotype some more why don't you.
Oh, and burn it to the ground, that's your better alternative?
Out on the street, little orphans, they didn't pay me! Hope your frostbitten teddy bears can keep you warm! Merry &%$@ing Christmas to you too, Mr Grinch!
No, I'm just willing to apply blame where it's due, and failing that, hey, why not? It's not like there's ANYONE involved in this at any level that's blameless from the people that deposited isk to the people that handled it to the people that thought everything was okay.
Eve is all about hypercapitalism, and the only use for homeless starving orphans is either the work camps, or an alternate food source in a world like this.
That's right, blame the investors. Blame people for trusting. They're all little Eichmanns, aren't they, in your world? You probably cheered the WTC attacks as Darwinistic, didn't you?
I hope you get coal in your stocking
|
Taikun
Gallente 20th Legion Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 05:24:00 -
[653]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer How do you suggest we resolve this?
We just sold your shares. Now what?
Welcome back from your... extended... absence. *snicker*
It is wonderful for everyone to see your true personality type concerning business in EvE. I smelt out your complete untrustworthiness years. Hope this thread (epic as it already is) continues in the minds of all those who deal in the MD forums and wants to avoid contact with snakes like yourself.
Enjoy your newfound reputation my friend.
Taikun
A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation. |
Riethe
Invictus Sovereignty
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 05:27:00 -
[654]
Originally by: Taikun i told you so
Hey man, how's it goin?
Cool thread by the way.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 05:39:00 -
[655]
Originally by: Athre The present drive is 1) finish accounting 2) deficit recovery. Thats it.
These are the steps in an insolvency/bankruptcy situation: 1. Immediate action to stop cash hemorrhaging. 2. Analysis. 3. Decide to close or restructure. 4. Implement action plan.
Steps 1 to 3 should have taken you no longer than one month, yet nine months on you haven¦t finished accounting. Care to explain why? Without an accounting, you don¦t have the information you need to decide on closure or rescue - and yet you¦ve arbitrarily decided on the latter, so that must be a purely emotional decision.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 06:43:00 -
[656]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Acknowledge that you still owe your customers interest on their money and start reflecting that in account balances.
No, we don't negotiate with financial terrorists. Your move.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 08:16:00 -
[657]
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.
|
Moya81
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 08:23:00 -
[658]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Acknowledge that you still owe your customers interest on their money and start reflecting that in account balances.
No, we don't negotiate with financial terrorists. Your move.
I wonder what would happen if your customers where to apply the same policy... Oh wait, you don't care what they want, my bad. Keep painting your customers as the thieves and terrorists, you might eventually fool somebody to believe your smoke-screen. It is becoming incresingly obvious that you're in fact intentionally alienating EBanks' customers. Seriously 3 months and what you have presented in this thread is your master-plan to get EBank back and running? Really?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 08:32:00 -
[659]
Originally by: Taikun my friend.
Hey, want to hook up this weekend? We could go for a stroll along then beach and then sit in front of a camp fire and braid each other's hair whilst watching the sun go down.
|
Ataraxa
Gallente Trolltech Research Ltd.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 08:54:00 -
[660]
I looked at the Balance Sheet and noticed that the Asset Valuation (as potential trigger for the limited withdrawl) went from 670b up to 684b down to 632b.
Can somebody explain me what has happened there ? Re-Evaluation of some sort?
|
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 09:00:00 -
[661]
Originally by: Ataraxa Can somebody explain me what has happened there ? Re-Evaluation of some sort?
The drop of 50b was due to an investment we made that I haven't yet recorded on the balance sheet. I'll do it later this afternoon (plus one month).
Not sure what the 14b increase was.
|
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 09:04:00 -
[662]
You covered your bases this time, damn you!
|
Dasola
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 09:08:00 -
[663]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Acknowledge that you still owe your customers interest on their money and start reflecting that in account balances.
No, we don't negotiate with financial terrorists. Your move.
Then what are you then Ray? Financial terroris for taking other peoples money without consent.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 09:09:00 -
[664]
Originally by: Dasola Then what are you then Ray? Financial terroris for taking other peoples money without consent.
Pretty much.
|
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 09:13:00 -
[665]
No, terrorists usually have crazy demands....
Wait a sec....
|
Angus McSpork
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 15:33:00 -
[666]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Acknowledge that you still owe your customers interest on their money and start reflecting that in account balances.
No, we don't negotiate with financial terrorists. Your move.
Irony overload
|
Ufl
Caldari EastWest Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 06:40:00 -
[667]
Edited by: Ufl on 26/12/2009 06:50:09 Edited by: Ufl on 26/12/2009 06:41:10
null Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Dasola Then what are you then Ray? Financial terroris for taking other peoples money without consent.
Pretty much.
Lol EBANK was the biggest scam from the get-go.
I cant believe it's still around, and the funny part is tons of money is "missing" LOL!
What a great time to come back to the game, I really couldn't be happier.
Die EBANK... Die...
(btw perfect post # )
|
Erfnam
Tech 1 Holdings Limited Superior Eve Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 05:30:00 -
[668]
Are EBANK salaries still being paid? -- I'm looking to join a corp. Message me in game if you want a skilled and trustworthy trader/researcher/manufacturer.
|
EBANK SencneS
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 06:51:00 -
[669]
Originally by: Erfnam Are EBANK salaries still being paid?
No, No member of EBANK Director or otherwise have received any form of compensation since Ricdic's departure, everyone at EBANK has been working to resolve the debt, and part of that resolution was no payroll. SencneS Board of Directors EBANK |
Taikun
Gallente 20th Legion Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 06:59:00 -
[670]
Edited by: Taikun on 27/12/2009 06:59:36
Originally by: EBANK SencneS No, No member of EBANK Director or otherwise have received any form of compensation since Ricdic's departure, everyone at EBANK has been working to resolve the debt, and part of that resolution was no payroll.
Yea... right. Just like Bernie Madoff paid himself a salary while he worked dilligently to make money for his investors.
Taikun
A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation. |
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 08:14:00 -
[671]
Originally by: Taikun Yea... right. Just like Bernie Madoff paid himself a salary while he worked dilligently to make money for his investors.
Taikun
Taikun.. Taikun.. Taikun.. You should know better then reply to me. Think carefully before replying again... Normally I wouldn't engage you in conversation because of some history.. You know why, yes you do, think hard and you'll remember.
This offer goes to you and anyone really... If you want to pay someone to audit me and my account go right ahead. Hell, if a known auditor wants to audit me, contact me in game and we'll get the party started. I do only have one account believe it or not if there was a way to confirm it without intervention from CCP I would gladly give that to the auditor as well..
Sorry Taikun, no troll here, because unlike the others at EBANK, there is nothing that you can say to get a reaction from me. While this post might seem contrary to that point I was curious why you replied to my post. I can only think that you have forgotten, in which case you should remember soon before you dig a little too deep.
Amarr for Life |
Darwin's Market
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 08:38:00 -
[672]
I hope people realize they are just continuing the scam, just to see how truly stupid eve players can get.
Many said it was a scam, including myself on the very first ebank thread because ray and cosmoray were part of a previous scam.
Apparently eve players are stupid and forgetful. All investements are scam, the true ones are just there to distract you.
Anyone who has a billion isk can make it grow exponentially if he was as smart as someone who can start an IPO. So why would thye bother with a headache that is mananging an IPO? because it's a scam.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 09:05:00 -
[673]
Originally by: Darwin's Market Anyone who has a billion isk can make it grow exponentially if he was as smart as someone who can start an IPO. So why would thye bother with a headache that is mananging an IPO?
These statements make me sad and are just confirmation of a failing secondary market :(
The more people believe and think this way the worse it will get.
I can think of one IPO that was made off the exact opposite of your opinion. Luck Yourself Into ISK. Proton Power has multiple hundreds of billions of ISK and assets, scamming the market out of what 30b at the same time losing reputation, respect, and good ol' trustworthiness would be stupidity at best.
Some people just want to create IPOs because they can, not because they need funding or whatever.
This is a game, and if in a game you want to emulate a true working corporate structure for entertainment, fun, and enjoyment then by all means you should.
I beg of people who read this, don't let this pessimistic person destroy your enjoyment or dreams of owning a well run corporate IPO in EVE. If you want to do it, DO IT, stick to your word, do the right thing, make the hard calls if you have to. Enjoy EVE, enjoy IPOS. Don't let the words of a few people who would enjoy watching you fail sway you, don't give into their enjoyment. It's not what you pay subscription for...
Amarr for Life |
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 09:32:00 -
[674]
lol, ebank personel asking publicly run corporations to keep their word.
Laughed at your own TOS lately?
|
Rage Build
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 12:58:00 -
[675]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer Acknowledge that you still owe your customers interest on their money and start reflecting that in account balances.
No, we don't negotiate with financial terrorists. Your move.
I don't know if you noticed but YOU are the financial terrorists here. You ransom your customers ISK and decide what to do or not to do with it, leaving no choice to your customers.
|
Grozen
Caldari Beacon Institute and Industrial
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 13:24:00 -
[676]
The last post is sad but true.As soon as things went wrong the first obligation of any bank is to its customers not to itself. knowledge is power |
Omar Kuvakei
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 15:23:00 -
[677]
Originally by: SencneS Taikun.. Taikun.. Taikun.. You should know better then reply to me. Think carefully before replying again... Normally I wouldn't engage you in conversation because of some history.. You know why, yes you do, think hard and you'll remember.
Originally by: SencneS These statements make me sad and are just confirmation of a failing secondary market :(
The more people believe and think this way the worse it will get.
Originally by: SencneS I beg of people who read this, don't let this pessimistic person destroy your enjoyment or dreams of owning a well run corporate IPO in EVE.
Originally by: SencneS Don't let the words of a few people who would enjoy watching you fail sway you, don't give into their enjoyment. It's not what you pay subscription for...
My god SencneS, please quell the out-bursts of dramatics.
The vaunted secondary market operated before EBANK and I have every expectation it'll operate after EBANK.
The same with the post that got you in such a tizzy.
Also, can we anticipate veiled threats made in public to objectors be de rigueur for EBANK employees now?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 15:39:00 -
[678]
Originally by: Rage Build I don't know if you noticed but YOU are the financial terrorists here. You ransom your customers ISK and decide what to do or not to do with it, leaving no choice to your customers.
Yes, I noticed the irony. I'm also aware of the fact that everything we say will be construed as a double standard or picked apart piece by piece by the resident vultures. It's really not a productive environment for a constructive dialogue. I'm sure someone will point out how we're to blame for that, and someone else will yet again point out how saying that someone will point that out is yet another failing on our part.
Really, I get it. Do you?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 16:05:00 -
[679]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
I'm also aware of the fact that everything we say will be construed as a double standard ...
Really, I get it. Do you?
Not everything. Just those things that are in fact double standards. What really grates is the bank's refusal to explain why these things are not actually double standards. If you don't think they are then say so and explain why. You'll get a very different response from many people if you at least attempt this rather than just saying that you don't like the environment so you refuse to be held accountable. And yes, you are partly to blame for the environment you find so problematic. Pointing out in advance that people will say this does not undermine its validity.
To give just one example, no one has even tried to explain how account expropriation differs from theft. Let's discuss the question rationally. You start with an explanation and then people can agree or disagree with it in a constructuve manner (and you can just not reply to the trolls). But it is very difficult to discuss things like this when you won't go further than just saying "it's not" (indeed, very few EBANK posts have even gone that far). Have a little humility and accept that your own arguments could benefit from a bit of open discussion and clarification. I'm certainly willing to have my mind changed by plausible arguments. The question is, are you?
|
Dzil
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 16:27:00 -
[680]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer How do you suggest we resolve this?
We just sold your shares. Now what?
From a purely financial perspective, this makes sense for ebank: 1. The ROI on Kwint's shares, while steady, is inadequate to reach the goal of a speedy bank recovery. 2. The bank is operating from a state of default, in such a state any asset that could be yanked out from under them such as shares in another public offering is vulnerable, and should be liquidated ASAP.
It's time to stop arguing morals and ethics with this bank. They've been abandoned. Ebank has set the goal of a financial recovery, there is no public plan for an ethical one. My guess is that upon a financial recovery Ray will simply pass the reins over to another CEO and pretend the stink of this mess is washed away.
My advice, for what it's worth, is this: Declare ebank publicly a scam, and in doing so their shares in any and all public offerings null and void; likewise anyone "scamming" ebank henceforth being granted amnesty.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 17:55:00 -
[681]
Originally by: Dzil likewise anyone "scamming" ebank henceforth being granted amnesty.
Does ray's word that someone defaulted on an obligation to ebank mean they are a scammer in the eyes of the general public at this point?
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 18:06:00 -
[682]
Originally by: Kalrand
Originally by: Dzil likewise anyone "scamming" ebank henceforth being granted amnesty.
Does ray's word that someone defaulted on an obligation to ebank mean they are a scammer in the eyes of the general public at this point?
If a Goon falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Titan BPC Auction Thread |
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 18:08:00 -
[683]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: Kalrand
Originally by: Dzil likewise anyone "scamming" ebank henceforth being granted amnesty.
Does ray's word that someone defaulted on an obligation to ebank mean they are a scammer in the eyes of the general public at this point?
If a Goon falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
Is that a rhetorical question?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 18:25:00 -
[684]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: Kalrand
Originally by: Dzil likewise anyone "scamming" ebank henceforth being granted amnesty.
Does ray's word that someone defaulted on an obligation to ebank mean they are a scammer in the eyes of the general public at this point?
If a Goon falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
It depends on whether there is anyone around to hear it.
|
flakeys
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 18:27:00 -
[685]
Who cares if he makes a sound , i hope it hurts
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 23:54:00 -
[686]
Originally by: RAW23 I'm certainly willing to have my mind changed by plausible arguments. The question is, are you?
I have yet to see any evidence of you even willing to entertain the possibility of a sound logical argument, let alone changing your mind on pretty much every subject you have engaged in about EBANK.
The most recent example is proof of what I mention here. Two wrongs don't make a right.. Here is what happened.... Kwint wants EBANK to pay interest on held ISK, or at least have a counter on interest owed at the conclusion of recovery. So Kwint turns around and stops paying his Dividends to EBANK. EBANK responded by attempting to sell off shares in a now non-performing shares. Kwint's response to that was to deny any share trades. Kwint's actions from that point was to close out a long term good standing IPO. Repay everyone else for their shares but deny EBANK any payback for returned shares. EBANK takes it's cause of action by returning the shares to Kwint and canceling his EBANK account to recover as much as possible (tit4tat). I might add, Kwint got 100% of his account at 100% value. This is at least 65% higher then the value everyone else's account was worth.
Just so you understand here, Kwint managed to get his entire EBANK account at 100% value because of his actions.
Everything EBANK did was in direct response to what Kwint was doing, while Kwint's actions may appear to be for "The greater good" the only person coming out on top of all of this in the end is Kwint.
EBANK and everyone else lost a performing share for passive income. EBANK has not been paid back for returned shares after the shutdown. Kwint got 100% of his EBANK account cashed at 100% value. Kwint is holding 3B ISK extra, the remaining value EBANK is requesting from Kwint for returned shares.
While it seems like I'm play EBANK is the victim here I'm not, everything state above is fact that happened. Remove emotion from all of this and look at the effects those actions have.
This is why I left that thread, logic from you and others supporting Kwint's actions where in my opinion a little more of "Sticking it to EBANK" rather then actual thought-out arguments.
The issue at hand become even more complex as people take this example Kwint has thrown out there and use it as a justification for similar actions against others. Other IPOs have many investors, if they started to take Kwint's actions under consideration they'd be opening up a very very nasty can of worms, one that would cascade into disaster. And I'm not talking about EBANK here, I'm talking known scammers and failed business owners owning shares or Bonds in IPOs unrelated to EBANK.
The actions Kwint has done to make an example out of EBANK has officially opened a door I don't think MD is ready for. I can only hope that other CEO's think long and hard about performing similar grandstanding actions in the name of "The Greater Good".
Amarr for Life |
Keiko Shizuka
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 00:13:00 -
[687]
Originally by: SencneS
While it seems like I'm play EBANK is the victim here I'm not, everything state above is fact that happened. Remove emotion from all of this and look at the effects those actions have.
Yes, it does. It seems like you are putting all the blame on Kwint in this matter and for any possible future problems which may or may not appear while acknowledging none of your own or EBANKs in all of this. EBANKs actions weren't as defensive as you try to make them seem. And quite frankly, Ray's actions have done much more harm to MD than anyone else's and funny as it might seem, I think he sees that as a compliment. Why would the Board of Directiors pick such a jester to be your chairman?
I can't help but wonder why you want to save EBANK and especially what Ray's motives might be. Because the way you act makes it seem like you don't care about having a positive image at all.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 00:40:00 -
[688]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: RAW23 I'm certainly willing to have my mind changed by plausible arguments. The question is, are you?
I have yet to see any evidence of you even willing to entertain the possibility of a sound logical argument, let alone changing your mind on pretty much every subject you have engaged in about EBANK.
...
This is why I left that thread, logic from you and others supporting Kwint's actions where in my opinion a little more of "Sticking it to EBANK" rather then actual thought-out arguments.
Look, in real life I am a philosophy professor. Sound logical argument is what I do for a living. I spent 6 years of post-graduate work training in the understanding, analysis and criticism of arguments. Since completing my doctorate I have taught, lectured and given papers at some of the world's top philosophical institutions. I have had my work published in respected academic journals (yadda yadda yadda). Sound logical argument is my bread and butter and a willingness to change one's mind is the corner-stone of my discipline. The problem is, sound logical arguments that address the issues raised by EBANK's critics have NOT been forthcoming.
To give just one example, I have been asking since the second or third page of this thread for someone to explain how expropriation of account balances differs from theft. Not only has no one successfully done this, but no one has even attempted to. If I missed the post in which they did, please direct me to it.
-Ray's posts are pretty much content free in terms of arguments.
-AC155's are about the same.
-Athre has remained silent.
-Yours at least attempt to engage with the relevant issues but you most often end up talking past the points at issue rather than addressing them directly.
-LVV has made a few valiant attempts, some of which I have appreciated and taken on board.
But on the whole, there has been very little in the way of reasoned explanation emanating from the bank. If some turns up I will engage with it, consider it and possibly change my mind. But nothing of that sort has even been offered for consideration as of yet.
Btw: "EBANK responded by attempting to sell off shares in a now non-performing shares."
So Ray lied in a public forum when he said he had sold the shares?
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 00:51:00 -
[689]
Your silly goal of returning some of the isk owed to depositors is futile because in doing so you have squandered what little trust was left in EBANK and banks in general. At this point in time, straight up theft is a secondary concern. Secondary to how do you prevent the staff of a bank from doing whatever the hell it wants with your ISK.
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: RAW23 I'm certainly willing to have my mind changed by plausible arguments. The question is, are you?
I have yet to see any evidence of you even willing to entertain the possibility of a sound logical argument, let alone changing your mind on pretty much every subject you have engaged in about EBANK.
Then you haven't been reading. RAW23 has been EXTREMELY constructive and has argued against your claims one by one, and successfully shot them down. You're just upset he doesn't agree with you.
Originally by: SencneS Two wrongs don't make a right..
So you admit then, that EBANKS actions are one of the two wrongs that don't make a right?
Originally by: SencneS
EBANK does some stuff....Kwint does some stuff....
Just so you understand here, Kwint managed to get his entire EBANK account at 100% value because of his actions.
If I'm not mistaken, YOU closed his account out, so its not really his actions. And if you maintain that his actions forced your hand and you had no choice (first thats not true), well then the same could be said for him - you forced his hand.
This really is the most ridiculous part of you post. Kwint has waited months and not acted to now. I think its safe to say he was open to negotiation - you just don't like negotiation. If you had handled things better and actually took the will of the depositors into account, I'm sure he would have backed down - whether or not you paid or accounted for interest. But you would not even discuss this. EBANK and EBANK alone is responsible for the situation it is in. Even when it will hurt depositors, you still will not listen or negotiate. This just further confirms that investors ISK is a secondary objective to EBANK.
Originally by: SencneS
Everything EBANK did was in direct response to what Kwint was doing, while Kwint's actions may appear to be for "The greater good" the only person coming out on top of all of this in the end is Kwint.
I really don't care why Kwint did what he did. But I 100% believe the result is for the greater good. It harms MD far more to allow a "bank" to seize people's ISK and offer them no say in how it handles the recovery while at the same time, changing the terms and conditions, unilaterally. Until now this went unchallenged. You few have decided you must save EBANK at all costs, but have you even stopped to consider whether ANYONE ELSE gives a **** about EBANK's survival? This is NOT about sticking it to EBANK - this is about ACCOUNTABILITY.
Originally by: SencneS
The issue at hand become even more complex as people take this example Kwint has thrown out there and use it as a justification for similar actions against others.
What? Like seizing EBANK accounts of people that default on loans EBANK made to them?
KWINT IS DOING THE EXACT SAME THING YOU ARE DOING FFS.
The only difference is he gave you some input and a chance to stop this. You refused. So here you are. And really, if you swallow your pride and negotiate rather than dictate, I have no doubt he will return everything.
Originally by: SencneS
I can only hope that other CEO's think long and hard about performing similar grandstanding actions in the name of "The Greater Good".
Please, please, please, give this advice to Ray.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:21:00 -
[690]
Originally by: Hippopotamus Rex Stuff...
Normally RAW does provide objective insight, I'm not upset, on the contrary, I'm actually disappointed. Normally he is very objective, it just seemed like everything his is known for went out the door. He even apologized for some of his comments seeming to be more emotional.
The rest of your comments are not really worth replying to. Mostly because you claim what EBANK has done is the same as what Kwint has done and it's not. The only connection is ISK and Debt, the reasons why and the situations are not even close.
If you can't see that then I have no reason to try and justify what I've said to you. I'll just leave you blissfully ignorant until you realize the differences between EBANK's actions and Kwint's actions to both each other and the public.
Amarr for Life |
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:28:00 -
[691]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Hippopotamus Rex Stuff...
Normally RAW does provide objective insight, I'm not upset, on the contrary, I'm actually disappointed. Normally he is very objective, it just seemed like everything his is known for went out the door. He even apologized for some of his comments seeming to be more emotional.
The rest of your comments are not really worth replying to. Mostly because you claim what EBANK has done is the same as what Kwint has done and it's not. The only connection is ISK and Debt, the reasons why and the situations are not even close.
If you can't see that then I have no reason to try and justify what I've said to you. I'll just leave you blissfully ignorant until you realize the differences between EBANK's actions and Kwint's actions to both each other and the public.
I like to think I'm usually somewhat moderate around here.
I do enjoy a good troll, and I thought thats what you were doing above. But after rereading your comments, I think you actually believe this.
Ray ****ed off Kwint. Kwint took his ball and went home. This is three months after Ray and the BoD did that to everyone else.
I really fail to see how you think you were wronged here.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:39:00 -
[692]
Edited by: RAW23 on 29/12/2009 02:43:20
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Hippopotamus Rex Stuff...
Normally RAW does provide objective insight, I'm not upset, on the contrary, I'm actually disappointed. Normally he is very objective, it just seemed like everything his is known for went out the door. He even apologized for some of his comments seeming to be more emotional.
Ummm... I don't recall apologising but perhaps I should. The tone of some of my posts has perhaps been less measured than I might have wished in the last few days and some of my sentences were phrased more strongly than I would have liked, in retrospect. However, whilst I may regret the fact that I allowed anger to slip in to my attempts to communicate, I do not think that I am wrong to feel angry and frustrated. Nor do I think that my anger and frustration clouded my judgement in terms of my analysis. One of the reasons for this anger and frustration is simply that no one from EBANK has responded to any of my points in a substantive way, choosing instead to defend their positions either with contemptuous mockery, or by talking around the major issues rather than addressing them directly.
You might ask yourself why, if you think I am normally a reasonable poster, I am being driven wild over this issue. Do I have a deep seated hatred for the institution of EBANK? No. With the idea of a bank in eve? No. Do I have personal issues with anyone on the EBANK staff that might lead me to set aside my normal principles and just grief them? No. I didn't suffer a financial loss through EBANK's failure under Ricdic. I have even offered my help in putting together a sound ethical policy for the bank. Where, then, do you think the anger and frustration comes from?
Edit - The problem is summed up in the last line of your post.
Quote:
If you can't see that then I have no reason to try and justify what I've said to you. I'll just leave you blissfully ignorant until you realize the differences between EBANK's actions and Kwint's actions to both each other and the public.
Those that don't see things your way are exactly the people you need to try to justify your views to. It's not that he can't be persuaded. It's that no real attempt has been made to persuade him or anyone else who has levelled criticism at the bank.
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:42:00 -
[693]
Originally by: SencneS
The rest of your comments are not really worth replying to. Mostly because you claim what EBANK has done is the same as what Kwint has done and it's not. The only connection is ISK and Debt, the reasons why and the situations are not even close.
You're right, what we have done absolutely is not the same. It's not the same in action or intent.
In action what I did was the definition of legal with plenty of precedent and careful attention to original agreements. What you have done is default on your debts, illegally lockdown people's money and then violate your own TOS as agreed to by your depositors.
In intentions I have made good faith efforts to negotiate and even offered to give up my money while EBANK has stone-walled, mocked and insulted me all while making it very clear that there will be no negotiating; it's there way or nothing.
So, you are wrong to claim that what EBANK has done is the same as what I have done. It's not and I'm offended by the allegation. I would never act so unprofessionally or betray my investors like that.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:44:00 -
[694]
Edited by: Hippopotamus Rex on 29/12/2009 02:46:19
Originally by: SencneS
Normally RAW does provide objective insight, I'm not upset, on the contrary, I'm actually disappointed. Normally he is very objective, it just seemed like everything his is known for went out the door. He even apologized for some of his comments seeming to be more emotional.
The rest of your comments are not really worth replying to. Mostly because you claim what EBANK has done is the same as what Kwint has done and it's not. The only connection is ISK and Debt, the reasons why and the situations are not even close.
If you can't see that then I have no reason to try and justify what I've said to you. I'll just leave you blissfully ignorant until you realize the differences between EBANK's actions and Kwint's actions to both each other and the public.
Oh, ok. Just to make sure I've got this, I'm wrong and you won't tell me why or provide any examples and I just have to take your word on it? Sounds good.
Although, on the other hand...... it may appear to people that you really just have no way to refute this. I'm sure this is not the case, but I think people might start becoming numb to your "Your wrong, but I won't tell you why because you won't understand" rebuttals.
So EBANK is NOT confiscating the ISK in accounts of people that defaulted on EBANK loans?
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:51:00 -
[695]
Originally by: Kalrand I do enjoy a good troll, and I thought thats what you were doing above. But after rereading your comments, I think you actually believe this.
Ray ****ed off Kwint. Kwint took his ball and went home. This is three months after Ray and the BoD did that to everyone else.
I really fail to see how you think you were wronged here.
I guess that's what makes it a good troll :)
Just to confirm, I don't feel I have been wronged just perplexed about the relationships people pulling together here. The situations are not really the same. I'll admit there is a lose relationship, but really the reasons for both are not the same. And Kwint's recent post is making it even more distance since he is justifying keeping that 3B as a fee for interest not paid.
Now I don't know if he is trolling or not
Amarr for Life |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 02:56:00 -
[696]
Originally by: SencneS And Kwint's recent post is making it even more distance since he is justifying keeping that 3B as a fee for interest not paid.
Oh, but I'm quite sure Kwint will return the isk. He just realized he made a mistake and now he's trying to sugarcoat it.
Black Sun Empire |
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 03:00:00 -
[697]
Originally by: SencneS Kwint's recent post is making it even more distance since he is justifying keeping that 3B as a fee for interest not paid.
Now I don't know if he is trolling or not
You were in default for 9 months and receiving interest from me the whole time. Then you forced me through an act of shear unprofessionalism to liquidate assets to cover a 30B bond on short notice. You're damn straight I'm keeping the two-point-something billion as a fee and damages.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 03:11:00 -
[698]
Originally by: SencneS The situations are not really the same. I'll admit there is a lose relationship, but really the reasons for both are not the same.
Yes, the reasons are not the same. But I don't think the intentions/reasons matter.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 03:16:00 -
[699]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer You were in default for 9 months and receiving interest from me the whole time. Then you forced me through an act of shear unprofessionalism to liquidate assets to cover a 30B bond on short notice. You're damn straight I'm keeping the two-point-something billion as a fee and damages.
That's what I found to be over complicated.
According to dividend history, EBANK was getting about 200mil per month. You EBANK account balance even in a savings account would have gained - about 680mil.
This would have been my cause of action if I was you.
Not paid any anything to EBANK for 3 months, informed EBANK of this so they could make changes on their sheets. At the same time inform them they are only going to get 135mil per month instead of 200mil per month because of interest owing.
Basically taken any interest you would have earned from interest payments on your IPO.
At that point in time, I can't say what EBANK would have done, but it would have been less complicated, and everyone would still have a great IPO and no additional work for you.
You really did take the most complex action possible, which you already know that is what is so puzzling about this whole thing.
Amarr for Life |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 03:34:00 -
[700]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
You're damn straight I'm keeping the two-point-something billion as a fee and damages.
I was hoping you'd say that. Let me be the first to congratulate you, Kwint, you're now officially part of the family.
Black Sun Empire |
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 03:39:00 -
[701]
You know what? That sounds like a very reasonable solution.
I came here looking for and fully prepared to accept a reasonable solution.
Take a look at post 630 to see what I got. I quote it in its entirety:
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer How do you suggest we resolve this?
We just sold your shares. Now what?
If you want to know why this whole thing spiraled out of control, there's your answer.
It was all just talk right up until that point. Then it became actions and actions are not negotiable. Now, what's done is done.
|
Dzil
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 03:53:00 -
[702]
Originally by: SencneS There would have been a few options but one I wouldn't have taken is close out and liquidate, to me that seemed very unusual choice of actions.
Unfortunately with no way to force ebank to return the shares, not liquidating means having to inform all of EVE that he'd declared your shares void in line with the multiple breaches of contract ebank has commited with its customers. Otherwise ebank sells the shares as it previously threatened, and Kwint now has a moral dilemma of honoring the debt to an ignorant buyer of said shares.
Much, much easier to just liquidate and reissue if he later sees need for public financing, IMO. Though my guess is Kwint has no real need for public financing and simply does so as an accelerant for the share market, and to keep his name out there.
Bravo, Kwint. Thank you for taking ebank's stuff instead of their crap, it's a pleasant change on these forums.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 03:54:00 -
[703]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer You know what? That sounds like a very reasonable solution. I came here looking for and fully prepared to accept a reasonable solution.
Now, what's done is done.
I understand the frustration, both from you and Ray. I guess it's all about personality.
It reminds me of a comedy in which the actors do everything the worse way possible, like one bad judgement call after another. Modern British is like this, and it all cascading in to one huge mess. When at the start a simple change from either you or Ray could have prevented the whole thing.
What concerns me more is the idea, or precedents set. But I've harped on that enough.
Amarr for Life |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 04:03:00 -
[704]
Originally by: Dzil Unfortunately with no way to force ebank to return the shares, not liquidating means having to inform all of EVE that he'd declared your shares void in line with the multiple breaches of contract ebank has commited with its customers.
While I agree, that option was not on the table.
In fact I would have bet money that if Kwint had said...
EBANK return your shares and I'll buy them back or you get nothing, EBANK would have returned the shares. Because in one hand, EBANK gets "something", the other EBANK gets "Nothing"
If presented with that option myself I would have just done it. If Kwint then turned around and said "No you're not getting any ISK anyway, thanks suckers." The end result is exactly the same as the current result, from EBANK's perspective. However, Kwint wouldn't have needed to liquidate his IPO.
If after that "threat" of return the shares or get nothing, and EBANK returns the shares, if Kwint had paid back the share price in full none of this would have happened, and actually Kwint and EBANK would not be at each others throats.
While I see this as hindsight really, the logical conclusions of those actions if Kwint had done that instead of what he did do, I think it's pretty spot on.
Amarr for Life |
Dzil
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 05:08:00 -
[705]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Dzil Unfortunately with no way to force ebank to return the shares, not liquidating means having to inform all of EVE that he'd declared your shares void in line with the multiple breaches of contract ebank has commited with its customers.
While I agree, that option was not on the table.
You're correct. Because your CEO stripped any meaningful discussion off the table in favor of pretending to have the upper hand, and attempting yet again to strong arm a favorable result for ebank with no regard for ethical obligations.
Quote: ...none of this would have happened
None of what, exactly? Kwint kicking ebank in the jones and the only uproar being that of applause?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 07:23:00 -
[706]
Originally by: Dzil None of what, exactly? Kwint kicking ebank in the jones and the only uproar being that of applause?
The applause of a small amount of contributors is hardly an uproar. However, what I'm referring to is more complex then egotistical sense of achievement.
Kwint's actions are new grounds to which people can reference as an examples later on to justify taking "the low road." You're not the only one that believes Kwint has "stuck it to EBANK" and feels that doing something questionable is OK even though you have the capability of taking the high road.
I see on Kwint's thread that several people have spoken out against his actions sighting that he should pay the 3B ISK remaining for returned shares. Some MD Elites even believe he should return that 3B remaining.
While EBANK may have a big issue about freezing accounts and withdrawals these unfavorable actions are unfortunately required. Kwints actions where not required and listed in his, and now this thread is are a plethora of options he could have taken.
It's easy to see one side when all you want to see is one side. All Kwint has succeeded in doing is increase the deficit EBANK has by an additional 3B. That 3B deficit is directly cased by Kwint, using the justification that he has suffered hardship and that hardship is 3B worth when his EBANK account and 9 months of interest didn't even come close to what EBANK had in his IPO.
You know Kwint could offer to raffle off that 3B ISK to any EBANK account holder. I believe he has no intention of doing so, and if he does pay back EBANK, then I will send an apology his way.
Actually, why don't you do that Kwint - Since you use the guise that "Not until EBANK recognizes it's debt" which I assume not just for you but everyone. Put that ISK on your initial intentions..
Raffle off that 3B ISK. In fact I tell you what, I'll do you a deal here. You run a Raffle, and draw names for anyone that signs up, when the name is drawn I'll personally check their EBANK account total, (Any account API active or not) and I'll tell you what their account balance is. You keep pulling names until that 3B is gone.
You said you where doing this for MD, so lets see you REALLY DO IT for MD. Put it up for grabs, become the "HERO" you where originally trying to be.
I'm not joking here, Run it, I'm calling you out right here right now (I know you're asleep), put that 3B ISK in a raffle for all the people that have EBANK accounts.
Or are you going to blow off your MD comrades and selfishly hoard your spoils of war....
Amarr for Life |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 08:03:00 -
[707]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer You're damn straight I'm keeping the two-point-something billion as a fee and damages.
You're using my personality to justify your actions.
You knew we had not sold or transferred the shares and that my reply was purely hypothetical. Yet you decided on the most drastic course of action knowing you could justify it by playing it against my actions.
Good work. Please return the additional ISK to EBANK Athre when you've decided to end this tirade.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 08:05:00 -
[708]
Actually the majority agrees, that what Kwint did was right. Where we disagree; is with his right to keep the excess 3B. I can understand that he did it, but I cannot condone it.
Imo, Ray forced Kwint in this matter, not the other way around. It was a huge mistake, to smack talk him in public and trying to make him look a fool. It could have been resolved much more professionally.
Now the combined effort of the Ebank staff, cannot ruin the reputation of Kwint. Even though you are trying real hard, to make him look the like the sinner and agitator.
Kwint did what was within his right, and what any logical thinking venture owner would do. Almost all agree with this.
I think you are to personally attached to Ebank, to detach yourself emotionally from this venture. You seem to read, what you want to read, and ignore what you dont like to read. Thats human, no one can blame you for doing this.
You do get 5 stars in all this EBank drama, for being the only Ebank member taking the time to explain your position!
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 08:16:00 -
[709]
Originally by: Ji Sama Actually the majority agrees, that what Kwint did was right. Where we disagree; is with his right to keep the excess 3B. I can understand that he did it, but I cannot condone it.
Imo, Ray forced Kwint in this matter, not the other way around. It was a huge mistake, to smack talk him in public and trying to make him look a fool. It could have been resolved much more professionally.
Now the combined effort of the Ebank staff, cannot ruin the reputation of Kwint. Even though you are trying real hard, to make him look the like the sinner and agitator.
Kwint did what was within his right, and what any logical thinking venture owner would do. Almost all agree with this.
Oddly enough, I agree completely with Ji Sama.
Ray - at what point are you going to realize that being the Ebank CEO doesn't allow you to be a troll? It might be fun, it might be your "personality", but it has absolutely destroyed the credibility of Ebank, and now it's gotten you into the current mess with Kwint. As I told you about six months ago - either suck it up and act like a professional leader, or resign.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 08:21:00 -
[710]
Originally by: RJ Nobel Ebank CEO
Actually, I'm the Chairman. Although I'd prefer being the COO.
|
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 11:20:00 -
[711]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer You're damn straight I'm keeping the two-point-something billion as a fee and damages.
You're using my personality to justify your actions.
You knew we had not sold or transferred the shares and that my reply was purely hypothetical. Yet you decided on the most drastic course of action knowing you could justify it by playing it against my actions.
Good work. Please return the additional ISK to EBANK Athre when you've decided to end this tirade.
The moment Ray blew a raspberry at Kwint in public and said he¦d sold Kwint¦s shares, he lost. Kwint exercised his right of set off. End of story. However, Kwint keeping the two-point-something billion is another matter altogether. Yes, he can come up with a variety of possible rationales for keeping it - but none of them are beyond reproach. The choice is yours, Kwint. Return the money and retain your reputation intact. Keep the money and your reputation diminishes.
Originally by: Ji Sama I feel it is very important for the market that Ebank makes it out of this, but not at any cost.
EBank is an irrelevance as far as the market is concerned. It makes no difference whether it resurfaces or continues to sink.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 11:25:00 -
[712]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Ji Sama I feel it is very important for the market that Ebank makes it out of this, but not at any cost.
EBank is an irrelevance as far as the market is concerned. It makes no difference whether it resurfaces or continues to sink.
I beg to differ. While the market economy, can sustain the loss of Ebank easily, that is not my point. My point is, that the secondary market, is primarily based on trust, when our largest institution breaks this trust, it hurts everyone doing legit business on the market.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 11:56:00 -
[713]
Originally by: Ji Sama I beg to differ. My point is that the secondary market is primarily based on trust. When our largest institution breaks this trust, it hurts everyone doing legit business on the market.
I accept that when the news broke that EBank was a sham run by the corrupt and the incompetent, the secondary market was hurt - and has yet to recover fully. However, it is recovering without EBank and will recover fully whether or not EBank resurfaces legitimately. Besides, EBank will never regain the trust of the secondary market.
Bottom line - the market doesn¦t need EBank any more. It does need reputable institutions.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 12:36:00 -
[714]
Originally by: Varo Jan
Originally by: Ji Sama I beg to differ. My point is that the secondary market is primarily based on trust. When our largest institution breaks this trust, it hurts everyone doing legit business on the market.
I accept that when the news broke that EBank was a sham run by the corrupt and the incompetent, the secondary market was hurt - and has yet to recover fully. However, it is recovering without EBank and will recover fully whether or not EBank resurfaces legitimately. Besides, EBank will never regain the trust of the secondary market.
Bottom line - the market doesn¦t need EBank any more. It does need reputable institutions.
well, for what its worth I agree with you!
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 14:41:00 -
[715]
Originally by: Ji Sama Actually the majority agrees, that what Kwint did was right. Where we disagree; is with his right to keep the excess 3B. I can understand that he did it, but I cannot condone it.
Imo, Ray forced Kwint in this matter, not the other way around. It was a huge mistake, to smack talk him in public and trying to make him look a fool. It could have been resolved much more professionally.
Now the combined effort of the Ebank staff, cannot ruin the reputation of Kwint. Even though you are trying real hard, to make him look the like the sinner and agitator.
Kwint did what was within his right, and what any logical thinking venture owner would do. Almost all agree with this.
I think you are to personally attached to Ebank, to detach yourself emotionally from this venture. You seem to read, what you want to read, and ignore what you dont like to read. Thats human, no one can blame you for doing this.
You do get 5 stars in all this EBank drama, for being the only Ebank member taking the time to explain your position!
Ji - I said in a previous post that I would be thinking the same thing and posting similar if I was not associated with EBANK, and I'll add this, I'd also be saying it if I had 90% of ISK frozen in EBANK. It's not the "emotional" attachment I have with EBANK that has made me post the way I have, and people seem to think I'm defending the actions of EBANK. I'm not really, while it seems like I am, it's just the situation.
I'm not out to ruin Kwint's reputation either, I'm very disappointed in his actions because I think he is justifying stealing for personal gain and using EBANK as a tool in that justification. In my eyes Kwint can be justified for the following.. His EBANK account balance plus any ISK he would have gained in interest while his ISK was in EBANK.
That's it, that's as far as I'm willing to let him slide down that path. Yet he continues to travel the road toting personal gain is justified for hardship. The hardship in the form of forced hand by Ray to shutdown his IPO and liquidate 30B. Actions which I believe are the most complex and most difficult outcome. I always try to take the road of least resistance (or try to), in this case Kwint took in my opinion the road of most resistance, which he uses to justify keeping excess funds.
You know even Anastasia didn't keep the Excess funds from his venture OR take extra ISK for "Lost Interest" he held ISK and Assets in EBANK, after liquidating them. He then returned what he needed to, pay off the outstanding loan, and any excess ISK from that liquidation minus his EBANK account balance.
THAT I have no problem with. While I technically believe he was only entitled to ~35% of his account balance that's the only issue I have with him. The reason is simple, he felt he was entitled to 100% of his account balance when his account balance wasn't worth 100%. But like I said, he didn't claim his Interest he would have received. So it's a bitter sweet acceptance I have for his actions.
The difference here is Anastasia took the high road, and justified the "questionable" action using EBANK as a tool for essentially the same reasons Kwint used. Where as Kwint took the low road and kept any excess ISK.
This is the reason I'm disappointed in Kwint and that is the reason I am posting like I am.The very second he returns the excess ISK is the very second I would stop what appears like attacks. Even if he took my raffle idea I would hold up as well. There is nothing about this whole situation which can make me feel he was justified for personal gain, it just seems little too for my liking.
Amarr for Life |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 14:58:00 -
[716]
Welcome back to the thread SetrakDark, from reading your Kwint thread I've posted what I posted back a few pages.
Originally by: SencneS 1) Kwint wants EBANK to pay interest on held ISK, or at least have a counter on interest owed at the conclusion of recovery. 2) So Kwint turns around and stops paying his Dividends to EBANK. 3) EBANK responded by attempting I'd like to change this to suggests but I understand if people don't want to to sell off shares in a now non-performing shares. 4) Kwint's response to that was to deny any share trades. 5) Kwint's actions from that point was to close out a long term good standing IPO. Repay everyone else for their shares but deny EBANK any payback for returned shares. 6) EBANK takes it's cause of action by returning the shares to Kwint and canceling his EBANK account to recover as much as possible (tit4tat). I might add, Kwint got 100% of his account at 100% value. This is at least 65% higher then the value everyone else's account was worth.
I'd like to add.. 7) Kwint has yet to return the excess funds from the returned shares. And is claiming hardship on it (Hardship which is almost double his justifiable EBANK account+interest)
Amarr for Life |
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 15:15:00 -
[717]
Originally by: SencneS
I'd like to add.. 7) Kwint has yet to return the excess funds from the returned shares. And is claiming hardship on it (Hardship which is almost double his justifiable EBANK account+interest)
But did you send him your API keys yet to get that isk?
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 15:16:00 -
[718]
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)
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 15:21:00 -
[719]
Originally by: Leneerra
3)Ebank seems to consider voiding currently inactive accounts different from theft. Can you explain to us why you think this way?
I'd rather see active players receive funds, then for a dead wallet on an inactive character.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 15:53:00 -
[720]
Originally by: SencneS Welcome back to the thread...
I try and avoid internet-lawyering as much as possible and there seem to be others willing to evaluate the validity of the damages claim, so I won't comment further.
However, I will say, without assigning any blame to anyone, that this entire debacle is a perfect example of how generally damaging and corrosive the current state of the EBank issue is.
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 15:56:00 -
[721]
Edited by: SencneS on 29/12/2009 15:57:26
Originally by: Kalrand
Originally by: SencneS
I'd like to add.. 7) Kwint has yet to return the excess funds from the returned shares. And is claiming hardship on it (Hardship which is almost double his justifiable EBANK account+interest)
But did you send him your API keys yet to get that isk?
If he wants my API key, then he can request it and he'll get it.. Sorry, EBANK has already voted on disclosing API Keys of Directors and the vote was was as followed.
60% said "Yes to everyone" <- The one I voted for 20% said "To 3rd party auditor" 20% said "Needs more discussion"
If Kwint wants my API in exchange for honoring the return of Excess funds to EBANK, then by all means, all he has to do is Ask.
I'll add here that the current limited Directors we're looking for more of a solid commitment from the entire Board on an action. While releasing Limited API to everyone is voted on, the "more discussion" raised a point on how. If we air it on here a Mod will edit the post. One Director felt that their Key should only be released to those who have issued their Key to us in an exchange style of requirement. I think that's a fair call but releasing my Key publicly is not a concern of mine. Just as people in this very forum feel their limited API is privileged information, that director felt it too was privileged and I totally understand the position, even if I don't share same thought about my API.
Leneerra
1) It hinders the ability to recovery quicker. As each account grows in interest so do the liabilities. AC155 talked in SCC the other night about offering an interest based on the profits from EBANK activities (All hypothetical). While this would be the absolute maximum interest that could be offered. Anything that makes the accounts in EBANK grow in side increases the deficit. Even if we took a 50/50 aspect, 50% profits toward deficit, 50% toward interest spread across all accounts the end result would be no movement in deficit. Any more then 50% of profits going toward interest would just make the deficit grow. Any less then 50% would slow down recovery.
2) It could pay, but recovery would just take longer. The objective is to recover 100% of the deficit the quickest way possible. We know everyone is going to pull their ISK out the second we open up. So in essence liquidation will happen automatically on re-opening of account. Either we do it now and tell those that want to hang around for 100% (Which would be about a 25% monthly return on investment) sorry we're liquidating and you have no option. Or we wait and tell those few that want liquidation, sorry we're trying to walk a fine line between your side and the side that want to stick it out until the end.
3) This is what I've been trying to avoid from happening. I'm a firm believer in archiving the account balances and if at a later date they return they get their account back. It's still up in the air how EBANK will handle that particular aspect, and one that this very thread mentions wants input from the public on how to handle.
Karlrand below says "I'd rather see active players get more ISK, then distributing to everyone and have ISK sit in dead wallets" this would support Ray's original design of clearing out accounts that are inactive. While I agree inactive accounts should be removed as a liability I strongly believe they should not be cleared and never repaid if the user returns.
Amarr for Life |
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:06:00 -
[722]
Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 29/12/2009 16:05:58 SencneS, I think that is the most informative, intelligent and non-trolling post I've seen about the reasoning of EBank's policies. And while people may not agree with you and may wish to continue discussion or debate, I think we can all agree that more informed discussion such as this is greatly appreciated.
Originally by: SencneS If we air it on here a Mod will edit the post.
Is there any precedence for that? I know Katiana posted her full API in one of his IPO threads, and so far a Mod still hasn't edited it out of her post. Not that I personally care to see your API, but if you felt it was an option....
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:13:00 -
[723]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Originally by: SencneS If we air it on here a Mod will edit the post.
Is there any precedence for that? I know Katiana posted her full API in one of his IPO threads, and so far a Mod still hasn't edited it out of her post. Not that I personally care to see your API, but if you felt it was an option....
I think this is correct. As far as I can tell, the forum rules do not prohibit the posting of your API keys or similar information.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:15:00 -
[724]
Edited by: RAW23 on 29/12/2009 16:16:03 Continued from Kwint's thread.
Quote:
Which arguments in particular?
Well, the main ones, most of which Leneera has already identified, are:
1. What is the justification for treating account expropriation as different from theft?
So far as I'm aware, this question has not been addressed directly by anyone at the bank.
2. What is the justification for refusing to commit to honour promised interest payments?
3. Does EBANK intend to allow a run once its assets equal its liabilities (with or without interest), as suggested by LVV and SencneS? Or does it intend to maintain withdrawal controls to ensure no such run happens, which is what I have understood Ray's stated plan to be? If withdrawal controls are maintained, is it EBANK's objective to become a profit making venture? (I would say "again" but it seems to be unclear whether EBANK ever turned a profit - this question is also important because, if the bank never turned a profit then pre-freeze interest payments were made from the deposits of later investors, meaning EBANK I was, in effect, a Ponzi scheme, either by accident or design; if this was indeed the case, then this has implications for EBANK's ongoing legitimacy.)
Although these questions are all closely related (answers to one will constrain possible answers to others, if consistency is maintained), I'd like to start by probing question 2 a little more deeply as this has been the one that has received most discussion recently.
If I have understood correctly (and please correct me if I have not), a couple of reasons have been given for not logging interest.
a) EBANK will never be able to recover if it continues to pay interest (various).
b) The staff time involved in logging this interest is too great to justify doing so (LVV).
c) "Enabling interest is nothing more than a cosmetic effect and has no substance or purpose" (Ray).
The first question I would like to ask is which of these positions is/are the official EBANK position(s). I assume that c) does represent EBANK but can't be sure about a) and b).
So, to start with c), can you clarify what you mean here? I don't, at first glance, follow what is being said. When you say that enabling interest has no purpose, do you mean that this is the case because it will never be paid? Or, perhaps, because EBANK does intend (as LVV alluded) to retroactively pay the interest when the BoD is ready to do so? Or should I understand the statement in a different way? Rather than start making noise by commenting on positions that I'm not sure you hold, I'll wait for you to respond and clarify this before engaging with the position that you lay out.
The same goes for a) and b). I will wait for you to tell me whether these form a part of the bank's official reasoning before commenting on them, as there will be no point discussing views that are not actually held corporately by the bank but, rather, only by individual staff members.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:22:00 -
[725]
Originally by: RAW23 Edited by: RAW23 on 29/12/2009 16:16:03 Continued from Kwint's thread.
Quote:
Which arguments in particular?
Well, the main ones, most of which Leneera has already identified, are:
1. What is the justification for treating account expropriation as different from theft?
So far as I'm aware, this question has not been addressed directly by anyone at the bank.
2. What is the justification for refusing to commit to honour promised interest payments?
See SencneS's previous post as a possible answer to questions 1 and 2.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:29:00 -
[726]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Originally by: SencneS If we air it on here a Mod will edit the post.
Is there any precedence for that? I know Katiana posted her full API in one of his IPO threads, and so far a Mod still hasn't edited it out of her post. Not that I personally care to see your API, but if you felt it was an option....
I guess it depends on the moderator looking at it.
If the mod believes API is of a personal nature, the same as many players believe, then it will get edited on those grounds. If the mod has similar thoughts about API as I do, then I don't think it will happen.
For information, I consider API not very important to me. I have nothing to hide and have not done anything on any of my three characters that is questionable, so releasing that Key for all to see is of no value to them if they are looking for something sinister, and no value to me because there is nothing to hide.
So here it is. User ID: 1003133 API Key: TJoLKYoPGZaghOc3CXpDofYSaLd618PuhZkSLTKpXbCSCi9XGkC1gJgN1n1NEONq Created: 09/07/2007 14:34:45
I guess we'll find out what the mods will do shortly :)
As a side note I love my User ID, it's missing a 7 at the end but it's close enough to be comical.
Amarr for Life |
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:46:00 -
[727]
Interest on all deposits is simple mental arithmetic. Add it as a note to the monthly balance sheets and have done.
Or don¦t. Frankly, this is a red herring. I see little point in discussing the ethics of interest plus principal or claimed technicalities when we¦ve seen absolutely no evidence that any recovery at all has been made to-date.
What matters is HOW the bank intends to recover principal on deposits and WHEN they expect to recover by.
And I haven¦t seen a concrete recovery plan anywhere. There has to be one. Why not share? You may get some decent input.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:47:00 -
[728]
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
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:52:00 -
[729]
Originally by: SencneS Either we do it now and tell those that want to hang around for 100% (Which would be about a 25% monthly return on investment)
What do you mean by this 25% monthly return?
Originally by: Dretzle Omega See SencneS's previous post as a possible answer to questions 1 and 2.
For point 1, SencneS objects to account expropriation. I don't think any justification for account expropriation has been provided yet.
SencneS addresses point 2, but he is not speaking for EBANK. Many people (including me) have provided various justifications for canceling interest, but RAW is asking for EBANK's official position. I would also like to see this.
3 is a good question. LVV and SencneS suggest that there will be a run as soon as normal withdrawals are open, and EBANK will effectively liquidate. However, Ray's plan implies that there will be some withdrawal controls and not a full liquidation (see my post) and that EBANK intends to continue running afterwards. There has been little discussion of this, but this question doesn't matter as much at this point.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:58:00 -
[730]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: SencneS Either we do it now and tell those that want to hang around for 100% (Which would be about a 25% monthly return on investment)
What do you mean by this 25% monthly return?
Originally by: Dretzle Omega See SencneS's previous post as a possible answer to questions 1 and 2.
For point 1, SencneS objects to account expropriation. I don't think any justification for account expropriation has been provided yet.
SencneS addresses point 2, but he is not speaking for EBANK. Many people (including me) have provided various justifications for canceling interest, but RAW is asking for EBANK's official position. I would also like to see this.
3 is a good question. LVV and SencneS suggest that there will be a run as soon as normal withdrawals are open, and EBANK will effectively liquidate. However, Ray's plan implies that there will be some withdrawal controls and not a full liquidation (see my post) and that EBANK intends to continue running afterwards. There has been little discussion of this, but this question doesn't matter as much at this point.
Yes, I just got the feeling that RAW accidently missed SencneS's last post. I wasn't indicating that there should be no further discussion or that it answered all of RAW's concerns.
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 17:20:00 -
[731]
Originally by: RAW23 Questions
For 1 - You already looked at my previous post. To that it's more logical then anything else. Continuing to pay interest is counter productive to the objectives. It's not really an official or unofficial idea, it's just simple fact as to why Interest is not getting issued. The way I take it is you may be looking for more EBANK only type of reasoning. So let me see if I can put it from the entity known as EBANK's perspective. With 700Bil capital to work with, the interest requirements on 2T ISK was about 1.4B ISK a day. This would require EBANK's 700B capital to generate close to 0.2% per day every day. Monthly it would have needed to maintain about 6% per month just to cover interest payment. Note that it's 6% per month on 700B and the deficit would have gone no where. While EBANK is at least from what I can see, making more then that, which is why I say "Yes it could pay but recovery would be longer."
That's as about as logical as I can get it. The idea to freeze interests was to speed up the recovery process as well as maybe a secondary reason to capture all profits and costs to accurately account for recovery time. It has helped a lot to have a set goal for recovery instead of having that goal take one step away every time you take four steps forward.
2) Kinda covered already.
3) As far as I know that is the plan, if we had 100% account balance available and everyone withdrew their ISK then by definition a Run has happened and EBANK would be liquidating all it has to honor those withdrawals. I might add that the current policy laid out in this thread by Ray says "ISK will become available for withdrawals once per month as profit above an asset valuation of 700b becomes available." While this is not 100% it shows Ray's and EBANK's intent to honor withdrawals once there are funds available, at least above a certain level and according to the valuation of that account.
Side note, EBANK turning a profit has been a big question on everyones lips, Protons, Hexxx, Rays, Athre, AC155, LVV, Myself, hell even Ricdic after hes outing. Everyone believed there was a profit and wanted to know where it went. While that doesn't answer the question, My own personal research found that Loans where profitable, up until the 275B default. And things like the advertisement and others accountable activities where turning a profit (Share portfolio for example). The big hole in activity/logging was Ricdic's workings of ISK and ventures. Proton says he made lots of profit and his numbers support that. But Ricdic believe he turned a profit, I don't think we'll ever know just when it started to suck ISK away apart from the known defaults and Ricdic's questionable activities.
a) EBANK's recovery time would be extended quiet a bit if Interest was paid, you can see from the math above in this post.
b) Not a programmer so I can't answer that, I do know Ray spends a lot of awake time in game doing stuff, as for the other developers I really can't speak for their time.
c) Not sure if I'm correct or not by I think what Ray is saying is... If we turned on interest, the amount of interest is devaluing the amount of the account. For example, if you have 3B in your account your real value is about 1B (If you choose to liquidate) if interest was added, the amount of interest added increases the liabilities of the account by that proportion. Lets say 1% interest for laziness.
Your 3B after 1 month is worth 3.03B. But the deficit raised by 0.03B which lowers the value of the account 0.03B. Does this make sense now? Raising one number lowers the value. So pumping interest into the account is sucking value away from it. While I admit that the amount of capital EBANK holds is growing by more then if Interest was paid, the effects are still the same - lets say 25% raise in available capital (NAV) but a 6% payout in interest (Hypothetical gains used) It's the old four steps forward one step back effect.
Amarr for Life |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 18:00:00 -
[732]
For a start - Sorry when I post a reply it takes time and posts happen after I start typing. (I'm pretty wordy so forgive the time frame, I often have to cut down what I'm saying)
Wait a second let me explain where that magical 25% growth comes from. I'll use the 3B example again.
You have 3B in your account at EBANK. EBANK has said recovery will take 12 months, at least that is the goal. At this moment in time if you liquidate you would get about 35%. Lets assume 33.3% So you'd get 1B ISK. In 12 months times that 1B ISK would be worth 3B. This is 300% more then what it's worth right now. 300% / 12 months = 25% per month.
It's an odd way to look at it, but really that's pretty valid perspective. You're taking an investment worth 1B ISK, and turning it into 3B ISK by doing nothing for 12 months.. Now, I totally am willing to see other sides here, and know that it could take 12 months, it could take 5 years. Whatever amount of time it takes from the point in time the ISK was locked. That the value of the ISK at lock time, and the value of the ISK at recovery time, that is the growth. Divide that out by how many months it took and that is the monthly return.
I know I'm probably going to get some flamage for this aspect but I'm looking at it from the perspective of the account is only worth x amount if liquidated at this moment in time vs what it is worth at the point in time in which it's worth 100%.
Leneerra 1) I've re-read this a few times and I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for. I guess EBANK sees recovery at 100% to be the right thing to do. It might help if the two actions "Freezing withdrawals" and "Freezing interest" was done for two completely different reasons.
Freezing Interest is explained several time. Freezing withdrawals was done because of the ratio of debt to available capital. 454,818,979,701 ISK was requested to be withdrawn when EBANK Froze it's withdrawals. Even at the 35% value thats - 159,186,642,895 ISK. However we came across something interesting, some of those that requested withdrawals said "I'm not taking 35% of that I'll stick with it until the end" which is why the developers are working on moving and cancelling withdrawal buttons.
160B is doable for withdrawals with a little liquidation a couple of Titan BPO. While I'm of the opinion it's the best return around EBANK could offer, the volume of withdrawals that may happen is a concern. Any ISK above 700B will and has been set aside to action withdrawals, while it's a little controlled, Ray and EBANK believe 700B is the sweet spot for maximum returns. Any less hinders recovery due to capital constrains, any more and it's wasted because lets face it, 160B ISK for 456B loss in deficit is awesome recovery of liabilities.
I guess I kinda covered 2 with that answer to one.
3) It's hard to comment on 3 when there is no set policy yet. Nothing has been acted on at the moment so the question makes it difficult to answer as EBANK's position is not set in stone yet.
The reasons for three come in another post to come, History time :)
Amarr for Life |
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 18:23:00 -
[733]
Originally by: SencneS Wait a second let me explain where that magical 25% growth comes from. I'll use the 3B example again.
You have 3B in your account at EBANK. EBANK has said recovery will take 12 months, at least that is the goal. At this moment in time if you liquidate you would get about 35%. Lets assume 33.3% So you'd get 1B ISK. In 12 months times that 1B ISK would be worth 3B. This is 300% more then what it's worth right now. 300% / 12 months = 25% per month.
It's an odd way to look at it, but really that's pretty valid perspective. You're taking an investment worth 1B ISK, and turning it into 3B ISK by doing nothing for 12 months.
While it's true, looking forward from this point in time, that's a somewhat fair perspective. However, you use the word "investments worth 1B ISK", and I think this logic is slightly faulty. The investment was 3B ISK to the investor, that's what he originally gave up. Looking forward from now you can say that the investment is 1B, because that's all that's left from that account, but it's not the full picture. However, it is one perspective, as you say.
It was mentioned in the other thread that this is kind of like a different institution. There's the pre-failure EBank, and the recovery EBank. However, since EBank is holding the name and all previous balances, and has clearly stated it's in "recovery", it is still the same institution, right? Therefore, honoring the previous balances, from the point the 3B was deposited to the point it can be withdrawn in full is not a 25% per month investment. It's a 0% per month investment.
I think this is a valid perspective, as well, especially given that the creditors weren't allowed to make a decision on this "new" investment.
I think I can see where both sides are coming from. The current EBank board says you'd like to recover all EBank's previous debts. However, I think they've removed themselves, emotionally and morally, from the previous EBank board, which brings them to the perspective you highlight. To the current EBank board you see you have 35% of all account balances, you work forward from now.
Is there a way to work out some sort of compromise? I'm sure many feel that they could make much better gains with their own ISK at this point than allowing EBank to recover their account balances for them. Is there a way that would let any who want to recover some percentage of their account, and zero their balances, and let others who trust you to stick it out 'till full balance?
Originally by: SencneS Any ISK above 700B will and has been set aside to action withdrawals, while it's a little controlled, Ray and EBANK believe 700B is the sweet spot for maximum returns. Any less hinders recovery due to capital constrains
This is the first that I've noticed this, and is good to know. I appreciate your reasoning behind it, and I'm sure others will also.
What priority to withdrawls above 700B will be placed? Is this against the whole account value? Or some percentage of a person's account? (Such as, everyone is able to take out 10%? Or first come first serve can withdraw their whole amount?)
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 18:25:00 -
[734]
Originally by: SencneS
I know I'm probably going to get some flamage for this aspect but I'm looking at it from the perspective of the account is only worth x amount if liquidated at this moment in time vs what it is worth at the point in time in which it's worth 100%.
This makes sense to me, and I can see how it appears to be the best option available to the BoD. But, following your logic, why does the Ebank BoD assume that ALL Ebank customers are interested in making such an investment? The more appropriate action, IMHO, would have been to offer immediate cash-out at x% of value OR the asset freeze. Those that still had confidence in Ebank and the new business plan could "invest" by leaving their deposits, those that saw the new Ebank as being a substantially different investment than the one they originally invested in could withdraw their funds and move on. Why did the BoD choose to act unilaterally?
And for what it's worth, o7 to Sencnes. Taking the time to respond to questions in the manner he's doing right now is awesome. Keep it up, this is exactly the sort of positive discussion that Ebank and MD needs.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 18:29:00 -
[735]
Originally by: RJ Nobel And for what it's worth, o7 to Sencnes. Taking the time to respond to questions in the manner he's doing right now is awesome. Keep it up, this is exactly the sort of positive discussion that Ebank and MD needs.
My thoughts exactly.
|
Dasola
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 18:49:00 -
[736]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Originally by: RJ Nobel And for what it's worth, o7 to Sencnes. Taking the time to respond to questions in the manner he's doing right now is awesome. Keep it up, this is exactly the sort of positive discussion that Ebank and MD needs.
My thoughts exactly.
My endorsment for this too. Just sad that Ray didint bother to try this aproach. Would have cut even this 25 pages chain in half atleast. Not to mention getting us depositors to understand whats really going on.
|
Kalrand
Charles Ponzi School of Business GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 18:49:00 -
[737]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Originally by: RJ Nobel And for what it's worth, o7 to Sencnes. Taking the time to respond to questions in the manner he's doing right now is awesome. Keep it up, this is exactly the sort of positive discussion that Ebank and MD needs.
My thoughts exactly.
Actual thoughtful reasoning is always more welcome than Ray's trolling.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 19:07:00 -
[738]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: RAW23 Questions
Responses
Thanks for this reply. I'll get the pedantry out of the way at the start and point out that my question 1 was different from Leneera's and is not responded to in your post (your response to 1 is actually a response to my question 2).
On to the substance. Firstly, from a presentational perspective I don't think its a great idea to talk in terms of a 200% increase on current investments. While this may be the banks perspective I would imagine some customers would take issue with being told that having their principle returned means that they have made money as opposed to just not suffering very large losses.
As to the meat of your response, I do think that a lot of what you say is reasonable on the assumption that the bank will liquidate by allowing a run. If this is the case, then I can understand interest being set aside. EBANK's recovery will consist of paying off the principle and then closing. But if the bank intends to continue operating for any length of time after its assets reach 100% of the owed principle, then the situation is very different. Income after this point will be profit for the bank and I don't think the bank can legitimately book any profits when it still has outstanding liabilities (the interest owed). In the case of liquidation, it seems reasonable to write off the remaining liabilities, just as you would have to if you liquidated now. And from this perspective I understand the idea that paying interest will slow down "recovery" (read: liquidation). But in the absence of the bank closing down it must still be held to be liable for all its obligations. It cannot "recover" by paying back the principle and then carry on as a profit making venture whilst ignoring its remaining contractual liabilities. Your explanation of Ray's post also makes sense in the context of an allowed run/liquidation but, and I might have missed this, I can't remember any indications from him that this is the plan. The language of "recovery" is a bit problematic here, as when I hear someone say EBANK will recover, it generally makes me think "recover as an institution" rather than "recover the principle debts owed and then close".
On a related point, there is still the problem of people who are both creditors and debtors with the bank. I think it would be very reasonable for these people to offset the interest they are owed from the interest they owe, whilst continuing to pay the balance, if liquidation is the aim. If, however, EBANK intends to continue after this point but still not pay outstanding interest, well, as with account expropriations this still appears to be isomorphic with a scam to me, no matter how well meaning those involved in the bank are.
So, what I really need to know is what the endgame plan is as this will determine the reasonableness of some of the issues at hand.
On a different note, I haven't looked at the financials as Varo has, but I would be amazed if EBANK could not make at least 10-15bil a week from insurance fraud off the back of a 50-100bil investment into it (depending on how many toons need to be purchased and how intensively the production lines are run). So, I don't doubt that they can, quite easily, recover the deficit in a reasonably short time. Or at least, that it is easily possible for them to do so. I have little knowledge of Ray's business acumen, but PR aside I assume it to be pretty good. On the other hand, I do agree with Varo that some non-sensitive details of the recovery plan should be made public along with a very general timeline (but a little more detailed than pegging the recovery to the Mayan calendar ).
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 19:12:00 -
[739]
First of all, I also want to thank SencneS for your responses.
Originally by: SencneS With 700Bil capital to work with, the interest requirements on 2T ISK was about 1.4B ISK a day. This would require EBANK's 700B capital to generate close to 0.2% per day every day. Monthly it would have needed to maintain about 6% per month just to cover interest payment. Note that it's 6% per month on 700B and the deficit would have gone no where. While EBANK is at least from what I can see, making more then that, which is why I say "Yes it could pay but recovery would be longer."
According to my analysis in the other thread, which is based on the EBANK Public Financials, EBANK probably needs a little over 6% return on assets, and it is making only 2.67%. You say that EBANK appears to be making more than 6%; what information is this based on?
Can EBANK respond to my questions in that post? In particular: how much isk is in checking vs savings vs sweep accounts, what is on the statistics page, what are the plans for increasing returns, and what is the projected timeframe for recovery?
Originally by: SencneS Wait a second let me explain where that magical 25% growth comes from. I'll use the 3B example again. You have 3B in your account at EBANK. EBANK has said recovery will take 12 months, at least that is the goal. At this moment in time if you liquidate you would get about 35%. Lets assume 33.3% So you'd get 1B ISK. In 12 months times that 1B ISK would be worth 3B. This is 300% more then what it's worth right now. 300% / 12 months = 25% per month.
This assumes that it takes 12 months, which I highly doubt is accurate. LaVista recently said that EBANK would recover in 2010, but confirmed that the number was just made up. There is ample evidence that EBANK's growth rate is far less. Ray has suggested a recovery by 2012. At the current rate, given certain assumptions due to lack of information, EBANK recovers the principle in 42 months (2013). If EBANK recovered in 12 months, then I would agree that your number is reasonable, although it fails to take into account compounding. With compounding, the growth rate is only 12.25%.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 19:32:00 -
[740]
The #3 Answer... Disclaimer - The following is personal observation, opinions and recollection of historical events based on actions taken.
LVV at the, imho unreasonable, request of trolls that had no ISK in EBANK, to inform every EBANK member via EVEMail about account closure. LVV worked day and night and got CCP approval to spam EVE with over 9000+ EVEMails. Some of those Characters came back... dead, as in removed from the game/reprocessed.
Those accounts where cleared and zeroed --> AFTER <-- archiving them. Attempts to contact them by other means was explored but where found they didn't have their email address or no linking information was found. So those accounts where archived and cleared.
From this point in time that seeded to idea that if people leave the game and never return that ISK sitting in accounts is just wasted and EBANK is burning up time working to recover ISK that will never be claimed. This is a hard spot for EBANK's Directors, we all see why work our asses off for anyone that is never going to collect on their account, but the possibility of them returning is too great to ignore.
The amount of Debt plays a big part here. At the time 2.1T ISK in accounts with 700B in NAV. Looking at a 1.4T (Three times available capital). Part of choices made by EBANK based on the fact that 1.2-1.4T ISK is missing. Apart from general ISK generation everyone started to dig very deeply into everything looking for ways to eliminate as much of that 1.2+ Trillion deficit as much as possible.
The API revealed..
At about this time it was discovered that a Director tried to steal 90B ISK from EBANK. And other Director refused to give back EBANK assets. We also did some heavy heavy research on defaulted loans and character relations tracking down alts to people who have default loans. In the name of recovery any alt found to be connected to a default loan had ISK zeroed from their accounts (None of them had more in their accounts then they owed, go figure and the amount recovered is reflected on the finance sheet). Basically if you owed EBANK ISK and we found out you had ISK in an alt in EBANK, that ISK went toward your debt. (Before people comment this is different to what Kwint did read it again carefully)
The possibility of former directors/CEO owning even more characters with ISK in EBANK, and loan defaulters having ISK in there was too great to ignore.
Two birds with one stone.
While there are many ways each issue could be addressed, there is only one that addresses them both at the same time. Limited API Character checking. The requirement to enter the Limited API in order to get an active EBANK account was created out of the combination of both finding dead accounts without spamming EVE with 9000+ EVEMails again, and making sure people who defaulted on loans don't get more ISK from EBANK. All Ray wanted was names which is why TS's option is acceptable.
@ Dretzle - It's loose a best logic looking at accounts this way, but I'm actually applying what the trolls are saying. "Liquidate it now, give us something, by the time you recover 100% we'd have made our ISK back + more doing it ourselves."
They view their investment in themselves is 1B, not 3B, and are willing to work it for 12 months to get more then 3B. I agree that their original investment 3B, but the very second they say, "Give me whatever you can you have to look at what it's worth now" They want to take their 1B investment which represents a 66% loss, and reinvest it to recover the loss. Which would be 25% monthly growth for 12 months.
The over 700B withdraw figure is based off current account valuation. Meaning if we had 50B ISK available this would be equal to ~143B in accounts. Obviously the more withdrawals that happen this way the more everyone else's accounts value grow. So it would have to be done in blocks. "This block the account value is 35%" then accounts value is recalculated after the block is completed.
Amarr for Life |
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 19:34:00 -
[741]
Originally by: RAW23 Firstly, from a presentational perspective I don't think its a great idea to talk in terms of a 200% increase on current investments. While this may be the banks perspective I would imagine some customers would take issue with being told that having their principle returned means that they have made money as opposed to just not suffering very large losses.
I think that SencneS's perspective is reasonable. If the percentage of the principle the customer can get grows over time, as we would expect, from about 30% now to 100% at some time in the future, then it is completely reasonable to see this as a growth in the current investment, as long as you remember that the investment has already taken a massive loss.
I agree that freezing interest is reasonable if EBANK is planning on liquidating. However, I think that freezing interest is still reasonable even if EBANK recovers and continues running. The effect of freezing interest is no different than that of revaluing accounts to the correct percentage of the current value and continuing from there. EBANK should acknowledge the interest obligations, as it would not be fair to say that customers got all their money back, but they don't necessarily have to pay them.
Your idea on insurance fruad sounds like a great idea, except that EBANK's record in profit generation is terrible. Right now, they are making 17B a month on the 515B invested. If they could make the amount you suggest, then they might actually be able to recover in another year.
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 19:57:00 -
[742]
Originally by: SencneS Some of those Characters came back... dead, as in removed from the game/reprocessed.
Interesting story. How much ISK was in those accounts? How much do you expect is in other inactive accounts?
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:00:00 -
[743]
Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 29/12/2009 20:01:42
Originally by: SencneS @ Dretzle - It's loose a best logic looking at accounts this way, but I'm actually applying what the trolls are saying. "Liquidate it now, give us something, by the time you recover 100% we'd have made our ISK back + more doing it ourselves."
They view their investment in themselves is 1B, not 3B, and are willing to work it for 12 months to get more then 3B. I agree that their original investment 3B, but the very second they say, "Give me whatever you can you have to look at what it's worth now" They want to take their 1B investment which represents a 66% loss, and reinvest it to recover the loss. Which would be 25% monthly growth for 12 months.
I'll let the rest respond or soak in the rest of what you noted. I would like to say on this point, though.
First, just to get it out of the way, resorting to calling them trolls, especially if they have ISK in the bank and just want some part of their original investment back, is only a way to devalue what they say.
At any rate, you're applying what they're saying, but I believe you are valuating it in the reverse. If they receive their ISK back, as opposed to letting you recover it to 100%, what they are doing is taking a 66% loss.
To them it's a 3B investment, which they want to pull out despite the 66% loss. They didn't choose to invest in this new procedure, after all. It is still the original investment.
Originally by: SencneS request of trolls that had no ISK in EBANK
And, while I am one of those "trolls that had no ISK in EBANK", I think I'd just like to note that, trolls like me or RAW or others, as long as we are not intentionally just posting to incite angered feelings, perform a purpose. As has been stated elsewhere, in this game we have no judicial system, we have no government, and we have no way of monitoring or policing things like this.
The only way, besides war dec'ing and the like, is by means of community involvement, for those that care about the community to speak up in defense of the community and/or what they feel is right.
But I really like what you're doing and if EBank is to recover I think it may be the first real positive step, solely from what the community can see, to repairing relations with EBank.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:04:00 -
[744]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan
Originally by: RAW23 Firstly, from a presentational perspective I don't think its a great idea to talk in terms of a 200% increase on current investments. While this may be the banks perspective I would imagine some customers would take issue with being told that having their principle returned means that they have made money as opposed to just not suffering very large losses.
I think that SencneS's perspective is reasonable.
I don't disagree with you here. It is a reasonable perspective. I just think, from a PR perspective, some customers might not want to hear that Ebank is currently making them 200% annual returns and might find the claim a little offensive.
Quote:
I agree that freezing interest is reasonable if EBANK is planning on liquidating. However, I think that freezing interest is still reasonable even if EBANK recovers and continues running. The effect of freezing interest is no different than that of revaluing accounts to the correct percentage of the current value and continuing from there. EBANK should acknowledge the interest obligations, as it would not be fair to say that customers got all their money back, but they don't necessarily have to pay them.
I have to disagree on this one. If EBANK is ever in a position to book profits for itself then it is in a position to pay out on its obligations. I think the difference between freezing interest and valuing accounts as a proportion of current NAV, is that the latter is only a temporary measure or is a measure connected to liquidation. The full principle will be honoured in the future and so, too, should the outstanding interest when the bank is in a position to pay it. I can't think of any justification, off the top of my head, for them not paying it when they are able to do so.
Quote:
Your idea on insurance fruad sounds like a great idea, except that EBANK's record in profit generation is terrible. Right now, they are making 17B a month on the 515B invested. If they could make the amount you suggest, then they might actually be able to recover in another year.
As I said, I haven't looked at the financials but seriously? 17 bil? I have to believe they are making more than that. I make more than that with 10% of the capital they have. In fact, I was making half of that with less than 1% of the capital in my third week as a trader having started with 30mil in the first week. I'd be very surprised if they haven't also made tens or even hundreds of billions in Dominion speculation (if the bank decided it wouldn't be unethical to engage in such a risky investment). Perhaps the accounts just haven't caught up with Ray's reorganisation yet. I'll have to steel myself to having a look at them although the idea of wading through pages of accounts makes my blood run cold.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:09:00 -
[745]
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.
|
Ji Sama
Caldari Tash-Murkon Prime Industries Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:09:00 -
[746]
Thank you for your answer Sencnes! I just think we have to agree to disagree :D You have valid arguments!
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:16:00 -
[747]
The last page or 2 is why I suggested generally-accepted summaries of issues to be presented for EBank to comment on. This is a daunting amount to process and respond to, and it's just from a few players over a few hours
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:21:00 -
[748]
Most of the emphasis so far has been on ways to reduce liabilities (depositors), very little has been said about increasing assets.
Ray said the numbers could be out by +/- 10%, so bear that in mind. Total assets amount to 634B, according to the bank.
Titan Venture Titan BPOs - 5 valued at NPC cost - 324B Titan BPCs - 2 valued at 20B Characters - 7B - assumed to relate to the Titan operation. Titan capital assets - POS, etc. - not found in the balance sheet.
Sometime towards the end of last year the bank sold 2(?) Titan BPCs, probably for around 10B each, but presumably has been unable to sell the other two.
This is a long term project with a low rate of return. Wouldn¦t it make sense to sell everything now and *either* return the cash pro-rata to depositors, or, if bank staff have the capacity to handle extra work, reinvest the proceeds in a project(s) generating better rates of return, such as the one Raw suggested?
Share Portfolio Currently valued at 54.5B, including Kwint¦s 5B. Is probably worth at least 3.5B less. Income is probably less than 5% per month, so I¦d suggest it also makes sense to liquidate the portfolio, or all bar the Ihatalo R&D Bond which returns 7.5%
Loans Down from 113B at the beginning of December to 77.4B now. Whether that¦s due to loans being paid off or zeroed against collateral, I have no idea. If it is the former, it implies that the bank are not getting new business. Returns are said to be some 6% per month.
Ventures The black hole. Shown as 88B in the balance sheet. The sole obligation of the venture managers is to return 5% of the investment. The financials show 0% forecast. This was supposed to be the most profitable part of the bank in the past. What the true picture is, God only knows and the bank has taken pains to muddy the waters here.
Cash 63B, down from 65B at the beginning of December.
And that is it. So how is that little lot, plus or minus 10%, going to be turned into 1.9T in a year?
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:21:00 -
[749]
Originally by: RAW23 I don't disagree with you here. It is a reasonable perspective. I just think, from a PR perspective, some customers might not want to hear that Ebank is currently making them 200% annual returns and might find the claim a little offensive.
Ok, I see what you mean, and it makes sense.
Originally by: RAW23 I have to disagree on this one. If EBANK is ever in a position to book profits for itself then it is in a position to pay out on its obligations. I think the difference between freezing interest and valuing accounts as a proportion of current NAV, is that the latter is only a temporary measure or is a measure connected to liquidation. The full principle will be honoured in the future and so, too, should the outstanding interest when the bank is in a position to pay it. I can't think of any justification, off the top of my head, for them not paying it when they are able to do so.
I have now changed my mind about this. EBANK should pay previous interest obligations if it is ever able to do so. However, it is probable that either EBANK never reaches this point or customers take payments of less than principle+interest in order to get their isk sooner.
Originally by: RAW23 As I said, I haven't looked at the financials but seriously? 17 bil? I have to believe they are making more than that. I make more than that with 10% of the capital they have. In fact, I was making half of that with less than 1% of the capital in my third week as a trader having started with 30mil in the first week. I'd be very surprised if they haven't also made tens or even hundreds of billions in Dominion speculation (if the bank decided it wouldn't be unethical to engage in such a risky investment). Perhaps the accounts just haven't caught up with Ray's reorganisation yet. I'll have to steel myself to having a look at them although the idea of wading through pages of accounts makes my blood run cold.
I know, it's a horrible return rate. There's no need to go through "pages of accounts" to find it. The number comes from the public financials spreadsheet, in the Profit & Loss tab, in the Current Return on Invested and Current Return on Equity rows. It's right there: 16,914,008,242. It is possible that the figure is inaccurate, but as far as I can tell, the only room for a big difference is in the 88B ventures, which reportedly have 0 return. I don't know what's in there and why there is no return.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:27:00 -
[750]
Originally by: Varo Jan Titan Venture Titan BPOs - 5 valued at NPC cost - 324B Titan BPCs - 2 valued at 20B
Sadly I would have to think that for the time being the Titan assets are worthless. There was one that just sold in the sell forum was for 7 billion. Even Bad Bobby's Titan's 4 U BPC hasn't sold yet and it has been exactly 1 month.
|
|
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:33:00 -
[751]
Originally by: Varo Jan ...
The idea of liquidating all assets that are returning less than 5% is good IF EBANK is capable of reinvesting all of that isk at a much higher return. Unfortunately, we don't really have any information about that, since the majority of EBANK's isk is locked in low-return investments like Titan BPCs and we don't know what is going on with the ventures. The 6.16% projected return on loans is probably too optimistic, since that figure includes some uncollateralized loans (I think).
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:41:00 -
[752]
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Interesting story. How much ISK was in those accounts? How much do you expect is in other inactive accounts?
According to LVV, the BIOMASSED toons had 7,172,971,108.00 ISK in their EBANK accounts. Small amount consider at the time it was 2.5T in accounts.
As for "how much do you expect" well at the moment it's between 1,045,598,748,594 ISK and 1,500,417,728,295 ISK. The current requirements to be consider "Active" is the Limited API Key. Once entered the account is active and you can do what you can do with it (Without current policy of cause).
Dretzle Omega - Don't take offence to anything I've said, I use Trolls in a sense of people jumping on a bandwagon of those attacking EBANK and using suggestions and ideas of others that are not trolls to project those believes. While you may have trolled in the past the most recent bout of posts are not trollish in any way :)
What really got me was how unreasonable the request to EVEMail everyone was. If we had gone ahead and done it without CCP approval LVV could very well have been banned from the game. If CCP had said "No" that wouldn't have stopped the unreasonable requests from being harped on. It was one of the most profound moments in MD about just how unreasonable some people are.
But enough of the past, trying to get away from what was done and move onto what is getting done and what needs to get one now.
RAW - I honestly think it not close enough to determine if EBANK will shutdown or continue on once liabilities have been meet. At the moment the requirement to continue operating is apparent. If people withdraw now (No one has yet because EBANK hasn't reserved withdrawal ISK yet), it's the best deal around for EBANK. I so want to try and get 100B for withdrawals, under the current withdrawal policy, that would recover 400B ISK.
I'm actually stopping right there because Ray fired up a new thread in the Private forums, which pertains to this very question.
New Information for all..
A new proposal on how to handle accounts is in the works. I don't want to take Ray's thunder on this so please don't ask.
Amarr for Life |
Kapila Parthalan
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:50:00 -
[753]
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: Kapila Parthalan Interesting story. How much ISK was in those accounts? How much do you expect is in other inactive accounts?
According to LVV, the BIOMASSED toons had 7,172,971,108.00 ISK in their EBANK accounts. Small amount consider at the time it was 2.5T in accounts.
As for "how much do you expect" well at the moment it's between 1,045,598,748,594 ISK and 1,500,417,728,295 ISK. The current requirements to be consider "Active" is the Limited API Key. Once entered the account is active and you can do what you can do with it (Without current policy of cause).
Ok, so the amount for biomassed characters is pretty insignificant. The amount you give for inactive accounts is the amount currently in suspense accounts/pending withdrawals, correct? I think that number much higher than the real amount, since many players are just waiting until later to enter their API. There is not much reason to do so currently.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 20:58:00 -
[754]
Originally by: SencneS Dretzle Omega - Don't take offence to anything I've said, I use Trolls in a sense of people jumping on a bandwagon of those attacking EBANK and using suggestions and ideas of others that are not trolls to project those believes. While you may have trolled in the past the most recent bout of posts are not trollish in any way :)
Yeah, I've been known to troll before, for better or worse. I didn't think I trolled EBank, but maybe I have. At any rate, gotcha.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 21:16:00 -
[755]
Edited by: RAW23 on 29/12/2009 21:18:32 Edited by: RAW23 on 29/12/2009 21:17:09
Originally by: SencneS
RAW - I honestly think it not close enough to determine if EBANK will shutdown or continue on once liabilities have been meet.
This is a major problem. The thing is, your arguments about interest payments are only valid if the bank will liquidate. If it hasn't been decided yet, then EBANK should commit to honour all its obligations when it is able to do so. If there is an intention to keep the bank running, or even the possibility that the bank will continue running, it should be made clear that if this does happen all liabilities (including interest) will be met before the bank considers itself free from debt and able to claim to have made any profits. The idea that committing to interest payments would slow down recovery is only valid if the bank shuts down when the principle has been returned. There is nothing to stop EBANK making the promise to pay interest conditional on its continued existence after the principle has been repaid. You just need to say, "If the bank liquidates, or has a run, only the principle will be returned. But if the bank continues to make money beyond this point the first destination for any further money will be to honour outstanding interest payments". Unless, that is, someone wants to offer some reasons why EBANK should be able to earn money for itself without honouring all its debts.
Quote:
As for "how much do you expect" well at the moment it's between 1,045,598,748,594 ISK and 1,500,417,728,295 ISK. The current requirements to be consider "Active" is the Limited API Key.
That does say 1-1.5 trillion doesn't it? I asked back near the beginning of the thread what would be an unacceptable amount to end up zeroing. Are there any answers to this yet? Assuming, hypothetically, that these numbers, or something close to them, remain constant will EBANK conclude that the amount of "collateral damage", to use Ray's phrase, vastly exceeds the amount that you would legitimately hope to recover from scamming directors and RMTers? And in this event what will the plans be? Surely it is not acceptable for the banks anti-fraud measures to take out something like 50% of deposits? Are there any estimates as to the amount of isk (rmt and fraud) that you are aiming to legitimately recover? And what proportion of the current total suspended isk does this amount to?
Quote:
What really got me was how unreasonable the request to EVEMail everyone was. If we had gone ahead and done it without CCP approval LVV could very well have been banned from the game. If CCP had said "No" that wouldn't have stopped the unreasonable requests from being harped on. It was one of the most profound moments in MD about just how unreasonable some people are.
Whilst you are right that this is in the past and not worth dwelling on, I'll just point out that, given what you (if I recall correctly but it might have been LVV) said about the inadequacy of the bank's e-mail records, these eve mails were a necessity. I can't remember the exact figures but didn't you say that there were no out of game contact details for more than two thirds of accounts? Given this, it seems to have been imperative to insist on eve mails - otherwise, less than a third of account holders (plus those who read MD and follow the EBANK website) would have even been informed that they had to take certain actions to avoid losing their isk.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 21:23:00 -
[756]
Originally by: cosmoray 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.
Don't worry I don't agree with clearing Inactive accounts either. Which is why this particular policy is still undecided and currently requesting MD input.
In my perfect little world, an inactive account gets cleared but archived. The liability gets removed from EBANK, and EBANK reports a gain. (It has to otherwise the books look "off") If at any given time someone with an inactive account returns, their account is restored to the balance it was at the time it was cleared off the books. EBANK reports a liability increase (For books sake).
From a personal view it's a gamble, one I'm willing to take on. Gamble on the fact that at any given time the customer returns and requests their account back. EBANK then needs to cover that request.
But that's my own little world, one I would like to see EBANK have, but I make one promise, I'll try to get that implemented, but I make no guarantees.
Qs:-
1) For me personally, given the amount of debt logged, the rate in which people are willing to withdraw for a loss and the amount of ISK generated from in-game activities I'd have to say... 18 Months from this point. However, I'd like to mention the following, the new internal POST will directly effect this guesstimation. I'd also like to add that under the ideas, You, RAW, and others have "pushed" EBANK would return to normal operations such as issue Interest and honor full withdrawals it would be 0 months, as in instantaneous. But every single account would take a 65% drop in value. EBANK would be small again, however withdrawals would be delayed. As I'm sure in this scenario a sizable number of withdrawal requests would be processed, eventually liquidity would come into play. With over 50% of the assets held up in Titan BPOs process time would be length for those who didn't get in first.
2) Can you re-word that question please, the way I take it is too simple of an answer - The path to earn money is do stuff in game to make ISK.. I'm sure you mean something else though.
By 2010 I would expect it to be the home stretch, but as I've said I'd rather close off speculation on recovery due to the current internal thread.
As a note I actually consider what's best for the customer as primary over personal goals. While it may seem otherwise there is more then just the crowd of people wanting their ISK "now".
What is best for everyone is like a simple puzzle, Round hole, square peg. You have to make them fit. To make them fit you could either cut away parts of the round hole, or trim the edges off the square peg. If you do one too many time, the people that fit into either the circle or the square they cry out.
It's a very different view when trying to consider both sides of the argument and trying to come up with solution that not too many one either side will be itchy about.
Amarr for Life |
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 21:34:00 -
[757]
Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 29/12/2009 21:35:11
Originally by: SencneS 2) Can you re-word that question please, the way I take it is too simple of an answer - The path to earn money is do stuff in game to make ISK.. I'm sure you mean something else though.
1) "path to recovery" I would take as EBank policy, such as you've already touched on "when we have X amount over 700B, allow limited withdraw" and so on. The steps that EBank plans on taking to get to recovery.
2) However, knowing more than "do stuff in game to make ISK" could be conceived, as well. Other investments usually require a business plan to get investments. Station trading, renting BPO/freighter for production, loaning to others. If this is his meaning, then what is EBank's current business plans to achieve recovery?
For what it's worth, as an outside observer, I'd be interested in both. I think point 1 might be a bit more important, however.
EDIT: Rereading his question, I'm sure cosmo meant my second point, how do you plan on earning the money in-game, what returns do you think you will see, and at what point to you reevaluate that business plan to determine if recovery in a reasonable time is still feasible.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 21:46:00 -
[758]
Originally by: SencneS
I'd also like to add that under the ideas, You, RAW, and others have "pushed" EBANK would return to normal operations such as issue Interest and honor full withdrawals it would be 0 months, as in instantaneous. But every single account would take a 65% drop in value.
...
As a note I actually consider what's best for the customer as primary over personal goals. While it may seem otherwise there is more then just the crowd of people wanting their ISK "now".
What is best for everyone is like a simple puzzle, Round hole, square peg. You have to make them fit. To make them fit you could either cut away parts of the round hole, or trim the edges off the square peg. If you do one too many time, the people that fit into either the circle or the square they cry out.
It's a very different view when trying to consider both sides of the argument and trying to come up with solution that not too many one either side will be itchy about.
I don't see why you can't keep both groups happy on this issue. Anyone who wants to withdraw withdraws at 35%. Anyone who wants to stay in for the long haul does so. Given the problems of scaling operations beyond a certain level, if half the depositors bailed you would lose half your assets and half your liabilities but it should be easier to grow the remaining assets to repay 100% of remaining liabilities. I'm not sure I understand why it would be harder to fulfil your remaining obligations with less of a capital base as the base and the obligations would reduce perfectly in proportion with each other.
In any case, I'm just throwing that out there. Agitating for open withdrawals is not something I want to get into at the moment. I think you can, just about, justify the account freeze (although its not my favorite option) and that it is more important to keep the focus on some of the other, more problematic issues. However, this justification goes hand in hand with a commitment to honour all obligations in the event that the bank does not liquidate to pay off the principle debts.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 21:51:00 -
[759]
Originally by: RAW23 I don't see why you can't keep both groups happy on this issue. Anyone who wants to withdraw withdraws at 35%. Anyone who wants to stay in for the long haul does so.
The one problem I can see in their defense is their methods of making ISK. Titan BPOs, BPCs, and loans, for example. The price is in chunks and can't be done all at once.
One option to mitigate this is to allow withdraw requests (say 30% or 35%) with a certain time period, then look at how EBank could liquidate enough to cover those that want to withdraw at this rate and 0 their accounts without hurting those that stay in for a full recovery.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 22:01:00 -
[760]
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.
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 22:16:00 -
[761]
At Kapila Parthalan - Yeah it's Suspended + Withdrawals. Not everyone in Withdrawals is suspected which is why it's "between" suspended and suspended+withdrawals.
RAW - I'm sure you appreciate me sticking to current policy. IF EBANK writes off 1.5T ISK due to current policy, this would leave about 290B in "profit" for lack of a better word. This would cover the Titan BPOs, at this point in time EBANK not only is capable of full withdrawal, but also capable of full interest payments and lost interest in those active accounts, and still maintain a fully operational BANK Financial backing to the tune of 290B ISK. There is no reason to liquidate and close out in this scenario, and more the point I think it would be irresponsible to do so. Where would that 290B ISK go? EBANK Employees get a nice pay check? What about those people that are currently inactive and in the suspended accounts pool. They come back and EBANK is no longer around, but heard that they turned a profit a 290B and those people who just happen to be around at the time of closing got their accounts.. You can see the issues of shutting down on full recovery in such a way.
Q2 - The problem is we don't know how many scamming Directors, RMTers, and Loan Defaulters will enter their API. We're talking 9000+ characters. Each Character has a different amount of ISK their account. Speculating on dynamic number of character that don't enter their API and a dynamic value in their accounts is dangerous and I'm sorry I'm not going to do it. For the moment they are in the same lump as every other non-verified account. Not everyone in there are scammers, or RMTers, but they just happen to be riding the same bus to the same destination.
Comment 3 - Unfortunately people omitting their real EMail address to make their EBANK account is their own choice, not EBANKS. At the time this was said by me, yet it fell on deaf ears drowned out by people calling to EVEMail the 9000+ characters.
Like I said - The most profound example of how unreasonable some people were at the time.
- Current Posts -
Dretzle Omega - Possibly what Cosmo meant but if you don't mind I'll wait to make sure, since I'm "wordy" in my replied I'd hate to do this twice :)
RAW - Well making "Both" parties is the current policy. Once ISK above 700B is pooled together for withdrawals. It's controlled withdrawals and the effect is as people withdraw their ISK, EBANK loses liabilities. This is the best "Deal" EBANK can make not only for those that want it now, but for those that want to stick around. It's in there right now just hasn't been activated due to "Developer" time constraints. Looking to clear out those "Withdrawals" before moving forward with "liquidation" withdrawals.
And Dretzle Omega says it right, we can't do it all at once. That's the problem, the solution at hand is pretty reasonable. Which is odd because while it would seem like 500B ISK worth of withdraws are requested, hardly anyone has actually come forth pushing for that buy-out offer. I honestly think people are waiting for more value before they start selling out.
One thing is sure, the first few people that sell out will start a cascade of withdrawals each of which grow the value of subsequent accounts. Which might prompt more to withdrawal etc. Which is part of the reason the policy also states that once it reaches below 700B withdrawals are suspended again.
Amarr for Life |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 22:38:00 -
[762]
Originally by: cosmoray 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 personnel 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
Now I see.
Something like this in EBANK is not quiet there at least not one so complete. Some aspects yes, defiantly, others no. I also don't want to commit EBANK to anything. So this would be something in an announcement and something the BOD Votes on.
I have no problem talking about previous votes, personal observations or event explaining actions taken by EBANK but committing something to everyone at EBANK as a whole is not right for me to do alone..
Sorry Cosmo, this is announcement material not something a single Director can shoot off without consulting the others.
Amarr for Life |
Tarinara
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 23:06:00 -
[763]
Originally by: SencneS The #3 Answer... Disclaimer - The following is personal observation, opinions and recollection of historical events based on actions taken.
LVV at the, imho unreasonable, request of trolls that had no ISK in EBANK, to inform every EBANK member via EVEMail about account closure. LVV worked day and night and got CCP approval to spam EVE with over 9000+ EVEMails. Some of those Characters came back... dead, as in removed from the game/reprocessed.
Sorry SencneS: my main never got an Eve Mail, E-Mail or any other mail. EBank has made ZERO effort to contact me concerning your theft & extortion of my ISK...
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 23:09:00 -
[764]
Originally by: Tarinara Sorry SencneS: my main never got an Eve Mail, E-Mail or any other mail. EBank has made ZERO effort to contact me concerning your theft & extortion of my ISK...
Was your main's account unsubbed at the time? Also note it was over 9000!!! (Yeah I went there, but so did SencneS) Don't you think that out of 9000 characters a couple of mistakes were made since all the names had to be either copy/pasted in or typed out manually?
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 02:04:00 -
[765]
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. |
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 03:14:00 -
[766]
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.
|
Omar Kuvakei
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 03:52:00 -
[767]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Kwint Sommer You're damn straight I'm keeping the two-point-something billion as a fee and damages.
You're using my personality to justify your actions.
Your "personality" precipitated those actions, bucko
|
Graic Valente
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 06:04:00 -
[768]
Originally by: cosmoray Points made about an EBANK plan.
Firstly, I have zero exposure as a result of the current EBANK position. EBANK's depositors, creditors and the wider MD community is craving confidence in the Secondary Market - which is central to any credit market. EBANK's success or failure won't make or break the SM, but it's certainly an elephant in the room. Unfortunately EBANK is between a rock and a hard place as any "plan" is unlikely to be met with appreciation from those above. Although there may be some heroic effort in the background by EBANK it's not entirely clear what plan is in effect at the in-game or wider entity level. So to try to keep it short: 1. End Game? - EBANK's strategy may be to continue on as an entity, however this only seems to be the plan of EBANK and few of the deposit holders. The plan should be to recover EBANKS's position ASAP for depositors and liquidate. EBANK can rebrand/relaunch after this. There are no "bricks and mortar", superannuation funds or real employees to consider - it's just a name. There is no need to keep a mountain of funds to continue when it's not needed. Make this strategy. 2. Forum - Forum attacks can be tiresome. However, it's apparent that EBANK has burned much of it's goodwill by the approach it has taken on this forum. You can't buy good will in EVE and EBANK have squandered it. Many weeks without "official" forum communications is hardly appropriate and a weekly/fortnightly consistent update of any substance and simply IGNORING obvious troll posts would have gone a long way to improving acceptance of any rescue plan. It appears that some members of the BoD have taken it personally and are making it personal. 3. All customers are equal, but some are more equal than others - Hindsight is a wonderful thing but as events in recent days have shown it appears that EBANK have seriously underestimated the implications of conflicts with current/future offers. After freezing accounts EBANK should not have closed the door on depositors who were also generating earnings. Given everything else that EBANK decided, I'm sure the customer base would have copped this as well. It obvious now that reclaiming "rightful" ISK from EBANK will have many people disagreeing with you, however, it's very unlikely to stop people from investing in you. EBANK probably need access to a wide range of investments now more than ever with alleged underperforming in-game assets. However, EBANK have just narrowed the field of this to very few trusted parties as a whole range of "reclaiming" scenarios now leap to mind. Of course this has always been possible, however EBANK's actions has legitimised it to many. 4. As hard as it is to accept; depositors funds were never guaranteed - People unleash scams, fail in theirs IPOs, burn out all the time. There will usually be some "well played", "bad luck" or forum griping but people understand the risks. The fact that EBANK had scale and the failure was epic (both operationally and at time of the RMT theft) makes some of the outrage acceptable - however forum response makes planning for the EBANK BoD near impossible. Have people suffered loses? They sure have, but just as ship get ganked - investments tank. Depositors and EBANK should have something of an open mind to different options to take a loss and move on. It would be *hoped* that EBANK has segmented their accounts with a variety of strategies for payback. This extends to account attrition. If people leave the game does it really matter if their accounts are closed?
Sorry, I could go on about the API key situation, etc. and I aware that many of this has been and will be discussed many times over. The key point here is that the EBANK strategy to be kind is unclear, to be brutal is unrealistic. Also the community needs to start being realistic about how much they expect to get back and and ease up on EBANK trying to do everything and being reactionary.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 08:56:00 -
[769]
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.
|
Graic Valente
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 09:40:00 -
[770]
Originally by: Leneerra 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.
Thanks for the reply. Just to clarify my points in relation to your comments.
1) If all/most of the BoD decided to rebrand/relaunch you don't need to tear EVERYTHING apart to do it. However the organisation has to exisit for a purpose. Liquidate, rewrite the governance, consult with the community - whatever, then relaunch as a entity that turned the corner as quickly as possible for stakeholders and not one that drifted along for years trying to create wealth for ex-players. But beyond the items you mentioned you forget time. How much RL time should these people have to spend on this? How many years!
2) I still stand by my my statement, a few helpful posts can't excuse the poor communications of recent months.
3) Why shouldn't the BoD try to do everything possible to create wealth? Choosing key stakeholders to continue to do business with me seems a whole lot more sensible than cutting everyone off as the aim is supposed to be recovery.
4) Why would a void be a scam? Not every venture has success or even returns 100%. Let's just say EBANK pays non-active, non-API accounts 1% of balances. Call it a failure and move on. Would that still be by definition a scam? For active account holders that would seem like a much better outcome as there would be a higher rate of recovery. I hate real life anologies in EVE but not all creditors are equal when a business is in trouble.
I have read every post in this thread, with respect I don't post that often or spam the forum so I think I can comment if I feel I want to. ;)
|
|
Katiana Swan
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 09:49:00 -
[771]
I think Cosmoray is on the right track.
A timeline needs to be established with planned recovery stages. It can be used as a guide, doesn't have to be followed to the letter.
I also agree that the 35% buyback should be on offer immediately. For every billion cashed in you Are effectively saving 650 million in funds that need to be recouperated. Will be far easier to achieve your goal.
It's also incredibly easy to sugar coat this option. Something simple like this as a news article:
"EBANK is committed to returning all your lost funds. This may be a timely excercise (period of 1-4 years). If you would like your funds now, they can be withdrawn however will only be valued at 35%. we are working hard to release your entire balance however we have made this option available to our customers wanting fast access to Their funds."
this gives your customers options. Let them decide for themselves if they want to wait or cash out early. My belief is that only a small portion of the total funds will be withdrawn however it will improve customer satisfaction immensely.
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 10:16:00 -
[772]
I have been assured recently by an E-Bank employee that it looks like it will be 2 years before I can access and or withdraw my funds from my E-Bank account (assuming they stay on their present course of recovery). Do any of you know who might be in the market to do a A2P trade/buy for my account. Last I heard they were being bought for .40/1.00 isk value, but for the life of me I can't find the forum thread or posts where that was discussed. I really thought it was stated that we might see money available in a year, but now it's two years+. I guess I will have to cave in and sell the account, as I need the money now. Any help in this would be greatly appreciated, I have no idea who might be buying accounts.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 10:58:00 -
[773]
Originally by: SencneS Dretzle Omega - Possibly what Cosmo meant but if you don't mind I'll wait to make sure, since I'm "wordy" in my replied I'd hate to do this twice :)
Yeah, sorry. Was just trying to help. And I had a bit too much time on my hands at work yesterday.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 11:42:00 -
[774]
Originally by: cosmoray I am not worried if MY plan is unattainable. I want EBANK to come up with a plan.
They have a plan, will have had a plan in place for some time now. 1. Stop paying interest on deposits - actioned. 2. Analyse profitability - done. It¦ll take 14 years to repay in full. 3. OK, we can¦t do that, so how do we reduce deposits? We wait. People leave. 4. What else? We **** people off, make it difficult for them to comply with our requirements, keep their money. Done. 5. We offer 35 cents on the dollar. Yeah but, we don¦t have the cash to do that! Never mind. Done. 6. We open a thread once every six months, **** a few more people off. Smokescreen. Stonewall. Buy more time. Done. 7. We grudgingly accept the BLEEP concept, then wait six months before actioning it. You know, "Sorry, RL stuff. Sorry, it¦s more complicated than we thought. Sorry, we¦ll get round to it in the fullness of time, all other things being equal, in due course..." - In progress. 8. In 2011 enough people will have left for us to write off sufficient deposits for us to claim we have recovered. 9. Damn, we¦re good!
Cynical, yes. Possible, yes
Quote: The clock is already ticking on expired/dead accounts and this will accelerate with time.
That IS the essence of their "recovery" strategy.
Quote: In my mind if the time is after 2010 EBANK should be liquidated.
The bank should have been liquidated earlier this year. Ray will have known then that a true recovery (not writing deposits off!) was impossible in a reasonable time frame.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 12:38:00 -
[775]
Originally by: Rada Ionesco Do any of you know who might be in the market to do a A2P trade/buy for my account. Last I heard they were being bought for .40/1.00 isk value, but for the life of me I can't find the forum thread or posts where that was discussed.
Linkage
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 13:13:00 -
[776]
Originally by: Varo Jan Cynical, yes. Possible, yes
Yes, I find the idea of them knowingly engineering this outcome to be cynical. However, I strongly dislike the incentive structure, which is basically as you outlined minus the conscious deception, created by the current plan.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 13:14:00 -
[777]
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.
|
Drexciyian
The Water Margin Tech
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 05:32:00 -
[778]
Just close Ebank and give as much back as you can then everyone can move on.
While all these ebank related threads are interesting reading no one else can setup a bank while all this is going on.
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 09:55:00 -
[779]
Originally by: SetrakDark
Originally by: Rada Ionesco Do any of you know who might be in the market to do a A2P trade/buy for my account. Last I heard they were being bought for .40/1.00 isk value, but for the life of me I can't find the forum thread or posts where that was discussed.
Linkage
Thanks for the link. So I made a IHAFS account following all of their instructions and then confirmed and activated the account. I then logged into my E-Bank account and attempted to move money to their designated character for account trades, but E-Banks site is now telling me I am trying to move more money than I have in my Suspense account. This is clearly not the case, since I copied and pasted, then checked the amount I had put in the transfer window. Whats next? Is your transfer mechanic broken?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 10:00:00 -
[780]
Try moving one ISK less than you actually have, there may be a rounding issue.
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 10:08:00 -
[781]
Ray - since you clearly are reading this thread, is there any chance of some answers to the questions that have been asked. Whilst I am grateful to Sencnes for his responses, given what you said about the old EBANK staff in your recent interview I can't really have any confidence that he speaks officially for the bank. In particular, can you confirm whether or not the bank intends to allow a run once it is in the position to repay 100% of the principle on deposits or whether withdrawal controls will be maintained and the bank will seek to move on from that point as a profit making entity? Thanks.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 10:15:00 -
[782]
Originally by: RAW23 1. What is the justification for treating account expropriation as different from theft?
Please define "account expropriation" and how we are doing that?
Originally by: RAW23 2. What is the justification for refusing to commit to honour promised interest payments?
What promised interest payments?
Originally by: RAW23 3. Does EBANK intend to allow a run once its assets equal its liabilities (with or without interest), as suggested by LVV and SencneS? Or does it intend to maintain withdrawal controls to ensure no such run happens, which is what I have understood Ray's stated plan to be?
Nothing has changed with regards to withdrawal controls once the bank re-opens. What is your concern here, that we won't meet the run?
Originally by: RAW23 So, to start with c), can you clarify what you mean here?
I'm not sure what clarification is required. It would be a cosmetic effect and achieve nothing more than a delay in the re-opening.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 10:47:00 -
[783]
Edited by: RAW23 on 31/12/2009 10:50:37 Edited by: RAW23 on 31/12/2009 10:48:39
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 1. What is the justification for treating account expropriation as different from theft?
Please define "account expropriation" and how we are doing that?
By account expropriation, I mean writing off, and thus taking possession of, the account balances of those who do not provide you with api keys, either because they are unwilling to, or unable to because they are not in game at the moment. I realise that the final solution on this question is still under discussion and that alternatives to zeroing these accounts are being discussed. But since the possibility of zeroing these accounts is still, apparently, on the table, can you explain how it differs from theft. If any other IPO, bond or offering were to do this it would be called theft and/or a scam. What is it that would make it ethically justifiable in EBANK's case?
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 2. What is the justification for refusing to commit to honour promised interest payments?
What promised interest payments?
Those that the bank committed to when taking deposits. The payments that you refer to as "cosmetic".
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 3. Does EBANK intend to allow a run once its assets equal its liabilities (with or without interest), as suggested by LVV and SencneS? Or does it intend to maintain withdrawal controls to ensure no such run happens, which is what I have understood Ray's stated plan to be?
Nothing has changed with regards to withdrawal controls once the bank re-opens. What is your concern here, that we won't meet the run?
No, my concern is that certain justifications, such as all those given so far for not logging interest owed, are only valid if the bank will close once it is able to pay off its principle debts. None of these arguments work if the bank will go on to make a profit in the future. However, I understand that these arguments were not put forward by you, so I'm not sure if these are your own justifications for not logging interest (although your reply to the next question suggests they are). So, I am still a little unclear on this point. Just for maximum clarity, are you saying withdrawal controls will remain in place and that a run, effectively liquidating the bank, will not be allowed? The bank will, thus, continue as a profit making entity after it has grown its assets such that they match the current liabilities of the bank (liabilities calculated solely on the basis of deposit amounts without interest being factored in)? The reason I ask this is because this is not what LVV and Sencnes have suggested will happen.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 So, to start with c), can you clarify what you mean here?
I'm not sure what clarification is required. It would be a cosmetic effect and achieve nothing more than a delay in the re-opening.
I'll expand on my question here once I've seen your response to the previous question. If the bank is to close, then I do understand what you say here but I will ask for some more clarification if you say that the bank intends to remain open and return to profitability.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 11:02:00 -
[784]
Originally by: RAW23 But since the possibility of zeroing these accounts is still, apparently, on the table, can you explain how it differs from theft.
It's no longer on the table. We'll never write off account balances for inactivity or failure to provide an API key. As you state, we're finalising the entire policy surrounding Suspense Accounts, but that much I can guarantee now.
Originally by: RAW23 Those that the bank committed to when taking deposits. The payments that you refer to as "cosmetic".
We cannot afford to commit to those payments as well as recover the deficit. Re-enabling interest payments on current balances would delay the deficit recovery by an unacceptable period of time.
Please note this is current policy, and there is the potential for it to change (perhaps drastically) pending current internal discussions.
Originally by: RAW23 No, my concern is that certain justifications
If your concern is with the justification for other policies then we need to address those directly, and not indirectly through this.
I believe most of your other concerns are addressed by my second answer (along with cryptic addendum) in this post.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 11:17:00 -
[785]
Edited by: RAW23 on 31/12/2009 11:17:46
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 But since the possibility of zeroing these accounts is still, apparently, on the table, can you explain how it differs from theft.
It's no longer on the table. We'll never write off account balances for inactivity or failure to provide an API key. As you state, we're finalising the entire policy surrounding Suspense Accounts, but that much I can guarantee now.
Thanks. That is excellent news!
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 Those that the bank committed to when taking deposits. The payments that you refer to as "cosmetic".
We cannot afford to commit to those payments as well as recover the deficit. Re-enabling interest payments on current balances would delay the deficit recovery by an unacceptable period of time.
Please note this is current policy, and there is the potential for it to change (perhaps drastically) pending current internal discussions.
Originally by: RAW23 No, my concern is that certain justifications
If your concern is with the justification for other policies then we need to address those directly, and not indirectly through this.
I believe most of your other concerns are addressed by my second answer (along with cryptic addendum) in this post.
I'm afraid it is not possible to address these other concerns directly without first addressing this question as the answers to the other questions are conditional on the answer to this one. I'm not trying to address the other questions indirectly here; I am trying to establish a key premise on which the conclusions on these other issues will depend. In the case of interest payments, the argument that needs to be provided to justify not logging them will be different depending on whether the bank will remain open or not (putting aside, for the moment, the possibility that this policy may be changed). If the bank will close/liquidate then I am, more or less, satisfied with the justifications that have been given already. But the success of these arguments depends on the bank not going on to make profits of its own. If it does go on to do so, then a different explanation is needed to justify not honouring commitments on interest after the commitments on deposits have been met (there is no need for the interest to slow down this first stage of recovery) and the bank is making profits. An explanation will be needed as to why these profits should not be paid over to honour the interest payments that are outstanding. If this situation will never arise because the bank will close, then there is no reason to keep logging interest. But if it might arise, then there are arguments for keeping track of the interest, and these arguments have not yet been addressed. However, there is no point rehearsing them in full if the bank has no intention of returning to profitability instead of liquidating once the principle deficit has been recovered.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 11:25:00 -
[786]
The bank will not close and will return to profitability. In order to achieve that we have frozen withdrawals and interest payments.
Perhaps it's best not to get sidetracked trying to discuss with me the justification of other policies to tear apart the justifications of this policy as raised by other individuals; but rather just address my justification of this policy directly?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 11:44:00 -
[787]
Edited by: RAW23 on 31/12/2009 11:45:48
Originally by: Ray McCormack The bank will not close and will return to profitability. In order to achieve that we have frozen withdrawals and interest payments.
Perhaps it's best not to get sidetracked trying to discuss with me the justification of other policies to tear apart the justifications of this policy as raised by other individuals; but rather just address my justification of this policy directly?
Ok. That is very helpful. Thank you for clearing that up (although I should say that it might be worth making this policy clear to Sencnes and LVV).
I have no problem with the idea of the bank returning to profitability and don't think you really need to justify this decision in and of itself. However, this does directly affect the arguments about logging interest payments. You have said that logging interest payments would slow down the recovery of the principle. But this need not be the case. You can simply commit to a two stage plan, whereby you state that your primary aim is to recover the principle deficit. Once that has been done, and only once that has been done, you can then pursue the secondary aim of recovering the interest deficit. You don't even need to spend developer time (LVV's concern) on working out how to log the interest at this point, as long as you commit to do so once the principle has been recovered and the bank is making money over and above its principle deficit.
However, if you do not want to do this, then some arguments other than a delay in the recovery of the principle will need to be offered (or a rejection of my suggestions above that will provide further support for your claims that it is not possible to work out a way of logging interest that will not affect the recovery of the principle).
The key problem here, for me, is that the first 100 billion, to pull a number out of the air, that the bank makes after recovering the deposits, will be logged as profit even though there are liabilities outstanding. If it is possible to make money after raising your assets to meet your deposit liabilities then it is also possible to use this money to pay off outstanding interest claims. I can't, at present, see any reason for not funneling any profits into honouring interest commitments once you have completed the first stage of the recovery. If the bank can book profits then it will be in a position to pay off its remaining debts.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 13:09:00 -
[788]
I see SencneS replied in a quite similar way already but still:
Quote:
3) This is what I've been trying to avoid from happening. I'm a firm believer in archiving the account balances and if at a later date they return they get their account back. It's still up in the air how EBANK will handle that particular aspect, and one that this very thread mentions wants input from the public on how to handle.
Karlrand below says "I'd rather see active players get more ISK, then distributing to everyone and have ISK sit in dead wallets" this would support Ray's original design of clearing out accounts that are inactive. While I agree inactive accounts should be removed as a liability I strongly believe they should not be cleared and never repaid if the user returns.
Imho you'd have had an hugely better "PR" if you did this:
- dead accounts are flagged like you planned to.
- they are not cleared though (just written off as liability), but you put them in a "potential withdraw account", i.e. the dead account holder, when he returns back, he can ask for withdrawal but it'll be done as lower priority and "when you can".
In this way, you don't have to have real money sitting idle, nor you have to deal with those "zombie" accounts at all till they become "revenant" and even then, at your pace and at the bottom of the queue.
I think this would be a solution that would be seen as the lesser evil and much more digestable and widely accepted than downright cutting them out, even if the "them" that return will be a minimal minority.
Quote:
And for what it's worth, o7 to Sencnes. Taking the time to respond to questions in the manner he's doing right now is awesome. Keep it up, this is exactly the sort of positive discussion that Ebank and MD needs.
QFT, if this kind of transparency would be out since day 1 of the "announcement", we'd have spared a lot of troll bandwidth.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 14:20:00 -
[789]
Originally by: RAW23 Edited by: RAW23 on 31/12/2009 11:45:48
Originally by: Ray McCormack The bank will not close and will return to profitability. In order to achieve that we have frozen withdrawals and interest payments.
Ok. That is very helpful. Thank you for clearing that up (although I should say that it might be worth making this policy clear to Sencnes and LVV).
To be fair, LVV's response, at least (I don't remember SencneS's), is that he would hope that EBank would continue to survive, but that he personally felt, at the moment making that post, that people would withdraw and, as such, the bank would not continue. Not that he didn't want it to.
|
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 16:00:00 -
[790]
Originally by: cosmoray
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?
Better question is EVE going to be around in what form ? I hope it will but you never know.
|
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 16:58:00 -
[791]
Let me, once again (sigh), sum it up for everyone. Your money is gone.
Ebank cannot repair the damage done using real world fiscal tactics hence the feeble attempts at using highly offensive financial game tactics that have potential to work.
Having said this, they will get bored/fed up and probably use one of the minor ebank officials with access to the isk and just take it all.
Or repair it within a zillion years, then take even more.
Point being everyone has the potential to scam. This really just depends on how fed up, ****ed and abused they feel. All the people screaming at Ray is a great start to him going forward with a big f u. I'm not defending Ray by any means. I trully think he is utilizing the options to fix a mmo entity that cannot follow real world resolutions. I also think this is simply going to end in tears.
|
Tarinara
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 17:32:00 -
[792]
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Tarinara Sorry SencneS: my main never got an Eve Mail, E-Mail or any other mail. EBank has made ZERO effort to contact me concerning your theft & extortion of my ISK...
Was your main's account unsubbed at the time? Also note it was over 9000!!! (Yeah I went there, but so did SencneS) Don't you think that out of 9000 characters a couple of mistakes were made since all the names had to be either copy/pasted in or typed out manually?
Why as a matter of fact: I was. I was taking advantage of that other lie about E-Bank being a 'safe place to put your ISK while you're taking a break from Eve'. And as for typo's, too many customers, etc.: sure ... they can have that excuse too.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 17:38:00 -
[793]
Originally by: RAW23 Ok. That is very helpful. Thank you for clearing that up (although I should say that it might be worth making this policy clear to Sencnes and LVV).
I'm not sure where this idea from my perspective comes from. I've been very careful answering this question because I'm very realistic. I believe that when EBANK opens up withdrawals that all but a handful of people will actually withdraw their ISK. This will make EBANK still remain "open" but with low deposit amount.
Just to clear, I don't want EBANK to shutdown, but I fully recognize that it may have no choice due to everything that has happened.
There was a time I wanted to liquidate EBANK, that was over 7 months ago when Ricdic pulled a runner. I believed it was probably the best option at the time. However, if you read my posts I've been very passionate about the survival of EBANK and fully support it's recovery to 100%.
I've actually re-read my posts in this thread and I can't see where this idea came from.
Amarr for Life |
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 18:09:00 -
[794]
Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 31/12/2009 18:09:50
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: RAW23 Ok. That is very helpful. Thank you for clearing that up (although I should say that it might be worth making this policy clear to Sencnes and LVV).
I'm not sure where this idea from my perspective comes from. I've been very careful answering this question because I'm very realistic. I believe that when EBANK opens up withdrawals that all but a handful of people will actually withdraw their ISK. This will make EBANK still remain "open" but with low deposit amount.
I think RAW's perception came from, as mine did a little, your posts sometimes spoke in the hypothetical ("if everyone withdraws", "there could be a run") without necessarily stating whether that was the plan.
So, it might be fairer to say that we wanted the policy clear to everyone, including you an LVV if there were any misunderstandings. |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 18:58:00 -
[795]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 31/12/2009 18:09:50
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: RAW23 Ok. That is very helpful. Thank you for clearing that up (although I should say that it might be worth making this policy clear to Sencnes and LVV).
I'm not sure where this idea from my perspective comes from. I've been very careful answering this question because I'm very realistic. I believe that when EBANK opens up withdrawals that all but a handful of people will actually withdraw their ISK. This will make EBANK still remain "open" but with low deposit amount.
I think RAW's perception came from, as mine did a little, your posts sometimes spoke in the hypothetical ("if everyone withdraws", "there could be a run") without necessarily stating whether that was the plan.
So, it might be fairer to say that we wanted the policy clear to everyone, including you an LVV if there were any misunderstandings.
Yes, more or less what Dretzle says. I'm not trying to beat you with the consistency stick but its important to get clear on what the official position is. Ray has made it quite clear now that the bank will stay open and will return to profitability.
Quote:
The bank will not close and will return to profitability. In order to achieve that we have frozen withdrawals and interest payments.
Quote:
Nothing has changed with regards to withdrawal controls once the bank re-opens.
So, there is no possibility of liquidation due to a run because withdrawal controls will remain in place.
This is not the same position as that offered by Sencnes and LVV, although they did both make it clear that they would like to see the bank stay open.
This post from Sencnes could be read either way:
Quote:
As far as I know that is the plan, if we had 100% account balance available and everyone withdrew their ISK then by definition a Run has happened and EBANK would be liquidating all it has to honor those withdrawals. I might add that the current policy laid out in this thread by Ray says "ISK will become available for withdrawals once per month as profit above an asset valuation of 700b becomes available." While this is not 100% it shows Ray's and EBANK's intent to honor withdrawals once there are funds available, at least above a certain level and according to the valuation of that account.
But this one does not agree with Ray's stated policy:
Quote:
RAW - I honestly think it not close enough to determine if EBANK will shutdown or continue on once liabilities have been meet. At the moment the requirement to continue operating is apparent.
Similarly, LVV left it open in Kwint's thread whether liquidation would be allowed or not, saying that it was a possibility but one she hoped could be avoided. Again, on the basis of Ray's post this is not the policy of the bank. The bank will remain open, officially, so we must, now, take that as an assumption in our further discussions. We can leave the possibility of liquidation to one side as the Chairman has said that this is not the bank's plan.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 19:37:00 -
[796]
Originally by: RAW23
Quote: As far as I know that is the plan, if we had 100% account balance available and everyone withdrew their ISK then by definition a Run has happened and EBANK would be liquidating all it has to honor those withdrawals. I might add that the current policy laid out in this thread by Ray says "ISK will become available for withdrawals once per month as profit above an asset valuation of 700b becomes available." While this is not 100% it shows Ray's and EBANK's intent to honor withdrawals once there are funds available, at least above a certain level and according to the valuation of that account.
But this one does not agree with Ray's stated policy:
Yes, mark that up to not answering a direct question. If you read your question it asks if the intent is to stay open, or shut down. To which I answer "That is the plan"
Here is your question:--
Quote: 3. Does EBANK intend to allow a run once its assets equal its liabilities (with or without interest), as suggested by LVV and SencneS? Or does it intend to maintain withdrawal controls to ensure no such run happens, which is what I have understood Ray's stated plan to be? If withdrawal controls are maintained, is it EBANK's objective to become a profit making venture?
Now read my answer again. I never want to commit EBANK to anything without an "official" notice, I've stated this before in this very thread. By answering that particular question that way doesn't lead to shutting down or staying open. In fact it even quotes current policy stating that withdrawals will be "throttled" for lack of a better word.
Sorry to "wordsmith" you a little on that answer, but you're right to seek an official stance, but wrong to assume what my real position was. After all you where asking for EBANK's stance, not my own personal stance. You can understand that for anyone other then Ray or Athre to post directly committal statement is not "good". You where asking something that would commit EBANK to a stance, to which I answered you in such a way no matter what the official stance is, my statement supports it.
Again sorry to manipulate the answer in this manner, and I hope you can see why now.
Amarr for Life |
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 19:56:00 -
[797]
1) I'm glad to see that the positive discussion is continuing with a minimum of trolling from both sides.
2) Much of the current discussion revolves around Ebank "returning to profitability". From what I've read, it's never been proven that Ebank was a profitable model, nor demonstrated that the Ebank business model has the potential to be profitable once returned to normal operating status. Does Ebank have a viable plan for profitability once the accounts are restored?
3) As much as I appreciate the responses from Ebank staff, I would suggest that "official policy" statements be posted on the Ebank site. It can be difficult to distinguish between discussion, off-the-cuff remarks, and official policy in a threadnaught like this. No need for big fancy news releases though - just a copy and paste of some of the recent posts would suffice.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 20:00:00 -
[798]
Originally by: RJ Nobel 2) Much of the current discussion revolves around Ebank "returning to profitability". From what I've read, it's never been proven that Ebank was a profitable model, nor demonstrated that the Ebank business model has the potential to be profitable once returned to normal operating status. Does Ebank have a viable plan for profitability once the accounts are restored?
I agree. I think this is the next significant point to answer, if EBank is still to be considered legitimate and viable, and has been requested by cosmoray, as well.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 20:07:00 -
[799]
Ok, I see where you're coming from. I just rationalized what you saw and what I said.
I posted this more for hypothetical discussion then anything else. I enjoy mulling over scenarios it's one of my pleasures I take away from MD daily. You should know by now, I'm pretty logical, rational (most of the time), realistic when it comes to analysis.
Here is a scenario that I want to share:-
The parameters are EBANK's current policy which I stated is as Profits above 700B become available withdrawals at current account valuation will be an option.
Lets say for every month 100B becomes available for withdrawal. And account holders max out that allocation. This would equal about 285B in EBANK account. Each and every month that happens until there is no more liabilities, 100% of the ISK is withdrawn.
At that point in time EBANK is running and running with 700B+ ISK Capital which is 100% privately owned.
Months go on, no one deposits any ISK, no one applies for loans, EBANK's Funding is up over 1Trillion now, and still no one deposits, no one applies for loans.
There is a real life cost associated with EBANK, the website everything. If no one is using it, for months on end, why continue to shell out Real Life cost? Why would EBANK remain open under these conditions?
Since it's privately held and clearly the entire entity is just churning profit for it's own usage. I propose it probably wouldn't stay open.
You have to admit this scenario "could" happen.
Amarr for Life |
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 20:09:00 -
[800]
Originally by: Ray McCormack It's no longer on the table. We'll never write off account balances for inactivity or failure to provide an API key. As you state, we're finalising the entire policy surrounding Suspense Accounts, but that much I can guarantee now.
Great news - I, for one, am very impressed. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, but my personal opinion is that this is the most fair position, and this self-imposed constraint (which will slow the recovery and therefore greatly increase EBANK's workload) is a huge step towards building trust.
Very commendable - as is a lot of news coming from the EBANK camp these days.
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 20:39:00 -
[801]
Edited by: SencneS on 31/12/2009 20:45:31
Originally by: RJ Nobel From what I've read, it's never been proven that Ebank was a profitable model, nor demonstrated that the Ebank business model has the potential to be profitable once returned to normal operating status.
That's a question that has perplexed me since we found out EBANK was 1.3T in the hole.
The share portfilio ran a very small profit, the amount of scam IPOs/Bonds that Ricdic purchased was almost as high as the amount of honest IPOs and Bonds. Although I'd have to run it again and write off Kwint's 3B Hardship fee. It might be in the negative now.
Loans where profitable up until that 275B default. In fact it was running a pretty nice profit until then. The old EBANK model was to include reputation as collateral, this policy is no longer in effect. All loans now require collateral of at least 100%. If you remove that loan the portfolio still runs a profit, it's just that default was so big it ate up the almost 100B+ Profit the loans had turned over. (ANd yes that includes all other defaults) If you remove defaulted loans that didn't have collateral it's jaw droopingly high. However, you should consider that requiring collateral would have also reduced the amount of profit because EBANK did have a sizable amount of non-collateral loans that end in good standing.
Secondary incomes like advertisements on the site etc are raw profit.
The last part was what Ricdic and Ventures did. Which we where told by their managers that they where turning a profit. Both Proton Power and Ricdic are of the opinion everything they did turned a profit. Now Proton I believe, Ricdic I would have expected it to turn a profit, but he also did RMT..
So where all that ISK went is still a complete mystery :(
Edit:- well not a complete mystery. If you add up all the defaults, the RMT, the Interest paid, and all the fees etc it comes to over 1.2T.
What I can't account for is where all the profits from activities went. If you looked at it this way, EBANK took on deposits, paid interest, did activities to generate ISK, but their every loss they took was represented in a direct deficit.
You could say EBANK was a ZERO profit organization from the finance sheet, but we KNOW that wasn't the case. Things made ISK, where that "made ISK" went is the mystery.
Amarr for Life |
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:00:00 -
[802]
Originally by: SencneS Edited by: SencneS on 31/12/2009 20:45:31
Originally by: RJ Nobel From what I've read, it's never been proven that Ebank was a profitable model, nor demonstrated that the Ebank business model has the potential to be profitable once returned to normal operating status.
Loans where profitable up until that 275B default. In fact it was running a pretty nice profit until then.
No offense, but you can't take out one default and say the rest were profitable. You have to look at the portfolio as a whole. Was the profit from the other loans greater than the 275B default? If the answer was no, then it was running at a loss and not a nice profit.
But...
Originally by: SencneS The old EBANK model was to include reputation as collateral, this policy is no longer in effect. All loans now require collateral of at least 100%.
... when you add this going forward, that's a change to the model which could make that portion of ventures profitable.
Originally by: SencneS So where all that ISK went is still a complete mystery :(
I don't know the financials, but I didn't see it mentioned in your post. Are you including the salary of the EBank employees? EBank itself might have run at a profit (not accounting for the ricdic scams, etc), but after the cost of employee fees are added in, is that were the ISK went?
But I guess that kind of illustrates the rest of the problem. We'd like to see a business model where we can't just lose ISK to the accounting department.
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:15:00 -
[803]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega No offense, but you can't take out one default and say the rest were profitable. You have to look at the portfolio as a whole. Was the profit from the other loans greater than the 275B default? If the answer was no, then it was running at a loss and not a nice profit.
I've "discussed" this point with Secnes a couple of times. When it was EBank vs everyone I took a similar stance. In light of the new detente, though, I am willing to see his point. I think his message is that the spread exists to make lending from deposits a viable possibility.
Not that it did "work", but that it can.
|
Hippopotamus Rex
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:20:00 -
[804]
Edited by: Hippopotamus Rex on 31/12/2009 21:21:06 Perhaps all your resources/time is consumed in the recovery effort, but has there been much discussion about what EBANK will look like post-recovery?
What I am most curious about is do you have idea regarding the size EBANK will be? ie What total size of deposits do you think you can profitably support?
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:52:00 -
[805]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Try moving one ISK less than you actually have, there may be a rounding issue.
Nope this doesn't work either. It still tells me I am trying to deduct more than the funds that are available in my account. Do I have to account for the 5% you guys charge as well, and include that in the math or is that deducted immediately by your teller?
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:09:00 -
[806]
Originally by: SetrakDark I've "discussed" this point with SencneS a couple of times. When it was EBank vs everyone I took a similar stance. In light of the new detente, though, I am willing to see his point. I think his message is that the spread exists to make lending from deposits a viable possibility.
Not that it did "work", but that it can.
Yeah, I'm not saying that in EBANK's case that lending was profitable, it clearly wasn't. But that all hinged on one loan. EBANK had many loans (I can't recall the exact number now, but I think it was close to 200) and it all went "poof" with that one default.
I'm a pretty firm believer that lending IS profitable. However, a lot of requirements need to be meet. A few months ago when you and I talked I removed that one loan and saw how much profit it could have made. However It was slightly weighted in my favor, which I had later corrected.
I included loans which wouldn't happen today, I included non-collateral loans. There where many that where completed in good standing. At the time it was overly exaggerated to say that Loans are profitable by x% when not all things are equal.
It wasn't until a good few weeks after that I opened up a excel sheet that was named "Book.xlsx" wondering what it was. It was all the data and I realized even though I removed that one big loan in the stack of hundreds of loans I should have really removed all loans that didn't have collateral. Which would be possible for todays EBANK policy.
While the overall outcome was profitable, it wasn't nearly as grand as with them included all good standing non-collateral loans. The main reason is non-collateral loans had a higher interest rate.
If people ask "Can loans be profitable" I have to say "Yes" purely because of the historical data I have access to, it's actually a good sample of loans because it includes everything.
Loans that where good with and without collateral. Loans that there defaulted with and without collateral. Loans that where defaulted with collateral and still made a loss.
Going forward, I would say that EBANK's current loan policy can turn a profit. If that profit could cover interest requirements for accounts equal to the amount lent, I'd say "Yes" to that as well.
While it's not hundreds of billions in profit yearly it would be profitable.
Amarr for Life |
Cobalt Sixty
Caldari Piezochem
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 02:44:00 -
[807]
Firstly, thank you Ray (and SencneS) for answering some of the big questions for us.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 But since the possibility of zeroing these accounts is still, apparently, on the table, can you explain how it differs from theft.
It's no longer on the table. We'll never write off account balances for inactivity or failure to provide an API key. As you state, we're finalising the entire policy surrounding Suspense Accounts, but that much I can guarantee now.
This is a particular relief to see. Speaking as a (albeit very small) depositor I was very, very disappointed at the idea of writting off the balances of accounts of those depositors who were either unwilling or unable to provide API details. The harm to the long term reputation of EBANK would have been irreparable, in my opinion.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 10:42:00 -
[808]
Originally by: RJ Nobel Does Ebank have a viable plan for profitability once the accounts are restored?
When EBANK achieves full liquidity it will be because of profitability, and therefore we will already be in a profitable position when accounts re-open. There is also the 90% clause from the original freeze announcement that allows us to stop interest payments again should we fall below profitability. Now that may sound like we're going against our promise of interest payments again, but it's the only sensible solution to ensure we don't fall into the same pit once more.
Originally by: RJ Nobel I would suggest that "official policy" statements be posted on the Ebank site.
It's just too time consuming. Once staff numbers are up we can look at this.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 11:47:00 -
[809]
Quote:
The old EBANK model was to include reputation as collateral
Sigh.
How that could happen? In EvE?
I mean, I can see people falling in stuff like Dax's scam, but this was supposed to be a *bank* and thus:
- populated with people with a clue about EvE "peculiarities". Heck, it took me a grand 2 months as new player to learn about how harsh EvE can be.
- with decent accounting, "like a bank". But I see that working on reputation does not need accounting, as everyone are going to be honored and fair, won't them?
Quote:
If people ask "Can loans be profitable" I have to say "Yes" purely because of the historical data I have access to, it's actually a good sample of loans because it includes everything
Did you also did the subsequent step?
Since interests are compounding, and thus potentially generating a devastating snowball effect, are the combined loans interests going to cover the compounding depositor interests?
What is the actual net gain out of this?
Does it justify having people (i.e. Athre) having to endure manually operating the teller / withdrawal operations like it has to be done?
To state it in one sentence:
"Is it a sound business worth doing?"
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 11:58:00 -
[810]
Edited by: RAW23 on 01/01/2010 11:59:27
Originally by: Ray McCormack
When EBANK achieves full liquidity it will be because of profitability, and therefore we will already be in a profitable position when accounts re-open. There is also the 90% clause from the original freeze announcement that allows us to stop interest payments again should we fall below profitability. Now that may sound like we're going against our promise of interest payments again, but it's the only sensible solution to ensure we don't fall into the same pit once more.
Are you saying that EBANK's profits will be permanently protected at the expense of investors interest payments? But previous month's profits, say, will not be used to cover the interest payments in a given month if the bank makes no money that month, or loses money? This seems to give the bank most of the rewards and none of the risks. In good months EBANK will pocket profits, whilst in bad months it will, in effect, take the interest payments owed to depositors and keep these for itself?
Have I understood this correctly? If so, this doesn't really look like the business model for a bank at all. Looks more like depositors are to be treated as shareholders in the bank, but without any voting rights (and I'm trying to put a positive spin on this - this arrangement could be described in rather less flattering terms if I do understand what's being said).
Really, the solution to avoiding falling into the pit again is to run a business that does make enough to cover its liabilities, not to say that if the business does badly it will just renege on its obligations (again).
|
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 12:43:00 -
[811]
No, we will use a model whereby profits from good months go towards shoring up deficits in bad months. There is no mechanism for profit sharing in the bank currently.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 12:47:00 -
[812]
Originally by: Ray McCormack No, we will use a model whereby profits from good months go towards shoring up deficits in bad months. There is no mechanism for profit sharing in the bank currently.
Great. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 22:32:00 -
[813]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha How that could happen? In EvE? Since interests are compounding, and thus potentially generating a devastating snowball effect, are the combined loans interests going to cover the compounding depositor interests?
What is the actual net gain out of this?
"Is it a sound business worth doing?"
Reputation as collateral was Ricdic's baby, he was the loan officer. I might add that at the time EBANK was targeting toward big well known high profile names that needed a LOT of ISK quickly that could recover the ISK quickly. A non-collateral set of loans net EBANK over 80B in interest (Not exaggerating here). You could say these loans in particular were the loans that opening up a point to start justifying loans of that nature. If big names wanted a loan, Ricdic issued them, all but a couple paid them back, and those names have been exposed.
I guess you could say Ricdic was gambling on loans of this nature, but he was on a winning streak, loan after loan repaid in full with interest. Was it a mistake, sure, looking back it was a bad idea. Looking at it from that moment in time EBANK was piling up ISK, so why stop a good thing.
I think everyone would continue to make the same risky moves if it nets you billions of ISK, every time. In some cases tens of billions of ISK. The issue EBANK faced was, the default was much higher then the profit earned to date.
As for "interest covering interest" Yes, Loan interest is compounding too so as long as both are equal or loan interest is higher then the interest being paid for that ISK borrowed, it's covered.
Is it a sound business worth doing??
In my opinion Yes. Back months ago in the Banks and Loans thread I posted what I believe would be a viable bank or lending operation. With the Dynamic locks on deposits for loans issued and as principle is paid back, deposits get unlocked. Along with distributed risk in the form of each loan amount be evenly divided between all accounts. Interest for deposited and used ISK be profit sharing between the institution and the accounts (Heavier on the accounts).
I'd also add in an additional thing now, since the recent discussion is about non-collateral loans. If I was running that particular bank or loan institution I'd set aside part of the profits from each collateral loans (After liability has been meet). I'd use it on loans where reputation is used as collateral. Much like a reserve of Profit from loans. Maybe 0.5% for every loan added interest for this.
This way it doesn't effect the deposits, the non-collateral loans are issued from left over profits. While others might disagree with this idea. EBANK has a pretty decent history is loans to go off, almost all the non-collateral loans returned vast amounts of interest. Reusing the profit to the Bank itself in return for risking it on big reputations is well worth it.
Amarr for Life |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.02 06:37:00 -
[814]
Sorry, not been reading up much on the other discussions, but is there a question over whether or not the lending of money is a sound business practise?
If so then the answer is unequivocally yes.
Is lending without collateral a sound business practise? Then the answer is proven to be no.
|
Taikun
Gallente 20th Legion Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.01.02 10:22:00 -
[815]
Edited by: Taikun on 02/01/2010 10:23:20
Originally by: Ray McCormack Sorry, not been reading up much on the other discussions, but is there a question over whether or not the lending of money is a sound business practise?
If so then the answer is unequivocally yes.
Is lending without collateral a sound business practise? Then the answer is proven to be no.
Allow me to also add.
Was the lending of personal ISK to EBank a good idea? NO
Was the appointment of a scam artist like Ray to the chair have good outcomes for those who still have ISK tied up with EBank? NO
Will Ray continue to hold and use EBank fund for his own personal enjoyment and self ego masterbation/glorification? YES
Does this behaviour have a name? YES
What is that name? SCAMMING
Taikun
A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation. |
Taikun
Gallente 20th Legion Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.01.02 13:09:00 -
[816]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Sorry, not been reading up much on the other discussions, but is there a question over whether or not the lending of money is a sound business practise?
If so then the answer is unequivocally yes.
Is lending without collateral a sound business practise? Then the answer is proven to be no.
Totally weird... a post of mine completely disappeared. Nothing in my email box about it either so allow me to repost.
Originally by: "Taikun" Allow me to also add.
Was the lending of personal ISK to EBank a good idea? NO
Was the appointment of a scam artist like Ray to the chair have good outcomes for those who still have ISK tied up with EBank? NO
Will Ray continue to hold and use EBank fund for his own personal enjoyment and self ego masterbation/glorification? YES
Does this behaviour have a name? YES
What is that name? SCAMMING
Deciding unilaterally to change the "rules" of a business contract is without a doubt a scam. A full or even partial denial of the "customers" isjk to be returned uppon request is theft and it is important for everyone to know, at every opportunity WHO in this game is untrustworthy at all times. Taikun
A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation. |
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 19:31:00 -
[817]
Originally by: SencneS LVV at the, imho unreasonable, request of trolls that had no ISK in EBANK, to inform every EBANK member via EVEMail about account closure. LVV worked day and night and got CCP approval to spam EVE with over 9000+ EVEMails. Some of those Characters came back... dead, as in removed from the game/reprocessed.
Why 9,000+ EveMails? Currently EBANK's statistics page is only reporting 7,016 account holders (and that number has never decreased) holding between 2-4 accounts each, for a total number of accounts at 15,260. (Sorry if it is a pointless/outdated question).
As to the frozen interest on accounts: Can it be handled like salaries? Recorded and paid out when assets exceed liabilities? --
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 22:29:00 -
[818]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Why 9,000+ EveMails? Currently EBANK's statistics page is only reporting 7,016 account holders (and that number has never decreased) holding between 2-4 accounts each, for a total number of accounts at 15,260. (Sorry if it is a pointless/outdated question).
As to the frozen interest on accounts: Can it be handled like salaries? Recorded and paid out when assets exceed liabilities?
Because it's OVER 9000!!!!!!
I guess it really doesn't matter, 1000 unsolicited EVEMails from one person probably would have yielded a ban without CCP approval, but you're right I don't think it was 9000, probably something like 5000-6000. I was having some fun and only one person caught it a few pages back :)
Remember this EVEMail that went out wasn't about the Freezing accounts or interest. It was to inform people to stop sending ISK to EBANK Ricdic. That happened way back in May/June. So to the person that says they didn't get their EVEMail about Freezing and Interest they are right, one was never send. The only EVEMail LVV has mass sent was the Stop using EBANK Ricdic as the deposit point.
I went looking for the exact number that went out, it is dig in deep in EBANK's internal forum, or it was on the original Ricdic stole thread that I went looking for as well. A lot of threads where around there about that. I couldn't find it, but either way, consider LVV was limited to under 50 Characters per EVEMail, any number over 1000 was an unreasonable request.
As for interest being retro-paid like salaries, Interest paid now or later the result is the same, longer recovery. And don't hold onto that Salaries bit either, as Payroll Manager I am tasked with coming up with a new payroll. I'm going to be suggesting some radical changes, one of which would remove the participation pay. Which is where the "bulk" of Payroll came from. People getting paid for tasks performed rather then simple active forum discussion. Tasks like tellering where a teller ISSUES ISK back to the customer will always be there, but I'm focusing toward things like income limits, payroll budget limitations etc.
Put it this way, unless the rest of the board vote to keep payroll the same, the "Salaries" that are being tracked for retro pay will be limited, VERY limited.
Amarr for Life |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 05:10:00 -
[819]
Originally by: SencneS consider LVV was limited to under 50 Characters per EVEMail, any number over 1000 was an unreasonable request.
50? Hah, I wish!
The limit is 5 characters.
And we sent out around 6500 emails.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 06:57:00 -
[820]
Some form of profit distribution to currently affected account holders is possible in the future to offset the missed interest payments.
|
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 07:01:00 -
[821]
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.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 12:14:00 -
[822]
Edited by: RAW23 on 04/01/2010 12:14:01
Originally by: Leneerra 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.
The principles underlying Leneera's points here are eminently reasonable. However, from a practical perspective it is not possible for the bank to negotiate separately with each individual depositor and the outcome of any collective negotiation is not going to satisfy everyone. But I agree that some form of negotiation is necessary. Is there any chance of the BoD accepting a representative of the depositors onto the board with a specific brief to look out for their interests? If not, could the bank encourage the depositors to appoint a spokesperson from their own (the depositors') ranks to negotiate with the BoD? Some form of consent to a settlement transmitted via a representative is probably the best that can be hoped for in this situation.
Originally by: Ray McCormack Some form of profit distribution to currently affected account holders is possible in the future to offset the missed interest payments.
This is very encouraging and may represent the ideal, realistic (if that is not an oxymoron) solution to Leneera's problem above. However, at some point in the not too distant future such a possibility needs to become a committment. Whilst consideration of such a possibility is a fine sign of the board's good will, it is not really acceptable for such an outcome to be seen as in the gift of the board, and thus as easily taken away as given, rather than as a firm obligation that recognises the entitlement of the depositors to some form of compensation for their lost interest.
|
Filia Tacabus
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 12:55:00 -
[823]
Im getting all confused about this, can someone pls explain me what i should do and what i can expect?
I got 2 toons with e-bank accounts, 1 with allmost 6b and 1 with almost 4b, both of them have the money in "pending" mode.
If i want to get those or some of those isk out, what should i do?
Ive allready logged in with my aspi key!
This is all the isk i have in the game and i cant afford to use RL money to buy GTC¦s, i allready used RL money to activate both toons so i could activate my e-bank acounts again for the aspi thing. I thought i could get the isk out again now?
|
Dagny Bronstein
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 13:18:00 -
[824]
Originally by: Filia Tacabus If i want to get those or some of those isk out, what should i do?
wait. post on the forums. wait.
Read eve-bank.net regularly -- when limited withdrawals get enabled, they will be served on a "while stocks last" "first come - first served" basis (but then it doesn't currently appear as if the so far announced policies are actually set in stone).
(if EBANK should replace the limited API requirement with send <x> ISK to verify your identity, think twice )
Originally by: eve-bank.net Next Update
The next announcement is due February 15th to March 1st, so expect it in April sometime.
|
Yendor Widdershins
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 01:17:00 -
[825]
Originally by: Filia Tacabus Im getting all confused about this, can someone pls explain me what i should do and what i can expect?
EBank claims they will put in place a mechanism where at least some people will be able to liquidate their accounts for around 30% value.
Of course, previously EBank claimed that no one person (not even Riddic) could cause substantial harm. And after he scammed, EBank claimed to have plenty of liquid assets to process withdraws.
In short, expect to lose everything.
|
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 20:17:00 -
[826]
Originally by: Yendor Widdershins
Originally by: Filia Tacabus Im getting all confused about this, can someone pls explain me what i should do and what i can expect?
EBank claims they will put in place a mechanism where at least some people will be able to liquidate their accounts for around 30% value.
Of course, previously EBank claimed that no one person (not even Riddic) could cause substantial harm. And after he scammed, EBank claimed to have plenty of liquid assets to process withdraws.
In short, expect to lose everything.
let me put it like this:
in a world (eve universe with the gods CCP) where scamming/stealing is TOTALLY allowed and fully accepted without any kind of punishment that can be set, where would you EVER hope to have a bank or any other kind off trust to any one?!
at this point i wouldn't trust any one in eve, even the most well known, with such amount of isk. losing several billions on these kind of things without any means of punisment or way to make things "right" just makes you extremely unfriendly towards other players and removes any trust in other players. personally i think this is hurting the social aspect of the game and i am sure some off the old players would agree from back in the days when people where nice and helpfull..
but this is what happends when you make a world without rules and without the tools to punish those who hurt the mass. ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
Taikun
Gallente 20th Legion Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 21:45:00 -
[827]
Originally by: Filia Tacabus Im getting all confused about this, can someone pls explain me what i should do and what i can expect?
What you should do is realistically kiss your ISK goodbye. You will never see anything like your 6 billion returned to you.
Personal opinion and years of experience listening to jokers like these suggests the current state of affairs is nothing but 'holding pattern' for them to liquidate their own personal holdings and jump ship.
You (along with hundreds of others) were scammed... it's all gone.
Taikun
A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation. |
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 04:59:00 -
[828]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 07/01/2010 05:02:47 Such a disrespectful community, to me it looks like Ebank is lacking the determination to implement "the final solution" in regards to the funds held i.e. scam you all. Even worst, it is a clear example of bad faith as Sartre defined it a long time ago.
Quote: Sartre cites a cafT waiter, whose movements and conversation are a little too "waiter-esque". His voice oozes with an eagerness to please; he carries food rigidly and ostentatiously. His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter, but is rather consciously deceiving himself.
SCAM, FFS! SCAM NOW!
Black Sun Empire |
Master waka
|
Posted - 2010.01.08 16:38:00 -
[829]
Hey waka here im back from being away from eve for a while i put in my api and clicked to withdraw my isk, my account shows no more isk in ebank, however its not on my character, i sent a message to ebank a few days ago and got nothing so im typing on this forum in case someone reads it, whats up with my isk and iam i getting my isk or not?
|
Dzil
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.01.08 16:57:00 -
[830]
Originally by: Master waka Hey waka here im back from being away from eve for a while i put in my api and clicked to withdraw my isk, my account shows no more isk in ebank, however its not on my character, i sent a message to ebank a few days ago and got nothing so im typing on this forum in case someone reads it, whats up with my isk and iam i getting my isk or not?
Cool story. 1. Your isk is frozen. 2. Anyone's guess.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
|
Master waka
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 02:25:00 -
[831]
the reason its such an issue it was in the account, well i then wrote the amount to withdraw and it left the ebank account and went where?
|
Kilsatro
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 02:32:00 -
[832]
Are people just clinging to the hope they will ever get their money back?
|
SetrakDark
Caldari DarkCorp Technology and Finance
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 02:35:00 -
[833]
Originally by: Kilsatro Are people just clinging to the hope they will ever get their money back?
The people who can math good have taken the 40% offer from Ihatalo Cartel, which, afaik, is still on the table.
|
Katiana Swan
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 03:41:00 -
[834]
If EBANK had hired Akita T they would have been out of this mess by now
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 10:49:00 -
[835]
Originally by: SetrakDark The people who can math good have taken the 40% offer from Ihatalo Cartel, which, afaik, is still on the table.
I did request this here and got this reply; "Request denied".
However I cannot do it myself as my deposits are (when I was last able to actually access my account to check) stuck in "pending withdrawals", as stated here or here.
Meanwhile, I am losing the interest that IHAFS is paying on the money that could have been transferred.
Also waiting for official confirmation, and implementaton, of BLEEP usage ("That should be fine thanks. I will code and test this afternoon with an aim to having it live this evening").
BTW, take a look at this ; http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ty4kmZCn8bXiZ2_JXcO0l-w&single=true&gid=1&output=html The 2009.09.09 figure is so high as the "pending withdrawals" were not included at that time. --
|
CompTrekkie
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 18:25:00 -
[836]
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
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 18:53:00 -
[837]
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.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 19:01:00 -
[838]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar BTW, take a look at this ; http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ty4kmZCn8bXiZ2_JXcO0l-w&single=true&gid=1&output=html The 2009.09.09 figure is so high as the "pending withdrawals" were not included at that time.
I got a "spreadsheet is not published" message trying to look at that.
Originally by: Akita T BTW, if you see God when you're clutching for your chest due to sudden realization you have no chance to get out of this with your wallet intact tell him he still owes me money
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 10:32:00 -
[839]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega I got a "spreadsheet is not published" message trying to look at that.
Fixed; http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ty4kmZCn8bXiZ2_JXcO0l-w&single=true&gid=1&output=html
Remember - the "pending withdrawals" were not included in the 2009.09.09 liabilities, and I do not have complete figures before this date. The account/interest freeze started 2009.08.25. Think I must have pressed the wrong button - should update without any problems from now. --
|
Tarinara
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 22:53:00 -
[840]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar Also waiting for official confirmation, and implementaton, of BLEEP usage ("That should be fine thanks. I will code and test this afternoon with an aim to having it live this evening").
Wow ... Ray's post was from 2009.11.29 08:20:00 ... they must have really long days where Ray lives
|
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 17:30:00 -
[841]
Originally by: Rada Ionesco
Originally by: Ray McCormack Try moving one ISK less than you actually have, there may be a rounding issue.
Nope this doesn't work either. It still tells me I am trying to deduct more than the funds that are available in my account. Do I have to account for the 5% you guys charge as well, and include that in the math or is that deducted immediately by your teller?
So could Ray or someone else maybe help me out with this. I can't transfer money from my account to another. I have tried this three times now. I don't think I am doing it wrong, it just keeps giving me the same error message.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 17:38:00 -
[842]
Originally by: Rada Ionesco it just keeps giving me the same error message.
Bad file name or number? Care to elaborate?
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 17:43:00 -
[843]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Rada Ionesco it just keeps giving me the same error message.
Bad file name or number? Care to elaborate?
This is the error message.
You have tried to withdraw more funds than you have in your account!
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 17:49:00 -
[844]
We exchanged eve mails about this a week or two ago. I tried the transfer for 1.00 isk below the ammont in my suspense account, but still no dice. So...I am at a loss as to what to do. The transfer operation is not working, or it is mis-reading the amount in my account for some reason.
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 17:57:00 -
[845]
I will throw this idea out there again. Do I have to manually deduct the 5% that e-bank takes for the transfer/move money operation or is that calculated automatically and deducted from the transferred amount when the operation is completed?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.16 18:48:00 -
[846]
No. What are you trying to do exactly?
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 01:25:00 -
[847]
Edited by: Rada Ionesco on 17/01/2010 01:28:37 I am arranging for a transfer of my account funds to a IHAFS account, so that I can recover some of my funds. I'm a little confused here. Does this accoutn transfer system not work now? This was all covered in some posts between you and I at the end of last month I thought. It seemed to be a legitimate and operational system. I just can't seem to make the funds transfer work on the E-Bank side.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 05:04:00 -
[848]
You still haven't told me what error you're getting, when exactly you're getting it, etc. Please email those details to [email protected] and we can continue from there.
|
Ima Victim
|
Posted - 2010.01.21 16:02:00 -
[849]
Weeks on, I'm still waiting for the isk that was placed "in limbo" by virtue of the fact that it was subject to a pending withdrawl request when accounts were frozen to return to my account. Any ETA on that, or should I just slink off under the weight of the ridicule I shall surely receive merely for asking?
|
Marara Kovacs
|
Posted - 2010.01.21 16:26:00 -
[850]
I have an ebank account and I cant log in to the website... Im not trawling through all hte posts to look if this is a regular problem, so im just asking here: Why cant I log into my account, and who do i contact about it?
|
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.21 23:39:00 -
[851]
Originally by: Marara Kovacs I have an ebank account and I cant log in to the website... Im not trawling through all hte posts to look if this is a regular problem, so im just asking here: Why cant I log into my account, and who do i contact about it?
Most likely your issue deals with your actual login information (username/password). You need to file a support ticket and make sure you are detailed with your problem. For example if you can't get to the ebank website then put that rather than "i can't login". And if you can get to the ebank website and attempt to log in but it doesn't work, put that as well as any error messages you get.
The support site can be found at, http://support.eve-bank.net/
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 05:40:00 -
[852]
Originally by: Ima Victim Weeks on, I'm still waiting for the isk that was placed "in limbo" by virtue of the fact that it was subject to a pending withdrawl request when accounts were frozen to return to my account. Any ETA on that, or should I just slink off under the weight of the ridicule I shall surely receive merely for asking?
I started work on the scripts to cancel withdrawal requests last night. I'll try grab a few hours at work today and finish it off.
Oh yah, and BLEEP too, sometime. And a fix for that annoying login bug for new users (yes, we do get those).
|
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 20:16:00 -
[853]
I just reviewed the new EVE mail API, and it shows the recipient character's ID, the sender's character ID, and the message title of each message received.
Is it possible that EBANK could use this mail API to allow current players to validate themselves, versus surrendering a limited API? All the player would have to do is send an EVE mail from their character's account to a given EBank account, with a particular word in the title of the message.
I realize that this isn't something that could be implemented overnight, but would it be a feasible to implement it sometime in the future?
-----------------------------------------------
- Who Dares, Wins
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 20:22:00 -
[854]
Unfortunately that wouldn't supply us with details of the other characters on the account.
|
Mallishious
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 03:42:00 -
[855]
so i keep getting a web error page with this at the top "Server Error in '/' Application" when i attempt to log into my ebank account and access any of the ebank website after logging in, any ideas?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 05:01:00 -
[856]
Yes, there is a problem with new accounts. It will be fixed at the same time BLEEP is added.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 13:56:00 -
[857]
Any and all Pending Withdrawals Requests have been cancelled and the amount returned to your Suspense Account.
|
Dzil
Caldari Greyhound investments
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 19:42:00 -
[858]
I'm assuming the absence of cheering for achieving this milestone is all hung up in the suspense of what's next to come?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ima Victim
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 20:58:00 -
[859]
Actually I'm quite impressed. At least now I can see my isk. Next question: how can I get some of it back? Has Ebank started allowing withdrawls yet?
|
CompTrekkie
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 12:49:00 -
[860]
Wow so am I. At least I actually feel like I have the ISK now. Hopefully the next move will lead to me having access to the ISK.
|
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 14:28:00 -
[861]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Any and all Pending Withdrawals Requests have been cancelled and the amount returned to your Suspense Account.
Your accounts still show 2.4 billion in Pending Withdrawals. Oversight?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 14:48:00 -
[862]
Originally by: Varo Jan Your accounts still show 2.4 billion in Pending Withdrawals. Oversight?
Nope, that's updated automatically, so probably an issue with browser or Google caching. It shows correct for me.
Quote: Suspense1,458,613,862,162 Pending Withdrawals2,383,839,820
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 14:51:00 -
[863]
2,383,839,820 = 2.4B rounded. Shouldn¦t that number be zero?
|
Marcus Baltar
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 15:10:00 -
[864]
Originally by: Varo Jan 2,383,839,820 = 2.4B rounded. Shouldn¦t that number be zero?
It was zero when first announced.
That just show sthat there is 2,383,839,820 ISK that has been requested for withdrawal from verified accounts.
Speaking of verified accounts - it only took three days ("I started work on the scripts to cancel withdrawal requests last night" to "Any and all Pending Withdrawals Requests have been cancelled") to cancel "pending withdrawals" after you started work on it.
Twenty seven days later, I am still waiting for BLEEP to work on the EBANK site "I will code and test this afternoon with an aim to having it live this evening.".
One hundred and fifty four days later I am still waiting for the Asset to Liability ratio to exceed 40% (for withdrawal activation) let alone anything higher...
Asset to Liability Ratio: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=ty4kmZCn8bXiZ2_JXcO0l-w&single=true&gid=1&output=html --
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 15:35:00 -
[865]
Originally by: Varo Jan Shouldn¦t that number be zero?
Not if someone requested a withdrawal after the were cancelled.
Marcus, it's awesome that you can count. Please keep us updated on this ability.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 15:45:00 -
[866]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Varo Jan Shouldn¦t that number be zero?
Not if someone requested a withdrawal after the were cancelled.
Marcus, it's awesome that you can count. Please keep us updated on this ability.
I enjoy it as well, along with all the links. <--- note lack of sarcasm mark ending my sentence
Originally by: Akita T BTW, if you see God when you're clutching for your chest due to sudden realization you have no chance to get out of this with your wallet intact tell him he still owes me money
|
FlameWarrior
Gallente Hall Of Flame H Y E N A
|
Posted - 2010.01.30 00:12:00 -
[867]
hmmmm i just made 330mill withdraw, is that going to be possible ?? is there going to be any withdraw fee? Yoyo !LOTTERY MAN IS HERE ! |
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 03:54:00 -
[868]
2009.11.22 Suspense Accounts After six months any balances remaining in suspense accounts will be written off.
Suspense1,305,137,714,392 Retained Income(1,218,502,470,741)
Did you guys expect so little to be claimed? This is crazy.
I thought you'd burn off a few hundred bil; this looks like you might even end up in the black.
Sort of a bittersweet "recovery", no?
(This is as untrollish as I could be. I honestly tried)
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 04:04:00 -
[869]
Originally by: SetrakDark 2009.11.22 Suspense Accounts After six months any balances remaining in suspense accounts will be written off.
Suspense1,305,137,714,392 Retained Income(1,218,502,470,741)
Did you guys expect so little to be claimed? This is crazy.
I thought you'd burn off a few hundred bil; this looks like you might even end up in the black.
Sort of a bittersweet "recovery", no?
(This is as untrollish as I could be. I honestly tried)
I might be a bit confused or a bit too drunk, but I thought we sc****d the idea to write off suspense accounts no?
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 04:11:00 -
[870]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155
Originally by: SetrakDark 2009.11.22 Suspense Accounts After six months any balances remaining in suspense accounts will be written off.
Suspense1,305,137,714,392 Retained Income(1,218,502,470,741)
Did you guys expect so little to be claimed? This is crazy.
I thought you'd burn off a few hundred bil; this looks like you might even end up in the black.
Sort of a bittersweet "recovery", no?
(This is as untrollish as I could be. I honestly tried)
I might be a bit confused or a bit too drunk, but I thought we sc****d the idea to write off suspense accounts no?
I think you were talking about keeping them recorded, but taking them off the red. My point was that in 3 months you'll be functioning normally, but 1.2tish will be unclaimed (wherever it is on the books).
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 10:11:00 -
[871]
Originally by: SetrakDark 2009.11.22 Suspense Accounts After six months any balances remaining in suspense accounts will be written off.
Suspense1,305,137,714,392 Retained Income(1,218,502,470,741)
Did you guys expect so little to be claimed? This is crazy.
According to various posts earlier in the thread, no projections as to the quantity of write-offs were ever carried out. No answers were given when the question was asked at what % the whole exercise would be considered a failure. Given Ray's extension of a similiar policy to AATP with the explicit aim of expropriating money (rather than the fraud prevention cover story we got with EBANK) I expect the bank will see this as a major business success story.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 11:31:00 -
[872]
/me gives RAW23 a pacifier.
Are you back to play with us for reals or are you just going to run off again claiming quitsies to live in that fairytale world of yours you're trying so hard to pigeon-hole EVE in.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 12:31:00 -
[873]
Originally by: Ray McCormack /me gives RAW23 a pacifier.
Are you back to play with us for reals or are you just going to run off again claiming quitsies to live in that fairytale world of yours you're trying so hard to pigeon-hole EVE in.
/me sucks pacifier.
Restricting myself to one post every 4 pages or 2 weeks in EBANK threads. Back to play but more moderately.
Why would I run off to a fairy tale world when I have an internet spaceships one? I've given up trying to import basic values in to business practices here. I'm just going to hang around and point out every now and again that the pigeon-hole you are trying to jam EVE into is a pretty unpleasant place.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 16:18:00 -
[874]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 a bit too drunk
Quoting for oxymoron. You can never be too drunk, just like an earthquake can never be too earthquakey. And I do believe the scientific measurement of drunkenness is in degrees of ugly - the fuglometer. General markings being references to acquaintances or celebrities, or references to celebrities in varying states of being.
So when asked how drunk you were last night, you could reply "I believe I was close to Drew Barrymore with One Eye and a Rotting Foot but for all I know it could have been Denzel Washington With a Limp-Lisp and Mullet" (I know, hawt, right?).
|
Nitrogendixoide
Old Farts Club DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 22:59:00 -
[875]
I'm not going to roll through 30 pages here, but in response to the OP...
that's a bunch of bull****. Evebank is insolvent. Instead of just liquidating what assets you have and paying everyone back as best you can, you're just stealing money straight out from inactive users. There's no opportunity for them to opt out and demand repayment, or a refusal of the new contract terms.
Effectively EVE bank as the borrower of all this money is unilaterally changing the contract to dispossess huge numbers of the people of the property they have every right to.
I would suggest that no one ever deal with this company ever again.
|
Solisk
Gallente HyperFang Aquisitions And Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 02:23:00 -
[876]
Originally by: Nitrogendixoide I'm not going to roll through 30 pages here, but in response to the OP...
that's a bunch of bull****. Evebank is insolvent. Instead of just liquidating what assets you have and paying everyone back as best you can, you're just stealing money straight out from inactive users. There's no opportunity for them to opt out and demand repayment, or a refusal of the new contract terms.
Effectively EVE bank as the borrower of all this money is unilaterally changing the contract to dispossess huge numbers of the people of the property they have every right to.
I would suggest that no one ever deal with this company ever again.
Sorry man, the "Raging Public" phase is pretty much over. You missed it by a couple of months and all the issues have been thoroughly discussed.
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 17:25:00 -
[877]
Originally by: Solisk Sorry man, the "Raging Public" phase is pretty much over. You missed it by a couple of months and all the issues have been thoroughly discussed.
Not all of them. We still don't know what happened over macho grande.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Professor Bunsen
Optech Scientific
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 17:34:00 -
[878]
Originally by: Dzil We still don't know what happened over macho grande.
Is this a nickname for someone on the current management team? OPTECH Unit Trust Results OPTECH Loans |
Mephistocles
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 20:16:00 -
[879]
Originally by: Dzil
Originally by: Solisk Sorry man, the "Raging Public" phase is pretty much over. You missed it by a couple of months and all the issues have been thoroughly discussed.
Not all of them. We still don't know what happened over macho grande.
I don't think ebank will ever be over Macho Grande.
|
Dasola
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 10:10:00 -
[880]
Originally by: Mephistocles
Originally by: Dzil
Originally by: Solisk Sorry man, the "Raging Public" phase is pretty much over. You missed it by a couple of months and all the issues have been thoroughly discussed.
Not all of them. We still don't know what happened over macho grande.
I don't think ebank will ever be over Macho Grande.
Correct, they hide details, have no plans, cant even blody manage to reach goals they set themselfs. And we should trust these clowns to return your money?
in my book i count Ebank as lost.
|
|
Rada Ionesco
Caldari Club a Seal
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 17:19:00 -
[881]
Originally by: Rada Ionesco
Originally by: SetrakDark
Originally by: Rada Ionesco Do any of you know who might be in the market to do a A2P trade/buy for my account. Last I heard they were being bought for .40/1.00 isk value, but for the life of me I can't find the forum thread or posts where that was discussed.
Linkage
Thanks for the link. So I made a IHAFS account following all of their instructions and then confirmed and activated the account. I then logged into my E-Bank account and attempted to move money to their designated character for account trades, but E-Banks site is now telling me I am trying to move more money than I have in my Suspense account. This is clearly not the case, since I copied and pasted, then checked the amount I had put in the transfer window. Whats next? Is your transfer mechanic broken?
Don't anyone bother with these IHAFS guys. I have been trying to get y money form them for several weeks now, it's a joke. I have made several good faith eve mails and gone through their support section, and even got some eve mails back to the effect that my transfer would be processed in 48 hours (got that one twice). But in the end I still have none of my money, so it's a wash IMO.
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 15:18:00 -
[882]
Originally by: Dasola
Correct, they hide details, have no plans, cant even blody manage to reach goals they set themselfs. And we should trust these clowns to return your money?
in my book i count Ebank as lost.
Hide details? have no plans? Cant even blody manage to reach goals they set for themselfs? Clowns? Yes, we are clowns. 1 out of 4 isn't too bad.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 20:40:00 -
[883]
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.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 05:44:00 -
[884]
Just to let everyone know, our assets topped 700b a few weeks back - the current reflection on our public financials is a drawback of having them update from live data. The missing amounts are due to loans that were given out but required back-end modifications that I have not been able to do yet.
|
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 07:50:00 -
[885]
Ray, good luck to you and your staff, on your continued quest for solvency. -----------------------------------------------
- Who Dares, Wins
|
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 12:41:00 -
[886]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Just to let everyone know, our assets topped 700b a few weeks back - the current reflection on our public financials is a drawback of having them update from live data. The missing amounts are due to loans that were given out but required back-end modifications that I have not been able to do yet.
What is different about the loans mentioned in the quote compared to those you have been giving out previously that requires "back-end modifications"? --
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 13:15:00 -
[887]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar
Originally by: Ray McCormack Just to let everyone know, our assets topped 700b a few weeks back - the current reflection on our public financials is a drawback of having them update from live data. The missing amounts are due to loans that were given out but required back-end modifications that I have not been able to do yet.
What is different about the loans mentioned in the quote compared to those you have been giving out previously that requires "back-end modifications"?
Have you ever tried to get a receipt from a hooker?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Carselyn
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 08:53:00 -
[888]
Hi,
2 different sets of questions (probably already asked x times, I know):
When will you unfreeze the ISK deposited after the 25/08/2009? Since we have to provide our limited API Key, what happens if we sell a char? Do we have to transfer the money to another char? What if this char has deposited ISK after the 25/08/2209. Will the total amount of ISK considered as æfrozenÆ?
Thanks and good luck.
Yes, I know, EBank is insolvent, no point in asking...
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 09:06:00 -
[889]
Originally by: Carselyn When will you unfreeze the ISK deposited after the 25/08/2009?
It isn't frozen, please request a withdrawal and then file a support ticket - someone will action it for you (eventually).
Originally by: Carselyn Since we have to provide our limited API Key, what happens if we sell a char? Do we have to transfer the money to another char? What if this char has deposited ISK after the 25/08/2209. Will the total amount of ISK considered as æfrozenÆ?
Um... yes?
|
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 20:50:00 -
[890]
Edited by: debbie harrio on 28/02/2010 20:54:17 This is like a triple whammy, scam one level and they run with the isk, then scam the next level by putting in checks, defaulting on existing deposits and then.
Quote: Originally by: iP0D I'm just curious, what is the projected revenue from sales of the api keys, or has this not been discussed yet internally. There is a very active and quite lucrative market for these, as you are probably aware. Full keys are nice yes, but the useful value of a limited key is these days far higher because of the lower entry level of use.
If no projections or considerations were made and interest arises, please by all means evemail me for selection and batch quotes.
be able to invest in other areas maybe, blackmails anyone.....
|
|
Carselyn
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 11:23:00 -
[891]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Carselyn When will you unfreeze the ISK deposited after the 25/08/2009?
It isn't frozen, please request a withdrawal and then file a support ticket - someone will action it for you (eventually).
Originally by: Carselyn Since we have to provide our limited API Key, what happens if we sell a char? Do we have to transfer the money to another char? What if this char has deposited ISK after the 25/08/2209. Will the total amount of ISK considered as æfrozenÆ?
Um... yes?
Thanks for the 1st answer. Now, what about the 3 others? 'Um...yes?' is a bit short
|
Carselyn
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 11:28:00 -
[892]
oh, BTW, I just got this message:
The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL: www.eve-bank.net:443
I suppose this is just temporary?
Cheers.
|
Moon Dogg
Gallente The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 19:03:00 -
[893]
Not sure what the 443 refers to, but I can get into the eBank site, as well as my account, with no problems whatsoever.
*********************************** "Burn the land, boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me..." |
Dzil Alt
Caldari StrwBerry Pancakes
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 20:02:00 -
[894]
Has ebank considered rendering an option to convert some of it's current debt into some kind of transferable bond? Obviously you want to ensure a customer passes your API key check prior to unlocking the balance to said bond, but would it be much work to convert account balances into shares in a holding corp that could be traded on a stock exchange platform? (thinking of BMBE, though no reason for exclusivity).
I mainly ask because I'm curious how much account holders would ask for their ebank isk at the moment: We've seen a few non-starter bids for accounts, but I haven't witnessed much if any counter offers from account holders.
I'm not sure what your adoption rate is on transfers so far, but I would think more folks transferring their account balances over to bonds to load onto an exchange service could come out to a lot of 5% fees.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 20:11:00 -
[895]
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.
|
Dzil Alt
Caldari StrwBerry Pancakes
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 20:24:00 -
[896]
Originally by: cosmoray 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.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1218519&page=27#783
I think they may have reversed that. Of course, they could always reverse the reversal.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 20:41:00 -
[897]
Originally by: cosmoray
A run on the bank occurs and the assets liquidated and API verified accounts get 100%, non API verified get nada.
This can't happen, if I followed Ray's posts correctly. They will still have withdrawal controls in place if the ratio falls below a certain level.
Also, they changed their minds about wiping balances. They will "just" be taken off the balance sheet and put into a suspended status.
|
Marara Kovacs
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 11:18:00 -
[898]
How exactly do I supply you with my api key? I have been trying to contact you and cant, no support ticket query is getting answered, so how do i goive you my api key securely?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 12:06:00 -
[899]
Originally by: Marara Kovacs How exactly do I supply you with my api key? I have been trying to contact you and cant, no support ticket query is getting answered, so how do i goive you my api key securely?
Patronising and inadequate answer (probably implying that the problems/lack of customer service are actually your fault) incoming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2010.03.09 12:28:00 -
[900]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Just to let everyone know, our assets topped 700b a few weeks back - the current reflection on our public financials is a drawback of having them update from live data. The missing amounts are due to loans that were given out but required back-end modifications that I have not been able to do yet.
Boring - This thread has like, totaly jumped the shark
SKUNK (o)
|
|
Dzil Alt
Caldari StrwBerry Pancakes
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 21:26:00 -
[901]
Originally by: Catarrh Ague Ray,
I note the following from section 8 of the EBANK Terms and Conditions:
òEBANK reserves the right to modify this document at any time, but will ensure that any negatively affected customer's [sic] will be notified in advance and given the option to remove all funds from their EBANK account as a direct result of those negative changes.
I was not notified of the requirement to provide my limited API prior to the institution of this requirement. I hereby call upon EBANK to fulfill this provision of the EBANK Terms and Conditions and return all monies that I have on account with EBANK.
Best regards, Catarrh
just sayin'
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 13:42:00 -
[902]
Edited by: RAW23 on 12/03/2010 13:43:27 Couple of questions:
1) Any chance of a progress report (or an expected date for such a report)?
2) Are there any publicly available figures after the 6th of January (found here Linkage)?
3) How is the recruitment drive going? Have you recruited a social responsibility officer yet?
4) If so, they might be able to answer the following question. If not, I guess (sigh) that it's addressed to Ray.
Will EBANK commit to not using the depositor funds it holds to attempt to secure monopolistic market positions and/or seek to drive other people out of markets?
The reason I ask is because when I highlighted some of the recent monopolies in Jita a few weeks ago AC posted in the thread, joking I assume, claiming credit on EBANK's behalf. Whether or not he was in fact joking, it is the case that EBANK has the resources to carry out operations of this sort and it is very likely that such operations would be harmful to the interests of at least some of those whose account fund could be used in such a way. So I'd just like to know what the official position on this is. Can depositors be confident that the bank will not use their money to destroy their own business operations, that is that the bank will not act in an anti-competitive way since it's competitors are very likely funding the bank.
|
Cyaxares II
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 14:02:00 -
[903]
Edited by: Cyaxares II on 12/03/2010 14:04:06
Originally by: RAW23 Can depositors be confident that the bank will not use their money to destroy their own business operations, that is that the bank will not act in an anti-competitive way since it's competitors are very likely funding the bank.
lol, you cannot have the cake and eat it, too.
EBANK has always played the market and bought out investment opportunities as it saw fit (latter part was a common complain in 2008 iirc) -- why should things have changed with insolvency?
If EBANK would be careful not to step on anyone's toes while doing business, they could close their doors right now. Even in the business of fully collateralized loans they would compete with BMBE and several other MD participants who might be invested in EBANK to some degree.
Earning money on the market in EVE (or by doing investments on MD) is (almost) always PvP. Every opportunity you take is an opportunity somebody else misses out upon.
People depositing ISK in EBANK have always known that EBANK might use this ISK in a way that is detrimental to their own business, if that would be in the bank's best interest.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 14:20:00 -
[904]
Edited by: RAW23 on 12/03/2010 14:23:07
Originally by: Cyaxares II Edited by: Cyaxares II on 12/03/2010 14:04:06
Originally by: RAW23 Can depositors be confident that the bank will not use their money to destroy their own business operations, that is that the bank will not act in an anti-competitive way since it's competitors are very likely funding the bank.
lol, you cannot have the cake and eat it, too.
EBANK has always played the market and bought out investment opportunities as it saw fit (latter part was a common complain in 2008 iirc) -- why should things have changed with insolvency?
If EBANK would be careful not to step on anyone's toes while doing business, they could close their doors right now. Even in the business of fully collateralized loans they would compete with BMBE and several other MD participants who might be invested in EBANK to some degree.
Earning money on the market in EVE (or by doing investments on MD) is (almost) always PvP. Every opportunity you take is an opportunity somebody else misses out upon.
People depositing ISK in EBANK have always known that EBANK might use this ISK in a way that is detrimental to their own business, if that would be in the bank's best interest.
I see your point but there is a difference between competition and anti-competitive practices. It is especially relevant now that EBANK holds funds without the permission of depositors - this gives them additional obligations to use those funds responsibly.
In any case, I don't really have a problem with them acting in this way if they so wish as an entity (that is, when they are not holding people's funds against their will). But I would just like to know their policy on this. I imagine it will be relevant to quite a few traders' and industrialists' decisions about whether or no to deposit money in the future once the bank is solvent again. If you know that the bank will take your deposit and may not just try to use it to compete with you but might use its cash rich position to actually put you completely out of business, then that is going to affect your analysis of the value of depositing.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 15:52:00 -
[905]
EBANK did in the past do things that where in direct competition to IPOs however it was within a small range mostly because they where just not "good" enough or required too much work, so tested sure, mass produced? No... Ricdic really did do his own things with his Ventures and while Proton Power was a Venture manager he did what he is probably doing right now with his own venture. What Ricdic did we're not exactly sure, we know he did PLEX Manipulation, he was responsible for the first price hike investing close to 100b I think in purchasing PLEX created artificial demand, when it got high enough he dumped which made him also responsible for the first crash in PLEXs.
As for direct competition in IPOs EBANK invested in... not likely, some Inventions is apparent and as the "Junk Yard Master" I've been continuing on what I believe Ricdic was inventing (At least some of the stuff). From what we could collect from all the corps Ricdic was in and anything he has contracted to us prior to his banning there was a semi-decent amount of BPOs all centered around Invention. A very very large part of that was "Large Rigs" EBANK actually has a massive collection of what I consider now, useless BPOs of Large Rigs. Looking at the collection it's easy to see what he was up do in terms of slot usage. You don't have 30 Strip Miner I's BPOs for example without invention or at least mass production. (No I'm not inventing Strip Miners, it's not as profitable as another item).
The biggest example I can think of where EBANK was considering direct competition with others was Titan BPCs. Hexxx suggested that we not only make copies, but we also buy up Titan BPCs. Effectively removing the supply from the market, A majority of the board including myself disagreed because we could potentially have hundreds of billions in BPCs and it's not exactly direct competition as the original seller is still selling the BPCs for a sizable profit. Hexxx made the coalition to De Beers, buy everything up, slowly leak them out to increase value by creating artificially creating low supply. Given the excessively long copy time it would be easy to control but very costly.
At the moment I can honestly say that EBANK (apart from some insurance profiteering) goes it own route, there is not one IPO or Fund, Bond that does what EBANK does, or at least claims to do. Apart from Titan BPCs which we all know Bobby got into after EBANK.
There was some areas in which EBANK was very suited to "dominate" but never did, Mineral Reserve. This would have been in direct competition with Block and BSA, however EBANK deliberately didn't get into that business. Not because of Block or my Directorship in BSA or anything, because Ricdic didn't like it. Now there not enough capital to get into it so BSA is still the primary Mineral Reserve in EVE.
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 16:26:00 -
[906]
Edited by: RAW23 on 12/03/2010 16:26:17 Thanks SencneS - very interesting addition to the historical archives. Competing with people isn't really what I was getting at but two of the examples there are relevant. The PLEX bubble, for instance, is the kind of thing I think an institution like EBANK should probably shy away from deliberately creating since it could potentially have harmed a large number of customers in a variety of ways both in the growth phase and in the crash phase (with the customers funding their own kicking).
The Titan BPC monopoly, on the other hand, is perhaps rather more acceptable as long as it would not have involved forcing everyone else out of the market by using the dominant market position to crash BPC prices - that is, buying up the whole stock at market value would be fine, then reselling at market + x. In this scenario, current producers just become your suppliers. But selling at a loss to make sure that nobody with pockets less deep than yourselves could do business, thus forcing them to sell out their whole operation to you, would be far more problematic, from my point of view at least.
I didn't quite follow the last bit of your post but was that a statement that EBANK does not currently engage in aggressively monopolistic behaviour? If so, would you considering adopting such a stance on an ongoing basis as part of your new socially responsible approach?
|
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 16:27:00 -
[907]
Originally by: RAW23 1) Any chance of a progress report (or an expected date for such a report)?
Only 11 days (so far) over the two week window of the "next announcement is due February 15th to March 1st, so expect it in April sometime."
Originally by: RAW23 2) Are there any publicly available figures after the 6th of January (found here Linkage)?
Those were prepared by Varo Jan and I asked for them to be updated here.
Originally by: RAW23 3) How is the recruitment drive going? Have you recruited a social responsibility officer yet?
I asked to be considered for the Investment Manager position and shortly after they changed the requirements (post and form). --
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:03:00 -
[908]
Edited by: RAW23 on 13/03/2010 10:03:19 So, that new era of openness, communication and social responsibility you were talking about ... ?
Not very impressive to make jokes in other threads about posts in this one but not respond at all directly.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:18:00 -
[909]
Originally by: RAW23 Edited by: RAW23 on 12/03/2010 13:43:27 Couple of questions:
1) Any chance of a progress report (or an expected date for such a report)?
2) Are there any publicly available figures after the 6th of January (found here Linkage)?
3) How is the recruitment drive going? Have you recruited a social responsibility officer yet?
4) If so, they might be able to answer the following question. If not, I guess (sigh) that it's addressed to Ray.
Will EBANK commit to not using the depositor funds it holds to attempt to secure monopolistic market positions and/or seek to drive other people out of markets?
The reason I ask is because when I highlighted some of the recent monopolies in Jita a few weeks ago AC posted in the thread, joking I assume, claiming credit on EBANK's behalf. Whether or not he was in fact joking, it is the case that EBANK has the resources to carry out operations of this sort and it is very likely that such operations would be harmful to the interests of at least some of those whose account fund could be used in such a way. So I'd just like to know what the official position on this is. Can depositors be confident that the bank will not use their money to destroy their own business operations, that is that the bank will not act in an anti-competitive way since it's competitors are very likely funding the bank.
Bumping my unanswered questions with a quote:
"Silence is a text easy to misread" (A.A. Attanasio)
|
Maneck StreetPreacher
Gallente haudquaquam munificus
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 03:15:00 -
[910]
Originally by: RAW23 Edited by: RAW23 on 12/03/2010 13:43:27 Several good questions
Am I incorrect in thinking that this is the only way a bank could work in EVE?
Typical (legit) investment and loan opportunities are relatively scarce. Far more scarce than Ebank's assets can buy up. Massive manipulation using their excess funds is really the only way they could ever make a go of it.
No?
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 11:03:00 -
[911]
Originally by: RAW23 Edited by: RAW23 on 12/03/2010 13:43:27 Couple of questions:
1) Any chance of a progress report (or an expected date for such a report)?
2) Are there any publicly available figures after the 6th of January (found here Linkage)?
3) How is the recruitment drive going? Have you recruited a social responsibility officer yet?
4) If so, they might be able to answer the following question. If not, I guess (sigh) that it's addressed to Ray.
Will EBANK commit to not using the depositor funds it holds to attempt to secure monopolistic market positions and/or seek to drive other people out of markets?
The reason I ask is because when I highlighted some of the recent monopolies in Jita a few weeks ago AC posted in the thread, joking I assume, claiming credit on EBANK's behalf. Whether or not he was in fact joking, it is the case that EBANK has the resources to carry out operations of this sort and it is very likely that such operations would be harmful to the interests of at least some of those whose account fund could be used in such a way. So I'd just like to know what the official position on this is. Can depositors be confident that the bank will not use their money to destroy their own business operations, that is that the bank will not act in an anti-competitive way since it's competitors are very likely funding the bank.
Bumping my unanswered questions with a quote:
"Silence is the virtue of fools." (Francis Bacon)
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:35:00 -
[912]
Originally by: Maneck StreetPreacher Typical (legit) investment and loan opportunities are relatively scarce. Far more scarce than Ebank's assets can buy up. Massive manipulation using their excess funds is really the only way they could ever make a go of it.
Just off the top of my head, the 4 big collateralized loan providers on MD run about 750b, and that's a pretty small customer base. I believe expansionist lending houses could find trillions more in regular lending with aggressive marketing and networking.
On the borrowing side, you only take on as much debt as you need, only keeping a reasonable buffer that allows you to lend without borrowing more first.
The failure of past banks is due to the deposit model. Primarily because you take on more than you can handle to account for the high variability in deposits, thereby forcing you into riskier ventures to cover the constant interest payments. Secondly, the cost of tellering and liquid reserves outweigh the benefit of reduced interest rates.
Long story short, what you are describing is precisely the failure of past banks. Successful banks will be lending houses who make profit from their spread, and specialize in connections with lenders and borrowers instead of novelty coding.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 16:03:00 -
[913]
Originally by: RAW23 Couple of questions:
I'll take a crack at them....
1) Ray works on the internal sheet and updates the external one as much as he can but lets be honest here, what would people rather he spend his time on. Updating pretty sheets with zero-time accuracy or working the ISK to make more? Ray does update these sheets but only when he wants to report numbers to see how we're all going. And that does happen, we get bugged by Ray to report our numbers. To be honest I haven't looked at EBANK's sheet for a while, but I know what I'm doing in my Junk Yard is making ISK. Ray sees it, he has commented on it but complains there is no ISK to return to EBANK Unfortunately that's how I work, maximum utilization of ISK 100% of the time, so there is always very little to "collect" from my venture, it's just growing.
2) This link. Is about as good as it'll get, but it's not updating from EBANK's website it's missing the account information. This is also missing from the Internal sheet, Ray now knows about it.
3) I haven't heard much about this since the last update, but then again we're all significantly focused on a different goal. This was Ray's initiative, while we are all part of it, I think there is more concern about turning a profit then bringing on new people. I think the we're all looking for that level of assets vs accounts before anything else changes. Not surprising though we had some people interested. I think the biggest issue here was over loading. I always had a concern about Ray taking on too much responsibility, and tried to help out in some thing, gave some advice here and there, we all do. It's a big mess, I'd rather see us clean one area at a time, make it right, then move on. I suspect Ray believes the same which is why this area has been less active.
4) Commit to not driving peoples markets out? I doubt it, in fact it's a bold thing to even ask for. This is a free market but as my comments above state, I don't think we're "treading on toes" here. If we are, we were here first. However saying that I can say EBANK's not going to run a venture that directly effects ventures it has invested in. Look at it like this, We have Titan BPC venture, 263B ISK invested. We also have 7.5B invested into T4U. We get x amount from our own and y amount from T4U. The ratio of invested ISK is higher in ourselves then T4U. This means that we either sell our Titan BPOs or sell T4U, which one would be better to keep? If we where to go into doing what one of our investments are doing we'd sell our investment first. All an investment does is lower the total rate of return for that activity.
As for IPOs and Investments we don't invest in... My only comment is "If we find it profitable, then we'll do it ourselves rather then invest in someone doing and getting less return." On the other hand, we don't have stacks of ISK floating around idle either, maybe less then 10b distributed across all the ventures and activities and that's being generous. It's not like we can fire up anything new and sizable enough to "crush" any competition, at least not in the current state.
Ray might have something else to say about that but this would be my advice to him if he asked about it. "Who cares who does this, it's a free market, if we crush some small business as a result then my only words to them are, adapt or die.."
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 17:28:00 -
[914]
Originally by: SencneS
Ray might have something else to say about that but this would be my advice to him if he asked about it. "Who cares who does this, it's a free market, if we crush some small business as a result then my only words to them are, adapt or die.."
Thanks for the very helpful answers.
On the last point, it might be worth hashing this question out with your social responsibility guy once you have one on board. I think EBANK needs to remember on this that it is not just any business and that the small businesses you might, in theory, be crushing may be those belonging to your own depositors. This is especially relevant whilst people cannot withdraw their cash. But it's not the most major issue facing the bank and this is just my opinion.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 18:27:00 -
[915]
While I understand the position I can't really agree with it. Our responsibility is to the customer. Provide what interest or debt owning to them. Lets take EBANK out of this equation for a second..
If someone entrusted me with 100B ISK and I said I'll pay 5% dividend a month, my responsibility is to perform the actions that are required to pay dividends. If the business one of the investors was running gets crushed by my actions then neither the investor or myself are responsible. The investor trusted me with the ISK in return they get 5% per month dividend.
I think the Social Responsibilities Manager is not what you believe it to be. Real Life banks don't care if buying up real estate and turning it into an industrial zone, which could lower the value of the very houses they hold mortgages on. Why? Because they hold the mortgage and people are requires to make payment on the mortgage regardless of what the house is now worth.
Social Responsibilities to the Customer, not the Community. I've always believed Customers come first, community second, others may have a different opinion. Don't mistake warm fuzzy feeling for Customers and doing right by them as a equal to business responsibilities, they are two very different things.
Amarr for Life |
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 18:36:00 -
[916]
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 15/03/2010 18:36:48
There can be no contradiction in one's ethics, just as there can be no contradiction in maths or logic. Otherwise you end up in a shabby intellectual World where you deny your customers their contractual rights by stealing their deposits and then use the concept of their contractual rights to justify wiping their buinesses out for them - all without any trace of irony or recognition of the Orwellian doublethink (or sheer intellectual laziness?) underlying it all.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:30:00 -
[917]
Originally by: SencneS While I understand the position I can't really agree with it. Our responsibility is to the customer. Provide what interest or debt owning to them. Lets take EBANK out of this equation for a second..
If someone entrusted me with 100B ISK and I said I'll pay 5% dividend a month, my responsibility is to perform the actions that are required to pay dividends. If the business one of the investors was running gets crushed by my actions then neither the investor or myself are responsible. The investor trusted me with the ISK in return they get 5% per month dividend.
I think the Social Responsibilities Manager is not what you believe it to be. Real Life banks don't care if buying up real estate and turning it into an industrial zone, which could lower the value of the very houses they hold mortgages on. Why? Because they hold the mortgage and people are requires to make payment on the mortgage regardless of what the house is now worth.
Social Responsibilities to the Customer, not the Community. I've always believed Customers come first, community second, others may have a different opinion. Don't mistake warm fuzzy feeling for Customers and doing right by them as a equal to business responsibilities, they are two very different things.
You might want to take the "social" out of the job title then, as it is misleading if the job has nothing to do with being socially responsible.
I'm not saying I have a major problem with this, just that I wanted the position clarifed so that customers can make informed decisions. As long as the person loaning you the 100bil knows that you reserve the right to use it to destroy their business, that's fine. You aren't obligated not to. I'm not sure about the business sense of it though, as I doubt many people will want to lend you money that you may well harm them with, but that is clearly the bank's decision to make.
The above, however, applies to a solvent institution. In its current situation, I don't think EBANK should ignore the community affecting dimension of its policies (of course, it can, and if Ray's past statements are anything to go by that is all the remit he needs). At the moment, customers cannot vote with their feet and choose not to lend to you if they dislike this policy (existing customers anyway) or think you are using their money in a way that negatively affects them. Given this, it behooves EBANK to tread as sensitively as possible and to be cognizant of the fact that it has an ethical as well as a financial debt to its customers. Now is not the time to be throwing your institutional weight around, given the circumstances surrounding the fact that EBANK still has any weight at all.
As to customers and communities, I would suggest that any institution that seeks to have the breadth of custom that EBANK has done in the past cannot really separate the two. Or, at least should not. I wonder how many of the normal, non-trader pilots that put money in the bank would have done so if they had known about the plex manipulation. But, once the bank is solvent again, this doesn't really matter as long as this policy is clear. Until then, though, as I have said, I think the bank has extra responsibilities given the conditions under which it holds its funds.
And seriously - change the name of the position if this is indeed the official view! Or provide some justification for using the term social.
Thanks again for your considered and useful responses to my questions.
|
Grozen
Caldari Titan Core
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:16:00 -
[918]
So much words when you can say it simple: Why are you not using the vast amounts of isk you have for short term manipulations that could earn you 10x the isk you make from your slow ventures?
knowledge is power |
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:33:00 -
[919]
Originally by: Grozen So much words when you can say it simple: Why are you not using the vast amounts of isk you have for short term manipulations that could earn you 10x the isk you make from your slow ventures?
Because they're all industrialists, not traders. The thing is, it's the industrialists who pay out interest month after month on 100s of billions, while traders burnout after a few months of handling 10s of billions.
The question isn't why they're following a sensible strategy for perpetually handling a huge sum of ISK; the question is why they decided to try and recover at all.
Considering the 1.2t of unclaimed ISK after making people wait all these months, it was clearly the wrong decision.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:09:00 -
[920]
I have a confession to make... I can't think clear enough for a rebuttle after reading Liberty Eternal reply.. I'm literally laughing..
About the best I can do at the moment is say all this theory is great and all but really from everything I'm seeing EBANK is doing things that no IPO, Bond, Loan is doing. Actually I could confirm that EBANK is doing thing NO ONE ELSE is doing and it's turning a pretty decent profit per month. The draw back to disclosing what it is would reveal this ISK printing machine.
So all these ethical and socially responsible talk that is taking place is totally hypothetical, at least for the time being.
Amarr for Life |
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:19:00 -
[921]
Originally by: SetrakDark
Originally by: Grozen So much words when you can say it simple: Why are you not using the vast amounts of isk you have for short term manipulations that could earn you 10x the isk you make from your slow ventures?
Because they're all industrialists, not traders. The thing is, it's the industrialists who pay out interest month after month on 100s of billions, while traders burnout after a few months of handling 10s of billions.
The question isn't why they're following a sensible strategy for perpetually handling a huge sum of ISK; the question is why they decided to try and recover at all.
Considering the 1.2t of unclaimed ISK after making people wait all these months, it was clearly the wrong decision.
There is trade taking place.
I'm not primary on this but if I see something I do take advantage of it, I use EBANK cash instead of my own. I tossed all my ISK into long long term speculation, only have about 600mil available I used up quite a bit in PLEXs for myself. So really anything large that I could exploit I use EBANK ISK.
Ray and Amarr are doing trading more so then I am however. AC doesn't have hundreds of slots so I place his production stuff on the marker for him when he runs out.
I'd say it's pretty even split between Industrial and Trading. All our slots are in use almost 100% of the time both production and lab. Trading is the only thing we can really do when we're waiting for Jobs.
Amarr for Life |
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:34:00 -
[922]
Originally by: SencneS I have a confession to make... I can't think clear enough for a rebuttle after reading Liberty Eternal reply.. I'm literally laughing..
About the best I can do at the moment is say all this theory is great and all but really from everything I'm seeing EBANK is doing things that no IPO, Bond, Loan is doing. Actually I could confirm that EBANK is doing thing NO ONE ELSE is doing and it's turning a pretty decent profit per month. The draw back to disclosing what it is would reveal this ISK printing machine.
So all these ethical and socially responsible talk that is taking place is totally hypothetical, at least for the time being.
Then why bother to continually muddy the waters by pretending you are ethical one minute, then laughing at ethics the next?
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:35:00 -
[923]
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.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:22:00 -
[924]
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.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:32:00 -
[925]
Originally by: Leneerra 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.
Another satisfied customer.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:55:00 -
[926]
Edited by: RAW23 on 15/03/2010 23:55:00
Originally by: Leneerra But please implement big's censored service before you start closing it down.
I thought that was sorted out months ago.
From the 29th of November:
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: TornSoul Will this suffice, or would you prefer a different mechanism?
That should be fine thanks. I will code and test this afternoon with an aim to having it live this evening.
Is there any intention to actually provide the promised service or has this now been withdrawn in favour of the original api demand? Implementation would, presumably, make a significant difference to EBANK's accounts.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 00:27:00 -
[927]
Liberty Eternal I was laughing at what you said and the way it was said not what the subject was. It was just something that tickled me for some reason.
Leneerra - My API is around here somewhere but really that's a horrible thing to say, the people remaining are ones trying doing everything in order to get you the most ISK back. That's like saying "Well thank you for returning what you can, here is a kick to the face." You can at any time request the part of your account balance like anyone else.
The API service Torn Soul offered I though was already implemented. I thought Ray turned that on months ago. I'll be honest though, because I'm not a programmer by any means I have no idea if it's turned on or not. Ray has to confirm that.
I guess it is difficult to really give an option on ethical usage of the very little remaining ISK when 95% of it is used in non-competitive ways. If you want to go that extra step you could say that ALL BANKS, BMBE, EBANK, even BSA, any BOND could fall into the "area" you're talking about RAW..
I could if I wanted to, take a loan out and directly compete with whomever I saw fit, the BPOs I have access to would allow me to fully collateralize any loan I wanted, and I turn around and crush the competition.. Who's to blame here? The bank that offers the loan or the person that takes the loan? Which I ask you, how can EBANK as an institution guarantee that the ISK the people deposit is not going to be used to compete with their personal business? We can't even if we had NO industrial arm what so ever and just issued loans, we can't guarantee that..
So asking EBANK to guarantee that the ISK will not be used to CRUSH businesses is impossible.
Amarr for Life |
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 01:08:00 -
[928]
Originally by: SencneS
Leneerra - My API is around here somewhere but really that's a horrible thing to say, the people remaining are ones trying doing everything in order to get you the most ISK back. That's like saying "Well thank you for returning what you can, here is a kick to the face." You can at any time request the part of your account balance like anyone else.
Sencnes's comment brought to mind a comment from Colin Powell: "Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it." Personal pride is a terrible reason to continue dragging out the slow death of a bankrupt business.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 01:39:00 -
[929]
I don't see any issue with ebank continuing to operate at this point. I'm sure there's some more comedy that can be milked out of this.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 01:48:00 -
[930]
Originally by: Professor Leech I don't see any issue with ebank continuing to operate at this point. I'm sure there's some more comedy that can be milked out of this.
2/3 people can't even be bothered to claim their isk; this farce is long over. I accept that hindsight is20/20, but I firmly believe that all of these banking disasters could have been avoided with the proper application of reason.
|
|
Grozen
Caldari Titan Core
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 01:56:00 -
[931]
If there really is an isk printing machine in EBANKs hands how come there isn't a set date on which e-bank would start returning money to their customers? knowledge is power |
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 02:01:00 -
[932]
As I said once everything came out in the wash that ebank should have been liquidated and the investors paid out so they could move on. Ray has gone to great efforts to rescue ebank as a going concern for which starting in the negatives rather than on the zero mark is a bad start.
Using the ebank data collection to publically shame the investors would a far more valuable process.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 04:42:00 -
[933]
Edited by: Dzil on 16/03/2010 04:43:20 Holy crap guys, I solved it.
Just do what the US govt does with social security when it can't pay the bills. Raise the retirement age!
Make it so you have to be 67 years old before you can withdraw from the fund. Sure, it won't make the bank solvent, but you'll be dead before most people figure that out.
Ninja edit Rename it the e-tirement fund.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 05:49:00 -
[934]
BLEEP will be implemented when it becomes a requirement for people to withdraw or liquidate their ISK, before that my time is better spent elsewhere.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 07:05:00 -
[935]
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?
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 08:01:00 -
[936]
Originally by: Leneerra 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?
The people running Ebank are one sad, pathetic bunch of human beings. How hard does failure have to smack you in the face before you realise that you are not a succesful banker, or even a very ethical person? There must be 12-year-old kids and stuff who spent their pocket money on this game and you guys have stolen it from them. Give yourselves a big pat on the back.
|
Varo Jan
Caravanserai Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 08:52:00 -
[937]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar
Originally by: RAW23 2) Are there any publicly available figures after the 6th of January (found here Linkage)?
Those were prepared by Varo Jan and I asked for them to be updated here.
Sorry, Marcus. I've not had time. I'm not going to update the alternative finstats any more - it's a waste of time. Ray did make some material adjustments to the official statements as a result of my finstats. However, the real substance remains hidden. The official finstats paint a bleak picture, so bleak that closure is the only sensible option. And yet you have SencneS claiming massive profits are being made.
It would not take much effort at all to prepare and issue true financial statements for EBank and its ventures. Unfortunately, Ray neither has the skills nor the inclination to do so.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 11:13:00 -
[938]
Originally by: SencneS
Leneerra - My API is around here somewhere but really that's a horrible thing to say, the people remaining are ones trying doing everything in order to get you the most ISK back. That's like saying "Well thank you for returning what you can, here is a kick to the face." You can at any time request the part of your account balance like anyone else.
Originally by: Ray McCormack BLEEP will be implemented when it becomes a requirement for people to withdraw or liquidate their ISK, before that my time is better spent elsewhere.
So, despite all promises to the contrary, it is still impossible to withdraw even fractions of account balances without handing over one's api?
Without implementing BLEEP how can EBANK even produce accurate accounts as it will not be clear how many accounts are still active and waiting on BLEEP and how many are actually inactive. Will BLEEP be implemented before the time limit for submitting apis is reached, at which point accounts will be moved off the books?
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 12:55:00 -
[939]
Quote:
So, despite all promises to the contrary, it is still impossible to withdraw even fractions of account balances without handing over one's api?
Without implementing BLEEP how can EBANK even produce accurate accounts as it will not be clear how many accounts are still active and waiting on BLEEP and how many are actually inactive. Will BLEEP be implemented before the time limit for submitting apis is reached, at which point accounts will be moved off the books?
It's easy to make recommendations when you're not a programmer, but:
Program an option in that allows one to decline providing API details, formally stating their active status but opting to use BLEEP over direct entry.
Then count these folks towards the number of active players seeking a restoration.
Accounting debacle resolved.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:00:00 -
[940]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal The people running Ebank are one sad, pathetic bunch of human beings.
Posting to confirm this as the truth. We're also talentless, disinclined liars. Clearly public engagement is constructive.
|
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:10:00 -
[941]
Originally by: Leneerra Stuff
That's a good account of the pubic view, what I thought was a little hard was your statement about "I want your APIs because I want to make sure never to deal with you again." While you have every right to not deal with us, I though it was an odd thing to say.
Here is my account of EBANK. This is all personal view and perspective.
EBANK: It is safe, making ISK for depositors. EBANK: OK running a year now and it is stable. EBANK: Along with Payroll system, I push along with Mr.H and Hexxx an account system to replace P&L Reporting. EBANK: The "working" directors hate the idea as it requires them to do more then just work the ISK. EBANK: Assigns LVV to Audit, LVV gets CSM, so EBANK Assigns Seleene to be Auditor. EBANK: Along with Athre, we both push and push for a full blown audit, refuse to vote and start votes about locking expansions until the audit is complete. Which pass. EBANK: Ricdic turns evil (Before scamming) Two example - "Either EBANK does Titan BPCs or I start my own personal IPO" - "I want to give these guys a loan, the last one made a mint! I've shut down this venture to cover it" Venture that was shutdown was his stuff. EBANK: Facing almost 500B idle ISK accruing interest, knee jerk reaction accepts loan based on the fact alliance leader known for his goodness and fairness co-signs. EBANK: Still no audit done, or Audit done but no comments EBANK: Massive loan defaults, Ricdic turns into another person, evil, mean, sick of the world. EBANK: Ricdic RMTs EBANK ISK, claims 250B stolen. EBANK: Ricdic gets banned along with anywhere between 50B and 300B in ISK and Assets. Auditor quits before completing audit.. EBANK: Brings Ray on to perform full audit. RAY: It looks bad, it can't be this bad. HEXXX: Yes it probably is, I take full responsibility because I didn't have a good system in place, Ray now has my job. RAY: Before even finishing a full blown itemized audit declares EBANK 1.3T deficit. EBANK: WTF!! NO WAY! It's not possible where did all the ISK go... RAY: Casts a vote to lock EBANK down to perform a mega audit. Passes PUBLIC: Angry over the idea and can't get their ISK. EBANK: Along with Ray dig, search audit track down, collect old debts write off more defaults, 1.2T deficit now. EBANK: Find out though mega audit that other directors where scammers. RAY: Fully audits each remaining director full history, both EBANK's extensive logs and any API data available. EBANK: Ray starts role call's on who's in who's out? Knowing that the commitment to do what is right could take years. EBANK: Three of the Five remaining Directors issue their industrial alts to EBANK for ISK generation. EBANK: Votes started on how to handle ISK, vote passed unanimously to return account balance to 100%. PUBLIC: Small small minority make waves of posts and threads about how bad it is, yet the biggest account holders who have the largest accounts over 80% of the ISK in EBANK remain quiet. EBANK: Casts vote to allow withdrawals at current valuation, it passes with a condition that we confirm no past defaulter or director get their account balance, along with any known RMTers to EBANK. PUBLIC: Out cry of the idea that EBANK doesn't want to support defaulters and scammers by issuing their ISK to them even at a reduced rate. EBANK: Accepts BLEEP as an alternative (Which I though was added, my bad it wasn't) EBANK: Accepts alternatives for people to get ISK, hardly anyone takes it. EBANK: Offers people to cash in their accounts for PLEX FOR HEITI cause, API Requirement free. Hardly anyone takes it. EBANK: Almost a year since Ricdic scammed, EBANK has finalized all defaults, found every ISK and asset they could EBANK valued at 710,880,589,367 ISK (current internal sheet as of this post, probably a few days behind) Only way is up now. SENCNES: On here posting in a long trolled thread reminiscing, and reading everyone following flames posts.
Enjoy the read..
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:14:00 -
[942]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Clearly public engagement is constructive.
Well, if you really try it sometime you might find out whether or not it is.
Btw - for the sake of public engagement, could you confirm whether SencneS's replies to my questions reflect official EBANK policy or not? And just a hint, not replying to questions in your own thread but making jokes about those questions in other threads does not constitute public engagement. It constitutes active disengagement.
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:20:00 -
[943]
Originally by: SencneS Only way is up now.
Excellent news! Everyone is happy now!
Free jumpclone service|924 stations - 6000+ users |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:44:00 -
[944]
Originally by: SencneS
PUBLIC: Small small minority make waves of posts and threads about how bad it is, yet the biggest account holders who have the largest accounts over 80% of the ISK in EBANK remain quiet.
Please, please, please don't tell me that you are taking the silence of the holders of 80% of the isk in your accounts to constitute agreement with your decisions. Given that, as of your last report, the number of people who had provided their apis to you was far, far below 80%, this implied claim is, well, more than a bit dodgy.
The truth is the bank has never carried out a public consultation exercise to find out what it's depositors want and has actively rejected any suggestions that it give its depositors a say on the grounds that EBANK is a private venture. The vast majority of those who have had something to say on the subject have made clear that they don't agree with many of the bank's policies. Claiming the silence of all those who have not made their views public as votes in favour of the current policies is ridiculous.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:07:00 -
[945]
I'm not here to engage in trivial pillow-talk with you, if there were serious issues raised I would address them. Those you have raised are pointless drivel fuelled by your brain farts, we're done here. See you next announcement where you're free to raise your misguided pedantry so we can ignore it once more.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:18:00 -
[946]
Originally by: RAW23 And will you guys please stop playing the victim - it is unbecoming and no one takes that projected image seriously.
Point you to a little thing I said at the start of my previous post.
Originally by: SencneS Here is my account of EBANK. This is all personal view and perspective.
If I want to view myself as being a victim of poor circumstance, due to the actions of others performing scams and fraud then I have every right. Sorry, playing semantics here, you should know by now how crafty I am using words like PERSONAL :) So yeah I do believe EBANK is a victim. If EBANK had better accounting tools which were not shot down by the people making the ISK, if Ricdic hadn't RMTed, if Mr.H hadn't injected fake ISK, if the Auditors actually did an audit. All the while people like Athre and I demanding it, sticking our necks out not voting, casting blocking votes, sticking to our guns pushing for better standards but being shot down every step of the way. It's hard not to view yourself as a victim. Wanting what is right not only for your own piece of mind but what you know the public will want but being turned down every step of the way doesn't leave a much room..
I could leave EBANK in it's current state and say 'You know what I tried back when I wasn't confident in the leadership, and this is just a confirmation and a big heaping of "I told you so"' but I'm not like that, it's not right to just walk away and let others clean up a mess. I've posted this before. So if you don't mind if I want to view myself and the current state of EBANK as nothing but victims of actions out of my control then I'm sorry to say there is no way anyone else can make think otherwise.
It's not stubbornness, how is my opinion of events effecting anything with what is going on? It doesn't. I'm entitled to my opinion just as your entitled to yours. I would hope you would be accepting that my opinion might not match yours and accept that to be good enough.
The post above was just my personal account and opinion of what I saw and the way I took it, nothing more, nothing else. Don't you dare project that personal opinion on that of the opinion of everyone at EBANK. That's mine, no one else can have it, they can either agree with it, or not, the choice is theirs, and I would thank you for not shoving my opinion of events into the mouths of others at EBANK.
Amarr for Life |
Cyaxares II
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:34:00 -
[947]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Those you have raised are pointless drivel fuelled by your brain farts, we're done here. See you next announcement where you're free to raise your misguided pedantry so we can ignore it once more.
Originally by: EBANK Code of Conduct Be Considerate. Realise that your actions and words have an effect on others, take those consequences into account when making decisions.
Be Respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners, frustration cannot be allowed to turn into personal attacks. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
Be Constructive. Disagreements and differing views should be discussed constructively; advice should be sought from others to resolve any disputes.
Be Enquiring. Nobody knows everything, perfection is not expected. Asking questions helps avoid future problems. Those who are asked should be responsive and helpful.
Be Involved. Nothing ever happens by itself, anything worth achieving requires your participation. Be Confidential. Take care with the information you are privy to, it is not yours to disclose under any circumstances.
Seriously, why did you waste your time to write this s***?
You should be working towards paying off your debts and not make up shiny words that have zero impact on your actual behavior.
PS. anyone else under the impression that Ray is using RAW only as a pretense for trolling SencneS?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:37:00 -
[948]
Why are you wasting your time throwing a document I wrote in my face when clearly I don't give a **** what you think?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:41:00 -
[949]
Edited by: RAW23 on 16/03/2010 16:43:59
Originally by: Ray McCormack I'm not here to engage in trivial pillow-talk with you, if there were serious issues raised I would address them. Those you have raised are pointless drivel fuelled by your brain farts, we're done here. See you next announcement where you're free to raise your misguided pedantry so we can ignore it once more.
Excellent public engagement! Have you been taking lessons or is it just the practice paying off? Now, deep breath and calm your rage, sir.
I'm sorry if you think that politely phrased questions about announcement dates that have been missed, location of the figures that you promised to make public and keep up to date, and the progress of your claimed, though apparently now stalled, recruitment drive are "pointless drivel fulled by [my] brain farts" and worse, "misguided pedantry". If these aren't legitimate questions could you tell me what sort are? Perhaps those along the lines of "Ray, how do you manage to be both so brilliant and so handsome at the same time?". Or, "Ray, was it genius or inspiration that led you to make your brilliant moves in guiding EBANK's recovery of public confidence?".
As to the question about monopolising behaviour, again, if you can't see how your customers and potential customers might find the information relevant, well ... it's hard to know how to respond to that without falling into the same kind of unconstructive name-calling that you specialise in.
Just let me restate one of my questions in a slightly different form - when are you going to get that PR guy you so desperately need on board?
Edit
Originally by: Ray McCormack Why are you wasting your time throwing a document I wrote in my face when clearly I don't give a **** what you think?
I think the point was to show how empty your claims and promises of progress in how the bank conducts itself are and how it is not possible to trust you to follow even the basic policies that you yourself think constitute reasonable behaviour when interacting with others.
|
Cyaxares II
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:42:00 -
[950]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Why are you wasting your time throwing a document I wrote in my face when clearly I don't give a **** what you think?
Why are you wasting your time replying to a post that you don't give a **** about?
|
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:45:00 -
[951]
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?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:47:00 -
[952]
None of your business.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:53:00 -
[953]
Originally by: Cyaxares II Somehow she seems to tolerate that kind of treatment quite well but I wouldn't suggest to force anyone else into her shoes.
Senc is a great guy, gets on with things - I have no problems with him; I'm glad he's a part of the bank, couldn't do without him. He does tend to go on a bit though, but that's no secret.
So I'm not sure where you're pulling this *******s about me trolling him from. Your ********, perhaps, along with the rest of your thoughts?
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:55:00 -
[954]
Originally by: RAW23
Just let me restate one of my questions in a slightly different form - when are you going to get that PR guy you so desperately need on board?
The time for effective PR was six months ago. Now? Ebank needed to have some concrete numbers to show that their plan for recovery is working. The burst of wildly emotional trolling coming from Ebank staff just appears to be a smokescreen to divert attention from the lack of progress in their recovery effort.
Enough with the pointless drama. Ebank needs to provide solid evidence that the recovery process is on-track, or admit failure and liquidate. More action, less words.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:58:00 -
[955]
Originally by: Leneerra Just add in rays recurring abusive posts.
I'm a ****, you not getting that this late in the game is surprising.
Originally by: Leneerra The repetedly failed deadlines by the current management, set by the current management.
What deadlines have we failed to meet? (seriously, I'm going there)
Originally by: Leneerra 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.
What the heck? We alerted the public to it and called him a thief, what more do you want?
Originally by: Leneerra Not a single sign of ebank holding a guarantor of an unsecured 250B loan accountable for his guarantee.
I spent enough time flogging that dead horse. KIA owe EBANK 275b plus interest. What more do you want me to do about it?
Originally by: Leneerra Bland acceptance of defaulters that only repayed enough in repayments and intrest to cover most of the principal.
Like who? I can also make **** up and post it on the forums (cue the response about how I usually do)...
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:04:00 -
[956]
Originally by: RJ Nobel plan for recovery
A what for what? I don't think we have one of those in stock, sir. Would you prefer the cheaper, generic option instead?
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:29:00 -
[957]
Originally by: SencneS
... EBANK: Votes started on how to handle ISK, vote passed unanimously to return account balance to 100%. PUBLIC: Small small minority make waves of posts and threads about how bad it is, yet the biggest account holders who have the largest accounts over 80% of the ISK in EBANK remain quiet.
4 out of 5 victims aren't resisting. We're doing something right!
Quote:
EBANK: Casts vote to allow withdrawals at current valuation, it passes with a condition that we confirm no past defaulter or director get their account balance, along with any known RMTers to EBANK. PUBLIC: Out cry of the idea that EBANK doesn't want to support defaulters and scammers by issuing their ISK to them even at a reduced rate.
Way to intentionally misstate the opposition's point of view. You know damn well most the opposition to this centered around not wanting to give sensitive pilot information to an organization that defrauded them for months/years. The outcry isn't that the public wants isk given back to scammers.
Quote:
EBANK: Accepts BLEEP as an alternative (Which I though was added, my bad it wasn't) EBANK: Accepts alternatives for people to get ISK, hardly anyone takes it.
So that the record is straight: -BLEEP still not implemented -Not 1 isk has left ebank towards the frozen accounts. Folks can buy other folks' accounts for a 5% fee but your ABYSMAL public relations and non-existent progress towards recovery means most people wouldn't buy the accounts for 5% period.
Quote:
EBANK: Offers people to cash in their accounts for PLEX FOR HEITI cause, API Requirement free. Hardly anyone takes it.
Haiti.
I missed this announcement. Was this at the same time you implemented BLEEP? Was it subject to the whole 35% rule based on current assets? How do we know ebank donated the PLEX? I mean you can't find liquidity to pay off the "vocal minority" 20% of your customers at 35% assets/liabilities... where's all the money for PLEX suddenly coming from?
Quote:
EBANK: Almost a year since Ricdic scammed, EBANK has finalized all defaults, found every ISK and asset they could EBANK valued at 710,880,589,367 ISK (current internal sheet as of this post, probably a few days behind) Only way is up now.
Nope, you're forgetting about opportunity cost. Sure, you can ignore that your customers could earn isk faster with their partial accounts restored than you have over the past 9 months. But your customers are smarter than that. They also acknowledge that although you may promise pretty pretty please with cherries on top that you won't scam again, that you can't guarantee it won't happen.
Quote:
SENCNES: On here posting in a long trolled thread reminiscing, and reading everyone following flames posts. Enjoy the read
Another day in paradise.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:58:00 -
[958]
Ray, it's probably a good idea to try letting SencneS speak for Ebank. You kind of suck at presenting any semblance of professionalism, courtesy or even common decency. I'm afraid you're just going to have to face the fact that you're a failure at any form of public communication related to this subject.
Try not to convince those as yet undecided that you're also just as incompetent at furthering the (stated) goals of the Ebank enterprise as you are at improving, repairing or even maintaining its rather tarnished image.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:27:00 -
[959]
I see your words take credence from your alliance name.
|
Reilly Duvolle
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 21:23:00 -
[960]
Back in the smacking sadle eh Ray? You started this thread by assuring people that ok, "I have had my fun - now lets get serious"...
I even submitted my API. Not that it has done me any good. I came back to this thread after 3 months looking for news, but the only thing I found was the standard sewer which constantly seem to pour from your mouth. You sir, are a sorry excuse for a human beeing. Ask your mom for you birt certificate, and she will show you the apology letter from the condom factory. So just shut the f*** up. You will never be the man she is anyway.
|
|
Proton Power
Amarr Luck Yourself Into Isk
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:29:00 -
[961]
I have not kept up on the EBANK status lately but my thoughts, if I am out of date on somthing I appologize.
Agree - I agree that at this point EBANK should try for full recovery, anything less 6mths later would be just another failure as a whole.
With EBANK on the stance of what they do may hurt others market wise. Anything that EBANK does to make isk hurts somone, somehow. Anything anyone does, does so.
Disagree - I don't think an API should be any type of requirement until isk is opened up for withdrawl. Then say a month after that, you can make it a requirement, this way your customers can choose to invest with that knowledge, the issue I see is your putting this control in while holding people's isk that may not agree with it. Let them take isk out, then implement this control.
Thoughts - I think everyone is taking this way to serious right now, in a few years isk will just be somthing in your memory, it's just a game afterall.
|
Grozen
Caldari Titan Core
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:31:00 -
[962]
There's a lot of anger and well deserved i might say towards you Ray ask yourself is this how the director of ebank has to behave to maintain good reputation and credibility? People want numbers, facts,dates and they want when you make a promise to keep it.If you can't keep the promises you gave some time ago just say so and ask for more time.Stalling and answering with flames to trolling is not the answer.If you try to use more diplomacy people might actually give you more time then you need for whatever is you're doing to revive the bank. knowledge is power |
leona starfire
LS Trading and Production Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:31:00 -
[963]
I have a couple of questions for e-bank
1. Is e-bank still wanting to recover the full 2.1T before paying back at 100%? or are you considering paying 100% out once you reach the 100% rate of the API accounts?
2. Would it be possible to have a simple update every 3months of the following profits made over each 3 month period with time to expected recovery?
3. I am considering creating an IPO to recover funds for a small group of investors who have money locked away at e-bank. Would you be happy to consider the following IPO.
I would gather a small group of friends who have isk held at e-bank, Say for example we had a combined amount of 30b in our accounts.
E-bank would then send me a 1/4 of the full amount 7.5B which I would use to trade on each month.
The group of friends would agree that at any time I scam using this IPO that e-bank could wipe out the full amount of our accounts held at e-bank.
I would send the profits back to e-bank each month from trading they would then take 20% of this profit and the other 80% would be used to give access to isk in our accounts.
An example, I have 5B isk in my account, I make 2b profit, e-bank takes its 400m(20%) and allows me to get 1.6B isk from my account leaving only 3.4B.
This would continue until I had cleared all our accounts, I predict it would only me a year to clear 20B using this method.
Would this interest E-bank?
thanks
leona starfire
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:02:00 -
[964]
Originally by: Proton Power I agree that at this point EBANK should try for full recovery, anything less 6mths later would be just another failure as a whole.
So are you saying that by the end of May (6 months after the op) that if the isk is not recovered to 100% that you would consider this process to be a failure?
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:59:00 -
[965]
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.
|
Proton Power
Amarr Luck Yourself Into Isk
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:13:00 -
[966]
Originally by: Professor Leech
Originally by: Proton Power I agree that at this point EBANK should try for full recovery, anything less 6mths later would be just another failure as a whole.
So are you saying that by the end of May (6 months after the op) that if the isk is not recovered to 100% that you would consider this process to be a failure?
No I am saying that customers have waited 6mths already, at this point go for the gold and get to 100%, anytihng less would be a failure.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:18:00 -
[967]
Originally by: Proton Power No I am saying that customers have waited 6mths already, at this point go for the gold and get to 100%, anytihng less would be a failure.
I tend to agree. The period of excitment is over (other than Ray's angry posting) and they might as well finish the job as it's too late to turn back.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:37:00 -
[968]
Edited by: RAW23 on 17/03/2010 00:43:02
Originally by: Professor Leech
Originally by: Proton Power No I am saying that customers have waited 6mths already, at this point go for the gold and get to 100%, anytihng less would be a failure.
I tend to agree. The period of excitment is over (other than Ray's angry posting) and they might as well finish the job as it's too late to turn back.
The problem with this is, the longer they leave it the more of their customers will actually lose 100% through leaving the game. And given the attrition rate in eve, this means that probably more of their depositors will lose everything than will ever get anything back.
On the other hand, they have said that once they reach a certain level they will start returning isk to those who have submitted their api. But they will remove the balances from their accounts of those who do not submit their apis within a given time frame. personally, I expect them to reach a recovered status on the basis of this plan sooner rather than later, but it will be a recovery predicated on never having to pay back the majority of depositors, who will have left eve never to return.
Edit @PP - On the competition point, there is a difference between treading on peoples' toes and smashing them over the head with a sledgehammer. That's why in RL competition is encouraged but anti-competitive practices are illegal. Even though there is no such legal restriction in EVE this doesn't mean there is no distinction between the two types of behaviour.
|
leona starfire
LS Trading and Production Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:45:00 -
[969]
Yes Leneerra I am looking into seeing if e-bank is willing to do some sort of trading option, it would allow me to recover my funds quicker than e-bank is able to do. It would also allow me to help some friends out as well as buy others peoples e-bank accounts.
For example I could buy people accounts at 30-35% value then get 80%back once ive paid the 20% return to e-bank each month on the IPO.
It lets them write off debt, make isk for the bank as well as for me. It would also open the ability to use isk in peoples accounts for services such as hiring Noir, were I would receive funds from e-bank accounts then I would use my isk in game to hire Noir.
|
Shiva Andromeda
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 02:23:00 -
[970]
Without criticizing the decisions made, what is the rationale behind trying to recover? I dont understand how the current progress is worth the time and effort and negativity. What does anyone gain?
|
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 02:25:00 -
[971]
Originally by: Shiva Andromeda Without criticizing the decisions made, what is the rationale behind trying to recover? I dont understand how the current progress is worth the time and effort and negativity. What does anyone gain?
There is no benefit to account holders.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 02:33:00 -
[972]
Originally by: Shiva Andromeda Without criticizing the decisions made, what is the rationale behind trying to recover? I dont understand how the current progress is worth the time and effort and negativity. What does anyone gain?
Nothing.
It was an obviously bad decision 6 month ago, and the result is what was predicted, but worse.
|
Shiva Andromeda
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 02:34:00 -
[973]
Originally by: Professor Leech
Originally by: Shiva Andromeda Without criticizing the decisions made, what is the rationale behind trying to recover? I dont understand how the current progress is worth the time and effort and negativity. What does anyone gain?
There is no benefit to account holders.
Is there any benefit to the people in charge? This cluster**** looks like a waste of time.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 03:45:00 -
[974]
Originally by: Shiva Andromeda
Originally by: Professor Leech
Originally by: Shiva Andromeda Without criticizing the decisions made, what is the rationale behind trying to recover? I dont understand how the current progress is worth the time and effort and negativity. What does anyone gain?
There is no benefit to account holders.
Is there any benefit to the people in charge? This cluster**** looks like a waste of time.
Perfomance is measured in tears per page of the thread. Take a guess at the other potential benefits to the board of ebank.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 03:57:00 -
[975]
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?
|
admiral fovios
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 04:08:00 -
[976]
Originally by: SetrakDark
Originally by: Shiva Andromeda Without criticizing the decisions made, what is the rationale behind trying to recover? I dont understand how the current progress is worth the time and effort and negativity. What does anyone gain?
Nothing.
It was an obviously bad decision 6 month ago, and the result is what was predicted, but worse.
Of course there was a rationale behind it. Look at it from the point of view of people who suddenly found themselves in control of Ebank. You know, the ones without the personability, smarts, skills or ability to inspire confidence necessary to build a large venture themselves (or even the wherewithal to spot an ongoing scam when provided with inside information.)
Lots of people would have taken the money remaining and run. But these people, the current board, they have standards. Well, they think they do anyway. And also, they wanted respect and power that they would never get except in cluster**** circumstances, like the present. Simply giving the money back would have garnered temporary respect, but realistically they knew they'd be quickly forgotten as a footnote in a scam. And that they would never be able to build something like this from the ground up themselves.
So how could they keep getting respect and attention? "We'll rebuild Ebank!" they decided. They set a timeline of about a year to restore accounts to 100% of their value at the time of the failure.
Okay, so they crapped all over peoples trust in attempting to accomplish this goal, but as noted above, they have no people skills or idea how real people think or would react. And, they assumed that everyone playing the game is a moron and wouldn't notice that many people would get back to 100% if the 30% remaining was delivered into their hands rather than leaving it with Ray and crew. But hey, they were still going to get respect by rebuilding. And at least dumb people would keep their money with them once accounts were reopened. GO PLAN!
Oh wait. After a few months, the asset growth was pathetic. Turns out EVE doesn't lend itself well to massive investment funds; scams are rampant. So getting back to 100% is going to take years. (look up how long it would take to double your money assuming a relatively attainable 6% growth a month, and see why they fail so hard).
So, they try a few things: "Lets try ham handed market manipulation! Hrm, not enough. Hey, look at MD! This Pheonix fund is a great idea! Lets steal that!" This last one is actually a moment of lucidity: the only way they're going to get accounts back to 100% is by making 60% of the accounts disappear. So they settle on a plan whereby any one who goes inactive loses their money.
Funny part is, they honestly think people will be too clued out to see how they achieved their goal i.e. that they restored accounts to 100% by reducing what constitutes 100% to 30%ish. They must believe that people will keep their money in Ebank once things are reopened. This is hilarious, because they've already selected out everyone who's no clued in (they're the ones losing their accounts at paying for that return to 100%). The only people who will have the chance to get their money back are the people who will immeidately pull it out and never return.
So in the end, Ray and crew will be left with no respect and no power. There's a 50/50 chance that at least one will help themselves to the remaining cash for their unappreciated (because it was unwanted) efforts.
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 04:34:00 -
[977]
Originally by: admiral fovios
Originally by: SetrakDark
Originally by: Shiva Andromeda Without criticizing the decisions made, what is the rationale behind trying to recover? I dont understand how the current progress is worth the time and effort and negativity. What does anyone gain?
Nothing.
It was an obviously bad decision 6 month ago, and the result is what was predicted, but worse.
Of course there was a rationale behind it. Look at it from the point of view of people who suddenly found themselves in control of Ebank. You know, the ones without the personability, smarts, skills or ability to inspire confidence necessary to build a large venture themselves (or even the wherewithal to spot an ongoing scam when provided with inside information.)
Lots of people would have taken the money remaining and run. But these people, the current board, they have standards. Well, they think they do anyway. And also, they wanted respect and power that they would never get except in cluster**** circumstances, like the present. Simply giving the money back would have garnered temporary respect, but realistically they knew they'd be quickly forgotten as a footnote in a scam. And that they would never be able to build something like this from the ground up themselves.
So how could they keep getting respect and attention? "We'll rebuild Ebank!" they decided. They set a timeline of about a year to restore accounts to 100% of their value at the time of the failure.
Okay, so they crapped all over peoples trust in attempting to accomplish this goal, but as noted above, they have no people skills or idea how real people think or would react. And, they assumed that everyone playing the game is a moron and wouldn't notice that many people would get back to 100% if the 30% remaining was delivered into their hands rather than leaving it with Ray and crew. But hey, they were still going to get respect by rebuilding. And at least dumb people would keep their money with them once accounts were reopened. GO PLAN!
Oh wait. After a few months, the asset growth was pathetic. Turns out EVE doesn't lend itself well to massive investment funds; scams are rampant. So getting back to 100% is going to take years. (look up how long it would take to double your money assuming a relatively attainable 6% growth a month, and see why they fail so hard).
So, they try a few things: "Lets try ham handed market manipulation! Hrm, not enough. Hey, look at MD! This Pheonix fund is a great idea! Lets steal that!" This last one is actually a moment of lucidity: the only way they're going to get accounts back to 100% is by making 60% of the accounts disappear. So they settle on a plan whereby any one who goes inactive loses their money.
Funny part is, they honestly think people will be too clued out to see how they achieved their goal i.e. that they restored accounts to 100% by reducing what constitutes 100% to 30%ish. They must believe that people will keep their money in Ebank once things are reopened. This is hilarious, because they've already selected out everyone who's no clued in (they're the ones losing their accounts at paying for that return to 100%). The only people who will have the chance to get their money back are the people who will immeidately pull it out and never return.
So in the end, Ray and crew will be left with no respect and no power. There's a 50/50 chance that at least one will help themselves to the remaining cash for their unappreciated (because it was unwanted) efforts.
tl;dr
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 04:53:00 -
[978]
Where as the current leadership of ebank is pretty much pathetic at this point, maybe we should launch a donation drive to help out the remaining customers?
It would look something like this:
I auction off a ship for ebank isk. The highest bidder agrees to scratch that much isk off his account. Account holder gets something for his frozen isk, ebank gets to write liabilities off their books.
This way folks with a little extra to give can benefit from a show of goodwill. If it becomes popular enough, we can get a thread going comparing how much isk ebank has returned against the donation drive.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 05:15:00 -
[979]
Originally by: cosmoray If you knew that getting back to 100% took until December 2012 would that be acceptable to you?
Yes.
Originally by: cosmoray Do you think it would be acceptable to your customers?
I don't care, it's not my problem they invested in a ******** australian and got their ISK stolen. Next time think carefully about whom you trust.
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente Silvermane Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 05:18:00 -
[980]
It would be interesting to see how much higher than the RealISK (tm) value of the auctioned items the BankISK (tm) value gets to. --------------------------------- Regarding high-sec mining:
Originally by: AmarrettoDiAmarr 3-4 million ISK/hr is perhaps .15 0r .20 US$/hr; not quite prison wages and you are around less honest people. |
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 05:22:00 -
[981]
Originally by: Reilly Duvolle You sir, are a sorry excuse for a human beeing. Ask your mom for you birth certificate, and she will show you the apology letter from the condom factory. So why dont you shut up and give that hole in your face a chance to heal. You will never be the man she is anyway.
Top class, couldn't have put it better myself. You should have finished with some line about how I'm also a thief because I steal her unwarranted affection on a daily basis leading my talentless existence, then you'd be in line with the rest of the tosh being sprouted in this thread.
All you mouth breathers getting your knickers in a knot need to get some perspective.
|
Cyaxares II
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 05:36:00 -
[982]
Originally by: cosmoray If you knew that getting back to 100% took until December 2012 would that be acceptable to you?
I see what you did there
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 08:04:00 -
[983]
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.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:15:00 -
[984]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 tl;dr
Too bad because he's bang ****ing on.
|
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:18:00 -
[985]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
I don't care, it's not my problem they invested in a ******** australian and got their ISK stolen. Next time think carefully about whom you trust.
It should bother you, you seem to involved in too many scams.
How much has Ebank made off the API database at this point?
|
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:12:00 -
[986]
Originally by: RAW23 On the other hand, they have said that once they reach a certain level they will start returning isk to those who have submitted their api.
This was in the second post in this thread. Ray said;
"Liquidation Methods * EBANK has agreed to offer account holders access to limited liquidation withdrawals. ISK will become available for withdrawals once per month as profit above an asset valuation of 700b becomes available. The value of the actual withdrawal will be established as the percentage difference between our estimated NAV and known liabilities. A liquidation fee of 5% will be levied against all such withdrawals". Ray also said "our assets topped 700b a few weeks back" on 2010.02.23 and the currently reported value is 711,531,962,843 ISK but still no "limited liquidation withdrawals".
I am also (more) worried by these statements (even if they are personal views) and thanks to SencneS for at least being civil ans attempting to answer questions;
"I always had a concern about Ray taking on too much responsibility, and tried to help out in some thing, gave some advice here and there, we all do. It's a big mess, I'd rather see us clean one area at a time, make it right, then move on". "The API service Torn Soul offered I though was already implemented. I thought Ray turned that on months ago".
BTW, speaking of Ray, this is the second month* with no dividends from AATP. Excuse; "We've been slack on sales, so we've got stock but not enough ISK for dividends.". Even with his stalled share exchange programme having only exchanged 43.39% of shares at last report. I mention this because, using the last dividend of 412.76 ISK/share, only 1,701,178,782.72 profit was needed on a 223,795,601,697.38 ISK investment each of these last two months (albeit for a 1.75% return a month).
* I say second because over the 15-16 months Ray has CEO'd AATP, of the 8 dividend payments, 5 have been on 15th-18th of the month. Of course - I am jumping the gun as today is only the 17th.... --
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 11:05:00 -
[987]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: cosmoray Do you think it would be acceptable to your customers?
I don't care, it's not my problem they invested in a ******** australian and got their ISK stolen. Next time think carefully about whom you trust.
Haven't heard "********" used since I was about 9 years old. Thanks for the nostalgia trip! Not that I'm surprised that you still use the language of the primary school playground.
Your statement of contempt for the EBANK depositors you are supposed to be helping strikes me as a probable troll to elicit more outrage, given that you have said you have money in EBANK yourself. However, your attempt to troll further outrage is also a statement of contempt for the other depositors. Why did you take this job if you so loathe the people you are supposed to be helping? Opportunity for massive ego stroking?
|
Shiva Andromeda
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 11:47:00 -
[988]
Originally by: Ray McCormack All you mouth breathers getting your knickers in a knot need to get some perspective.
This doesnt make sense either. Is putting up with this abuse fun for you? Is having the money that wasn't stolen, kept from them for years, fun for the customers? Whats the point? You ask for perspective, but when I read this thread perspective shows me a spectacle for the sake of a spectacle. No one gains anything from this. How is this better than closing and paying out months ago?
I see scammers and pkillers try for player tears for fun, and the only reason that makes sense for this 'bank' to still be 'open' is in search of the same. This answer doesnt seem right either but what else is there? |
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 12:04:00 -
[989]
Originally by: Marcus Baltar BTW, speaking of Ray, this is the second month* with no dividends from AATP. Excuse; "We've been slack on sales, so we've got stock but not enough ISK for dividends.". Even with his stalled share exchange programme having only exchanged 43.39% of shares at last report. I mention this because, using the last dividend of 412.76 ISK/share, only 1,701,178,782.72 profit was needed on a 223,795,601,697.38 ISK investment each of these last two months (albeit for a 1.75% return a month).
* I say second because over the 15-16 months Ray has CEO'd AATP, of the 8 dividend payments, 5 have been on 15th-18th of the month. Of course - I am jumping the gun as today is only the 17th....
Apologies.
The correct figure for the last dividend from AATP on 2010.01.25 should be 526.32 ISK/share.
This would mean only 2,169,213,143.04 ISK profit was needed on a 223,795,601,697.38 ISK investment each of these last two months (albeit for a 2.23% return a month).
Now back to EBANK, and what I forgot to say in the other post;
Originally by: Varo Jan Sorry, Marcus. I've not had time. I'm not going to update the alternative finstats any more - it's a waste of time. Ray did make some material adjustments to the official statements as a result of my finstats. However, the real substance remains hidden. The official finstats paint a bleak picture, so bleak that closure is the only sensible option. And yet you have SencneS claiming massive profits are being made.
It would not take much effort at all to prepare and issue true financial statements for EBank and its ventures. Unfortunately, Ray neither has the skills nor the inclination to do so.
Understood. Thanks for the effort. (Off-topic, again). BTW, isn't the "full accounts prepared in accordance with accounting standards" overdue on One Stop? --
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:41:00 -
[990]
Hey, it's the muppet crew, here to point out how the public investment market in an internet spaceship game isn't always perfect.
Well done Captains Obvious. /finger.
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:54:00 -
[991]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Hey, it's the muppet crew, here to point out how the public investment market in an internet spaceship game isn't always perfect.
Well done Captains Obvious. /finger.
Worst excuse for poor performance ever.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 14:59:00 -
[992]
Originally by: RAW23 Worst excuse for poor performance ever.
Sorry, it's the best I could do whilst suffocating underneath your mom.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:00:00 -
[993]
Edited by: RAW23 on 17/03/2010 15:02:33
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 Worst excuse for poor performance ever.
Sorry, it's the best I could do whilst suffocating underneath your mom.
My mother is dead. But if she has found some way to screw you from the grave, I applaud her.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:33:00 -
[994]
Edited by: SencneS on 17/03/2010 15:35:42
Originally by: RAW23 Worst excuse for poor performance ever.
Poor performance... I don't know about that.. For the stuff I do apparently I'm pulling a 36% monthly return rate. For my little part of the EBANK world, all I can say is I've had a lot of time and not the capital to do things, with the capital now available it's what I expected. Why just yesterday I made a 480mil profit (PROFIT, not Sales) in the space of... 3 hours. That includes everything from purchase of goods, to transport to manipulation to sales.
I can do it again today and I might. This is not the ISK Printer I mentioned before either. And no, there is no current publicly listed IPO, Fund, Bond or even proposed investment opportunity, however there is competition, lots of it and they are not exactly hurting either, hardly a crushing effort I only used 800mil ISK to turn a 480mil profit.
Yes, I'm proud of making that ISK, and no you take that sense of achievement away from me, Don't even try.
{Some time has passed since I typed that}
I'm in the process right now of doing what I did yesterday again, I'll probably do it twice today! Looking at least 400mil this time. I see after I start there was a 520mil profit popped up.. Sorry RAW23, I doubt anyone here could argue poor performance when it's 1B ISK a day profit with what I would determine has moderate effort.
Amarr for Life |
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:45:00 -
[995]
Originally by: SencneS Edited by: SencneS on 17/03/2010 15:35:42
Originally by: RAW23 Worst excuse for poor performance ever.
Poor performance... I don't know about that.. For the stuff I do apparently I'm pulling a 36% monthly return rate. For my little part of the EBANK world, all I can say is I've had a lot of time and not the capital to do things, with the capital now available it's what I expected. Why just yesterday I made a 480mil profit (PROFIT, not Sales) in the space of... 3 hours. That includes everything from purchase of goods, to transport to manipulation to sales.
I can do it again today and I might. This is not the ISK Printer I mentioned before either. And no, there is no current publicly listed IPO, Fund, Bond or even proposed investment opportunity, however there is competition, lots of it and they are not exactly hurting either, hardly a crushing effort I only used 800mil ISK to turn a 480mil profit.
Yes, I'm proud of making that ISK, and no you take that sense of achievement away from me, Don't even try.
{Some time has passed since I typed that}
I'm in the process right now of doing what I did yesterday again, I'll probably do it twice today! Looking at least 400mil this time. I see after I start there was a 520mil profit popped up.. Sorry RAW23, I doubt anyone here could argue poor performance when it's 1B ISK a day profit with what I would determine has moderate effort.
You sound like an inmate from Gotham City Asylum - how's the Joker these days? Of course, I have no reason not to believe everything you say - just look at the figures they speak for themselves, 27 gazillions... why... how dare you question mother! Into the cellar with you!! Now where are my pills?
|
Kitimortoa
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:50:00 -
[996]
You people are all idiots for falling for an obvious scam, you got what was coming to you.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:05:00 -
[997]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal You sound like an inmate from Gotham City Asylum
You can blame the pain pills I'm on.. I'm hurt and the pain was a little more then expected when I work up this morning so I took some "happy pills".. <-- My pupils look like in real life, if that simile was representative of real life.
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:06:00 -
[998]
Edited by: RAW23 on 17/03/2010 16:13:25 Edited by: RAW23 on 17/03/2010 16:07:56
Originally by: SencneS Edited by: SencneS on 17/03/2010 15:35:42
Originally by: RAW23 Worst excuse for poor performance ever.
Poor performance... I don't know about that.. For the stuff I do apparently I'm pulling a 36% monthly return rate. For my little part of the EBANK world, all I can say is I've had a lot of time and not the capital to do things, with the capital now available it's what I expected. Why just yesterday I made a 480mil profit (PROFIT, not Sales) in the space of... 3 hours. That includes everything from purchase of goods, to transport to manipulation to sales.
I can do it again today and I might. This is not the ISK Printer I mentioned before either. And no, there is no current publicly listed IPO, Fund, Bond or even proposed investment opportunity, however there is competition, lots of it and they are not exactly hurting either, hardly a crushing effort I only used 800mil ISK to turn a 480mil profit.
Yes, I'm proud of making that ISK, and no you take that sense of achievement away from me, Don't even try.
{Some time has passed since I typed that}
I'm in the process right now of doing what I did yesterday again, I'll probably do it twice today! Looking at least 400mil this time. I see after I start there was a 520mil profit popped up.. Sorry RAW23, I doubt anyone here could argue poor performance when it's 1B ISK a day profit with what I would determine has moderate effort.
I didn't argue for poor performance at EBANK (not poor financial performance anyway). Please try to pay attention to what is being said about what. I have repeatedly said I expect EBANK to recover financially quicker than most people do. Just commenting on Ray's response to someone else (Marcus, I assume), which was not to deny the criticism or provide a real explanation but to excuse it's object in the lamest and emptiest way possible.
In any case, if you are personally making 500-1000 mil a day with a small part of the venture operation and there is a bigger isk printer lying around, why are these results not reflected in your current accounts?
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:18:00 -
[999]
Originally by: RAW23 In any case, if you are personally making 500-1000 mil a day with a small part of the venture operation and there is a bigger isk printer lying around, why are these results not reflected in your current accounts?
I think they are, the problem is I'm more about high turnover rate rather then bulk sized profits. Ray has commented he sees a lot of profit from what I do, but no ISK in the wallet. I constantly use ISK from Profits I make. I'm an auditors worse nightmare because API asset pulling happens once a day, so while a snapshot in time can see what assets I have, within an hour or two they are all gone and ISK is being pumped into something else.
API does me no justice over the short term but long term view and profitability is clearly noticed.
Amarr for Life |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:29:00 -
[1000]
Edited by: RAW23 on 17/03/2010 16:31:47
Originally by: SencneS
Originally by: RAW23 In any case, if you are personally making 500-1000 mil a day with a small part of the venture operation and there is a bigger isk printer lying around, why are these results not reflected in your current accounts?
I think they are, the problem is I'm more about high turnover rate rather then bulk sized profits. Ray has commented he sees a lot of profit from what I do, but no ISK in the wallet. I constantly use ISK from Profits I make. I'm an auditors worse nightmare because API asset pulling happens once a day, so while a snapshot in time can see what assets I have, within an hour or two they are all gone and ISK is being pumped into something else.
API does me no justice over the short term but long term view and profitability is clearly noticed.
So, you're saying that the reported profits from the ventures shown on the balance sheet are at least 100% off? Am I right, then, in understanding that your venture profits will not be counted until your venture is wound up? If so, this is a bit of a problem as it means that EBANK is considerably more solvent than it actually claims and may have reached the level at which it was promised that accounts would be opened up for withdrawals. The longer these profits go uncounted, the more time passes and the more depositors leave the game and lose everything they deposited. Is there any time limit at which you must hand over your accrued profits or can you go on indefinitely in this fashion?
|
|
Kitimortoa
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:47:00 -
[1001]
lulz, you people must have been absent when god handed out brains...
"I use up all my proffits on something else so we never have any money"
doesn't just scream scam to you, then you should really invest in me too, I could use some isk.
lawl, you people are just sad, I wish I could sell you guys **** irl, I'd be rich by now...
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:03:00 -
[1002]
Here's your profit report. /me groin-thrusts.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:10:00 -
[1003]
Edited by: RAW23 on 17/03/2010 17:12:18
Originally by: Ray McCormack Here's your profit report. /me groin-thrusts.
/me shakes head pityingly.
Ray, you are an irrelevancy in your own thread. Now go play with your toys while the grown-ups talk.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:13:00 -
[1004]
Originally by: RAW23 grown-ups
Pfft, hardly. You're about as mature and sophisticated as a wet fart. Your thoughts and ideas even less so.
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:16:00 -
[1005]
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).
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:16:00 -
[1006]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 grown-ups
Pfft, hardly. You're about as mature and sophisticated as a wet fart. Your thoughts and ideas even less so.
Hush now. I'm sure someone will sing you a lullaby if you ask nicely.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:22:00 -
[1007]
Originally by: RAW23 Hush now. I'm sure someone will sing you a lullaby if you ask nicely.
Sing me the one about how you jump off a cliff and die (ingame).
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:24:00 -
[1008]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 Hush now. I'm sure someone will sing you a lullaby if you ask nicely.
Sing me the one about how you jump off a cliff and die (ingame).
Rock-a-bye RAWby, on the cliff top ...?
Ok, but go up to bed like a good boy first and you'll get your song later.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:24:00 -
[1009]
Originally by: RAW23 So, you're saying that the reported profits from the ventures shown on the balance sheet are at least 100% off? Am I right, then, in understanding that your venture profits will not be counted until your venture is wound up? If so, this is a bit of a problem as it means that EBANK is considerably more solvent than it actually claims and may have reached the level at which it was promised that accounts would be opened up for withdrawals. The longer these profits go uncounted, the more time passes and the more depositors leave the game and lose everything they deposited. Is there any time limit at which you must hand over your accrued profits or can you go on indefinitely in this fashion?
Ray does his best to account for it. I'm clearly not going to solo make 1.2 trillion ISK profit that's stupidity to think that is possible. Ray does a monthly accounting in which I give him my current snapshot in time, ISK in wallet, how much on the market, how much in escrow, value of assets I have to be placed on the market and value of materials and components etc.
Fortunately it's easy, I'm using EBANK facilities to do all this so I have no Fixed assets. The BPOs I use belong to EBANK, the POS structure belongs to EBANK, EBANK pays the monthly office fees. This makes my personal report easy. The report is easy enough for me to manually do every time, but auditing it to track profitability is difficult at best because of the very high turn over rate. Short term audit difficult, long term is much easier.
Remember the current goal and objective of EBANK is to return to 100%. Your question would only apply if EBANK some how planned to cut off at a given time. As for "At a point in time in which EBANK would have enough to process fractional withdrawals... I'm not worth that much... If at a time in the future, Ray or whomever does the account reporting takes my monthly snapshot, adds it to the rest of the ventures snapshots and reports that time has come, the ISK in my activities would most like stay with the venture. Remember while I can profit 1B a day sometimes, that not the monthly trend. I'm only achieving about 36% according to balance sheet.
Sorry not going to sucked into taking once accomplishment in one day and assuming that will happen everyday like you apparently want to believe and even suggest that is the case. You really need to stop manipulating what was said into your own little version then twisting it to make it sound bad. It was one day, and again today but that's not going to happen every day assuming that is the case would be idiotic.
Amarr for Life |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:27:00 -
[1010]
Originally by: Leneerra 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, I like you man. You actually have a stake in this whole situation unlike most of the other parties involved in this thread. I responded to your earlier issues, not sure if you missed them.
But please take your own advise, my strong reaction is not directed at you or your ilk (ie, those with a stake in the situation), I'll gladly engage in constructive dialogue with you.
|
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:33:00 -
[1011]
Originally by: SencneS
Fuller explanation
Apologies but you did make it sound as if this were achievable in at least the medium term.
Quote:
Sorry RAW23, I doubt anyone here could argue poor performance when it's 1B ISK a day profit with what I would determine has moderate effort.
If you say "x a day" and do not mention the returns on other days that sounds like "x most days" not "x sometimes". I have no interest in twisting your words, just in finding out what is going on.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:35:00 -
[1012]
I'll sing this communist a lullaby
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:39:00 -
[1013]
Originally by: RAW23 I have no interest in twisting your words, just in finding out what is going on.
What is going on is frankly none of your business. Our financials are public, you can monitor those.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:44:00 -
[1014]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: RAW23 I have no interest in twisting your words, just in finding out what is going on.
What is going on is frankly none of your business. Our financials are public, you can monitor those.
Is that really the best you can do? You better not create threads on a public forum in future if you don't want the public to discuss them.
Btw - will you act like an adult if I create an EBANK account?
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:47:00 -
[1015]
Originally by: RAW23 Is that really the best you can do?
Is the best you can do asking me if this is the best I can do or labelling my responses as the worst ever? Simpson much?
It would be a dumb **** like you that creates an account in a bank that has suspended all activity, on par with your level of brain activity.
|
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:13:00 -
[1016]
Originally by: Ray McCormack It would be a dumb **** like you that creates an account in a bank that has suspended all activity, on par with your level of brain activity.
How about the 211 people that have created accounts since 2009.08.28 (up to 2010.03.16)?
(Actually 422 accounts created, but each individual creates two accounts, I believe). --
|
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:19:00 -
[1017]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Cyaxares II Somehow she seems to tolerate that kind of treatment quite well but I wouldn't suggest to force anyone else into her shoes.
Senc is a great guy, gets on with things - I have no problems with him; I'm glad he's a part of the bank, couldn't do without him. He does tend to go on a bit though, but that's no secret.
So I'm not sure where you're pulling this *******s about me trolling him from. Your ********, perhaps, along with the rest of your thoughts?
I think Cyraxares is referring to this EVE Bank Part 2 - Ray McCormack. --
|
Leneerra
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:40:00 -
[1018]
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.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:45:00 -
[1019]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
It would be a dumb **** like you that creates an account in a bank that has suspended all activity, on par with your level of brain activity.
So that's what you think of people opening all those new accounts?
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
leona starfire
LS Trading and Production Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:07:00 -
[1020]
I think my post might have been missed by the E-bank board so is it possible to get an answer to my questions?
My main character nightjester has 9.7B in his e-bank account.
Originally by: leona starfire I have a couple of questions for e-bank
1. Is e-bank still wanting to recover the full 2.1T before paying back at 100%? or are you considering paying 100% out once you reach the 100% rate of the API accounts?
2. Would it be possible to have a simple update every 3months of the following profits made over each 3 month period with time to expected recovery?
3. I am considering creating an IPO to recover funds for a small group of investors who have money locked away at e-bank. Would you be happy to consider the following IPO.
I would gather a small group of friends who have isk held at e-bank, Say for example we had a combined amount of 30b in our accounts.
E-bank would then send me a 1/4 of the full amount 7.5B which I would use to trade on each month.
The group of friends would agree that at any time I scam using this IPO that e-bank could wipe out the full amount of our accounts held at e-bank.
I would send the profits back to e-bank each month from trading they would then take 20% of this profit and the other 80% would be used to give access to isk in our accounts.
An example, I have 5B isk in my account, I make 2b profit, e-bank takes its 400m(20%) and allows me to get 1.6B isk from my account leaving only 3.4B.
This would continue until I had cleared all our accounts, I predict it would only me a year to clear 20B using this method.
Would this interest E-bank?
thanks
leona starfire
|
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:12:00 -
[1021]
Originally by: leona starfire 1. Is e-bank still wanting to recover the full 2.1T before paying back at 100%? or are you considering paying 100% out once you reach the 100% rate of the API accounts?
Our plans haven't changed since the previous two announcements.
Originally by: leona starfire 2. Would it be possible to have a simple update every 3months of the following profits made over each 3 month period with time to expected recovery?
No, you can use the public financials to judge our progress.
Originally by: leona starfire 3. I am considering creating an IPO
Congrats, but no.
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:15:00 -
[1022]
Originally by: Ray McCormack Here's your profit report. /me groin-thrusts.
I'd say [insert short joke here], but I don't want Ray/AC taking off their pants.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:25:00 -
[1023]
Originally by: Dzil I'd say [insert short joke here], but I don't want Ray/AC taking off their pants.
Hey man, it's no secret.
|
Weight What
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:05:00 -
[1024]
I have to say that it's more secure letting captain fovious guard the goodies at an easter-egg hunt than this group of scammers. Reading that EVE Tribune article it is clear that Ray McCormack doesn't even have the competence to justify his arrogant groin waving.
Be careful, because one day someone might douse that groin in the lighter fluid of righteous indignation and set it afire to serve as an example for the rest of his ilk -----------------------------------------------
Pompous, currently trading as "Weight What". |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:09:00 -
[1025]
Originally by: Weight What competence
Competence doesn't bear comparison when the previous management managed to lose 1.2t ISK to who knows where. Don't confuse me being a ****er with incompetence.
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:11:00 -
[1026]
Seriously? We can't say wnaker without censorship?
What is this, the UK?
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Weight What
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:11:00 -
[1027]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Weight What competence
Competence doesn't bear comparison when the previous management managed to lose 1.2t ISK to who knows where. Don't confuse me being a ****er with incompetence.
But, so far, what of any concrete basis has come forth from EBANK to assuage the angry public? Wither the Golden Shield to repel the torch-bearers? -----------------------------------------------
Pompous, currently trading as "Weight What". |
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:16:00 -
[1028]
Originally by: Weight What assuage the angry public?
It's not my job to satisfy the public's interest further, there are public financials - that is all they will ever get, and it's enough.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:53:00 -
[1029]
Edited by: RAW23 on 17/03/2010 20:54:24
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Weight What assuage the angry public?
It's not my job to satisfy the public's interest further, there are public financials - that is all they will ever get, and it's enough.
So this is another broken promise is it?
Originally by: Ray McCormack
We would love to offer you income reports from the various divisions, but due to other more pressing requirements those have fallen by the wayside. Once the internal audit is complete (yes, it's still ongoing) they will be worked on as a priority. For now you can assess our periodic updates to our progress by monitoring the Public Financials.
|
Companion Trollin
You are going too fast
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:03:00 -
[1030]
Don't you fools realize that the more hate you throw at ebank the stronger it becomes? You need to kill it with love, LOVE!
|
|
Dasola
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:55:00 -
[1031]
I would like ebank to do vote of trust on ray by depositors. If ray fails to gain more then 50% vote of confidence, kick hes ass out. He clearly does more harm then good on ebank if plan really is to return bank in solvency. Currently ray manages to undermine any trust left on ebanks survival and if ray continues to leader of BoD is rellay dont believe ebank will ever recover.
Ho the hell chose him anyways? bank is owned by its depositors so when did we get asked ho we would like from these candidates to be new leader? So far ray has managed to angry major depositors, throw away any TOS ebank had (not honoring original and drawing up new one, none expects to last anyways). and failed to deliver even things he promised himself to deliver.
He even references that plan has not changed. Well how can it change when there is no plan. Simple as that. Wheres the promised openes? things are as secret as ever, if not even more so since now they collet your api information and store it for "future" use.
|
Aixa Syal
Minmatar al-Syal Brigade
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:07:00 -
[1032]
Ray you been through so much and still here, I am cheering you on!!!
|
Kitimortoa
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:08:00 -
[1033]
Originally by: Companion Trollin Don't you fools realize that the more hate you throw at ebank the stronger it becomes? You need to kill it with love, LOVE!
Or everyone cut their losses and make sure all characters associated with the "faces" of ebank are wardec'd where ever they go for all eternity...
Cut your losses you fools and kill some people for revenge, don't hold on to a giant ponzi scheme in some assinine hope that you *might* one day recover whatever money you put into it.
For god's sake, stop dumping more money in to this obvious scam...if you want to throw your money away ****ing send it to me, I'll at least spend it to make sure people get wardec'd repeatedly
And about the api thing Dasola, you realize you can change your api key from this very website :P
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:11:00 -
[1034]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
It's not my job to satisfy the public's interest further, there are public financials - that is all they will ever get, and it's enough.
I'll agree that the public financials are the best means of communication with the public. I have no interest in trolling or asking pointless questions. I simply want to see Ebank move forward. To that end:
On February 26, 2009, Ebank had assets of 702m and liabilities of 1,914m (public financial's "history" tab).
On March 17th, 2010, Ebank has assets of 711m and liabilities of 1914m.
How does that qualify as "enough"?
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:12:00 -
[1035]
Actually any spare isk would be best invested in my corporation. No matter the amount I can pay more interest than ebank, because I can pay interest.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
Companion Qube
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:18:00 -
[1036]
Ebank I believe in you, ignore all the haters. They see you rollin, they hatin, patrollin, an tryin to catch you ridin dirty.
Don't let all these fora whora catch you ridin' dirty.
|
Atima
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:21:00 -
[1037]
I don't see why everyone is trolling Ray and EBANK so hard. I have alot of respect for ray to step up into this difficult position. TBH I think Ray is the best man for the job to return EBANK to its former glory by encouraging depositors and returning it to solvency.
Really I think people forget how great an accomplishment EBANK was. Keep going Ray, the community believes in you.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:25:00 -
[1038]
Originally by: Atima
Really I think people forget how great an accomplishment EBANK was. Keep going Ray, the community believes in you.
Ebanks main accomplishment is losing 1.3T isk and not noticing it. I agree that this is a great feat.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
Lui Kai
The Penguin Republic
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:28:00 -
[1039]
There is really only one question that needs to be addressed, to soothe the customers and restore calm:
Did you guys send Ric a "One Year Scammerversary" card this month? ----------------
|
Kitimortoa
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:30:00 -
[1040]
Originally by: Atima I don't see why everyone is trolling Ray and EBANK so hard. I have alot of respect for ray to step up into this difficult position. TBH I think Ray is the best man for the job to return EBANK to its former glory by encouraging depositors and returning it to solvency.
Really I think people forget how great an accomplishment EBANK was. Keep going Ray, the community believes in you.
Step up to the position of the next great thief?
d00d everyone that gave their money to someone else in this game and thought they'd get it back at some point should have their heads examined. There are no consequences to ripping people off in a video game that has no rules on the matter. You all should be voted for the Darwin Awards for the sheer stupidity of getting involved in the first place.
You do realize all they're trying to do is get some more suckers to drop money in their pockets so they can run off with it again right? RIGHT?
|
|
Companion Qube
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:33:00 -
[1041]
Originally by: Professor Leech
Originally by: Atima
Really I think people forget how great an accomplishment EBANK was. Keep going Ray, the community believes in you.
Ebanks main accomplishment is losing 1.3T isk and not noticing it. I agree that this is a great feat.
Doesn't that make ebank about 300b more incompetent than goonswarm? Just saying.
|
Kitimortoa
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:38:00 -
[1042]
Originally by: Companion Qube
Originally by: Professor Leech
Originally by: Atima
Really I think people forget how great an accomplishment EBANK was. Keep going Ray, the community believes in you.
Ebanks main accomplishment is losing 1.3T isk and not noticing it. I agree that this is a great feat.
Doesn't that make ebank about 300b more incompetent than goonswarm? Just saying.
You mean goonwaffle...
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:41:00 -
[1043]
Originally by: Companion Qube
Doesn't that make ebank about 300b more incompetent than goonswarm? Just saying.
Being worse than the worst alliance in the game? That is another great feat. There's no doubt that ebank is exceptional.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
Dzil
Caldari SafeHouse Investments of Tautology
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 23:26:00 -
[1044]
Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: Ray McCormack
It's not my job to satisfy the public's interest further, there are public financials - that is all they will ever get, and it's enough.
I'll agree that the public financials are the best means of communication with the public. I have no interest in trolling or asking pointless questions. I simply want to see Ebank move forward. To that end:
On February 26, 2009, Ebank had assets of 702m and liabilities of 1,914m (public financial's "history" tab).
On March 17th, 2010, Ebank has assets of 711m and liabilities of 1914m.
How does that qualify as "enough"?
Well that's a hell of a lot better than they were doing 6 months ago. The debt is down to 2 billion? I think a recovery by the end of the year is definitely possible.
Dzil's Corp Sales - 200m |
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 00:09:00 -
[1045]
Originally by: RJ Nobel I'll agree that the public financials are the best means of communication with the public. I have no interest in trolling or asking pointless questions. I simply want to see Ebank move forward. To that end:
On February 26, 2009, Ebank had assets of 702m and liabilities of 1,914m (public financial's "history" tab).
On March 17th, 2010, Ebank has assets of 711m and liabilities of 1914m.
How does that qualify as "enough"?
Think that date was supposed to be 2010.02.26, not 2009.02.26.
Originally by: Dzil Well that's a hell of a lot better than they were doing 6 months ago. The debt is down to 2 billion? I think a recovery by the end of the year is definitely possible.
I have (from the public financials);
Date Total Deposits Total Withdrawals Assets Liabilities 2009.09.09 9,973,593,399,413 6,711,329,076,985 809,179,766,901 1,803,740,550,273 2010.03.16 10,069,398,354,889 7,224,898,692,270 711,380,669,798 1,914,824,139,166
--
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 00:25:00 -
[1046]
Thanks Marcus, my faith in ebank is restored. Primarily because of the decrease in A - L.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
Companion Trollin
You are going too fast
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 05:25:00 -
[1047]
Ebank I believe in you, you can do it, just give it your all!!
|
|
CCP Applebabe
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 09:51:00 -
[1048]
Locked as user requested.
Applebabe Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: [one page] |