Magnu Stormhawk
Stormhawk Enterprises
   |
Posted - 2010.01.07 09:24:00 -
[1]
Collateral is collateral. If its not possible to lose out then there is no reason for cosmoray to not do this and no reason to not invest from a business perspective. Nobody is stupid enough to grant Riethe any trust for future uncollateralised offerings, just because he ran a collateralised bond, so I dont see the problem.
That is, assuming that this isn't total bullsh it anyway. There's a lot of speculation here before cosmoray has even confirmed anything.
|
Magnu Stormhawk
Stormhawk Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 14:39:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: RAW23
I will announce this in my thread when I make my weekly report today. I will also make it clear in any future offerings. However, I consider this to be a courtesy on my part, not an obligation. I don't have any obligations to those who knowingly profit from stolen money. They lose their right to fair treatment when they choose to act in a criminal manner. Retroactive application and an amnesty are, fortunately, not issues here as none of my investors has done anything like this. Nor do I think they would as they are all, as far as I can tell, decent people. However, if it did come to light that something like this had happened in the past then I would provide an amnesty for that. But again, I would consider this a courtesy and not an obligation. Those who put themselves outside the bounds of socially acceptable behaviour cannot then expect, themselves, to be protected by such conventions.
In cases where there are any reasonable questions, however, I will always give the benefit of the doubt. It would take a very strong case for me to act in the way I have outlined, not a mere suspicion. But since I have put my comments in terms of "public" activity, it should be fairly easy to see where it applies.
You're treading on very dangerous ground here. I understand your reasonings but remember when you are talking about crime you are talking about a general perception of morally bad behaviour, and not the breaking of any game laws.
The minute you put your 'nationalisation' of funds into action (hopefully you wont ever have to), you will be labelled a scammer yourself, regardless of your reasoning and the terms, and regardless of the fact you did a robin hood with the funds. You're taking the 'its ok to scam a scammer' notion to the next level - 'its ok to scam a dude who thinks its ok to invest in someone who has scammed before'. How grey can this area get?
At the end of the day if you write this into your terms, you are unlikely to have to act on it, as it will at least trigger a dialogue should one of your investors realise they are going to fall foul of your terms. I still advise caution with this though.
|