| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RAW23
   |
Posted - 2011.02.10 21:08:00 -
[1]
About nine months ago a fund was set up on MD supported by charitable donations and run by a board of directors in order to provide financial support to enable small offerings to get audits that would otherwise not make economic sense for them. The audit fund recently shut down due to a lack of activity and returned the initial donations to the donors (with 100% return on 'investment'!). During the time the audit fund was open new offerings were no longer able to use the excuse that they couldn't afford an audit in order to avoid getting one but this excuse has resurfaced since the closure (see Lethal Entrepreneur's scam).
In order to remove this excuse again, I will use the 4bil I got back from my donation to the fund to provide financial support for any small offering that needs an audit. If you want an audit paid for simply mail me with the name of your chosen auditor, the price they have quoted you and a link to your offering thread. Unless the offering is really terrible I will pay for some or all of the audit.
One of the reasons a board of directors oversaw the previous fund was in order to prevent a single person from having undue influence on which offerings got audits and which did not. Whilst the small number of applications didn't really warrant a five man board in the end this was an entirely valid point. As such, if I decide not to fund an audit I will refer the offering to two other former directors, Taram Caldar and Breaker77, and will allow myself to be over-ruled if they think the offering deserves support. I should note, however, that I was a fairly liberal director and tended to give offerings the benefit of the doubt and I will continue to do so in the future, so I don't forsee this mechanism being used too much.
Another aim of the original audit fund was to support the auditing profession. Whilst that is not a primary objective for my new fund I would encourage auditors to charge according to what they think their time is worth and would encourage moving the base-line price up from 50-100mil to 200mil.
Comments and suggestions are welcome.
|
Phoebe Halliwel
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:09:00 -
[2]
1. Is Taram still willing to be involved?
2. Can VV be pursuaded to participate in this and encourage a new set of auditors to step up?
If the answer is no (which I'm pretty sure it will be), I'd suggest other auditors/people with a reasonable backgound in MD mentor a new generation of auditors.
Are Kazuo, Shar, Varo about still? Would they be willing? Can think of a number of others, but the point here is that auditing in MD has become focused on one person who doesn't have time and finds the isk/reward ratio too low.
3. Is it worth considering a charitable programme, not just for new offerings but for new auditors/mentors?
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:16:00 -
[3]
Thanks for re-starting this Raw. I think one thing is necessary to make this concept work, and that is to pay auditors a fee equivalent to the value of their time and specialised knowledge.
A minimum fee of 250-500 million per audit is essential if the auditing option is to remain viable as a career. I'm willing to pick up a share of the financial obligations for offerings that attempt to be serious.
|
Lethal Entrepreneur
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:25:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 10/02/2011 23:16:36
Thanks for re-starting this Raw. I think one thing is necessary to make this concept work, and that is to pay auditors a fee equivalent to the value of their time and specialised knowledge.
A minimum fee of 250-500 million per audit is probably a good base if the auditing option is to remain viable as a career. I'm willing to pick up a share of the financial obligations for offerings that attempt to be serious.
300+ per audit is pushing it itself. What about new bonds only seeking 1.5b? Your asking 20% of the offering for an audit. Audits should scale to the size of the operation, number of accounts, type of audit etc.
Also I support this cause.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:33:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 10/02/2011 23:33:40
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
300+ per audit is pushing it itself. What about new bonds only seeking 1.5b? Your asking 20% of the offering for an audit. Audits should scale to the size of the operation, number of accounts, type of audit etc.
Also I support this cause.
The first audit is the most important. Subsequent offerings can expand rapidly which means that the value of the initial audit is intrinsically high and should not be perceived only in terms of the size of the initial offering.
|
Lethal Entrepreneur
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:48:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Lethal Entrepreneur on 10/02/2011 23:52:49
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 10/02/2011 23:33:40
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
300+ per audit is pushing it itself. What about new bonds only seeking 1.5b? Your asking 20% of the offering for an audit. Audits should scale to the size of the operation, number of accounts, type of audit etc.
Also I support this cause.
The first audit is the most important. Subsequent offerings can expand rapidly which means that the value of the initial audit is intrinsically high and should not be perceived only in terms of the size of the initial offering.
I agree that it should be a multivariable equation relating the size of the offering the characters etc.
For instance a simple equation such as
100(Log(C)+1.1)(Log(X))
Where C is the characters, X is the size of the offering in 100s of millions. This equation is fairly basic and provides a relatively decent price to auditors based on importance and work.
For instance 2 characters and a offering of 2b is equal to 182m. Now we take 4 characters at 2b and it is 221m. 4 characters at 4b is 272m. It scales well as hte Log will give diminishing returns.
EDIT: updated equation
|
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 00:12:00 -
[7]
As one of the two currently active auditors (VV being the other), I am more interested in how the Customizable API keys will play into auditing. I think the changes will be really good, but at the same time, I have a feeling that it might break most software that currently uses API info until new releases are made.
Likewise, my commitment to low cost audits for newer players is still available within reason. However, I will not pass up a chance to take some of RAWs ISK like he has taken mine on his loans 
|
Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 02:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Breaker77
As one of the two currently active auditors (VV being the other), I am more interested in how the Customizable API keys will play into auditing. I think the changes will be really good, but at the same time, I have a feeling that it might break most software that currently uses API info until new releases are made.
Likewise, my commitment to low cost audits for newer players is still available within reason. However, I will not pass up a chance to take some of RAWs ISK like he has taken mine on his loans
As one of the two currently active fact-checking mini-auditors(Taram Caldar being the other), I am looking forard into how the Customizable API keys will play into these certifications. I think the changes will be really good, and at the same time, and I don't want the responsibility that I'm expected to find "everything". This targeted API will allow me check what I am asked, and will remove the "but they'll see what I'm trading!!!" excuse.
Likewise, my commitment to low cost audits for newer players is still available within reason. I don't plan on charging for my services, but I also don't plan on doing anything intensive or extensive.
|
Krythas
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 04:30:00 -
[9]
Raw, I have no problem throwing the 1bn I got back from the Audit fund into this as well.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 09:27:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 11/02/2011 09:27:18
Quote:
2. Can VV be pursuaded to participate in this and encourage a new set of auditors to step up?
As what role? As director it'd be an unfair conflict of interest. As auditor I don't have the time for continued auditing.
New set of auditors: I don't think I ever turned down a new "applicant", they were like 5-6 in a year and not a single one of them followed more than a pair of mail replies.
Plus auditing is:
- not really profitable in the long run. You have to have a certain (modern people would say stupid) mindset of doing it for the well going of the community.
- need a certain mindset, i.e. have it "natural" to see connections, risks etc.
- need some basic knowledge of what you audit. This seems obvious, but by the time a player figures out that knowledge, they are already out of the favorable "time vs profit" curve that auditing yields.
IE they just learned to do things that earn them more than sticking to auditing.
- it takes a big, big, BIG, B I G dose of patience and forum hardening.
Put the above factors together and you'll see why it's uncommon to find people like that.
Oh, I also forgot that you have to be stupidly honest.
Quote:
This targeted API will allow me check what I am asked, and will remove the "but they'll see what I'm trading!!!" excuse.
How do you presume to check whether a trader is actually trading and with profit or not?
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 11:22:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Phoebe Halliwel
1. Is Taram still willing to be involved?
2. Can VV be pursuaded to participate in this and encourage a new set of auditors to step up?
If the answer is no (which I'm pretty sure it will be), I'd suggest other auditors/people with a reasonable backgound in MD mentor a new generation of auditors.
Are Kazuo, Shar, Varo about still? Would they be willing? Can think of a number of others, but the point here is that auditing in MD has become focused on one person who doesn't have time and finds the isk/reward ratio too low.
3. Is it worth considering a charitable programme, not just for new offerings but for new auditors/mentors?
1. When we folded the original audit fund I asked Taram if he would be willing to oversee my decisions if I continued handing out cash. He agreed to do so but I haven't asked him to get involved in any other way. Indeed, I hadn't really thought about getting involved in any other way myself before some of the suggestions in this thread.
2. As to VV participating, on the most basic level there is nothing here to participate in beyond getting her to increase her fees to the minimum level of 200mil. Beyond that, as before, someone who wants an audit will just go and get a quote and then come and ask for funding. There does not need to be any participation by auditors in the fund. However...
3. Your idea of getting some kind of funded training scheme going is an excellent one so I will see whether any of the old guard are willing to charge a fee to teach the technical stuff. There has previously been some resistance to such training based on the notion that an auditor should spring forth fully formed but I'm sure more people would step up to the job if someone were to explain to them how you use the various pieces of software (or even how you install them - I remember struggling with EMMA for a few weeks before giving up) and how to do things such as journal walking.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 11:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Krythas
Raw, I have no problem throwing the 1bn I got back from the Audit fund into this as well.
That's very kind (ditto Liberty). Since I don't want to get into any of the complications of holding and managing public money for this I would suggest that anyone who wants to chip in a financial contribution does so in one of the following ways:
1. Make a no-strings-attached donation to me on the assumption that I will use donations for the said purpose. In the event of shutting this fund down or leaving the game I will do my best to pay back any unused funds but, unlike the previous audit fund, donations should be seen as write-offs not as investments, simply because this will be administratively much easier on me.
or
2. Every couple of months I will add together what I have spent on this project and post the total for that period in this thread. Anyone who wants to then reimburse me for some of that expenditure will be welcome to do so.
Basically, I am trying to work with a model that will not need a cumbersome system of oversight such as would be appropriate for the 'holding' of public funds rather than the private acceptance of private gifts/donations.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 11:39:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 11/02/2011 09:27:18
Quote:
2. Can VV be pursuaded to participate in this and encourage a new set of auditors to step up?
As what role? As director it'd be an unfair conflict of interest. As auditor I don't have the time for continued auditing.
New set of auditors: I don't think I ever turned down a new "applicant", they were like 5-6 in a year and not a single one of them followed more than a pair of mail replies.
There will be no director roles here, as stated above. This will be a privately run initiative.
Putting general auditor training to one side, could you be persuaded to run a fortnightly seminar on the technical side of auditing. So, an introduction to the software and some step by step guidance in how to use it? We could fix a slot for your convenience and set up a chat channel so that anyone who wants to join can get some access to the basic technical knowhow on a regular basis. I would be happy to pay you a fixed monthly fee for making yourself available for this whether or not anyone turns up.
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:21:00 -
[14]
Great idea RAW23; keeping it simple is best.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 16:46:00 -
[15]
While I understand the desire for some people to be given the "OK" to invest by someone else. I still hold firm the believe that Audits promote and give credibility to anyone with a "clean record". Some of the most scrupulous financial villains throughout history had a "Clean Record", advertising this allowed them to pilfer money from people for decades..
The only way I would ever consider an Audit useful is if it's done AFTER the IPO has been invested into. The drawback to this notion is the ISK has already left the investors hands. However, an old now almost lost saying in MD is - "Don't invest what you can't afford to lose."
Words to live by, audits at the start before investment's only issues credibility to the CEO. Credibility that has NO accountability.. I'd much rather know AFTER investing that what was described is what is being done, so I can either write off the investment or maintain hope the CEO is honorable. Anything else is just an illusion.
Amarr for Life |
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
Warped Aggression
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 17:00:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Taram Caldar on 11/02/2011 17:00:59
Got a message in game that my name was being abused ;)
1) Yes, as long as we didn't have to track a ton of money like before I'd be happy to '2nd guess' RAW from time to time to help him with deciding on recipients. We can easily do that via evemail so I have no problems with that. I just want to avoid having to surf 30 odd forums and multiple google docs... I already do that enough managing my corp and alliance and our pos infrastructure.
2) I noticed someone saying that Audits give credibility:
They... do.... not
An audit is just information. The only person that can give undue credibility is the reader mis-understanding what an audit is. An audit is just additional information about the auditee to help the potential investor weigh risks and assess whether they wish to invest. It is NOT an endorsement. Anyone who takes audits as any kind of endorsement is a fool. An audit is data, data that you wouldn't otherwise have at your disposal. It is not a "ok you can trust him" card.
Market Alerts Mailing List
|
Cyaxares II
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 17:09:00 -
[17]
Originally by: SencneS
The only way I would ever consider an Audit useful is if it's done AFTER the IPO has been invested into.
quoting myself (from another recent thread):
Quote:
I propose that an auditor only verifies the answers to specific questions that are asked by potential investors.
Investor asks, business manager answers, auditor verifies answer to the best of his abilities.
Maybe even limit the number of questions with verified answers to avoid investors linking to extensive "standard" question catalogues.
Of course this will never happen but imo Kalrand's fact-checking service is a step in the right direction.
|
Caldariftw123
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 17:45:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Edited by: Taram Caldar on 11/02/2011 17:00:59
Got a message in game that my name was being abused ;)
1) Yes, as long as we didn't have to track a ton of money like before I'd be happy to '2nd guess' RAW from time to time to help him with deciding on recipients. We can easily do that via evemail so I have no problems with that. I just want to avoid having to surf 30 odd forums and multiple google docs... I already do that enough managing my corp and alliance and our pos infrastructure.
2) I noticed someone saying that Audits give credibility:
They... do.... not
An audit is just information. The only person that can give undue credibility is the reader mis-understanding what an audit is. An audit is just additional information about the auditee to help the potential investor weigh risks and assess whether they wish to invest. It is NOT an endorsement. Anyone who takes audits as any kind of endorsement is a fool. An audit is data, data that you wouldn't otherwise have at your disposal. It is not a "ok you can trust him" card.
Like the hotel california, you can check out any time you want but you may never leave .. right? :D
|
Lethal Entrepreneur
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 23:26:00 -
[19]
Id be willing to donate a bit to the cause. As long as it is solely used for this cause.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 23:55:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
Id be willing to donate a bit to the cause. As long as it is solely used for this cause.
Sadly I would feel obliged to return any donation to your investors.
I really wish I hadn't told you to look up Riethe's posts :-).
|
Lethal Entrepreneur
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 23:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
Id be willing to donate a bit to the cause. As long as it is solely used for this cause.
Sadly I would feel obliged to return any donation to your investors.
I really wish I hadn't told you to look up Riethe's posts :-).
Haha, trust me any inspiration wasn't derived from your suggestions.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 00:37:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
Id be willing to donate a bit to the cause. As long as it is solely used for this cause.
Sadly I would feel obliged to return any donation to your investors.
I really wish I hadn't told you to look up Riethe's posts :-).
Haha, trust me any inspiration wasn't derived from your suggestions.
The original audit fund went through a bit of drama when Riethe suggested making a donation:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1271639&page=6
|
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 00:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: RAW23
The original audit fund went through a bit of drama when Riethe suggested making a donation:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1271639&page=6
Which was a bunch of BS if you ask me.
While I am against scamming/scammers, his ISK was as good as anyone elses considering what it was going for.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 00:50:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: RAW23
The original audit fund went through a bit of drama when Riethe suggested making a donation:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1271639&page=6
Which was a bunch of BS if you ask me.
While I am against scamming/scammers, his ISK was as good as anyone elses considering what it was going for.
It wasn't really his isk imo. But I gave up beating that horse some time ago  .
|
Lethal Entrepreneur
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 00:52:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Lethal Entrepreneur on 12/02/2011 00:55:43
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: RAW23
The original audit fund went through a bit of drama when Riethe suggested making a donation:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1271639&page=6
Which was a bunch of BS if you ask me.
While I am against scamming/scammers, his ISK was as good as anyone elses considering what it was going for.
It wasn't really his isk imo. But I gave up beating that horse some time ago .
Well you really dont know whos it is. The ISK could be part of my original NAV =p Technically I havent defaulted on the bond, the due date is March 6th.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 09:17:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 12/02/2011 09:19:52
Quote:
While I understand the desire for some people to be given the "OK" to invest by someone else. I still hold firm the believe that Audits promote and give credibility to anyone with a "clean record". Some of the most scrupulous financial villains throughout history had a "Clean Record", advertising this allowed them to pilfer money from people for decades..
This post makes me weep.
First of all because you come exactly from a corrupted institution whose only reply to dozens requests for a minimum of transparency has always been: "we are a private institution (so GTFO)".
Second, because this generalization is like: "why have a car insurance when so many fraud it". There are always outliers to anything and audits are like everything else: they attempt to cover a lot of cases, to be a scammer entry barrier. They act as deterrent, exactly like the mere act of the police being somewhere makes low level criminals stay calm till they go away. High level criminals WILL keep doing their "business" and will eventually also corrupt some of the police, still we keep the police. There's nothing to do about this and we have to deal with it. Because they are not gods but they filter out a number of common cases.
Third, because by this point it has been said dozens of times that audits physically grant ONLY that a guy has required skills and a certain NAV. Investors that get hyped in something more are on their own and will lose money. I am not even sorry for them, they have been warned a lot of times.
Fourth, I'd like to see your records about how many audited investments (by me) have turned up as scam (in the same investment of the audit ofc) vs how many un-audited investments turned up as scams. I have the former and the number, however hard you try, is proportionally lower than the latter however you flip it.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 23:32:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
Edited by: Lethal Entrepreneur on 12/02/2011 00:55:43
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: RAW23
The original audit fund went through a bit of drama when Riethe suggested making a donation:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1271639&page=6
Which was a bunch of BS if you ask me.
While I am against scamming/scammers, his ISK was as good as anyone elses considering what it was going for.
It wasn't really his isk imo. But I gave up beating that horse some time ago .
Well you really dont know whos it is. The ISK could be part of my original NAV =p Technically I havent defaulted on the bond, the due date is March 6th.
-Technically- you offered any of your original investors the option to pull out of the bond early; I exercised that right and you failed to deliver.
Presuming you continue to fail to deliver, I believe it's still safe to call a horse a horse, and a scam a scam.
|
Lethal Entrepreneur
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 00:31:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
Edited by: Lethal Entrepreneur on 12/02/2011 00:55:43
-Technically- you offered any of your original investors the option to pull out of the bond early; I exercised that right and you failed to deliver.
Presuming you continue to fail to deliver, I believe it's still safe to call a horse a horse, and a scam a scam.
Well sir. You got me. I cannot refute that. Good day to you!
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 01:40:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Dethmourne Silvermane on 13/02/2011 01:41:05
Originally by: Lethal Entrepreneur
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane
-Technically- you offered any of your original investors the option to pull out of the bond early; I exercised that right and you failed to deliver.
Presuming you continue to fail to deliver, I believe it's still safe to call a horse a horse, and a scam a scam.
Well sir. You got me. I cannot refute that. Good day to you!
Well-played.
On a semi-related note, I didn't see any issue in Riethe donating to Audit Fund Mk I and I don't see any issue with LE contributing to Audit Fund Mk II
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.02.13 02:06:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 12/02/2011 09:19:52
Quote:
While I understand the desire for some people to be given the "OK" to invest by someone else. I still hold firm the believe that Audits promote and give credibility to anyone with a "clean record". Some of the most scrupulous financial villains throughout history had a "Clean Record", advertising this allowed them to pilfer money from people for decades..
This post makes me weep.
First of all because you come exactly from a corrupted institution whose only reply to dozens requests for a minimum of transparency has always been: "we are a private institution (so GTFO)".
Second, because this generalization is like: "why have a car insurance when so many fraud it". There are always outliers to anything and audits are like everything else: they attempt to cover a lot of cases, to be a scammer entry barrier. They act as deterrent, exactly like the mere act of the police being somewhere makes low level criminals stay calm till they go away. High level criminals WILL keep doing their "business" and will eventually also corrupt some of the police, still we keep the police. There's nothing to do about this and we have to deal with it. Because they are not gods but they filter out a number of common cases.
Third, because by this point it has been said dozens of times that audits physically grant ONLY that a guy has required skills and a certain NAV. Investors that get hyped in something more are on their own and will lose money. I am not even sorry for them, they have been warned a lot of times.
Fourth, I'd like to see your records about how many audited investments (by me) have turned up as scam (in the same investment of the audit ofc) vs how many un-audited investments turned up as scams. I have the former and the number, however hard you try, is proportionally lower than the latter however you flip it.
First off, I would trust SencneS a million times before I would trust you. So watch out for such low blows.
Second, the police can put you in jail, so comparing an auditor to a police officer is nonsense.
Third, MD has been pushing the use of audits as some form of security. You even said it yourself ôhow many audited investments (by me) have turned up as scamö
No audit will prevent a rotten CEO to walk away with the ISK, if anything it will help them raise more money.
Ricdic and Bad Bobby are perfect examples where they use the ôsecurities in placeö to raise money beyond their trust.
BSAC Stock Exchange - EVE's only real-time stock exchange |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |