| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Claire Voyant
   |
Posted - 2011.09.03 13:34:00 -
[1]
The obvious answer is to stop feeding the beast. If you don't lend money to these people they won't turn into scams.
Suppose person A can run a legit business at a reasonable profit if he pays x% interest on his loan. Person B comes along with his scam offering x+delta%. Now person A can't get funding at x% so he has to raise his interest offering to the "market rate" which is set by the scammers, thus increasing his chance of burnout and/or failure and eventual scam.
The open market competition for investments is doomed to failure. Perhaps an investment bank approach would work better. A consortium of large investors evaluate the business plan and conduct their own audit and take a large portion of the investment and offer the remainder to the public.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2011.09.03 14:50:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Tom Hagen
Originally by: Claire Voyant
The obvious answer is to stop feeding the beast. If you don't lend money to these people they won't turn into scams.
That's fine and all, the question just is: How do you know which one of the bond offerings on MD that belong to "these people" and which turn put to be legit?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant all of them. Scams and legit businesses. The question was how do you prevent failed businesses from turning in to scams and my answer was stop lending isk. Anything you do after the fact is pointless.
If you read the rest of my post you will see why I feel this way and a possible alternative.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2011.09.04 13:34:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Stealing Honest
Perhaps what Elise says is partly true, that people who are legit in their MD dealings prop up a house of cards for all the rest of the playerbase in this forum. They become the enablers to the scammers. So if thats true perhaps the real cause of scams, runners, and cheats are legit and honest people giving false hope.
I disagree.
Quite right, it is the people doling out isk that are the enablers.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 07:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: RAW23
Despite not having detailed figures to hand to bolster my position I can at least reference my own experience in investing, following very basic strategies which has yielded more or less a 100% success rate in receiving back my invested capital plus promised interest.
"More or less a 100% success rate" seems like a bad choice of phraseology.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 12:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: RAW23
Can you perhaps tell me how you would engage in detail with Elise's claims?
You are trying to change minds, and not necessarily Elise's. In other words it is a debate and you should make your points deftly and demolish your opponent's arguments through the use of rhetoric. It is not a philosophy class where you are trying to impress your teacher with your logical arguments. I'm afraid most of your readers lost interest long before you made your point.
Personally I hate it when philosophers start with "let me restate my opponents position . . ." because that always seems weak.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 14:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Tekota
Originally by: Claire Voyant
You are trying to change minds, and not necessarily Elise's.
I'd suggest that the opposite is true. Investing and borrowing continues apace on MD, Raw's position is really for the continuation of the status quo, 'tis Elise's argument that the system should change. I'd suggest that the onus is upon those attempting change to prove or to at least inspire the case for it.
Actually, the Raw/Elise argument completely diverted a very interesting thread that tried to propose changes to fix some obvious problems with the status quo. Somehow that got diverted into dump the whole system vs. everything is fine as it is.
Clearly some people really like the status quo. Perhaps the large numbers of scams means they can get a higher rate of interest for their investments if they can continue to avoid the scams. Maybe others are working on scams of their own. Others have walked away from public investments altogether, finding ways to make use of their own capital or make private investments.
Maybe the people that want to tweak the system are misguided, but it is hardly their obligation to argue against either Elise or Raw's argument against Elise. Raw's argument was basically that the status quo is working for him and maybe two other people. That is hardly an argument for not improving the system.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 17:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Elise DarkStar
Very well argued, and you've said nothing that I would fundamentally disagree with.
I agree also.
As for the "sinister" aspect of MD I would have to say that it appears to be even closer to the surface than Elise implies. I think some investors know they are indirectly benefiting from scams and are happy to keep it that way. We need to explode the myth of the investor community coming together to protect the innocent and naive. No one here wants "safe" investments and we are just blowing steam when we have those discussions.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 18:46:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Claire Voyant on 06/09/2011 18:48:08
Nah, that was simply a case where I let my personal feelings and swollen wallet get in the way of my better judgment and my general cynical nature.
What I am talking about is more the lack of any serious discussion about improving MD investments. I think the successful investors know there is a lot more capital available than quality investments and they are happy to see investors scared away by scams.
They are happy to collect 3% per month on "safe" investments but no one mentions that it is equivalent to 42.6% per year with compounding.
They invest in the early bonds of rep builders knowing they will see the scam bond coming a mile away.
So are they out for themselves or do they really want to help others? When they post negative or skeptical comments about an offering do they have ulterior motives?
I don't usually rant about this stuff, but the whole discussion of the "status quo" (and some earlier comments in this thread) just ticked me off.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 14:13:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
This thread has lots of words, let's bring in something tangible.
...
Those with constructive mood will adjust, the others will show discontent and will try discouraging the others basing on subjective, personal situation, that is they do exactly the opposite of what rebutted to me (i.e. to bring some monday quarterback boring wall of text).
Success!
|
| |
|