| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
156
   |
Posted - 2013.03.14 10:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
Candy Oshea wrote:Please critic, just as idea i had to introduce another barrier for would-be scammers.
My first thought on this is that rather than being a barrier to scammers, it would be a gift to them.
Scams could make your fund the victim, but that's not really the big issue because of how small the yield/loss would be. You only have to worry about short-sighted scammers there... and those are easy to catch already.
The big problem, as I see it, is that it would make it easier to carry out a pre-scam reputation grind. It would be easier to find investors due to the perceived reduction in risk provided by your fund.
Candy Oshea wrote:There was a fund ran by a good fellow named Raw23. he used his own isk to help heal scams.
I do not remember that.
Are you thinking of the MD audit fund?
That was certainly a related idea and I feel a much better one. RAW23, myself and some others set it up in order to pay auditors to audit small MD offerings.
The situation was that auditors were not being paid a worthwhile sum for their audits (and even with the fund that was not resolved), any audit fee was prohibitive to small offerings and MD investors were generally unwilling to pay for the audits themselves (even though they were the chief beneficiaries).
MD is it's own worst enemy here, it's not the number of scammers that hurts MD, it's the short sightedness and greed of MD investors that does it. I feel that this idea of yours would just feed that beast.
You may think it odd coming from someone who has scammed MD, but I was and still am an active investor here. As someone who's been involved on both sides, I can more readily see the massive potential of public investments in EVE and am acutely aware that it's the investors and not the scammers that prevent that potential from being realised.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
156
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:But coming up with a better model that is not only able to stand the test of the past (running it against past investment opportunities to see if it would have resulted in profitable investments) but can also cope with people reacting to the model being used in practice (they'd try to make their scams resemble offerings that your model rates highly) is hard.
Some of the people that would run scams exploiting such an insurance scheme would be at least as smart as this would-be insurance provider and have a much less challenging task to perform.
I don't see any way this could be anything but bad for MD and the wider investment community right now. If the investment community were to mature significantly then that could change. But from what I've seen recently, things are devolving rather than evolving. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
156
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ark Destroyer wrote:I think one of your challenges may be the spread though. Now adays allot of these bonds offer a really low percent such as 2 % (i.e. grendel)
Why exactly would you pay someone like Candy to insure your investment with Grendell (or someone similar)?
If someone is trustworthy enough for you to accept a 2% ROI on an investment with them then Candy will just lower the safety of your investment, not increase it.
The market for Candy's idea is unsecured offerings in the 6-10% range and there are plenty of those. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
156
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
coeira wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:
Why exactly would you pay someone like Candy to insure your investment with Grendell (or someone similar)?
If someone is trustworthy enough for you to accept a 2% ROI on an investment with them then Candy will just lower the safety of your investment, not increase it.
The market for Candy's idea is unsecured offerings in the 6-10% range and there are plenty of those.
why exactly would anybody take up this anyway? Quote:- High risk: (No collateral loans)
ArrowPremium(Deposit): 25% of your investment, minimum 500m
ArrowPayout in case of scam: Premium(Deposit) +10% of your investment (including your deposit), minus fees
ArrowPayout in case of Non scam: Premium(Deposit) Minus fee. so say you invest 2 bil in a non collateralised loan of which as you say there are plently, you take out the insurance 500 mil in there. he's going to charge 50 mil in fee to make it worth while so on a 2 bill loan you looking to get 150 mil back . so on a 10% loan your not even securing the interest payment.....
Candy did clearly state that the numbers were all placeholder figures. Using them for any analysis seemed entirely redundant to me. If the idea ever received even a breath of life I would expect the numbers to change dramatically and be at least viable in a shallow sense.
My concern, is not that nobody would use the proposed service but that somebody might use it. As an unused service it would do little harm and as a cautionary example to others it may even do some good. If anyone was to actually make use of it, even if the pre-req for doing so was utter retardation, then it would be a very bad thing. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
156
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 18:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
coeira wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:
Candy did clearly state that the numbers were all placeholder figures. Using them for any analysis seemed entirely redundant to me. If the idea ever received even a breath of life I would expect the numbers to change dramatically and be at least viable in a shallow sense.
My concern, is not that nobody would use the proposed service but that somebody might use it. As an unused service it would do little harm and as a cautionary example to others it may even do some good. If anyone was to actually make use of it, even if the pre-req for doing so was utter retardation, then it would be a very bad thing.
they may only be place holder figures but looking at them still tells you the service isnt going to be viable the higher the payouts the higher he admin fee's need to be to pay for them. I just dont believe there could be a mid ground where the admin fee's and payout would be attrative for both customers and Candy to both be happy.
As I said, the customers would mostly be fools.
As foolish people are not in short supply, I don't see that alone being an issue.
If foolish people were in short supply then the EVE universe would be pretty much unrecognisable.
It is a common issue with people that they are unable to look at something through the eyes of someone other than themselves. If you look at this idea and think "nobody would use it" then you are not the target audience and you are not looking at it through the eyes of one of "those people". |
| |
|