| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nathan Wayne
   |
Posted - 2007.09.08 13:35:00 -
[1]
After trolling extensively throughout the forums, I wanted to get as many opinions as possible to determine my next step for a potential Player ran Insurance Company.
1) The Insurance Company in question would be offering Clone Insurance (to start). In order to determine an accurate account of the player, he or she would provide their temporary API Key that would allow for the company to review their character info, including any jump pod clones they have (and all installed mods). This would allow snap shots to be saved for each insured citizen and also used to verify clone death.
2) The Insurance Company in question would place a 5 Billion ISK bond with a trusted 3rd party (another company or individual that is very well trusted... ie.. brokered a few Nyx deals). A trusted 3rd party rep alt would either join the Insurance Company or be given access to all the company journals to ensure all business is honest and legit. the bond would increase over time based on the player base of insured. This helps reduce the risk considerably in the unlikely event that the CEO runs off with company funds. The majority of the insurance can be recovered to those that were insured through the bond being held by the 3rd party should that happen.
3)If such an idea merits a strong enough positive response... it could go as far as in-game browser site that would allow the end user to create their own policy and activate it by transferring funds to the company account. It could also go as far as securing loans to established companies with collaterals or offering war bonds. This would be a more advanced feature down the line.
4)As of such, should this be offered to everyone or should this be offered only to those with good standings and a set security level and above?
There you have it... please give all your pro's and con's as to why or why not this may be viable for the EVE Citizens. this is just an idea and there is nothing set in stone either way. I look forward to all the responses.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:19:00 -
[2]
In theory this could work. It might be a good idea to wait until CCP comes up with some sort of custom API key, so people can choose which information to give you. You'd need to constantly be aware of people's ship & location and whether they suffered a loss - ship-fitting & killmail API integration would also be useful.
The main difficulty is going to be establishing the typical patterns of behaviour of your clients and calculating appropriate premiums. Unless you monitor someone extensively for a long time, it's difficult to get an idea of how often they lose (T2) ships or pods. If you overestimate, the premiums will be too high and no-one will want to bother, but if you underestimate, you'll lose a lot of isk very quickly.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Sikozu Prioris
Cirrius Technologies
O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 16:52:00 -
[3]
Would the clone insurance cover the cost of the new medical clone when you are podded and/or the cost of implants? Although I think it would be hard to make money as the main people using this service would be those enganging in pvp (ie lots of clone losses) it would be intersting to see if it worked.
Ship insurance tho should be left to the npc's. If there was both, player and npc, the player insurance is going to either cost less or pay more (to include a limited selection of fittings) otherwise people wont bother. In either case, whether its both types or the event of player suppled insurance only through some interface, you are going to need lots of mission runners and miners insuring their ships and not losing them to make money.
I personally never insure my mission running ships since now I only do which missions I can complete without dying etc etc so i wouldnt use this kind of service.
If its offered to pvp situations or losses as well you quickly lose all your money without a doubt. Everyone insures their ship (well proberly) before going into battles or patrols incase of loss, and most will lose that ship in the npc insurance period I would say.
|
Captian Internet
Lead Bricks
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:10:00 -
[4]
Player run insurance companies would only be able to insure highsec mission bots as every one else is severely deathprone
Local Thread 107-b,War without a victor penalties,Navigation Shortcuts |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:20:00 -
[5]
The premiums would have to be a lot higher than what people pay for NPC insurance, especially for T2 ships. It would probably be easiest if ships/clones were insured for fixed amounts rather than tailoring the policy to cover exact module/implant losses.
No-claims bonuses & excesses would be essential - it'd be a lot safer to make everyone pay more until they managed to go a long time without an claim.
Sample basic premium calculation:
Player x wants to insure a (fitted) HAC for 300m, for a period of 1 month. He has no history of making claims, so we collect some data about the typical lifespan of these ships. We find that it has a 5% chance of being destroyed in any one day, so it has a 21.4% chance of surviving to the end of the month. There's an 88.6% chance that the ship will be destroyed, so the premium needs to be at least 236m isk for the insurer to break even, and more than that if a profit is going to be made.
And that's a pretty optimistic estimate of the ship's chances of survival. Most of EVE is an extremely risky enviroment, and that makes it much harder to provide an attractive policy. It might be more interesting to go for much lower-risk people, such as freighter pilots in high-sec - only a tiny minority of all freighters have ever been destroyed in empire, but the prospect of the potential losses involved might be enough to convince people to take out insurance.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:36:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Captian Internet
Player run insurance companies would only be able to insure highsec mission bots as every one else is severely deathprone
In real life, insurance companies base their premium charges on a statistical model that uses information on potential risk to give the insurance company an edge in probability, which is where their profit comes from. If someone has a 10% estimated chance of getting into an accident over the course of one year and the average claim price for them is estimated to be ú3000, their yearly premiums are set at over ú300. With a large customer base, individual claims don't matter as long as they are within statistical tolerance over the entire customer base.
I know that in eve, I am involved in a lot of PvP and recently have rarely gotten a ship blown up or been podded. As a result, my insurance payments tend to lapse and since rigs came out, committing insurance fraud is less appealing than renewing the insurance. Since that's happened, I find myself not insuring a lot of my ships, even those I use in PvP, unless I expect to lose them very soon. Instead, I play conservatively and do my best to survive. I wouldn't be so sure that player-run insurance is impossible or that they couldn't insure pvp players, but some good way to test risk would be essential since there are no laws in eve.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Twilight Interloper
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:02:00 -
[7]
Player based Insurance in eve would be impossible as everybody dies, everyone's ships explode no matter what, everyone gets podded...
there's no careful majority to profitably offset the reckless minority 
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:17:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Nyphur on 08/09/2007 18:17:48
Originally by: Twilight Interloper
there's no careful majority to profitably offset the reckless minority
Since regular insurance doesn't cover things like rigs, implants and clones, there is a market there that NPC-insurance doesn't cover and careful players might make use of. Also, the reckless minority would be offset by increasing their premiums or rejecting high-risk people just like real life insurance companies.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:48:00 -
[9]
Insurance companies are able to function fairly smoothly in the real world because spikes in volume of claims are very rare and there are financial markets in which premiums can be invested. It is difficult to price in and hedge against low-probability high-impact events, and these must be one of those things which earns risk analysts their keep.
Nonetheless, disasters do happen and often inflict financial losses on insurers. Imagine the consequences of a fire gutting Jita IV - Moon 4 - Caldari Navy Assembly Plant.
The problem with running an insurance company in EVE is all disasters are man-made and are considered a normal cost of doing business. They are also not random, they tend to cluster and exhibit causal relationships. One "disaster" (eg - a lost fleet) makes another more probable. Insuring the fleets of alliances battling over an outpost (S-EVIQ this summer, for example) would be impractical. Flying under an alliance ticker would be grounds for immediate blacklisting by all insurers. Travel through 0.0 as a whole would probably void any policy underwritten by a player.
The problem is therefore not trivial, you would need some hard data to make sure the first month does not see the value of claims exceed the value of premiums paid in.
There is also the problem of selling the risk. You are not going to want all of it sitting on your balance sheet. Ideally you would be able to issue bonds which pay fixed interest for a fixed period, but can be withdrawn should the volume of claims exceed some agreed level. So for example you could offer a 3-month 100m bond paying 2% per month, with the all-or-nothing risk that at any point the buyer could lose the entire 100m investment and all accrued interest. The question is, how is the market going to price the risk not only of losing that investment to a barrage of insurance claims, but also of losing that investment to a scam? What duration and what interest rate would justify that risk? And how are you going to guarantee that interest? As in the real world, you will need a team of traders (in-house or outsourced to something akin to an investment bank *alarm bells*) working the commodity and item markets to generate that cash. This also carries a severe risk of loss.
In the real world, it is difficult to walk away with the money generated by a financial operation of that size; it would either be retrieved, or insured in some form by a government (at a crude level, printing electrons). In EVE, there are very deliberately no such sa***uards. The risks of investment here are similar to those found in a war-riven third world nation, with expected returns to match.
You are not going to sell that. In this situation people would far rather go it alone than trust an anonymous third party.
Really the community will find such ideas very difficult to implement without support from CCP in game mechanics, rules and policies.
Logoffs
|
Seanzor
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 20:33:00 -
[10]
There's a fundamental hole in your logic that has fooled you into thinking there's a market here.
The NPC insurance companies are a complete breach in realism, because they are absurdly unprofitable. They're almost like a sure bet - invest about 33% of the value of the ship, and get the full value of the ship if it blows up any time in the next 90 days (extremely likely for a pvper, and if you're mission grinding, you don't need insurance unless your ISP/router/whatever is flaky).
Just because modules and rigs aren't covered by the unprofitable NPC insurance companies doesn't mean there's a *profitable* market potential there.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar
Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 20:41:00 -
[11]
without proper investigation tools it is impossible and will always operate at a loss or appear to be a scam
Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums:
Quote:
Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
|
Nathan Wayne
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:45:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Nathan Wayne on 08/09/2007 22:47:23
First of all... Thanks greatly for all the feedback on both ends here. I think there are some things that I need to make clear (as an experienced insurance agent myself).
1st The whole thought process was to just focus on " Clone Insuring " from being pod-killed to start (if it can even be done). The risk factors can be controlled (to a certain variable) by setting up conditions of the insurance policy such as security rating and non-inclusion of extreme risk sectors (jita for example). "Most everyone" does not wish to be pod killed and if in order to get a policy, you will be required to have a security rating of at least 1.0 and higher to determine one portion of the risk variable... it would obviously remove many of the so called "gankers" and pirates.
I don't know of many pilots (ok, zero pilots at this time) that would freely wish to loose their +3 and up implants in addition to their hard wiring implants to boot. Especially based on the replacement cost alone. With that being said, a "clone-life" policy that does not have an expiration (but say a 3 month minimum before the pilot can cancel without paying a cancellation fee) could be theoretically possible by:
A. Selecting the total coverage plan (i.e. 250 million life policy).
B. Paying a "refundable" premium of that portion (i.e. 75% - 95% of the policy based on risk factors and variables). Obviously this refundable premium would only be refundable if their have not been any claims against the policy.
C. Paying a monthly non-refundable premium of said life policy(say anywhere from 2% - 10% based on other risk factors and history).
Should the pilot decide later to cancel their policy after the minimum 3 month time elapse without incurring a cancellation fee, they would receive their original "refundable" premium... no questions asked. Their pay out of pocket for that time would be from the "non-refundable" monthly premium or the early cancellation fee.
Again... this is can all be verified by utilizing the pilots "limited API key" which they can re-generate at any time if for whatever reason they do not wish the Insurance Company to see their basic pilot info (including their implants and jump clones). Once a claim is made by the pilot, they would provide that "limited API key" to the insurance company for them to verify that indeed they are down one clone and all implants.
A possible print screen of the actual EVE Mail could also be asked for to better review where the incident took place and against whom. This would eliminate any cut and paste EVE Mails which could be manipulated by the pilot. So in general, nothing to taxing in order to submit a claim, especially if it saves them money based on their policy.
2nd. Insurance Bonds could be offered to the public which would be traded through the Eve Stock Exchange(s). This is however an approach that would appeal to the potential benefit of those that hold the bonds. In actual, the company may not even offer such an avenue if the company itself is putting up a substantial Company Insurance Bond to a very well known and trusted 3rd party or multiple 3rd party bond holders.
should the Insurance company decide to go with the public Insurance Bonds, it would use those funds instead to create the Company Insurance Bond or a mix thereof.
3rd. At this point, it is highly unlikely that any other ship insurance would be offered based on many points of view and the degree of difficulty and resources involved... at least unless certain conditions and mutual work together with CCP can be found (so again, highly unlikely).
Let the 2nd round of opinions commence...
|
Nathan Wayne
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:52:00 -
[13]
Up for more opinions and debate.
|
Natasha Wayne
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 01:36:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Natasha Wayne on 09/09/2007 01:36:43
|
Steve Hawkings
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 01:40:00 -
[15]
I will insure any ship for you.
I require payment of 50% ship value and i will pay current jita market price if destroyed.
|
v1nk3r
Target Practice Inc.
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 02:00:00 -
[16]
Edited by: v1nk3r on 09/09/2007 02:00:49
It's so easy, a mimitarian can do it!
|
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 02:25:00 -
[17]
The problem remains, this proposal would have to be supported by game changes, very possibly a policy change on scamming, and if CCP were to go that far, it begs the question why insurance should be placed in players' hands in the first place. A black box NPC is so much less hassle.
Logoffs
|
Shard Merchant
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 02:44:00 -
[18]
I didn't know pirate corps were being given special titles these days.
|
Nathan Wayne
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 03:43:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Cmdr Sy
The problem remains, this proposal would have to be supported by game changes, very possibly a policy change on scamming, and if CCP were to go that far, it begs the question why insurance should be placed in players' hands in the first place. A black box NPC is so much less hassle.
I am not sure what game changes you are referring to... as the limited API Key is already available. If you would provide some examples as to what you are referring to and how you came to those conclusions, it would only help me further evaluate. 
|
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 04:49:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Nathan Wayne
I am not sure what game changes you are referring to... as the limited API Key is already available. If you would provide some examples as to what you are referring to and how you came to those conclusions, it would only help me further evaluate.
As things stand, you can walk with the cash without consequences. It wouldn't be the first time. This part would need to be addressed before what you propose could ever become feasible. The fact that this risk is present and is explicitly made clear almost to the point of endorsement, is a rather elegant way of blocking the creation of abstracted financial systems, even if it was not specifically intended as such. So long as this is the case, most people would take the current experience of podding over trusting a stranger with their money.
Logoffs
|
Nathan Wayne
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 06:50:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Nathan Wayne on 09/09/2007 06:51:44
Edited by: Nathan Wayne on 09/09/2007 06:51:21
Originally by: Cmdr Sy
Originally by: Nathan Wayne
I am not sure what game changes you are referring to... as the limited API Key is already available. If you would provide some examples as to what you are referring to and how you came to those conclusions, it would only help me further evaluate.
As things stand, you can walk with the cash without consequences. It wouldn't be the first time. This part would need to be addressed before what you propose could ever become feasible. The fact that this risk is present and is explicitly made clear almost to the point of endorsement, is a rather elegant way of blocking the creation of abstracted financial systems, even if it was not specifically intended as such. So long as this is the case, most people would take the current experience of podding over trusting a stranger with their money.
Then you obviously did not read the entire discussion I started... When you do read it, let me know what other questions you have... as I made it very clear that a 5 Billion ISK bond would be set to a 3rd party to hold and entrust if in the event that I did run... and furthermore, what I am offering is actually a much better guarantee of funds being safe guarded vs. anyone out there than can start up a new corp, issue public bonds and walk away just as easily. How many companies are willing to issue a 5 Billion ISK bond to a 3rd party where they have no control of those funds but as a safe guard only?
Ignorance is bliss... Take the time to read everything I have already stated and then if you have any further questions, ask with confidence or provide viable solutions for any potential issues you may see with this idea.
|
Nathan Wayne
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 06:55:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Nathan Wayne
2) The Insurance Company in question would place a 5 Billion ISK bond with a trusted 3rd party (another company or individual that is very well trusted... ie.. brokered a few Nyx deals). A trusted 3rd party rep alt would either join the Insurance Company or be given access to all the company journals to ensure all business is honest and legit. the bond would increase over time based on the player base of insured. This helps reduce the risk considerably in the unlikely event that the CEO runs off with company funds. The majority of the insurance can be recovered to those that were insured through the bond being held by the 3rd party should that happen.
Just in case you missed it... here it is again in the 2nd paragraph...
|
Amaron Ghant
Caldari
b00's Crew
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 08:18:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 09/09/2007 08:19:06
Originally by: Nathan Wayne
Originally by: Nathan Wayne
2) The Insurance Company in question would place a 5 Billion ISK bond with a trusted 3rd party (another company or individual that is very well trusted... ie.. brokered a few Nyx deals). A trusted 3rd party rep alt would either join the Insurance Company or be given access to all the company journals to ensure all business is honest and legit. the bond would increase over time based on the player base of insured. This helps reduce the risk considerably in the unlikely event that the CEO runs off with company funds. The majority of the insurance can be recovered to those that were insured through the bond being held by the 3rd party should that happen.
Just in case you missed it... here it is again in the 2nd paragraph...
Whats to stop the "trusted" third party being in cahoots with the insurer?
Whats to stop the "trusted" third party having a bad hair day and running off with the ISK?
Whats to stop the Insurer having a bad hair day and running off with the insurance ISK?
The problem with your idea really is that you are relying on "persons of goodwill" not doing a bunk with the ISK entrusted to them. In real life people generally don't abscond with the wodge mainly because of a little thing called LAW, and the rather straitlaced individuals responsible for its implementation.
There is no equivalent mechanism to LAW in EVE. Scams from unlikely sources are a common occurance.
It's all about trust, and there is precious little of that in EVE for some extremely good reasons |
Nathan Wayne
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 09:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Amaron Ghant
Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 09/09/2007 08:19:06
Originally by: Nathan Wayne
Originally by: Nathan Wayne
Just in case you missed it... here it is again in the 2nd paragraph...
Whats to stop the "trusted" third party being in cahoots with the insurer?
(Cahoots? - as in, in bed with? As in a schemer? As in a ploy? What's to stop a fellow "trusted" gang member to not back stab you or a "trusted" corporate officer from not stealing from you or wiping you out? Absolutely nothing...)
Whats to stop the "trusted" third party having a bad hair day and running off with the ISK?
(Whats to stop any corporation CEO from doing the exact same thing with the money they receive from share holders?)
The problem with your idea really is that you are relying on "persons of goodwill" not doing a bunk with the ISK entrusted to them. In real life people generally don't abscond with the wodge mainly because of a little thing called LAW, and the rather straitlaced individuals responsible for its implementation.
(Their is always risk involved in anything you do in EVE... the common person entrusts other people all the time in EVE when they invest BILLIONS in shares, only to hope that dividends are paid or that someone does not run off with all their investments.)
There is no equivalent mechanism to LAW in EVE. Scams from unlikely sources are a common occurance.
(Scams will happen no matter what... it is up to the honest people to do all they can to limit it... weather it's in EVE or in the real world where BILLIONS of dollars are lost every day due to scams all over the country)
It's all about trust, and there is precious little of that in EVE for some extremely good reasons
(I'm sure the thousands of individuals that are investing in shares from various company's and the CEO's and Directors that open up various store house for their members will be glad to hear that there's very little trust in EVE).
~ You are only re-stating what everyone else has said about any other opportunity out there to be said... it's a risk no matter what we do. If you choose to take a risk and see where it goes, then that is your choice. If you decide to be a pilot in solitude with nobody you trust and enjoy going it alone, then that is your perspective, but I am extremely confident that a great deal of EVE citizens do not share your lack of trust. Caution is always appropriate, but do the research and ask constructive questions.
If I decide to invest BILLIONS of ISK in EVE to try out offering a service that nobody else has, then that is my choice. If I loose out on the the BILLIONS trying it, then that is my choice. I can tell you though, I will do MY research and due diligence if I do decide to go this route and I am confident that there are a few very well known and highly recognized individuals or corporations that I can entrust to such a degree. I don't even have to go the route of securing a bond to a 3rd party... I am simply reviewing it as an option...and the fact that I am willing to put up my own ISK as RISK.
Or I could just decide to offer an IPO for bonds on RESX, but that's the same thing as investors placing their money on other financial ventures that have no guarantees other than what is written. No laws, no enforcement... no nothing. Hope that helps.
|
Amaron Ghant
Caldari
b00's Crew
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 09:31:00 -
[25]
The point wasnt about the level of trust YOU are willing to accept. The point was the level of TRUST the people giving YOU thier money are willing to accept.
I for certain wouldn't give my ISK to a character less than a month old, even if they claimed to have billions of isk to invest.
My level of trust is in inverse proportion to the length of time a character has existed and the length of time I have known them....even thats not fool proof though. A corp I was in closed down because one of the directors absconded with the contents of the wallet.
What i'm trying to get at here is for a system to work it has to have broad acceptance from us unwashed masses, and that will only happen if you can convince us it's not a scam and there is zero chance of it becoming one. There are no mechanics in EVE for redress when the wheels come off and thats what stops a lot of people investing in schemes such as this.
I'm not against your idea, quite the opposite, but you'd need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that checks and balances exist that cannot be circumvented.
Insurance is based on the Insurance firm accepting a level of risk and offsetting as much of that as possible. It's not about the Insurance buyer risking the Insurance firm walking off with his money.
|
Nathan Wayne
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 10:35:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Amaron Ghant
Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 09/09/2007 09:40:24
Edited by: Amaron Ghant on 09/09/2007 09:35:55
The point wasnt about the level of trust YOU are willing to accept. The point was the level of TRUST the people giving YOU thier money are willing to accept.
(First of all, there's a reason why I am doing initial research in a potentially huge under taking. Assuming as much as how new this account is to base any trust... ok, that I understand. Maybe it's a new start for me personally... maybe I have family and friends that have supplied me the means to go out in the EVE galaxy and brave new adventures with my own ambitions and ideas.
I for certain wouldn't give my ISK to a character less than a month old, even if they claimed to have billions of isk to invest.
(Again, that is your prerogative and you can assume all you wish to about me or anyone else no matter how new an account is. I know several individuals in eve that have scammed others in the BILLIONS that were more than 26 months old. I won't spin my wheels on trying to prove to the galaxy my intent... my actions and checks and balances will speak for me... that is if this comes into fruition.)
My level of trust is in direct proportion to the length of time a character has existed and the length of time I have known them....even thats not fool proof though. A corp I was in closed down because one of the directors absconded with the contents of the wallet.
(Case in point to my reply above)
What i'm trying to get at here is for a system to work it has to have broad acceptance from us unwashed masses, and that will only happen if you can convince us it's not a scam and there is zero chance of it becoming one. There are no mechanics in EVE for redress when the wheels come off and thats what stops a lot of people investing in schemes such as this.
(I understand that in every system, there obviously has to be some kind of broad acceptance and there is always someone that needs convincing that it's not a scam... but also realize that there is no such thing as "zero chance" of anything ever becoming a scam... not in the 12 years I have been playing MMO's at least...
I'm not against your idea, quite the opposite, but you'd need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that checks and balances exist that cannot be circumvented.
(That's why I am undergoing extensive research on those checks and balances and collaborating with various individuals in and out of EVE. There are already some basic, but very tight controls already in place initially and need review to determine further risk if this go live in the near future. Rest assured this is not something that will just happen overnight.)
Insurance is based on the Insurance firm accepting a level of risk and offsetting as much of that as possible. It's not about the Insurance buyer risking the Insurance firm walking off with his money.
[b](Exactly why if this should go live, the company will already be accepting a great deal of risk for the first initial 90 - 120 days in order to make any adjustments and tweaks in the system and how we compile "risk data". That's why a limited number of pilots will be accepted with a low cap of 50 - 100 Million ISK to start and see where the "raw data" takes us before increasing the number cap of insured.)
On a side note, I own shares in Tabula Rasa and the CEO and CFO have both proved to be very reliable. IF in the unlikely event that one day they just up and stop paying out, what recourse is there? None short of Wardec.
[b]I tend to keep and respect others privacy when it comes to what other pilots own or have invested. As a business person myself I only wish to expand what EVE has to offer us all and obviously make some profit to.
Thanks for providing some better clarification on some shared concerns...
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |