| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SiJira
   |
Posted - 2008.01.04 20:56:00 -
[1]
no public ipos should have any offering without either collateral for full and one months pay held by a trusted party or someone really trusted stating publicly that they will pay the full amount and one months pay if anything goes wrong
this can mean an alt with ceo status in the corp and the person running would be director so that the security holder knows the shareholders and can not get roles removed - leniency would be a hot topic
this doesnt mean that everyone should invest just because an ipo is secure or that reporting isnt required anymore - these things are important and should be encouraged to separate the successful ipos from the less successful ones - what it does mean is that people dont have to sign away all their private information to get trust and funding
--anyone asking for money should not get it without a solid form of security held by a trusted member with undisputed trust
this rule is not up for discussion only the enforcement of it - small ipos under 1 billion can be secured by many members here without a second thought and large ipos should have some collateral or connections as proof that they know how everything works and that they can gain a lot of trust and money on their own
a lot of the md regulars want to get more people of the general eve population to invest - it wont happen if 1 out of 4 of the ipos that dont sell out within an hour are scams - and if anyone has kept score thats about the ratio of all the ipos that dont sell out quickly meaning what the average player can invest in since they dont check the md three times a day
no offense to ebank since it is a great service but there are people not affiliated with ebank that are trusted and can hold the collateral - all eggs cant be in one basket
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Riethe
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 21:03:00 -
[2]
The thread title alone is enough to disregard this entire post.
|
Robacz
Essence Trade
Essence Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 21:07:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: SiJira
no public ipos should have any offering without either collateral for full and one months pay held by a trusted party or someone really trusted stating publicly that they will pay the full amount and one months pay if anything goes wrong
So IPO holder takes 100% risk and shareholders none? That doesn't seem to be right. Risk vs. reward, if you want free work-less ISK, you have to risk a bit.
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 21:10:00 -
[4]
Just something I need to point out, it seems a bit off to give isk to someone to give that isk out after. Similarly, a BPO can be bought with a percentage of the initial investment.
Ie a 10M ipo is increased to 12M, 2 of which are used to buy a Kesstrel BPO to act as collateral.
~Nyron
Originally by: SoftRevolution
Not liking Haruhi is like not liking puppies or rainbows or whisky.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 21:46:00 -
[5]
Originally by: SiJira
no public ipos should have any offering without either collateral for full and one months pay held by a trusted party or someone really trusted stating publicly that they will pay the full amount and one months pay if anything goes wrong
this can mean an alt with ceo status in the corp and the person running would be director so that the security holder knows the shareholders and can not get roles removed - leniency would be a hot topic
this doesnt mean that everyone should invest just because an ipo is secure or that reporting isnt required anymore - these things are important and should be encouraged to separate the successful ipos from the less successful ones - what it does mean is that people dont have to sign away all their private information to get trust and funding
--anyone asking for money should not get it without a solid form of security held by a trusted member with undisputed trust
this rule is not up for discussion only the enforcement of it - small ipos under 1 billion can be secured by many members here without a second thought and large ipos should have some collateral or connections as proof that they know how everything works and that they can gain a lot of trust and money on their own
a lot of the md regulars want to get more people of the general eve population to invest - it wont happen if 1 out of 4 of the ipos that dont sell out within an hour are scams - and if anyone has kept score thats about the ratio of all the ipos that dont sell out quickly meaning what the average player can invest in since they dont check the md three times a day
no offense to ebank since it is a great service but there are people not affiliated with ebank that are trusted and can hold the collateral - all eggs cant be in one basket
What's a trusted person?
Who decides what a trusted person is? What if the person running the IPO doesn't trust anyone?
What if a trusted person wants to run an IPO - can they hold their own collateral?
Why on earth would anyone want to run an IPO if they had to provide full collateral (other than scammers and people trying to build reputation)? Wouldn't a loan be cheaper, easier to get and less onerous in terms of reporting requirements (though with the crappy reports some IPOs get away with, that last point may not be all that valid)?
What about Bonds? Or are they the same as IPOs in your eyes?
Can 2 trusted people hold collateral for one another? Think about that one a bit.
|
Coconut Joe
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 21:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: SiJira
no public ipos should have any offering without either collateral for full and one months pay
Nucon anyone?
-
Eve IGB Store Template - The complete eve retail solution. |
Auri Hella
Anqara Industries
Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 22:05:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Riethe
The thread title alone is enough to disregard this entire post.
Agreeing with this.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 22:18:00 -
[8]
Edited by: SiJira on 04/01/2008 22:21:55
Originally by: Robacz
So IPO holder takes 100% risk and shareholders none? That doesn't seem to be right. Risk vs. reward, if you want free work-less ISK, you have to risk a bit.
by wrong i meant scam - note that you took my post out of context and you need to read this Quote:
this doesnt mean that everyone should invest just because an ipo is secure or that reporting isnt required anymore - these things are important and should be encouraged to separate the successful ipos from the less successful ones
that means if the plan sucks you should be well aware of the risks and the security isnt released to you just because one of the risks became reality
Originally by: Kirjava
Just something I need to point out, it seems a bit off to give isk to someone to give that isk out after. Similarly, a BPO can be bought with a percentage of the initial investment.
Ie a 10M ipo is increased to 12M, 2 of which are used to buy a Kesstrel BPO to act as collateral.
thats why you can get a trusted member to state explicitly that they will pay the entire amount back and the promised returns for the month if you - unexpectedly - never log on again - no isk is left idle but the security is there
this shouldnt be a problem for anyone that isnt a scammer - it might require some planning and making real friends - im sure anyone that trusted the ipo issuer would be glad to know about the ipo before it goes public and get a chunk
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 22:35:00 -
[9]
Originally by: FastLearner
What's a trusted person?
Who decides what a trusted person is? What if the person running the IPO doesn't trust anyone?
you are a trusted person - most market regulars are trusted persons
if you dont trust someone like shadarle then its up to you not to invest - generally trusted people are obvious and some dont even frequent the market forum
Quote:
What if a trusted person wants to run an IPO - can they hold their own collateral?
they can if they want to - even a trusted person can get more security by having another trusted person explicitly say they will pay everyone if the ipo issuer dissapears
Quote:
Why on earth would anyone want to run an IPO if they had to provide full collateral (other than scammers and people trying to build reputation)?
a scammer cant scam if no one trusted will provide security for them - and if they give collateral then it would be a great scam since everyone gets paid anyways
this means anyone thats honest can spend an extra month or two proving their trust and loyalty - its up to the security holder to decide if its genuine - if you cant handle the risk dont do the job
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 22:36:00 -
[10]
Originally by: FastLearner
Wouldn't a loan be cheaper, easier to get and less onerous in terms of reporting requirements (though with the crappy reports some IPOs get away with, that last point may not be all that valid)?
What about Bonds? Or are they the same as IPOs in your eyes?
Can 2 trusted people hold collateral for one another? Think about that one a bit.
no - these types of details are not hard to find and the dilemma wont happen if everyone keeps their eyes open
Originally by: Auri Hella
Originally by: Riethe
The thread title alone is enough to disregard this entire post.
Agreeing with this.
caught your attention 
Originally by: Coconut Joe
Nucon anyone?
asked for the security to be held by them
if you cant see the difference between a market regular like hexxx and some unknown then i cant help you
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 23:07:00 -
[11]
scamming cant exist if we go with this because no big name will sell out for a few billion
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Zeknichov
Life. Universe. Everything.
|
Posted - 2008.01.04 23:46:00 -
[12]
no more unsecurity
more unsecurity
unsecurity
|
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 00:36:00 -
[13]
While I too would love a scamless enviorment here, I just dont see how its going to happen.
I do not think that requiring security for every single investment is whats required. The reason being, is that if we make that the standard we shut out the "little guys" who dong have any assests at all, but might actually have the savy and the plan to make some good returns.
In essence without CCP changing the mechanics of the game, we will always have scam potential, and we the investors need to be savy about who and what we invest in.
There is no "I WIN" button nor easy mode to be had, unfortunetly without CCP changing things to make it a more warm, fuzzy and safe universe we play in. I am not sure how many of us would actually stay if that happened.
--
|
Monty Kvaran
Caldari
Consolidated Sprocket
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 00:47:00 -
[14]
What happens if the IPO isn't based on manufacturing? You want a trader (or other non-BPO investment) to invest more then they are getting in a BPO they can't use? Why even run the IPO?
Require a trusted backer with resources to cover the whole IPO? Why not just get all the money from them, if you have someone that trusts you so much? Congrats, we never need another IPO at all! (except for manufacturing)
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 01:02:00 -
[15]
in response to both posts above
im not going to accuse anyone of anything but a scammer replying here would post exactly what you guys did
if someone is honest and has no intention to scam those who trust them and are richer can vouch for them - saying no more public ipos are need is ridiculous because scammers wont get explicit statements by known people saying theyll repay the entire amount in case of a - dissapearance - lets call it and honest people will usually want to do a public ipo and not get all their isk privately
little guys that have great ideas can still play the game if they can get a big name to support their ideas - remember that no one should be investing in a bad plan just because there is security - and if its a good plan security wont be hard to obtain
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 01:16:00 -
[16]
Originally by: SiJira
in response to both posts above
im not going to accuse anyone of anything but a scammer replying here would post exactly what you guys did
Just to clarify, did you just call me a scammer?
--
|
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 01:21:00 -
[17]
Originally by: SiJira
little guys that have great ideas can still play the game if they can get a big name to support their ideas - remember that no one should be investing in a bad plan just because there is security - and if its a good plan security wont be hard to obtain
If the "big name" is going to support their idea with providing 100% security for this, why should he even bother to let it go public in the form of an IPO?
If the "big name" trust the "little guy" enough to secure his venture 100%, why then not do all the venture capital himself, keeping all the rewards for himself since he is taking on all the risk. In so doing killing off the "public" investment market.
I see no benifit as "big name" to risk my assests securing something 100% and then have to share the fincial gains with those that didnt put up security.
--
|
Erah
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 01:29:00 -
[18]
so you want trusted players to check every IPO plan that comes out? what if they don't want to, don't have time to or such? the guy who wants to start the IPO then won't get any funds :/
I know for sure that market fluctuate, so sometimes there may be an opportunity, but by the time you can get the trust from other players the opportunity might be gone.
also what if, in the case of a scam, the trusted player fall for the scam too? (it's not unseen) he would have to take full responsibility for the scam and pay everything out of his pocket.
this system might be safer for small investor but trusted players take more risk imo.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 01:36:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: SiJira
little guys that have great ideas can still play the game if they can get a big name to support their ideas - remember that no one should be investing in a bad plan just because there is security - and if its a good plan security wont be hard to obtain
If the "big name" is going to support their idea with providing 100% security for this, why should he even bother to let it go public in the form of an IPO?
If the "big name" trust the "little guy" enough to secure his venture 100%, why then not do all the venture capital himself,
the big name doesnt just trust anyone but those he feels wont ever make him have to cover the security - the big name might be able to cover half the ipos if they go scam but not all of them - do you just trust anyone?
Quote:
keeping all the rewards for himself since he is taking on all the risk. In so doing killing off the "public" investment market.
big names can usually do things that make a lot more money than even good ipos can and they keep some of their money to do the those things
Quote:
I see no benifit as "big name" to risk my assests securing something 100% and then have to share the fincial gains with those that didnt put up security.
you might not - but consider this - your money isnt going anywhere unless the guy you support scams - if you really want to invest you just might grab it all or at least 50% since you will hear about it first
im not calling anyone a scammer - i pointed out that a scammer has no reason to like my proposal at all
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 01:46:00 -
[20]
Originally by: SiJira
im not calling anyone a scammer - i pointed out that a scammer has no reason to like my proposal at all
I dont like your proposal at all, ergo I fit at least part of your definition of a scammer.
TBH, IMO your proposal would make it easier for a scammer, because then they only need to fool 1 person to gain public acceptance for their "plan". Its a lot easier to fool 1 person in private than it is to fool a bunch of people in public as far as im concerned.
I also find it telling that none of the "big names" have so far bothered to acknowledge this thread. While by scanning other threads in MD they have been active since you started this one.
--
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 01:57:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: SiJira
im not calling anyone a scammer - i pointed out that a scammer has no reason to like my proposal at all
I dont like your proposal at all, ergo I fit at least part of your definition of a scammer.
TBH, IMO your proposal would make it easier for a scammer, because then they only need to fool 1 person to gain public acceptance for their "plan". Its a lot easier to fool 1 person in private than it is to fool a bunch of people in public as far as im concerned.
dont take it personally i play the devils advocate sometimes too
if you can fool someone like dark shikari or chribba with constant work and audits of your isk then have fun
even if you did fool someone so huge this proposal allows the average guy with only a billion in his pocket and a yarr to his name to keep investing
Quote:
I also find it telling that none of the "big names" have so far bothered to acknowledge this thread. While by scanning other threads in MD they have been active since you started this one.
so how can a scammer get past this?
a scammer can have an alt several years old that is very active on the forums and has helped dozens or hundreds of people in game and out and has the general trust of the community and have this alt vouch for his big scam - he still loses because once that big name scams it isnt coming back and as eve gets older the age and activity of a character requirements will become larger
a scammer can convince an eve guru of his good intentions with constant honest playing and then he can scam for one or two billion isk - an amount that should be the maximum for any new ipo
a scammer can put in the work just like a regular ipo and after a few successesful ipos he can scam 20 billion - thats a lot of work for a measly 20 billion especially since people would expect a very good plan for that much
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 02:20:00 -
[22]
Edited by: FastLearner on 05/01/2008 02:20:55
Originally by: SiJira
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: SiJira
im not calling anyone a scammer - i pointed out that a scammer has no reason to like my proposal at all
I dont like your proposal at all, ergo I fit at least part of your definition of a scammer.
TBH, IMO your proposal would make it easier for a scammer, because then they only need to fool 1 person to gain public acceptance for their "plan". Its a lot easier to fool 1 person in private than it is to fool a bunch of people in public as far as im concerned.
dont take it personally i play the devils advocate sometimes too
if you can fool someone like dark shikari or chribba with constant work and audits of your isk then have fun
even if you did fool someone so huge this proposal allows the average guy with only a billion in his pocket and a yarr to his name to keep investing
Quote:
I also find it telling that none of the "big names" have so far bothered to acknowledge this thread. While by scanning other threads in MD they have been active since you started this one.
so how can a scammer get past this?
a scammer can have an alt several years old that is very active on the forums and has helped dozens or hundreds of people in game and out and has the general trust of the community and have this alt vouch for his big scam - he still loses because once that big name scams it isnt coming back and as eve gets older the age and activity of a character requirements will become larger
a scammer can convince an eve guru of his good intentions with constant honest playing and then he can scam for one or two billion isk - an amount that should be the maximum for any new ipo
a scammer can put in the work just like a regular ipo and after a few successesful ipos he can scam 20 billion - thats a lot of work for a measly 20 billion especially since people would expect a very good plan for that much
Capitlaisation (with a z for our American friends I guess) is your friend. I've used Chribba a few times on transactions (buying two motherships) and his service was always prompt and professional. Why you name him and DS as examples of trustworthy people remaibns, however, a mstery to me. Until (and unless) you identify how "trust-worthy" people are defined you have about zero chance of getting any credibilty (even IF you learn how to use the shift key to obtain capital letters in your posts).
Most of us here couldn't care what you think. Me more than most - as if people don't invest because they think I'm a scam (becaue person X's alt with no litercy didn't approve of my lack of collateral) then it's X less Pms per day asking mehow they can invest that I have to deal with.
It's a seller's market because there's a lack of sellers able to make decent profits AND willing to share them. That happens to suit me fine - as I have no desire to run some charity event giving ISK out to the incompetent. I also don't care who I offend with my comments after I've got back from the pub. And I specifically don't care what someone with no history and no apparent ability to use their shift key thinks of what I do. I'd wait up to handle rthe rish of withdrawals except, sadly, I doubt theyre'll be one: despite me offering no colllateral and no gurantee beyond my word. But my word's that good - and that's what all the nameless alts (like yourself) can't understand.
The reason I ONLY have 170 million deposited is because I've gone out of my way to avoid accepting more, No doubt the same applies to ther other well-known financial institutios such as EBank and Ionia. What we all have in common is that we've all got the ISK we're after pretty swiftly. OK, EBank had to spam the forums a lot - but that's just the way they work :) If you want a serious repky then I suggest you learn some basic grammar (beginning with what a shift key is - and what a capital letter means) and then I'll find ome reasong to totally ignore your view-point.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 02:32:00 -
[23]
Edited by: SiJira on 05/01/2008 02:33:31
Originally by: FastLearner
Capitlaisation (with a z for our American friends I guess) is your friend. I've used Chribba a few times on transactions (buying two motherships) and his service was always prompt and professional. Why you name him and DS as examples of trustworthy people remaibns, however, a mstery to me.
Until (and unless) you identify how "trust-worthy" people are defined you have about zero chance of getting any credibilty (even IF you learn how to use the shift key to obtain capital letters in your posts).
The reason I ONLY have 170 million deposited is because I've gone out of my way to avoid accepting more, No doubt the same applies to ther other well-known financial institutios such as EBank and Ionia.
those are at the top of the trustyworthy names list - you would be on the list somewhere
i dont expect any credibility - im not here to talk about successful ipos like your own
this is about using everyones best attributes to provide the switch to open the floodgates of isk to the market environment - securing ipos allows more isk to flow into and around the market - when this happens more isk will go to you - to ebank - to traders - less isk to scammers if everyone adheres to reason instead of emotion
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Carpii Diem
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 02:37:00 -
[24]
I do not see how security will be an end all to scamming. If someone needs 5 billion for an IPO and they have to put up the 5 billion, why do they even bother dealing with the public and having to give out profits?
The only answers that I can think of are they want to emulate real world business into the game or they want to build a reputation.
I do not believe that many people care about emulating the real world without the profits which leaves building a reputation. Usually it seems that those that start out small just want to issue a bigger IPO at a later date. Inorder so they want people to know them and more importantly trust them. Again, they need to post the equivalent value of items/ISK with a 3rd party.
The only way I could see collateral achieving the intended goal of completely protecting investors is if the person issuing the IPO have assets laying around that would not be needed for the business plan and only if the issuer doesn't want to go through the hassle to sell the collateral for the needed capital because they think they will need the items used as collateral at a later date.
The people that I believe would fit that category is very small percentage of the already small percentage of players trying to run a business. There is always going to be risk involved in investing. Plus there is always the possibility of the person holding the ISK being in on the scam.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 02:41:00 -
[25]
I fear my previous reply may be a little unclear to the OP. So let me clarify my position:
When you learn to use proper capitalisation (yeah - change the s for a z if you're American) then I still won't take you seriously. Your view has approximately zero interest to me (I'm erring on the side of caution there). Doubtless EBank feels similarly - though they'd need a committee vote before they could say so :)
The best returns on the marklet are provided by people who have competence - not by people who have their assets secured. Possibly the three largest active investment sinks are Fury Bank, FRPB and EBank - all of whom probably control over 100 billion of player ISK. And none of them ahve their assets secured with a thrid party - yet all can get more ISK easily. Trust is earned by demonstrating you're trust-worthy, not by acting in some sterile environemnt where trust is irrelevant. That some people are gullible enough to invest in fairly obvious scams is amusing - but hardly a major issue for the market at large. Riether gained over his half scammed ISK AFTER I'd pointed out in his thread that his math did't add up. Maybe more than half judging by Jita local. If the terminally stupid and the terminally greedy lose some ISK becaus of their failings then I'm certianly losing no sleep over it. Are you? And if you are, then maybe use some that sleep-less time to learn what a capital letter is used for?
Sorry if it sounds like I don't care what your opinion is. Hmmm. Actually I DON'T care what your opinion is - so I restract that apology. How about you ask everyone you know with money in Fury Bank to withdraw their funds? If I'm lucky you may actually know someone and the balance I owe will lower. Try for people with HIAs if you can.
if it souds liek I'm not taking you seriously then at last you have some perception. And the same's likely true for the other major players in the market - just EBank have a committe running them so a vote is neeced to express an official view (though if you're "lucky" La Vista won't have been sent to bed yet and can give his input).
try again with capitalisation and credibility - and at least your thread may get some consideration before it's shut down.
I'll be online with Fury Banker for the next hour or so in case I'm lucky enough that anyone wants to withdraw because I make posts after a few beers.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 02:47:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Carpii Diem
I do not see how security will be an end all to scamming. If someone needs 5 billion for an IPO and they have to put up the 5 billion, why do they even bother dealing with the public and having to give out profits?
it might be an item that changes in price a lot and they would rather not deal with selling and buying it again
if they dont have experience dealing with a billion they shouldnt go near 5 billion - another option is that a trusted name will pay isk to the investors in the event that they run - if that doesnt happen there is no wasted isk anywhere - if you dont have any rich players trust or collateral of your own you dont deserve to be near public isk
Quote:
Usually it seems that those that start out small just want to issue a bigger IPO at a later date. Inorder so they want people to know them and more importantly trust them.
if the issuer doesn't want to go through the hassle to sell the collateral for the needed capital because they think they will need the items used as collateral at a later date.
exactly - dont forget that a battleship wont be built on trust - an ipo that will get isk to buy one will and the only collateral there is your reputation - if your reputation is weak and you have a bad plan no one with a lot of isk and a sane mind will provide security for you anyways
Quote:
Plus there is always the possibility of the person holding the ISK being in on the scam.
there are a limited number of characters that are big enough to provide security - if the pay is made from the security holders wallet there is no scam - and if it doesnt that big name can never provide security again
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 02:51:00 -
[27]
Originally by: FastLearner
The best returns on the marklet are provided by people who have competence - not by people who have their assets secured. Possibly the three largest active investment sinks are Fury Bank, FRPB and EBank - all of whom probably control over 100 billion of player ISK. And none of them ahve their assets secured with a thrid party - yet all can get more ISK easily.
they all have huge reputations - and ebank isnt based on one reputation alone Quote:
Trust is earned by demonstrating you're trust-worthy, not by acting in some sterile environemnt where trust is irrelevant.
good reporting timely dividend payments and solutions to problems that arise will all prove that people are trustworthy
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 02:53:00 -
[28]
Originally by: FastLearner
That some people are gullible enough to invest in fairly obvious scams is amusing - but hardly a major issue for the market at large. If the terminally stupid and the terminally greedy lose some ISK becaus of their failings then I'm certianly losing no sleep over it.
I'll be online with Fury Banker for the next hour or so in case I'm lucky enough that anyone wants to withdraw because I make posts after a few beers.
if there are more secure investments the market as a whole will grow faster and larger
every guy with only a billion from mission running that quits the md forever because of one scam is a possible depositor to your bank - you should care
im not attacking any previous ipos
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Monty Kvaran
Caldari
Consolidated Sprocket
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 03:24:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Monty Kvaran on 05/01/2008 03:24:03
Originally by: SiJira
if there are more secure investments the market as a whole will grow faster and larger
every guy with only a billion from mission running that quits the md forever because of one scam is a possible depositor to your bank - you should care
im not attacking any previous ipos
A healthy market would have a mix of investments, offering a variety of levels of security and return. A market offering only low interest, low risk investments is not healthy as it is closed those seeking higher returns..
Your time would be better spent urging more trusted players to offer secure investments, in trying to make existing high security investments more secure, or in educating potential investors to the risks of high risk offerings. Trying to eliminate high return investments helps no one, and there is always a tradeoff between risk and reward...
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 03:30:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Monty Kvaran
Trying to eliminate high return investments helps no one, and there is always a tradeoff between risk and reward...
they wont be eliminated - they will be clearly unsecured and no one will leave the md because most of the isk they earned in the past 6 months is gone
and im way ahead of you on the other points
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 03:33:00 -
[31]
Originally by: FastLearner
Bottom line is that investment is about trust. You can't earn trustt when you're prevented from scamming by collateral. Hence thos entities who have returned large sums of ISK in the past (with no collateral) can get all the capital they want. Yep - it isn't equitable. Yes, it makes little sense. But to argue against it you need to provide a good reason (and capitalise the first letter of each sentence) or you're going nowhere.
As is often said, Eve != Real Life. Thus the above statement is where the function in Eve's Dysfunction is located. Originally by: FastLearner
I've nver spammed teh frums with threads like EBank do
Sadly I feel the way you do about this actually. I understand the drive to create presence but I think we have accomplished that and can minimize our "branding" efforts. Of course not all threads are made by "us" so... I also experience some level of regret as when I post, these days, it is seen as an "ebank" posting regardless of whether it's just an opinion of my own or not. My only hope is that I've been an ass long enough that most know that I am not an ebank appendage.
"Be all you can be" is a motto even idiots and jerks live up to... all to often. |
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 03:42:00 -
[32]
Originally by: SiJira
Originally by: Monty Kvaran
Trying to eliminate high return investments helps no one, and there is always a tradeoff between risk and reward...
they wont be eliminated - they will be clearly unsecured and no one will leave the md because most of the isk they earned in the past 6 months is gone
and im way ahead of you on the other points
High-return investments aren't going to exist in a fully-secured environemnt. Return is usually tied to risk - and with no risk (eliminatd by IPOs being secured) there's no need for IPOs to ofer high returns. I'd like more high risk/high return investments - not less. Where we have common ground is possibly in that I'd like the risk to be unforeseen market movements, rather than the IPO owner getting bored/stressed and giving up on trying (or being a scammer from the start).
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 03:50:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: FastLearner
Bottom line is that investment is about trust. You can't earn trustt when you're prevented from scamming by collateral. Hence thos entities who have returned large sums of ISK in the past (with no collateral) can get all the capital they want. Yep - it isn't equitable. Yes, it makes little sense. But to argue against it you need to provide a good reason (and capitalise the first letter of each sentence) or you're going nowhere.
As is often said, Eve != Real Life. Thus the above statement is where the function in Eve's Dysfunction is located. Originally by: FastLearner
I've nver spammed teh frums with threads like EBank do
Sadly I feel the way you do about this actually. I understand the drive to create presence but I think we have accomplished that and can minimize our "branding" efforts. Of course not all threads are made by "us" so... I also experience some level of regret as when I post, these days, it is seen as an "ebank" posting regardless of whether it's just an opinion of my own or not. My only hope is that I've been an ass long enough that most know that I am not an ebank appendage.
I understand completely. I spent a long time avoiding buying a single share of stock; just so I could hold on to my claim of "independence". I sacrificed that the second I signed on with EBANK though and while the price was high, it was worth it.
Doesn't mean I don't get frustrated just the same though on how people view me sometimes.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Jade Grimpkin
Grimpkin Independent Traders
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 12:05:00 -
[34]
nominating myself as trusted person. \o/
me, yes yes me, all me. isk please.
|
Trilori
Caldari
GearBox Fleet Svcs
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 13:06:00 -
[35]
Originally by: SiJira
Originally by: FastLearner
What's a trusted person?
Who decides what a trusted person is? What if the person running the IPO doesn't trust anyone?
Quote:
you are a trusted person - most market regulars are trusted persons
if you dont trust someone like shadarle then its up to you not to invest - generally trusted people are obvious and some dont even frequent the market forum
Quote:
What if a trusted person wants to run an IPO - can they hold their own collateral?
Quote:
they can if they want to - even a trusted person can get more security by having another trusted person explicitly say they will pay everyone if the ipo issuer dissapears
Still what determines a trusted person? You're saying that if you are a MD regular or even some who rarely or if at all visit MD are trusted. What you're saying is basically almost everybody is trusted??? I'm not so sure about that.
Why is Hexxx or Ricdic or Fury Banker trusted? These people have created big names for themselves, they are well known by the community so I instantly trust them. ALTHOUGH that does NOT MEAN I shouldn't just blatantly go shove all my ISK in their possession because they are insta "Gods" noooo you have to read... I did that I read at the EBANK website what I wanted to know and I was still happy in spite of the community in other words they were gold in my book.
Is the average MD junkie trusted? Trustworthy or whatever? I don't know, that depends on who you are talking about? Shadarle? I guess he's trustworthy? But I can't say he is because I don't know him, I'm not saying he isn't but thats coming from me not from my 3rd person (as if I had one).
Hey what about me? Am I trusted? I sure as heck don't think so, I'd like to gain one's trust someday though.
Ok I have a question about big named/trusted holding collateral for themselves rather than giving it to someone else to do. I don't disagree that a big named/trusted person couldn't hold collateral themselves for an IPO they want to put out; They would be stupid not to put it in a 3rd party trust to hold because of the "hit by bus scenario" and would be doing a public disservice if they didn't.
I think that sums it up
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 15:35:00 -
[36]
Edited by: SiJira on 05/01/2008 15:36:19
trustworthy people include a lot of people that are already running big ipos and are generally helpful
no one is trying to kill the unsecured ipos - but not everyone person needs to run an unsecure ipo to build up trust - if they have a solid plan to make money they can secure it and they wont need any more ipos after the first - most people have already realized that being secure gets your ipo sold out faster
to those who are against the idea - why dont you invest in all the high interest unsecure ipos at 8-20% and ill invest in all the secure ones at 6-10% and then we can compare notes when i get all my money back and you only get half
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Motivated Prophet
Zerodot Schools
Power Corrupts Industry's
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 16:43:00 -
[37]
SiJira, you've lost your mind.
This thread is not worth any more of my time than it takes to say that.
MP
--
Proud steward of 47 billion isk in public money, and counting. Ask me about mineral compressionexpansion! WTF? |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 17:17:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Shadarle on 05/01/2008 17:18:21
The idea that people should only invest in secured IPO's is ludicrous.
Running secured IPO is worth almost nothing in terms of trust, especially when it's only 1 billion or 2 billion isk. You don't have to trust someone at all if their IPO is secured.
The choice between 6-10% secured and 11-20% unsecured is false. Nobody with a brain will pay more than 5-6% in the future on a secured IPO. At least not a decent sized IPO. 5-6% isn't worth my time. I can get that through about 10 different passive methods without having to trust anyone else. >7% is what I care about, and nobody is going to offer that on a large IPO that is secured, unless they are missing some brain cells.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 23:32:00 -
[39]
Edited by: SiJira on 05/01/2008 23:34:38
Edited by: SiJira on 05/01/2008 23:33:09
Originally by: Shadarle
The idea that people should only invest in secured IPO's is ludicrous.
why would anyone get that idea? risk vs reward means i dont mind taking a few percent less for full security
most people dont need to run multiple ipos or have some type of ipo running at all times so they wont care much about building up reputation - but those that do the security will have a better reputation for every ipo they secure by word or management of collateral - everyone wins because the security holder has a first pick on the ipo that is to be secured
Quote:
The choice between 6-10% secured and 11-20% unsecured is false.
i dont mind taking a 6% ipo when its secure because you can have 20% ipos and when a third of them scams im better off
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc
Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 03:04:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Riethe
The thread title alone is enough to disregard this entire post.
QFT
Wait, did I just agree with a known scammer that IPO's shouldn't be secure? Well **** it, even if it makes me look bad, risk VS reward!
___________________________________________
5% Mining Implants & 5% Manufacturing Implants *From 110M to 150M |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 13:33:00 -
[41]
to be against this idea is to actively support scamming
no where was it said that investments with no security and higher returns cant be offered
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 14:55:00 -
[42]
Originally by: SiJira
to be against this idea is to actively support scamming
Let me get this right, earlier in the thread you insinuated that I might be a scammer, and now your saying that I "actively support scamming"?
If you knew me at all you would be laughing at this point.
Anyways if your so in need to see this plan of yours work, I suggest you step up, and be the first "big name" to 100% underwrite the next "great idea" that comes along.
AKA money where your mouth is.
--
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 14:58:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: SiJira
to be against this idea is to actively support scamming
Let me get this right, earlier in the thread you insinuated that I might be a scammer, and now your saying that I "actively support scamming"?
If you knew me at all you would be laughing at this point.
Anyways if your so in need to see this plan of yours work, I suggest you step up, and be the first "big name" to 100% underwrite the next "great idea" that comes along.
AKA money where your mouth is.
i dont hold enough reputation and it certainly wouldnt be the first time a big name has provided security for someone else
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 15:18:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Treelox on 06/01/2008 15:19:07
Originally by: Tree
Anyways if your so in need to see this plan of yours work, I suggest you step up, and be the first "big name" to 100% underwrite the next "great idea" that comes along.
AKA money where your mouth is.
Originally by: SiJira
i dont hold enough reputation
Dont sell yourself short, its amazing to me how other peoples perception of your own reputation can differ greatly.
Originally by: SiJira
it certainly wouldnt be the first time a big name has provided security for someone else
No it wouldnt, but it would be the first time that it has been institutionalized as you propose.
----edit
had one too many quoting forum codes, cleaned it up
--
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 15:56:00 -
[45]
I am all for people with assets locking them down for the ability to hold them as security for loans/bonds/stock offerings etc.
Should it be mandatory? Never.
It's a Risk V Reward thing, If every IPO is secured then the holders of securities need the auditing and scrutiny. If every IPO is secured it removes a lot of new blood and younger blood from the arena.
Had the system been in place 1.5 years ago, I would never have recieved the funding to start C-R-A (wasn't secured in the least) and it's highly unlikely that I would be where I am today.
It's all about taking a chance, making an educated decision, even the thrill in the gamble. But we need the freedom and variety we still recieve. We have 3 different banks more than willing to provide secured loans for all kinds of rates/conditions/setups. (BMBE/FURY/EBANK).
Having said that, I am getting disapointed at all these new bond/loan requests. The smaller ones mainly. People trying to bypass the financial institutions to get public loans with their own chosen conditions.
This in itself is smart business sense, however these people don't know what they are getting themselves into, there shouldn't be a "non-disclosure bond offering" for unsecured new investment opportunities. For existing people, larger offerings, and the likes this is ok.
Anyway, in the end I vote no on this idea. Lets not assume this 'promotes scammers' in ANY way, my first, well all (excluding EBANK) public corps have been unsecured.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 16:06:00 -
[46]
the point is that people that have not enough or no assets to put up for collateral might not realize that they have publicly respected friends who can put up their promise of repayment in case of wrongdoing as collateral
those who really dont know anyone or have very little but have a great idea need to know where to go to put up some collateral or have a rich friend put up a blueprint for collateral
if you were someone who has never come to the eve forums before and then you came to the market discussion and were smart enough to know you need more than your promise and a good plan to start an ipo - would you be able to find fury-ebank-bmbe and know they provide collateral - without trying to read most posts in the first two pages of the md first? thats a lot of reading if you wouldnt
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 16:32:00 -
[47]
Originally by: SiJira
if you were someone who has never come to the eve forums before and then you came to the market discussion and were smart enough to know you need more than your promise and a good plan to start an ipo - would you be able to find fury-ebank-bmbe and know they provide collateral - without trying to read most posts in the first two pages of the md first? thats a lot of reading if you wouldnt
So whats the problem with the current self moderation that takes place? Why the need to change proven processes? This WILL limit some player's abilities to raise funds. Back 1.5 years ago I probably had no-one specific who could have vouched for me (well Cally could have, from my time in EIB, but that would have gone down well huh).
In a perfect world where everyone had rich friends and idle assets it might work, but generally when people start an IPO/BOND, they do so to 'raise' funds, meaning they don't already have them.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 18:23:00 -
[48]
SiJira, you seem to be in a fantasy world. You seem to think everyone has a way of putting up collateral or that they have rich friends. This discounts a large majority of the most successful IPO's we've seen in the history of MD.
The best IPO's have been unsecured.
What makes IPO's useful, exciting, fun, worth doing is that they are gambles. You are judging the person's character to decide if they are trustworthy. You are then judging if the person is competent. Finally, if the person meets both of those you judge if their plan is plausible. But the person is the most important factor.
Suggesting that someone supports scamming if they disagree with you is absurd. It only hurts your cause. You remind me of another poster that has been absent as of late from these forums. Absent about as long as you've been here. I'll not name names, but I'm sure a few other people here may have a name popping into their head.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Daeva Vios
Ares Arms and Modules LLC
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 18:25:00 -
[49]
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
In a perfect world where everyone had rich friends and idle assets it might work, but generally when people start an IPO/BOND, they do so to 'raise' funds, meaning they don't already have them.
This.
The only people who would be capable of doing this would be the ones creating an IPO/Bond specifically to take the quick path to improving their reputations. You can create a reputation for yourself through demonstration of your knowledge of how the game works, sure. You can create a reputation for yourself by surrounding yourself with high-rep folks and getting close with them, sure. Or you can get twice the rep gains over half the time and prove yourself "trustworthy" by fronting the security and not leaning on it, delivering what you said you'd deliver.
You then use that easy rep to gain more unsecured funds, and duck out whenever you've made enough money to feel satisfied with yourself.
Supporting this proposed system seems to support scamming, when cast in this light. Hmmmm.
|
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 18:26:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Shadarle
You remind me of another poster that has been absent as of late from these forums. Absent about as long as you've been here. I'll not name names, but I'm sure a few other people here may have a name popping into their head.
can I get a cookie if i evemail the name and get it right?
Cause i am sort of wondering where that other individual has run off to.
--
|
Daeva Vios
Ares Arms and Modules LLC
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 18:27:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Shadarle
SiJira, you seem to be in a fantasy world. You seem to think everyone has a way of putting up collateral or that they have rich friends. This discounts a large majority of the most successful IPO's we've seen in the history of MD.
The best IPO's have been unsecured.
What makes IPO's useful, exciting, fun, worth doing is that they are gambles. You are judging the person's character to decide if they are trustworthy. You are then judging if the person is competent. Finally, if the person meets both of those you judge if their plan is plausible. But the person is the most important factor.
Suggesting that someone supports scamming if they disagree with you is absurd. It only hurts your cause. You remind me of another poster that has been absent as of late from these forums. Absent about as long as you've been here. I'll not name names, but I'm sure a few other people here may have a name popping into their head.
That other individual knew how to spell, for the most part.
At least, if I'm thinking of who you're thinking of. 
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 01:15:00 -
[52]
make it easier to get security for those who dont know they can even get it
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 01:27:00 -
[53]
Originally by: SiJira
make it easier to get security for those who dont know they can even get it
Making any process of starting up an IPO is counter productive to keeping out the rifraf, scammers and **** poor business managers, IMO.
Maybe thats just me, but it is how I see things.
--
|
Daeva Vios
Ares Arms and Modules LLC
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 01:47:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Treelox
Originally by: SiJira
make it easier to get security for those who dont know they can even get it
Making any process of starting up an IPO is counter productive to keeping out the rifraf, scammers and **** poor business managers, IMO.
Maybe thats just me, but it is how I see things.
I think this is largely correct. Anyone sufficiently interested in running a legitimate public business in this game will figure out how to come here and use what tools are already available to do it properly. Even some of the aforementioned tools have been used successfully by scammers in the past, and more tools would only make it easier.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:00:00 -
[55]
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:04:56
Originally by: Daeva Vios
Even some of the aforementioned tools have been used successfully by scammers in the past, and more tools would only make it easier.
a link for those that do have collateral to show them where to put it for security would help scammers?
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:06:00 -
[56]
Originally by: SiJira
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:02:00
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:01:28
Originally by: Daeva Vios
Even some of the aforementioned tools have been used successfully by scammers in the past, and more tools would only make it easier.
a link for those that do have collateral to show them where to put it for security would help scammers?
A link where? People don't read the stickied stuff anyhow.
As soon as they post their IPO/Bond people will ask if they have security if people think they need it thus it will be handled then. This is how it works now and it works just fine.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:09:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: SiJira
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:02:00
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:01:28
Originally by: Daeva Vios
Even some of the aforementioned tools have been used successfully by scammers in the past, and more tools would only make it easier.
a link for those that do have collateral to show them where to put it for security would help scammers?
A link where? People don't read the stickied stuff anyhow.
As soon as they post their IPO/Bond people will ask if they have security if people think they need it thus it will be handled then. This is how it works now and it works just fine.
lets make it work better because i havent noticed any changes regarding people sending isk as soon as they can unless the op strictly states that its just a discussion
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:10:00 -
[58]
Originally by: SiJira
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: SiJira
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:02:00
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:01:28
Originally by: Daeva Vios
Even some of the aforementioned tools have been used successfully by scammers in the past, and more tools would only make it easier.
a link for those that do have collateral to show them where to put it for security would help scammers?
A link where? People don't read the stickied stuff anyhow.
As soon as they post their IPO/Bond people will ask if they have security if people think they need it thus it will be handled then. This is how it works now and it works just fine.
lets make it work better because i havent noticed any changes regarding people sending isk as soon as they can unless the op strictly states that its just a discussion
And the problem with this is? If people send money that is their own concern. If they treat their money in this manner why do you care if they get burned?
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:23:00 -
[59]
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:23:13
Originally by: Shadarle
If people send money that is their own concern. If they treat their money in this manner why do you care if they get burned?
if its made easier to find secure investments because people have an easier time finding how to secure them then there is more isk in the general market community
Quote:
You remind me of another poster that has been absent as of late from these forums. Absent about as long as you've been here. I'll not name names, but I'm sure a few other people here may have a name popping into their head.
can you explain this quote because i cant tell who came before me if i wasnt there
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:43:00 -
[60]
Originally by: SiJira
can you explain this quote because i cant tell who came before me if i wasnt there
I remember a person who once said "If you don't disclose shareholder names you are a scammer/poor business manager."
You basically said the same thing earlier in that if people don't agree with your belief they are scammers/prospective scammers, or endorse scamming. It's a load of bs and you have already seen almost every poster has been against your idea. Are we all scammers?
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043
Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE! |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:43:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Shadarle on 07/01/2008 02:43:39
Originally by: SiJira
Edited by: SiJira on 07/01/2008 02:23:13
Originally by: Shadarle
If people send money that is their own concern. If they treat their money in this manner why do you care if they get burned?
if its made easier to find secure investments because people have an easier time finding how to secure them then there is more isk in the general market community
You seem unable to understand the reason this is not going to work in the long run. People keep saying it, yet you ignore it. If people have collateral they can use to secure an IPO/Bond then they could just get a loan instead. The reason most people start IPO's is because they do not have collateral to use to get a loan or because they want to do it for the challenge of it. The final group is people who have a good plan but need a financier and find someone to back their plan. In this case they have no need to launch an IPO as they could just use this person's money and pay them a monthly or weekly fee.
Basically, a secured IPO is usually a very silly thing. The only reason for them is because the banks currently either charge too much for loans or because Ricdic acts as a private bank and secures the IPO through C-R-A thus hurting E-Bank and the other banks.
I personally think there should be less secured IPO's, not more.
Originally by: SiJira
Quote:
You remind me of another poster that has been absent as of late from these forums. Absent about as long as you've been here. I'll not name names, but I'm sure a few other people here may have a name popping into their head.
can you explain this quote
Yes, I can.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:46:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Ricdic
I remember a person who once said "If you don't disclose shareholder names you are a scammer/poor business manager."
This is what I remembered as well 
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:48:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Ricdic
I remember a person who once said "If you don't disclose shareholder names you are a scammer/poor business manager."
This is what I remembered as well
who once said it? id like to meet them
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:51:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Ricdic
Are we all scammers?
no but some of you have said before how you cant secure every ipo - your name can if you trust the people offering them
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:55:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Shadarle on 07/01/2008 02:55:20
Originally by: SiJira
Originally by: Ricdic
Are we all scammers?
no but some of you have said before how you cant secure every ipo - your name can if you trust the people offering them
We don't want to! I am not putting my name behind anyone, especially not my money. If I want to put my money behind them I will buy out their entire IPO/Bond. If I am not willing to do that, then I may buy a few shares... but there is no way I will back their entire IPO and then let others take advantage of my risk.
You are looking at this from the perspective of a person who wants 100% secure investments to put his money in without having to do any work yourself. From the perspective of a person who might be doing all the hard work for you I can tell you that I am not even remotely interested in providing you a risk free investment and taking all the risk myself.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:56:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: SiJira
Originally by: Ricdic
Are we all scammers?
no but some of you have said before how you cant secure every ipo - your name can if you trust the people offering them
We don't want to! I am not putting my name behind anyone, especially not my money. If I want to put my money behind them I will buy out their entire IPO/Bond. If I am not willing to do that, then I may buy a few shares... but there is no way I will back their entire IPO's.
You are looking at this from the perspective of a person who wants 100% secure investments to put his money in without having to do any work yourself. From the perspective of a person who might be doing all the hard work for you I can tell you that I am not even remotely interested in providing you a risk free investment and taking all the risk myself.
ill do it when i can then
answer my other question
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 03:03:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Treelox on 07/01/2008 03:04:13
Originally by: SiJira
ill do it when i can then
Well then lets table this conversation until such time as you can back your idea that clearly is not gaining any traction with anyone else.
If you want 100% secured investments to occur, then you need to make it happen, that is it.
---edit
silly spelling mistake that threw off the whole sentences meaning
--
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 03:11:00 -
[68]
Originally by: SiJira
answer my other question
Oh, did you have another question?
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 03:13:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: SiJira
answer my other question
Oh, did you have another question?
I think the answer is E.D., but thats just me assuming thats the question that would have achieved "other" status.
--
|
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 04:52:00 -
[70]
Hmm, why do I suddenly have this urge to start a securities corp. I guarantee securities or 'vouch' for corporations (of my choosing ofc) and get paid to do so. Kinda like insurance I guess.
But Shadarle makes a good point. If you trust someone enough to put your name down to vouch for them why not buy it out yourself? Why not just give a private loan?
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043
Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE! |
Sicil Fioet
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 05:12:00 -
[71]
Originally by: SiJira
Originally by: Auri Hella
Originally by: Riethe
The thread title alone is enough to disregard this entire post.
Agreeing with this.
caught your attention
i think anti-security would have had a nicer ring to it
|
Block Ukx
KDM Corp
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 17:36:00 -
[72]
SiJira,
While I understand the need to stop IPO scams, the reality is that it wonĘt stop unless ccp abolish them.
Launching a totally secure IPO is completely impossible. You probably donĘt believe me, but try it yourself. Take for instance a manufacturing business. While it might be possible to lock all the BPOĘs as security, is not possible to secure mineral stock or sales inventory.
Also, as the business grows from 400 M to 4 B, it will put an unfair stress upon the guarantor. While he vouched for 400 M at the start of the IPO, he might not be able to guarantee 4 B.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) |
hilaw
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 14:01:00 -
[73]
Aside from the buisness sense, some of us invest in the way of a gambler when the mood takes us 
As primarily a reader, and not poster in this forum Motivated Prophet and Ricdic cemented my own veiw, that this does not enhance the economy, and that the "big names" have verry little interest in this sort of public service.
Thus I'm going to assume anyone who does is either part of a highly elaborate scam, to allow you to use puppet characters, with manny IPO's to attempt to net a healthy profit, given how you want to carve all shares between a few people's controll, or not a capitalist - so I'm going to be warry of investing in anything they themselves offer.
Was 1 Pixel to big and you had to nerf it, well fixed now |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.01.11 19:34:00 -
[74]
gambling it is then
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |