EVE Search - Official Statement: Resignation from EBank BoD

All Channels

Market Discussions

Official Statement: Resignation from EBank BoD

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
cosmoray	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:47:00 - [31] Very interesting things on the Ebank website under CORPORATE GOVERNANCE and Growth and Scam Limitation Liability. quote: The EBANK has been structured in a way where almost all data is publically viewable, but a director should use their due diligence in ensuring that confidential information is not released to the public under any circumstances. You can read the rest yourself, but if this paragraph is stated on their website why is Ricdic talking about characters loans publically? Also about EBank failure: In the event of EBANK closure due to failure, all EBANK customers will receive their account balances back into their personal wallets including interest accrued. Ricdic personally advises that he is held accountable for this responsibility, and if funds on hand do not cover final payments, Ricdic will personally cover ensure that outstanding balances are paid from his own wallet immediately or as soon as available. Interesting reading!
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:54:00 - [32] On Monday, February 4th I attempted to initiate a board members dialogue regarding "External Credit Reporting". I thought that this particular issue one needing clarification and soliditary. I expressed the problems as I say it and then asked for thoughts, opinions, and comments. The directors that responded with commentary was Banni Vinda, Ricdic, McRuder, Sencnes. The end conclussions that could be determined was that unless specifically requested Ebank would not disclose past loan behavior on the part of any IPO issuer. The topic was indeed quite specific to IPO(s) but widely applicable I would think. The ending agreed upon statement that would be issued: Quote: The CEO has fulfilled any obligations toward EBank and those obligations where completed on time. At this time the CEO has not requested EBank's involvement in handling or securing this IPO. I added a final comment, that was not rejected nor responded to, that any such confirmations or denials could not, must not, come from myself, Ricdic, or Hexxx. This was to avoid the occasional over emphasis that we three are given by the community. I am making this statement so as to lay to rest an confusion that disclosures, in another thread, has created. While speculation will abound on many topics until tomorrow when, I am sure, some sort of official statement will be made. PS: I would also like to clarify. LaVista Vista, Mr Horizontal, and Hexxx are not directors at Ebank. Their opinions and advice is readily sought and expressed in an inclusive environment via our forums and msn. This is in part due to the nature of discussions requiring direct answers by the programming team but also because we really do value their opinions. To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:10:00 - [33] grabs popcorn The things that happen while I'm asleep. Improve Market Competition!
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:12:00 - [34] Originally by: cosmoray In the event of EBANK closure due to failure, all EBANK customers will receive their account balances back into their personal wallets including interest accrued. Ricdic personally advises that he is held accountable for this responsibility, and if funds on hand do not cover final payments, Ricdic will personally cover ensure that outstanding balances are paid from his own wallet immediately or as soon as available. Interesting reading! I think that's out of date now - that probably dates from when EBank was owned by Ricdic and he managed all funds. He's no longer in a position to guarantee payment from his personal wallet: as the amount of funds held by individuals other than him exceeds his personal wealth (which he disclosed a week or so back as being around 15b I believe): so if one of the others holding funds scammed/died/went AWOL he'd be unable to cover their liabilities. Unless he's still personally holding (or controlling) the vast majority of funds - but that would be against EBank's own stated policy that they're more secure by virtue of spreading the funds over multiple people. Until EBank disclose who actually owns EBank (and what happens to that owenership when an owner resigns from directorship) and whether liability for any EBank losses (resulting from internal scamming or whatever other cause) is linked to ownership (i.e. all directors collectively and seperately liable) then it won't be clear who currently is responsible for repayment in the event of scam/closure.
Daeva Vios Ares Arms and Modules LLC	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:13:00 - [35] Originally by: FastLearner I don't think financial records should be disclosed without the permission of the account-holder unless they're in breach of contract themselves. It's slightly different if someone launching an IPO states that they have no outstandings loan obligations to EBank and requests that EBank confirm this: obviously at that stage EBank can confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement. And, obviously, potential investors can request in an IPO thread that the IPO issuer makes such a statement - and draw appropriate inferences if they refuse to do so. But disclosing someone's financial obligations when they're not in default and have given no permission would be totally unacceptable. Ideally, we would have the mitigating factor of a third-party credit agency that would gather information about outstanding loans and credit, collate it, and present it in a non-specific format. However, we do not have any such agency. Investors and any agency seeking to provide a loan/extend credit to an individual should still have access to this information. It's not merely for the sake of curiosity, but necessary for additional security. It should be a condition of financial obligations of any sort, be it an IPO, loan request, credit of any kind, that the details of these, outstanding or not, be available to guard against someone taking out loans to pay for loans or just take the whole system for tons of isk.
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:25:00 - [36] Originally by: Shar Tegral LaVista Vista, Mr Horizontal, and Hexxx are not directors at Ebank. Errm, Hexxx is a director... http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:31:00 - [37] Originally by: Shar Tegral LaVista Vista, Mr Horizontal, and Hexxx are not directors at Ebank. Originally by: Ricdic Errm, Hexxx is a director... Sorry for the demotion. I was ill for the better part of a month. To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:33:00 - [38] Originally by: Daeva Vios Originally by: FastLearner I don't think financial records should be disclosed without the permission of the account-holder unless they're in breach of contract themselves. It's slightly different if someone launching an IPO states that they have no outstandings loan obligations to EBank and requests that EBank confirm this: obviously at that stage EBank can confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement. And, obviously, potential investors can request in an IPO thread that the IPO issuer makes such a statement - and draw appropriate inferences if they refuse to do so. But disclosing someone's financial obligations when they're not in default and have given no permission would be totally unacceptable. Ideally, we would have the mitigating factor of a third-party credit agency that would gather information about outstanding loans and credit, collate it, and present it in a non-specific format. However, we do not have any such agency. Investors and any agency seeking to provide a loan/extend credit to an individual should still have access to this information. It's not merely for the sake of curiosity, but necessary for additional security. It should be a condition of financial obligations of any sort, be it an IPO, loan request, credit of any kind, that the details of these, outstanding or not, be available to guard against someone taking out loans to pay for loans or just take the whole system for tons of isk. I agree, in theory, that anyone launching an IPO/Bond/request for a loan should disclose any current financial commitments they have (including loans from any bank/individual). But that information needs to come from them - and be confirmed from Banks - not the other way round.
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:34:00 - [39] Originally by: FastLearner Until EBank disclose who actually owns EBank (and what happens to that owenership when an owner resigns from directorship) and whether liability for any EBank losses (resulting from internal scamming or whatever other cause) is linked to ownership (i.e. all directors collectively and seperately liable) then it won't be clear who currently is responsible for repayment in the event of scam/closure. It's irrelevant. EBANK will continue on as it has. The loss of McRuder and possibly Shar is upsetting but it results in no loss of assets/goods/isk. As to ownership, well no one person owns EBANK. The only condition we have in the event of a closure is that all customers are repaid in full. The leftovers have no real home but my expectation has always been to dividend out money to the directors as a nice retirement package. Anyway it hasn't really been discussed too much. The beauty of situations like this, is that it gets situations resolved. Yesterday we found a deficiency in our processes, our TOS, and our operational setups. Now I advised on correct information and somewhat in accordance with our processes, but it more showed a lack of processes available. Simply put there are definetly going to be some shakeups in regards to loans at EBANK with some clear guidelines and regulations going through. We won't be closing shop, or anything like that as a result of this. Losing a director (or two) is painful but there is no reason it will financially damage EBANK. I won't deny a few questionable events have happened here, some I am responsible for. The purpose of the board is to assist in making sure they don't happen again (well, in the first place but theres a lot of EBANK data that needs covering) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Letias Caldari Teikoku Trade Conglomerate Visions of Warfare	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:37:00 - [40] Fastlearner makes a very good point, just who does own Ebank and who is now responsible for repayment of money if there is a "failure". Also the amount of times you guys have "gotten it wrong" on the forums in the last few days is staggering. While I enjoy the service you provide it is time to become a little more professional, have someone making public statements as the spokesperson for Ebank and leave off each of you posting your side, it looks to me like a squabbling match that has spilled over. _____________________________ Originally by: Damini Frostmane Sex isn't sex unless one of you is crying afterwards :-)
Astorothe Aperture Science Industries	Posted - 2008.02.11 00:28:00 - [41] "This is not the drama-bomb you are looking for..." Eve Corp Web Design \| Eve Online Addicts
Redbad Minmatar Tempered Steel Legion	Posted - 2008.02.11 01:22:00 - [42] The 1 ISK -yarrring is strong in this thread. You all need to grow up. RB
Kyrial Tidolfas	Posted - 2008.02.11 01:24:00 - [43] i still think the 1-isk loan should be invalid as i received no communication from EBANK regarding it. I paid it back anyway because if i dont ricdic is gonna make a post "Kyrial is a DEFAULTER!!!!!" so i think EBANK owes me 1.25 isk. who do i talk to about this?
Amarr Citizen 155 Alternative Methods Research Group	Posted - 2008.02.11 01:33:00 - [44] Edited by: Amarr Citizen 155 on 11/02/2008 01:33:46 Originally by: Kyrial Tidolfas i still think the 1-isk loan should be invalid as i received no communication from EBANK regarding it. I paid it back anyway because if i dont ricdic is gonna make a post "Kyrial is a DEFAULTER!!!!!" so i think EBANK owes me 1.25 isk. who do i talk to about this? Get back in your own thread all you are doing now is stirring up dust. ---------------------------------------------- Why do it the hard way when you can do it the AMARR way.
Kwint Sommer Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2008.02.11 01:38:00 - [45] You requested and received the ISK, thus you have a responsibility to pay it back. Further, there's no way to prove that you didn't receive communications about it making your position shaky at best. By the way, you're really not helping your already abysmal reputation by saying things like "so i think EBANK owes me 1.25 isk. who do i talk to about this?" and trying to get out of a loan you requested. First you request a loan for a trivial amount, then you fail to pay back said loan then you try to get out of said loan.... 5% Mining & Manufacturing Implants
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.11 01:39:00 - [46] Originally by: Ricdic Originally by: FastLearner Until EBank disclose who actually owns EBank (and what happens to that owenership when an owner resigns from directorship) and whether liability for any EBank losses (resulting from internal scamming or whatever other cause) is linked to ownership (i.e. all directors collectively and seperately liable) then it won't be clear who currently is responsible for repayment in the event of scam/closure. It's irrelevant. EBANK will continue on as it has. The loss of McRuder and possibly Shar is upsetting but it results in no loss of assets/goods/isk. As to ownership, well no one person owns EBANK. The only condition we have in the event of a closure is that all customers are repaid in full. The leftovers have no real home but my expectation has always been to dividend out money to the directors as a nice retirement package. Anyway it hasn't really been discussed too much. The beauty of situations like this, is that it gets situations resolved. Yesterday we found a deficiency in our processes, our TOS, and our operational setups. Now I advised on correct information and somewhat in accordance with our processes, but it more showed a lack of processes available. Simply put there are definetly going to be some shakeups in regards to loans at EBANK with some clear guidelines and regulations going through. We won't be closing shop, or anything like that as a result of this. Losing a director (or two) is painful but there is no reason it will financially damage EBANK. I won't deny a few questionable events have happened here, some I am responsible for. The purpose of the board is to assist in making sure they don't happen again (well, in the first place but theres a lot of EBANK data that needs covering) On your first point, it was not my intent to suggest EBank was likely to fold as a result of this. I know that isn't the case - and am sorry if you misinterpreted my post as meaning otherwise. The issue of ownership does, however have wider implications than you appear willing to accept: 1. If, in theory, directors "own" the company then is it the case that if they leave Ebank before it finally closes then they receive absoulutely zero of the profit made due, in part to them, during their stay with EBank? If so - then wider ownership than just yourself appears to be just an illusion - with directors able to be dismissed (or forced out by behaving in a way which makes staying intolerable for them) and, in the process, lose any profits they've rightfully earned. 2. If ownership isn't defined then neither is liability. If, somewhere down the line, EBank suffers a sizable loss then who precisely is liable for it? The sums involved in EBank are now such that the initial guarantee by you is no longer applicable (if it's still there in theory) as the sums of ISK no longer under your direct control amount to more than your own net worth. Are ALL directors liable for any losses - or is it just you - or is noone responsible for them? If ownerships were properly defined then liability could be assigned in proportion to ownership. 3. If ownership isn't defined then how are key votes decided? Everyone has an equal voice and the hope is there's not a tie? You talk about "dividended out money to directors". That implies use of shares - as without shares you'd just be paying out money not dividending it. If shares do exist then the whole issue of ex-directors becomes even more relevant - given previous statements that there was no intent for external shareholders. Very strange if you're running a bank and haven't even determined who gets the profits or who's responsible for losses.
Kyrial Tidolfas	Posted - 2008.02.11 01:41:00 - [47] 1 + 1 = 2. see if you can disagree with me now .
Kwint Sommer Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2008.02.11 01:53:00 - [48] Originally by: Kyrial Tidolfas 1 + 1 = 2. see if you can disagree with me now . Brilliant, you loose a debate so you switch to trolling mode.... 5% Mining & Manufacturing Implants
Kyrial Tidolfas	Posted - 2008.02.11 01:56:00 - [49] i am sure the person who approved my loan is recorded somewhere. if not then EBANK system is not very good. Get that person to report about his/her comm with me.
Iminyour Markets	Posted - 2008.02.11 02:00:00 - [50] Originally by: Kwint Sommer You requested and received the ISK, thus you have a responsibility to pay it back. Further, there's no way to prove that you didn't receive communications about it making your position shaky at best. And there's no way to prove that he did. Making your argument shaky at best. Until ebank standardizes their procedures and utilizes something better than in game mail, this will continue to be a problem.
Dal Thrax Multiverse Corporation	Posted - 2008.02.11 02:26:00 - [51] Originally by: Kwint Sommer You requested and received the ISK, thus you have a responsibility to pay it back. Further, there's no way to prove that you didn't receive communications about it making your position shaky at best. By the way, you're really not helping your already abysmal reputation by saying things like "so i think EBANK owes me 1.25 isk. who do i talk to about this?" and trying to get out of a loan you requested. First you request a loan for a trivial amount, then you fail to pay back said loan then you try to get out of said loan.... Oh come on, this he clearly requested a loan as a joke, it was granted as a further joke, and then the whole thing snowballed. What I want to know is if I put myself as an additional recipient on almost all eve-mails I sentm so that I have a record, why on earth doesn't Ricdic on all financial communications. Dal Thrax CEO Multiverse Corporation Originally by: HEXXX In all seriousness; I think I made a miscalculation originally. . . We either need to fix this or fix our advertising.
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2008.02.11 02:46:00 - [52] Originally by: Dal Thrax Oh come on, this he clearly requested a loan as a joke, it was granted as a further joke The records indicate this was one of the many of the first time loans processed through the programming interface designed and implemented by the coding team. It was also within the first months of Ebank in general. So I would give a more fair supposition that it was more of a test on the part of both parties. Entered into lightly, taken lightly, and never followed up on via any rigorous kind of procedure. Which, again in fairness, was not critical nor necessary at that time or that circumstance. To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean.
Kyrial Tidolfas	Posted - 2008.02.11 02:51:00 - [53] Edited by: Kyrial Tidolfas on 11/02/2008 02:50:55 maybe he does. it just so happened the mine wasnt there, for some reason. edit: typo
Iminyour Markets	Posted - 2008.02.11 02:59:00 - [54] Originally by: Shar Tegral Originally by: Dal Thrax Oh come on, this he clearly requested a loan as a joke, it was granted as a further joke The records indicate this was one of the many of the first time loans processed through the programming interface designed and implemented by the coding team. It was also within the first months of Ebank in general. So I would give a more fair supposition that it was more of a test on the part of both parties. Entered into lightly, taken lightly, and never followed up on via any rigorous kind of procedure. Which, again in fairness, was not critical nor necessary at that time or that circumstance. If that is the case, then it seems that there must be some sort of personal vendetta against Kyrial by one or more members of the ebank directorate. No investor worth their salt would have invested in a plan like that anyway, so I find the response to it by some members of ebank very curious.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2008.02.11 03:23:00 - [55] Guys....seriously. EBANK was designed to be as robust as possible. This is why we have multiple Directors. It sucks to lose one...let alone two; but this does not cripple EBANK. We still have multiple Tellers (Ricdic, me, and Selene) and plenty of liquidity for withdraws. I would respectfully advise people don't read into it too much. Let me address the ownership question. The idea of Directors having Shares was something done in the beginning that really doesn't make alot of sense; we've never used them. For anything. In terms of ownership of EBANK, it is owned by the Board. If someone is on the Board, they have ownership. Ownership of EBANK means responsability for protecting it, growing it, and sustaining it. There's nothing complicated here, no dozen page policy/process document. It's very simple, it's very clear, and it's very easy to understand. As for the loan question. I am the de facto auditor for EBANK; I publish the reports and I try to provide general oversight (I'm not the only one in this capacity however) and I can tell you that there are three loans we knew were questionable; the damage of all three amounts to 200 to 300 million isk once the security for the loans are sold. Is that really so big of a hit? Really? We don't get paid here (at least I don't) and we run it because for some of us; this is our end-game as it were. We may not always get along with each other, but we certainly have our priorities straight when it comes to our customers. Last item and then I'll end this paticular post. FastLearner; you've suggested many times now that EBANK's investors are entitled to certain levels of disclosure. I agree with the principle, but I must clarify this paticular point. EBANK has customers and clients, it's investors relate strictly to it's Bond offering which by it's very nature is not beholden to any reporting. Further, EBANK is not required to any reporting as a private entity. That said, EBANK provides reporting and disclosure as a courtesy to our customers, clients, and investors. It is a courtesy that I intend to extend when possible but please understand that sometimes we do need to take care of our own business internally. EBANK has run smoothly. We have processed 89 Billion isk in withdraws. We have 775 users. How often do you see one of those 775 people complain about the way we've treated them? Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
Iminyour Markets	Posted - 2008.02.11 03:33:00 - [56] Hexx, That doesn't answer the question why Kyrial's supposed (potential) default was brought to light while no other potential defaults have. Maybe the other parties who hold loans that aren't current aren't proposing ipo's, but I see no documentation that states ebank will disclose private loan status when someone opens a public offering. Why just this disclosure, and why now? Why for 1 isk? You brush off the loss of 200 - 300M, but one of the directors deems it necessary to mention 1 isk on MD.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2008.02.11 03:39:00 - [57] Edited by: Hexxx on 11/02/2008 03:39:18 Originally by: Iminyour Markets Hexx, That doesn't answer the question why Kyrial's supposed (potential) default was brought to light while no other potential defaults have. Maybe the other parties who hold loans that aren't current aren't proposing ipo's, but I see no documentation that states ebank will disclose private loan status when someone opens a public offering. Why just this disclosure, and why now? Why for 1 isk? You brush off the loss of 200 - 300M, but one of the directors deems it necessary to mention 1 isk on MD. That's because I already reported on them, you can access our Cash Flow report for January. I made comments in that post on the other two. Also...it may help to at least read our reports before making such statements? Merely a suggestion. We mention loans whre appropriate. Ricdic has made statements before vouching that someone has repaid their loan properly. We have no current format in place for "credit" reporting and so this is done on an ad hoc basis. I also mentioned the other two defaults in December. We wanted to give the guy (one guy, two loans) a chance to respond before we officially declared him in default and so the loss was recorded in the following month. That's it. edit: spelling Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
Iminyour Markets	Posted - 2008.02.11 03:48:00 - [58] Edited by: Iminyour Markets on 11/02/2008 03:49:05 Yes, I do see the mention of two loans in default in your January report. But the critical things I'm not seeing are names of the defaulters. Was Kyrial a special case that you decided on an ad hoc basis to out, or is this a new direction in ebank's disclosure policy? It seems strange that a loan in default (or close) for 1 isk gets mentioned while other loans for 100 million times that amount is only glazed over.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2008.02.11 03:56:00 - [59] Originally by: Iminyour Markets Edited by: Iminyour Markets on 11/02/2008 03:49:05 Yes, I do see the mention of two loans in default in your January report. But the critical things I'm not seeing are names of the defaulters. Was Kyrial a special case that you decided on an ad hoc basis to out, or is this a new direction in ebank's disclosure policy? It seems strange that a loan in default (or close) for 1 isk gets mentioned while other loans for 100 million times that amount is only glazed over. The character that defaulted is assumed to be an throw away alt based on our best information and considering the security he provided minimized the loss to something of little impact (our total profit is 7+ billion isk) it was an ad hoc decision to not waste energy "naming and shaming". This was an early loan...and we've changed the process since then. Again, we have no specific formal policy for "credit reporting" however, many have been discussed. As of now it's still a somewhat ad hoc process that is usually done in context. Also, I'm not sure we announced this now, but I'm also a Loan Officer now too. I will categorically deny any loan for such small amounts of isk. It's just silly. Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
Iminyour Markets	Posted - 2008.02.11 04:12:00 - [60] Originally by: Hexxx The character that defaulted is assumed to be an throw away alt based on our best information and considering the security he provided minimized the loss to something of little impact (our total profit is 7+ billion isk) it was an ad hoc decision to not waste energy "naming and shaming". This was an early loan...and we've changed the process since then. Again, we have no specific formal policy for "credit reporting" however, many have been discussed. As of now it's still a somewhat ad hoc process that is usually done in context. Also, I'm not sure we announced this now, but I'm also a Loan Officer now too. I will categorically deny any loan for such small amounts of isk. It's just silly. But you (not you personally, but ebank) felt it necessary to name and shame someone for 1 isk? Why was this case special?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20251005/1014
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.