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)
McRuder Gallente This Space 4 Rent Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.10 15:37:00 - [1] Unfortunately since EBank is a very public corporation in this forum, I have to make the public statement that I have resigned from EBank board. From this point forwards I have nothing to do with Ebank in any form or manner. Shortly I will not even be an account holder. Thanks.
Kwint Sommer Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2008.02.10 15:43:00 - [2] May I ask what prompted this and what your role within Ebank was? 5% Mining & Manufacturing Implants
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2008.02.10 15:49:00 - [3] Originally by: Kwint Sommer May I ask what prompted this and what your role within Ebank was? He was a director, and the reason to a point should be obvious. You think there's drama in the Kyrial thread, you should see our forums. We should charge like pay-per-view for that access. Sad to see you go MC. I won't discuss specifics but yell if you need a reference http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Shadarle	Posted - 2008.02.10 16:33:00 - [4] Absolutely, completely, pathetic. When an obvious problem comes up you use it as a chance to fix it in the future. You don't quit. Of course you did screw up Ricdic, if he wasn't in default, as seems to be the case then you royally screwed up. But Shar screwed up too... he was discussing internal stuff and arguing about E-Bank policy and making PR statements he shouldn't have been. Why anyone would resolve over this is nothing but over-emotional crap. Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Dr Slurm General Commodities	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:02:00 - [5] Bet you're glad you got those alternate directors now. It's better then Quafe! Off-topic. Please don't point out semantic errors of the moderators - Mitnal
Ricdic Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:03:00 - [6] Originally by: Dr Slurm Bet you're glad you got those alternate directors now. Actually, McRuder was one of the alternate directors. As is Selene. When Tornsoul and *****monger left, they were made full directors. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=500043 Largest Empire Research Alliance in EVE!
Dr Slurm General Commodities	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:22:00 - [7] Originally by: Ricdic Originally by: Dr Slurm Bet you're glad you got those alternate directors now. Actually, McRuder was one of the alternate directors. As is Selene. When Tornsoul and *****monger left, they were made full directors. Oh, oops. It's better then Quafe! Off-topic. Please don't point out semantic errors of the moderators - Mitnal
Randy West Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:32:00 - [8] So should I hold off on starting a new account or not??
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:35:00 - [9] Originally by: Randy West So should I hold off on starting a new account or not?? There is no reason to hold off on starting a new account. After all you can open it with 1 isk. To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean.
Randy West Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:38:00 - [10] Then sending iskies to EBANK Ricdic is going to open it correct?
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:39:00 - [11] Originally by: Randy West Then sending iskies to EBANK Ricdic is going to open it correct? Correct. It can take up to 1 hour for it to activate. If you want, you can join the "Ebank" channel ingame
Randy West Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:41:00 - [12] Thank you for all the information
SonOfAGhost Minmatar Munitions and Tactical Assets Repository Zzz	Posted - 2008.02.10 18:50:00 - [13] Originally by: Kwint Sommer May I ask what prompted this? Originally by: Ricdic the reason to a point should be obvious. You think there's drama in the Kyrial thread, you should see our forums. It's not obvious, there's no information here at all, nor should there be a need to visit a 3rd party site to at least get a summary. Originally by: CCP Explorer This is intended, to not clutter the overview with information that new players don't need in their first few hours. (on stargates not being on overview)
Daeva Vios Ares Arms and Modules LLC	Posted - 2008.02.10 18:56:00 - [14] This has all been very dramatic and everything, but is this truly necessary? If others have resigned they've done so privately, and to me that indicates it's not a policy to make that resignation public. Forum drama may be fun and all for a little while, but come on guys...this is playing out like a poorly written soap opera. As nice as it would be to have all activities public, I think EBANK really should assign one person to make all public statements regarding everything to do with EBANK. If anyone else does make statements in EBANK's name, the offending party should be punished in some way. This seems like it would be a simple policy to enact. I don't know what in the EBANK heirarchy is preventing this from coming about, but it may be time to force it through in any event.
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2008.02.10 20:22:00 - [15] Originally by: Ricdic We should charge like pay-per-view for that access. I'll pay 1 ISK!
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2008.02.10 20:24:00 - [16] Originally by: Daeva Vios Forum drama may be fun and all for a little while, but come on guys...this is playing out like a poorly written soap opera. Yes, but it's Sunday, therefor Guiding Light isn't on, so this is fill a hole on my life that comes around every weekend. :P
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.10 20:34:00 - [17] This raises a question which I asked in an earlier thread - but which was unanswered at the time. EBank is owned by its directors - presumably using the in-game share management system. All profits are owned by those directors. When someone leaves the BoD, is there some deal that they MUST sell their shares (i.e. ownership of EBank - even if no shares are used) back? And on what basis is the price for such a buy-back determined? Obviously who owns what percentage of EBank doesn't need to be public knowledge - but investors DO have a right to know how owneer ship of EBank is defined. And. more importantly, they have a right to know how ownership of EBank is kept within the BoD when a Director leaves - given that EBank has stated it has no current intent to become a publicly owned company. I'm just slightly (very slightly) concerned that less attention has been paif to the ownership of EBank (and it's profits) than should have been the case. When I asked the above question previously in an Ebank thread it was about the only question in there which was completely and utterly ignored.
YouGotRipped Gallente Ewigkeit Galactic Research	Posted - 2008.02.10 20:36:00 - [18] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 10/02/2008 20:51:58 Originally by: Daeva Vios This has all been very dramatic and everything, but is this truly necessary? If others have resigned they've done so privately, and to me that indicates it's not a policy to make that resignation public. He already motivated his decision. And these situations should always be made public giving a chance to the investors to assess the future impact on profitability etc. If Hexxx resigned don't you think investors would like to know about it? Originally by: Daeva Vios Forum drama may be fun and all for a little while, but come on guys...this is playing out like a poorly written soap opera. Actually there's more to this then they let on. It might be that arguing on whatever course of action sparkled a personal conflict in the end. Originally by: Daeva Vios As nice as it would be to have all activities public, I think EBANK really should assign one person to make all public statements regarding everything to do with EBANK. If anyone else does make statements in EBANK's name, the offending party should be punished in some way. This seems like it would be a simple policy to enact. I don't know what in the EBANK heirarchy is preventing this from coming about, but it may be time to force it through in any event. :) Adding another cog in the decision making process won't help a bit. But they could create an alt just for that. Happy? I for one would sure like to know what every member of E-bank position is in respect to certain events. Also his role and what part he plays in the success of E-bank's ops. Thus if one resigned I might decide to assign another destination for my funds.
cosmoray	Posted - 2008.02.10 20:53:00 - [19] I would be concerned in the way in which EBank has handled its control mechanisms, and publically aired its dirty laundry. 1. It is clear from an earlier thread that Kyrial Tidolfas did in fact take out a 1 or 2 ISk loan, and it went through. 2. Ricdic was TECHNICALLY correct that there was an issue with this loan, but: What is EBank policy for addressing a late loan Eve-mail with warning? What time scale? Another warning? Final letter informing the loan is in default? Flaming on the MD forum? Like I said Ricdic may have been TECHNICALLY correct about the loan, but he is ABSOLUTELY wrong if he didn't follow any set EBank guidelines. It would be even worse if there is NO policy about how late loan payments and loan defaults are managed. The end result is that an EBank representative destroyed a person's reputation on the forum, whether it was their intent or not. If Ebank DID NOT follow their procedure they should make an apology and throw some iskies Kyrial's way as a sign of good faith. Now I respect what EBank has done with their system set up, but Ricdic is acting like the shoot from the hip marketer (ala Richard Branson and Donald Trump) and will have no regards for standards or other people. In my book EBank has taken a pretty large reputation hit. Furybank does not have the same level of forum "marketing" or coverage but has just gone quietly about making a good product!
Amarr Citizen 155 Alternative Methods Research Group	Posted - 2008.02.10 21:02:00 - [20] Originally by: cosmoray What is EBank policy for addressing a late loan Eve-mail with warning? What time scale? Another warning? Final letter informing the loan is in default? Flaming on the MD forum? Like I said Ricdic may have been TECHNICALLY correct about the loan, but he is ABSOLUTELY wrong if he didn't follow any set EBank guidelines. It would be even worse if there is NO policy about how late loan payments and loan defaults are managed. I agree that it would be nice to know the policies regarding issues such as this. If there are none then this sounds like a great time to make some. Originally by: cosmoray The end result is that an EBank representative destroyed a person's reputation on the forum, whether it was their intent or not. If Ebank DID NOT follow their procedure they should make an apology and throw some iskies Kyrial's way as a sign of good faith. I don't agree with this statement as Kyrial had no reputation or atleast didn't have a good one based off of past BAD attempts to get isk on the MD forums. Originally by: cosmoray In my book EBank has taken a pretty large reputation hit. Furybank does not have the same level of forum "marketing" or coverage but has just gone quietly about making a good product! I think it was in really poor taste to advertise another bank using this thread. If I were Fury bank and I was infact being quiet on the forums I wouldn't want my name brought into this whole situation. Very poor taste. I think the real discussion here needs to be about the policies that could have kept this situation from happening. The best thing that could happen now would be to develop those policies to avoid future mishaps. I also really like the idea of having one person that makes ebank announcements just as someone else already mentioned. Amarr Citizen 155 ---------------------------------------------- Why do it the hard way when you can do it the AMARR way.
cosmoray	Posted - 2008.02.10 21:06:00 - [21] Kyrial DIDN"T have a rep, and now he never will! For the record I have no connection to any banks or have accounts at either, but I was making an opinion about how the 2 banks are going about their business!
Amarr Citizen 155 Alternative Methods Research Group	Posted - 2008.02.10 21:09:00 - [22] Originally by: cosmoray Kyrial DIDN"T have a rep, and now he never will! For the record I have no connection to any banks or have accounts at either, but I was making an opinion about how the 2 banks are going about their business! Honestly, the reason he never will have a rep is because he refuses to use any of the guidelines set forth in MD. Some of these guidelines might seem dumb or you just might not agree with them, but some of them are very important to getting funding and gaining trust. I don't think this is the thread to be comparing the two banks. ---------------------------------------------- Why do it the hard way when you can do it the AMARR way.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.10 21:09:00 - [23] Originally by: cosmoray In my book EBank has taken a pretty large reputation hit. Furybank does not have the same level of forum "marketing" or coverage but has just gone quietly about making a good product! In fairness, our (Fury Bank) policy on defaulted loans is also not publicly stated. We DO, however, have a policy of naming defaulters (there have been none to date) but that would only be the case after they'd also failed to respond to eve-mails. As the smallest loan we do is 250million it's unlikely we'd ever be in a position to have a 1 isk loan defaulted. It's slightly concerning than in the kyrial thread, Ricdic said his recollection was that all overdue loans had been mailed - but apparently they have so many overdue loans that he couldn't specifically remember whether Kyrial was one of them. Personally I'd have just written the 1 ISK off ages a go (in fact I'd never have approved it) as the time to write just one ingame mail is worth way more than 1 ISK to me. And any mails sent about overdue loans (I've sent a couple of those - but the loans were subsequently not defaulted) are individually logged so that, if queried, I can identify the time/date at which they were sent plus produce a copy of the mail sent to one of my alts at the same time.
YouGotRipped Gallente Ewigkeit Galactic Research	Posted - 2008.02.10 21:09:00 - [24] Originally by: cosmoray Kyrial DIDN"T have a rep, and now he never will! For the record I have no connection to any banks or have accounts at either, but I was making an opinion about how the 2 banks are going about their business! Actually he still has a rep. Did you miss the post where he declared himself god of whatever religion etc? Too bad.
Shadarle	Posted - 2008.02.10 21:27:00 - [25] Originally by: FastLearner It's slightly concerning than in the kyrial thread, Ricdic said his recollection was that all overdue loans had been mailed - but apparently they have so many overdue loans that he couldn't specifically remember whether Kyrial was one of them. Personally I'd have just written the 1 ISK off ages a go (in fact I'd never have approved it) as the time to write just one ingame mail is worth way more than 1 ISK to me. And any mails sent about overdue loans (I've sent a couple of those - but the loans were subsequently not defaulted) are individually logged so that, if queried, I can identify the time/date at which they were sent plus produce a copy of the mail sent to one of my alts at the same time. There were some good points/ideas in here. Just how many overdue loans are there? It sure seems like one would remember writing an email about a paltry 1 isk loan. Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation Endless Horizon	Posted - 2008.02.10 21:49:00 - [26] I have to wonder why a 1 ISK loan was even given in the first place. It certainly does seem a bit silly to have even been approved in the first place. Also, being that there's people on the inside leaving E-Bank, what does this mean for it, and for those that have ISK in there, if anything?
Daeva Vios Ares Arms and Modules LLC	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:16:00 - [27] Edited by: Daeva Vios on 10/02/2008 22:17:26 Edited by: Daeva Vios on 10/02/2008 22:16:53 imo the amount of the loan is irrelevant. It shows irresponsibility that it was not paid, and I would not want an irresponsible individual handling my money. However, it was also irresponsible to post that the loan was about to default, and if it had defaulted it would have been irresponsible to post without the amount that was left unpaid. I think the way to resolve this is to make an EBANK member's credit record/outstanding obligations available upon request from EBANK. If someone has an outstanding loan from EBANK and they're asking for public money, I'd certainly like to know. So long as a condition of this request is that the individual receiving the info maintains confidentiality, I see no conflict. I'm aware this is from the outside looking in and you can feel free to ignore me, but it would certainly make me feel more comfortable as an investor to have this information available to me.
cosmoray	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:29:00 - [28] whatever the results of all this, EBank had better make a post clarifying their position and controls. Also which other directors have left and which remain. If Hexx is gone would you stay in? With large amounts of uncertainty they are risking that a large number of accountholders will withdraw their cash, and a run on the bank occurs. The risk has just increased somewhat!
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:30:00 - [29] Originally by: Daeva Vios Edited by: Daeva Vios on 10/02/2008 22:17:26 Edited by: Daeva Vios on 10/02/2008 22:16:53 imo the amount of the loan is irrelevant. It shows irresponsibility that it was not paid, and I would not want an irresponsible individual handling my money. However, it was also irresponsible to post that the loan was about to default, and if it had defaulted it would have been irresponsible to post without the amount that was left unpaid. I think the way to resolve this is to make an EBANK member's credit record/outstanding obligations available upon request from EBANK. If someone has an outstanding loan from EBANK and they're asking for public money, I'd certainly like to know. So long as a condition of this request is that the individual receiving the info maintains confidentiality, I see no conflict. I'm aware this is from the outside looking in and you can feel free to ignore me, but it would certainly make me feel more comfortable as an investor to have this information available to me. 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.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:36:00 - [30] Originally by: Daeva Vios Edited by: Daeva Vios on 10/02/2008 22:17:26 Edited by: Daeva Vios on 10/02/2008 22:16:53 imo the amount of the loan is irrelevant. It shows irresponsibility that it was not paid, and I would not want an irresponsible individual handling my money. I think you're missing a key issue here. As I read it, the following happened: 1. Kyrial applied for a 1 ISK loan (presumably as a joke?) not expecting it to be granted. 2. EBank had stated that requests for loans would be responded to by mail to discuss interest rates. As Kyrial received no such mail he had no reason to believe that the loan had been granted: Ebank defined how the loan procedure would work so he was entitled to assume that they would follow such a procedure if the loan were granted. 3. Kyrial wasn't using his EBank account - so had no means of knowing that his loan had been granted in a manner not in accordance with EBanks own stated policy. 4. EBank policy is to mail loans which are in (or near) default - but they keep no record of this and apparently Ricdic (who sends such mails) can't specifically remember sending one to Kyrial. Given those cirumstances (which I've only gathered from posts here - I've had no contact, nor do I want any, with either Kyrial or EBank about the matter) I'm not sure why you believe Kyrial was irresponsible. None of which is to say I'd invest in Kyrial's offering - but my reasons have nothing to do with some 1 ISK defaulted loan.
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?
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.11 04:15:00 - [61] Originally by: Hexxx 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. My issue here (and elsewhere) isn't about a responsibility on reporting results etc. It's about the fundamental issue of defining to petential and existing customers WHO Ebank is - and WHO has responsibility for making up any defaults. Let me give a simple example: At some stage in the future EBank has various tellers/holders of ISK. One of them scams/dies/vanishes/whatever for 50 billion worth of assets. Who is responsible for replacing that 50 billion (or at least that part of 50 billion not covered by profits)? Do you not believe that customers should KNOW who the buck stops with - and who will make good any loss of their capital caused by whatever reason (scamming by an EBank staff member is only one way in which a heavy loss could be sustained - there are others, such as accepting collateral which devalues heavily and then being defaulted on). That's why knowledge of ownership is important - as without acknowledged owners there are no formal obligations. The issue of whether a leaving director should forfeit all right to accrued profits IS an internal one: but if that's the case then it logically follows that quitting as a director removes all obligations as well as all benefits - and hence in the event of a heavy loss all directors have to do is quit and the entire burden of the loss is logically transferred to those who remain. I 100% agree EBank has no obligation to disclose quantity/size of loans, profits etc. That you do so is admirable - but it would be far preferable if you actually disclosed ownership/liability which investors should be entitled to. Imagine if a Bond was launched saying "This is being run by Fred, Bill, John and Joe. We haven't decided which of us own how much of it - and if we take a loss with your capital (we've put in no capital backing the Bond) then maybe one/some/all of us will be liable for it or maybe some of us will leave and no longer be liable. Bill has private assets equal to about 7% of the Bond's value and he'll cover that much if it goes wrong. Profits will be split somehow at some point in the future possibly - but only to those still left in charge. Each of us will hold some amount of the capital - with anyone else's assets we manage being held in an undisclosed fashion which we assure you is secure." Would YOU say that was a really sound way to detail risk to Investors? Would you feel comfortable giving them your ISK - assuming you knew a couple of them and they were of good character but had no idea about the others?
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.11 04:24:00 - [62] My previous post may seem a bit harsh - but as EBank has grown the issue of liability has been brushed under the carpet. When EBank started, Ricdic backed depositors ISK with his own wallet: which was sufficient to cover all potential losses (other than him scamming - but that's something investors have to judge the same as for any other IPO). With subsequent expansions, and the delegation of funds/assets to other people, EBank has reached the stage where there are many times Ricdic's personal wealth of ISK outside his control. Additionally with the increase of scale the risk of other forms of loss is of much larger amounts as well. In that situation just saying "well we won't say who owns how much of EBank - or who is liable for what quantity/percentage of losses" isn't really acceptable. In RL business terms, EBank started out with Ricdic as a sole trader. It's now some sort of Private Company - but it's not even clear whether it's a partnership (where all partners are jointly/severally liable for debts) or a limited company (where liability is limited to invested capital - i.e. no liability at all in EBank's case). How you share profits is your business. How you share liability is most definitely every customer's business. And usually there's a direct correlation between the two.
Asteroid Bandit NOPHEX PRISIM	Posted - 2008.02.11 04:27:00 - [63] I like vetting the occasional statement. Originally by: Hexxx Let me address the ownership question. The idea of Directors having Shares was something done in the beginning that really doesn't make a lot 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 responsibility for protecting it, growing it, and sustaining it. This seems to me not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Without a public disclosure of you asset handling procedures it is difficult to claim equal membership between directors. Within a single corporation there must be a CEO and with out the use of shares to distribute power equally, power is based on word alone. I think that this is what FastLearner is speaking to. How can a client know that a director wont walk out with a chunk of EBANKs funds. How can a director stop a teller from engaging in risky or "illegal" actions. Power is an ever present question within EvE and from a cursory reading of your site and statements I can not draw a hierarchy that meets the policies espoused. I would ask of you the same I ask of any investment I comment in; Spell it out so a 13 year old can understand it. If I cant diagram it I cant trust it. (But thats just me, and I would still use EBANK) Quote: 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. I find this to be a short sighted and hypocritical statement. EBANK is not a licensed banking institution. It is a ducktape and hope organization that through the sheer will and determination of its members has crafted a fairly robust institution out of the limited resources EvE provides. However it is still an investment like any other that come through these forums. Though through the directorate's elevated status, so far as trust is concerned, has eliminated the use of shares for its "customers" I find it only fair that it still be beholden to the same standards it demands of the investments its members vet. You can not ask that new comers go through a process of disclosure while maintaining the right to operate as a black box entity. It strips you of the ethical high ground that EBANK relies so heavily upon. Internal business is one thing, but as soon as something enters the forums it becomes public and you will have to answer to it in some capacity. A bell can not be un-rung. A final note. I cant help but find that many of the "problems," or perhaps better said drama, surrounding EBANK comes from your own lack of adequate PR controls. Statements issued on behalf of EBANK are made by the same characters that also casually post and screen IPOs. EBANK directors don't speak with one voice. While vigorous debate and argument is healthy for any organization lack of a unified message leave room for doubt and speculation. I would urge all EBANK directors to keep separate characters for use as official EBANK representatives and other characters for individual opinion and use on the public forums. A third separate character (a Voice of EBANK) would also be a beneficial tool for resolute proclamations. EBANK like all developed institutions in EvE rely on trust. Trust that can only be hurt by uncertainty and confusion. The responsibility for maintaining this trust, as you said Hexxx, lies with the directors and how you choose to represent your selves on the open forum. It's a tight rope to walk.
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.02.11 04:41:00 - [64] 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. That's the thing. There isn't currently a disclosure policy that properly documents how we should handle these sorts of situations. Now common sense would dictate I not say anything in the first place. Regarding CC'ing with evemails I honestly never knew that was possible but was advised of it yesterday so it will become a constant thing. Also, we have posts up on our internal forums discussing redoing our processes around loans, disclosure and the likes. As a result of this there will be changes made to our processes to ensure this doesn't happen again (lack of communication, and privacy policies determining when and where/if disclosure is possible.
Iminyour Markets	Posted - 2008.02.11 04:51:00 - [65] Originally by: EBANK Ricdic That's the thing. There isn't currently a disclosure policy that properly documents how we should handle these sorts of situations. Now common sense would dictate I not say anything in the first place. Regarding CC'ing with evemails I honestly never knew that was possible but was advised of it yesterday so it will become a constant thing. Also, we have posts up on our internal forums discussing redoing our processes around loans, disclosure and the likes. As a result of this there will be changes made to our processes to ensure this doesn't happen again (lack of communication, and privacy policies determining when and where/if disclosure is possible. This situation seems like it is forcing ebank to make a step in the right direction. But, this does nothing to remedy the situation that has surrounded Kyrial's ipo. You could argue that it wouldn't have been successful in the first place, but it wasn't given a chance to hash itself out on its own merit before this whole drama-bomb was introduced. It also brings one to wonder why the principle name (whether you like it or not your name is associated with ebank) would act in such an irrational and brash manner when it comes to the dealings of the bank. It's not the sort of trust that one would like to instill in potential and current customers.
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.02.11 04:57:00 - [66] Originally by: FastLearner When EBank started, Ricdic backed depositors ISK with his own wallet: which was sufficient to cover all potential losses (other than him scamming - but that's something investors have to judge the same as for any other IPO). This is still the case. It is highly unlikely that a loan default/devaluation could break the bank. Plus all EBANK profits are reinvested meaning we have a good 10b of excess capital in use. As we grow this capital increases and will continue to do so. In the event of a default breaking the bank I would work my ass off to make sure no-one went out of pocket. Making money is easy, my personal assets are low only because I devote all my time to making the corporations I run money. As an example, I have changed things up a bit (when I sold a batch of my shares), with a new personal idea that would make me a small fortune. Anyway working this new project (about 40 mins a day) nets me approximately 200-300m per day. I have started doing this as my personal capital was dwindling quite a bit. I generally get into that state of mind once a year or so where i spend a couple of months building capital that lasts me another year. Simply put, my personal wealth is low because I choose to have it that way. At 200m per day, I can afford to repay interest on pretty much the whole 160b or so outstanding in EBANK. Now that would assume everyone defaulted on their loans, someone made off with 30b cash on hand, and all collateral was devalued to zero. So people investing in EBANK have my guarantee that I won't let their money disapear. Now the board aren't big fans on me speaking like this as they all feel the same way about EBANK, in that it's everyone's responsibility not just mine. I do agree, but I founded EBANK with specific documentation (as shown by yourself) stating people wouldn't lose money. In the event of a default, EBANK will soak up the loss with earnt capital. In the event of a major default, EBANK will still soak it up, or I will move my money making schemes internally to make sure we can get our capital back where we want it. Having said that, we have about a 10b buffer right now with this increasing all the time. Next year it might be 100b which is a nice level of security against defaults and the likes. Until then we are quite strict on how our loans work, and our level of exposure against defaults/scams etc. Quote: In that situation just saying "well we won't say who owns how much of EBank - or who is liable for what quantity/percentage of losses" isn't really acceptable. Consider it as me stating now that until the day EBANK closes or I get removed from my CEO position (not entirely unlikely if I keep making mistakes ) I will be personally responsible for any losses on client funds. Having said that, I am fairly sure a good portion of the board would state the same thing (collectively ofc) Hope this helps FL
Amarr Citizen 155 Alternative Methods Research Group	Posted - 2008.02.11 05:08:00 - [67] Originally by: Iminyour Markets This situation seems like it is forcing ebank to make a step in the right direction. But, this does nothing to remedy the situation that has surrounded Kyrial's ipo. You could argue that it wouldn't have been successful in the first place, but it wasn't given a chance to hash itself out on its own merit before this whole drama-bomb was introduced. Everyon really needs to get past this whole idea of kyrial's name being smeared or his chances of getting investors being changed by these recent events. Fact, he has made several poor attempts to gain isk using poorly formed posts where no security will be provided and no details will be given. He refuses to use any of the options available to help investors verify his ability to repay isk loaned. For the most part, all his posts seem like jokes and if you did a small amount of research on his former threads you would see this. So please, can we drop the issue of Kyrial's great reputation taking a hit? ---------------------------------------------- Why do it the hard way when you can do it the AMARR way.
Kyrial Tidolfas	Posted - 2008.02.11 05:19:00 - [68] mah reputation is taking a hit. they (ricdic and friends) came from BEHIND!!!!!
Amarr Citizen 155 Alternative Methods Research Group	Posted - 2008.02.11 05:25:00 - [69] Originally by: Kyrial Tidolfas mah reputation is taking a hit. they (ricdic and friends) came from BEHIND!!!!! Please go away. ---------------------------------------------- Why do it the hard way when you can do it the AMARR way.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.02.11 05:43:00 - [70] Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Originally by: Iminyour Markets This situation seems like it is forcing ebank to make a step in the right direction. But, this does nothing to remedy the situation that has surrounded Kyrial's ipo. You could argue that it wouldn't have been successful in the first place, but it wasn't given a chance to hash itself out on its own merit before this whole drama-bomb was introduced. Everyon really needs to get past this whole idea of kyrial's name being smeared or his chances of getting investors being changed by these recent events. Fact, he has made several poor attempts to gain isk using poorly formed posts where no security will be provided and no details will be given. He refuses to use any of the options available to help investors verify his ability to repay isk loaned. For the most part, all his posts seem like jokes and if you did a small amount of research on his former threads you would see this. So please, can we drop the issue of Kyrial's great reputation taking a hit? This I 100% agree with. The 1 ISK thing has done him no damage - maybe even some good (until he continued posting). His posts in this thread, the other one and previous ones are what has done him the damage.
Shadarle	Posted - 2008.02.11 06:12:00 - [71] Originally by: FastLearner Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 Everyon really needs to get past this whole idea of kyrial's name being smeared or his chances of getting investors being changed by these recent events. Fact, he has made several poor attempts to gain isk using poorly formed posts where no security will be provided and no details will be given. He refuses to use any of the options available to help investors verify his ability to repay isk loaned. For the most part, all his posts seem like jokes and if you did a small amount of research on his former threads you would see this. So please, can we drop the issue of Kyrial's great reputation taking a hit? This I 100% agree with. The 1 ISK thing has done him no damage - maybe even some good (until he continued posting). His posts in this thread, the other one and previous ones are what has done him the damage. Agree with both of these posts. This has nothing to do with Kyrial, his name was mud before the 1 isk thing started and was actually helped by the 1 isk thing. People felt sorry for him. But he didn't even know how to play the pity card and now he's lost even that. What really is absurd is that people are taking any of this so seriously. If this had actually caused problems in a 50-100 billion isk IPO and seriously hurt the reputation of a respected member of the community beyond repair then I could understand it. But this was a stupid thing for Ricdic to do that will actually end up causing more good than bad for E-Bank as they will now have a formal policy in place for how to handle such things (or at least they had better after this). The people over-dramatizing this need to get over themselves and stop watching reality TV shows and soap operas so much. If the two people mentioned have actually quit e-bank over this then they have to get off their high horse, this is a not such a big deal at all. If you think this is really bad then you have lived a very sheltered life. Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
McRuder Gallente This Space 4 Rent Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.11 13:58:00 - [72] I really do not owe anyone anything, least of all explanations or my reasons - therefore I did not give any in my OP. However, Shadarle, as usual your overinflated ego causes you to make a bunch of hot-air assumptions about me. Please refrain from concocting such ridiculous statements about my upbringing, the events that lead to my resignation, or the manner in which I conduct myself or my in-game business. If I wanted you to know anything about me I would have told you. @ Mods: Please lock this thread. This thread was a public statement not a discussion of my sheltered life.

CCP Navigator C C P	Posted - 2008.02.11 14:49:00 - [73] Thread locked. Navigator, Community Representative EVE Online, CCP Games Email/Netfang


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

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.