Apparently, there are no forced withdrawals for the new trust accounts. This probably means the cap on growth is off. I don't think that the non-trust accounts will play a big role, and really, I haven't heard about a lot of forced withdrawals with the old accounts anyway. Even before the flamewar, it rarely happened anymore. Maybe one here and there for the show, but nothing that tries to simulate big players' transactions coming and going -- you'd need them well in the five-digits to make a difference. The need for coins is growing faster and faster, and should soon be unlimited for all practical purposes.

You can't scale a high yield Ponzi down, at least not for long. The "No limits, same yields" approach is a sign of saturation. Shutdown time is normally around the time where recent average in- and outflow have been equal for a bit: the point of maximum deposits. That is assuming is behaves like a modern, and not the original Ponzi, which continued until it actually ran out of money. The latter would be strange, since Pirateat40 would not profit from it.

The primary hype was more than one month ago, and apart from the "is it a Ponzi" topic, there hasn't been much of a follow-up. With the chilling effects of last week, it's expected that the scheme is now slowly getting hungry, and this is what we observe.