Quote from: Rassah on September 06, 2012, 04:33:52 PM

I think the irony is that this bet, which was initially started in an attempt to teach those who were overly vocal and eager to accuse something of being a scam, will end up showing that when a large group of people with possible knowledge of a topic warn you about it, you REALLY should listen, lest you lose out twice, first on being involved with the thing they warned you about, and second with trying to show you know better that those with actual knowledge/experience.

Ahem...

Quote from: gene on August 22, 2012, 02:14:00 PM

Quote from: ribuck on August 22, 2012, 01:28:10 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 22, 2012, 11:02:49 AM

First, your scenario can't avoid a technical default, since he already *has* technically defaulted.

Agreed. Pirate actually defaulted on Monday.

But in the terms of his bet with Vandroiy he has two weeks grace. And in the terms of Matthew's bet he has three weeks grace.

I can't wait to see how the "terms" of those bets will morph.

Quote from: gene on August 22, 2012, 02:37:59 PM

Quote from: hannesnaude on August 22, 2012, 02:27:18 PM

Quote from: gene on August 22, 2012, 02:15:14 PM

Quote from: bumbo on August 22, 2012, 11:32:27 AM

Quote from: hannesnaude on August 22, 2012, 06:10:49 AM

Last I heard assets with pirate exposure were still selling for 80% of face value. Anyone have an update?

24h average on the GLBSE is at ~50%.

I am shocked it is that high.

It can't go lower than that while Matthew is offering even odds on a default. Assuming an investor ~~has the cash available and~~ trusts Matthew, he can get 50% of his "investment" back by simply making a bet with Matthew for 50% of his exposure.

Big assumption there. Could just as likely lose everything.

Either matthew is unwell (if he is crazy, then we shouldn't be taking advantage of him) or he has some special knowledge. Or he never intended to pay out (as suggested by his vague terms).

In any case, this wager has failed the smell test since day 0.