Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on August 25, 2012, 05:46:46 PM

Quote from: Matthew N. Wright on August 25, 2012, 11:04:39 AM

The only thing disgusting is having to repeat myself. I'm not for censorship. You and anyone else are free to bark all day about what you think, but accusations, harassment, and defamation (example: THIS IS A PONZI) need to be backed up with evidence.

That is an impossible burden of proof. Baring some insider blowing the whistle, or the Police seizing evidence under a warrant it is impossible to prove a ponzi, given the fact that the operator can simply choose to not provide enough information to make that proof possible. Still it isn't up to you to decide what constitutes acceptable evidence.

Anything offering 3400% APR on $5M in capital is a ponzi. Anyone who could pay that much interest simply WOULDN'T. If they are smart enough to earn >3400% per year, then you are smart enough to use that profit to pay down the debt and keep the entire 3400% return to yourself.

If you feel I can't say that then feel free to sue me. Baring a lawsuit it doesn't really matter what you think other people can or can not say.

Quote

What scam are you referring to and what exactly collapsed? When referencing it, please also show a link to the evidence of it both being a scam and having collapsed, thanks.

Pirate is in debt service default of his own contract. By the rules of this forum he is a scammer.

He owes forum members in excess of $5M and has not repaid that nor provided any transparency on how/when he intends to repay it.
His obligations are increasing at a rate of $57,600 per day.

I mean by your logic as long as he never admits to it being a ponzi he simply can never pay anyone back ever and it isn't a ponzi or a scam.
There may never be absolute proof baring a confession. To be convicted in a criminal court only requires "proof beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT", in civil court is merely requires the "preponderance of evidence". Yes based on the facts known unless Pirate provided additional evidence to his defense he would lose a civil case alleging fraud and running a ponzi scam. Pirate is certainly free to provide evidence to his defense. He has chosen to provide nothing, and not repay more than a token amount, provide no specific timelines on repayment, and is in default of his own contract.

THAT IS A SCAM. PERIOD.

Isn't the burden of proof on the forum for a scammer tag having committed the scam, and showing no effort to pay it back? Pirate isn't quite there yet, although he's definitely getting close. Scammer tags probably require a higher standard here than a judgement in civil court.

I can imagine scenarios where Pirate is not running a Ponzi, but none of them wouldn't be considered fraud. If Pirate does manage somehow to pay back all outstanding debt through a combination of market moves to suppress the price and buying his defaulted debt through intermediaries for 10 bitcents on the coin, I would hope the admins would still brand him a scammer.