Quote from: bitlane on September 10, 2012, 12:17:56 PM

Each case should be evaluated on a separate basis though. I don't believe that all Passthrough OPs deserve to be labeled as scammers immediately, or in a few rare cases, not labeled as scammers at all.

To throw a blanket-label on every PPT now, would essentially be to invalidate every GLBSE contract on the market, as terms for certain programs were very clear from the start (basic pirate default clauses rendering certain bonds worthless that people purchased full knowing ahead of time)..

NOW, if funds were mis-handled or the acquiring of funds under some sort of misrepresentation has clearly occurred, then by all means, a scammer tag should apply (lying about WHERE funds will be invested and to what exposure etc.). For example, taking funds that were supposed to be used for INSURANCE against a 'pirate default' and allowing greed to see those funds secretly invested INTO pirate's program to get a high interest yield would be the WORST and most obvious case, as has been shown to have happened already.

This is just a slippery slope once set upon.... and each 'judgment' should be handled with care.

I agree with this. A scammer should have done at least one of the following two things:

lied in the security's description or in some other provable context (e.g. posting deliberate misinformation on forum)
did not perform according to the security's terms

I don't think that the act of running a pass-through, by itself, is scamming, as long as the pass-through details and risks were disclosed appropriately.