2) refused to comply in good faith with pirate's request for PPT account information
3) refused to comply with his own BitcoinMax account holders' requests that their account info be passed through to pirate
He had to do these two things, for reasons that I explained elsewhere. He had no other way to protect those of his investors who did not wish their information given to Pirate. 3) refused to comply with his own BitcoinMax account holders' requests that their account info be passed through to pirate
I don't care about his other investors, especially those who decide to not accept the terms of the default. They forfeited their right to a share of any settlement by refusing.
PPT customers agreed to pirate's terms for PPT funds by signing up. At the point where they stop abiding by pirate's terms, they have broken the agreement.
As an aside, it's ludicrous to trust pirate (and an anonymous PPT operator) with your bitcoins but not trust pirate with your account info.
Had he passed through information to Pirate, there is no way he could have prevented Pirate from trying to settle his debts directly, depriving other of his investors of their rightful share of those payouts. If you and I each half own a house, you can't cut the house in half, sell half of it, and keep all the profits as "your half". We are each entitled to half of the proceeds of the sale of any part of the house. You are not fully entitled to all the proceeds of the sale of half of it leaving me to try to sell my half by myself.
The recalcitrant other investors have no "rightful share of those payouts" for the reasons I stated above. In contrast, I (by intending to comply) do have a rightful share. And paybtc had no right to deprive me of the opportunity to negotiate or whatever directly with pirate. That's why he deserves a scammer tag.
You are using the wrong (outdated) frame to conceptualize the PPT fund. Before the default, your metaphor was apt. After the default (IE during the wind-down) the PPT fund is no longer like a house.
That is the same problem paybtc encountered (and unfortunately passed through to his customers). Previously indivisible assets become liquid in a bankruptcy, for purposes of distribution to creditors. We asked him to leave the Before Time (the Long-Long Ago) and join us in the post-default present, but he refused to accept this scary new reality.
In terms of the house metaphor, think of it as a foreclosed property being sold at auction (liquidated) and the proceeds being divided among those following the rules set by the executor. The executor is pirate in this case, which is a conflict of interest, but who else could do it?
