Re: Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19
First off, I asked first, and to someone else.
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms. Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.
The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank. If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound. If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.
With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.
now I have to ask you, did you REALLY think he meant insured as insured by the FDIC? I don't think he actually knew what it meant, hence negligence.
Of course not, 'insured' to hashking meant "yeah dude, your money's safe, I'm good for it." Which is probably the same insurance policy that numerous other 'banks' have.
All I'm saying is that to someone who was looking to invest, they probably saw that hashking advertised himself as "insured" and presumed it was just like the FDIC. Ignorance of basic financial terminology is not a valid excuse. Which is why a 15 year old should not be running an investment fund or bank or whatever this is.
In an Ideal economy, the bitcoin SEC would be cleaning hashking out to ensure those 'insured' deposits get paid back, but that's the beauty of an unregulated free market, isn't it? The only thing guaranteed is laughter.