Any idiot could see that these arrangements were scams from the outset.
Ahh, okay.
Now the schemes are in default and it is time to deliver the scammer tags.
So you are arguing both Patrick and Mircea should get scammer tags?
If you don't assign a debtor in default a scammer tag, then what are scammer tags for?
He's not a debtor in default. He's one party to a contract partially invalidated by a common mistake. A scammer tag would be for someone who uses fraud or deception, not for someone who makes a mistake where the other parties to his agreements equally make mistakes.
You are arguing that Patrick and MPOE are idiots. That may be the case. Regardless, the defaulted debtor should get the scammer tag.
I am not arguing that. You are. You are the one who said, "Any idiot could see that these arrangements were scams from the outset."
I disagree. I don't think either party realized that there was significant Pirate exposure. The premise on which this agreement was made was false due to no greater fault on either side. The parties mutually should bear the cost of their common mistake. Patrick is making partial payments as he is on other similar debt he has.
There's no evidence this was ever a scam. There's no evidence of any fraud or deception. Patrick has admitted this mistake and is attempting to rectify it as best he can.
Enforcing a contract as agreed, when that contract is based on a common mistake, is inequitable. If the mistake is not due to one party's fault more than the other, then both parties should bear the costs of their mistake.