You really just don't get it, do you?

1.  MP didn't know who PH's customers were.
2.  Those customers swore they weren't invested in pirate to PH, not to MP - more accurately, MP took PH's word that they'd said such - as MP COULD NOT verify that due to 1.
3.  PH had responsibility to assess the credibility of his customers' claims not to be invested in pirate because a) They were his customers,  b) MP couldn't due to 1.

If you accept the above then the following is each party's degree of knowledge:

PH had either been told (or not told) by his customers that they weren't invested in pirate.
PH either did or did not do due diligence on those customers.

MP knew that PH claimed he was satisfied that his customers weren't invested in pirate.

MP's knowledge about the specific investments was limited to ONLY what PH divulged.  There's no equality of information there.

Your argument then gos back to its default state which is:

"Everyone knew PH was invested indirectly in pirate"
"PH didn't know he was invested in pirate"
"MP didn't know PH was invested in pirate"

It's blatantly obvious that the first of those three statements directly contradicts the last two.  That lots of others also invested in PH also disproves your key assertion (that it was common knowledge PH was at risk to pirate exposure) - as noone who wanted pirate exposure would have invested at 1% per week.

Not only is your argument logically inconsistent ("everyone knew X",  "Except the people who had the most interest in knowing X", "And specifically except the only person who COULD know X"), it's also totally irrelevant anyway.  At no stage has PH claimed he should be released from his obligations because "everyone who invested must have known I was exposed to pirate so should take a massive haircut if they ever get paid back as their ignorance trumps my incompetence.".

Seems to me like PH made some errors of judgment, was unable to fulfil his commitments, still accepts he has those commitments but is unable/unwilling to resolve them in any sort of timely manner.  As such there's no point him posting here - as he isn't disputing any of MP's facts or what he owes.  If policy was consistent then I'd actually expect him to get a tag about same time after default as nefario did (both broke an off-forum agreement - more clearly tbh in PH's case).  Both have reasons outside their own control why they believed they had no choice but to break existing agreements.  Both, arguably, should have known that risk existed (in PH's case by properly doing due diligence on how his customers were using their loans).  Luckily for PH I don't think any of his victims are mods - so he's probably safe.