Quote from: freedomno1 on July 12, 2013, 08:06:37 PM

Quote from: pierrejo on July 12, 2013, 08:04:35 PM

Second. I don't trust TAT, and I trust Havelock even less.

Good explanations might be important opinion is one thing accusations another
Both are quite high level reliable members who do a fair service so trust issues should be reasoned with fairly.
I agree that John has been here longer and childish posts might annoy you but it's not really something that I would pick at whats important is the management of the funds how investors act is not the issuers fault.
As an example we have MPOE-PR who is far more colorful and is trusted with mpex.
Your point is fair enough but people need to take it with two cents.

When I have the money, the OTHER SIDE has to show me I should trust them. I'm tired of the self promoting posts by TAT who annoy me greatly, despite the concept of a 1/100 passthrough being brilliant and currently working (props to that). However the childish attitude has a lot to do with the trust: I will not trust someone who behaves like a little kid - I deal in currencies, and I expect professional business attitude when dealing with it. The 1/100PT seems to be doing well for now and that's a great step forward, but the attitude is not the attitude of someone I want to invest with. Regarding Havelock, the current deal TAT has with them is shady, and I just don't trust the exchange itself.
If you want to risk anything, I'd say risk it on BTC-TC, which is more sound, more public, and probably more secure that Havelock (Does anyone have a single bad thing to say about BTC-TC?). I'm not saying HAVELOCK/TAT are not to be trusted, I am saying that I, myself, don't trust them.

Of course there's always the possibility of me being wrong.