Where's the support for your claim that he is a ponzi?
I never said that he was a Ponzi. What I did say is that I don't know of anything else it could possibly be. I freely admit that that means it could be something I don't know of or can't think of. I've invited others to make suggestions in this thread, people have, and I've explained why none of those suggestions actually make any sense. (Did you somewhere mention something other than a Ponzi that it could possibly be? If so, I missed it. Please, I'd love to hear any other theories you have.)
I honestly believe it is more likely that it is something other than a Ponzi, that I cannot think of or do not know of, then that it is a Ponzi. But what this means is that it is impossible to estimate the risk. I submit that anyone who invests in something where the risk cannot possibly be estimated is an idiot. Further, they are an immoral idiot because they have no idea what the consequence of their actions are -- they don't know what they're funding.
High interest rate isn't enough. Do you have evidence of pirate failing to pay any returns? Has he been late (longer than say an hour)? Has ANYONE been screwed by pirate? In short, until you provide solid evidence, you're just a bunch of FUD.
If you want to cite specific claims I've made that I've failed to support, feel free to do so. But you've just made a list of claims I haven't made and then claimed that this somehow refutes the arguments I did make.