Author Topic: PSA: Don't swipe recklessly for others (Read 964989 times)

LoLo · « **Reply #1980 on:** February 10, 2019, 10:42:00 PM »

Very true.

Mo2 · « **Reply #1981 on:** February 10, 2019, 10:44:05 PM »

Quote from: Chief Rabbi of New York on February 10, 2019, 10:12:55 PM

Is it bad investment for 2% a month
That’s like 24% annually

1. points are not cash
2. if everyone did the same due diligence they would/should do before lending or investing money and then lend or invest responsibly, we wouldn't be having these discussions here.

My main point is that people simply don't realize the risks involved.
I'm a big fan of getting extra points. But I am against ppl not realizing the risks they're taking and even more against those who downplay the risks or even "guarantee" that it's risk free

Dan · « **Reply #1982 on:** February 10, 2019, 10:47:31 PM »

The only time it was risk free was when PFS put up collateral to match the cost of the original coin deals that they did with us.

I hope people realize that any buying group or anyone else that gets merchandise in advance of payment can go south at any time. That's even if you get a check at the time of delivery.

Mo2 · « **Reply #1983 on:** February 10, 2019, 10:50:09 PM »

Quote from: Dan on February 10, 2019, 10:47:31 PM

The only time it was risk free was when PFS put up collateral to match the cost of the original coin deals that they did with us.

I hope people realize that any buying group or anyone else that gets merchandise in advance of payment can go south at any time. That's even if you get a check at the time of delivery.

sadly your hopes aren't realized by too many

aygart · « **Reply #1984 on:** February 10, 2019, 11:07:43 PM »

Quote from: YesThatsMe on February 10, 2019, 09:34:43 PM

A ddms post bashing them as ponzi perpetrators would be pure motzei Shem ra.

Almost every recent Ponzi scheme started as a legitimate business and then ended up taking capital not to fund the business but to pay back others. As soon as that happens it leaves the original business which the capital is no longer funding and becomes a Ponzi.

YesThatsMe · « **Reply #1985 on:** February 10, 2019, 11:11:31 PM »

Quote from: aygart on February 10, 2019, 11:07:43 PM

Almost every recent Ponzi scheme started as a legitimate business and then ended up taking capital not to fund the business but to pay back others. As soon as that happens it leaves the original business which the capital is no longer funding and becomes a Ponzi.

Understand, and you’re (always) right.

But this story was not a Ponzi.

aygart · « **Reply #1986 on:** February 10, 2019, 11:16:51 PM »

Quote from: YesThatsMe on February 10, 2019, 11:11:31 PM

Understand, and you’re (always) right.

But this story was not a Ponzi.

Were the later loans to capitalize a business or to repay others? If they were to repay others then what connection do they have to the business other than that it happens to be the same people. I fully understand that they did not intend to have anyone lose out etc. and they may have had good intentions blah blah. From the way you are describing it when you were there it does not seem to have been a Ponzi. Once they started taking from people who were gullible and couldn't afford it just to pay back others that is where they were nonchalant about other peoples money and lives.

S209 · « **Reply #1987 on:** February 11, 2019, 01:08:02 AM »

Quote from: aygart on February 10, 2019, 11:16:51 PM

Were the later loans to capitalize a business or to repay others? If they were to repay others then what connection do they have to the business other than that it happens to be the same people. I fully understand that they did not intend to have anyone lose out etc. and they may have had good intentions blah blah. From the way you are describing it when you were there it does not seem to have been a Ponzi. Once they started taking from people who were gullible and couldn't afford it just to pay back others that is where they were nonchalant about other peoples money and lives.

This is so obviously true I can’t believe @YesThatsMe is arguing

chevron · « **Reply #1988 on:** February 11, 2019, 01:12:02 AM »

The confusion is, a ponzi scheme as we know it, involves something like maddoff, pure fiction. @YesThatsMe is arguing that it was a legit business. Borrowing from A to pay B and keep business afloat is done every day in corporate america..

S209 · « **Reply #1989 on:** February 11, 2019, 01:39:24 AM »

Quote from: chevron on February 11, 2019, 01:12:02 AM

The confusion is, a ponzi scheme as we know it, involves something like maddoff, pure fiction. @YesThatsMe is arguing that it was a legit business. Borrowing from A to pay B and keep business afloat is done every day in corporate america..

But borrowing from A to pay B, and then B to pay C, when there are no funds actually being used for the core business, is a regular Ponzi scheme. Obviously.

Emkay · « **Reply #1990 on:** February 11, 2019, 05:56:13 AM »

Quote from: S209 on February 11, 2019, 01:39:24 AM

But borrowing from A to pay B, and then B to pay C, when there are no funds actually being used for the core business, is a regular Ponzi scheme. Obviously.

Although most times that this occurs it's not precisely like that. It's 1) borrow from A to buy merchandise, 2) use the proceeds to repay A, 3) borrow from B to buy merchandise... 3 may be before 2 at times.

Chief Rabbi of New York · « **Reply #1991 on:** February 11, 2019, 07:03:04 AM »

Quote from: Dan on February 10, 2019, 10:47:31 PM

The only time it was risk free was when PFS put up collateral to match the cost of the original coin deals that they did with us.

How is this risk free ? Let’s say PFS didn’t pay, and then you didn’t pay with the collateral that you had ?

churnbabychurn · « **Reply #1992 on:** February 11, 2019, 07:28:32 AM »

Quote from: Chief Rabbi of New York on February 11, 2019, 07:03:04 AM

How is this risk free ? Let’s say PFS didn’t pay, and then you didn’t pay with the collateral that you had ?

Not risk free, but risk seriously mitigated by a third party with a reputation on the line holding collateral

AussieMan · « **Reply #1993 on:** February 11, 2019, 07:42:15 AM »

Quote from: YesThatsMe on February 10, 2019, 11:11:31 PM

But this story was not a Ponzi.

Was not to begin with when you were there, but became one

Anyone lending to them or buying groups with no financials as mentioned above have to realize the risk of it becoming a Ponzi scheme and they will have no way of knowing it.

gingyguy · « **Reply #1994 on:** February 11, 2019, 08:26:51 AM »

Quote from: luckyluck on February 10, 2019, 09:54:56 PM

by the way the idea is to not have an email address all spelled out to minimize spam from web crawlers

in that case i stand correcected. however the email is spelled out multiple times all over the forum

LNS · « **Reply #1995 on:** February 11, 2019, 09:52:30 AM »

Quote from: Chief Rabbi of New York on February 10, 2019, 09:38:39 PM

Makes no sense
They are 12-20 million in the hole
When they were 3 million in the hole they didn’t realize they were sinking ?
Ponzi scheme

+1 put all their intentions aside

jj1000 · « **Reply #1996 on:** February 11, 2019, 10:05:53 AM »

Quote from: Chief Rabbi of New York on February 10, 2019, 09:38:39 PM

Makes no sense
They are 12-20 million in the hole
When they were 3 million in the hole they didn’t realize they were sinking ?
Ponzi scheme

What was their monthly charging history?

Is 3 million what they swiped in a month? Or was it 15 million, 50 million, etc.

I have no idea, but if someone knows it'd help answer your question.

zale · « **Reply #1997 on:** February 11, 2019, 03:36:51 PM »

Quote from: jj1000 on February 11, 2019, 10:05:53 AM

What was their monthly charging history?

Is 3 million what they swiped in a month? Or was it 15 million, 50 million, etc.

I have no idea, but if someone knows it'd help answer your question.

I might be wrong but I think there is some confusion here.

The “Kingston Ave merchant” is about $4 million+ in the hole. Someone on this thread mentioned that there is a new scandal coming to light about a merchant who is $12 million in the hole. I think these are two different stories.

Chief Rabbi of New York · « **Reply #1998 on:** February 12, 2019, 07:47:26 AM »

Wow
Still no write up on DDMS

Maybe these stories are not true ?

JACKBLUE · « **Reply #1999 on:** February 12, 2019, 10:30:51 AM »

Quote from: Chief Rabbi of New York on February 12, 2019, 07:47:26 AM

Wow
Still no write up on DDMS

Maybe these stories are not true ?

From what I’m hearing from people is that it’s not over.... they used to pay in full every statement and now they’re making just minimum payments and they claim they’re not doing so well in their business but they hope to straighten out..... also they’re didn’t run away and they’re picking up phone calls (at least so far)........ let’s hope they STRAIGHTEN OUT......!

Topic Wiki

Author Topic: PSA: Don't swipe recklessly for others (Read 964989 times)