PSA: Don't swipe recklessly for others

[LoLo]

Very true.

[Mo2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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