Market Discussions

The question is simple and directed to a goal. What are the thoughts about these practices from the people who do not engage in such things. It is full of people just ego-massageing so called lenders or holders, but I would like some insight of people who sees it with different eyes.

How can we set up a real investment that does not rely on confidence or pyramid in a financial system with no regulations in place for such practices ?

All investments are based on confidence to one degree or another. Brush away all of the semantic cobwebs and that is what you'll find at the root of it all.

Speaking frankly, who are you to say that the offerings now being presented here are any less genuine than the one you propose (with a hypothetical framework of protection)?

The question isn't that simple. I'm not sure what the goal of asking it in this manner is either.

Given the nature of this forum section, how many people that "do not engage in such things" do you think are going to read your post and provide an informed reply?

Is that a question or a statement?

How are they "so called" lenders? Surely they are either a lender or they are not?

What do you mean by "holders"? Do you mean borrowers, trusted third parties or what?

Firstly, we already have. It's called collateral.

Secondly, "confidence", if you mean trust, is the cornerstone of many business activities in the real world as well as in EVE. There is nothing unusual about trusting a person. There is nothing foolish about trusting a person with an established reputation and a reason to be honest, provided you don't push that trust too far. Relying on regulation or law, as you may do in the real word, doesn't guarantee success, profit or satisfaction. Trusting someone with an established reputation for doing a good job is far more effective, both in EVE and in RL.

If you don't mean trust, then I'll need to know what you do mean in order to answer your question.

Beyond this, what we can do to set up a "real investment" is to push CCP to come through with an overhaul of the contracts system, since that could give us all the tools we need.

Nice to see your signature is as well written as your post.

English isn't the first language of many posters here and it's right to give people a lot of leeway in their posting. The manner in which you approached this post makes you look like a troll, ignorant or both. Maybe, rather than using long words and complex sentences, you could have made a simple post that actually makes sense and is less laden with negativity?

This isn't the first time a neophyte has walked in to MD, made out like the 10 year veterans know nothing and then attempted to re-invent the wheel. We get this every few months. Maybe you would do better to read a little more before you post?

Having eyeballed your posting history, I'm pretty much convinced you are just a troll or an attention seeker, so I'm not expecting great things from you in this thread. If you choose to post here again, please try to prove me wrong.

Considerations:

- My signature is actually copied from an american movie, and it is written exactly like that, so if you used to imply something about my speech, in a sarcastic way, you might have failed. Many people like to infeer things about what people say regading their language skills, and that is not something I really consider wise.

- I said it is simple because it is. It is a direct question that many people have answered straight forward. Fairly simple and do not require to consider linguistics or personal accessment.

- I am not offering or proposing anything. That is also clear.

- It is a very known practice in here to get investments that are simply just ISK russian roulette (not often made by russians) which people get X sum from N people and use part of the summed X to pay out part of the N, that added to Y alts, come here and say those are legit, and when a little percentage of people complain they were scammed, they pass off as trolls themselves because of overwhelming testimonials from hired "trust" and legitimate paid fraction. Those are so called lenders, investors, and they are followed by "ego masseurs" who happen to attest legitimacy not by information but by self fullfilment.

- There is a huge difference between offering investment/loan with a regulatory system that will ensure you have to have the means to pay out in the terms you said you would, from offering investment/loan that the insurances of legitimacy is also offered and backed by the same entity that does the service. There is no dubt about it. You may happen to trust and know the entity, but that is not in itself a positive point for anyone else. You may consider for your life to trust people in their trust for third parties, but that does make it more than it is, and that is why is defined by trust. Trust has its name for that reason aswell.

- Yes. One of the simplest ways to find out the legitimacy is to access the ability an entity has to give you asurance of receiving your money back. But I am not talking about "my case", I am talking about "general case". You may be certain to receive your money back for personal factors, which may not work for someone else.

Lord of War is one of the movies I heard that phrase, but when I wrote it first I was inspired by Burn Notice. And I know it is wrong, because it is said wrongly in Burn Notice, for that exact reason: sex.

Ego Masseurs are people who go around attesting the legitimacy of a given business by talking emotional non-sense and personal feelings instead of hard facts. "Oh they were so nice", "This is an amazing business", "I felt really happy with their deals". For the most part, many people are used to find those useful feedback, but it is not. They are the exact kind of things you hear from Ponzi Infomercial shows.

Edit.: Now the signature thing is settled.

What about the dressing up part?

The word for these is "shill".

I quite like it too tbh.

If we are to adopt that nomenclature, can we at least figure out whose ego is being massaged?

Support both sides mate. I'm happy being right while being wrong. You should be too.