| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
   |
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:20:00 -
[31]
The only thing a due diligence template is going to do is give the scammers a checklist of stuff they need to cover their ass on.
It's better then Quafe!
Off-topic. Please don't point out semantic errors of the moderators - Mitnal |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:26:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Dr Slurm
The only thing a due diligence template is going to do is give the scammers a checklist of stuff they need to cover their ass on.
Ah,Slurm...you and I are in the same position we were over a year ago, argueing the same things. 
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Mtber
Caldari
Mtber Corp
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:33:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Dr Slurm
The only thing a due diligence template is going to do is give the scammers a checklist of stuff they need to cover their ass on.
If there had have been a template
And if part of that template required proposers to upload their character profile to Ineve.net then either Riethes' refusal to do so, or the fact that he had a lot of sps invested in pvping skills and not many in trade skills might have started alarm bells ringing. Incidentally I'm not supposing for one moment that Riethe doesn't have many sps in trade skills.
Quite frankly I have no idea what skills he has trained
And come to that neither does anybody else
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:33:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Dr Slurm
The only thing a due diligence template is going to do is give the scammers a checklist of stuff they need to cover their ass on.
Is there a suggestion here or is this just, as Hexx put it, the "anti-ipo template" argument in new clothes? I'd truly be interested in hearing your idea(s) as long as it isn't "leave bad enough alone". |
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc
Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:38:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Kwint Sommer on 25/01/2008 15:43:44
Originally by: Dr Slurm
The only thing a due diligence template is going to do is give the scammers a checklist of stuff they need to cover their ass on.
I'm strongly inclined to agree, a due diligence template would be worse than useless for it rapidly becomes a set of guidelines for scammers.
5% Mining & Manufacturing Implants |
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc
Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:43:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Originally by: Dr Slurm
The only thing a due diligence template is going to do is give the scammers a checklist of stuff they need to cover their ass on.
Is there a suggestion here or is this just, as Hexx put it, the "anti-ipo template" argument in new clothes? I'd truly be interested in hearing your idea(s) as long as it isn't "leave bad enough alone".
I believe it's, "for every means of vetting someone there's a way of appearing legit when you're not so lets not tell the scammers all the places they need to polish their presentation."
There's a world of difference between saying, "this is what a good IPO looks like, imitate it" and "this is the standard procedure for determining if you're legit."
5% Mining & Manufacturing Implants |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:46:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
I'm inclined to agree. I'm strongly inclined to agree, a due diligence template would be worse than useless for it rapidly becomes a set of guidelines for scammers.
So am I to assume you are against priving you have skills, competence, references, etc., etc. that is relevant to anyone asking funds for an ipo? While you are right a checklist can help scammers in the work you forget one key thing. Successful scams only succeed by being as legitimate as possible until it is time to cut and run. Ergo this counter-argument is basically penalize honest people trying to do something productive because someone might scam. You know we could do away with world hunger by shooting everyone that needs to eat. Dramatic extension of the arguments being given but it helps to clearly demonstrate the subtle fallacy that is being casually thrown about. So, the demonstrate the fallacy in a less dramatic method: We declare the end of all IPO's, borrowing, banking, sharing, or isk transfers of any kind since it is likely someone will use such means to scam.To sum up: The counter argument is reactionary, self-defeating, and quite pointless as I've demonstrated. Have a nice day.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 15:48:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
There's a world of difference between saying, "this is what a good IPO looks like, imitate it" and "this is the standard procedure for determining if you're legit."
Must be nice to be naive enough to actual think that. There is absolutely zero difference between being legit and being legit until you cut and run. That is until you cut and run that is. |
Mr Horizontal
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 16:06:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Mr Horizontal on 25/01/2008 16:12:04
Guys, we're talking about regulation. Therefore there need to be guidelines. Whether scammers use them or not doesn't actually matter.
Now with real regulation, you have a set of guidelines and consequences that have two purposes: punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
Now on the first set, regarding the punishment, other than scammers getting a blast of hot air, and all best endeavours of people to discredit them, with CCP unlikely to pull a finger out of their arse to do anything about punishment, there's really nothing we can do vis a vis presenting a true stick for scammers. This is not the thread to expose how shortsighted and lame CCP's excuses have been, but we all agree the situation right now is severely handicapped and there's nothing we can do.
That does not mean the 'protecting the innocent' side of the argument need entirely be ignored. At least we can develop a framework like the SEC, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC all to protect the investments of the innocent - our investments.
So with our regulation, while we can only do half the job properly, there is a lot that we can do to protect our interests, which is precisely what this thread is about.
(edit: fixed some bad english usage)
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 16:14:00 -
[40]
This is a pretty simple summary of where we're at:
The markets used to be anything goes, no one had expectations as to "standards" or what to do or what was good practice.
We now have some form of templates for IPO's, guidance on them, reporting expectations, clear distinction between bonds and shares, and something approaching "standards" in terms of what the community expects for a level of detail.
What we're talking about is an iterative step to help provide better information for investors and a reward for people who do well in the public space. There is also some limited protection against people who either make bad decisions or are scammers.
Let me point something out here;
There is nothing that will ever stop scammers with 100% certainty. Prevention is our only course of action, we can not engage in punishment...the mechanics just don't exist. The first and last line of defense against scammers are the individual investors...and anything that we do should be aimed at providing them with enough information for them to make the absolutely best informed decisions possible.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
|
|
Dolt Incognito
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 21:47:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Dolt Incognito on 25/01/2008 21:47:42
oops
|
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 21:58:00 -
[42]
Any guide to launching an IPO, or even obtaining the trust to launch one, will be open to abuse. But it doesn't stop it being a useful tool to those that need it.
|
Kushion
Anti Sweden Defense Force
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 22:01:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Kushion on 25/01/2008 22:03:27
The "it helps scammers!" argument is a bit silly imo. Legitimate businessmen should never be helped because it would help scammers, too? Take Hexx's IPO template for example. Does it help scammers? Yes. Does it help legitimate people also? Yes. It saves a ton of work for anyone (and I mean anyone) who wants to make an IPO. So for the sake of the argument, let's say Hexx never released his IPO template. What is the difference?
It just means both sides have to do a lot more research before making their IPO post. It's not as if not having the information readily available will prevent either side from getting their hands on it. It saves everyone involved a lot of work and frustration, and makes the whole thing go more smoothly. The IPO creator doesn't have to spend hours researching the forums to see what's expected by the community, the community doesn't have to ask about everything he missed, and the creator doesn't have to go back and edit the post every time he realizes he needs to include something new.
Scammers don't get some huge advantage over other players from its availability. And Legitimate IPOS that get funding drastically outnumber the scam attempts that get funding. So without the template, you penalize the majority of legitimate players to make things slightly more difficult for the minority. In the end, legitimate players will have the advantage, anyway. Because for some mysterious reason, the average scammer doesn't have a clue how to actually run a business, or reflect that knowledge in his post... *cough* Starscream *cough*
It's the same story for the credit rating idea. In my book, the legitimate players come first. It's senseless to withhold something that will help them, because it *might* be used by someone naughty.
Originally by: Riethe
I skimmed, but:
This will never work.
As reasonable and simplistic as it may seem to put something like this into place, it will never be officially adopted.
It doesn't need to be accepted by 100% of the community. So long as it's easy to do and it provides a useful service, it will succeed. The amount of people that will use it is still up in the air, but it will be used...
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 00:24:00 -
[44]
Originally by: anonymous#1
Originally by: anonymous#2
There's a world of difference between saying, "this is what a good IPO looks like, imitate it" and "this is the standard procedure for determining if you're legit."
Must be nice to be naive enough to actual think that. There is absolutely zero difference between being legit and being legit until you cut and run. That is until you cut and run that is.
hmm. so cynical. a crime isnt a "crime" unless you are caught?
and the virtue of honesty isnt a virtue because "honesty just means you havent been caught yet"?
its Plato vs Nietszche all over again. lol.
well here's a few nicely aged bon mots by Balzac: "The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account
is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed."
i interpreted kwint's comments to mean that there is a difference in intentionality between fraudulent IPO's and legitimate ones, and that by providing a "checklist" it is actually harder to differentiate that intentionality as a result of a certain kind of standardization.
intentionality may change in the future towards fraudulent practices, during the IPO, and that is subject to other checks and balances, but it seems to me that kwints concern was about the first-order intentionality of the IPO, as well as questioning the legitimacy of due dilligence given its standardized format.
i really dont see his argument as unrealistic and reactionary as its being spun by others - but a legitimate concern.
however, my understanding of this proposal for due dilligence is that its not for auditing fraudulent IPO's per se, but for creating a foundation upon which to make an informed decision given the information that is reported. and that there is a realistic resignation(?) that some of those IPO's under the purview of this regulation might still be fraudulent.
if this is true, then kwints concern has merit.
-jg.
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 01:09:00 -
[45]
When I talk to someone in real life I use several different skills to determine how much I trust them. I don't go out of my way to tell people my criteria or the other things I look for. Nor do I hand people I meet a list of things I check for to see if they are legit.
Given that in EVE and the internet it is much easier to deceive due to the limited amount of information available it is pointless to limit yourself even more by advertising what someone should attempt to fool you about.
I'm kind of growing tired of this constant baby sitting of these lame IPO attempts. Suggestions of this sort make me even more weary.
I am very much Anti-template. You are making the scammers (and the lamers, for lack of a better term) job easier, while making the job of the people vetting these IPOs harder and harder. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
There is absolutely NO reason why it should be easy to present an IPO. An IPO should be written from scratch by the IPO holder. That way the community sees exactly how much effort they put into it.
I really don't understand the effort to "save" IPO's that were not well thought out in the first place. How can you make a looser anything other then a looser? Why should you?
People wonder why all this irrational exuberance is occuring, its because everyone tries to help these IPO newbs make their IPO look better. When in fact they shouldn't be invested in at all.
But who am I joking I could really give a **** if any of you get scammed.
It's better then Quafe!
Off-topic. Please don't point out semantic errors of the moderators - Mitnal |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 01:25:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Dr Slurm
There is absolutely NO reason why it should be easy to present an IPO. An IPO should be written from scratch by the IPO holder. That way the community sees exactly how much effort they put into it.
And the same goes for a thesis or school report. It's up to the reader to interpret whether or not it's legitimate.
You may as well ban the internet now for the way it influences school papers. Any student (especially in the US, but it's becoming a lot more prevalent in Europe and even Africa) can purchase an paper on most subjects for a reasonable price.
From what I recall you work for a university. Ask some of the professors there how they deal with this issue. I promise the answer will be common sense and a strong knowledge of their subject.
Something we all should have.
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 05:44:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Dr Slurm
There is absolutely NO reason why it should be easy to present an IPO. An IPO should be written from scratch by the IPO holder. That way the community sees exactly how much effort they put into it.
And the same goes for a thesis or school report. It's up to the reader to interpret whether or not it's legitimate.
You may as well ban the internet now for the way it influences school papers. Any student (especially in the US, but it's becoming a lot more prevalent in Europe and even Africa) can purchase an paper on most subjects for a reasonable price.
From what I recall you work for a university. Ask some of the professors there how they deal with this issue. I promise the answer will be common sense and a strong knowledge of their subject.
Something we all should have.
I don't in fact work for a university. I work at a cab company that I own part of. But I do work in a drinking town with a college problem.
I do not believe that even sba.org effects IPO's simply because they provide a good business template for many different types of business. I do believe that just because you can copy a business plan does not mean you are entitled to it. I believe that people should put their time in and contribute to the community.
Anybody, ANYBODY whose first post in the market discussion forum asks for money absolutely deserves to be ignored. This is not a question in my mind.
Like I said before I could care less if anyone of you gets scammed. It does not effect me in the slightest.
What bothers me is the scammer benefited by your stupidity.
Of which I have absolutely no control over, but I do have the ability to inform, of which I will take full advantage until I tire of the stupidity that is inherent to this problem/forum.
Personally I believe that wikipedia is a valuable resource to students. I do not believe that students should copy their bibliography directly from wikipedia, but if the student takes those references an contribute their own original work I will respect their contribution to the human society for what it should be.
I think we should starve the bastards that plague our kind.
It's better then Quafe!
Off-topic. Please don't point out semantic errors of the moderators - Mitnal |
Calgorac
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 08:58:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Calgorac on 26/01/2008 09:04:09
wouldnt an API key requirement provide access to market transactions... and wouldnt giving anyone access to your real time transaction data be a risk? I mean for those of us who trade?
ive no problem with screen shots and such.. but, the api key scares me :)
not saying no to the idea.. but, what sa***uards will there be with this new system of ebanks?
why are the letters F-E-G blocked?
Latest News |
Kwint Sommer
Incoherent Inc
Otaku Invasion
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 09:20:00 -
[49]
There's a limited API key and a full API key. Only the full gives access to your journal and one of the big reasons to use the API is to verify skills for which there is already a 3rd party website so it shouldn't be an issue.
5% Mining & Manufacturing Implants |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |