Quote from: Guru on August 30, 2012, 06:47 pmOf course not, all discussion about this is good discussion!I'll address your points in the same manner as you brought them up, for ease (and because my posts are sometimes terribly long winded! :P)a) There was no Ponzi scheme that anyone could see to begin with. People put their money into vlad1m1r's "investment program" because they assumed from his posts and statements that he could make them 6% per month by investing in various financial sectors. In hindsight, knowing what we now know (or at least assume to be correct), giving him money for this purpose was indeed incredibly naive. However, nothing seemed out of the ordinary at the time due to vlad1m1r's posts and persona here on the forum.  This is the first I can remember hearing about Vald's 'investment' scheme. Given current interest rates, 6% per month would have raised alarm bells with me. 6% per month is 72% per year -- NO investment pays that high a rate of interest. I'm an unsophisticated as can be when it comes to finance, but even I realize that this is totally and completely out to lunch! Guru[/quote]vlad1m1r's investment scheme was a listing he had up on his SR account. Whilst 6% a month does sound incredibly high, it's not unachievable, especially if, as we were led to believe, the money was mixing with the money of his "other clients".For instance, pirateat40's Ponzi scheme was only revealed to be a Ponzi after 9 months (despite being incredibly dodgy from the very start to those who cared to check.) He was paying out 7% interest a WEEK, which is obviously completely unsustainable. However, a huge number of people successfully invested and withdrew their money during those 9 months. He managed to get away with 500K BTC, a not insignificant amount of which belonged to speculators, many of whom work in the finance industry (commodities, hedge funds etc.) themselves.Greed was their motivator, and their downfall. The same can be said for people who put money into vlad1m1r's scheme which - I believe - he was then investing in pirateat40's Ponzi, acting as a sort of passthrough fund, though this is merely conjecture based on the timing of pirateat40's default and vlad1m1r's disappearance.Essentially what I'm trying to say is that there was noting to indicate to anyone that vlad1m1r was running a Ponzi scheme himself, though it's quite likely that he was investing in one using his client's money. However there was no way for his client's to know this, and they took him at his word that he was using their money in a legitimate manner as he appeared to know what he was talking about. If people do their due diligence, it's unlikely they will lose their money, mais c'est la vie mon ami.I can't +1 you again but I would for your statement that it's completely out of touch. Despite my argument above, you're completely right, his promises of 6% should indeed have thrown up red flags for people.My main argument in that comment was punkst0ner's claims of a Ponzi when there was no actual evidence indicating that that was the case. Then again, there never is in a Ponzi until the whole thing comes crashing down. Just look at Bernard Madoff and how long he got away with it for, despite financially savvy individuals being his main investors.