Nobullshit Network Forum at View Single Post

**sharonsopinion** · 04-11-2007, 09:28 PM

My thoughts on industry standards have changed over time and they will probably continue to be refined. What I think industry stanards should be, knocks out 99.9% of all HYIPs/LYIPs and all Autosurfs.

They must have a written business plan as to how to handle fluxes in deposits, membership spikes (up and down), revenue generation, communication, expenses, and all other normal business operations. It is not necessary for the public to have access to the business plan.
They must have a verifiable outside source of income for generating at least 90-100% of the revenue.
The returns offered to the investors must be under the amount of revenue generated by the outside income source and preferably be variable.
The staff/administrator in charge of making the returns must prove that they have a history of being capable of making the promised returns.
The program must meet all legal requirements in their country of origin. License and registration information should be available to the public.
The staff/administor must make communication a priority, including news, status, and answering support questions in a timely manner. This also includes the ability to inform members of problems and potential solutions in a timely manner. A forum, conference, IM, and/or skype is recommended.

Here's the list that I wrote last year... How to Run a Successful HYIP/Autosurf – Member’s Perspective at No Bullshit HYIP Blog, A Part of No Bullshit Network. It still stands, however you'll see from the above list, I've added to the criteria I look for in a program. Having a real name and address are a nice to have, but with all of the abuse an administrator has to endure, I can understand why they use aliases and fake contact information. This article helps to weed out the wannabe programs... Things You Should Ask Before You Spend at No Bullshit HYIP Blog, A Part of No Bullshit Network.

Having an organization that approves programs can become dangerous. The original intention of monitors was to do that very thing. However, everyone knows that they are paid off by programs these days. What's to stop an organization of trusted individuals from bending to the lure of big money. One of the best things about having people being able to post, including open forums, blog articles, comments on blogs, etc., is that we can cross check with each other. Cheerleadering and naysaying without substance can quickly be dismissed. Bloggers are the most recognized, because articles are more noticable than comments buried in long threads. That is the reason that they are most often the ones entrusted with verifying a program's information. There are a handful of them that I completely trust for information. However, it is still my responsibility as an investor to do my own digging on a program that interests me.

There have been organizations in the past that tried to put a seal of approval on programs, most notably are Team Aaron and Sharon and Sensa Trust. There have been many. What happens is, if they uknowingly (or worse knowingly) approve programs of slick conartists, who later turn out to be proven scammers, then the seal of approval becomes irrelevant. That is why when I do recommend something in public, I try to include words like "use multiple resources before deciding", "due your own investigation", etc. I wouldn't like to rely on just one organization's recommendation anymore than I would want someone to rely on just my recommendation.

JMO,
Sharon

04-11-2007, 09:28 PM	#5 (permalink)
sharonsopinion Queen Maid, Flushing BS Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: USA Posts: 445 My Mood: Portfolio: PIDA, Life Holdings, EarnByLoaning and a few leftovers from a previous strategy. Fav Ecurrency: Paypal Thanks: 135 Thanked 93 Times in 61 Posts	Re: What is reasonable to you? My thoughts on industry standards have changed over time and they will probably continue to be refined. What I think industry stanards should be, knocks out 99.9% of all HYIPs/LYIPs and all Autosurfs. They must have a written business plan as to how to handle fluxes in deposits, membership spikes (up and down), revenue generation, communication, expenses, and all other normal business operations. It is not necessary for the public to have access to the business plan. They must have a verifiable outside source of income for generating at least 90-100% of the revenue. The returns offered to the investors must be under the amount of revenue generated by the outside income source and preferably be variable. The staff/administrator in charge of making the returns must prove that they have a history of being capable of making the promised returns. The program must meet all legal requirements in their country of origin. License and registration information should be available to the public. The staff/administor must make communication a priority, including news, status, and answering support questions in a timely manner. This also includes the ability to inform members of problems and potential solutions in a timely manner. A forum, conference, IM, and/or skype is recommended. Here's the list that I wrote last year... How to Run a Successful HYIP/Autosurf – Member’s Perspective at No Bullshit HYIP Blog, A Part of No Bullshit Network. It still stands, however you'll see from the above list, I've added to the criteria I look for in a program. Having a real name and address are a nice to have, but with all of the abuse an administrator has to endure, I can understand why they use aliases and fake contact information. This article helps to weed out the wannabe programs... Things You Should Ask Before You Spend at No Bullshit HYIP Blog, A Part of No Bullshit Network. Having an organization that approves programs can become dangerous. The original intention of monitors was to do that very thing. However, everyone knows that they are paid off by programs these days. What's to stop an organization of trusted individuals from bending to the lure of big money. One of the best things about having people being able to post, including open forums, blog articles, comments on blogs, etc., is that we can cross check with each other. Cheerleadering and naysaying without substance can quickly be dismissed. Bloggers are the most recognized, because articles are more noticable than comments buried in long threads. That is the reason that they are most often the ones entrusted with verifying a program's information. There are a handful of them that I completely trust for information. However, it is still my responsibility as an investor to do my own digging on a program that interests me. There have been organizations in the past that tried to put a seal of approval on programs, most notably are Team Aaron and Sharon and Sensa Trust. There have been many. What happens is, if they uknowingly (or worse knowingly) approve programs of slick conartists, who later turn out to be proven scammers, then the seal of approval becomes irrelevant. That is why when I do recommend something in public, I try to include words like "use multiple resources before deciding", "due your own investigation", etc. I wouldn't like to rely on just one organization's recommendation anymore than I would want someone to rely on just my recommendation. JMO, Sharon __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Good Behavior = Good Results; Bad Behavior = Bad Results!