andrewunknown

All the disagreement with, apprehension about and antagonism of you and any of your efforts, Andy, is as you know symptomatic of an underlying problem: distrust based on your past conduct. At peril of sounding hopelessly repetitive, there are two straightforward incidents here that should and ought to be laid to rest once and for all: XLO, and TFT (in no certain order).

A few simple questions continue to linger some 6+ months later:

1) You sold XLO to Bob Krimm. Fine. Imprudent given your presumed knowledge of the volatility of the industry and the unreliability of even the most "trusted" admins. It was, in all likelihood, a bad course of action to take, as many at that time (myself, Dolphin, others) signaled. With all of that taken into consideration however, the most burning question, to me, has always been not who it was sold to but why it was sold by you. I have yet to see anything approaching an adequate account of this; and no, my standard of "adequate" is not an implausible ideal, but a thorough, rigorous account taking stock of all things tangible and intangible that went in to contemplation and completion of the deal. Can you provide this, Andy? If not, why not? And no: "I will not rehash what is past" is not sufficient, because in the perception of your former members and current market, what are perceived as your disingenuous or evasive responses are present. So, the fallout of XLO's closure moves forward and is an issue here and now.

2) The circumstances are different for TFT, but the request is the same. We know there were losses; we know 3% was all that remained. We know, as you told us, that TFT was administrated as at least a partial ponzi for at least a short duration before its closure. But that is just about all people know - people who did and people who didn't acknowledge the risk involved, but all of whom deserve to know why what occurred did occur. So, a half-year later and with two programs and payment processor (or whatever the preferred term might be) going, why not come out with what has remained in the dark? "Anything and everything related to past events will be totally ignored" doesn't seem like an innocent desire to simply move on - it seems like stonewalling. Perhaps then, you can answer these questions with completeness and clarity....

Andy

I sold XLO because I had an offer. Bob came to me and made an offer.

Under stress from having made huge mistakes with tft.. selling XLO was one less thing to deal with. He said he would take care of members... Souns good to me...

I said all of that at the time - why do you think 6 months would change the reality. I know people are pissed Bob did not do as promised. In very simple terms take it up with him. I take NO responsibility for what he did.

Re TFT what is in the dark? I blew it.. how much plainer can it be? Sorry Andrew - I usually have a lot of time for your posts but.. you are asking what has already been dealt with.. If one uses incoming spends to pay out past due then one runs out of money very bloody quickly.. Was not a month of going over the same thing enough for you?

You say

No. YOU perceive a problem not everyone. XLO's closure is extremely clear. It was sold Obligation to new owner. Simple. I really find it strange that you seem to think that when something is sold the old owner retains responsiblity for it. Please try your attitude in a situation in your day to day life and see how far it gets you with the old owner.. I submit that I am giving you a politer reception than you would get were you to try that.


Now a question for you.. have you looked at the current business model?

If so what questions do you have? If not .. then why is it you think that rehashing the past serves a purpose? I am really curious on that. you chose to post a very lengthy analysis that was - by your own admission - not up to date. Why not update it? Its not like you did not have time..

If you like others choose to not examine the current model and choose not to post your (usually) perceptive comments.. then.. sorry Andrew I have nothing more to say...

Slappy your agenda is known.. and you have not looked at the current model. I see no further need to waste time with you.

Oh also Dolphin thank you for providing a sane perspective.... much appreciated

slappy

Actually "Andy" I have looked at the current model and posed a question about it. Since you seemed to either ignore it or didn't see it, I'll ask again. Can you show that you are earning 50% on a members deposit with your atm?
Other people have also asked a similar question and you have failed to address it. Thanks.

Andy

the only proper answer to that is that I will have to wait and see. Right now things look ok.. more uptake will help...

Have I earnt 50% on member deposits ? To date no. Have I earnt enough to cover payouts.. THUS FAR.. yes..

Have other programs picked it up .. yes.

slappy

As for other programs picking it up, which programs and how many? To produce the 50% return in 75 days, it appears as if many, many people will need to use the atm due to the low fees, which in turn, don't produce a high return unless you get massive amounts of people using it. Also, if any are ponzis, the revenue from those programs certainly can't be counted on for future earnings as they will end at some point eroding the profit of the atm.

Unless I'm missing something(and I very well might be), if you have a member deposit $1000, they will get back $1500 in 75 days. To make that $500, you would need 50 people each moving $800(atm takes a $10 fee) or more through the atm just to break even with what you're returning to the member. Is this correct, or am I missing somthing? If that's right, you need $40,000 moving through the atm to break even on a $1000 deposit. If this is wrong, please lmk and an example may help. thanks

Andy

The aim is to have more "other" people using the system. A competative fee structure coupled with the benefits should encourage use. Perhaps a slow process, but the long term benefit has enourmous potential.

Your figures are correct.

As for who else is using it given that it was you - or someone else here - that said something along the lines of "Tell us who else so that we can call them a scam too" - which was one of the most judgemental things I had ever heard - my answer to that is "Just have a look around"

I am working to get a plug in developed generally. I was of the imprrssion that this would have been done by now.. apparently it will take longer.

I am working with people outside of the immediate arena . . those talks should bear fruit soon.

slappy

Ok, now that you have said my previous example was correct, lets take a look at some "real world" numbers in the context of your surf and atm.

I read somewhere, can't remember where, that you had 400 members so far.
Lets take a relatively small figure for each member such as $50. 400 x $50=
$20,000. So in 75 days, you will be paying those members $30,000. Now, to produce a $10,000 profit with your atm, you would need $800,000 passing through your atm. Now, that is just to break even. As your members deposit more money, obviously more "outside" money must pass through the atm to make the 50% in 75 days. Given the enormous figures above, I don't see how you're even coming close to generating a 50% profit. If I've got something wrong, please correct me. thanks

Andy

I'm pretty sure everyone can do the maths. It was never hidden.

This is why I am working to get the ATM generally accepted.. and accepted in areas outside of this arena

The more other programs that pick this up the better.

The other point to make is that 800k passing through the atm also means ciculating through.. Every move creates a fee

I will also add that many people join surfs and do not become paid members... so your assumption of an obligation right now is incorrect... Over time and growth I am of the belief that things will work out. Otherwise I would not be doing it.
You may have the opinion that it is not possible- that is all it is an opinon.

You do not know what work I am doing to get wider acceptance.

You also *appear* to be treating this as some sort of revelation that your questioning has cleverly obtained. It is not. The above information has been available since day one. You just didn't bother to look at it..

slappy

Yep, you're right on one thing, I didn't look at the atm business from "day one", because I was still looking for answers on your previous failed programs. You see, the past more than often is a very good indicator of what will happen in the present and future. You've made it clear that you don't want to deal with the past and the reasons why are very evident. With that said, I'm looking at the atm business model now as a means to support your new surf and the numbers aren't adding up.

Now, while the number crunching I did certainly isn't any "revelation" as you put it. It's quite clear that right now you can not support a 50% return in 75 days by way of your atm business. So, where is the other money coming from? This would be a revelation, because once again you're trying to lead people into believing that you can turn a 50% profit. A year from now will you be able to; only time will tell, however right now you can't.

That leads everyone back to square one, which is a ponzi. Now I know you like to create misdirection and useless statements that have no substance like your post above which really says a lot about nothing; no specifics, no examples, no numbers to go by, no nothing. That isn't good enough here as I've stated before. Either produce some real proof, examples of real numbers, real names of clients, or stop trying mislead people into believing this is a viable business model.

Andy

The numbers are not adding up? Hmm ok the numbers do not look great but as for not adding up..... you are mistaken.

Lets see egold right now generates $700 per day in micro transactions (fee payments).. Now the ATM is no where near the size of e-gold but could it be? Yep.

Am I taking a gamble? Well yeah. High riske arena. The particpants are taking the risk that the processor will work.

Does this make it a ponzii? In your eyes perhaps. Legally no.

When you go to a supermarket you spend money. Your money goes into the till. The next customer comes along .. and the money you just spent pays their change.

Cash flow....

You could have number crunched from day one - you chose not to. Other people decided to take the risk. You have belittled their opinions.

The model works.. That much is plain.

And whether you like it or not a lot of people see it as a viable option. It is pretty sad that you think your opinion is the only one that people need to listen to. And that much is obvious by your posts on this and other boards.