There is a strong theme here on the recent e-gold list digest of fraud, attempted fraud, and what to do about it. In my view this matter is of singular importance, because as a community, e-gold users have the choice to make of it what we will. If you are dedicated to free market money, then making the reputation of the leading online gold currency both sound and noble is a good goal. Tolerating fraud is a bad idea.
In that regard, Corwind answers an inquiry from Yudhi Alimansyah about a message which purported to come from e-gold's management. The message, like many which have come before it, solicits e-gold account holders to log into their accounts using a form provided in the e-mail. As Corwind notes, such a message is invariably fraudulent.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO LOG INTO YOUR E-GOLD ACCOUNT TO AVOID BEING DEFRAUDED: AT THE E-GOLD SITE, WITH HTTPS IN THE URL, ALL SECURITY ICONS DISPLAYED.
NEVER, EVER LOG INTO YOUR ACCOUNT FROM ANY FORM SENT TO YOU BY E-MAIL.
I very much like going to the location window and typing "use.e-gold.com" to direct my browser to the e-gold.com secure site. This shorthand was designed to make it easy to get there. If you are on a web site that offers to accept payment in e-gold, when your account number and password are solicited, be sure that the page which displays is the e-gold shopping cart interface from the e-gold site. Accept no frames, no substitutes.
I commented on a message from 8 June purporting to explain away my concerns about Privacity.com and their alleged debit cards. I continue to be of the view that Privacity is not a legitimate business, and has withheld the funds of one of my clients under false pretenses.
Be that as it may, I didn't add Privacity to any blacklist on thegoldindex.com site. Had I been in the mood to do so, I might well have gone to the GDCA site to lodge a complaint against Privacity there, perhaps eventually resulting in their earning a 'chlorine' seal.
I think private black lists and other reputation mechanisms are useful. However, I utterly oppose the use of government sponsored black lists. Where the choice is not free, the results are poor.
Jim Ray expresses hope that "the participants can sort this out themselves" while I think it clear that the matter remains best suited to an informed public. It isn't my responsibility to sort anything out with Privacity. It is my obligation, in my view, to pass on information I have about the reputation of a vendor where my report may prevent someone from being scammed.
As to Jim's idea that my client who never received the card he ordered might be a better advocate for himself, I disagree. My clients are generally very busy, and this one is exceptionally so. They lost a bit of money, and have moved on. I have chosen to pursue the matter because I believe that in so doing, I can guide an audience which has a certain amount of respect for my views away from what I consider to be a danger zone. Caveat emptor works a great deal better where there is a light shining in the darkness. Let the buyer be aware, and the buyer may choose to beware.
For the same reason, I've guided a lot of good customers to http://www.caschards.net/rep/50085 because I've had universally good experiences with the cards of CashCards. They work, they are delivered, they are actually funded, and the deal is what it is described to be on the above captioned site.
I can make the exact same comments about the card offered by e-Fidex.com which I've bought and used. As well, I make the same comments about the card from e-Bullion.com, which I've got. I've also seen that customers have uniformly good results with the Visa cards offered by Cambist.net.
In one of those quirks of digest, the very next post was from one Daniel Umoren, offering a bank issued debit card funded by e-gold, and the post right after was Graham Kelly pointing out that this offer appears to be from the same person who has promoted a somewhat different web site pushing debit cards. In Graham's view, it seems that this card offer is a good way to lose your money. Instead, Graham offers a card of his own.
Robert Ziegler reviews some of the other bankers and bank card offers we've seen on this list, to good effect. He seems to agree with Graham about Daniel Umoren's offer.
Then Daniel himself chimes in with the thought that Graham is a dirty competitor. This idea makes no sense to me. Competition is one of the great hallmarks of the free market. Free exchanges are facilitated by the information which competing sellers offer to interested buyers about the products available from themselves and from others. Free exchanges are facilitated by the information which buyers offer to interested sellers and other buyers about their experiences with various sellers and buyers.
In a free market where information is open and unregulated, criticisms can be evaluated based on numerous sources. Where one person says something unfounded or untrue, others are free to chime in with more substantive comments. Testimonials are not only a matter of what is said, but who you choose to believe.
The notion Daniel touts is that Graham should talk about Graham's products, and not about Daniel's products. But, since Daniel's debit card on offer is in competition to Graham's debit card, why should Graham be silent? Moreover, as above, if Graham is motivated to save consumers from being defrauded, what is his best course of action? The best action to take is to announce what you know and what you think, so that customers are free to choose.
Apparently, Daniel has some history with Graham. I have to wonder about Graham wanting to buy 200 cards without agreeing to pay for them, though I don't deny that he is a potent negotiator. I must say, though, that I think it amusing that just as soon as Jim Ray criticizes me for provoking a flame war, a completely fresh and independent flame war bursts out between Daniel and Graham.
Nick of Fidex chimes in that Graham isn't being fair. I'm curious about this idea, since it does seem that Graham is soliciting information about which banks Daniel represents so that Graham can run his "verification" service and contact those parties. Of course, it would be better if Graham simply got someone to order one of Daniel's cards so as to find this information out for himself.
I agree with Nick's thought that guilt has not been proven in the case of Daniel. However, the free exchange of information to support free market exchanges is not about proving guilt or innocence. Courts of law, mediation services, and arbitration services are available for such truth-finding matters. Customers choose for themselves whether to buy debit cards from Cambist, Fidex, e-Bullion, GoldNow, Daniel, Privacity, or CashCards. They do so in view of available information on these competitors, from various sources including the competition, or they do so in spite of that data.
The inimitable and wise Craig Spencer enters the fray to criticize GoldNow's choice of representing OSGold. As Craig doesn't remember the whole list, I offer BrightPay and Standard Reserve as two others.
Craig writes
your judgement is just unbelievably lousy.
However, I'm not sure how well that criticism works. If Graham were to love the cards that Daniel is offering, then one should be very, very careful. After all, Graham has been known to extol the virtues of StormPay, BrightPay, OSGold, Standard Reserve, and other products which either did not work out, or proved to be horrible scams.
However, Graham, with his apparently lousy sense of judgement does *not* like Daniel's offer of cards. Therefore, if even Graham can smell a rat, with his poor senses, should one leap eagerly into the deal offered by Daniel? It does give one pause.
Daniel then complains:
I'm here for real business and not to deceive anyone.
However, if that were true, why not disclose the banks with whom you do business, Daniel?
It is no secret that Fidex works with Loyal Bank, for example. I wonder if Graham would offer the same information that he asks of Daniel?
Graham! What banks do you work with for the cards you represent? Could you offer the contact data for the relevant persons at these banks?
Daniel continues:
I do not poke my nose into your business dealings, and I cordially request you to keep off my business.
But that's completely mistaken. Graham's business is selling debit cards, among other stuff. So, how can he avoid expressing a view that his cards are superior to others on offer?
Robert Ziegler offers some further thoughts on whether Daniel could be a serious vendor without his own domain name. He likens the use of a sub domain to selling debit cards from a shoebox in a supermarket parking lot. An interesting comparison.
Then Robert writes:
But I don't think that threating Graham with revealing whatever it is you would reveal does speak for your integrity.
I do agree that extortion is a bad practice. However, I must have missed where Daniel threatened to reveal something about Graham. I must say that I look forward very much to any such revelation.
Robert does make a convincing case that:
I honestly feel that in the absence of enforced rules it is the e-gold community that polices itself and I furthermore believe that to be a good thing.
By the way, this prompts me to withdraw my complaint against Jim Ray's moderating from my post of 9 June.
It is in everybody's interest to do our best to sort our dishonest operators early on as it does effect the community as a whole.
Moreover, if honest businesses help identify the bad operators, there is more money in the hands of customers to buy our goods and services. Thus, it is in our direct self interest, and not just in the interest of some "community as a whole." I am not a great believer in communities or societies or other collectives. Not everyone has a better side, but everyone certainly has a self-interest.
Graham Kelly follows up on Craig's comments with a classic "methinks the lady doth protest too much" bit of business. He writes:
How was ANYONE to know that there were crooks at OSGold... until they ran off with the funds?!?
Excuse me, but a brief search of the e-gold list archives reveals that all kinds of people found all kinds of bad smells emanating from OSGold long before it failed. Tell me, Graham, please do, what you made of the OSGold claim that OSGold was backed 150% by gold? What sort of bizarre claim is that to go and make? How could anyone believe it?
What would it mean if one bought 50% more gold than there were funds on hand? How could any profitable enterprise even contemplate doing so?
E-gold.com has been frequently and rather soundly criticized for having a few tens of ounces more gold than is circulating on their system. I've been critical of this matter myself, and called for an explanation of it. I've also proposed an explanation, to the effect that this surplus represents the retained earnings of e-gold.com as a company.
OSGold was represented by GoldNow on your site. However, it was never represented by Cambist.net on their site. It was never represented by EZEZ.com on my site. It was never represented by many other highly reputable exchangers. It wasn't represented by Metal Escrow, it wasn't represented by IceGold. So, apparently, it was possible for some people to establish, through due diligence, that there was something wrong. Otherwise, everyone would have offered to exchange for OSGold, and everyone would have been named in the various lawsuits regarding that matter.
ALSO don't forget that GoldNow BOUGHT, sold, and EXCHANGED OSGold as an ecurrency... we didn't just sell it only.
That's an interesting point, certainly. But, I also don't forget that GoldNow stopped exchanging BrightPay, while a large exchange was pending with PayByGold's Marco. I also seem to recall where GoldNow stopped exchanging OSGold, buying no more, when it became clear that OSGold was having difficulty redeeming OSGold for cash.
The point Craig made was that GoldNow wasn't dishonest, but exercised very poor judgement. Your point that your judgement was impaired to the point that you *bought* OSGold is interesting, but seems to reinforce Craig's point.
StormPay? We NEVER dealt with StormPay... becuase, as a result of the OSGold rort, we learned not to do business with people we couldn't verify.
But, that's no answer. So, you didn't deal with StormPay. But, you verified the folks at BrightPay, you encouraged people to use it, you may have helped rope in Marco of PayByGold on the strength of your recommendation, and then you left him twisting in the wind. I remember the controversy well.
What does it mean to "verify" someone in your view? Do they offer to multiply entities unnecessarily by providing you with state-issued identification paper? Have you then verified the states which issue these papers?
Do you send a private investigator around to snoop on their movements? Maybe one of those incredibly subtle folks like the driver of a certain van who was so obviously eager to follow me she actually pulled a U-turn where I could see her? What purpose does such snooping serve? Sure, you can easily criticize the houses people live in and the rates of exchange they offer, but what does it matter? How are your sanctimonious comments relevant to the matter of exchange?
Graham asks of Craig:
What's your business, again?
But Craig's e-mail includes a signature which goes into great detail about the virtual phone cards on offer from Craig. So, how's that whole verification process work, really? You seem quite capable of ignoring information when it is right in front of you.
So, in his message to Daniel, Graham contends:
A refusal to be verified, by a proven successful verification company, can only lead to a negative conclusion, by all and sundry.
To which I say, nonsense. I've never agreed to be verified by you, you twit. What does your verification service offer to me? It gives me no peace of mind to suppose that you are snooping into my affairs, undermining my relationships with vendors or clients. Why should anyone agree to be verified by the likes of you?
Offshore Team also came up with the fine idea of Graham testing out Daniel's card by buying one. What a droll notion.
Leaving no card unplayed, Privacity then chimes in with the sympathy card. "We're not in the in group, so you guys are picking on us," seems to be the thrust of their claim. However, my client, DBS, isn't in the group, nor are they even on this list. It is they accusing Privacity of failure to provide a card which was bought and paid for, not me. I'm merely the messenger, reporting those sad facts to this list.
Many people on this list play judge and jury, and also executioner. That's the nature of a free market. Each customer has to judge for himself where he'll place his orders. He has to evaluate the available data, including testimonials, just as a jury would do.
It all boils down to who one chooses to believe. If a customer believes DBS was screwed over by Privacity, that customer would do well, in my view, to buy a card from Cambist or Fidex or CashCards, and would not do poorly to buy a card from GoldNow. They might even take a chance with old Daniel and his subdomain site. But they would be insane to trust Privacity, I think.
And, after all, what I think is what my writing is all about.
Offshore Team adds vulgarity to an already flaming exchange (and who is Offshore Team, anyway? Names are a polite form of address, and identify the key player - the individual). The "Team" writes:
hmm, close to 4000 people. Sh!t, if I could supply that many clients I would run my own Card program :).
Which is an interesting point. However, CashCards offers an incentive program based on referrals, as does e-gold.com. There doesn't seem to be any taint of Ponzi scheme implied in their incentive offers.
I do think that most network marketing may be based on the notion that many people don't count very well. The series one gets by multiplying 5 times each term, from one to five, cannot be extended very far before it encompasses a population larger than have funded accounts with e-gold: 5, 25, 125, 625, 3125, 15625, 78125, 390625, 1953125 In fact, it won't go another four terms before it exceeds that population of funded e-gold accounts. So, what of all those fourth level people who try to populate their own forth levels? They would seem to be screwed.
A further four terms gets one to the billion customer mark, and two more after that get you to a number well in excess of the population of the Earth. I suppose that's why the downlines on these schemes are always truncated at four or five or ten levels. It wouldn't do to carry the series further, even though that is exactly what the latecomers to such schemes are expected to do.
Then, into the fray comes one:
From: "Adam Selene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm curious whether this might be the same Adam Selene pseudonym of Laissez Faire City fame, in which case I offer greetings. (Adam Selene is the name adopted by the sentient computer MYCROFT Holmes in the book _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_ by Robert A. Heinlein. I leave the translation of the Hebrew and Greek portions of the name as an exercise for the reader.)
"According to data from the Russian Federation Central Bank, Russian citizens have up to 25 billion dollars, and one-third of them are probably forged. US dollars make 97.5 percent of all counterfeit currencies in the world." http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/89/358/10214_fake.html
I'm reminded, though, of the old Russian saying to the effect that there is no "izvestia" in "Pravda" and no "pravda" in "Izvestia." No news in "The Truth" and no truth in "The News."
Craig Spencer offers a few hints about how one could tell that OSGold was a fraud, such as the due diligence done by e-gold.com removing certain exchange providers from their approved list. Then Graham makes the comment:
Well, being that you're so WISE, and I'm oh, so BLIND, why didn't you warn me?
But, as Craig pointed out, it is all in the archives. A great many individuals warned that OSGold was a fraud, discouraged people from using it, and were critical of the appearance of OSGold logos on certain exchange sites even after those exchanges stopped agreeing to *buy* OSGold.
Graham then claims that he:
forfeited well over $50k when Reed scarpered with the loot. That's the price I pay for being... unwise? Please note: this was my own money, not customers $$$.
It makes me wonder, though, what volume of OSGold was exchanged by GoldNow and at what rate of exchange?| It seems to me that there is a case to be made for this money coming to Graham in part as fees for exchanges he made with people buying OSGold and (for a while) selling it. Are the fruit of the poisoned tree also poison?
Graham puts up a good front claiming:
actually turned into a cheap lesson.
Which is impressive, I must say, that losing $50K is regarded by him as inexpensive. I'm very glad not to be investing in any of his deals right now. I've heard tell of shareholders complaining over far smaller losses.
Having said that, I still maintain there is room for genuinely honest *non* gold backed ecurrencies... although the revered PayPal model is starting to spring a few leaks.
I feel obligated to take Graham to task here. First, OSGold did not claim to be non-gold backed. They claimed to be 150% backed by gold, which is an absurd claim, and your first hint that they were not what they purported to be. Second, they have been proven to have been false rather than genuine and dishonest rather than honest.
I believe the same can be said for PayPal, the abuses of which are legendary. PayPal has screwed over so many merchants it isn't the least bit funny. They aren't *starting* to spring leaks, they are bleeding like a ritually slaughtered cow.
Graham emphasizes his point that he's blind by again asking:
Craig, what is your business?
Craig sells virtual phone cards. His every post makes this clear.
my customers would agree we are doing not too bad a job.
That's certainly a point worth making. But, is it the case that the customers make an informed agreement in this regard?
For my own part, I won't ever agree to do an exchange with Graham again. I had a bad experience with him which was never made right, and I'm not a willing customer of his. So, it isn't all roses with Graham's customer base.
Regards,
Jim http://www.ezez.com/
--- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
