I want to clarify that I, in no way, think that Trevor & Clayton are misleading anyone.
Translations of these laws can be VERY technical....I have a call in to the main person in Kentucky who CAN and WILL clarify this.....I hope to finish my conversation with him on Monday.
Trevor, in his interview with NetZen, states that until they meet certain minimal requirements--cannot BE licensed. He states that if they were to submit intent to BE licensed before they meet these financial minimums--they would be denied. This is true (and is included in the facts from the link provided here).
Where I think the mis-translation occurs (on one end or the other) is this: IF a money transmitter in Kentucky (as laws are different in each state)...has not reached this minimum requirement to SUBMIT for licensing--does that mean they can just continue transmitting until they DO reach the minimums to begin official licensing...or does this mean they have to wait to transmit money until they DO meet those minimums to even begin licensure?
I think it would be a double standard if a money transmitter were allowed to conduct business UNlicensed because they had not met the minimums required TO submit for licensure. This would enable transmitters to just stay under that minimum indefinitely...(if they wanted to & were happy to stay below this standard)....these would, then, NEVER have to submit for licensure--because they wouldn't meet the minimums to be APPROVED for licensure. Does this mean they should be able to carry on transmitting money? I don't think it works that way.
Imagine the "low lifes" who would be able to transmit money with NO consequences at all!
Sorry to tell you: state laws would never allow that possibility to exist.
The changes after October of 2006 stopped many of these 'loopholes'.....
Hopefully, we'll get the official word soon....I'm sure that Trevor and Clayton want to be totally legit as well....they are above board guys and want the best for what they have built--and will continue to build.
......I'm off: things to get done.
Translations of these laws can be VERY technical....I have a call in to the main person in Kentucky who CAN and WILL clarify this.....I hope to finish my conversation with him on Monday.
Trevor, in his interview with NetZen, states that until they meet certain minimal requirements--cannot BE licensed. He states that if they were to submit intent to BE licensed before they meet these financial minimums--they would be denied. This is true (and is included in the facts from the link provided here).
Where I think the mis-translation occurs (on one end or the other) is this: IF a money transmitter in Kentucky (as laws are different in each state)...has not reached this minimum requirement to SUBMIT for licensing--does that mean they can just continue transmitting until they DO reach the minimums to begin official licensing...or does this mean they have to wait to transmit money until they DO meet those minimums to even begin licensure?
I think it would be a double standard if a money transmitter were allowed to conduct business UNlicensed because they had not met the minimums required TO submit for licensure. This would enable transmitters to just stay under that minimum indefinitely...(if they wanted to & were happy to stay below this standard)....these would, then, NEVER have to submit for licensure--because they wouldn't meet the minimums to be APPROVED for licensure. Does this mean they should be able to carry on transmitting money? I don't think it works that way.
Imagine the "low lifes" who would be able to transmit money with NO consequences at all!
Sorry to tell you: state laws would never allow that possibility to exist.
The changes after October of 2006 stopped many of these 'loopholes'.....
Hopefully, we'll get the official word soon....I'm sure that Trevor and Clayton want to be totally legit as well....they are above board guys and want the best for what they have built--and will continue to build.
Desert Sky:
New shock for yesterday; I was hoping it wouldnt occur--but, when I saw the 2% day...I wondered if this would happen. I figured the next day would pick up and things would work out.
Dustin was, no doubt, upset at the disloyalty. I mean we all can join the newer ones as well--we all want to make the most we can. I just wonder why loyalty to some admins CANNOT be integrated as well. Why people are willing to risk losing good admins to make an extra buck for a few days is beyond me. It will only be a few days, too....the drawback to P. Shares is just that: the members dictate its success or failure. Now, many will whine that Dust is a failure--a scammer--etc....what a joke!
If you want to know why it failed: look in your respective mirrors. You all who ran to the share programs who were still at 10% did it. Why couldn't you 'divvy it up' some? Keep a good amount in DSM and still put some in the others? What did you THINK would happen when you pull it ALL out of a good one to put it in a newer one? Or do you just not 'get' the P. Share model?
P. Shares demand, in some form, member loyalty. The problem is: these are getting to be a 'dime a dozen'....and people just run like the wind to the next BIG NEW one who is still at 10-12%. News flash: they will ALL lower sooner than later....these are meant to be 'member based'.....stick with one or two favorite ones....they are NOT meant for hit & runners.
If thats what you want--go play in a standard modeled program and get the hell out of the P. Shares run by good people. When these, run by good people, fail: you have yourself to blame (if you ran to the next biggest one).....so knock off the accusations that some of these 'scammed'.
YOU (who run for 'mo money' every second)...are the 'scammers'...you just cut off your noses to spite your own faces. Do you pull your money out of your 401k fund daily (not that you could--and for good reason) when some other broker offers a higher return that day/week? NO! If you (and everyone else who pools their money) did this: guess what? EVERYONE hurts--
These are meant for stability....cooperation....etc....hit & runners have NO BUSINESS in these.
Dustin was, no doubt, upset at the disloyalty. I mean we all can join the newer ones as well--we all want to make the most we can. I just wonder why loyalty to some admins CANNOT be integrated as well. Why people are willing to risk losing good admins to make an extra buck for a few days is beyond me. It will only be a few days, too....the drawback to P. Shares is just that: the members dictate its success or failure. Now, many will whine that Dust is a failure--a scammer--etc....what a joke!
If you want to know why it failed: look in your respective mirrors. You all who ran to the share programs who were still at 10% did it. Why couldn't you 'divvy it up' some? Keep a good amount in DSM and still put some in the others? What did you THINK would happen when you pull it ALL out of a good one to put it in a newer one? Or do you just not 'get' the P. Share model?
P. Shares demand, in some form, member loyalty. The problem is: these are getting to be a 'dime a dozen'....and people just run like the wind to the next BIG NEW one who is still at 10-12%. News flash: they will ALL lower sooner than later....these are meant to be 'member based'.....stick with one or two favorite ones....they are NOT meant for hit & runners.
If thats what you want--go play in a standard modeled program and get the hell out of the P. Shares run by good people. When these, run by good people, fail: you have yourself to blame (if you ran to the next biggest one).....so knock off the accusations that some of these 'scammed'.
YOU (who run for 'mo money' every second)...are the 'scammers'...you just cut off your noses to spite your own faces. Do you pull your money out of your 401k fund daily (not that you could--and for good reason) when some other broker offers a higher return that day/week? NO! If you (and everyone else who pools their money) did this: guess what? EVERYONE hurts--
These are meant for stability....cooperation....etc....hit & runners have NO BUSINESS in these.
......I'm off: things to get done.
Well said, Mrs Vee !
Although I agree in theory Mrs V. It is not the reality of this industry.
People in this arena have never been loyal. Why are some shocked that that is still the case.
loyalty is hard to come by because no matter how much we trust an admin, there are still a number of things outside his/her control that can not only close up the program but allow a member to lose 100% of their funds overnight.
People feel comfortable leaving their money in a 401K because one usually will not lose all their money overnight.
Oh, I know its not the reality...still a shame.
I'm trying to explain, too, that with P. Shares--that loyal member base is essential...or these models will not work as well as they COULD.
IF people chose VERY high risk stocks as a part of a 401 K portfolio--one could lose a BIG chunk. It's unlikely this would happen---but, it was an analogy.
People need to understand the nature of a profit share VS a standard surf model. It's even MORE of a program killer if hit & runners do this in profit shares.
I do wish loyalty was attainable in this....we know it is not.
Anymore, it doesn't surprise me...just still saddens me when I see good admins, as Dustin, close.
Does it mean he did NOTHING wrong? Of course not...but he did more right than many I've seen so far.
Thanks for the comment!
yeah it's sad to see Dustin quit...
If I could recall we can't blame DSM member entirely.. when the %age drop from 9% to 3% Dustin just disappeared, cashouts that supposed to process within 24 hours many members start screaming for not receiving even up to more than 48 hours. I too a loyal member who never made any withdrawal since DSM2 open, start getting uneasy feeling about this so I made a withdrawal and decided to follow the foolish crowds.
well, if you had never made a withdrawal...you did nothing wrong.
It's the ones who fled when Dust withdrew all that ref commissions...and ran to the ones who did...those that ALWAYS withdrew and never put anything back in to keep that % age stabilized.
I would 'compound' everyday...then on Wed. & Thurs...I would compound AND put in new money...then on Fri or Sat..would cash out.
Dont feel bad if you finally made a withdrawal...you should have. We all need to remember, no matter how good the admin/prog is to get that principal out immediately.
Thanks for the comment...
Dustin didn't just remove the referral commissions. He personally attacked those that had promoted his program.
I think that is the main reason he had such a dramtic problem so fast.
He could have removed the ref commissions without bashing the people he had promised to pay and I think the effect would have been a lot less.
HH
I think Dust meant ONLY those who put in bare minimums and sucked out nothing BUT ref commissions...
Those ARE leaches on any prog...I doubt he meant overall people who may have gotten great ref commissions...but ALSO put in their own money...
I don't know if the issue with DSM and referral commissions was an oversight on Dustin's part or just blind faith in the community that they wouldn't do exactly what they ended up doing.
Regardless, I wonder if minimizing referral commissions would help blunt the impact of the minimum contributors.
....with massive downlines...
Sorry, I hit publish too fast :)
I think a hierarchy of ref commissions needs to be in place in all sites...
The more one is upgraded...the higher %age one gains from refs.
The easier it is to 'milk' ref commissions...the more people will bleed good progs dry...
Ref commissions in ALL programs shouldnt exceed 2-3 % anyway...
The reliability of 'good' admins and some of these better programs should be enough to promote it.
We shouldnt ONLY do it because the ref commissions are 5-10%...
Thanks for the comment(s)...lol...
Good ones...