People still waiting $$ in YMMSS 6 months?

[Elvis]

:eek: :rolleyes: So all those people in YMMSS who are still waiting for pay, what happens to the money they started off with. As to one of my posts, what if a member has 1 x 320 epc purchased in 1st November 2004, over three months ago, according to the 90 day 'cycle' this 1 epc should be worth $2560 and what if a member on the same day 1st nov bought 10 x 320 epc's, these would be worth $25600 if my math is correct. Something had to break at YMMSS and it looks like the people who broke are the ones who came in last, paying the members in front of them and these early 'investors' are buying new cars, houses?, trips abroad, trips to visit the big chief and leader who, most worship and adore! All on the late members money of course. Now these 10 x 320 epc's are now really worthless according to some expert calculations going on in different forums on the net. The only way for a 1 x 320 epc to be worthwhile for members, is to be paid a minimum of $28 per week x 90 days (only example timeline) just to be in front by $15. Seems all too much! CYBER cash. Another thing, if this is a business in advertising globaly and it supposed to be legit, then why is it a person can't advertise the fact on local media (TV Newspaper etc) to boost his/her business, after all this business attracts tax . Refund policy is short and sweet but I heard that you can get a refund but only for the original amount one started with. The new website STA, is nothing new with ponzi trading, its part of the ponzi infrastructure,. Its a wonder there wasn't an attorney fund, but I guess that all comes out of the money pool. The 90 day cycle will be up and running for small investments but only until it reaches 32 ($320) credits, from there it goes into another pool. :head: So all those who are still waiting and waiting like a carrot dangling in front of you, I will be interested in how much your epc's would have been worth if they matured every 90 days from 6 months or so ago. :bow: Elvis. has left the forum

[Mat_Watcher]

The value of all not yet cycled positions, when the new system will start, will be revaluated depending from how many days they were purchased.

All lower positions of $320 :

the time beetween the date of purchase and the date of new system start will be divided by 90 days and all positions advanced through each cycle to the new value.

As a cycle (the last) have been eliminated,all positions that will become $320 will generate the weekly payout without having to wait another cycle.

All $320 positions:

Still depending from the time beetween the date of purchase and the date of new system start ,each position will generate EXTRA TEMPORARY 32 Ads Credits paid weekly , more is the time they waited,more the EXTRA positions will are and more will last.

Many Thanks

[eagles]

The value of all not yet cycled positions, when the new system will start, will be revaluated depending from how many days they were purchased.

All lower positions of $320 :

the time beetween the date of purchase and the date of new system start will be divided by 90 days and all positions advanced through each cycle to the new value.

As a cycle (the last) have been eliminated,all positions that will become $320 will generate the weekly payout without having to wait another cycle.

All $320 positions:

Still depending from the time beetween the date of purchase and the date of new system start ,each position will generate EXTRA TEMPORARY 32 Ads Credits paid weekly , more is the time they waited,more the EXTRA positions will are and more will last.

Many Thanks

So if I have money sitting in Claim via Safelist, when the new system starts will it be calculated according to the date I purchased it, so that when I get paid it is the amount it should have been?

[Arzel]

So if I have money sitting in Claim via Safelist, when the new system starts will it be calculated according to the date I purchased it, so that when I get paid it is the amount it should have been?

The actual ammount is yet to be determined, or at least reveled by YMMSS. Here are some likely scenarios.

1. Old 320's will be multiplied to give them a greater share (initially), an EPC that has waited 9 months should (in theory) be worth 9 times as much as one waiting 1 month.

This will require some interesting math to determine the minimum wait time. If it is based off weeks, you could have some EPC's worth 40 or 50 times that of a new EPC when the new system starts up. Some might think that if the current EPC share is worth $3 (one commonly accepted value) than an old EPC could have a share value of $27 to $120 a week. Of course that just won't work. The average share of a new EPC would have to be lowered significantly for such a high multipler, perhaps as low as $0.25. This would not go over very well with new holders, and that is assuming there is even enough money in the RPA to pay all of those worth $27 to $120.

2. Old 320's would be multiplied to give them a greater share, but the range for multiplication would be scaled way back. In order to keep the new 320 EPC's at a reasonable value (say $1.50) the most an old EPC could be worth would be about $4.50 for a multiplier of 3. This will probably make some old holders quite unhappy.

3. Old holders would be given multiple shares or virtual shares to act as a multiplier. This would dilute the value of an average share, and probably fall somewhere inbetween #1 and #2. The end result wouldn't be any different, but the math to do it would much easier, and would help the RFA give the appearance of increasing value of share as these virtual shares are removed from the system.

Regardless of what method is chosen, the result will most likely make many people unhappy. If you use the most recent CPA which (under the new system) would have resulted in an average share of $2.59, you still have to base the multipled share around this value. If the max value of a share was multiplied to $25 (the ammount which would roughly equal a mature 320 payout in 90 days) there would not be enough money in the RPA to pay all positions (assuming a roughly uniform distribution of 320's). Even a non-uniform distribution would be unable to pay such a high share value.

At a high share value of $10 the low share value would have to be about $0.15. $5 gives a low share value of about $1.04.

I am very much looking forward to implementation of the new system, it will be quite interesting to see what YMMSS does.

[surfer]

:D

The weighting of mature positions is going to be very
interesting indeed.

The only possible way to do it without shafting a bunch
of affiliates is if the extra funds come out of Kim's own
piggy bank. ;)

Even if he did something as simple as basing it on 90
day cycles, it will seriously dilute share value and cost
new affiliates money.

A little example based on how long a 32 has been in
the system:

0-90 days = X 1
91-180 days = X 2
181-270 days = X 3
271-360 days = X 4

Going with the stated 170,000 mature positions,
pretending that they are spaced out evenly, you would
have 42,500 positions at each level.

We'll say that $510,000 is in the RFA.

Without weighting, each position would be worth $3 for
the week.

It can only be done one of two ways.

Either Kim would need to cough up an extra $765,000
for that week and, depending on the length of the
weighting process, be paying out that kind of cash
for X number of weeks.

Or, he divides the money between an inflated amount
of mature positions, 425,000, which would pay each
unit $1.20 This would of course be a 60% decrease
from what each share really should have been worth.

The first option would mean Kim has to take a 7 figure
hit to his personal bank account. :eek:

The second option, of course, doesn't really pay out
anything extra. It just takes money from the newer
affiliates pockets and shuffles it to the older affiliates.

I know which one my bets would be placed on. ;)

Of course, if he takes his normal several months over
initial estimates to launch the system, people who
really consider Kim to be diabolical might think that
he could use that time to skim some money out of
system and then use it to make a claim that he will
do option #1, showing what a good guy he is. :)

[eagles]

The actual ammount is yet to be determined, or at least reveled by YMMSS. Here are some likely scenarios.

1. Old 320's will be multiplied to give them a greater share (initially), an EPC that has waited 9 months should (in theory) be worth 9 times as much as one waiting 1 month.

This will require some interesting math to determine the minimum wait time. If it is based off weeks, you could have some EPC's worth 40 or 50 times that of a new EPC when the new system starts up. Some might think that if the current EPC share is worth $3 (one commonly accepted value) than an old EPC could have a share value of $27 to $120 a week. Of course that just won't work. The average share of a new EPC would have to be lowered significantly for such a high multipler, perhaps as low as $0.25. This would not go over very well with new holders, and that is assuming there is even enough money in the RPA to pay all of those worth $27 to $120.

2. Old 320's would be multiplied to give them a greater share, but the range for multiplication would be scaled way back. In order to keep the new 320 EPC's at a reasonable value (say $1.50) the most an old EPC could be worth would be about $4.50 for a multiplier of 3. This will probably make some old holders quite unhappy.

3. Old holders would be given multiple shares or virtual shares to act as a multiplier. This would dilute the value of an average share, and probably fall somewhere inbetween #1 and #2. The end result wouldn't be any different, but the math to do it would much easier, and would help the RFA give the appearance of increasing value of share as these virtual shares are removed from the system.

Regardless of what method is chosen, the result will most likely make many people unhappy. If you use the most recent CPA which (under the new system) would have resulted in an average share of $2.59, you still have to base the multipled share around this value. If the max value of a share was multiplied to $25 (the ammount which would roughly equal a mature 320 payout in 90 days) there would not be enough money in the RPA to pay all positions (assuming a roughly uniform distribution of 320's). Even a non-uniform distribution would be unable to pay such a high share value.

At a high share value of $10 the low share value would have to be about $0.15. $5 gives a low share value of about $1.04.

I am very much looking forward to implementation of the new system, it will be quite interesting to see what YMMSS does.


Thanks for your help. I'll print this and try to digest it. Trying to decide if it's more beneficial to leave my epcs as recurring income or take the cash and run. Couldn't find an answer at the forum.
Been disappointed with YM performance, so I'm concerned about their promises for the future. Sounds good, but ...

[Salsa]

Thanks for your help. I'll print this and try to digest it. Trying to decide if it's more beneficial to leave my epcs as recurring income or take the cash and run. Couldn't find an answer at the forum.
Been disappointed with YM performance, so I'm concerned about their promises for the future. Sounds good, but ...

Unless you are due to cycle before the the new system is implemented, I don't think you'll have the option to "take the cash and run." Keep in mind, of course, that if YM currently says that you are due to cycle in a week, it will really take three months--if the pattern of the last three months holds; i.e., YMMSS has processed only seven days in the past 90 days.

Also, may I ask how long you have been in YMMSS and if you are in profit yet?

Salsa
________

[Elvis]

:eek: :nono: dzrod in thread 3133 in this forum has indicated he has 18x320's and 1x160 and should have over the 90 days acrued 148x320 positions totalling $47,360. A 5 figure income as promised by the ymmss website all those years ago. Esto made it to a 5 figure income because dzrod and a whole bunch of late affiliates who joined ymmss, PAYED him (esto and others) this so called income. lol dzrod is probably not the only affiliate with this figure waiting to 'cycle'. According to this new 'weghting' system about to be introduced to affiliates, I don't believe dzrods 'weght' will be anywhere near $47,360 he and others are expecting. :shake: Seems to me this 'cycle' mode was deemed illegal by ymmss attorneys, in whichever entity recognises it. This 'survey' was introduced (with Threats of deactivation), and the word cycle is to be phased out. Not to mention the 30 minute a day reading ads, which really serves to monitor affiliates movements and to estimate potential worth in the new system. Now its September and still, ymmss is in limbo with affiliates still tolerating the endless wait, threats and deactivation for not reading 30 min of ads and not completing the survey and ignoring bona fide questions by business operators in their forum. What sort of business threatens business colleagues or partners, what business other than a scam is operating under a dark shadow dealing with honest sincere people, with some gullible and greedy business operators (affiliate members). Its really a shame to see another so called great HYIP going down the tubes. :D This new system being implemented is the same pattern of all cyclers that have disallusioned members falling for a so called great future. Anyone remember e-bizventures :bow: back in the late 90's, its the old saying 'rob peter to pay paul' but on a much bigger and faster scale. We can only sit back and watch the fun. :head:

[drzod]

Remember that I got kicked out so I am no longer in the "matrix."

The last time I was able to log in (Jul 05 I think), my earned commissions were listed as $5,920 as of Dec 7, 2004, with the next commissions scheduled at $11,840 with the current cycle time. However, the cycle time has risen from 100+ days to 300+ days since Dec 7, 2004. As a result, I was never any closer to recognizing this income even if I wanted to.

Since I was given my refund of $370 and kicked out, I wonder how they are counting the additional commissions I supposedly earned ($5,500 or $5,920 - $370)?

I am sure they counted it in the commissions paid, but this is not true.

*Edit*

The $47,360 comes from assuming that the cycle time was 90 days since Dec 7, 2004. With this assumption, I would have cycled 3 times between Dec 7, 2004, and approximately Sep 7, 2005. The truth, of course, is that even if I wasn't kicked out, I would still be unable to claim the $11,840 via website, because I still would not have cycled.