Germanicus
Guardian
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Posts
- 338
- Society
- Mine To Extract
- Avatar Name
- Claudius Germanicus Drusus
All in all this reflects pretty badly on MA.
Firstly they fail to anticipate a pretty likely situation - someone decides to try and sell an asset they have.
Secondly they tacitly endorse a (dubious) share scheme (saying a license holder can, and a non license holder cannot is a pretty clear endorsement of the license holder).
Thirdly they accept that a bank holding other peoples property can be taken over by just about anyone with the PED to spare.
A lot of people have complained MA have a cavalier attitude to their customers - us - and this pretty much proves it.
It doesn't fill you with confidence as to their business ability either.
Sounds like a very original concept is heading down the drain.
Yes, they failed to anticipate that... but they issued appropriate statements almost instantly. I could hope for better anticipation on MA's side, which is yet to come and I'd rather endorse them than shout "look, they're evil" each time something unexpected occurs.
Ma didn't endorse selling shares, they endorsed banking itself and guaranteed operations. It's like saying that by selling LA to someone they endorse someone selling shares in it.
Yes, any items can be taken over by someone with ped to spare if he/she purchases banking license... yet they can't sell it before loan expiry, so I don't see a problem here.
If one wants to see evil conspiracy around one will succeed... I don't need that though.