Topic: Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors (Read 5838 times)

btct.co is gone. What happens to all the lucky NYAN, NYAN.A, NYAN.B, NYAN.C, CPA holders?

Another month has passed and nothing.

Above is a partial quote of a post by usagi - rest was off-topic (uninformed comment about my own securities which aren't just inaccurate but are in the wrong place) so will have to delete whole post.

My previous post was not edited (not by me anyway - and I doubt mods would have) - I'm fine with admins/mods confirming that if you trust your memory.

Not sure why you think Nyan.A investors would want to write off their own debt so others could be paid off.  You promised to pay them back in full (back in about Feb/Mar) so unless you're saying your word is worthless surely they should be anticipating full repayment from you soon?  At the time you talked about a time-scale of months - guess you just weren't specific enough on which months (some may have thought you meant the months just coming - when maybe you meant some months in 2020, 2025 or 2030 or whatever).

Quoted for posterity as I assume usagi will realise just how stupid this is before actually doing it.  One of these days he'll work out that if you just regularly make a profit the market takes care of itself (a profit means your NAV doesn't fall faster than you pay out dividends) - until then we'll have dumb and dumber attempts at fixing the market price and screwing over investors.  Someone else can point out WHY it's a stupid idea.

At least BMF investors have the choice to sell though - unlike the poor Nyan.A ones.  Though I see there was a token payment there - guess the hope is it's enough for investors not to ask what happened with the BitVPS shares which could have been sold by now to pay off a decent chunk of what they're owed.

You need to read his TRUTH post.

The situation with nyan.a would appear to be that because he can't pay back it all he's not bothering to pay back any.  He even says he intends to continue running it despite:

The CPA guarantee not existing any more in any useful form.
Most of Nyan's assets having been sold.
Nyan.b and c being entitled to profit from it - whilst offering no security in return.

Basically he's desperate to avoid paying out - knowing full well that if he does most won't reinvest - so you're shit out of luck on getting your cash back.  Not just the promised full repayment but the cash he already has of yours from dividends/sales.  That's if he still actually has it of course.

Will address this one briefly.  Will get to rest when I have time (from a quick reading on ne arly all of them you're arguing against strawmen rather than against what I actually said).


It has nothing to do with which which investors hold what shares - but with how many shares are sold in total.

If the fund itself sells a share then outstanding shares should rise by 1.
If nyan.a/CPA/whatever sells a share then outstanding shares shouldn't change - as the same number of shares is in circulation.

The whole response is a total attack on a strawman as at no stage did I suggest the identity of the seller (or purchaser) or shares that were already outstanding should be disclosed.  Just that investors (current or potential) should be able to tell when a sale was by the fund itself rather than by a current investor - something every other asset on BTC-TC does.

For those who don't want to wait for my reponse just look carefully at what usagi quotes me as saying - then at what he argues against.  And you'll find in most cases that he's arguing aginst something other than what I actually posted.

And the official thread for NYAN's and CPA is which one? URL please.
Thank you

Please see Lie #12 in the BMF Truth Thread. Does that answer all your lies, or are there any other lies you would like to tell about me?

Good luck finding an official thread for CPA or Nyan.

News is that the usual dodgy shit is still going on.  It's now next to impossible to work out how many hsares of BMF are outstanding - as the ones owned by Nyan and CPA have STILL not been transferred to their correct accounts.  That means the issuing account holds assets of Nyan/CPA as well as those of BMF - a shockingly bad practice that usagi refuses to abandon.

Usagi placed shares up for sale (and sold some) but it's impossible to tell whether they were new shares sold or ones that previously belonged to Nyan/CPA.  Logic says that they should be ones belonging to Nyan/CPA - as they're allegedly closing down, so if the fund i tself sold new ones Nyan would HAVE to undercut it as there's no way they could sell above what BMF was selling for.  But logic - and acting responsibly on behalf of creditors - don't feature heavily in usagi's arsenal.  Without knowing whether the sales are fresh from the fund or existing ones DOES impact potential investors - as, in theory, where sales are above NAV/U new ones are worth more than existing ones (as the extra gos into the fund thus raising the overall NAV/U).

BMF has paid dividends.  One would assume Nyan and CPA received their portion off the records - yet there's no sign of distribution of that to Nyan.  It may be that usagi mistakenly believes that having made some promise (which he shows little intention of keeping in any reasonable time-scale) to personally repay investors somehow frees him from giving them money they're already entitled to - that would be incorrect.  Funds obtained from dividends or from sale of remainign assets (e.g. BitVPS) should still be getting distributed.  There's been no news on BitVPS - yet it's paid a dividend.  Either funds from sale and/or funds from dividends should have been passed to Nyan.A.

It's obvious that usagi has lost interest in paying back nyan.a - and funds which should go there are being used for his other activities.  In fact when BMF relaunched there were also unaccounted for funds belong to BMF - though the bulk of those have now reappeared.

BMF seems to be doing well - investing in core mining businesses such as Just-Dice.  Never let it be said that little things like a contract ever got in the way of usagi doing anything (prior to the new contract being passed other investments were fine - now they aren't as there's no provision in the contract for investing in non-mining assets).  Interestingly there's no provision for any management fee in the new BMF contract - one of the few occasions where usagi correctly valued something.

I'll be making a request for trading to be halted if the outstanding shares issue isn't sorted - it's just not acceptable for something to run where there's no visibility of how many shares are outstanding.

If you're looking for news, check out the official thread. Deprived deletes everything I post here, so there's no point talking about it in this thread.

Any news? All the NYAN's and CPA are still locked. 

Have amended thread title - now BMF is approved there's no point addressing LTC-Global Moderators.

Rather than making a new thread I'll just use this one for occasional glimpses of the farce that is usagi attempting to run businesses.

Let's have a look quickly at how usagi set his current price he's trying to offload TU.SILVER at :


There's two things VERY wrong with this approach:

1.  Cherry-picking.  Why, I wonder, did he happen to pick BTC-BOND to compare with?  Could it possibly be that was the lowest paying fixed-rate security he could find?  TU.SILVER is listed on Bitfunder - BTC-BOND is listed on BTC-TC.  Wouldn't it have been easier to compare with GRAET.LOAN which is conveniently just above TU.SILVER in the securities list on Bitfunder?

Well - it may be easier to get to (same site and all that) - but the problem is it pays rather a higher rate of interest than BTC-BOND (both BTC-BOND and GRAET.LOAN are effectively personal loans).  If usagi had compared to that, then he'd have ended up having to value TU.SILVER way lower.  Other fixed-rate investments include Coinlender and LTC-ATF.B1 - both paying significantly more than BTC-BOND - but GRAET.LOAN is the obviosu one to compare to IF comparing to a fixed-rate instrument is valid in the first place.  WHich leads nicely to the second point.

2.  Apples and Oranges.  Bonds and funds aren't the same thing.  At 0.1 per share, only a small minority of TU.SILVER's price is guaranteed by silver backing, whilst 100% of BTC-BOND and GRAET.LOAN are guaranteed by their issuers.  Usagi COULD make a case that those guarantees aren't necessarily credible in all circumstances - but they're still more guaranteed than no guarantee at all.

So not only is Usagi comparing Apples and Oranges (or maybe Apples and a Lemon) but he's deliberately picking the smallest apple to compare to.

That sort of behaviour will, of course, come as no surprise to those familiar with usagi.  Historically he's always claimed that BMF outperformed ALL mining stocks.  That's a lie (Moore is the easiest example of one it didn't outperform - it paid dividends AND retained full value).  And it's also the wrong comparison - he should be comparing to funds.

He still continues to compare BMF to just about anyhting other than other funds.  At present he's trying to compare it to PMBs, bonds etc - but not a single fund.  Where are the meaningful comparisons - to things like BTCInvest or LTC-ATF?  Or the most obvious one of all - to MININGCO.ETF which is a fund investing (like BMF) in mining securities and listed on the same exchange as it?  The onbvious answer is that at some level usagi knows that his policy of spewing cash away on overpriced PMBs won't make BMF look good if compared to anything where the manager actually does analysis.

And no usagi - just because 'analysis' has 'anal' in it does NOT mean talking out of your arse is analysis.

The bad news for burnside is he's now married to a mentally unstable share issuer.

LOL - stupid or just lying?

You intend to sell - not buy.  Like all market manipulators you don't put the shares you intend to sell up - as that scares people into going lower.  You build the price up with bids, wait for someone to bid above you then sell to them - so it always looks like there's a shortage of supply.

Most 'investors' don't look at anyhting much other than what's on the market - if it looks like something's the range a security trades in they bid or ask in that range.  There's some really horrid examples of this happening on LTC-GLobal - where one investor has got most of the shares in a security and is successfully keeping the price high.

If you're trying to sell (and you MUST be if you want to even pretend you're intending to close the other companies out) then you want the range high.  SO rather trivially you WANT sells people put up to be high - leaving more room below it for bids to rise into.  And, of course, you want people placing Bids to over-estimate the price.

So:

Are you too stupid to know that?
Or were you just lying as usual?
Or were you telling the truth here - but lying about Nyan/CPA intending to close (and hence needing so sell their shares back)?
And why don't you distribute their shares?  Right now there's no way for investors to see how many shares are actually outstanding.  I can't think of any GOOD reasons why that would be desirable - it only helps in various deceptions.

Yeah - it did.  The bad news is investors there get to lose money, the good news is we get continued entertainment.

That offer wasn't edited - feel free to ask a Mod to check (I give my permission for them to confirm it never said 105% - or any amount other than what's still in it).  You're just misremembering/lying - as usual.

The offer clearly said I was looking for 25 BTC-worth max personally, which I obtained long ago after you showed no interest.  If you wanted to sell to me personally at 102% you should have said yes when I offered - not expect me to stop looking for other sources after you said you didn't even want an offer for them and meant LTC-ATF.

Makes no odds to me whether you want BTC or LTC - LTC is more hassle for me but you get less BTC-worth and have to wait a few hours (or longer if burnside isn't around) to get it.

As I said - I need to know which you want, what accounts are sending (so I don't pay for shares someone else sent) and which account you want the funds sent to.  Then soon as I see your message/post and confirm arrival of the shares I'll do my half.

EDIT: To be crystal clear the offer is full face value in BTC or 99% face value converted into LTC (with likely slippage when I sell).  My guess is you never intended to sell anyway - and are just trying to find a way to change your mind.  Though it's strange you'd hold LTC-ATF.B1 - it's not mining and it doesn't make a loss so doesn't really fit your usual investment profile on both counts.

Hmm... you as a TU.SILVER using funds coin or you as a usagi, spending your own personal coin?
 
Fixed the quoting

You have demonstrated you have no idea how a market works. I can not 'tempt overbids' if the market moves against me. You can not declare market price by fiat (you can try, but the market will move against you).

Second issue is that there are no BMF shares for sale, I've only issued bids, which pretty much blows everything you said to shit. For example, if I am attempting to disguise the share count this will work against me because it will lead people not to sell. So what then is my goal here? Your theory is illogical. What you are saying does not make sense.

I think you said it best yourself about your very own asset:





You offered me 105%, I hope you're not planning to back out on that? I can't quite recall if you stated it was a standing offer, but I don't think you said when it would expire. Surely you wouldn't back out of that commitment? Can you clarify what you said? At any rate I'm getting 110%+ for them on the market right now, although I am not sure how long that will last... (EDIT: I found the post, and it has been edited down to 2% over face value. I guess I shouldn't complain...)

In any case LTC or BTC as you wish, I am guessing you like BTC in this instance because of DMS, right.

And one final point - even if TU.SILVER DOES have enough cash to buy back all shares at 0.1 it says NOTHING about the value of the company - liabilities (such as the loans from yourself) need to be deducted from assets when working out a valuation.  The amount of cash, on its own, is meaningless.  A business (or person) can have a pile of cash yet have a value less than zero.  A subtle point that I appreciate you may have problems comprehending.