Topic: Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors - page 2. (Read 5827 times)
Perhaps the best and fairest way to look at how good his reporting is would be to look at his active, running asset - TU.SILVER. So let's have a look at its NAV/U,
Hmm, I can't. To look at the accounts I'd have to spend $90 buying a share then give it to him. Luckily he has weekly reports, so I don't need to see the accounts - and can just look at the NAV/U there.
Hmm, that's strange. There's no mention in of it in the last few. In fact the last mention of any NAV/U or similar is in the monthly report at the end of May where it says :
"Internal Calculation of 0.04348010"
Guess it hasn't changed much and that's still around what the NAV/U is. And there's another clue as to where the price lies in a later post of his:
His advice to investors, BTW, is just to guess what the price is - put up an order and if he likes it he'll fill it.
So over we trot to the Bitfunder order book to pick up some of the shares - we know there should be some for sale as he just got some new silver in.
Hmm - fuck all volume on the Bid side (he long since gave up the pretence that he was going to provide visible liquidity) and on the Ask side:
21 ฿0.09090
45 ฿0.0910
700 ฿0.10
Nothing under .09. And we know the 700 order is his (check asset lists and noone other that him holds anything near that number) - at a price he himself said was unreasonable not that long ago (and with no news in between to suggest it had suddenly become reasonable).
What's happening here is actually classic usagi. He tries to sell his shares at well above their value - making sure to either give no information or wrong information to investors. If some sucker actually buys at that price, that then increases NAV/U and he can either pay it out as dividends or brag about how his trading is making profit. When all he's really doing is running a near ponzi - where the profit for existing shares come from new sales.
Hmm, I can't. To look at the accounts I'd have to spend $90 buying a share then give it to him. Luckily he has weekly reports, so I don't need to see the accounts - and can just look at the NAV/U there.
Hmm, that's strange. There's no mention in of it in the last few. In fact the last mention of any NAV/U or similar is in the monthly report at the end of May where it says :
"Internal Calculation of 0.04348010"
Guess it hasn't changed much and that's still around what the NAV/U is. And there's another clue as to where the price lies in a later post of his:
An example of an un-reasonable price (imo) is 0.033 and 0.099. The people with those orders up should be unlikely to get them filled!
His advice to investors, BTW, is just to guess what the price is - put up an order and if he likes it he'll fill it.
So over we trot to the Bitfunder order book to pick up some of the shares - we know there should be some for sale as he just got some new silver in.
Hmm - fuck all volume on the Bid side (he long since gave up the pretence that he was going to provide visible liquidity) and on the Ask side:
21 ฿0.09090
45 ฿0.0910
700 ฿0.10
Nothing under .09. And we know the 700 order is his (check asset lists and noone other that him holds anything near that number) - at a price he himself said was unreasonable not that long ago (and with no news in between to suggest it had suddenly become reasonable).
What's happening here is actually classic usagi. He tries to sell his shares at well above their value - making sure to either give no information or wrong information to investors. If some sucker actually buys at that price, that then increases NAV/U and he can either pay it out as dividends or brag about how his trading is making profit. When all he's really doing is running a near ponzi - where the profit for existing shares come from new sales.
1. I am not obliged to buy or sell shares at any price, especially a price 2x NAV. The FACT that the market participants do not want to sell shares under 0.09 should be a big clue to you. There's no point in putting up an order for x amount of shares because NO ONE is selling. They won't even sell into the .06s.
2. Here's another clue, doofus:
2013-06-25 05:21:40 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09090000/ea ฿0.09090000
2013-06-24 19:03:56 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09090000/ea ฿0.09090000
2013-06-23 22:10:04 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 5 ฿0.09000000/ea ฿0.45000000
2013-06-23 08:08:02 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09090000/ea ฿0.09090000
2013-06-23 06:51:00 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07000000/ea ฿0.07000000
2013-06-23 06:50:52 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07100000/ea ฿0.07100000
2013-06-23 06:50:44 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07200000/ea ฿0.07200000
2013-06-23 06:50:37 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07300000/ea ฿0.07300000
2013-06-23 06:50:30 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07400000/ea ฿0.07400000
2013-06-23 06:50:24 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07500000/ea ฿0.07500000
2013-06-23 03:20:55 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000
2013-06-20 12:59:17 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07000000/ea ฿0.07000000
2013-06-20 12:59:00 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07600000/ea ฿0.07600000
2013-06-20 09:07:12 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000
2013-06-19 16:58:39 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000
2013-06-18 08:23:39 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09000000/ea ฿0.09000000
2013-06-18 08:23:38 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.08100000/ea ฿0.08100000
2013-06-17 11:22:09 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09000000/ea ฿0.09000000
2013-06-15 22:20:33 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09099900/ea ฿0.09099900
2013-06-15 04:01:14 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000
2013-06-14 00:52:59 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06100000/ea ฿0.06100000
2013-06-14 00:52:53 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06200000/ea ฿0.06200000
2013-06-14 00:52:45 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06300000/ea ฿0.06300000
2013-06-14 00:52:40 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06400000/ea ฿0.06400000
2013-06-14 00:52:35 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06500000/ea ฿0.06500000
2013-06-14 00:52:23 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06600000/ea ฿0.06600000
2013-06-13 22:02:31 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000
2013-06-13 00:55:50 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000
2013-06-12 05:48:21 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000
2013-06-11 08:02:26 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 2 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.18200000
2013-06-11 00:47:15 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06500000/ea ฿0.06500000
2013-06-11 00:47:00 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07000000/ea ฿0.07000000
2013-06-11 00:46:48 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07500000/ea ฿0.07500000
2013-06-11 00:46:36 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.08000000/ea ฿0.08000000
2013-06-11 00:46:28 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09000000/ea ฿0.09000000
2013-06-11 00:46:13 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09500000/ea ฿0.09500000
2013-06-10 23:19:59 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09900000/ea ฿0.09900000
2013-06-08 03:55:34 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 23 ฿0.05250000/ea ฿1.20750000
2013-06-08 03:37:33 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 17 ฿0.05250000/ea ฿0.89250000
2013-06-06 10:37:48 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 67 ฿0.05399000/ea ฿3.61733000
2013-06-06 10:36:44 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 33 ฿0.05399000/ea ฿1.78167000
2013-06-06 10:36:05 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 8 ฿0.05354000/ea ฿0.42832000
2013-06-06 10:35:26 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.05354000/ea ฿0.05354000
2013-06-01 13:45:24 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 75 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿3.67500000
2013-06-01 10:58:41 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 3 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿0.14700000
2013-06-01 10:58:08 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 4 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿0.19600000
2013-06-01 09:49:59 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿0.04900000
2013-06-01 02:35:59 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 5 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿0.24500000
This is a snippet from my personal trading account. This is me buying back over 30% of issued shares at a price above book value. And there is a reason why I am doing it.
As for the rest of your comments, you clearly have no clue how to run an asset. The fact that I and the company can buy back shares at this price is proof the company is worth that much. Hint: If the company has the cash to buy back all it's outstanding shares at 0.1, it is worth at least that much because it has the cash on hand. If no one else wants to buy or sell shares at that price, it is meaningless. The fact remains; no one wants to sell at anywhere close to NAV, and that is a sign of incredible faith in management. Tu.SILVER will be worth more and more as time goes by because the hefty distribution payment will be reinvested by the company.
Aren't you really just whining because no one wants to sell their shares under 0.09? Because you can't buy cheap shares? Well, sucks to be you doesn't it? Try playing nice and I'll consider a PP for 500+ shares at 10% off. Till then, have fun lying about me and my funds. It's not working anymore.
Oh, one other thing. Can you juke 5,000 LTC-ATF.B1 for me? I've decided your fund sucks and will be investing elsewhere.
The proceeds from the sale of shares went directly to the shareholders, for example. This is published and on the forums for months. It was linked to you several times. You were the one, in fact, who suggested the liquidation auction -- which I ran despite a shareholder vote saying my shareholders did not want me to do this. It severely crippled BMF, but I did it because you said you would promise to help me get listed. A promise you broke almost immediately when you resumed attacking me and claiming there was no list of assets.
Usagi deliberately misunderstanding what was said - as usual.
I referred to the holdings of NYAN - NOT nyan.a/b/c. The auction has nothing to do with NYAN (that's the parent company) - the assets of that had long since vanished (before GLBSE even went down).
A whole paragraph arguing against a claim I didn't even make. YOU may want to conveniently forget that NYAN had assets that were stripped off removing cover from nyan.a/b, but it doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
NYAN only held NYAN.A and some BMF when GLBSE closed. Relaunching BMF is really the first step in paying people back. Remember -- you don't know what you are talking about, the books were closed because people like you are not allowed to know what we're doing.
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong point is it?
I'd already stated I was talking about the assets that vanished BEFORE GLBSE closed down. That's assets that WERE disclosed to the public - back before you decided it wasn't clever to leave the proof of your various trickery public.
Anyway, back to deleting your posts - as it's obvious you'll just keep lieing and changing the subject. You can, of course, respond in your own thread : e.g. with a denial that Nyan used to hold a lot more assets - but that would be rather dumb of you when the post where you said you were getting rid of them may be one of the ones undeleted.
EDIT: and it would be far quicker to pay people back by just selling the assets and making a final dividend payment. That way you don't have to wait until you find suckers to buy the shares via the market.
The proceeds from the sale of shares went directly to the shareholders, for example. This is published and on the forums for months. It was linked to you several times. You were the one, in fact, who suggested the liquidation auction -- which I ran despite a shareholder vote saying my shareholders did not want me to do this. It severely crippled BMF, but I did it because you said you would promise to help me get listed. A promise you broke almost immediately when you resumed attacking me and claiming there was no list of assets.
Usagi deliberately misunderstanding what was said - as usual.
I referred to the holdings of NYAN - NOT nyan.a/b/c. The auction has nothing to do with NYAN (that's the parent company) - the assets of that had long since vanished (before GLBSE even went down).
A whole paragraph arguing against a claim I didn't even make. YOU may want to conveniently forget that NYAN had assets that were stripped off removing cover from nyan.a/b, but it doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
NYAN only held NYAN.A and some BMF when GLBSE closed. Relaunching BMF is really the first step in paying people back. Remember -- you don't know what you are talking about, the books were closed because people like you are not allowed to know what we're doing.
You care because if BMF lists it will compete with your funds and you know that I am a far, far better asset manager than you.
Comedy gold.
BMF - down to 5% or less of initial selling price with maybe 20% (could be a bit more or a lot less) of original selling price ever dividended out.
LTC-ATF - at 500% of original selling price with another 250% dividended out.
How could I (or anyone else) possibly conclude you were a better asset manager?
The reason I don't want you to list is simple - I don't want investors' money sucked into a financial blackhole managed by you. I want it circulating in viable assets that I can trade.
The reason why I waste so much of my time actually posting about it IS more personal - but in no way detracts from the truth of what I post or yout unfitness to manage other people's cash.
I also didn't deny making any commitment, quote me. What I said is I am not contractually obliged to step in and cover NYAN.A personally, which is a truth.
Sure - here's the quote where you deny promising to repay it (not just that you weren't contractually comitted). Specifically you accused ME of lieing when I said you'd promised to personally repay it. Something you now accept is the truth.
NYAN.A: You promised to repay this in full personally.
Another lie. It was insured by CPA. There's a big difference. What I actually said has been posted on the forums since pretty much November.
You pile lies on top of lies - then lie about having lied.
The proceeds from the sale of shares went directly to the shareholders, for example. This is published and on the forums for months. It was linked to you several times. You were the one, in fact, who suggested the liquidation auction -- which I ran despite a shareholder vote saying my shareholders did not want me to do this. It severely crippled BMF, but I did it because you said you would promise to help me get listed. A promise you broke almost immediately when you resumed attacking me and claiming there was no list of assets.
Usagi deliberately misunderstanding what was said - as usual.
I referred to the holdings of NYAN - NOT nyan.a/b/c. The auction has nothing to do with NYAN (that's the parent company) - the assets of that had long since vanished (before GLBSE even went down).
A whole paragraph arguing against a claim I didn't even make. YOU may want to conveniently forget that NYAN had assets that were stripped off removing cover from nyan.a/b, but it doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
Appears he now actually DOES have enough YES votes - which in no way alters the fact that he didn't when he made his post earlier. And of course doesn't make him any more (un)fit to run a company than was the case earlier.
You'll note that he repeatedly accuses me of lying - yet doesn't point out what the lies are. So, for example, with Nyan my claim (ignoring the details) was:
Nyan had significant holdings,
Nyan's holdings were contractually committed to back Nyan.a/b
Usagi sold all those holdings and the proceeds didn't go to Nyan.a/b
Which part of that is supposedly the lie? It can all be established as fact.
In respect of Nyan.a :
He personally promised (early this year) to fully repay Nyan.a its 1 BTC
He ceased making any effort to do so after a few desultory dividends
He then denied having made the commitment at all (a lie he's no longer telling - yet)
He threatened not to keep his word at all if BMF wasn't approved
Any of those a lie?
etc.
You'll note that he repeatedly accuses me of lying - yet doesn't point out what the lies are. So, for example, with Nyan my claim (ignoring the details) was:
Nyan had significant holdings,
Nyan's holdings were contractually committed to back Nyan.a/b
Usagi sold all those holdings and the proceeds didn't go to Nyan.a/b
Which part of that is supposedly the lie? It can all be established as fact.
In respect of Nyan.a :
He personally promised (early this year) to fully repay Nyan.a its 1 BTC
He ceased making any effort to do so after a few desultory dividends
He then denied having made the commitment at all (a lie he's no longer telling - yet)
He threatened not to keep his word at all if BMF wasn't approved
Any of those a lie?
etc.
Yes, the statements of fact you made were lies, except that I did in fact promise to repay NYAN.A holders their 1 BTC. And despite you continuously claiming I've renegged on that, in every single communication I've had with shareholders I have reaffirmed my committments. And I have not just talked, I have done so, returning my own personal shares (over 900 shares) and donating hundreds of BTC and thousands of dollars towards this. Because I have honor, unlike you.
The proceeds from the sale of shares went directly to the shareholders, for example. This is published and on the forums for months. It was linked to you several times. You were the one, in fact, who suggested the liquidation auction -- which I ran despite a shareholder vote saying my shareholders did not want me to do this. It severely crippled BMF, but I did it because you said you would promise to help me get listed. A promise you broke almost immediately when you resumed attacking me and claiming there was no list of assets.
I also didn't deny making any commitment, quote me. What I said is I am not contractually obliged to step in and cover NYAN.A personally, which is a truth.
And no, I do not have to donate hundreds of BTC to BMF -- a separate company from NYAN -- whether it lists or not. I've already given back over 400 BTC to BMF considering the personal shares I donated and the assets I've given it recently. I donated those assets and my shares because I wanted people to know I was serious about doing something beautiful in this community. It's really sick that you would try to stop me from doing that.
You're just an asshole doing everything you can to prevent me from listing because you don't like me personally.
You let your personal emotions get tangled up in your business and you fucked up, you started lying about me, and you lost a lot of credibility because of that. Don't you get it? All of my shareholders (last I checked) want the company up and trading. They are the ones holding the bag, not you, so what do you care?
You care because if BMF lists it will compete with your funds and you know that I am a far, far better asset manager than you. Given the choice between something like DMS and a company which accretes value with a manager who has a history of stepping in and protecting shareholders, you don't stand a chance.
Go ahead and delete the post, Deprived. It's all you have left.
Appears he now actually DOES have enough YES votes - which in no way alters the fact that he didn't when he made his post earlier. And of course doesn't make him any more (un)fit to run a company than was the case earlier.
You'll note that he repeatedly accuses me of lying - yet doesn't point out what the lies are. So, for example, with Nyan my claim (ignoring the details) was:
Nyan had significant holdings,
Nyan's holdings were contractually committed to back Nyan.a/b
Usagi sold all those holdings and the proceeds didn't go to Nyan.a/b
Which part of that is supposedly the lie? It can all be established as fact.
In respect of Nyan.a :
He personally promised (early this year) to fully repay Nyan.a its 1 BTC
He ceased making any effort to do so after a few desultory dividends
He then denied having made the commitment at all (a lie he's no longer telling - yet)
He threatened not to keep his word at all if BMF wasn't approved
Any of those a lie?
etc.
You'll note that he repeatedly accuses me of lying - yet doesn't point out what the lies are. So, for example, with Nyan my claim (ignoring the details) was:
Nyan had significant holdings,
Nyan's holdings were contractually committed to back Nyan.a/b
Usagi sold all those holdings and the proceeds didn't go to Nyan.a/b
Which part of that is supposedly the lie? It can all be established as fact.
In respect of Nyan.a :
He personally promised (early this year) to fully repay Nyan.a its 1 BTC
He ceased making any effort to do so after a few desultory dividends
He then denied having made the commitment at all (a lie he's no longer telling - yet)
He threatened not to keep his word at all if BMF wasn't approved
Any of those a lie?
etc.
I can't work out whether haveagr8day is trolling to genuinely try to support usagi or trolling to try to harm usagi by being seen as representative of the standard of those supporting usagi's continued fumblings.
OK but u voted yourself? isn't that cheating
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
He waited until the majority of other shareholders had voted yes before casting his votes
The issue he is raising is quorum. He's attacking me because of the small number of shares which voted (and I did not vote with any shares under my control) while using as evidence a vote he took where he voted using his own shares.
The issue I'm raising is that you claim to have the support of shareholders when you only actually have the support of 11% of shareholders excluding yourself.
In the vote of mine I quoted I had the support of all but 1 shareholder (who held a single share and wasn't around in the 2 days the vote ran for). Whenever I run votes I only vote late with my own shares - and will vote NO if there's any significant votes against. I also then offer to buy back any shares anyone wants to sell at over NAV/U for a week or two.
My point wasn't that you couldn't pass the motion - you could, by allocating your own shares and voting (and with no NO votes that would certainly be legitimate). My point WAS that it was typical deception by you claiming shareholder support when you only had support from a small minority of shareholders. 11% voted yes, the other 89% couldn't be bothered to even vote at all - THAT's how keen and eager their support is.
Shareholders is not the same thing as shares.
If one person holds 90% of shares and 10 others hold 1% each and then in a vote the 90% votes yes and the other 10 all vote no :
It's TRUE to say a majority of shares voted yes.
It's true to say the motion was passed by 90% to 10%.
It's a LIE to say a majority of shareholders voted yes - under 10% did.
And if you were the 90% it would be a LIE to say you had the support of shareholders - truth would be you bludgeoned the motion through whilst opposed by ALL other shareholders with zero support other than yourself.
The above example is slightly worse than the BMF situation - just trying to illustrate the point.
You tried claiming your investors supported you, but the truth is the only way you can pass a vote is with your own majority of shares which almost certainly means only a minority of shareholders supported it (unless all the shares that didn't vote are held by a few people - which seems unlikely).
OK but u voted yourself? isn't that cheating
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
He waited until the majority of other shareholders had voted yes before casting his votes
The issue he is raising is quorum. He's attacking me because of the small number of shares which voted (and I did not vote with any shares under my control) while using as evidence a vote he took where he voted using his own shares.
OK but u voted yourself? isn't that cheating
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
Not sure who's sockpuppet troll you are - but go back to trolling the lending forums and trying to buy feedback. Further posts of yours will be deleted.
For anyone interested just look at his posting history - he's spamming like mad trying to build up post count.
OK but u voted yourself? isn't that cheating
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
He waited until the majority of other shareholders had voted yes before casting his votes
are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders?
Please disregard this post. Someone got access to my account last night. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Deprived what is your fund?
https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/LTC-ATF
That's where the motion I posted results of came from.
Please disregard this post. Someone got access to my account last night. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I have shareholder support. Shareholder have voted AGAINST closing BMF and have voted FOR listing with the new contract.
The motion's been up for nearly 2 weeks and so far 11.2% of shares have voted Yes on it.
Hardly overwhelming support - main thing it shows is that most just aren't interested in participating in usagi's stupidity, even when they're losing money.
Shareholder support isn't a tiny minority of share voting yes. It's a clear majority. Obviously usagi can get that by allocating shares to his other companies and voting himself. That may well be legitimate in this case - but isn't a basis on which to claim that other shareholders support (or have any interest in) him continuing with the farce.
YES: 169 - NO: 0 - ABSTAIN: 0 - OUTSTANDING: 1513 (169/1513 = 11.2% Approval)
That's usagi's motion status after nearly 2 weeks. That is NOT shareholder support - it's shareholder apathy.
YES: 281 - NO: 0 - ABSTAIN: 0 - OUTSTANDING: 282 (281/282 = 99.6% Approval)
That's what I got in less than 2 days in last motion I ran. THAT is shareholder support (just over half the votes were my own shares - they weren't cast until after a majority of others had voted Yes. Vote would have failed if there'd been any significant number of No votes).
please vote
Please disregard this post. Someone got access to my account last night. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Jump to: