Topic: Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors - page 3. (Read 5827 times)

Usual crap from usagi.


There's a misunderstanding he's made here - he believes I'm accusing him of charging people to see his books.  I'm not.  I think he got that idea from me saying :

"There will be a privileged (to the extent anyone sending BTC to usagi can be considered privileged) class of investors"

And read it as meaning that the "sending BTC" referred to a payment to see the books.  It didn't.  It referred to the fact that any investor in BMF has sent BTC to usagi - and so referring to them as 'privileged' is a bit of a stretch.  They have BTC with someone who has yet to return funds in Nyan.A 9 months after GLBSE closed down.  That's funds that were backed by the assets of Nyan.A,B AND C.  Backed by a guarantee from CPA.  Backed by the assets of Nyan.  And backed by usagi's personal promise to cover them.  And yet 9 months on they've received what - under 20% back.  Hence my reluctance to use the term 'privileged' about anyone whose funds are in the grasp of usagi.

If the intention of requesting access is just to deny access to me (or to me and a few others) then we hit a dilemma:

Either anyone requesting information has to reveal enough information about themselves to usagi for usagi to be confident it isn't someone he doesn't want having access.

OR

Anyone who wants access can just make a new account and get it - making the whole effort pointless.

And here's the other thing.  The clause not to tell other people doesn't just prevent the information reaching whoever usagi considers undesirable.  It also prevents investors from having ANY meaningful discussion in public about the fund's performance or assets - as they can't say much without revealing information that's Top Secret.  Maybe that's the real intent - as a few minutes creating a sock-puppet (or 0.01 BTC to buy an account) would get ME access.  The clause doesn't DO what usagi CLAIMS it's meant to do - it prevents ALL public discussion of his asset in any detail and prevents ANY new investor getting information when usagi is offline.  If usagi isn't around to give permission to access the data then how can a new investor find out anything?

To be clear my point isn't about what information usagi reveals.  It's about ensuring that all market participants get the same information - ideally without having to give biographies, copies of IDs and notarised statements that they aren't me plus an apostilled NDA

Moderators should be aware that there is a significant difference between the contract currently up for BMF and the one usagi is proposing to use in his thread.


Point 5 is a new addition.

What usagi is doing is saying that only SOME investors will have access to information about the fund.

This has two problems:

1.  It directly faciliates insider-trading.  There will be a privileged (to the extent anyone sending BTC to usagi can be considered privileged) class of investors able to see accurate information on the state of the fund - and use it to trade with an advantage on the market.
2,  It creates an asymmetry of information.  If someone selling shares has access to the financical information then anyone without such information who wants to buy is forced into acting based on a much lower level of information/knowledge.  That means that they are forced to compete on the market and enter into trades at an unfair disadvantage.

Both of these things are entirely undesirable.  The SAME infomation should be provided to all current investors AND to all prospective new investors.  If information is only going to be released to investors then the security should NOT be listed for public trading.  Public trading requires public disclosure.  That does NOT mean that full details of every transaction should be provided to everyone.  It DOES mean that whatever is provided to one investor should be provided to all (whether invested or not).  If something needs to be kept private for legitimate reasons then it needs to be withheld from ALL investors.

Usagi has long been a proponent of having multiple tiers of investors - the ones who know what's going on (or at least have been tricked into thinking they do) and the rest.  It's an abhorrent practice and one which should not be approved.  It is entirely incompatible with the notion of a public company.

Some more spin posting by usagi today.  Let's look at a bit of it - and see just how usagi lies and misleads at every opportunity.


Let's start with some basic facts.

Investors bought BMF shares for a certain price.  By the time GLBSE closed, if you added the remaining value (or market price) of those shares to all dividend payments they had received it was a LOT less than they originally paid.  They had made a loss.

Usagi does his best Bill Clinton impression by saying "it all depends on how you define successful".

To claim you were more successful than someone else you HAVE to have been successful to some extent.

If company A loses 80% of invested capital and company B loses 20% of invested capital then you CAN say that:

Company B had less disastrous results than company A.
Company B didn't perform as badly as company A.

But you can NOT say that company A was more successful than company B - as NEITHER was successful at all.  If you weighed the amount of "success" both had then the scales wouldn't budge for either - they both failed.  Just one didn't fail quite as badly as the other.  Of course it COULD be the case that usagi's goal wasn't to make profit for investors (e.g. it COULD have been to prop up CPA) - so by some measure other than profit maybe BMF had some degree of success.  But without defining that other objective the claim is meaningless.

Next note how usagi says "most successful investment fund" but then when trying to justify the claim talks about "outperformed every mining issue".  Usagi claims to be the the best orange (investment fund) then tries to justify it by comparing to apples (mining issues).  You can't compare apples and oranges.

And the claim to have "outperformed every mining issue" is just an outright lie.  The easiest example I can think of - which BMF did not outperform - is Moore.  Which paid out weekly dividends and maintained a value at exactly initial IPO price - including buying back at that exact price.  Investors in that made a profit.  Investors in BMF made a loss.  How did BMF outperform it?  It didn't - it's just usagi lieing as usual (whilst making a comparison that wouldn't even be valid if it were true).

One more note to moderators:

Do be aware that usagi is NOT asking you to approve a contract.

The contract listed in BMF is not the one currently active - NOR is it the one he intends to have.  He has posted asking for advice on what should be in the contract - i.e. he wants approval before he's even ready to determine what the contract is.  So you're being asked to approve something that isn't even defined.

Of course that's not really unreasonable - GLBSE did only just close, so it's not like he's add any great amount of time to sort things out or decide what he wants to do.[/sarcasm]

Let's have a chat about Nyan.  Not so much Nyan.A/B/C, as Nyan itself - the holding company that never gets mentioned as it has no investors and no assets.  It wasn't, however, always that way - and in the process of getting to where it now is usagi royally screwed over Nyan.a investors.

Here's a quote from usagi made in the last few days:


I'm not concerned here with usagi's personal obligation (it was a promise made this year - not a contractual obligation - we'll leave why usagi believes promises aren't as important as contractual obligations to a later post).  It's the last part of that sentence which is incomplete.

In addition to the contractual obligation for CPA to pay out, there is also a contractual obligation for nyan's assets to be used to pay off Nyan.A AND Nyan.B (Nyan.B would only receive funds if there were assets left after Nyan.A was paid out in full).  Now the failure to mention that COULD be considered as innocent (as nyan has no assets) until you look into WHY it has no assets.  And that means going back quite a while and looking at one of the most dishonest acts usagi ever conducted (which got very little attention as not long afterwards GLBSE vanished - and so did usagi's posts - and everyone had larger fish to fry).

But I get ahead of myself - let's start from the beginning.

Nyan was created by CPA giving it cash in return for share in nyan.  Nyan was thus wholly owned by CPA in practice - at some point there was talk of selling shares in it to the public but I don't believe that ever happened.

Nyan.A, Nyan.B and Nyan.C were then created - and parent Nyan bought shares in all three.

A/B/C were meant to be a form of tranched CDO - but they were badly designed from the start.  Specifically two enormous factors were left out:

• A need for defined ratios between the number of each type that would be issued - without these it's impossible for anyone to value them.
• A need for a reset/settlement date - without this the risk is run of the risk/reward ratio for one or more tranches to become schewed beyond repair (as was the case - where Nyan.C hit zero value fast and was left being propped up by the other two whilst offering no reward in return and with no defined means of resetting to restore any sort of sense).

This sort of incompetence is common from usagi - but not the main thrust of this post.

Nyan's job was to maintain some sort of balance between A/B/C (though that was never defined) to provide liquidity and to underwrite to an extent any losses that would otherwise be incurred by A and B - by its own holdings being pledged to A and B in the event of a short-fall (if this happened then it would effectively mean the assets were split between less shares - a sort of reverse dilution effect having the result of increasing returned capital to other investors).

In general Nyan DID fulfil those roles.  Until suddenly it didn't.

Remember that Nyan's capital originally came from CPA - in effect nyan was ring-fencing CPA cash into being committed to cover any loss of value to Nyan.A and B.  Well CPA got very short of cash - to the extent that it couldn't pay off its own debt in a timely manner (some of its debt has only recently been finally settled).  At the same time Nyan.C had hit zero - and Nyan.B was down a lot.  Having lost CPA's cash on one obvious ponzi (Pirate) usagi had proceeded to go double-or-quits on another one with Nyan.B/C's cash (obsi) and of course the result wasn't quits.

We're now at a point not long before GLBSE vanished.  What did usagi do?

Nyan sold its holdings of Nyan.A/B/C in off the market transactions then gave the cash back to CPA in return for cancellation of the shares in it.  In one fell swoop usagi totally removed a protection that Nyan.A and Nyan.B were contractually entitled to - to try to bail out CPA.  That was done without any vote and worse was almost certainly done by selling the shares back to Nyan.A/B/C at inflated prices (usagi had been artificially valuing them high - by pretending obsi hadn't scammed so valuing his shares WAY above market).  So not only did their contractual protection vanish - but they got cleaned out of what liquid cash they had as well.

Removing those assets - that were contractually supposed to protect Nyan.A/B - is little short of outright theft.

That's why Nyan wasn't mentioned when usagi detailed the contractual sources of funds to pay out Nyan.A.  Because that contractual obligation became worthless when usagi deceitfully and in a blatant conflict of interest decided to make it worthless to try to bail out his (then) favourite failed asset CPA.  BMF had already been screwed to try to help CPA (that's the insurance contract where usagi eventually admitted to a conflict of interest - despite having previously claimed my accusation of conflict was false and even cited that claim by me as grounds for me being a scammer).  Nyan were further screwed to help CPA by making interest-free loans to it dressed up as investments - though on a much smaller scale.

Do moderators really think that sort of behaviour is compatible with approving usagi to trade another asset?

That'll have to do for today - got other things to get on with.

Sorry for not providing more information quicker - I'll get around to it when I can, but for now here's an imperative reason why approval should NOT be given (and why, even if it is, I believe it unlikely that BMF would get administrative unlocking anyway).

BTC-TC has the following in its terms:

"Securities created by the same issuer or organization, in cooperation with the same issuer or organization, or in collusion with the issuer or organization are not to invest in each other on BTC-TC. "

At present CPA and at least one of the Nyans own a significant chunk of BMF.  Worse - those holdings are not even represented in the outstanding shares (because usagi uses same account for all of them AND for his personal holdings).

It is almost inconceivable that trading could be allowed in BMF until after these cross investments were cleared because the rules were introduced in direct response to usagi's abuse of these specific investments by some usagi companies into others.  It was these very cross-investments that caused rules to be added banning such activity on BTC-TC.

Let's be totally clear about why usagi wants trading to resume BEFORE unwinding those investments.  Usagi wants to be able to inflate/manipulate the price of BMF on the market (which would happen anyway if anyone mistakenly assumed the shown outstanding shares represented the actual outstanding shares) so as to sell his own companies' holdings in it to innocent victims for far more than they're worth.  How do we know this?  Because he did it before - manipulating share price up so as to justify (off-market) sales of his own shares by his own companies (in the process reducing the real value for all other investors AND destroying a contractual obligation - will give more info on this when I have time as it's an incident that noone else spotted the significance of afaik and which has never been explained before).

Ignoring everything else (i.e. the reasons he shouldn't be allowed to list anything) before BMF can trade the following MUST happen:

1.  All ownership by other usagi companies in it be bought out or otherwise cancelled.
2.  His use of one account to hold the assets of disparate (and, for that matter, desperate) companies AND his personal assets fixed.
3.  Outstanding shares must reflect actual outstanding shares - the situation where shares listed as unsold are actually owned needs to be corrected.

It seems like a history of being intentionally misleading about your identity would be a dealbreaker.  Perhaps that kind of deception could be overlooked by full disclosure now, but without such disclosure I think you're just asking for trouble to allow him to list with you.

He lives in Asia - ROC (otherwise known as Taiwan) to be more precise : so the asian hours wasn't a pretence (though using Tokyo time was as, from memory, Taiwan is in a 1 hour different time-zone).

Think he's given up on pretending to be an asian female now and openly admits to being a male of Canadian origins.  He certainly stopped signing his posts "Serena" a long time back but was happily outright lieing about his gender until well after GLBSE closed.  Obviously his gender is irrelevant - but that he'd lie about it was an immediately give-away that we were dealing with a pathological liar.  When I get up (about to head to bed) I'll see if I can details some totally blatant lies made more recently - when he says something then a few posts later denies saying it even though the post in which he says it is just a few posts up.  Lies about insignificant things are in many ways more concerning than ones about important things - as if someone will lie when there's no reason to do so then it's a very safe bet they'll lie any time it's in their advantage to do so.

No, we don't require this of anyone.  It's pretty obvious though that the ones who do provide it end up with better mod scores.

Has usagi provided you with definitive proof of identity?  I remember when he first started his blitzkrieg of interlocking share offerings that he was pretending to be a Japanese girl, even going so far as to hold off on posting until daylight hours in Asia.

Sounds like he needs some help figuring out how to split the assets across separate accounts.  I'm willing to help with that if he asks for it.  All he'd need to do is say "hey, all this is currently under account A, I need it split out into accounts B, and C, like so: ... "

By splitting stuff out I mean shifting the issues themselves, such that he could clearly delineate asset ownership.

If I had everything under one account I'd lose my marbles... no wonder he has such a hard time with it. 

Well, as you'll see when I get around to posting about his lieing, trying to blame it on the mods is only the latest in his attempts to wriggle out of paying.  He tried outright lieing - denying that he'd made the promise at all - which was unfortunate as he'd never got around to deleting or editing the post in which he made the promise (not sure if it's still up - but as I quoted and located it a mod could undelete it if it ever vanishes).