Topic: Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors (Read 5829 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.
Quote
Usagi, how is yapping about Popescu the Asshole and similar clowns in reddit, helping you to clean up your own list of cluster fuck's like:
NYAN
NYAN.A
NYAN.B
NYAN.C
CPA
From: https://btct.co/security (Locked)
NYAN
NYAN.A
NYAN.B
NYAN.C
CPA
From: https://btct.co/security (Locked)
Quoted for posterity....
You edited your previous post. You had promised your readers you would shortly return to deal with the quoted post. That was one month ago. You have failed to deal with what I have said and now you've gone back and removed the statement you made promising to make a response. Curious.
Here's another one of your screw-ups: In your recent post, you blame me for attempting to discuss a proposal which is intended to increase value for my shareholders. My proposal hasn't even gone to vote yet and you're claiming it's stupid and that it is beneath you to even point out why. The icing on the cake is you mentioning the "poor" NYAN.A investors and their BITVPS shares despite being in full knowledge of the NYAN buyout policy as stated in the NYAN final claims thread, and that taking advantage of such an offer would in essence recapitalize NYAN and allow it to pay it's debt.
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).
I am looking for additional suggestions. We would like to encourage investors to sell their shares back to the company however there seems to be no way to encourage investors to do this. What ideas do you have for an incentive or bonus we can offer to investors choosing to sell shares back to the company? Do you feel a 5% bonus is justified? If not, what other deals or offers could we propose?
Ok, after discussions with a few other investors/asset issuers on IRC I think I have a solution which is fair to all. Proposal:
BMF offers investors a chance to participate in a purchase warrant program. For each share sold back to the company at fair market value, the investor will receive two purchase warrants with a strike price equal to the fair market value of the company at the time of sale. These warrants operate like calls. It would be done manually so investors would have to contact me manually, either in email or here (via PM).
What this does is allow investors a very special, unique opportunity which provides:
i) a financial incentive to sell;
ii) without damaging the financial position of BMF.
What's the incentive? Simple. Should the price of BMF fall, investors will have made the right decision to sell and can walk away with more money than they would have had if they held on. Yet should the price of BMF rise, investors will have the ability to leverage back into BMF using their purchase warrants. In short, the purchase warrants allow the investor the option to reverse their sale at any time, but, should it be to their advantage, buy more shares of the company at that price.
From the standpoint of BMF this is also a good thing. One, there's no harm in buying or selling shares at NAV. If we sell 100 shares at NAV, buy 100 shares at NAV, or whatever, it does not affect the NAV and won't affect existing investors. Secondly, because we issue two purchase warrants per share, we have the prospect of raising capital for the come this is done at NAV, it won't affect the value of the shares, but it will intangibly increase the value of BMF as a whole because the total net cashflow will have been increased. This makes managing the fund easier because we will have more purchase options. A stronger cashflow makes repurchasing shares out of income even more attractive for the company as well.
In short this looks like a win-win proposition. And the best part is, investors can choose whether or not they want to participate. If someone feels it's not to their advantage, they can choose not to sell their shares back to the company and the value of their shares and the income they receive will not be affected.
If there are no objections I am considering posting an official announcement mid next-week. I will run a motion if anyone (shareholder or not) thinks this could be a bad idea for the company. This discussion time and question and answer period is the time to raise your voice if you feel this is a bad idea, it will be too late after I post the announcement.
Do the numbers sound right? I was also considering doing one and one-half purchase warrants per share, but 2 seems like a better number. I might go as high as three depending on any comments I receive.
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.
Any news? All the NYAN's and CPA are still locked. 
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.
And the official thread for NYAN's and CPA is which one? URL please.
Thank you
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.
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.
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?
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).
He's right on one thing though -- I placed shares up for sale, and sold some, and that it is impossible to tell whether they were new shares or sold ones that previously pelonged to Nyan/CPA. Let us all take a moment to thank Deprived, aka Dr. Obvious. Of course you don't know who is putting shares up for sale or who they belong to. Only I know that information because only I have access to the list of investors (and burnside I suppose). You can probably glean from the total number of outstanding shares listed whether or not the company has sold any (and it has, maybe 860 shares, not sure) -- but beyond that this information is confidential or I suppose BTC-TC would e-mail a list of shareholders to every investor. Unfortunately for Deprived this simply isn't an issue. Don't you wish he would just go away and stop making a fool of himself? Request to halt trading on BMF? Don't make me laugh, after the last 12 lies he told about me and BMF, he has less than zero credibility, it's actually gone negative.
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.
Any news? All the NYAN's and CPA are still locked.
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.
And the official thread for NYAN's and CPA is which one? URL please.
Thank you
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.
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?
Any news? All the NYAN's and CPA are still locked.
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.
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.
Any news? All the NYAN's and CPA are still locked.
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.
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 :
[All I can do is create pressure. I can place bids over the ask or try to cool the heat by selling at less than NAV. But that damages the company's finances -- you cannot declare by fiat what other people will pay for your security (see: ART). So to create pressure I decided to pay out close to what we make from trading, which allows investors to set the value of TU.SILVER based on the income it generates. Investors can compare the payment of TU.SILVER to something like BTC-BOND. For example (just for example) if BTC-BOND is worth 0.01 per share and pays approx. 11% a year in interest, then what would TU.SILVER be worth if it paid 10x as much per day as BTC-BOND? And later, if I lower the distribution it will be okay, because investors will recognize that the cash is being used to reinvest into the company. So their value still increases, just via capital gain instead of via distributions.
Well in theory, a payment of 10x per day what BTC-BOND would insinuate that all other things being equal, TU.SILVER would be worth 10x what BTC-BOND is worth. That is why I put up all the shares we had for 0.1. of course I am sure that TU.SILVER is not as "trustworthy" as BTC-BOND, but then again there is real silver backing each share of TU.SILVER, not just an investment position. But the long and short of it is I am simply unwilling to say "TU.SILVER is worth 0.05 per share" because then I get yokels like EskimoBob posting fake spreadsheets telling people I scammed 8,000 BTC. It's not worth the trouble, sorry bro.
Well in theory, a payment of 10x per day what BTC-BOND would insinuate that all other things being equal, TU.SILVER would be worth 10x what BTC-BOND is worth. That is why I put up all the shares we had for 0.1. of course I am sure that TU.SILVER is not as "trustworthy" as BTC-BOND, but then again there is real silver backing each share of TU.SILVER, not just an investment position. But the long and short of it is I am simply unwilling to say "TU.SILVER is worth 0.05 per share" because then I get yokels like EskimoBob posting fake spreadsheets telling people I scammed 8,000 BTC. It's not worth the trouble, sorry bro.
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.
It looks like BMF got it's 5 votes on BTC-TC.
Yeah - it did. The bad news is investors there get to lose money, the good news is we get continued entertainment.
The bad news for burnside is he's now married to a mentally unstable share issuer.
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.
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.
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.
It looks like BMF got it's 5 votes on BTC-TC.
Yeah - it did. The bad news is investors there get to lose money, the good news is we get continued entertainment.
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.
In any case LTC or BTC as you wish, I am guessing you like BTC in this instance because of DMS, right.
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.
...
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.
...
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.
...
Hmm... you as a TU.SILVER using funds coin or you as a usagi, spending your own personal coin?
Fixed the quoting
[...]
Your point 1 is that noone will sell back under .09. Then in your point 2 you produce proof of people doing exactly that - selling back under .09.
[...]
Now BMF's approved I guess the market has to put up with the same crap there - specifically :
Small bids up to over NAV/U from you to try to tempt overbids.
Disguised issued share count - tempting investors who try to calculate NAV/U from holdings to forget all the unseen off-the-books shares held by you/your companies and end up believing it much higher than it is.
Dumps from you when some idiot overbids your own bids.
Buy-backs (likely undisclosed) to drain cash (if you ever get any) to your other companies/yourself.
Lack of regular updates on NAV/U to help investors make mistakes.
Your point 1 is that noone will sell back under .09. Then in your point 2 you produce proof of people doing exactly that - selling back under .09.
[...]
Now BMF's approved I guess the market has to put up with the same crap there - specifically :
Small bids up to over NAV/U from you to try to tempt overbids.
Disguised issued share count - tempting investors who try to calculate NAV/U from holdings to forget all the unseen off-the-books shares held by you/your companies and end up believing it much higher than it is.
Dumps from you when some idiot overbids your own bids.
Buy-backs (likely undisclosed) to drain cash (if you ever get any) to your other companies/yourself.
Lack of regular updates on NAV/U to help investors make mistakes.
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:
LTC-ATF is undoubtedly the better investment if you can buy it at a reasonable price - and therein lies your problem : noone wants to sell LTC-ATF at a reasonable price.
On LTC-ATF.B1 you can sell back the bonds for either BTC or LTC.
If you want BTC then you can have full face value.
If you want LTC then it'll take slightly longer - and you'll get (per the contract) whatever LTC is raised by selling 99% of face value (so 49.5 BTC) into bids on BTC-E. Delay will just be however long it takes for burnside to approve a withdrawal - there'd be 0 delay on the other direction as would immediately pay if from LTC already held on LTC-Global.
If you want BTC then you can have full face value.
If you want LTC then it'll take slightly longer - and you'll get (per the contract) whatever LTC is raised by selling 99% of face value (so 49.5 BTC) into bids on BTC-E. Delay will just be however long it takes for burnside to approve a withdrawal - there'd be 0 delay on the other direction as would immediately pay if from LTC already held on LTC-Global.
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.
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.
As a show of good faith, until the end of the month I am willing to manually buy back shares at this price on a first-come-first-served basis -- which is what the market would be like if we could trade. Hopefully by that time we will list and I can just place the orders on the exchange like a normal person 
A show of good faith would be paying out Nyan.A as promised. Good faith is keeping your existing promises - not making new ones.
Just deleted a response from usagi - didn't bother reading it as about to head to bed. Reason I delete his posts is simple - if he wanted to discuss things in one thread then his original one was the place. You can't start a policy of deleting one half of a discussion just because you believe you're right then expect those on the other side to extend to you the courtesy you denied them.
Post in your own thread usagi.
Post in your own thread usagi.
It's not that there is a particularly large amount of money owed. I've shown that the shareholders on BTC-TC, for BMF, are pretty much all paid out (sans about 40 BTC). It's more along the lines that I was forced to shut down BMF by a bunch of trolls. It's not really something you can argue. I was looked into by people like augusto croppo and BCB. It's over btharper. Deprived lied about me. EskimoBob lied about me. Ian Bakewell and BitcoinOZ lied about me in order to steal from me and my companies.
Responding to this here - so as not to derail the BTC-TC thread.
True there isn't much money owed to BMF investors - but they aren't the only investors owed money (Nyan.A are owed rather more - unless the promise to pay them is being forgotten about again). And that he lost so much that there wasn't a lot to give back isn't exactly something to brag about.
On to the usual misleading comments next. If you read the quote from usagi you'd get the impression that BCB and and augusto croppo investigated him and found him innocent. Nowhere have I seen any records on an investigation by Augusto (he did keep spamming "where's the evidence" in a usag-related thread for a while then pronounced usagi innocent). BCB however DID do an investigation - in a thread specifically made for it. The thread's locked now - but here's the LAST post in it from him that actually comments on usagi's behaviour (there's one more announcing investigation would be paused for a while).
Can't do proper quoting due to it being a locked thread but will provide link.
Usagi is a scammer. Please tag him. Every step of this investigation has show that usagi consistently misrepresented the value of his assets. This fact has been pointed out again and again by numerous other community members. And when individuals make claims against usagi he makes scammer complaints against them.
Usagi has been caught in lie after lie and he as deleted over 1000 posts to cover up this fact.
Finally when a link in a post could possible disprove or support a claim. Every link that leads back to usagi's website is "not found".
Tell me this: why would usagi delete over 1000 posts AND and entire website that documented his contracts and his asset valuation if ANY of this information could prove he is not guilty of the accusations?
Answer: because this deleted information proves that's usagi is dishonest liar and incompetent fund manager running a fraudulent investment scheme.
Please tag usagi now and end this fiasco. This would also send a message this this type of fraudulent activity is not accepted here.
Usagi has been caught in lie after lie and he as deleted over 1000 posts to cover up this fact.
Finally when a link in a post could possible disprove or support a claim. Every link that leads back to usagi's website is "not found".
Tell me this: why would usagi delete over 1000 posts AND and entire website that documented his contracts and his asset valuation if ANY of this information could prove he is not guilty of the accusations?
Answer: because this deleted information proves that's usagi is dishonest liar and incompetent fund manager running a fraudulent investment scheme.
Please tag usagi now and end this fiasco. This would also send a message this this type of fraudulent activity is not accepted here.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1430313
And that's the view of someone usagi was trying to make you believe had cleared him. If that's the view of those he thinks support him then is there any real need to even consider what his opponents think?
This spreadsheet is from the days he inflated the NAV and right before he started to delete the posts and his web site pages.
BTW, I actually want this guy to succeed so I can witness a miracle and get me 138-something back
BTW, I actually want this guy to succeed so I can witness a miracle and get me 138-something back
Well amusingly there's at present a huge fuck up in his spreadsheet where if he sold at anywhere near his supposed BV he'd just be stealing from investors. I expect him to fix it - it's too obvious for even him to miss for long - but will be interesting to see how long it takes.
Incidentally he's made various claims about me in his thread such as :
- I lost credibility over my criticisms of TU.SILVER.
- He pointed out errors in my own accounts.
- I'm just trolling.
Yet despite all those things being supposedly wrong with me :
- My bonds (the ones that he accused of being a scam) are the single biggest investment in his list. And it's not because he can't get rid of them - I've offered to buy them back at full face value (and ANY investor can sell back at 99% of face value any time).
- He's changing TU.SILVER to pretty much EXACTLY what I've been suggesting all along - seperating the silver from the rest.
- He offered to pay me to keep the books for BMF AFTER he'd made the criticisms of my securities and after all my comments about TU.SILVER. (He also offered to pay me to keep the books for TU.SILVER). I declined both offers to keep the books - I'm not interested in doing that for anyone.
So don't fall into the trap of believing that usagi even THINKS I'm incompetent or dishonest (if he does - and still wanted me to keep his books and chose to invest in me - what would that say about him and his judgement?).
Just to be clear on one more point. The inconsistencies etc usagi pointed out in my accounts weren't inconsistent or wrong at all. The problem was primarily his inability to understand how LTC-ATF (denominated in LTC) uses LTC-ATF.B1 (bonds sold with a face value in BTC) to offset BTC denominated liabilities against BTC denominated assets to massively reduce exchange-rate risk. There's been one error in LTC-ATF's accounts that I'm aware of - and that had no impact on valuation, management fees or anything (a number used to show break-down of assets was accidentally overtyped). That error was found, fixed and reported by me WITHOUT anyone else having reported it (or, as far as I know) even noticed it. All his other points were either him not understanding things or asking questions based on numbers he'd plucked from thin air and which appeared nowhere (and which, despite repeated requests, he would never explain the origin of).
On the last point it was as bad as :
Me saying "I have 12 Apples"
Him asking "Why do you have 500 oranges?"
Me saying "I've never mentioned oranges and have 500 of nothing - where do you get the idea that I claim to have 500 oranges?"
Him saying "You still won't explain why you say you have 500 oranges".
Me saying "Just fuck off".
You can read it all the the LTC-ATF.B1 thread (linked by usagi) if you want a laugh. Having explained how this worked he then repeated questions based on the same lack of understanding in the LTC-ATF thread. At that point I gave a more comprehensive answer - and the questions stopped. Presumably by then, even if he still didn't understand it, he'd seen enough to realise that he was wrong.
This spreadsheet is from the days he inflated the NAV and right before he started to delete the posts and his web site pages.
BTW, I actually want this guy to succeed so I can witness a miracle and get me 138-something back
BTW, I actually want this guy to succeed so I can witness a miracle and get me 138-something back
BMF (and all the rest of your "investment funds") dealt only in BTC. So, fiat was/is and will be irrelevant.
I'm sorry you feel that way, would you like BFL to refund you in BTC now, for a September 2012 order? Good luck!
.....
I personally had nothing to do with BFL, so I do not understand your question.
Allegedly you bought the following with BFM coin:
Code:
Product USD Units BTC
BF Single 832 MH/s 599 3 149.12863
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s 149 2 24.73029
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s 1299 1 107.80083
BF Single 832 MH/s 599 3 149.12863
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s 149 2 24.73029
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s 1299 1 107.80083
For some reason, this information makes uagi twitch violently.
Thought it was only 5 pieces of hardware from memory - not 6.
But it had dropped to 3 somehow in January (in his spreadsheet showing what he'd done with BMF's hardware) - and usagi changed his story over what had happened to one that was sold and used to pay off a CPA debt (having claimed it was sold to pay CPA's debts he later tried saying he "thought" it was only the mining from it that was used to pay off CPA).
He's amazingly bad at remembering his own actions and posts. e.g. completely forgetting about his personal liability to Nyan.A (denying he'd made the promise even though he'd not deleted the post in which he made it). Even simple things like why he deleted all his posts prompt a loss of memory. His stock answer when asked is 'I've explained it before'. But if you go back to the one time he DIDN'T claim to have explained it before you'll find a guess. Yep - he guessed why he deleted them. Can't remember exact wording (don't know if it's been deleted yet) but it was something like "I guess I might have deleted them because ..." - it definitely avoided committing him to any single specific explanation.
When someone has such a poor memory over their past actions - even to the extent of forgetting what they posted a few posts previously in the same thread (and being too lazy to read their own posts) - it's a bit risky to be relying on them remembering what they did with the funds you invested with them.
BMF (and all the rest of your "investment funds") dealt only in BTC. So, fiat was/is and will be irrelevant.
I'm sorry you feel that way, would you like BFL to refund you in BTC now, for a September 2012 order? Good luck!
.....
I personally had nothing to do with BFL, so I do not understand your question.
Allegedly you bought the following with BFM coin:
Code:
Product USD Units BTC
BF Single 832 MH/s 599 3 149.12863
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s 149 2 24.73029
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s 1299 1 107.80083
BF Single 832 MH/s 599 3 149.12863
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s 149 2 24.73029
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s 1299 1 107.80083
For some reason, this information makes uagi twitch violently.
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
In one of his very recent posts, he turns a simple requirement for people to request access to our books into a horror story where people have to pay for access and a statement that some investors won't be able to trade using access to the books.
There is no cost. There is no mal-intent -- except from Deprived. I simply wish to exclude deprived from the books, while not having to lower myself by mentioning his name in the contract.
There is no cost. There is no mal-intent -- except from Deprived. I simply wish to exclude deprived from the books, while not having to lower myself by mentioning his name in the contract.
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.
Transparency:
Transparency: The fund seeks maximum transparency by fully disclosing all assets held in the fund at any time:
5. We publish our spreadsheets. You must request access, and you may not publish or distribute the information to any other party.
6. An independent financial advisor will be hired to provide oversight and ensure that things are running smoothly.
7. A support e-mail address will be operated by the manager, to provide disclosure and give investors the tools they need to make their own decisions should anything be required.
8. Monthly reports will be published to the forums (and/or reddit or any other widely read news source).
Transparency: The fund seeks maximum transparency by fully disclosing all assets held in the fund at any time:
5. We publish our spreadsheets. You must request access, and you may not publish or distribute the information to any other party.
6. An independent financial advisor will be hired to provide oversight and ensure that things are running smoothly.
7. A support e-mail address will be operated by the manager, to provide disclosure and give investors the tools they need to make their own decisions should anything be required.
8. Monthly reports will be published to the forums (and/or reddit or any other widely read news source).
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.
You are correct if you consider "successful" as losing a large portion of it's value. This is provable with basic math.
It is also provable with basic math that BMF outperformed every mining issue while listed on the GLBSE. I guess it all depends on how you define successful. Did you have fun investing in PMBs, Factory?
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]
In it's time, BMF was the largest and most successful investment fund in this community.
You are correct if you consider "successful" as losing a large portion of it's value. This is provable with basic math.
It is also provable with basic math that BMF outperformed every mining issue while listed on the GLBSE. I guess it all depends on how you define successful. Did you have fun investing in PMBs, Factory?
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:
Because I don't have a contractual obligation to payout on NYAN.A beyond the value of it's assets and the value of CPA's assets. NYAN.A was insured by CPA.
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:
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.
Here's a quote from usagi made in the last few days:
Why is it 'good faith' to make good on your contractual obligation to payout on NYAN.A? Why would meeting your contractual obligation be conditional on anything at all?
I have no stake in this, just seriously puzzled by your reasoning process.
I have no stake in this, just seriously puzzled by your reasoning process.
Because I don't have a contractual obligation to payout on NYAN.A beyond the value of it's assets and the value of CPA's assets. NYAN.A was insured by CPA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trying to make the mods responsible for NYAN.A not paying out definitely irks me. 
It seems bound to backfire.
It seems bound to backfire.
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).
Posting a response to a post made by burnside in usagi's thread - no point me answering there as one or both of our posts would likely be deleted.
Showing those assets wouldn't help anything much - due to another problem with the way usagi runs things. Usagi doesn't properly segregate assets belonging to different companies.
The same wallet holds assets belong to BMF, Nyan, CPA (if it has any), and probably TU.Silver and also stuff belonging to usagi personally. Usagi has a history of being 'creative' (a polite term) over the ownership of assets and of merrily transferring things between his companies without any transparency or accountability.
You can verify that immediately - just by seeing that BMF and all the others share the same issuing account. Assets should NOT share the same issuing account unless they are all part of the same concern.
It's doubly stupid when you consider that some of the other assets actually own shares in BMF - which are not even issued as shares in the system as cross-company holdings can't be represented in one account when that account issued both securities. That's why the (5 months out of date) spreadsheet listing BMF's holdings has seperate columns for nyan, CPA and usagi personally - as he has to calculate the share of dividends for each OFF the exchange due to being too stupid and/or lazy to do it properly.
Needless to say when I was helping him get listed I explained how he'd need different accounts for each security group (the nyans should all share one) but that was in one ear and out the other. Leaving the current mess where outstanding share counts are inaccurate, dividend payments don't reflect the amount actually distributed, assets are comingled between various assets etc.
Basic incompetence on very simple things like this is another of the many reasons why usagi shouldn't be running securities. Of course it may not be incompetence - it could just be that it's easier for him to move stuff between securities however he sees fit if they're already stored in the same account. For many of usagi's actions it's impossible for an outside observer to determine whether it's ignorance/incompetence or dishonesty/scamming - luckily we don't need to determine which it is to know he shouldn't be running securities.
Also, since you've posted the assets you claim to have in the thread, I suppose there's no harm in proving that you are holding them. You can turn on the public portfolio feature (Account -> Settings, turn it on, then a new URL will appear on the main Account summary tab) and post the URL's. That potentially would address some of the mods concerns? Once verified by a community member or two, you could turn it back off.
Showing those assets wouldn't help anything much - due to another problem with the way usagi runs things. Usagi doesn't properly segregate assets belonging to different companies.
The same wallet holds assets belong to BMF, Nyan, CPA (if it has any), and probably TU.Silver and also stuff belonging to usagi personally. Usagi has a history of being 'creative' (a polite term) over the ownership of assets and of merrily transferring things between his companies without any transparency or accountability.
You can verify that immediately - just by seeing that BMF and all the others share the same issuing account. Assets should NOT share the same issuing account unless they are all part of the same concern.
It's doubly stupid when you consider that some of the other assets actually own shares in BMF - which are not even issued as shares in the system as cross-company holdings can't be represented in one account when that account issued both securities. That's why the (5 months out of date) spreadsheet listing BMF's holdings has seperate columns for nyan, CPA and usagi personally - as he has to calculate the share of dividends for each OFF the exchange due to being too stupid and/or lazy to do it properly.
Needless to say when I was helping him get listed I explained how he'd need different accounts for each security group (the nyans should all share one) but that was in one ear and out the other. Leaving the current mess where outstanding share counts are inaccurate, dividend payments don't reflect the amount actually distributed, assets are comingled between various assets etc.
Basic incompetence on very simple things like this is another of the many reasons why usagi shouldn't be running securities. Of course it may not be incompetence - it could just be that it's easier for him to move stuff between securities however he sees fit if they're already stored in the same account. For many of usagi's actions it's impossible for an outside observer to determine whether it's ignorance/incompetence or dishonesty/scamming - luckily we don't need to determine which it is to know he shouldn't be running securities.
Trying to make the mods responsible for NYAN.A not paying out definitely irks me.
It seems bound to backfire.
It seems bound to backfire.
First off let's look at a post JUST made by usagi - specifically at the first paragraph of it.
This immediately illustrates just how little value usagi places in promises or keeping his word.
He explicitly acknowledges that he has promised to personally repay the 1 BTC/share to Nyan.A investors but states that he will only keep that promise if his securities get listed on BTC-TC. He's blatantly attempting to blackmail or bribe any moderators unfortunate enough to hold Nyan.A by threatening not to keep his word unless they vote Yes.
He's even bold-faced enough to say "I'm really tired of making all these grand promises just to coax a listing" - explicitly acknowledging that he only makes promises to try to get a result (having already clarified that making a promise doesn't mean he'll actually keep it).
Can you trust someone who will so openly threaten to break their word if they don't get their own way to honour a contract?
In the same post he continues (this time about past events) :
This is, at best, misleading.
At present he is completely able to make dividend payments and buy back stock. What he can't do is :
1. Manipulate a market price so as to get investors to sell back at below what they're entitled to.
2. Peddle his crap to unwitting investors who aren't already his victims.
It's pretty apparent he intends to do 1. with Nyan.A (i.e. pay small/non-existent dividends until investors sell into his low buy orders - hence getting out of his promise to repay in full) and 2. with BMF.
Note that his stated intent at the time of listing was :
"Written Jan 2, 2013:
1. I will acquire and liquidate the assets of BMF to the best of my ability and distribute the proceeds as dividend payments to shareholders of record."
(from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2318024 - a usagi thread so, as usual, locked and not able to be directly quoted)
Today he says:
Again - breaking a commitment to investors because he hasn't got his own way on listing. In this case holding back funds due to investors to attempt to blackmail/bribe moderators into approving his securities.
Is it safe to trust someone who behave like that to honour their contracts if they don't get their way on everything? Obviously not.
Will continue tomorrow.
BMF must be decided first because NYAN owned ~1000 BMF. Second point, the remaining funds on NYAN.A. I'm sure you would like me to repay the full 1 BTC now that BTC has gone up 20x since when NYAN started. Yes, I'll stand by it, but on my terms. And my terms are simple: The securities will list on BTC-TC before June 30th or the deal is off. I'm really tired of making all these grand promises just to coax a listing. No one has gone as far as I have to massage the LTC-GLOBAL moderators to approve a listing. This is really it, no more promises. You have your cake, now you have to decide if you want to eat it or not. That's all I want. A final decision.
This immediately illustrates just how little value usagi places in promises or keeping his word.
He explicitly acknowledges that he has promised to personally repay the 1 BTC/share to Nyan.A investors but states that he will only keep that promise if his securities get listed on BTC-TC. He's blatantly attempting to blackmail or bribe any moderators unfortunate enough to hold Nyan.A by threatening not to keep his word unless they vote Yes.
He's even bold-faced enough to say "I'm really tired of making all these grand promises just to coax a listing" - explicitly acknowledging that he only makes promises to try to get a result (having already clarified that making a promise doesn't mean he'll actually keep it).
Can you trust someone who will so openly threaten to break their word if they don't get their own way to honour a contract?
In the same post he continues (this time about past events) :
I mean, I agree -- the GLBSE "loose ends" were supposed to be tied up six months ago by getting listed on BTC-TC and making payments/buying back stock. Just like everyone else.... like YABMC, COGNITIVE, or BTC-BOND, RSM, PAJKA.BOND, BITCOINRS, BAKEWELL... etc. Look around. What exactly was the problem with BMF? A bunch of trolls. Nothing ever came of it. I'm still here. I didn't run with the money.
This is, at best, misleading.
At present he is completely able to make dividend payments and buy back stock. What he can't do is :
1. Manipulate a market price so as to get investors to sell back at below what they're entitled to.
2. Peddle his crap to unwitting investors who aren't already his victims.
It's pretty apparent he intends to do 1. with Nyan.A (i.e. pay small/non-existent dividends until investors sell into his low buy orders - hence getting out of his promise to repay in full) and 2. with BMF.
Note that his stated intent at the time of listing was :
"Written Jan 2, 2013:
1. I will acquire and liquidate the assets of BMF to the best of my ability and distribute the proceeds as dividend payments to shareholders of record."
(from https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2318024 - a usagi thread so, as usual, locked and not able to be directly quoted)
Today he says:
I even attempted a force-buy-back of NYAN.B and NYAN.C a few months ago. There was a massive outrage from shareholders. So I paid burnside out of my own pocket to go back and reconstruct the shareholder lists from the database. As a result of that, it has been announced for 2 months now that until the securities trade I will not pay any further distribution payments. I'll take that to mean "Until BMF trades", because really, it's the most important one from the standpoint of shutting down the others.
Again - breaking a commitment to investors because he hasn't got his own way on listing. In this case holding back funds due to investors to attempt to blackmail/bribe moderators into approving his securities.
Is it safe to trust someone who behave like that to honour their contracts if they don't get their way on everything? Obviously not.
Will continue tomorrow.
On a general note, this post belongs in this section - as it is, at root, an appeal to Moderators (on LTC-Global/BTC.CO) in respect of the listing of assorted securities.
The general thrust of argument will be that usagi isn't fit to manage ANY security. That's a position already accepted as fact by many on this forum - but apparently not realised by at least 4 people.
This topic has an identical title to one by usagi. That is intentional - both topics deal with exactly the same point (whether usagi's securities should be approved) and should be read in conjunction. That two threads are needed is the sad reality of life with self-moderated topics (a horrible thing to have implemented on the securities forum).
Usagi's thread is for those supporting approval of his securities (and for those expressing mild criticisms which he feels he can address). This thread is where the opposing view-point can be freely aired.
The general thrust of argument will be that usagi isn't fit to manage ANY security. That's a position already accepted as fact by many on this forum - but apparently not realised by at least 4 people.
This topic has an identical title to one by usagi. That is intentional - both topics deal with exactly the same point (whether usagi's securities should be approved) and should be read in conjunction. That two threads are needed is the sad reality of life with self-moderated topics (a horrible thing to have implemented on the securities forum).
Usagi's thread is for those supporting approval of his securities (and for those expressing mild criticisms which he feels he can address). This thread is where the opposing view-point can be freely aired.
This is a self-moderated topic. Posts by usagi may be deleted - depending on whether I find them amusing or not. Posts by usagi apologists (where i'm fairly confident it isn't a usagi sock-puppet - and if there still are any) WILL be allowed to remain.
I didn't particularly want to do this - but feel forced to after usagi:
1. Deleted a post from me in his thread with the same title as this one (I was fine with just ignoring that as I've wasted enough time on that failure already)
2. Then responded to that deleted post in the thread for one of my own securities - I've no problem with him occasionally trolling and exposing his ignorance there provided it's actually about my own securities. I will not, however, accept him dragging discussion of his failed endeavours into threads for my own securities.
Recently I've tried to be constructive towards him and offer legitimate advice on the reasons why he's been struggling to get approval for his securities. He doesn't see it that way - but my recent comments have been me being nice to him and trying to help him sort his mess out to some extent. If he doesn't want to take advice or even properly read what is written then fine - I'll stop being nice. Being nice wasn't fun anyway
So here, first of all, is the deleted post. Then in a subsequent posts I'll explain why you should vote NO on all of usagi's current securities and not approve ANY securities he attempts to list. In brief the reasons are:
1. He lies habitually.
2. He routinely makes promises that he fails to deliver on.
3. He changes his mind as a matter of course - either forgetting and/or lieing about what he's previously said.
4. He totally ignores the rights of investors - and I don't just mean in his past (admitted by him) conflict of interest over BMF/CPA.
5. Even when he doesn't outright lie he makes intentionally misleading statements.
I'll explain each of the above points - with examples. It will not all get posted tonight (in fact little will) - but I'd strongly urge holding off on voting YES (if that was your intent) and changing any current YES votes to Abstain until you've read what I have to say. You can then verify the accuracy of what I say - and also watch usagi avoid addressing the detail of them whilst denying the allegations themselves (likely with some attempts to attack me - which I'll just be ignoring). Whilst I'll probably delete some of his responses I'll leave any where he actually attempts to explain any of the specific allegations made - i.e. don't expect to see any of his posts here.
Here's the (pretty innocuous) deleted post of mine:
Are you saying that those assets belong to BMF? Or are those assets that belong to various of your assets (including TU.SILVER)?
You refer to me not providing detail of my precise holdings (for my fund). That is correct. I do, however, weekly provide a precise valuation of all assets held by it - and exact detail is provided for (typically) around 90% of those holdings (that being cash or disclosed holdings in shares to which I run pass-throughs). And that's why providing detail of my investments isn't as important as in an investment fund - the valuation of my fund isn't heavily influenced by my valuation of securities it holds. In an investment fund where little cash is held the valuation of securities held IS the valuation of the fund.
Investors (including potential ones) need either a credible valuation of assets OR a detailed list of assets (so they can work their own out).
A partial list of shares held in an account used for half a dozen securities is of no use in assessing the value of any single asset.
BMF holds cash as well (a refund was received from BMF but has not been distributed - so there's at least that).
My point is simply that I can't work out the NAV/U of BMF - and I doubt very much anyone else can. So you're asking for approval for an asset that has SOME assets but which refuses to provide information necessary to calculate any value for it. If approved that means anyone trading it would be doing so totally blind - with no idea at all what it was actually worth on ANY basis. That's not good - I can see the attraction of it for your shareholders but I don't support the listing of ANY security which refuses to provide a valuation of assets OR a list of assets.
I didn't particularly want to do this - but feel forced to after usagi:
1. Deleted a post from me in his thread with the same title as this one (I was fine with just ignoring that as I've wasted enough time on that failure already)
2. Then responded to that deleted post in the thread for one of my own securities - I've no problem with him occasionally trolling and exposing his ignorance there provided it's actually about my own securities. I will not, however, accept him dragging discussion of his failed endeavours into threads for my own securities.
Recently I've tried to be constructive towards him and offer legitimate advice on the reasons why he's been struggling to get approval for his securities. He doesn't see it that way - but my recent comments have been me being nice to him and trying to help him sort his mess out to some extent. If he doesn't want to take advice or even properly read what is written then fine - I'll stop being nice. Being nice wasn't fun anyway
So here, first of all, is the deleted post. Then in a subsequent posts I'll explain why you should vote NO on all of usagi's current securities and not approve ANY securities he attempts to list. In brief the reasons are:
1. He lies habitually.
2. He routinely makes promises that he fails to deliver on.
3. He changes his mind as a matter of course - either forgetting and/or lieing about what he's previously said.
4. He totally ignores the rights of investors - and I don't just mean in his past (admitted by him) conflict of interest over BMF/CPA.
5. Even when he doesn't outright lie he makes intentionally misleading statements.
I'll explain each of the above points - with examples. It will not all get posted tonight (in fact little will) - but I'd strongly urge holding off on voting YES (if that was your intent) and changing any current YES votes to Abstain until you've read what I have to say. You can then verify the accuracy of what I say - and also watch usagi avoid addressing the detail of them whilst denying the allegations themselves (likely with some attempts to attack me - which I'll just be ignoring). Whilst I'll probably delete some of his responses I'll leave any where he actually attempts to explain any of the specific allegations made - i.e. don't expect to see any of his posts here.
Here's the (pretty innocuous) deleted post of mine:
List of assets taken from BTC-TC account:
576 B.YABMC
1,431 BTC-BOND
50 ESECURITYSABTC
200 PAJKA.BOND
137 ESECURITY-SA
1,100 ESECURITY-SA2
3,192 LTC-ATF.B1
This is a partial list of distribution paying assets that I would use to restart the relevant listings. Absent are holdings such as ART and BITVPS which currently don't pay distributions. I am not going to provide the full list, for the same reason Deprived refuses to list his individual holdings. However, I would also donate 100 BTC to BMF should it be approved.
576 B.YABMC
1,431 BTC-BOND
50 ESECURITYSABTC
200 PAJKA.BOND
137 ESECURITY-SA
1,100 ESECURITY-SA2
3,192 LTC-ATF.B1
This is a partial list of distribution paying assets that I would use to restart the relevant listings. Absent are holdings such as ART and BITVPS which currently don't pay distributions. I am not going to provide the full list, for the same reason Deprived refuses to list his individual holdings. However, I would also donate 100 BTC to BMF should it be approved.
Are you saying that those assets belong to BMF? Or are those assets that belong to various of your assets (including TU.SILVER)?
You refer to me not providing detail of my precise holdings (for my fund). That is correct. I do, however, weekly provide a precise valuation of all assets held by it - and exact detail is provided for (typically) around 90% of those holdings (that being cash or disclosed holdings in shares to which I run pass-throughs). And that's why providing detail of my investments isn't as important as in an investment fund - the valuation of my fund isn't heavily influenced by my valuation of securities it holds. In an investment fund where little cash is held the valuation of securities held IS the valuation of the fund.
Investors (including potential ones) need either a credible valuation of assets OR a detailed list of assets (so they can work their own out).
A partial list of shares held in an account used for half a dozen securities is of no use in assessing the value of any single asset.
BMF holds cash as well (a refund was received from BMF but has not been distributed - so there's at least that).
My point is simply that I can't work out the NAV/U of BMF - and I doubt very much anyone else can. So you're asking for approval for an asset that has SOME assets but which refuses to provide information necessary to calculate any value for it. If approved that means anyone trading it would be doing so totally blind - with no idea at all what it was actually worth on ANY basis. That's not good - I can see the attraction of it for your shareholders but I don't support the listing of ANY security which refuses to provide a valuation of assets OR a list of assets.
Here, also for reference, is the current contract for BMF. Note that BMF is already in existence so should already be following its contract to whatever extent it can. I'll explain how usagi is already showing clear intent not to bother following his contract before he's even received approval to be listed. You'll find that to be a common strand throughout much of what I explain about usagi's behaviour - essentially he says whatever he thinks will serve him best without regard for whether it's true and with no real intention of following through when such statements refer to future intent.
Quote from: usagi
Purpose: BMF allows investors to safely diversify among mining companies.
1. BMF will not invest in any company unless the operator is a known
and trusted community member.
2. BMF will not invest in any company unless it has paid regular
dividends for at least sixty days.
3. BMF will only invest in companies approved by shareholder motion.
4. BMF will not invest more than 2% of it's holdings in a company
unless it has obtained the identity of the person operating the
company, or the operator of the company has provided identity escrow,
or is accountable in some other way for the operations of said
company. We do not list in unaccountable, anonymous entities.
Transparency: The fund seeks maximum transparency by fully disclosing
all assets held in the fund at any time.
1. A spreadsheet will be created listing all assets held.
2. An independent financial advisor will be hired to provide oversight
and ensure that things are running smoothly.
3. A support e-mail address will be operated by the manager, to
provide disclosure and give investors the tools they need to make
their own decisions should anything be required.
Dividends: The fund will pass through dividends received by the fund
using a combined growth and income policy.
1. Upon receiving a dividend, the fund will use approximately half the
money to buy more assets (growth via capital gains) and make payments
to shareholders (income via distributions).
2. Dividends will be paid within a reasonable time frame after
receipt; within 72 hours barring any extenuating circumstances.
Net Asset Value
The Net Asset Value (NAV) is the value of all assets in the fund plus
the cash on hand.
The Net Asset Value per share is the value divided by number of units
outstanding. This is also known as NAV/U.
Management Fees
Management will be compensated with 5% of all dividends paid. No other
payment or fees will ever be taken by management.
Underlying Asset Motions
Underlying assets held by the fund may periodically raise motions to
vote. This fund will vote on motions on underlying assets favoring the
best interest of the fund. Shareholder may request a motion for proxy
voting the fund's shares of an underlying asset.
Risk to shareholders
Although research has been put into each underlying asset, Mining
assets in the past have been unpredictable. The fund's value relies on
the the value of the underlying assets. If the underlying asset value
decreases, the entire fund's value will also decrease. Additional
risks to Mining assets include the price of Bitcoin, the price of
mining equipment, the difficulty mining Bitcoins the Bitcoin reward
per block, mining equipment upgrades, as well as many other risks.
This fund does not hedge against any of these risks. Each shareholder
must understand these risks before investing.
Fund Closure
Management reserves the right to close this fund for any reason giving
30 days notice. All assets in the fund including unpaid dividends will
be liquidated on the respective markets and paid to shareholders.
1. BMF will not invest in any company unless the operator is a known
and trusted community member.
2. BMF will not invest in any company unless it has paid regular
dividends for at least sixty days.
3. BMF will only invest in companies approved by shareholder motion.
4. BMF will not invest more than 2% of it's holdings in a company
unless it has obtained the identity of the person operating the
company, or the operator of the company has provided identity escrow,
or is accountable in some other way for the operations of said
company. We do not list in unaccountable, anonymous entities.
Transparency: The fund seeks maximum transparency by fully disclosing
all assets held in the fund at any time.
1. A spreadsheet will be created listing all assets held.
2. An independent financial advisor will be hired to provide oversight
and ensure that things are running smoothly.
3. A support e-mail address will be operated by the manager, to
provide disclosure and give investors the tools they need to make
their own decisions should anything be required.
Dividends: The fund will pass through dividends received by the fund
using a combined growth and income policy.
1. Upon receiving a dividend, the fund will use approximately half the
money to buy more assets (growth via capital gains) and make payments
to shareholders (income via distributions).
2. Dividends will be paid within a reasonable time frame after
receipt; within 72 hours barring any extenuating circumstances.
Net Asset Value
The Net Asset Value (NAV) is the value of all assets in the fund plus
the cash on hand.
The Net Asset Value per share is the value divided by number of units
outstanding. This is also known as NAV/U.
Management Fees
Management will be compensated with 5% of all dividends paid. No other
payment or fees will ever be taken by management.
Underlying Asset Motions
Underlying assets held by the fund may periodically raise motions to
vote. This fund will vote on motions on underlying assets favoring the
best interest of the fund. Shareholder may request a motion for proxy
voting the fund's shares of an underlying asset.
Risk to shareholders
Although research has been put into each underlying asset, Mining
assets in the past have been unpredictable. The fund's value relies on
the the value of the underlying assets. If the underlying asset value
decreases, the entire fund's value will also decrease. Additional
risks to Mining assets include the price of Bitcoin, the price of
mining equipment, the difficulty mining Bitcoins the Bitcoin reward
per block, mining equipment upgrades, as well as many other risks.
This fund does not hedge against any of these risks. Each shareholder
must understand these risks before investing.
Fund Closure
Management reserves the right to close this fund for any reason giving
30 days notice. All assets in the fund including unpaid dividends will
be liquidated on the respective markets and paid to shareholders.