Topic: BMF/NYAN Proposed Auction Post (See Post #29) - page 2. (Read 2550 times)

A victim has come forward. Which proves I am a scammer. I will do my best to fix his complaint but Imight not be able to. But this is what I say:


I am sorry. I said I was going to add value by marking to model. this is why i didn't mark down BAKEWELL for example. I belived in BAKEWELL, for example. I belived it was worth the IPO price even though bulk buyers who got 10% off sold down at 95% of IPO.

I WAS WRONG. I am very sorry and I will process your claim and make sure you get a little extra for your shares, I have a complete list of holders and I have bought about 50 or 100 btc extra to distribute. I just want shateholders to be happy.


Thank you. Although I am sorry I do not know what you mean. CPA invested 500 bitcoins with Patrick Harnett, 500 with Hashking, and 500 with Imsaguy. No one trusted us so I turned to the community and invested with the biggest deposit takers t the time. I fucked up. It was my fault. I just wasn't good enough to do what was supposed to be done. So I can't tell you what I should have done. I just sholdn't have done it. And as soon as I make reparations to you, and ALL shareholders equally, I will go away. Forever. I am sorry. Please believe me Even if I can't list on BTCT.CO anyways.

There's no harm in it being traded provided a list of assets it holds is published.  Other key is to clear market orders each time a chunk od realised assets is distributed via dividend - that way people can trade based on current asset list, knowing their bids wont get filled right after a payment is made and they're no longer reasonable.  I explained the process to do it in the other thread.  Yeah - having a cut-off date would make sense - i.e. any assets unable to be sold at fair price before date X are then sold by public auction with proceeds distributed as final dividend.

So long as process is clear and current asset list transparent, trading is beneficial to all - those who need cash fast (sellers) those who want short to mid-term profit (buyers), the exchange (trade fees) and those trading betting they can value more accurately than the rest (my fund and others).

I'm sending you a PM now at depived's advice.

I was thinking.  If you really are just trying to wind things down, we could do a very limited time listing or something.  We'd need to see a rock solid plan up front and set a pre-determined termination date on the asset.  I have the ability to lock assets against trading, so the asset would never trade.  You'd just use it as 'tokens' to allow people to:

1) claim their shares with you
2) trade those shares with you for shares in other assets on the exchange

Does that make sense?

Cheers.

Check the other thread - I've explained there how to do the close-down.

You'll get moderator approval over a few days I expect - it always takes time.

Please help me. Your accusations against me, for months, have been unproven, even as dozens of others have received scammer tags. People who deserved it. Not like me. Please, someone help me. I have hundreds of shareholders to work thru. Hundreds of holdings. I can't do it without help.

And i can't even list on one of the refugee excghanges because of what you've said, people think I am a scammer, the "scammer without a scammer tag", and I can't even use one of the refugee exchanges to process claims.


Please someone help me. All I ever wanted to do was the right thing but even now I can't even list to process claims. Someone threatened Ukyo and got me delisted from Bitfunder. I want to kill myself but I can't.


Whatever, as long as the shareholders are happy. I will do anyting just to make the shareholders happy.

I apologize.

It's possible that that may not have been entirely helpful.

...on the other hand Rigel VIII babes are HOT and very helpful.

...or was that Rigel VII babes that are HOT and Rigel VIII that just has a lot of doggies that poop too much and chew up stockings? Whatev.

Look asshole usagi, you managed to start another thread were you are dragging my name to to your fkn drama. Do you really think this will help you restoring your credibility?
Oliver, you are grown man (in your 40'is) but you act like hysterical teenage girl, who got her first pimple. Get a fkn grip!
 
So, now you are freaking out like a damsel in stress:


Not too long ago you where whining like a little girl who just soiled her undies, while you had to work trough shareholders list:  

If you need help, ask! There is a diminishing number of people who still have any respect left for you and they can probably help. Just ask and stop whining!
For frack sake, regardless of all that shit you have thrown at me, even I can help you clear up this BS. All you have to do is apologise for all the baseless lies about me and others, delete your stupid accusations and we can move on.
You petty little fuck, act like a man!

PS! Happy holidays to ya'll,  from the edge of the world!

Quoting for posterity.

It is btw actually not the trolls who win, but everyone. The BTCTalk forums, the bitcoin community as a whole, the bitcoin economy, also little orphan girls who are eagerly awaiting a pair of socks for Christmas, those poor little doggies that will be thrown out in February when people realize they poop everywhere and the Glo'kron people from Rigel VIII. Everyone.

Fine I will do that.

but beyond that I am done.

I give up. The trolls win. I GIVE UP.

Quite - I'd fully support listing just to help expedite closing down (and allow trading whilst the process was ongoing) and made that plain in my first post.  Rest of my posts are trying to explain WHY it should close down anyway - but seems like usagi doesn't actually want to close down (despite having taken some of the assets already in part settlement of his own/CPA's shares).

If you're attempting to project an aura of stability, the expletives and drama are not helping the situation...quite the opposite really in MO. I know very little about what you guys are talking about and I don't particularly feel like wading through pages of he said vs he said. If you just want to utilize BTC-TC to close down a fund, then simply state as such in the contract in very simple terms. I doubt there are many LTC-Global moderators that wish to attempt to block your efforts to return investor funds regardless of how they feel about you personally.

Yeah okay whatever man I give up. completely and totally. please see the post i'm about to make about my final public statement regarding nyan/bmf/etc claims. I just totally and utterly and completely GIVE UP.

I haven't voted on your asset - at present I don't hold 10 LTC-Global shares TO vote (I trade - not invest).  I've had no discussion with anyone is regards to your listing and have no idea who has voted no (though I can think of a few moderators who will almost certainly vote NO on anything of yours whatever is in the contract).  I can guess who voted No, made comments then changed vote when you changed contract - if it's who I guess then comments wouldn't have been anonymous.

Just had a quick look over the new contract - it's definitely had changes made that address many of the issues I had with the old version.  There's still nothing in there about how the fund is valued and liquidity.  As a fund it should offer liquidity (i.e. a bidwall investors can sell into) at some reasonable fee below NAV/U - obviously with a limit on how much can be bought back (e.g. 5% of outstanding units per day or 5% per week or whatever).  That's how funds work - they offer liquid investment with a variable value (shares don't offer the liquidity, bonds shouldn't have the variable value).

There's also the issue of BTC.CO specific rules on not owning shares in other assets run by same issuer etc (though I guess from memory you may be able to use the loophole that your other assets aren't listed on BTC.CO).  And you may want to check BTC.CO's restrictions on long-term investment vehicles (such as BMF) being barred from investing in other assets that also hold investments long-term.

My last but one concern is that in the past you've shown a belief that you can change the contract of things like funds and bonds simply by owning a majority of them - and have used your own cross-ownership between your various assets to make such changes, without offering a 100% face value exit for anyone disagreeing (a fund/bond shouldn't really have a contract change at all without a full buy-back - but an offer to buyback at full value seems reasonable).  I'm concerned that if you continue you'll vote through whatever changes you like and anyone currently invested who wants out won't be able to get out with cash at full value.

And my final concern is that not long back you were taking cash from sales of BMF's hardware as part payment for CPA's shares of BMF.  Rather obviously that cash would need to be returned if you're doing anything other than closing down - your only justification for doing it at all was that everyone else would be paid out too.  If BMF isn't closing then its most valuable asset (BTC) obviously shouldn't be used to buy out yourself whilst everyone else has to wait a month just to find out whether the company's even closing.

I still think a liquidation and pay out all in BTC would be ideal (or in assets IF some investors would prefer them) then restart afresh if you want to.  That guarantees noone is locked in - and also avoids any ponzi-like behaviour where new units are sold to buy out old ones with the underlieing assets being illiquid/non-valuable/over-valued.

On the insurance thing, no - you never explained the fundamental basis of my allegation: that you acted against the interest of BMF's investors due to a conflict of interest caused by you representing both parties in the contract.  At no stage have you explained how it helped BMF investors to pay for insurance which would then be accelerated (causing them a net loss) if they became entitled to claim on it.  If their NAV never fell they'd pay 520 premiums for nothing.  When, as was the case, their NAV tanked they got zero back (in fact lost 20 or BTC from memory).  Which post explains how that contract (and your decision to accelerate) made sense for BMF?  The contract COULD have made sense for BMF without the acceleration - with acceleration it gives less than zero benefit to BMF (a loss of BTC) in all scenarios.  So no - I won't be admitting I'm wrong as I'm not wrong.  You're still not seeing the difference between "The contract allows me to do X" and "Doing X is in the interest of the investors I represent": To do X (when acting on BMF's behalf) you need to both be entitled to do it AND it needs to be in BMF's interest - the latter is where you went wrong in that particular instance.

Please see clause #5. I've provided a liquidation clause for all shareholders. I have sent letters to all NYAN.A shareholders specifically advising them of this, and their ability to claim shares on Bitfunder should they wish to go that route as well.

Although now Ukyo seems to be giving me trouble on that end now. Apparently someone has threatened him and as a result he has delisted me from Bitfunder (see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitfunder-limited-launch-offer-to-orphaned-glbse-assets-shareholders-130754). It appears I'm totally fucked. Thanks Deprived. You and the other trolls utterly destroyed me. You destroyed my soul. It is now at the point I am probably going to walk away from this. I can't take this anymore. I am going to try and offload the work to the investors themselves. I am not going to spend 100 to 200 hours working through this shit. The community isn't going to support me, so I'm done. You fucking destroyed me. This is the power of words. Your words.


On the advice of one voter I completely reworked the contract on BTCT. I then received one upvote. I would like to think I addressed his concerns and he kept his promise of voting yes. I am open to any suggestions. Please don't downvote me because of trolls. it's not fair. I'm open to any suggestions on how we can work through this. Then again I might as well fucking die.


You have had clear rebuttals from me in the form of explanations that we accelerated the contract, as allowed by the contract. That was the entire fuckinf point of publishing it. So people could see what we were doing. You didn't get it and you fucked me up royally. Augustacroppo agreed as did others. and this is all on record as the most recent posts (page 20/21) of the scam accusation thread against me. Can you please go read that, and post a response? Because it looks like you were wrong. If you can apologize or at least say you were wrong it would go a long way towards people realizing that I am just trying to do the right thing here. What you have said is so damaging to me because people here, they think that people are guilty until proven innocent...

Then again by this point who fucking cares anyway.


I had reworked the contract. If those comments were yours and the new contract that I made has been deleted because it received too many downvotes from other people I would be seriously upset. If you had voted yes, and if I had been able to vote with my own 13 shares, or even not but could swing the other guy who thought I was a scammer, maybe this could have been salvaged. I seriously want to kill myself for the shit you caused me. But I feel, deep down, I'm a little stronger than that. Just a little.

If the asset is only going to be used to close down the fund and not continue operations then I'd strongly urge moderators to vote YES.  I don't hold a very opinion of usagi but am 100% in favour of anything which would expedite the return of funds to investors.

If the fund intends to continue (listed on BTC.CO) then there's some pretty basic areas of the contract which would need clarification - e.g. liquidity (it's listed as a fund - so should be committing to maintaining bids for those wanting to sell out), how often reports will be made and dividends paid, how profit is calculated (from IPO price? from last high-water mark? profit only in trading period?  profit based on NAV, market value or just calling all revenue profit?) + various others.  It would also need to come into compliance with BTC.CO's rules on things like not holding other assets managed by same issuer, not investing in other long-term investment-holding companies etc. 

Basically the prospectus needs a lot less "I'm a good manager" and a lot more "This is how things will be done".  But if you're just going to close it down then contract should be replaced with the one actually in force - with a statement that the fund is being closed down, no new units will be issued etc.  I'd hope moderators would then vote yes to unlock it.

I'm not going to go into the various allegations against you other than to say, as my name was specifically raised, that I've put forward clear evidence of one instance (the insurance that wasn't honoured) which people can find the details of elsewhere but will nowhere find a convincing or credible rebuttal from you.

My comments above about the contract needing clarification refer to the version of the contract which was up last night - it now appears to have been deleted.

For the latest news...


Fast Forward to Post #29