Topic: Critique of the various businesses run by usagi - page 2. (Read 5406 times)

Started a new scammer thread about not disclosing the conflict of interest. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/usagi-not-disclosing-conflict-of-interest-115411

usagi trying to shove it back under the carpet with a motion.  Of course usagi controls most of the shares and is unlikely to abstain due to its conflict of interest.  As usagi doesn't appear to even understand what a conflict of interest is, here's a simple explanation:

CPA owes BMF 500 BTC (make it 100 BTC for the purpsoe of discussion if anyone wants - but it's actually 500).

It's in CPA's interest (obviously) not to actually pay this.
It's in BMF's interest to get as much as it can (up to what it's due).

usagi speaks for both CPA and BMF - so has to bear in mind the interests of both CPA and BMF.  But there's a conflict between those interests - as they want opposing things.  That's why it's called a conflict of interest - as (in theory at least) usagi has reponsibilities to both and what benefits one is detrimental to the other.

The usual step in this situation is for the conflicted individual to step aside and let others resolve the issue - but that's not so easy here as there's no other management for either BMF or CPA.

There's no need for a motion at this stage - whatever usagi says.  If you take out an insurance policy and the situation arises where you can claim on it and there's no down-side to YOU in claiming then you claim.  It really IS that simple here.  The first stage is for BMF to claim on the policy.  That should be for the full 500 for two reasons:

1.  There's no specified period between successive claims.  So if BMF claims 100 it can then immediately claim the next 100.
2.  Even if you assume some reasonable period (like a week) between claims, all 5 claims should have been made by now.  The only reason they haven't is usagi's prevarication, lieing and deceit in an attempt to make life easy for CPA at the expense of BMF.

Where it becomes more messy is when the response to the claim is (as it would pretty much have to be) "Well we haven't actually got 500 BTC liquid.  Let's negotiate."

And the problem there is that there's absolutely no way usagi can be trusted to negotiate robustly and in the interests of BMF.  Because it has a conflict of interest, no moral fibre and has already shown a propensity to lie and deceive to protect CPA even when doing so hurts BMF's investors.

The silly thing is that there's actually a few ways it could be resolved without too much pain to CPA (if we forget about the losses caused to earlier investors who should have received more for selling their shares).  But the fair settlement for this will likely not be reached - as usagi won't properly look at each position on its own merit, assess what their bargaining chips are, what their objectives SHOULD be from negotiation and then negotiate.  You really CAN'T negotiate for both sides in a situation like that without letting down on side or the other: there's no way to bluff yourself, no way to hide your objectives from yourself and no way to get around any preconceived ideas you may have of how to resolve the situation.

If CPA acknowledge the debt and their inability to pay it in BTC right now it actually becomes EASIER to settle the issue - not harder.  As those involved can now focus on finding a solution, agreeing what the situation actually IS.  Instead we'll now have usagi trying to weasel-word its way out of it, trying to force through crappy inequitable solutions via motions and the like - ending in a total mess for all involved.

I think the conflict of interest (and lack of disclosing it) should merit a scammer tag for Usagi.

LOL.  Now all of a sudden usagi's backtracking in its other threads and talking about actually claiming on the insurance.

Let's have a quote and comment on it :


How about option 3:

3.  CPA pays BMF 500 bitcoins now.  BMF pays its premiums per schedule and in the meantime uses the 500 BTC to make profit.

If BMF can't make profit with bitcoins then what the fuck is it doing in business in the first place?  At best the contract was only ever a low-interest loan (as the premiums add up to more than the cover) - so at least take the little bit of benefit the contract entitles BMF to.

And if you take option 1. then here's a summary of how the insurance works out:

If BMF NAV stayed above 1, BMF pays 550 BTC to CPA over 2 years.
If BMF NAV falls below 1, they don't claim from CPA because umm, because well, because it really isn't worht it as they could just give the money back and call it quits.

Wow! What brilliant value that contract would be for BMF - if they're lucky (NAV stays above 1) they lose 550 BTC and if they're unlucky (NAV falls below 1) they only lose 50 BTC.  Good job they have such a clever person running them, with no conflicts of interest whatsoever.  With a less biased incompetent person in charge they could have mistakenly claimed on their insurance policy when they were entitled to and had cash now.

And option 2.?  It's not really worth claiming for?

Let me get this straight.  USAGI wrote and signed an insurance policy committing BMF to 550 in premiums.  But USAGI ITSELF is saying the policy isn't worth claiming on?  Am I really reading that right? Is Usagi really saying that it fucked up so bad that it committed to spending 550 BTC on something of zero value?  And bear in mind that if claiming on it now is "not really worth it" then claiming on it later in the contract would be worth even less.

The contract was for 100 BTC payments.  The contract even spells out the address to which those coins should be sent and that their amounts should have 12 satoshis added to them to clarify and make transparent their purpose.  THAT is the means by which a claim should be settled.

Is usagi trying to audition for BOTH lead  roles in a sequel to Dumb and Dumber or something?

I shied away from posting in your threads because you banned me from them in you local rules lol.

This ain't your thread.  You can't stop me exposing your lies, scams etc here.  Your childish attempts to intimidate me won't work.

When I posted about this in your other trheads you told me to go post in scammers forum.  I did that - albeit in an abortion of a thread that mainly seemed to deal with issues of valuations which only pertain to your incompetence not to whether you're a scammer.  You then ignored my post and told me to ask it in your main threads.  I posted it in your main BMF thread - where it's now sat for days without answer (even after being quoted by someone who claims to be a shareholder).  When I asked about it other threads you locked them and made new ones from which I was banned in your local rules.

And now I post here I'm suddenly supposed to post in some other thread - where you've already ignored my questions, claimed to have answered them (without actually doing so) or from which I am banned?

Get real.  Now you've made the one post I wanted (giving a bullshit excuse for the insurance) I don't care whether you psot here again or not.  Until you actually gave an obvious pack of lies as an answer, people could give you the benefit of the doubt.  Now anyone reading this - and seeing your post - will KNOW you're lieing through your teeth.

If you want to keep posting - go for it.  You won't tell the truth (you can't really now you've committed to a lie) so are unlikely to add anything of value.

News Flash for usagi : This isn't your thread.  There's no local rules here to stop people asking awkward questions.  You can tell me to fuck off, shut up etc etc - but have approximately zero chance of it having the effect you'd like it to.  I'll likely lock this thread later today, after I've done some work, and make a nice shiny new one - where i'll spell out in a nice step-by-step fashion exactly what happened, quote your little pack of lies and explain precisely why they are obviously lies.

I'll probably make the thread in this forum - then if anyone with a financial interest (e.g. a current BMF shareholder or an ex-BMF shareholder who sold for less than they should have because of your THEFT from them) wants to make a scammer thread about it they can.

So go back to your own threads and spin a bit more bullshit to your investors.  I'll be respecting your local rules UNLESS you actually post about me: I doubt very much the mods will enforce a local rule banning someone from defending themselves against accusations made against them.

Hmm, maybe when I've collated it all we could have a poll.  Something like:

"Having read usagi's account of how the insurance policy was just an experiment do you believe:

A.  usagi is a lieing sack of shit who defrauded its investors.
B.  usagi is a practical joker who was just having some fun by telling BMF investors they were insured when it was actually just an experiment designed to test nothing, prove nothing and achieve nothing (plus cost BMF 20 BTC).
C.  usagi is a great company manager with the highest standards of integrity who would never knowingly mislead investors or act in a manner counter to their interests.

I predict option C would get 2+X votes.  The 2 being usagi + Atlas and the X whatever number of sock-puppet accounts usagi cares to make.

You saying something doesn't make it "shown beyond a shadow of a doubt".  In fact it likely adds doubt to something I may well otherwise have believed without question.

You have no reasonable explanation for why you'd say to your shareholders:


That's not the entire message - snipped irrelevant parts at start and end.

If it was "just an experiment" in which the only action was BMF GIVING 20 BTC to CPA how would it improve BMF's ability to pay dividends?  Why even announce it? Why send the 20 BTC - you needed to test your wallet worked or something?

I don't believe anyone reading that psot of yours would get the impression it was a meaningless experiment - rather they would very clearly get the impression that BMF was now insured (as per the contract).

You defrauded your BMF investors and are now lieing about it.

Yeah - it's possible sometimes my posting gets a bit trollish.  Better that than your behaviour - which is solidly at the compulsive liar end of the spectrum with a heavy dose of scammer/fraud thrown in.

Wow - an even less credible excuse than I expected. Let's see you expect us to believe that:

1.  You signed the contract and announced to your shareholders that BMF was now insured against loss of capital.  Biut in fact it was just an experiment and you never had any intent of there being any insurance.
2.  BMF paid some premiums then lost NAV and was in a position to claim.  Instead of just claiming you acclerated BMF's payments to cancel out the claim.  But you didn't announce this at ALL to your share-holders in BMF.

Note that the decision to accelerate both claim AND premiums could ONLY be made if BMF was entitled to claim 500 BTC - otherwise there wasn't any cancellation of premiums CPA could accelerate.

That is total and utter bullshit.  You are lieing through your teeth.  I can't put it any clearer.

You explained it to me MANY times?  Point to ONE place where you've explained in ANY thread about that you accelerated premiums.  I haven't seen any posting telling your share-holders "Oh BTW, we were entitled to 500 BTC from CPA but I decided to pay all our premiums now instead of accepting it."  

What a pile of steaming horse-shit.  Is that the best pathetic excuse you could come up with?  The truth is that CPA couldn't afford to pay - so you hoped to brush it under the carpet (maybe you intended to pay later - when CPA got some funds).

Here's the things that make no sense about your crappy little lies:

1.  If it was an experiment - what did actually signing the contract achieve?  Without actually honouring the contract you learn nothing from just the act of signing it then cancelling it.
2.  If it was an experiment why tell your share-holders they were now insured by CPA?
3.  If you announced signing the contract why not announce ending it?
4.  If BMF were entitled to 500 BTC from CPA how is it in BMF shareholders' interest to then speed up their own payment of premiums?
5.  Your contract plainly specified how payments were to be made (the bitcoin addresses and the .00000012 suffix).  No such payments exist - yet even if your crappy little story were true there should be at least one (as the outstanding premiums didn't add up to exactly 500 BTC).
6.  Even in your little fairy tale you seem to be claiming you gave away 20 BTC from BMF to CPA as part of an "experiment". (Go check the blockexlorer logs - the 1st payment was 20 not the 10 you claim).  Why?

Point 4, BTW is where your conflict of interest came in - a concept you very clearly don't understand.

You're a more brazen liar than I'd previously given you credit for.  Not only are you lieing about what happened (someone just has to read your post to BMF shareholders to realise this was no meaningless experiment - you were proud you'd got insurance) but you're repeatedly claiming to have explained things when, in fact, quite the opposite is the case.  You've consistently stone-walled on the insurance - until you've finally cracked and told the totally unbelievable pack of lies I expected.

I don't know WHEN you came up with this story - it may have been a while back.  But it sure as heck wasn't until AFTER BMF were entitled to claim and you realised CPA couldn't afford to pay up.  Then you just went and cheated your BMF investors and are now lieing through your teeth about it.

oops.

You never said there was a motion?


Bolded the relevant bit.  That jog your memory at all?

What deprived said.
However, as a general concern, it is IMO valid if you replace mining gear with GLBSE assets. Is there anyway we can independently verify what a fund actually holds?

Thing is, an easy way to make money is start a fund and claim to invest in all the easy to spot loser shares, then claim your investors money was burned because X or Y defaulted or crashed, while in reality you never invested in them and the coins are safely in your wallet. For the record, I dont think usagi is doing this, because it would take some foresight and intelligence, and I doubt he has that. Unless he is extremely skilled at pretending he doesnt.

It would only be relevent if usagi started a perpetual mining bond on glbse. I hope they do no such thing because people would immediately question it.

You're on the wrong track there.

The ask-walls are to raise new funds to buy more hardware - think each one is enough for one rig or something like that.

The mining hardware is ordered but not delivered (from memory there may have been one old rig usagi donated or is loaning to BMF), so no way photos of any substantial amount of gear could be provided.

Remember, BMF started as an investment company then passed a motion to change to doing mining (bear in mind usagi controls the majority of shares so can pass any motions it wants) - so it's not like it SHOULD have a load of mining gear as it's only just transitioning.

Just clearing that up as I don't want totally wrong accusations in here - 'cos that gives usagi the easy way out of answering an inaccurate accusation then claiming that somehow proves every other accusation is wrong.

I was skimming through the thread (haven't read it entirely yet) and was reminded of the "liquidity loan." I didn't think much - more along the lines of "I haven't read the Lending forum in awhile."

Surely other people have read posts about how unverified mining operations could easily be simple loans, paying back "mining rewards." This kind of discussion has been popping up lately.

With these two things in mind, I recalled the many askwalls recently placed for BMF.

I've stayed up all night working - my mind is probably just tired and paranoid. But on the other hand, I'd love photo evidence of BMFs mining hardware! Got to rest now before it gets any brighter.

~pyotr

I've never claimed you SHOULD get a scammer tag for mining crashing.  I've additionally stated on numerous occasions that I don't believe you should get a scammer tag for losing a shit-load of investors' funds.

The ONLY thing I accused you of in the scammer thread was the BMF insurance issue - where it's crystal clear you intentionally did not act in the interests of your (BMF) share-holders (by refusing to claim on their insurance policy).

Incompetence (on its own) does not warrant a scammer tag.  Acting in bad faith likely does.

If you really want me to shut up about the BMF insurance issue then here's how we could do it:

I'll write a list of propositions about the incident - things which you should easily be able to agree with or disagree with.  Here we go:

1. BMF was insured by CPA against its NAV dropping below 1.0.
2. usagi acted for BMF in agreeing this insurance cover.
3. IF BMF's NAV fell below 1.0 then BMF was entitled to ask CPA to audit BMF and determine whether the NAV actually was below 1.0.
4. usagi reported BMF's nav as being below to 1.0 on multiple occasions (right through to the present).
5. No report has ever been made of BMF requesting an audit of their NAV.
6. Were such an audit to be made then it would be found that BMF's NAV is below 1.0
7. If such an audit were made and BMF's NAV were agreed to be below 1.0 then BMF would be entitled to 100 BTC from CPA.
8. 100 BTC would increase BMF's NAV.
9. The contract defines no waiting period between successive claims.
10. At some undefined point after receiving 100 BTC, BMF could apply for another 100 BTC (if NAV was still below 1.0).
11. Increasing BMF's NAV would be a good thing for BMF shareholders.
12. The responsibility of BMF's manager when making decisions on BMF's behalf is to BMF's shareholders collectively, not to CPA's shareholders.
13. Claiming 100 BTC (or multiple sets of 100 BTC) from CPA under the insurance policy would give more benefit to BMF shareholders than not claiming any BTC at all.
14. No notification has ever been given to all BMF shareholders that the insurance policy was cancelled.

Once we agree on the facts of what happened (a very quick draft of them are above - I've ignore irrelevancies like you lieing about there having been a motion/vote by BMF on the policy) then anyone reading it can see what the agreed facts are - and only has to decide whether or not my accusation has any merit.

To be totally clear what my accusation is:

"By failing to claim on the insurance policy, usagi acted against the interests of BMF share-holders.  This inaction caused direct loss to any shareholder who subsequently sold shares for less than those shares would have been worth had the insurance policy been claimed on and honoured.  It continues to cause shares held by BMF shareholders to be worth less than they should be."

In my book, deliberately causing your shareholders to lose money (i.e. have less money than they otherwise would) to prop up another business is a scam-worthy action.

The "caused loss" bit COULD be countered by claiming that CPA could not afford to pay out - hence no actual loss was caused.  That would be a fallacious argument - I can explain why if you choose to take that route.

But like I said - which of the FACTS do you disagree with?  I can reword them if necessary to clarify something.  The process i'm proposing is akin to "admissions" in a court - where a set of statements are agreed as being accepted by both sides, leaving only conclusions/interpretation of those facts to be determined by the judge/jury/magistrate/whoever the verdict-maker is.  It saves a lot of pointless debate and general confusion.

Or, of course, you can continue to try to avoid discussing facts - and we can just sling mud at one another a bit more.  The latter probably being the more entertaining but less useful of the two alternatives.

EDIT: I've simplified some of the propositions just to keep it simple.  If usagi wants to make them all absolutely precise then we can do that.  An example is that I've talked about BMF being able to claim 100 BTC.  More accurately every time I should say "the lower of 100 BTC and the amount needed to restore BMF's NAV/share to 1.0".  I know from experience that usagi likes to find one or two tiny details that are wrong so as to avoid having to answer the actual issues.  Whilst I believe it a waste of time I'm fine with getting every tiny detail precise if required - eventually usagi would run out of little details to nit-pick on and have to talk about the important points.

On a similar note, several of you have been regularly labeled trolls - in the interests of disclosure, thank you all for asking the hard questions.

Because this isn't just about usagi. This is about future securities being better quality than the fare we have to trade right now. If the community is willing to ask hard questions and pore over spreadsheets, this can only help asset quality.

Right now it might just seem like the drama of the month. But I'm willing to bet that there will be some important lessons learned from all this. Hopefully leading to some permanent changes.

~pyotr

Ooh please - can I guess?

You're going to start taking deposits - for yet another way to lose investors' funds?

On the buying back two points:

1. How much of that "buying back" was from yourself (in the guise of nyan - whose nyan.a/b/c holdings appear to have mostly vanished)?  GLBSE data certainly shows very little "buying back" in the last 5 days.
2.  You had no business buying back nyan.b (which wasn't guaranteed) when in the process you made yourself unable to keep buying back nyan.a (who DO have a guarantee).

In fact the whole "buying back" (even from nyan.a) totally defeats the purpose of having a tranched security in the first place.  With totally flexible (both up and down) numbers of each tranche active there's no way any investor can properly assess the risk/reward ratio for each tranche.

As I explained elsewhere, the number of active units of each tranche is pretty key in determining the value of the various trade-offs between risk/reward across the tranches.  It's yet another thing showing how little understanding you have of the things you try to do.

The issue on the bidwall is what "in a reasonably timely fashion" (or whatever weasel words it was you used) means.  Timely (without qualification) would tend to mean "whenever needed".  "Reasonably timely" means - well you tell me as you wrote it.  Does it mean "when we can afford to"?  Or maybe "If we can be bothered?"

Let me be clear about something.

I DO NOT believe you ever set out to scam your investors.
I DO believe you're trying your best to make your companies recover.

unfortunately I also believe:

You aren't competent to run the businesses you run.
You spend more time trying to pretend you're succeeding than working out what you did wrong and making sure it won't happen again.
You cross the lines from propaganda into just flat out lieing on occasion.
You are totally unable to run each of your companies in the interest of its own shareholders.  Instead you try to treat them all as parts of one company and have them help out the other parts even when it's blatantly against their own interest.
The last two points, in my view, warrant a scammer tag - not because you're a nasty, thieving individual but because you lack the skill-set and honesty (as much to yourself as anything) needed to be entrusted with other people's funds.

You need to learn to walk (run one company) before you try to run (run a bunch of inter-connected ones).  You're still struggling to get to the crawling stage but believe (or pretend to believe - not totally sure which) you're a world-record holding sprinter.

CPA shareholder pretty much = usagi.

When someone has a conflict or interests, usual practice is for them not to vote on whatever the issue is.  Not for them to just do it without anyone having input.  Definitely not for them then to lie and claim it was voted on.

Ah i see. I just went through the old motions for BMF and cant find one wrt signing an insurance contract although
I did find two motions that are exactly the same for CPA and BMF lol. So CPA shareholders voted n something that concerned BMF shareholders  

Doh fuckwit - just realised what you got wrong.  Have bolded the "second line" which my second quotedreferred to correcting.  See how that makes more sense that your dumb theory?

There WAS NO MOTION.  When it said there was a motion and it was voted on that was just a bare-faced lie.

Not sure WTF usagi is on about about me/puppet.  Puppet pointed out I'd written BMF when what I wrote also applied to nyan.a.  I said it was a typo - and that I'd meant to type nyan.a in the first place.  Just because I AGREE when someone corrects me, doesn't make us the same person.  I think maybe usagi misunderstood what was being said - I edited the OP after puppet pointed out my mistake.