Topic: Critique of the various businesses run by usagi (Read 5404 times)

I believe CPA and nyan should both be closed down - that's not JUST because usgai is running them.  Here's why:

CPA:  I don't believe the bitcoin market-place is developed enough (or regulated enough) to be place to run an insurance company.  With the majority of busineses being incompetent, scams or run by individuals unable to do their job properly there's just no way to run the type of insurance company CPA set out to be profitably.  The risks would be high - and there's pretty much nowhere that the funds can be invested safely enough (and with sufficient liquidity) to be able to make large payouts in a timely fashion AND offer reasonable rates.  Depositing the funds in a non-BTC deposit-taker (such as a bank, buying treasury bills or whatever) isn't an alternative due to exchange-rate issues.  Which leaves the only safe option as being to hold all (or nearly all) funds as liquid BTC.

There's also the issue of regulatory issues - insurance is one area that falls within the realm of "must be properly licensed/authorised regulated" to conduct in every developed country I can think of.  If GLBSE becomes regulated by the FSA then there's absolutely no way it could continue to list an insurance company that didn't comply with the relevant regulations.

Nyan: This was badly structured from the start.  Six things were wrong with it:

1.  The minor issue of having the pretence of 3 funds while it's in reality 1 fund.  This has caused confusion over valuations etc - which SHOULD be totally irrelevant (the only value that matters is what you get back when you sell at the end).
2.  No settlement date.  There should have been a date at which all nyans would be liquidated and paid out - then restarted (if desired).
3.  No fixed amounts of each nyan.  This meant that no informed investor could actually calculate the relative merits of each nyan choice - as that depends on the relative numbers of each type.
4.  The CPA guarantee.  This is no problem for nyan.a investors - but I can't see how it was ever in the interests of CPA shareholders to offer it.  I must be missing the bit where they get a hefty payment in return for their exposure to it.
5.  Although 4 isn't a problem for nyan.a investors it IS a problem for nyan.b - as every time a nyan.a unit is bought back it reduces their overflow from nyan.a without reducing the benefit they give to nyan.a (in fact it increases it on a per/unit basis - as their protection is spread over less units of nyan.a).
6.  Investing in non-liquid assets.  With the model used this was bad - as it couldn't withstand a spate of withdrawals.  With a proper model (fixed expiry date) then all investments should be such as to be realisable at the expiry date.

In short it should have been:

Defined in size (# of each type or ration of each type),
Fixed expiry date,
Zero buy-backs before expiry (meaing no need for the CPA guarantee).

If CPA underwrote the offer then they should have got a small cut of the pie in return for taking up the slack on whatever units didn't sell (the role nyan parent was supposed to do - but didn't).

Right now, if nyan.b closes down then nyan.a pretty much HAS to close down as well.  Without nyan.b (and with nyan.c essentially asset-less) there's zero reason why nyan.a investors should want any cut of their profits (if they make any) going to a nyan.c that contributes nothing in return (it has no assets to back them with any more).  This situation is a direct result of the 3 points I just listed not being followed.

The MPEx similar offering is much better structured - though it IS completely hilarious that they invested in nyan.a.  I nearly fell off my chair laughing when usagi pointed that out.

Incidentally, one of the biggest problems facing ANY offering on GLBSE is the completely irrational (to the pont of being delusional) expectations of investors here for a ridiculously high rate of return.  The only things offering high rates are ponzis/scams, loans (which often default) and minng operations that devalue - making the real ROI way lower than it appears.  There ARE ways to make high returns - but typically only on a tiny amount of capital.  The mistake, of course, is trying to run something 'real' AND pay the same sort of rates - you're pretty much certain to fail on one of the other of the two objectives (or both, as is the case here).

Your comprehension skills are saldy lacking for someone who claims to teach English.

I said a "tighter noose".  My view is that you deceived and lied to your investors and that at least some of them lost coins as a result.  You refuse to ackonwledge your various conflicts of interest - despite some of them (e.g. the insurance poicy between BMF/CPA) being pretty much textbook examples of what a conflict of interest is.

My quoted comment referred to aomeone's intent to report you in the scammer forum - not whether you were a scammer or not.  The criteria for getting a scammer tag are NOT directly related to whether someone IS a scammer - rather whether the mods can be convinced that it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are a scammer.

Being acquitted in a trial does NOT mean that someone is innocent (just that the jury concluded there wasn't enough proof to be CERTAIN that they were guilty).  Similarly, not having a scammer tag is no way proof that someone hasn't scammed (it just indicates that the mods aren't SURE that they scammed - or, for other reasons, don't want to give the tag).

I was in no way saying I believe you're innocent of scamming (I prefer to avoid the word scam as it is open to debate what it actually means).  What I WAS saying is that I think it's hard to build a case strong enough to persuade the mods to the give the tag - but that if we let you carry on a bit further I'm sure you'll make the case much easier to build (by continuing to lie, deceive and blatantly ignore conflicts of interest).

For the insurance company, part of their operation is deciding how to invest the float. I view that as very much related to the contracts and building appropriate models, but not directly so. Thanks for pointing that out.

FWIW, it hasn't lost value through insurance, at least not most of it anyway. Though I completely agree with you that it's a very hard task.

Motion to liquidate everything, pay off creditors, pay remaining proceeds to shareholders. That is my advice.


Could you please provide the models you created to calculate past insurance contracts? I would love to see your math that you believe is so simple.

Creating contracts is not terribly complicated. Creating insurance contracts that are based fully on proper math and assessment and on a whole benefit a company and it's shareholders can be quite complicated. This is evident in CPA losing around 80% of shareholder value since inception.

So what you're saying is you have absolutely no proof, after all this time, but you are determined to trash me and my companies every chance you get, in the hopes that I'll actually scam someone?

So in other words I haven't done anything scammy yet? Oh this just keeps getting better and better.

In all honesty, it will not matter. The basic idea of insurance ins quite simple, but it is quite difficult to perform successfully and consistently. Doing it in an unregulated and murky market such as bitcoin compounds the difficulty. The risk models that insurance would be based off of would likely never represent anything close to reality; even if you had a large group people focusing on it. This is why it is clear Usagi is foolish; he thinks that he (an individual with 0 experience or advanced education in math, finance, or business) can operate an entire insurance company. This isn't even counting the fact that he also manages NYAN and BMF. No one with a a reasonable understanding of these matters would have done what Usagi has.

Removing some of the conflicts of interest is only a portion of the overall problem.

Yes. I say, let's do it.

If anyone is interested in this we can arrange for them to run it for 1, 2, 3 months, or even permanently. We don't even need to motion on it because the business operation and contracts would not change.

Sure, I'll step down. Let someone else run the company and do a better job.

This is the only way to solve the conflict of interest.

Companies acting on technicalities such as "accelerating payments to cancel each other" makes it apparent that there is a huge conflict of interest.

The only way I see these issues getting resolved is getting fresh managers on board. Would usagi be willing to let us appoint different managers/CEOs to some or all of these funds/companies, if any suitable candidates come up? I'm asking both usagi and the shareholders.

Its true that if you make people money they dont care as much if youre an asshole.

True, but it's more about how you react to the critique than the trolling. Patrick, Victor, Kluge and a few others have set good examples on how to respond to criticism.

The only measure is how successful your businesses are, so focusing on the critics and even blaming makes you look more guilty than you really are. One of the methods us investors use is to gauge people's trustworthiness is to observe their behavior here. I've invested in CPA before the "trolling" began because of the reasons you say. However, ahem, coincidentally, the "trolling" intensified as you started losing money. It is nothing but an expected part of business. The fact that you don't (at least seem to) look at it that way made me lose trust.

So why don't you go ahead and make us money? That's the only way you will show them (or us, depending on the criticism).

Because you got trolled. Everything I did was according to my contracts, I published everything I did and wrote letters to shareholders. Before this little trollfest took root I was getting compliments, daily, for how I was running CPA, NYAN and BMF.

Get it? I don't have a scammer tag because I'm not a scammer.

It is beyond me too. The positive thing is that some community members keep questioning and analyzing his "businesses" and eventually you would expect him to give up, his investors dry up or he makes a mistake after which even forum moderators will feel comfortable tagging him a scammer.

Also we have to wait and see what happens with GLBSE. If the plug is pulled, the problem solves itself (for now). I even think that would be the best outcome for most of these asset scammers. That way they can get out of their mess before it completely implodes with only one black eye.

Usagi and Diablo have already started to blame GLBSE and Nefario for their failures. Most of them will probably even profit from GLBSE closing down (i.e. if they didn't keep their BTC there) because they can keep the investors money they still have left and blame it on Nefario that they cannot pay it back.

I'm just catching up on all this, but I am ASTOUNDED by what usagi has going on here.

The conflict of interest is patently true, the NYAN accounts are being shut down out of order, CPA is an absolute scam, and all he has to say is that folks with questions are 'IDIOTS' and then demand they stop posting.

I'm really amazed at how little leverage ya'all have against someone that is so obviously fleecing the hell out of your community. How he doesn't have a scammer tag is beyond me.

Missed that little gem.

Trading 10 BTC NOW for 10 BTC NOW definitely doesn't make anyone more or less solvent.  Trading 500 BTC NOW for a promise to repay 500 BTC over 2 years definitely DOES make someone more solvent.

Further to that:

1.  If the time element is irrelevant what was the purpose of the insurance contract again?  Wouldn't that make it a loser for BMF whatever happened - as they were agreeing to pay 550 in return for 500.
2.  If trading bitcoins now for bitcoins in the future doesn't make anyone more or less solvent why did usagi make a thread specifically to borrow a few hundred bitcoins?
3.  What has "10 bitcoins when you have a market cap of 2500" have to do with a debt of 500 bitcoins?

Predictions on how long before usagi suddenly remembers/realises/is told by someone it listens to that getting 500 bitcoins now and only having to pay them back over 2 years is actually very useful.

At least we've progressed past the "it was a joke, it wasn't an actual contract silly" stage.  Now we're on the "well yeah it was a proper contract but that's not really a good reason to actually stick to it" stage.  Wonder what act 3 will be - maybe the "well CPA can't pay it so there's no point us making a fuss about it" stage with a brief intermission of "let's vote on it as I control most of the shares and can vote as many times as I want with them".

My predictions for any motion:

Option 1 : Let's claim our 500 BTC from CPA.
Option 2 : Let's just forget about it as noone's been hurt by anything.

With option 2 winning by Y votes to option 1's X votes where:

X is slightly smaller than the number of shares controlled by anyone other than usagi.
Y is larger than the total number of BMF shares in circulation (as in the last one).

LOL, why do I get the feeling usagi misread "staying out of your threads" as "staying out of all threads about you".

Bit premature for that in my opinion.  Let usagi build a tighter noose for itself by blatantly trying to get BMF investors to act against their own interest via a motion.  When usagi's properly ripe for the picking on this one I'll see if I can motivate myself to properly document one of the nyan conflict of interest scenarios that's happened - and make any scammer accusation rock-solid by demonstrating that this insurance mess isn't some one-off occurrence.

Thank you and goodbye (hopefully).

You should have done this 3 weeks ago.

Thought I made it plain already.  I'm NOT interested in hearing any more of your crap anyway.  I don't WANT any more responses from you LOL.  You won't tell the truth and I've no interest in your lies.

I'm just gonna discuss stuff in here with others who are interested in it - some of them may share my views, others may not: all are welcome.  And if any of them happen to be share-holders and want to take it up with you then that's their business.

And no - you won't control this discussion (if you mean the discussion in here).  Noone will control it (unless a mod chooses to) - and definitely someone who isn't going to post again in this topic isn't going to.  If you mean some other discussion in one of your own threads then go ahead - control it.

And no - I'm not playing your silly little games of being sent from thread to thread and each time being told I'm a troll or "banned" etc.  I'm doing you the courtesy of now staying out of your threads (unless you make an inaccurate statement about me).  You can stay out of this thread, post in it, ignore it - do what you like about it.  I really don't care.  If you post in here I will likely respond - and help you dig your hole deeper.

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.

Look at c.  look at d.

If BMF has only sent 10 bitcoins (which is in fact incorrect - it sent 20 right at the start) then BMF is in default.

"per calendar week for 110 weeks" has a meaning.

IF your argument is "Well yeah - CPA is on the hook, but BMF hasn't claimed and the 110 weeks aren't so over so there's no default" then you seriously have some issues.

In your role as manager of BMF you have a responsibility to act in BMF's interest.  How is it in their interest not to claim when they're entitled to?  Anyone who sold shares since a claim would have been valid has sold at a lower price than they should have, had you not decided that your conflict of interest would be addressed by acting in CPA's favour and putting your fingers in your ears every time you were asked about it.

It's plain and simple : By not claiming you defrauded your BMF shareholders.  The fact you also run CPA in no way absolves you from doing what's right for BMF investors if it might happen to inconvenience CPA.

That's why your sort of intertwined mess of half-baked, failing companies should never be allowed to happen.  And if you can't even SEE why it's wrong to act against against the best interests of BMF then you shouldn't be allowed to run anything.

How the fuck does it help BMF to pay 5 BTC per to CPA per week then not claim when they're entitled to?  They already agreed to pay more in premiums than the amount covered - so the least that should happen is they get promptly paid when they're actually entitled to claim.

And as you wear both hats (CPA and BMF) you should be extra careful in making clear to ivnestors what is happening when the two entities interact.  i,e, explain to them why you aren't claiming, or that you HAVE claimed - just never mentioned and have no deadline on when they'll get paid.

Or is the plan to say "well BMF missed its payments and defaulted - so there's not any cover any more"?  That would be the most hilarious excuse ever - that you (deliberately) defaulted on yourself so as to screw one of your companies to help another stay afloat.

You totally and utterly fucked up on that contract.  You MUST know you did.

I do, however, agree that technically CPA may not have defaulted.  BMF definitely has (by not making the agreed payments).  But the ONLY reason CPA hasn't defaulted (if it hasn't) is because YOU decided that BMF wouldn't claim (and we KNOW BMF hasn't claimed - do I need to quote you to prove it?) for no conceivable reason of benefit to BMF's shareholders.  They were entitled to funds from CPA - you refused to claim those funds (or pretended you hadn't noticed - which in some ways is even worse).

How do you manage the apparent major conflicts of interest that appear to happen with all these funds and the insurance company you are running ?

I dont think people would be complaining if you were only running a mining fund.

When you did the motion for BMF to sign the contract with CPA did you even mention that you are the operator of CPA and thus it would present a major conflict of interest ?

Im simply pointing out that you fail to declare these conflicts of interest nearly every time. You dont need to declare anything if you sign a contract with "bumfuck insurance" but you do when its with CPA. A company YOU RUN You made a motion and failed to declare your conflict of interest to the shareholders, which may have changed the outcome.

You need to learn to read.  I'm talking about CPA's guarantee on nyan.a - not the already defaulted-on cover of BMF.  You're guaranteeing nyan.a against loss (and trying to close nyan.b - leaving them without protection from nyan.b's assets).  nyan.a is heavily invested in BMF - and CPA is pretty much entirely invested in BMF.  So how can CPA guarantee against BMF loss?  If BMF massively devalues, CPA has nothing to use to honour that guarantee with.

Sure -it's an IF.  But isn't that what insurance is for you idiot?  If you KNEW it wouldn't happen you wouldn't NEED insurance or a guarantee.  If you knew it WOULD happen then you wouldn't do it.  It's only when there's a CHANCE of it happening that you want insurance or a guarantee - and you don't want your insurer to be in a position where if you need cover it's a guarantee they can't give it.

And of course we ALL believe that you were going to impose that (unverifiable) condition.  I presume they could sell shares they already hold?  How about if they sell them by transfer to someone else (who may, or may not, be another account of theirs or working in collusion with them) for 1.0 and that someone else then sells them for .99?

It's a dumb idea.  Period.

Yes - plenty of IPOs offer discounts on bulk purchases.  But it only makes sense if the IPO is going to sell out (or if there's a deadline on sales) - otherwise they just end up with further sales blocked by resellers making a quick profit on a flip, with no extra shares sold (a problem I've seen a few IPOs run into).

What a laod of junk.

You made the contract to "test that kind of contract"?

Then annouced to your shareholders that they were insured - but never paid out when what they were insured against came to happen? Some test.  

You also stated that the policy was passed by a motion.  What motion?

Where did I complain that the contract existed?  What I said (in summary) was that if it didn't cover BMF against loss of NAV what DID it cover?  And you've still not explained what it covered if it wasn't that.

Just saying "there's nothing wrong with what I did" and "it was just an experiment" (the latter a paraphrase) in NO WAY WHATOSEVER explains what benefit BMF got from signing that contract.

No.  Deprived corrected his own typo.

Yeah, conflict of interest is definitely one the problems that has happened.  I've specifically referred to it a few times - most notably in the CPA insuring BMF debacle.  usagi negotiated and agreed the contract for BOTH parties to it - without bothering to even inform share-holders in advance, let alone ask them to approve it.

There's been other conflicts of interests - such as one of the nyans (can't remember for sure which one - 95% sure it was nyan.b) lending cash interest-free to CPA and disguising it on the books as an investment.  That was clearly against nyan.b's interest.  Hmm, on reflection maybe it wasn't - there's a case to be made that nyan.b giving an interest-free loan that it was confident would be repaid is more profitable (i.e. makes less loss) than usagi actually investing it.  I somehow doubt usagi would use that argument though.  Not only was that a conflict of interest - there was also an attempt to deceive investors by putting it on the books as an investment.

There's other examples as well - but they aren't amusing enough to warrant the time explaining them in detail really.

Because of all the inbred share holdings in one another, there's an ongoing conflict of interest.  e.g. nyan.a holds a ton of shares in BMF.  nyan badly needs liquidity (to buy-back all the sells at 0.99) and BMF needs to sell more shares.  IF the two had seperate management then there's a good chance nyan.a would just start selling off its BMF - but it won't whilst usagi also runs BMF and is desperate for its price to rise into the ask-walls for funds to get new hardware.

Which reminds me - time to buy up some BMF and relist at .49 which is where usagi has stated it'll be supporting the price.  More free money I guess (I would be doing that if I was actually confident usagi would deliver - I'm not confident, so I won't: but it's free money for any true believers still left).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1243259  I think this is relevent to usagi re: fiduciary duty and declaring a conflict of interest.

Ive not seen usagi post anything in the OP of any of the funds they run about conflicting interests they may have. In the CPA thread for example usagi doesnt mention NYAN.A or BMF which is required as a fund manager imo.

Usagi has never ever brought up the conflicts of interest and this is quite telling.

(quoted from Icebreaker)

Well since we're doing this, here's how the mess began:


So yeah. As clearly demonstrated by the many theoretical points of Deprived and by a couple practical points above.

Precisely.

Nyan only really exists because usagi totally bodged up the way the nyan.x thing was set up.

In a tranched CDO there should only be one pooled collection of assets - so one portfolio jointly owned by nyan.a, b and c.  With the dividends distributed to the various tranches (and the assets distributed in the case of closure).  For whatever wierd reason, usagi instead tried to have a seperate portfolio for each.

I suspect it thought that was the way to spread risk between the different nyans - when it fact risk is already distributed based on the seniorities of the various nyans (the order in which they have claim on assets).  Similarly, reward is split based on the defined means of dividend payout.

So instead of the current mess - where assets are shuffled between different nyans (fairly transparently, in all honesty) there should just be a single portfolio shared by all.  And the content of that portfolio could be defined as being kept to X% high-risk, Y% medium risk, Z% usagi's own businesses - or whatever.

But then you start to run into problems if the number of each type of nyan sold isn't roughly in proportion to the risk categories.  That COULD be managed (if you had a single portfolio) by dynamically adjusting the % of each type of investment in line with the outstanding bonds of each type.

The official reason for nyan was to attempt to manage the balancing of the different other nyans.  The real reason (in my view and this is pure conjecture) is that usagi just wanted to make something very 'clever' and 'complicated' to impress the market.

One of the main reasons nyan (the whole thing, not just the parent company) is in such a mess is that usagi totally screwed up keeping the investments balanced.  nyan.c was the main thing that sold - and nyan never had the capital to attempt to create a more balanced funds.

Despite the APPARENT seperation of nyan.a, b and c the fact remains that the way they actually operated is as though it were all one big portfolio.  And that portfolio ended up being pretty largely invested in very high-risk stuff.

Of itself, that isn't a problem - after all, most of the sold bonds are ALSO nyan.c.  But then you run into the problem that screw it all up.  usagi is in total denial when it loses money - and tries to maintain the fiction that all's well when it ain't.  That means that usagi was over-valuing nyan.b and nyan.c and then compounding the error by buying back stock at the fictitious price.  That buying back (because it's at too high a price) further devalues the TRUE value of what assets remains, making the actual realisable value for the remaining nyan.b stock-holders even worse than it already was.  That then led to even more fantasy valuations, exascerbating the problem even more.

Going back a little bit, why does the ratio of nyan.a/b and c actually matter?  Well you have to consider what function each provides to the other:

(I'll just discuss nyan.b and c - but similar principle applies with .a as well)

nyan.c provides nyan.b with extra security - as nyan.b gets to call on the chunk of assets 'held' by nyan.c before nyan.c does.

In return nyan.c gets any overflow of profits from nyan.b

The actual VALUE of those benefits depends very much on the relative number of each type of nyan.

if there's 10 nyan.b to each nyan.c then each nyan.b is getting the protection of 1/10th of a nyan.c worth of assets in return for handing over to the single nyan.c the overflow from 10 units of nyan.b.

Conversely, if there's 1 nyan.b to each 10 nyan.c then each nyan.b is getting the protection of 10 nyan.c worth of assets in return for handing over to the 10 nyan.c the overflow from 1/10th of a unit of nyan.b each.

It should be immediately obvious that there's a 100-fold difference between the two scenarios above in terms of the value each nyan type provides to the other.

Parent nyan was meant to balance the types of different nyan in the wildr.  That target balance was never disclosed, probably was never defined on any rational basis and definitely no balance was ever achieved.  I don't believe usagi ever truly understood how this sort of offering should be properly structured - as is clearly demonstrated by various of my points above.

Well.. you could always insure it with infinite Ego if you lack capability and/or expertise, I suppose 

Anyway.. Is this going to be the "Best of Usagi" thread? - I'm sure some psychology or economics major will end up owing their degree to Usagis flamboyant use of BistroMath and rampant self-denial, would be nice if they had a comprehensive catalog to choose from,  I think it should at least make 'Movie of the Week'

BTW: Anyone actually understand how "NYAN"(no .A .B or .C) fits into the Tetrahedron scheme of things?

Usagi should be viewed as a case study regarding what happens when a person with nearly zero knowledge of finance and business tries to manage a venture (let alone multiple ventures at once.)

To gain a clear picture; all anyone must do is:
1. Read Usagi's posts. There is a continual misuse and lack of understanding regarding basic financial terms.
2. Read the threads of Usagi's securities. See that Usagi argues against very basic math and logic that highlights his shortcoming and his misrepresentation/misstatement of information.
3. Look at the track records of all of Usagi's securities. It is pretty grim. While many other btc-based ventures have failed, it isn't really an excuse. There are indeed ventures that have been successful (in terms of investment from IPO.)

So long as Usagi continue to act in a similar fashion, he will likely continue to destroy shareholder value and run his ventures deeper into the ground.

See the bolded lines. Usagi doesnt keep his insurance premiums in bitcoins, he "invests them". And by his own charter, he shouldnt invest them in the same sector as the insured asset. In reality, he is not only doing that, he is investing in the very assets he is insuring.

Keep up this trolling and I'll ban you from my thread!!!

[/sarcasm]

Yeah - I was conflating two seperate issues (as much for simplicity as anything).

"and to not insure assets using other assets from the same or similar sector.".  If 100% of assets doing the securing are BMF then what % of insurance cover can be written to BMF (or companies with exposure to BMF)?  The answer is actually 0%, not even 25%.  In fact, with all holdings being BMF, CPA shouldn't be able to insure ANY mining company or investment company which has significant exposure to the mining sector.

To summarise more accurately (than in my original post) the contract:

CPA should have diverse assets,
No insurance policy should be backed by assets of the same "sector" as the insured.

At present CPA is nothing like following that - and, in the case of nyan.a, the "guarantee" is backed by exactly the most inappropriate asset you could find (other, I guess, than by nyan.a itself).

Not a typo. Unless you accidentally typed the truth. BMF is insured by CPA as well!

 BMF ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
   as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of less than 1 per unit.
http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/customers/account-12/

edit: well, you know that since you mention it already, but it doesnt make it any less true,

Was actually a typo which I'll correct - 2nd line was meant to say "Nyan.a is insured by CPA".

Its even worse than that, CPA also insures Nyan.A.

NYAN ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
   as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of NYAN.A less than 1 per unit.
http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/customers/account-15/

I am not sure you are applying this section correctly. The way I see it, this is dealing with *insurance* not *investments*. This section says that no more than 25% of the insurance policies sold will cover the same sector, however you want to define sector. The issue with BMF is more that all of CPA's investments (capital) is in one place. This is a huge red flag, a disaster waiting to happen, as you pointed out, but this section of the contract just does not apply.

The rest of what you said is good though.

In the case of Nyan, its.., braindead as you pointed out.
I dont believe Usagi is able to keep his 1 BTC buyback promise much longer. He is already not honoring the asks, and to use his own words: he is "desperate". Thats what you get when you buy the most worthless shit and fool yourself by falsifying your stats and constantly try to manipulate market prices, both of his own shares and other shares he owns to make those stats seem right. You buy paper value for a short while, but in the end you lose money. Lots of it.

Just over a week ago I calculated his actual NAV for all Nyans, and Nyan.A was in no imminent danger, it was only C which would be wiped out entirely and B would lose about 1/3 its NAV. Bad, but not catastrophic.  Today its getting so bad that B is in danger of being wiped entirely out if he actually did what his contract obliges him to (transfer assets from B to A to restore As NAV), or if he pushes ahead and liquidates and delists B before he full fulling his obligation to A holders. Both have the same effect, it would leave A with no credible protection.

In the case of BMF, there is another issue,  he risks diluting his existing shareholders. Well, he would be if he would actually sell those shares at 10% under NAV, which he wont, since he calculates NAV as GLBSE average * rand(1,10) + 10 / (atmospheric pressure in Tokyo + his shoesize) ^ his IQ. Despite his low IQ that still ends up way above any reasonable NAV estimate even after a 10% discount. IOW, he will probably not sell a single share to a large investor with an IQ bigger than his shoe size; but if he would, his existing shareholders should be pretty upset about it.

GUARANTEE?  WHAT GUARANTEE?

One of the (on the surface) appealing features of nyan.a is that its value is guaranteed to shareholders not to fall below 1.0 BTC per share.  This is described in the contract as:

"The value of NYAN.A shares is guaranteed by CPA and NYAN against capital loss via the reasonably timely maintenance of a bidwall at 0.99 bitcoins per fund unit."

There are THREE seperate very good reasons why this guarantee is meaningless.  I'll ignore nyan for now (its current assets are essentially just some BMF share) and discuss CPA.

REASON ONE (fairly minor one in fairness):

CPA is currently unable to maintain the bid-wall DESPITE there actually being little reason to sell nyan.a right now (other than the one detailed in this post).  There have been Asks up for days now which aren't honoured despite usagi being well aware of that.  Now I DO believe that usagi will clear those asks when it gets funds near the weekend - but clearly CPA doesn't maintain sufficient liquidity to cover its obligations.

REASON TWO (Pretty massive one):

The test of a party's willingness to honour their obligations is how they've behaved in the past.  Ideally we'd like to look at some other situation where one of usagi's companies was insure by CPA.  Luckily we can - all the gory details are here :

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1229467

In brief, CPA (usagi) insured BMF (usagi) against BMF losing NAV.  When BMF lost NAV (usagi's special area of expertise) the insurance policy was not discussed, claimed upon or mentioned again.  If usagi didn't honour the policy with BMF why should anyone believe (an even less formal) guarantee for nyan.a

REASON THREE (Pretty huge as well)

In usagi's latest fairy-tale, it says:


So, let's get this clear:

Half (roughly) of nyan.a's holdings are BMF.
Nyan.a is insured by CPA.
CPA's only assets of any note are BMF.

So if BMF collapses/largely devalues (through mismanagement, theft, a big drop in mining profitability or whatever) - WHERE does CPA get the funds from to cover its guarantee?  You CAN'T meaningfully insure something if the insurance is covered by the very thing that is insured.

Even in the event of a fairly small drop in BMF value it would become impossible for CPA to liquidate its BMF holdings to honour its guarantee.

You'd think usagi would have learned this lesson after the pirate fiasco - where the funds covering the insurance turned out to, in some cases, be with pirate (this is NOT an accusation against usagi in respect of that - I DO believe usagi was misled by those with whom it deposited in some cases).

Not only is this sort of insurance cover wrong and meaningless - it's also specifically against the contract of CPA.  I quote:

"5d. limited segregatability (de-risking sector default/widespread default)
To mitigate the risk of the default of an entire sector, THE CPA will seek to issue no more than 25% of it's coverage to any particular sector and will and to not insure assets using other assets from the same or similar sector. For example, we will avoid securing assets of a mining company with assets from other mining companies. In cases where this is unavoidable we will limit segregatability to pay claims on a first-come-first-serve basis, with the actual contract holders for the default event taking first priority. "

Now, inadvertently ending up in this situation is NOT (of itself) a breach of the contract.  But CPA SHOULD be acting to get its funds properly segregated quickly - right now EVERY insurance policy it has out rests on a single asset (BMF) which doesn't exactly have a stellar record of growth expressed in BTC.  And, whine all you want, about how it's gained in USD - how many of CPA's insurance policies are denominated in USD? (I could be wrong here - it may well be that CPA actually doesn't have any/many other policies out).

But it does raise the question:  WHEN did CPA's holdings in BMF go over 25%?  HOW did they get to nearly 100% without it ever being noticed?  Has CPA actually been BUYING more BMF even after it had passsed its own 25% rule?

SUMMARY : the "guarantee" is meaningless.  CPA doesn't maintain the liquidity to honour it, didn't honour a similar guarantee for another usagi company and (in the most likely scenario of significant cover being needed - a drop in the value of BMF) would be totally unable to honour it due to no longer having the assets to do so even it wanted to.

Usagi is trying to put all its eggs in one basket:


The eggs (BMF) are already scrambled - and the basket (CPA) is an illusion.

[Local Rules : Anyone can post in this thread, even people who are confused over their gender, can't do basic math, view failure as doing well and in general lack any idea of how to run a business]

GIVING AWAY MONEY

Think this shows just how dumb usagi is.


Now let's think about this.

Nyan.a's contract specifically commits that CPA/nyan will maintain a bidwall at .99 for nyan.a.

nyan.a shares sell at 1 BTC.

10% off 1 is .9

So usagi is offering to sell nyan.a shares at 0.9, having offered a guarantee to buy them back at 0.99.  That smells like giving away money for free to me.  Buy at 0.9, list at .99, wait for contractual obligations to be fulfilled, rinse and repeat.

Or is the 10% off some imaginary RMV?

And who foots the bill for that 10%?  The investors?  CPA?

-------

Coming next post : Guarantee?  What guarantee?

Note: I have decided to cease posting in usagi's own threads.  I don't believe local rules banning me are wise, should be enforced or are in the interests of usgai's investors.  However if usagi won't respond to them then they DO end up effectively being trolling.  I would encourage any investors in usagi who believe any points I raise merit answer to ask the questions themselves - then, maybe, you'll get an answer.  I expect usagi to answer THIS post but not the next.