Topic: FPGAMINING scam ongoing - page 2. (Read 5607 times)

This "idea" is exactly the sort of silliness coming from the unqualified. Think about it: if the bond is large enough to indemnify shareholders then it makes absolutely zero sense for a company to list. Herp-derp, company sold shares for 100 BTC of which 100 BTC are held in a bond. What's the benefit of that, for the company?

If on the other hand the bond is less than enough to indemnify shareholders then it's of no interest to scammers. So they list an "asset", sell 100 BTC of "shares", leave 50 BTC in the bond, pocket the 50 and disappear, big deal. It is however a pain in the ass to legitimate shareholders, who now have to pay dividends (presumably) without being able to invest half the proceeds (cause they're in a bond).

This path leads to nothing.


MPEx actually has these fractional values. Grep a contract for:

lol. Another nth-degree scam? That's what happens when you don't stop a scam fast.

Question: who bought 200+ more shares of FPGAMINING after this scam was made public?
Answer: Usagi for his BMF fund.

28/09:
FPGAMINING   300      
https://i.imgur.com/M7gWf.png

Now:
FPGAMINING   515   
http://tsukino.ca/bmf/holdings-nav/

Bonus question: at what price does usagi value them for his NAV calculations?
Answer: 0.7 BTC per share or almost twice GLBSE 5 day average.

So, does usagi know something about FPGAMINING that you dont, or is he just buying up distressed shares that he already owned to temporarily push up GLSBE prices to inflate his book value (and even then doubling that value in his books like he does with most things anyway)?

This is really worth of another thread. It could be entirely voluntary and fractional (e.g. cover an x% of the value of the total shares issued).
With such guarantee (to be managed by GLBSE in case of a proven breach of the contract) many (if not all) investors would be happy to accept a much lower interest, so it would be a positive-sum game since everybody would gain something.

edit: but it is to be solved what happens when someone keeps issuing more and more shares, even after he already defaulted like in this case.

I've suggested this many times to Nefario.  It could be another level of verification (and the only one that would actually matter in my eyes).
"Bonded for X BTC against default" would go a long way in providing a bottom for shares and instilling confidence in GLBSE assets.

That is a good idea, although I would like to see it be voluntary. In the verification section it could have a "Bonded" indicator that could either be a checkbox or an amount bonded.

Good idea. I just contacted [email protected]
My request for a scammer tag remains though.

I think a scammer tag should be applied in this case, or until asset issuer conforms to his or her GLBSE contract. 

A contract should say what a issuer can do.  Anything not on there should be assumed to be breaking the contract.
The only reason as stated in the contract for no dividends is that the administrative and energy costs are the same amount or more than what was mined in bitcoins.

Another way that no dividends may not be paid is that no mining occurred.  Although, in the contract it never states in that the issuer can stop mining.  Thus the mining should continue to the best of the issuers ability.

It states a way to purchase back shares from the secondary market.  This is 1.05 times the average price the asset was traded for the previous 7 days.  I would advise people to make sure they put their shares for sale no less than 1.05 times the 7-day average.

This is a really bad contract.  These kinds of things should go to GLBSE though so the trading can be halted until the issuer stops breaking the contract.  There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract.

Some questions to ask to determine a good contract or not.
1.  Is it a loan or a percentage of ownership?
2.  If the operation will be shut down, how will it be done, what time frame, and at what cost?
3.  What will the capital raised by selling shares be used for?  If there is excess or unused capital, can those go to purchase back the asset shares or be paid back in dividends?
4.  Who is responsible if operations stop due to unforeseen circumstances.  Is there insurance?
5.  When are dividends and financial reports made?  If they are not made on time what kind of penalty does the operator face?
6.  How can motions be raised?
7.  How can investors see the financials?
8.  How can management be removed?
9.  How will dividends be distributed to shareholders?

https://glbse.com/asset/view/FPGAMINING

There is nothing to investigate: just a look at the contract and dividends paid would take less than 10 seconds.
Then maybe you might consider to tag even someone with much higher rep who is still defending the scammer on his asset thread, so putting innocent bystanders' savings at risk (since the asset is still traded on the GLBSE).

Scammer tags are only for well respected members WTF? Moparguy is verified on GLBSE but I don't understand why someone would have to be trusted to get a tagged profile.

When I first opened this thread, I thought "Oh good. This must be about a well-respected member of the forum who will actually care about the scammer tag." But, then I clicked on the profile.

Seriously, what the hell are you guys thinking? Why should we even bother investigating a case involving such an obvious throw-away account?

I guess there are various ones in charge... Just be patient, the administrators and moderators of this community are overloaded with unusual requirements to judge cases. It is a job which demands a great deal of reading comprehension.

  My sentiment exactly.

Theymos, do you copy?
Is anyone in charge?

Yes, I am really sick of scammers getting away with it because if we aren't super-nice with them they might get upset and not pay back. If you think like this, then in your interest you shouldn't invest as in half the cases you're going to beg scammers to return part of your  money. This attitude is probably the reason offers like FPGAMINING even exist: take money, screw investors, have them all grateful to have part of their funds back after months, no other consequencies. Hell, I don't now why I haven't done it myself yet.

In my opinion, since the hardware was bought with our funds, he should liquidate it and buy back our shares as soon as he can. Or continue paying dividends. No other option -expecially with such blatant refusal to give any detail about when we can expect to see our money back.

You mean the formerly "personal funds" of his investors?

Not tagging a scammer hoping that so he will behave better in the future is silly. He will scam more at any chance.
It would be better tagging him a.s.a.p. and maybe remove his tag once he cleared his mess if he do it fast.

And anyway that is not the only retaliation his investors should opt for. Asking Nefario to freeze his assets maybe another one.

Sure it would warn potential investors, even initiation of this thread was already a big warning.
But looking from morpaguy528 perspective, would " a scammer tag" encourage him to pay back his investors?

Currently he is "still saying" he will slowly buy back shares from mining profits and his personal funds. Today someone bought 73 shares from the ask wall, when the price of the highest bid was twice lower than the lowest ask price. Although it could be just a coincidence...

Giving him a scammer tag would warn potential investors not to buy any more shares.

You are right, contract has been already breached and such a behavior from mining security owner is not only dishonorable but also has its consequences and liabilities for investors.

However, how do you think putting a scammer tag on moparguy528 would help to reimburse investors money? Would it help at all to reach optimal solution on liquidating FPGAMINING?

I am waiting for Nefario too. Just forwarded him your question.

edit: in the meanwhile, a big red scammer tag for moparguy would be appreciated.