Topic: general (Read 4311 times)

I guess new SLA's have to be negotiated, unless there is no renegotiation clauses in the existing ones.

It might be prudent to send a notification to your community the need to hire additional insurers in order to ensure none suffer from unannounced service outage.

What say these existing clients? Their thoughts matter more than mine, of course. This thread isn't their notification is it?

 

Yes CPA cant just close and renege on all its insurance  contracts.

Its not only Nyan. The same goes for all its other customers too. Thats why I said, you cant just close CPA and transfer its assets to its shareholders without making whole your customers and creditors first, and thats not so easy. CPA's assets are premiums paid by its customers to get an insurance, taking those funds and forgoing the insurance is theft.

That's a totally reasonable question.

Which FAQ?  You make a new thread every time you have an idea - so it's kind of hard to keep track of them all.

I think you maybe misread my post anyway - I KNOW someone (not me) asked in a different thread about closing nyan.b without closing nyan.a.  But that is NOT my question here - I was asking about CPA: that IS, after all, what this thread is about.

I just checked your "closing nyan.b" thread and saw no mention of it (not surprising as my question wasn't about nyan.b".   I checked the nyancat FAQ - no mention there.  I checked the CPA FAQ - nothing at all in it.  So where is the FAQ that addresses the issue that CPA guarantees nyan.a's capital so can't really shut down before nyan.a?

I was simply pointing adding to my earlier point (that CPA has to either complete its contracts, negotiate out of the or default on them before shutting down) and giving nyan.a as an example.

On the subject of nyan.a, you realise you'd need to close that before you can close CPA?  nyan.a is, after all, guaranteed by CPA - without that guarantee investors may well not wish to remain in it.

Oh - and it's still missing its 0.99 bidwall (as is Yarr with it's 1.0 one for the insurance that should have been paid out a month ago).

What exactly are you confused about in that context?

Every time an asset gets created on glbse it should create a prediction market on those assets of succeed or fail.

Yes it should shut down.  I think the only effective insurance system that can exist in bitcoin is with a binary market betting system.

I have to admit this is pretty lulzy.

Your original post answers your question.  You don't enjoy the business and you are losing money.  Get out as gracefully as possible.  Most business fail.  Eventually they all do.

I don't believe you can just shut CPA down easily.  I assume you still have some insurance policies out (not just the BMF one that you refuse to discuss or honour).  Do all those policies HAVE clauses in allowing you to just cancel without reparation?

If they all can be ended without breach of contract (including if the all the insured will reach settlement for closure where they aren't obligated to) then you CAN close - and probably should.

Otherwise you're obligated to maintain sufficient capital (properly segregated by sector as per CPA's contract) to cover all outstanding policies until they expire.  Anything else would be a default.  Remember, you can change CPA's own contract (with its investors) at any time you like - they agreed to that (last item of the contract).  But you can't unilaterally change any contracts you've signed with insurees (other than with BMF - where you're both sides of the contract and neither side has honoured it anyway).

So I vote : YES if you can without default.  Otherwise struggle on until all contracts have expired - or default if you prefer.

You really change your mind very fast, porno Mircea. You are invested in both Patrick and Usagi with your CDO.
http://polimedia.us/bitcoin/mpex.php?mpsic=B.MPCD.A

Nevertheless, this is precisely what WS fund managers think/claim/do. It's a sickness, apparently any gender-confused undereducated and neglected youth catches it by merely pretending to be dabbling in the same thing.

Yeah I was wondering who exactly usagi was saying made money here considering shareholders are meant to share all the profits   

I had to re-read this part of the discussion to make sure I understood the context for this.  wow. 

This sums it up rather well. Who chose to invest CPA's money with all of those people? Usagi did. Yet Usagi claims no personal responsibility for managing CPA poorly.

This is about CPA, not Nyan.

As for not being a scammer; until now, as far as Nyan is concerned, you are not a scammer in the sense that you are trying to walk away with everyone's money pirate style, no. But what you are doing is constantly misleading investors and misrepresenting reality, and as a result, Investors that believe you are getting screwed, time after time.

Why you do that? Its possible you have been funneling funds to cpa, which is a black box, and you will take your profits there by liquidating it. Its also possible, likely even, its by shear incompetence. But I rather think the biggest reason is simply your ego. You dont want to acknowledge all your funds and companies are utter failures. Instead of facing up to that, you keep digging deeper holes and doubling down on bets you already lost. And you are doing so at the expense of your investors, overvaluing stuff by 2x or 10x and  going as far as buying shares (with your investors money) at 10x any reasonable valuation only to delay the inevitable conclusion.

Barely a week ago I wrote this:


And you lol'ed at it.

The looney was right though. You have since shuffled assets between Nyans and bought back bonds, but per share your nav has sunk even further. If you were to transfer assets from B to A to restore its nav to 1 as you are contractually obliged, Nyan.B would have a NAV of 0.24 per share.

If the SEC is investigating pirate and sniffing around glbse it is already fucked so I dont think reporting anyone else is going to matter.

I wish someone would pay me for posting the truth.
But you are right, you shouldnt care about what I think. What you should care about is what your customers and creditors think. This isnt about CPA shareholders, there probably is almost no one left at this point except you and your other scams. This is about stealing what little is left of the money that belongs to your customers and creditors.
If you are going to pay yourself these funds owned by others as dividends, before making good on your debts, you will be looking at much more than just a scammer label, you will be looking at legal action and if nothing else, I will make damn sure the SEC hears about it.