Quote
So, thought about streamlining your trades, lowering your account creation fee, updating your site design, or stopped being a troll? If yes, you are lying. If no, post tits or gtfo.
"Streamlining trades"? What's that?
Topic: post (Read 13616 times)
Quote
Wow, from oblivion to financial adviser in just three weeks!
Look at the big brain on young Atlas! Now offering insider trading advice for an asset that even the HBIC admits looks "scammy or shady". Is willing to offer forward looking statements (without the required disclaimer) about future events (without the legal format) promising returns (illegal) on unexplained events (sound just a bit like pirate yet?), and does this thinking the use of a couple of cute acronyms will lend credence to his "advice".
NVA = Net Asset Value. That's the core physical value of a share, based on actual current analysis. Not based on vague future plans.
Equilibrium = balance. The share price is nowhere near balanced, and the price has been dropped significantly due to the erratic and quite possibly fraudulent actions of the assets founder, Usagi.
Payout = actually making good on contracts. It does not mean making up rules after a default to change how the record looks. Has every creditor who bought this insurance been paid in full for all losses as required by the conditions of sale? No.
My call on this asset and it's trusted financial adviser is stay as far away as possible. This is just another ploy by a pirate-loser looking to re-coup some coins for themselves. Which may explain why Goat is hanging around here sucking up too.
Look at the big brain on young Atlas! Now offering insider trading advice for an asset that even the HBIC admits looks "scammy or shady". Is willing to offer forward looking statements (without the required disclaimer) about future events (without the legal format) promising returns (illegal) on unexplained events (sound just a bit like pirate yet?), and does this thinking the use of a couple of cute acronyms will lend credence to his "advice".
NVA = Net Asset Value. That's the core physical value of a share, based on actual current analysis. Not based on vague future plans.
Equilibrium = balance. The share price is nowhere near balanced, and the price has been dropped significantly due to the erratic and quite possibly fraudulent actions of the assets founder, Usagi.
Payout = actually making good on contracts. It does not mean making up rules after a default to change how the record looks. Has every creditor who bought this insurance been paid in full for all losses as required by the conditions of sale? No.
My call on this asset and it's trusted financial adviser is stay as far away as possible. This is just another ploy by a pirate-loser looking to re-coup some coins for themselves. Which may explain why Goat is hanging around here sucking up too.
QFT
So, thought about streamlining your trades, lowering your account creation fee, updating your site design, or stopped being a troll? If yes, you are lying. If no, post tits or gtfo.
Quote
Wow, from oblivion to financial adviser in just three weeks!
Look at the big brain on young Atlas! Now offering insider trading advice for an asset that even the HBIC admits looks "scammy or shady". Is willing to offer forward looking statements (without the required disclaimer) about future events (without the legal format) promising returns (illegal) on unexplained events (sound just a bit like pirate yet?), and does this thinking the use of a couple of cute acronyms will lend credence to his "advice".
NVA = Net Asset Value. That's the core physical value of a share, based on actual current analysis. Not based on vague future plans.
Equilibrium = balance. The share price is nowhere near balanced, and the price has been dropped significantly due to the erratic and quite possibly fraudulent actions of the assets founder, Usagi.
Payout = actually making good on contracts. It does not mean making up rules after a default to change how the record looks. Has every creditor who bought this insurance been paid in full for all losses as required by the conditions of sale? No.
My call on this asset and it's trusted financial adviser is stay as far away as possible. This is just another ploy by a pirate-loser looking to re-coup some coins for themselves. Which may explain why Goat is hanging around here sucking up too.
Look at the big brain on young Atlas! Now offering insider trading advice for an asset that even the HBIC admits looks "scammy or shady". Is willing to offer forward looking statements (without the required disclaimer) about future events (without the legal format) promising returns (illegal) on unexplained events (sound just a bit like pirate yet?), and does this thinking the use of a couple of cute acronyms will lend credence to his "advice".
NVA = Net Asset Value. That's the core physical value of a share, based on actual current analysis. Not based on vague future plans.
Equilibrium = balance. The share price is nowhere near balanced, and the price has been dropped significantly due to the erratic and quite possibly fraudulent actions of the assets founder, Usagi.
Payout = actually making good on contracts. It does not mean making up rules after a default to change how the record looks. Has every creditor who bought this insurance been paid in full for all losses as required by the conditions of sale? No.
My call on this asset and it's trusted financial adviser is stay as far away as possible. This is just another ploy by a pirate-loser looking to re-coup some coins for themselves. Which may explain why Goat is hanging around here sucking up too.
QFT
Has every creditor who bought this insurance been paid in full for all losses as required by the conditions of sale? No.
Proof? 
Wow, from oblivion to financial adviser in just three weeks!
Look at the big brain on young Atlas! Now offering insider trading advice for an asset that even the HBIC admits looks "scammy or shady". Is willing to offer forward looking statements (without the required disclaimer) about future events (without the legal format) promising returns (illegal) on unexplained events (sound just a bit like pirate yet?), and does this thinking the use of a couple of cute acronyms will lend credence to his "advice".
NVA = Net Asset Value. That's the core physical value of a share, based on actual current analysis. Not based on vague future plans.
Equilibrium = balance. The share price is nowhere near balanced, and the price has been dropped significantly due to the erratic and quite possibly fraudulent actions of the assets founder, Usagi.
Payout = actually making good on contracts. It does not mean making up rules after a default to change how the record looks. Has every creditor who bought this insurance been paid in full for all losses as required by the conditions of sale? No.
My call on this asset and it's trusted financial adviser is stay as far away as possible. This is just another ploy by a pirate-loser looking to re-coup some coins for themselves. Which may explain why Goat is hanging around here sucking up too.
Look at the big brain on young Atlas! Now offering insider trading advice for an asset that even the HBIC admits looks "scammy or shady". Is willing to offer forward looking statements (without the required disclaimer) about future events (without the legal format) promising returns (illegal) on unexplained events (sound just a bit like pirate yet?), and does this thinking the use of a couple of cute acronyms will lend credence to his "advice".
NVA = Net Asset Value. That's the core physical value of a share, based on actual current analysis. Not based on vague future plans.
Equilibrium = balance. The share price is nowhere near balanced, and the price has been dropped significantly due to the erratic and quite possibly fraudulent actions of the assets founder, Usagi.
Payout = actually making good on contracts. It does not mean making up rules after a default to change how the record looks. Has every creditor who bought this insurance been paid in full for all losses as required by the conditions of sale? No.
My call on this asset and it's trusted financial adviser is stay as far away as possible. This is just another ploy by a pirate-loser looking to re-coup some coins for themselves. Which may explain why Goat is hanging around here sucking up too.
"There is absolutely zero reason for me to release any info about CPA outside this circle. "
If you want people outside the circle to use you as insurance then you do have a reason.
If you want people outside the circle to use you as insurance then you do have a reason.
She's paid out at 100% every time. Her history says she has assets to pay out obligations. We're not dealing with a jobless junky like Dank here.
I think she has proven herself.
CPA has reached an equilibrium since the recent defaults due to Usagi proving she has more than enough assets to cover payouts. It is currently selling well-above NAV due to dividends and other future events. The bids are slowly building up.
Just an FYI to anyone who has been scared off recently.
Just an FYI to anyone who has been scared off recently.
If it is selling above the NAV, then now is a good time to sell. Atlas is saying "SELL SELL SELL!"
CPA has reached an equilibrium since the recent defaults due to Usagi proving she has more than enough assets to cover payouts. It is currently selling well-above NAV due to dividends and other future events. The bids are slowly building up.
Just an FYI to anyone who has been scared off recently.
Just an FYI to anyone who has been scared off recently.
The whole situation looks a mess largely because of all the various inter-twined enterprises being run by the same individual.
Oh really?
There's also no mention in the contract of what happens if the full 500 BTC is paid out. Do all future payments end?
This line, as well as quoting the entire contract when all you needed to do was post a link, prove only two things:
1. You don't understand the contract I wrote,
2. You are new here (Jesus, 58 posts?)
Dude, you just got out of the newbies' forum. Seriously, fuck off. You don't even understand the contract. Hang out a little more before you start attacking people.
This contract was announced, publicized, and voted on over a month ago. Where were you then? Exactly.
Go read the contract again and stop posting on my thread pls. You clearly a) are not a shareholder b) are very confused and I really don't have time to sit here and answer a bunch of questions from people who aren't going to invest anyway and are only here to troll.
If I have to I will lock the thread and post a new one with local rules about post count and shareholder eligibility. I'd rather keep going with this one. Or do you want me to create a locked announcements thread? It's your choice.
Now if you have a legitimate question, ask. If you are just spreading bullshit, go away or I'll just lock the thread. We have a FAQ, did you know that? Did you go to our website and read it? Probably not.
Quote
There's other interactions between the various entities run by usagi which look far more like them propping one another up (at the expense of their own share-holders) than indiviudal companies each being run in the interest of their owners.
e.g. nyan.a and nyan.b have both currently got 100 BTC loans to nyan.c. nyan.a supposoedly only invests in low-risk things (a bit like BMF - mainly invetsing in mining shares that have little risk of achieveing anything other than losing NAV faster than dividends can pay for it). Is nyan.c low risk? By usagi's own definition (and its catastrophic performance) it's explicitly high-risk.
e.g. nyan.a and nyan.b have both currently got 100 BTC loans to nyan.c. nyan.a supposoedly only invests in low-risk things (a bit like BMF - mainly invetsing in mining shares that have little risk of achieveing anything other than losing NAV faster than dividends can pay for it). Is nyan.c low risk? By usagi's own definition (and its catastrophic performance) it's explicitly high-risk.
Hahahahaha, you REALLY don't know what you are talking about. Just go away for a while and think before you post here again. This is painful. I'm not going to re-explain NYAN for you. Go read the contract and the weekly letters to shareholders I have been publishing for the last month. Jeez, some people.. lol
You are deceitful, insulting, and dodge most serious questions, usually with insults. I can't really believe anyone still holds these shares. Quite frankly, I think you're running a multi-headed scam, in the guise of intertwined companies relying on each other (with you double-dealing at the helm) - but most will see it a you "becoming insolvent" )
(BTW, this has been my position since you opened CPA, and has only grown with your increased number of
Please don't bother to respond. Save your insults for someone with thinner skin. Jesus. only 585 posts and acting like a total prick already? I thought that was for Hero members & staff only.
I've talked to Usagi and it seems CPA is generating a sizeable income. She appears to be well-invested in it and her confidence is sincere.
I will say CPA is a bit undervalued at the moment.
I will say CPA is a bit undervalued at the moment.
Atlas is trying to pump and dump CPA. I've seen this message many times from random email addresses "Quick, check out penny stock XYZ, which experts call undervalued! The price is about to jump, buy now!"
Atlas, please keep crap like that out of our forum.
I can't say I am that much of a gambler. I only invested in CPA because I believe their insurance contracts and their future payouts are worth more than .03 BTC a share.
I have an exit strategy but it certainly isn't pump and dump.
I've talked to Usagi and it seems CPA is generating a sizeable income. She appears to be well-invested in it and her confidence is sincere.
I will say CPA is a bit undervalued at the moment.
I will say CPA is a bit undervalued at the moment.
Atlas is trying to pump and dump CPA. I've seen this message many times from random email addresses "Quick, check out penny stock XYZ, which experts call undervalued! The price is about to jump, buy now!"
Atlas, please keep crap like that out of our forum.
If I have to I will lock the thread and post a new one with local rules about post count and shareholder eligibility. I'd rather keep going with this one. Or do you want me to create a locked announcements thread? It's your choice.
You should make an IRC channel and have your most trusted shills as OPs. You already have a bet going just like our old buddy might as well copy him exactly. Then finally a public appearance to boost confidence before the house of cards tumbles. But I don't think you could do that because Nefario will notice the person doesn't match the fake ID you provided him.
I mean attacking people based on post account. Calling everyone names. Going though my posts from over 8 months ago to find my quote calling myself a noob because I posted about a topic that was already addressed. Feeling the need to pubically point out you ignored me rather than just actually ignoring me, you must be getting desperate.
The whole situation looks a mess largely because of all the various inter-twined enterprises being run by the same individual.
example:
BMF is insured by CPA. Here's the full text of the policy (call me paranoid - but I don't want no record of it after I've posted) other than the dispute resolution (which is standard - and irrelevant given it's the same party on both ends of the contract):
"A. NAV Insurance Contract
1. BMF ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of less than 1 per unit.
2. CPA will not be liable for loss greater than 500 bitcoins.
3. Multiple indemnification payments are allowed so far as the total amount
does not exceed 500 bitcoins.
4. Neither party may cancel this contract although any party may choose to
accelerate their obligation at any time.
5. All payments by either party must be tagged with .000012 to show that
they belong to CPA Contract #12. Ex. a payment of 95 btc would be sent
as 95.000012.
B. Payment of Premium
1. BMF will send 5 bitcoins per calendar week for 110 weeks to CPA at
[1EGXZ8kPwEeomiepZwwZayZYdH5nQTkc1f] ("CPA Marked Deposit Address").
2. Any and all payments of 5 bitcoins sent to this address will satisfy
BMF's obligation in this regard.
3. Payments made late (after the insured period begins) will be assigned
a late fee of 10%.
4. Multiple payments may be sent at the same time provided the marker is
not changed (i.e. 10.000012 for two weeks, 15.000012 for three weeks).
C. Indemnification
1. From time to time (and/or at the bequest of BMF), CPA will monitor
BMF's NAV (Net Asset Value).
2. At that time, should BMF's NAV be less than one, CPA will transfer
100 bitcoins to BMF at address [1N9xQivX5yEYXafjJfeQYtSiq1iT6h9sek]
("BMF Marked Deposit Address")."
BMF has just reported it's NAV at 0.57 - but has not signalled any intent to claim under this policy. A policy which is shoddy - to say the least.
Total liabilty for CPA is 500 BTC - but each individual claim is limited to being 100 BTC. Multiple claims are allowed yet there's NO MENTION of the cooling-down period (or other criteria) to allow a second claim after a first has been settled. The sole criteria for paying out is that NAV is below 1 - making the 100 BTC per claim restriction totally pointless as a second claim can immediately be lodged to get another 100 BTC.
WIll there be an insurance claim? Seems at the moment the insurance policy has been forgotten and the "plan" for BMF is to become a mining company rather than just invest in others. So why buy the insurance? To help prop up CPA?
There's also no mention in the contract of what happens if the full 500 BTC is paid out. Do all future payments end? Or is BMF obliged to continue paying 5 bTC per week for the remainder of the 110 weeks - despite having no further cover? If the latter is the case then it's hardly insurance where the total fees for cover over the duration of a single contract exceed the total amount which can be claimed (it's an option for a bailout loan at a low rate of interest). If the former is the case then charging a 1% premium for cover per week to a company that has just recovered from an earlier drop in nav seems 'generous' at best.
There's other interactions between the various entities run by usagi which look far more like them propping one another up (at the expense of their own share-holders) than indiviudal companies each being run in the interest of their owners.
e.g. nyan.a and nyan.b have both currently got 100 BTC loans to nyan.c. nyan.a supposoedly only invests in low-risk things (a bit like BMF - mainly invetsing in mining shares that have little risk of achieveing anything other than losing NAV faster than dividends can pay for it). Is nyan.c low risk? By usagi's own definition (and its catastrophic performance) it's explicitly high-risk.
All this web of comapnies does is obfuscate what's really happening with funds - allow funds to be traded between them so as to prop one another up (on paper, at least). CPA owns nyan (though is trying to sell it) which is the main investor in nyan.a, nyan,b and nyan.c. nyan.b, strangely, also has an invetsment in CPA (from book value would guess this is the shares usagi picked up cheap). none of the nyan's generate any management fee - CPA's profit (lol) from them comes from their own investment in them via nyan. So if nyan.b is owned by CPA but holds CPA shares we have a nice little circle-jerk which achieves nothing other than increasing apparent liquidity/value of both.
And if usagi sells off CPA's nyan shares then usagi ends up running nyan.a,b and c without any management fee and with no profit from them going to CPA (unless they take out insurance of course).
I'm not accusing usagi of trying to defraud anyone - I don't actually believe he/she is. I just think they're in way over their head and trying to cover up the mess. Plus there's shocking insurance policies being written (see above plus the pirate-related ones) - I assume because CPA needs to issue SOME insurance policies to continue to pretend they're an insurance company (what % of current assets are actually backing policies as opposed to being spunked away in mining-bonds, obsi's ponzi or whatever?)
There's one or two real shockers of investments by some of the nyans as well - but here's not the place to discuss that.
example:
BMF is insured by CPA. Here's the full text of the policy (call me paranoid - but I don't want no record of it after I've posted) other than the dispute resolution (which is standard - and irrelevant given it's the same party on both ends of the contract):
"A. NAV Insurance Contract
1. BMF ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of less than 1 per unit.
2. CPA will not be liable for loss greater than 500 bitcoins.
3. Multiple indemnification payments are allowed so far as the total amount
does not exceed 500 bitcoins.
4. Neither party may cancel this contract although any party may choose to
accelerate their obligation at any time.
5. All payments by either party must be tagged with .000012 to show that
they belong to CPA Contract #12. Ex. a payment of 95 btc would be sent
as 95.000012.
B. Payment of Premium
1. BMF will send 5 bitcoins per calendar week for 110 weeks to CPA at
[1EGXZ8kPwEeomiepZwwZayZYdH5nQTkc1f] ("CPA Marked Deposit Address").
2. Any and all payments of 5 bitcoins sent to this address will satisfy
BMF's obligation in this regard.
3. Payments made late (after the insured period begins) will be assigned
a late fee of 10%.
4. Multiple payments may be sent at the same time provided the marker is
not changed (i.e. 10.000012 for two weeks, 15.000012 for three weeks).
C. Indemnification
1. From time to time (and/or at the bequest of BMF), CPA will monitor
BMF's NAV (Net Asset Value).
2. At that time, should BMF's NAV be less than one, CPA will transfer
100 bitcoins to BMF at address [1N9xQivX5yEYXafjJfeQYtSiq1iT6h9sek]
("BMF Marked Deposit Address")."
BMF has just reported it's NAV at 0.57 - but has not signalled any intent to claim under this policy. A policy which is shoddy - to say the least.
Total liabilty for CPA is 500 BTC - but each individual claim is limited to being 100 BTC. Multiple claims are allowed yet there's NO MENTION of the cooling-down period (or other criteria) to allow a second claim after a first has been settled. The sole criteria for paying out is that NAV is below 1 - making the 100 BTC per claim restriction totally pointless as a second claim can immediately be lodged to get another 100 BTC.
WIll there be an insurance claim? Seems at the moment the insurance policy has been forgotten and the "plan" for BMF is to become a mining company rather than just invest in others. So why buy the insurance? To help prop up CPA?
There's also no mention in the contract of what happens if the full 500 BTC is paid out. Do all future payments end? Or is BMF obliged to continue paying 5 bTC per week for the remainder of the 110 weeks - despite having no further cover? If the latter is the case then it's hardly insurance where the total fees for cover over the duration of a single contract exceed the total amount which can be claimed (it's an option for a bailout loan at a low rate of interest). If the former is the case then charging a 1% premium for cover per week to a company that has just recovered from an earlier drop in nav seems 'generous' at best.
There's other interactions between the various entities run by usagi which look far more like them propping one another up (at the expense of their own share-holders) than indiviudal companies each being run in the interest of their owners.
e.g. nyan.a and nyan.b have both currently got 100 BTC loans to nyan.c. nyan.a supposoedly only invests in low-risk things (a bit like BMF - mainly invetsing in mining shares that have little risk of achieveing anything other than losing NAV faster than dividends can pay for it). Is nyan.c low risk? By usagi's own definition (and its catastrophic performance) it's explicitly high-risk.
All this web of comapnies does is obfuscate what's really happening with funds - allow funds to be traded between them so as to prop one another up (on paper, at least). CPA owns nyan (though is trying to sell it) which is the main investor in nyan.a, nyan,b and nyan.c. nyan.b, strangely, also has an invetsment in CPA (from book value would guess this is the shares usagi picked up cheap). none of the nyan's generate any management fee - CPA's profit (lol) from them comes from their own investment in them via nyan. So if nyan.b is owned by CPA but holds CPA shares we have a nice little circle-jerk which achieves nothing other than increasing apparent liquidity/value of both.
And if usagi sells off CPA's nyan shares then usagi ends up running nyan.a,b and c without any management fee and with no profit from them going to CPA (unless they take out insurance of course).
I'm not accusing usagi of trying to defraud anyone - I don't actually believe he/she is. I just think they're in way over their head and trying to cover up the mess. Plus there's shocking insurance policies being written (see above plus the pirate-related ones) - I assume because CPA needs to issue SOME insurance policies to continue to pretend they're an insurance company (what % of current assets are actually backing policies as opposed to being spunked away in mining-bonds, obsi's ponzi or whatever?)
There's one or two real shockers of investments by some of the nyans as well - but here's not the place to discuss that.
Quote
it's basically come down to, if the last 2 people I invested money with can't pay back, there will be no way to hide or avoid the losses, and CPA's net value will go to zero.
You posted stuff like this then when the share price takes a dump you admit buying all the cheap shares for your personal holdings ?
I dont know what to say....
Looks like this discussion has been bad for the share price, somebody filled my lowball order. I have never said that CPA is a scam, just severely mismanaged. These points illustrate that quite clearly.
Fine. Now that you've said your peace, as you're not an investor here, there's no more reason for you to post here.
I know I didn't respond to you directly in this post but I believe the last several PMs we exchanged made my position perfectly clear.
You addressing all of the points I made in my previous post is not for my gain. If you fully address them, it will likely help investors and potential investors understand how CPA functions.
Your PMs to me covered very few of the points I made in my last post. It would likely do for more good for you to address them than to dodge them.
Jump to: