Topic: post - page 2. (Read 13616 times)

Usagi, please cover these points in detail. None of these are meant to troll, and none of these have been properly covered in the thread so far. These are simple and clear points related directly to the operations of CPA.
How did you apply standard methods of actual science in order to determine proper exposure and calculate the risks of a 'black box' and totally non transparent venture? By traditional means, doing such a task properly impossible.
While most of the lendees failed to return invested capital, are you really claiming that your personal choice to use those lenders was not an error in judgement? Please elaborate how you, as the head of CPA, is not accountable for that decision.
If there is only an extremely limited amount of due diligence you can perform on ways to invest the float of CPA, how can you form sound and logical choices in regards to such activity? By operating whilst knowing you could only perform limited due diligence, weren't the events that have unfolded clearly seen as a possibility? If an insurance company can't analyze and weigh all risks regarding (a variable) and then consciously operates their business in a fashion in which is highly dependent on their choice of (a variable), that is a clear act of negligence. In this case, you allowed CPA to weigh in the hands of investments you admittedly could not perform due diligence on? Please elaborate how you, as the head of CPA, is not accountable for that decision.
It saddens me that someone would say this like it's a good thing.

While there are no rules against it (as btc is not regulated at all), this is on all accounts unethical. You hold a fiduciary capacity to shareholders and this (if nothing else) should raise eyebrows.

1. You announced major problems with CPA (without providing a clear and full picture.) Stated it has lost 40% minimum of it's value.
2. Share price tanks.
3. You  purchase those shares when they know far more than everyone else in regards to what is going on and stands to make a profit (if you are correct that CPA is not in trouble and has good days ahead.)

If you would have done a buyback with CPA funds to buy drastically under priced shares, you would have been fulfilling your fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Making the conscious choice to buy them for personal profit instead- disclosed after the fact especially- is a clear major breach of trust. In the real world, you would likely catch hellfire, be forced to resign from the company, and face legal consequences. While of course that won't happen here, this illustrates acting in an unethical capacity. There is no grey area in this matter: you made an egregious choice to put yourself before shareholders.

You can not get upset at people being highly skeptic of CPA if you do not provide us the information in order to due full due diligence. Plain and simple. You can choose to not agree with us, but to try to discredit us as 'trolls' is disingenuous.

Please also respond fully to this excellent point, which was first raised by memlova and elaborated upon by Deprived:




I have never said that CPA is a scam, just severely mismanaged. These points illustrate that quite clearly.

No problems, I am just that boss!
//DeaDTerra

I don't feel the need to state the obvious over and over again. That would be the definition of a troll, but on these forums it seems like people think it's "someone that disagrees with me" It's just like how I trolled pirate, or Matthew on him not paying his bet, or BTC Guy selling hardware he didn't have. I'm starting to notice a pattern here, hmm. The only legit business I "troll" is bitinstant because I think they are unethical and sleazy.

Of course your scam is still afloat, you have how many securities, "hotwallets" and other sites supporting it? It's only a matter of time before it comes crumbling down, but I won't say I told you so, because I don't take pleasure rubbing shit in peoples nose. I do feel it's worth mentioning a couple times here and there to warn people though. That's exactly what I did. Don't worry I won't keep posting here either. I don't mean to shit up threads or get into internet arguments, but I stand by the accusation you are dishonest business man. With such a deep reach into bitcoin you'll be attending the bitcoin conference that's coming up correct?

We'll relax as soon as you provide the correct informations. Please stop posting and finish that "letter to shareholders"; until then this discussion is totally worthless since from what you said one could come to think almost anything, from "CPA will go on more or less well" to "CPA is dead tomorrow".

Lying about what?

There have been no shareholder motions so any decisions are yours alone and no one voted for any board of directors.
Yes people claiming to offer "insured" deposits are full of shit and their word is worth nothing. Was this board of advisors in any way related to the ones who received CPA funds for "safekeeping" ? It appears they socially engineered you in that case.

Whats the point of having shareholders if one person makes all the decisions ? There have been zero shareholder motions and we certainly never got to vote for this "board of directors" that embezzled company funds.

If you have a company board this is usually public and shareholders need to approve. What we have ended up with is an unapproved board making decisions without permission of shareholders in the company.

To be fair, hindsight is 20/20. These people told they were not investing in pirate, and they guaranteed the deposits. The main problem I see is that both the insured item and the backing were in the same risk zone.


I'm in.

It just baffles me how someone could actually look at two options:

A)  Invest in pirate pass-through and get (say) 6% per week with risk of losing their capital if pirate defaults,
B)  Insure others investing in pirate and invest their capital elsewhere and get (say) 5% per week with exact same risk of losing their capital AND an additional risk of losing DOUBLE their capital if 2nd investment gos south as well

And come to the conclusion that B) was the better option.  What conceivable thought-process could reach that choice?

The only way this would work would be if capital were only a small part of the amount insured - but that couldn't be done when you were only insuring one ponzi (as all policies would come due at the same time).   If CPA had been insuring a lot of ponzis then it could be profitable (as you could run with a lot lower capital:cover ratio) - but you'd need seriously good data about how long on average they operated for before running with the funds.

The only thing more baffling to me than this is how others could think that the person who chose B) was a good choice to invest in (or to stay invested in).  

How much assets does CPA have outside the funds sent to "advisors" ? Is this enough to cover contracts CPA has signed with other companies ?

I think a shareholders union is a good idea to at east offer some guidance and protect our interests. To me it seems that the "round table" were only in it to feather their own nests by accepting CPA funds which they basically embezzled.

No you aren't missing much. I think it was more of a gamble, which should never have took place. Keep in mind that the bonds were sold with 30% to 70% premium. Regardless, not doing it was is a clear-cut better idea from an insurance standpoint for the exact reasons you stated. The numbers don't add up even if BTCS&T weren't a scam, and you don't insure against anonymous Internet borrowers to only deposit your money in anonymous Internet borrowers.


That would be unethical as well. Usagi already said he would cover it with his own money if need be (correct me I misinterpreted).

I suggest people dont break their signed contracts.

I think CPA is bankrupt. I suggest that nobody pay their premiums for insurance that doesn't exist.

You arent helping things nor offering solutions.

I believe Usagi can turn it around but its going to take a lot of work.

I don't think you can call it an "obvious scam". He has some contracts sold, many publicly disclosed by the insured party, so he has some income. That is a more verifiable business model than many of the other investments around here.

Look, I have been in similar situations before, you just need to cry alone and face your lenders with a firm smile. Fairness has nothing to do with it, that's why it doesn't need to be fair. Is it fair to me that you failed to store my money in a proper off-line wallet? I'm a shareholder and I hold you responsible. That is how real world operates. You shouldn't have started this business if you aren't aware of this fact.

Isn't it Bitcoinica's fault that their money was stolen? Can they come to me and tell me it's not their fault? They were robbed for god's sake and we are still suing them. Is it fair? Should we change the system and start accepting everyone's apology? Have you even apologized?

I am speaking for all shareholders. I don't need to prove to you that I am. Do you want signatures? Do you really want us organized?

What we want to hear from you is apologies and promises. Please change your attitude. We trusted you, and we can still trust you if you do so. I believe that this company can be fixed, but you have to accept all these and still be willing to do it despite that.


I for one don't believe it ever was or is a scam. Usagi has always met his/her obligations, so I trust the honesty. It's a lot of inexperience and mismanagement, and this affects only the investors and not the clients. That's why I think there is a chance that this can be fixed.

who would have guessed this would happen?
Have to laugh. But really, anyone who trusted this asshat deserves what is to come. It was an obvious scam since day one. He's been opening other scam sites like crazy to make up the difference, guess he didn't hit his mark to cash out before shit went south. See online wallet and shitty gambling sites coded in less than 20 minutes as example.

Nope, only ducklings.

Primarily Canadian oil shale ventures, and Norwegian Seafood farming companies. On GLBSE I pick and choose carefully, and don't pretend I can beat the system.

Reckless - reck·less [rek-lis]
     adjective
     1. utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually followed by of ): to be reckless of danger.
     2. characterized by or proceeding from such carelessness: reckless extravagance.
Covering your risk profile with investments in the same market you are covering would indeed be considered "reckless" in a fiduciary responsibility kind of a way.

Two months ago I was here doing the same sort of bullshit detecting that I am doing with your thread. Coincidentally I was invested in CPA at that time with a relatively small position. Bought in early July, dumped out three weeks later when you missed your first dividend payment. Basically broke even. Had I held to today my investment would be worth about 20% of what it cost me.

You were lied to? How about your customers when you made these interesting claims:

In the event of a full pirate default, NYAN.C will loose out, and CPA holds NYAN which holds NYAN.C. Then we have contracts on the outside as well. All in all CPA will remain very solvent, it may lose 20% of it's value in a full default. But we stands just as ready to gain 20% if pirate doesn't default.

First, the obvious. CPA won't pay dividends this month because of the pirate collapse. CPA has lost about 40% of it's value. And when I say 40% I mean, at a minimum.

Every other deposit-taker has either stalled or has told me that they have lost substantial amounts of CPA's money (25-50% and more, in almost every case).

We still make money, we still have contracts, we just don't have any free assets. How much is CPA worth? I really have no idea.

Another big, big effort I made in order to build trust within the community was to host a round table discussion group which during it's time had some of the biggest names around on it. We discussed operations, I laid out plans, and I basically gave everyone a share of the power CPA had... One man alone can't do this. I needed to trust the people around me but they all pretty much bailed or (essentially) ripped me off one way or another. What a disappointment.

Selecting some of your keys statements since this latest debacle began, so it's not my foot going in my mouth, rather yours going into the community's ass as your hand goes into their pocket.

Which is it- total insolvency or just a few crumbs?

Which is it- 40%, 20%, or 80%?

How, if you invested carefully (and not at all recklessly!) did 80% of your surety holders manage to lose 25-50% of your investment, and you have no idea of what they were doing with the money?

How are you still "making money" but considering folding up your tent and walking away from the market, without even so much as a "Fuck your mother" to the poor bastards that invested in your poor impulse control?

Little dude you are in deep shit here, you blew it. Poking insults at me won't fix YOUR fuck-up in this matter. Quit looking for people to blame and start handling your business. And at least try to get your stories straight.

All I can say is a lot of people are full of shit and their word is not worth the toilet paper its printed on.