Topic: program - page 2. (Read 5810 times)

My question is, what is your answer to deprived's questions. They seem quite valid questions,  I see no reason why I or anyone else should waste time rephrasing them.

BTW this local rule ban stuff makes you look like a 12 year old trying to weasel his way out of something. Its not reflecting well on you at all.

There have been reports of the site not working, and the response has been slow to say the least. It appears the site is working, but there is not a whole lot of activity on it, which means that the original estimations were incorrect. The website also has not been updated in a while, and the longer they wait to add features the more likely it is that somebody else will make something as good or better. The price of bitcoins has doubled since it was IPOed, and while that increases the value of this company slightly, I would not say the value has doubled. I would actually call the value somewhere between 0.03 and 0.02 (I would buy at 0.02 but sell at 0.03), I think the recent sales have just been people exiting the market due to the Goat/Nefario kerflufle, but since the volume has been so low it is hard to get a meaningful price from the market.

The complaints of bad service are on a separate thread, in "marketplace" or somewhere, I will see if I can find it ... found it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/feed-ze-birds-106242

There is no rule that allows you to ban anyone asking or speaking up against your bull shit. If there is, can I have the link for this forum rule? (not your made up rule, that helps you in spreading lies and incorrect information about the NAV etc of those portfolios, you have single handedly destroyed.


So, you are refusing to answer honest questions? How long do you think you can keep lying to pole on this forum?
What if they all start asking those same questions but with different wording?

 

Are you talking about FZB? I believe there is in fact negative news - multiple reports of users unable to start funding campaigns, multiple reports of users unable to get their coins back.

I would have more faith in "the same guy who runs Satoshidice" if I got the feeling he had time for other ventures.

I am interested how you will answer these questions as well?

Why would you change it to IPO price? What is your reasoning that fair market value is 10x the current highest bid and 5x the 5 day average?
Missing a zero could be an honest mistake.  Deliberately inflating your asset value by 10x is not.

Im interested in the answer to these questions too

How many of those 1100 shares were bought back from the public via GLBSE as opposed to bought back at "FMV" from your own companies via private transfer?  Nyan seems to have managed to divest itself of nearly all its assets - the assets that supposedly secure nyan.a and nyan.b

"Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN."

Shame those assets all vanished back to CPA (by selling off its nyan.a/b/c ahead of other people trying to sell then buying back its own shares from CPA).

Oh - and:

"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."

bidwall's still missing - has been for days.  145 nyan.a shares on market at .99 or less and only a trading volume of <5 BTC worth of them in last 5 days.

Yes - I saw your local rule thing.  No need to quote me to point it out.  But if YOU won't follow what's in the OP of your threads (e.g. the nyan.a bidwall) then you can hardly expect anyone else to.

How is that relevant to this thread?  Well CPA are supposed to be guaranteeing nyan.a by maintaining that bid-wall (your words, quoted above, not mine).  If they can't do that then their guarantee of value for nyan.a is defunct - and you shouldn't be closing down nyan.b before nyan.a.  Normally in a tranched security the senior tranche (nyan.a here) is closed out first.  Whilst nyan.a had a credible guarantee it seemed reasonable to not enforce that.  But if CPA is now refusing/unable to honour its guarantee (and YES - you knew it wasn't: I pointed it out a few times before) then you really should be closing out the senior tranche first.

Been wondering about the .A bidwall myself. The few times I wanted to liquidate .A, there was no bidwall. I haven't seen one anytime recently either.

What's the value of the fund after that change?

How do you get so warped NAV's for those portfolios?

UTC 16.20 2012.03.10 NYAN.B (if you actually hold what you have published) is about 0.50665 BTC and this is very generous.
Looks like you managed to pick up another 2651 OBSI.HRPT (now 8218). I bet all the share holders are ecstatic about that.
There is someone, who want 53 shares of that junk and is willing to pay 0.005302 (notice the .00 !)

How many of those 1100 shares were bought back from the public via GLBSE as opposed to bought back at "FMV" from your own companies via private transfer?  Nyan seems to have managed to divest itself of nearly all its assets - the assets that supposedly secure nyan.a and nyan.b

"Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN."

Shame those assets all vanished back to CPA (by selling off its nyan.a/b/c ahead of other people trying to sell then buying back its own shares from CPA).

Oh - and:

"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."

bidwall's still missing - has been for days.  145 nyan.a shares on market at .99 or less and only a trading volume of <5 BTC worth of them in last 5 days.

Yes - I saw your local rule thing.  No need to quote me to point it out.  But if YOU won't follow what's in the OP of your threads (e.g. the nyan.a bidwall) then you can hardly expect anyone else to.

How is that relevant to this thread?  Well CPA are supposed to be guaranteeing nyan.a by maintaining that bid-wall (your words, quoted above, not mine).  If they can't do that then their guarantee of value for nyan.a is defunct - and you shouldn't be closing down nyan.b before nyan.a.  Normally in a tranched security the senior tranche (nyan.a here) is closed out first.  Whilst nyan.a had a credible guarantee it seemed reasonable to not enforce that.  But if CPA is now refusing/unable to honour its guarantee (and YES - you knew it wasn't: I pointed it out a few times before) then you really should be closing out the senior tranche first.

Usagi, you really did miss a zero in FZB.A's valuation. It has never ever  traded anywhere near 0.2, it IPO'd at 0.1 and its been steeply downhill ever since, If you valued it at 0.02 it might be defensible (its still double of the current highest bid and 400000x last trade), 0.2 is absolutely and utterly insane;  The site doesnt even work, isnt maintained and people woke up to the reality that even though its a good idea,  30% of  1/100,000th of a ~1 day development website isnt worth a fortune.. certainly not 60,000 BTC.

As for Adminsorted; it looks like a scam to me and it appears you are the only one buying it. Even if its not a scam, the total of bids is 0. You can claim its worth 1 BTC or 100BTC per share, if no one has an interest in buying it at any price, then its worth..  zero. If you dont believe me, put your shares up for sale and see who buys them at your "FMV".

The same goes for most of your other shares. You can say they are worth X but if the market is only willing to pay  1/2x or 1/3x, then how does that even make sense? You may think you know better than the market, but then you should act on it and your trackrecord shows your market prediction rate is... not very good and consistenly overoptimistic. Dont you learn from your blunders mistakes?

Lastly, allowing shareholders to pick and chose is a bad idea, because your idea of valuation is not in tune with the market at all. You would allow the first shareholders to pick up the shares that actually have a resale value close to 1BTC, and the others will be left with rubbish. Nice way to screw those who have faith in you.

One more thing
The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_value

Show us your willing buyers for any of the assets you are listing well above GLSBE average. If there arent any, then your FMV isnt FMV.

I wouldn't dream of being wise with you, bro. You might come at me or something, and I have no desire to get spray tan on my clothes.

Strange how the RMV of that one is 0.2, but there's 2123 shares available for 0.036 or less. I'm shocked Usagi hasn't purchased all the shares he could get at 1/6th their true value between his host of different funds. Someone's not doing their job as a fund manager.

Then edit it as I did -- remove the text and the link :p

Thanks for the tip. And may I suggest that we delete all these posts discussing it once the mods take care of the situation?