You 3 pathetic clowns (usagi, mpoe-bs and augusto) need to take your shit slinging somewhere else. Use that shiny "
New Topic" button and have your daily circle jerk in Off-topic or something.
Wow, you sure sound like someone who knows how to run a business and deal with shareholders.
Here's what this sounds like to me (from "The Producers"):
Max Bialystock: You were saying that under the right circumstances, a producer could make more money with a flop than he could with a hit.
Leo Bloom: Yes, it's quite possible.
Max Bialystock: You keep saying that, but you don't tell me how. How could a producer make more money with a flop than with a hit?
Leo Bloom: It's simply a matter of creative accounting. Let us assume, just for the moment, that you are a dishonest man.
Max Bialystock: Assume away!
Leo Bloom: Well, it's very easy. You simply raise more money than you really need.
Max Bialystock: What do you mean?
Leo Bloom: You've done it yourself, only you did it on a very small scale.
Max Bialystock: What did I do?
Leo Bloom: You raised two thousand more than you needed to produce your last play.
Max Bialystock: So what? What did it get me? I'm wearing a cardboard belt.
Leo Bloom: Ahhhhhh! But that's where you made your error. You didn't go all the way. You see, if you were really a bold criminal, you could have raised a million.
Max Bialystock: But the play only cost $60,000 to produce.
Leo Bloom: Exactly. And how long did it run?
Max Bialystock: One night.
Leo Bloom: See? You could have raised a million dollars, put on a sixty thousand dollar flop and kept the rest.
Max Bialystock: But what if the play was a hit?
Leo Boom: Oh, you'd go to jail. If the play were a hit, you'd have to pay off the backers, and with so many backers there could never be enough profits to go around, get it?
Max Bialystock: Aha, aha, aha, aha, aha, aha!! So, in order for the scheme to work, we'd have to find a
sure fire flop.Hehe missed this.
This actually happened in Poker backing/staking. Some idiot oversold himself for a large tournament then failed to bust out early and ended up finishing 2nd. He then had the awkward problem of having to pay out huge profit shares to about well over 100% of shares in himself.
It's actually not that different to what a bunch of recent IPOs are doing: taking large upfront chunks of cash out of the IPO proceeds, safe in the knowledge that the "business" will never actually make that much. It's a different model - but still the same principle of fleecing investors via a dishonest valuation.
And the fiat-based companies that don't produce full accounts have an entirely different way to steal. They can decide whether or not, for the purpsoes of reporting to investors, they've held cash as BTC or USD AFTER seeing which way exchange-rates move: pocketing any difference themselves. Bob's surplus was apparently held in BTC - whilst LTC had risen sharply. If he'd actually been holding LTC he could have bought the BTC at the old rate with 1/3-1/4 of it and pocketed the rest - and investors couldn't tell the difference.
Only way investors can have confidence THAT sort of thing doesn't occur is if the denomination in which cash will be held is stated in advance (e.g. for LTC-ATF it's policy that it's kept in the range of 80-90% LTC and 10-20% BTC). That's another area where "businesses" are leaving htemselves open opportunities to defraud investors simply failing to make clear a very basic policy that there's no good reason to hide.
