Topic: Re: [LTC-GLOBAL] - ART - building a open art studio [week 32] - page 3. (Read 15463 times)

Yes he is, because he is contractually obligated to post them.

He's hardly unique in his failure to post accounts.  Don't think ANY of the fiat-based assets on LTC-Global have posted anything resembling accounts or even lists of assets this month.  Nor (unless today - just reading threads now) have any of the fiat-based ones on Bitfunder - except usagi's.  Don't think there's any ones on BTC.CO to do so (I'm not counting mining securities - as most of those have no economic activity needing regular accounts).

The situation's not a lot better for non-fiat denominated "businesses" either.  Most funds do produce balance/asset lists (which is about all they need to produce - as investors only own the assets not the company) but things listed as shares generally fail dismally in providing any records at all, no matter which site they're on (exception being MPEx).

The simple test of whether a company is providing sufficient information is this:  Go to their thread and read it.  If you believe everything the asset issuer tells you, what is the underlieing/book value of your share/unit?  Is there ANY basis on which you can calculate ANY value for your share/unit from what they've told you?  If not, then they're failing you.  Most BTC/LTC businesses totally fail at this.

That's in no way to excuse EB - just pointing out the problem is a very wide-spread one.

Wow... What amazing agreement. One whose liabilities only fall over the "Tokenholders"!

What a piece of art! Brilliant!

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.


We will be publishing our monthly statements in forum and follow typical bookkeeping rules. (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1116762)

You lied on both counts, not only didn't you publish your statements on time every month so far, you don't follow any sort of typical rules at all. The financials for (February?) were so bad, remember, I had to ask you to post exchange rates and clarify some obviously wrong figures *(like a fiat bank balance of zero, despite claiming to have performed several fiat transactions via your bank).


You lied. You said this was for your 3 artist friends. I quote, "Some of my friends are planning to set up their own art studio. To make it happen, they need to buy very specific equipment. Good news is, that the equipment they need is usable for a very long time and can actually be used to generate additional revenue by selling the "shelf space" (lack of better wording) for professional and hobby artists. It also holds value over time and can be sold later." (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1116762)

That story changed very quickly into renting out a studio, didn't it?


You aren't even set up yet. Not sure if a lie or not but you obviously have failed to execute on your own business plan, which shows that you have no idea what you are doing.

"It also holds value over time and can be sold later." (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1116762)

Again, not sure if this is a direct lie or you just stole 99% of your investor's money. ART is now 0.01 per share on LTC-GLOBAL down from 1.


This is a lie. Your original contract states, "So, The Plan is to rise about 15K EUR worth of crowdfunding and for that, we are selling up to 34 000 virtual Support Tokens." (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1116762). You already broke it by 3x and raised 99,000 shares, which is worth almost $400,000 at current exchange rates. $15,000 euro? You've raised 20x the money you said you needed and you keep promising to release more and more shares! This is a classic "producers" scam. In "The Producers", a pair of novice playwrights attempt to write a bad (but saleable) play and then to raise more money than they will ever need, spending as little as possible in the process. The famed quote here is, "Don't you see Bloom, darling Bloom, glorious Bloom? It's so simple. Step one: We find the worst play world, a surefire flop. Step two: I raise a million bucks. Lots of little old ladies out there. Step three: You go back to work on the books, phony list of backers - one for the government, one for us. You can do it, Bloom; you're a wizard! Step four: We open on Broadway. And before you can say Step five, we *close* on Broadway!".

That's exactly what ART is. A shitty plan (a European art studio for 3 of EskimoBob's closest friends), and before you can say "Step 5" boom, 99% of the money is GONE.


Yes, he really did strike every single clause from his original contract.

Anyone investing in this garbage deserves to lose their entire investment, myself included. I bought 34 shares.

Yes, I thought about it a lot since that post.


I don't feel good. I thought that I might feel vindicated, but people lost 99% of their money when ART fell to a bid price of 0.01. I only had 34 shares. So while I was right, it's no good that he turned out to be a failure.

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.

Lol this escalated quickly.

No... When I made that post I was not feeling that you are an idiot. I was sure that you were behaving like an idiot. Can you realize the difference?

It turned out that Eskimobob is exactly what he always accused you to be.

So, how do you feel right now, Usagi?

I feel great to watch this fiasco. I was sure from the begin that Eskimobob words did not worth a single Satoshi.

Ah... The smell of victory, like the ancient Romans used to appreciate!

Oh it was a horrible investment to make in LTC - but then pretty much ANY asset which is fiat-based will be.
For every 1 LTC paid into a fiat-based company when this one started (with LTC about $.07) there'd now be (with LTC at $3.6),  .0194 of an LTC of value left/share if ALL they did was convert it into fiat.  Now current LTC price is inflated - but some significant rise was pretty inevitable.

In fact I think you'll find when Bob produces the accounts that there's actually more value left than that - as he still has/had a chunk held in BTC/LTC.  But as he's not been communicative lately shares have sold down likely well below book value.

Until people realise that investing BTC/LTC into fiat-based operations totally defeats the purpose of having BTC/LTC in the first place, this issue will continue.  Only way they work out good investments long term is if the crypto currency falls vd fiat in which case you shouldn't have been using it in the first place.  Investors need to wake up and realise people aren't selling shares here because their offerings are somehow suited to BTC/LTC - they're selling here because they lack the credit/friends/cash to raise capital anywhere else and here's full of gullible/uninformed people happy to throw funds around.

I don't recall pointing out this was a scam from day 1.  I didn't believe it to be a scam when it started (and still thing it probably isn't a scam) - just a horribly bad investment with zero chance of making a profit denominated in LTC and not much better chance of even making a fiat-denominated profit (which is of no interest to me anyway).  I have, of course, still traded the shares and my fund does own some picked up cheap (I hope lol) in panic-selling.

This is very simple. It works just like EskimoBob said it did himself. He sold shares at 1. The shares are now worth 0.0159 0.0193 on the bid. This is a loss of 98.41% 98.07% over 99,000 shares. Actually, you made a great point, LTC is now worth $4. I was using old figures. If we base the calculation correctly in LTC, those 99,000 shares used to be worth $396,000. They are now worth precisely $1910.70. EskimoBob lost essentially ALL his investor's money. It's GONE. It's quite obvious what happened here; he used the exchange rate as cover to steal money from his company. He's not on top of shit at all; he doesn't even have his books ready.

You will recall that you yourself pointed out this was a scam from day 1. I agreed. This is the result. This is why the LTC-GLOBAL moderators need a slap in the face. They voted someone in with a highly negative OTC rating. What did you THINK was going to happen?

To point out the REALLY obvious, ART was sold in LTC not BTC.  And LTC has gone from $0.06 to $4 (though starting its downwards correction now), so share price/book value could reasonably be expected to have fallen by well over the 90% you mention.

Not sure where the 98.41% is coming from (is there a deleted post or something?) - but the expected (and actual) losses need to be done in the currency it's denominated in.  You can't just pick another currency to use because it's convenient - if you did that then people running losing BTC investments could price in USD prices to pretend to have made a profit and all manner of nasty things.

BTC has gone from $10 to $100, and ART lost 98.41% of it's investor's money. To point out the obvious, the expected loss was 90%, not 98.41%. Losing that extra 8.41% is much, much larger than it seems. Because accounting for the fluctuation in currency prices, ART went on to lose 84.1% of it's value.

Please explain how you lost 84.1% of your investor's money, or (at current exchange prices) over $60,000.

I'll post the April statement on weekend.

It's interesting. I asked for a location and received a platitude.

I take it an April statement is incoming or not really anymore?

Correct, my wording was off. Maybe this simplified example helps to understand, what I meant.  
Sold 1000 at 1, received 1000 coins. We have 1000 shares on one side and 1000 coins at the other side. 1:1
Bought back 100 at 0.4, spent 40 coins from previously received 1000. Those 100 shares are no longer in the books as outstanding shares.
Now we have 900 shares on one side and 960 ltc at the other side.
Soup got thicker - 1,0666667 coins per share and not 1, as before.
Correct wording is probably that we increased the available coin per share.

Come again?

When you buy back shares (which are priced in LTC and on LTC-Global) you SPEND LTC ending up with LESS than before you bought back.  It CAN'T increase your LTC position.

If you've got more LTC now than before then it's because you converted some BTC to LTC or something - not because you bought back shares.

Buying back underpriced shares is fine - just make sure you're actually buying them back at below the current NAV/U (in LTC).  From a quick mental estimation it looks like you DID buy back just below NAV/U - but hard for me to be sure as I can't say with certainty what exchange-rates you used in your last accounts (as you didn't provide them).

Then again if the expected profit from the business does not exceed the cost of insuring its fx risk it seems obvious that either the business has no business being in business or else its choice of accounting unit is very very broken.

It certainly does not make sense for the business to hedge in such a manner. This is a bad idea for two reasons: one is that it requires the business operators to become financially competent, which is too high a toll. Even large and promising companies on the operational side (such as for instance asicminer) are completely inept in that field, to their detriment. The other is that the specific insurance required is a function of the investor's portfolio, outlook and other considerations. A one measure fits all insurance will not work for investors who maybe in their own accounting reference the eur, usd, ltc or ggm (gallons of goat's milk).

That works - provided the expected return from the business exceeds the cost of the options/futures.  An alternative would be for the business itself to hedge in such a manner - that possibly makes more sense as the business is in a better position than investors to know what its degree of exposure is at any time.  But either route ends up with profits being significantly decreased if the hedge isn't needed - and for many businesses could end up pretty much guaranteeing a loss due to premiums on options/futures exceeding actual trading profit.

I have bought back some of the virtual shares.
This has resulted about 2000 LTC net and increased our LTC position to about 4700 LTC.
Number of outstanding virtual shares is reduced to 100K.