Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 11. (Read 92656 times)

If any company director publically said such a thing then bought the shares knowing the opposite was true they would be in jail for insider trading at a minimum.

Actually it was far worse than that (was looking in this thread for some posts about a different issue I'm PMing BCB about).

Usagi basically said 'If another of CPA's debtors defaults then CPA will have nothing left'

Then a few days later usagi actually boasted about how some investors had sold CPA shares very cheaply and he'd bought them - and made some derogatory remark about people panicking for no reason and that things weren't as bad as they might look: totally ignoring that they'd only panicked becase HE said there was good reason to.  I never raised this as a scam issue - had just treated is as one of the emo sessions usagi has every few days.

Somewhere someone DID quote that (the boasting part at least - not sure on the other) - problem is working out in which of the umpteen usagi thread with deleted titles it is.  If anyone can work out which thread used to be CPA one then the posts should be in there.

Back to looking for the quote I was trying to find.

CPA's share price declined in proportion to our mining holdings. This is pretty clear; BMF went from 1 to .5 and CPA went from 0.1 to 0.04 or so. We lost nothing on pirate insurance: YARR basically covered our pirate insurance. I personally lost money on this because I backed YARR with my personal money. But CPA didn't lose money on YARR. The real loss in CPA came because of Patrick Harnett, Imsaguy, and Hashking. That's why we declined more than our mining holdings. Not because I was trying to crash the share price (which I was certainly not doing).

Do you recall the date?  Thanks.

Usagi claimed in one of their deleted threads that CPA was on the verge of collapse which then caused the price to tank. If that isnt manipulating the share price then what is ?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1424892

^

You also  do not "win" an argument ad nauseum, which is exactly what you are doing. Usagi have already explained to you why you are wrong and why he did not made what you think he made. You are deliberately denying his explanations and insisting on misinterpret him. At this point, with no evidence and no victims, your arguments do not hold any water.

Gonna comment on these briefly (the ones I know about).  This is all done from memory so may not be totally accurate.

matthewh3 - not as interesting as you think.  matthew made a dumb offer to buy back shares (on behalf of his company) for more than they were worth.  He then realised buying them back at all was a bad idea.  The buyer (who has a staff tag) decided to try to bully matthew into paying - but also agreed to take a much lower price than had been originally agreed.  matthew agrees in principle to buy back - but not until his company's ASICs arrive.   On the one hand matthew IS breaking a contract - but is it scamming?  IF he honoured that agreement he'd be potentially harming ALL his investors with whom he already had a pre-existing contract.  The first contract (with investors) should take priority over the second - he never had authority to offer on the company's behalf to buy back shares at above value.  matthew should personally reimubrse buyer for any dmeonstrable losses buyer suffered as a result of contract being broken.

Gigamining math - already know about this one.  If you recall (in the original gigamining scam thread) you flip-fopped your position because of a post I made.  I don't believe the math issue deserves a scammer tag.  I increasingly believe the fact he's making no provision for smaller investors to get anything back without paying more in apostille fees than their assets are worth DOES deserve a scammer tag.  If he needed information it was his responsibility to ask for it before the contract was entered into.  If he now finds he can't legally honour the contract without such information then the contract should be anulled - and original investment less dividends paid returned.

Bitcoin Magazines : Never fails to entertain.  Yes I knew matthew ower nyan funds - you actually had the bet listed in your assets for a while

TORwallet : thought this was just a routine case of someone sending money to a person with no history, no public identity etc.  Will look again.

PatrickHarnett : Had a long argument with Joel Katz in this thread.  He had some ludicrous theory that everyone should have known PH was investing with pirate so it was as much investors fault as PH's.  I thought kraken investors got back about half of what they invested
(which doesn't alter that it appears to have been a scam from the start).

Ian Bakewell : Know all about this one.  And it's going to get worse.  Was just posting in his company thread before I visited here.  He hasn't quite (in my view) crossed the line to scammer yet - but I'd be betting he does.  He now appears to believe the 30% growth shares are his personal property lol.  Like yourself, I supported him early on - think we both made an error of judgment on that one.

This'll be my last post in this thread unless a moderator asks for information, I'm referred to in the thread or it's to post some new allegation against you about something new which occurs (i.e. NOT about things you've done in the past).


EDIT: I see Augusto has popped up to post before me.  Not even going to bother unignoring him to see what the retard has to say.  He's the ONLY person I've ever put on ignore here - you read his posts and end up knowing less when you finish than you knew before you started.

How the fuck can we see the context when you DELETED THE CONTEXT?

Your memory is shot to hell.

You also say mining had crashed 50%.  Here's the order in which things happened:

There was a big slump in mining, BMF's NAV plummetted (down to about 60-65%).
You announced that recovery was going well.
You stated NAV was back to about .875.
You made the quoted post.

FOr about the 10th time.  There WAS NO MOTION PASSED BY SHAREHOLDERS ABOUT THE CONTRACT.  Do you get that yet?  It was never voted on.  It was never mentioned in the thread until the post I quoted.  Here's the entire post:


The motion referred to in the embedded post from you was one to resume dividends once NAV got back to 1.0 (they'd previously been suspended for the rest of the year after your NAV plummetted).

Now what did I misunderstand?

You tell shareholders "To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss"
And in your previous post today you say "Again, reading comprehension issues -- it would not indemnify if we didn't accelerate it, because the value of the policy was limited to around the total amount CPA would receive plus 20 bitcoins."

That's not just misleading it's an outright lie.  You claim there that the contract wouldn't indemnify if not accelerated and we know it didn't when it WAS accelerated - but tell shareholders the opposite.

You start the sentence with "To this end", which can only refer to "repairing our NAV and resuming dividends".  How can a contract whcich (you claim) had no material effect achieve either of those ends?  Let alone within a week.  Again - misleading.


"1. BMF will send 5 bitcoins per calendar week for 110 weeks to CPA at
   [1EGXZ8kPwEeomiepZwwZayZYdH5nQTkc1f] ("CPA Marked Deposit Address")."

119 * 5 = 550.  That's the money sent FROM BMF TO CPA.  Where does your plus 20 bitcoins come from?  Mine refers to the 20 BTC BMF paid to CPA at the start (the only payment ever made in either direction in the manner defined in the contract - though it looks like BMF made a few more 5 BTC payments but left off the identifier in the last 2 digits).

Anyway, I'm done with this topic I think unless mods ask for explanation from me.  Just one last point - you've now said in a ocuple of psots that I've said you don't deserve a scammer tag.  That's not true.  I've said recently that on SOME of the accusations against you, you don't - which isn't quite the same thing.

Will do a 2nd reply responding to other stuff (unrelated to insurance) in your last post.

Again, reading comprehension issues -- it would not indemnify if we didn't accelerate it, because the value of the policy was limited to around the total amount CPA would receive plus 20 bitcoins. You need to think, and read the contract -- the contract doesn't seem to make sense as it stands -- why would anyone sign such a policy, which amounts to an interest free loan to BMF? There was never any need or reason to do that, and it was announced in a shareholder letter what we were doing. You don't seem to get this was for the good of both companies. I think that's your problem -- your cognitive dissonance is preventing you from seeing that CPA used this contract as a model for others, and that was all this was ever supposed to be. Why is it that none of the people we actually did business with complained about this? If I had not done this contract, put it out, then it would have had no review process. Notice what everyone is saying about the contract -- it misled investors. Not that there was anything improper about the contract itself. But this leads back to misleading investors or not -- ALL the information regarding this was published, ALL the info that investors needed to make a decision was published, announced in shareholder letters, discussed in threads and so on. You fail to see that: NO INVESTORS WERE MISLED.


I'm not denying I said that, but could you please provide links? I'd like to see the context. More likely than not I was referring to the motion which covered the insurance, the 100 btc gift I gave to BMF investors, the right to invest 10% into non-mining securities and so on. You're likely confusing the motion which was passed by shareholders with the contract itself. So what you're saying about BMF being 20 BTC poorer is crapola.


You seem to be confused; mining crashed and we ended up losing 50% of our value. Are you quoting me? It seems out of place; provide a link or more context please. I am lax to think you're misquoting me here but you don't seem to be providing any references.


Really? I used a single dash? I think you're misquoting me, no? Putting words in my mouth again?


Did you read the contract? I think you're going to need to provide references for the quotes in your last post -- you appear to be intentionally trying to deceive people into believing I said or meant something I didn't.


Dunno, no meaning. I didn't end up taking any kind of premium. If you want, I'll move 20 BTC from BMF to CPA. I don't really care, it's of no meaning to me. CPA profited immensely from the advertising. Since you keep insisting that BMF investors were 'completely screwed over' (notice the single quotes; that's how you paraphrase someone to avoid making it look like you're a troll and a liar) -- I doubt that's what you want.

I asked you what you did want -- what remedy you were looking for, and you ignored me. I'll ask you again. What precise remedy are you looking for in this situation? You don't seem to get I didn't scam anyone, and I didn't rip off anyone either. If you can't come up with a remedy and you don't believe I deserve a scammer tag for the accusations in the subject, I politely ask you to go away -- you're trolling and hijacking a thread.


A large number of your questions are immaterial; you misquote me, or misrepresent me, and then make a ludictous statement like 'Thanks for admitting you misled investors'. I will ignore such rubbish just like everyone else.


you operate from a position of ludicrous misinformation and lack of information.. I have already explained 2 or 3 times now why I deleted posts.

I am beginning to think you are not a good representative of the people who believe I am a scammer. Let me be honest with you -- you suck at arguing. Look, you've said what you had to say. Augustocroppo and BCB looked into this and dropped it realizing there was no evidence. Even puppet and guruvan admitted flat out they had no real evidence against me (again -- want links?)

The admission by two of the most vocal trolls against me is extremely telling. If they didn't have any evidence, it was not least of all because NO ONE had posted any. Therefore they also did not have any. Please Deprived. Go away. There are many people on the scam accusations forum who deserve your time and dogged fight for justice, but not me. You got it wrong here. Here's a list of people you should worry about, taken from the scam accusation forum directory:

SCAMMER: matthewh3. Violating agreement by HorseRider
Now there's an interesting case. Go spend your time doing something useful there.

Gigamining math by conspirosphere.tk
The mining bond crap is only just beginning. You have no idea whats going to come out of this. Remember back when a group of mining bond issuers flooded the market with shares just before ASICs were announced? Yep, you got it. Better get some popcorn for this one. I'd watch it more closely, you won't regret it.

BITCOIN MAGAZINES ORDERED NOV. 11th 2012 NOT RECEIVED by smoothie
Vladamir and matthew are probably going to go down as some of the biggest scammers on the forum ever. Did you know that Matthew owes NYAN investors over $10,000? No shit. Spend your energy on that and I swear on my life I will give it all to the NYAN investors and take nothing for myself.

TORWallet - Scammer by Tweaked
This is an issue of vital importance to the community.

Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett by MPOE-PR
While I think MPOE-PR probably needs anti-depressant medication, the Patrick Harnett story is of someone who really did intentionally mislead investors -- he actually really did scam people with KRAKEN. Look it up -- what you are saying I did is nothing compared to this. What I did, people get their money back and the company makes money. What he did, is a straight up scam. Go bother him not me.

Scammed for >$500 by Chandler Weyman "Takliano" Corbin from Boone, NC by c0dex
Now THAT'S a scammer accusation thread if I ever saw one

Ian Bakewell by usagi
You want to see someone who defrauded his investors? Hot shit, this guy never fails to dissapoint. From misrepresenting the value of his company in letters to shareholders, to backing out of an insurance contract in a hostile manner and attempting to pocket the money, to being involved in an unissued-share voting scandal which is causing his investors to flee in droves.. Go here for some real fun.

.................And on and on and on.

So why the f*** are you bothering me? You know:

a) you are not an invetsor nor did you lose a red cent on this
b) The contract was good for both CPA investors and BMF investors
c) No one was ripped off or deceived (no damages, no victims)
d) The contracts were clearly closed down as advertised in the contracts
e) everything was made very, very public.. shareholder letters... forum discussions.. publishing the contract on our webpage, etc. (no one was misled)
f) I spent a lot of time changing how my companies operated due to complaints from non-investors like you, which I didn't even have to do, not even have to give you the time of day, at my own expense.

Do you see? Seriously, what the f*** is your problem? Put a number on it or go away; can you show how many bitcoins BMF or CPA actually LOST because of this? No? Then why don't you just stop?

OK, here's what you told investors:

"To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss.

We have decided to publish this contract, to give a clearer picture of what is going on with BMF these days.

This contract means we will likely begin paying dividends again by next week."

You now say that the contract had no material effect - as it was always going to be accelerated.

If true, how did signing that contract indemnify against capital loss?  If the contract hadn't been accelerated then it would indemnigy - but if the agreement was always to accelerate then it didn't indemnify.

And how could a contract that had no material effect impact on whether BMF could pay dividends the next week?  The only change by the next week was BMF was 20 BTC poorer from paying the first 4 weeks premiums up front.

The clear message you gave investors was "Now we're nearly back to full NAV we've taken out insurance from CPA to stop it ever falling again - and so should be able to start paying dividends again shortly as our NAV can't fall any more".  You intentionally misled investors.

Noone would read what you told investors as "We've signed a test contract with CPA which will be accelerated and have no material effect on us."

Plus why 520 in premiums and 500 in cover if it was meant to have no material effect?  Why not 500 in premiums and 500 in cover?

And if the insurance contract was important enough (despite having no material effect) to announce, then why wasn't the acceleration/cancellation of it?

And if the insurance contarct had no material effect why did you (as you freshly claimed yesterday) make a personal payment to BMF of 100 BTC in respect of the contract?  (I'm not saying I believe you did for a moment obviously)

BMF's NAV wasn't down by 500 BTC when the contract was agreed.  So if acceleration occurred immediately after signing CPA wouldn't have owed 500 BTC back to BMF.  Were you THAT confident you'd make enough losses that acceleration would end up neutral (well, within 20 BTC of neutral)?  If not then acceleration would have left CPA with a hefty profit.  So was your deal with yourself that you'd accelerate as soon as you'd managed to make a 500 BTC loss?  What was the plan if you accidentally stumbled into profit (or stayed above a 500 loss) and CPA no longer had any obligations to accelerate?

Feel free to ignore my questions as usual and then later post, as you did earlier, that you always answer my questions.

Would also suggest you look back at the bumping of this thread just before christmas.  Notice how it had died until you bumped it.  Read my first post after you bumped - I made no accusations, suggested you dropped this topic and got on with closing down your company.  But nope - you insisted on dragging it on and changing your story from post to post.  I'd love the mods to undelete your posts just before GLBSE shut down and see how none of this new stuff was mentioned then and you in fact accepted that in theory CPA owed BMF 500 BTC now.  Your argument then for acceleration was along the lines of "well BMF would have to pay it back anyway so it seemed simpler just to accelerate both obligations".

Unfortunately your confidence that you can lie because the mods/admins won't undelete is probably entirely justified (or maybe you just have a bad memory and can't remember what you wrote then).

Looking forward to your next version of "the truth".

I assume you know what "insured" means.  Were BMF insured by CPA?  If you want to explain how your contract insured BMF then go ahead and do so - pretty sure you can find a copy of the contract quicker than I can.  But why are you even interested in what the contract said when you just earlier claimed it had zero material value and was just a PR stunt to try to raise company value.

When the contract was signed did BMF (represented by you) agree with CPA (represented by you) that the contract would be accelerated after BMF paid some premiums?  Or was that agreement made later?

Feel free to find something to nit-pick in my posts and ignore the substantive parts by the way - you're getting pretty good at it.  And don't forget to add an insult or two - it makes you look clever and proves you're winning.

I said, you have major reading comprehension issues. Feel free to post the contract and we'll go through it line by line.

Ah, silly me.  There was me thinking the main purpose of an insurance contract was to ..... wait for it .... provide insurance.


Silly me again.  Forgot you always manipulated your assets' prices so that they were totally unrelated to their value.  Their 'value' being some deluded construct of your wisful thinking based on the imaginary profits you thought you'd make.

Not sure what argument you think I've lost.  You don't win an argument by saying "I've won!" (or by getting your little idiot hanger-on Augusto to do it).

You've admitted (or claimed - don't know if it's true) that when you told BMF investors "Our NAV is now insured by CPA" it was a lie.  Yet still you claim you didn't mislead them?  Or are you now going to somehow claim that they WERE insured (and come up with the next version of "the truth")?

That was a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Of course the entire purpose of the contract was to show people we were in that line of business.


It was indeed a very skillful thing to do, you know, show people that we were capable of doing certain kinds of business.


You have major reading comprehension issues; I said value, not price:


You seem to have a complete lack of respect for my intelligence. Believe me, it shows -- and I'm the one that keeps pointing it out to you.


Do you finally understand how badly you have lost this part of the argument? I didn't admit anything -- you mischaracterized what I did, misquoted me, and then pretended your lack of mental acuity was an admission, on my behalf, of misleading investors. You're either being paid to troll me, or you're insane. Please, just go away. Everyone else did.

Ah, so it wasn't a test - you now claim it was an attempt to manipulate your share price upwards by pretending that CPA had signed an insurance policy with CPA.  And so you misled your investors when you told them they were insured by CPA - but that was good for them as CPA then invested more into BMF?

Then when everything went wrong, BMF chose to not ask for what the contract entitled it to, as you'd promised yourself you wouldn't do that (but not told anyone else - as then your deception wouldn't have worked)?

Interesting how you claim BMF's price went up after that - when in fact it went down.

But thanks for admitting you misled your investors (and everyone else) to try to get your price to rise.  IF you (on behalf of BMF) had no intention to ever claim then very obviously BMF were NOT insured by CPA.  Claiming otherwise was 100% misleading investors - and you actually seem to think it's an achievement to get a change in your own share's market value by lieing.  I sometimes wonder if you KNOW what telling the truth is - as you'll happily post here admitting you lied and then in the next breath say you don't lie or mislead.

So EskimoBob owned 40 NYAN? You make it sound like a parade of people. And, it is just as much a suprise to me as it is to anyone. Wasn't it EskimoBob who said many times he would never invest in my companies? For god's sake think -- the whole scam accusation thread against EskimoBob is because he signed a contract with me that I would buy back 5 BMF shares (FIVE, yes FIVE) and he couldn't keep his end of the bargain. He did not represent himself as a shareholder of my companies at all. He made it clear he was not invested and did not want to invest. Mircea Popescu and gang were the same. So many times, MPOE-PR said what I was doing was garbage. Then boom, what does it turn out? Not only was Mircea Popescu invested in NYAN.A to the tune of 100 shares (100 bitcoins), he based his own competing CDO directly off of that investment!!!

It now appears as if there was an organized campaign against me to crash my companies so people could buy shares on the cheap. Unfortunately GLBSE crashed. Their plan failed.

Can you think of another explanation for their vocal actions and misrepresentationof their position? This reeks of people like Soros saying gold was in a bubble even as he was buying up as much gold as he could. Six months ago, remember that? People always talk their own books. Think about it.


Do you get that the value of BMF and CPA went up after we signed those contracts because CPA got more business, and was able to invest a little more into BMF, which allowed BMF to participate in bulk offer IPOs? Not to mention the additional income streams for CPA? The contract had zero material value to both companies. However, it enabled me to start a new line of business and sign quite a few contracts. Do you get that?

There isn't a shareholder in the world that would have said no to increasing the revenues and net value of my companies. You need to think.

What price?  They aren't tradable anywhere.
What reputation?

It doesn't matter what NAV was when contract was signed - it's what NAV was when acceleration occurs that matters.  Or arey ou now saying you DIDN'T intend to accelerate?  You say I was presuming what yo uwould have done - are you saying in some circumstances you WOULDN'T have accelerated?  Like if it wasn't in CPA's interest to do so?  At least get your story a LITTLE bit consistent.

Either you signed it with the intent to accelerate (and as a test) - then misled BMF by telling they were insured.

OR

You signed it intending it to be honoured - then changed your mind to help CPA and at that stage defrauded BMF.

OR

You signed it and hadn't decided whether to accelerate or not (making your claims it was a test a lie AND misleading BMF).

Which is it?  I can't read your mind and work WHICH of what you said was the lie or WHEN you defrauded/misled your BMF investors.  But I can logically work out that EVERY possiiblity involves you lieing and/or defrauding investors at some stage.  Therefore you lied and/or defrauded BMF investors.

As I've offered before - if you want to try to prove me wrong it's easy.  I can give a simple list of factual statements you can agree or disagree with plus some very simple questions. 

Exmaple statements of fact would be:

1.  When signing a contract on behalf of BMF you have a responsibility only to do so if (in your opinion) BMF is better off agreeing to the contract than not agreeing it.  When making that assessment you must ignore any obligations you have to other companies you manage and, in good faith, act in the best interest of BMF's share-holders.
2.  BMF had no obligation under the contract to accelerate its obligations.

etc.  If you have problems with mutiple-part ones like #1 then it could be broken down into smaller pieces until we find what it is we disagree on.

Example questions would be:

1.  When you signed the contract did you intend to accelerate it and never actually claim on behalf of BMF? (Yes, No or hadn't decided are all possible answers)
2.  If you never intended to claim, were BMF meaningfully insured in any way?
3.  If BMF weren't insured why did you tell investors that they were?

etc.  By being simple questions I don't need to discuss any simple answers you give - or dispute them - as if you say you signed the contract always intending to accelerate then I'll have to accept your word for it.  I may or may not believe you - but I've no problem assuming it to be true as lieing can only change HOW/WHEN you lied/defrauded not that you did.  There just isn't ANY explanation that has you consistently making decisions in the best interests of BMF investors and being honest with them.

But no way in the world you can do that - as you'd struggle to answer those 3 questions (honestly OR lieing) without making your behaviour obvious - let alone the rest (such as how accelerating was more beneficial to BMF than claiming - as the contract never obliged BMF to accelerate).

I will now contradict myself - as there IS actually one set of answers to every question I'd ask which would have you neither lieing to investors back then (about anything to do with insurance) or defrauding them.  But no way in the world is it the truth - and no way you'd ever claim it.  And it would make some of what you've posted in the last day a lie plus make you have lied about something to investors which I'm sure you believe to be the truth.  Only mentioning it as technically there IS an explanation - but it's irrelevant.

The contract was signed while the NAV was already below 1, therefore the situation you are describing was known to be impossible. That was the intention and why it was done this way. Furthermore you cannot presume what I would have done and then say that therefore I did in reality scam people. That's crazy.

What you are saying is intentional deception. You are attempting to manipulate the price of my companies and destroy my reputation.

And finally let's just be clear how ludicrous usagi's current position (that the contract was a test and was always intended to be accelerated) is.

If BMF's NAV had risen then accelerating the contract would mean that BMF would send 520 BTC (less premiums already paid) to CPA IMMEDIATELY (at the point of acceleration) and receive nothing in return.

Yet usagi is expecting us to believe that signing it with the intention to accelerate obligations was somehow in the interests of BMF investors?  Get real.