Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 12. (Read 92684 times)

IF the contract had been honoured then it wasn't actually a terrible deal for BMF.  Mining shares tend to devalue - and BMF was paying out dividends received so maintaining NAV was always going to be difficult.  The acceleration made it worthless.  If honoured it was more like a low-interest loan (taken as needed) than real insurance - but I can see a case for it being of benefit to BMF.  The premiums had to be high as usagi was managing BMF, so losses (and hence claims) were pretty inevitable and CPA had to expect to pay out the full 500 BTC over the 2 year period.  Absolute worst-case for CPA was getting 20 BTC interest for a 500 BTC loan over 2 years, so not too bad a risk for them given the non-zero chance usagi might luck out and go 2 years without losing 500 BTC.

Where usgai's lies become apparent are from the start.

The announcement made to BMF wasn't "Here's a test contract showing how we'd get insurance cover against NAV loss" it was "We're now insured by CPA".

And saying it was a test makes zero sense.  What was this "testing" supposed to actually test?  That BMF could send BTC to CPA?  Failing to see anyhting else that this "test" demonstrated that couldn't have been determined without signing the contract.  How did BMF sending 20-30 BTC to CPA to help CPA "test" a contract benefit BMF shareholders?   

Claiming NOW that 100 BTC of personal funds was sent to BMF in compensation is beyond belief.  Yes - usagi HAS claimed in the past to have given personal funds to BMF.  Whether he has or not I have no clue - as no accounts were ever published (just lists of assets / balances).  But at no stage has ANY announcement EVER been made before along the lines of "The contract with CPA has been cancelled/accelerated and I've personally given 100 BTC compensation to BMF for the loss they incurred helpng CPA out by pretending to have insurance cover when they didn't".  Convenient that this claim only emerges now (ages after the event) when it's impossible to prove/disprove.

The contract defined BTC accounts to which all payments in respect of the contract were to be made.  I see no payment of 100 BTC to the designated BTC account for BMF.  In fact there's ZERO payments there to the BMF one.  But we're meant to accept usagi's word taht he did something which was a) never announced, b) not done in the method defined in the contract usagi wrote (and signed on behalf of both parties).  Similarly aceleration, if it occurred, should have had seen payments by both parties to the designated BTC addresses.  Of course as that excuse wasn't made up until much later (it only first emerged shortly before GLBSE went down)  that couldn't be done - as the block-chain can't be manipulated to insert transactions back-dated by months.

Just to be clear - it seems usagi is now that claiming that BMF WEREN'T insured by CPA (they just signed a test contract that was never intended to be honoured).  So isn't that pretty much proof on its own that shareholders were misled when they were told BMF was insured by CPA?  Either they WERE insured (what they were told then) or they WEREN'T (what usagi seems to be claiming now).  IF what they were told (insured) isn't what was actually the case (they weren't?) then that's about as blatant a case of misleading investors as you can get.

So let me get this straight. When the people who were criticising you didn't have any evidence that they owned NYAN shares, you accused them of maliciously slandering you and said that you hadn't done anything wrong because no actual investors had complained. Now when it turns out that they do own NYAN.A shares that were affected by your decisions, you instead accuse them of a "stock price manipulation scheme". Are there any circumstances - any at all - under which you wouldn't loudly and repeatedly accuse anyone who criticised you of doing it maliciously?

Which makes the contract worthless to BMF. They could've got the same results more cheaply by self-insuring - it'd have been cheaper if they did claim (BMF paid more than the coverage amount), much cheaper if they didn't since they'd get to keep the 500 BTC, and they also wouldn't have had the counterparty risk from dealing with CPA.

Oh. That must be why I haven't seen you around. Whatever.


Thanks. There's enough noise on the forums already.

Three lies in two sentences. Must be a record even for usagi.

The truth is that I got tired of the lies, personal attacks and logical fallacies and have lost interest all together in "arguing" with you and AugustoCrappo. I am still reading your threads however because of my psychological interest in delusional thinking and pathological liars like yourself.

My opinion that you have scammed, manipulated and misled is stronger than ever, but I just don't care enough to continue talking to you.

second to this;

a) they DID receive coverage -- I accelerated the contract and they paid ~500 bitcoins for ~500 bitcoins of return coverage. Read the contract. It contained an acceleration clause.
b) the coverage was not meaningful because, as explained, the contract was not material.

c) I "whitter on" about NAV because that is the subject of this thread against me. Now that you yourself have said I don't deserve a scammer tag for these accusations, can you please leave me alone?

I don't think so and no shareholder has ever said so. BMF paid about 30 bitcoins to CPA. In return I gave 100 bitcoins of my own personal money to BMF. If you want me to make reparations, fine, I will -- by taking back the balance of 70 bitcoins and putting it in my personal account. Is that what you want? Will that satisfy you? What precise remedy are you looking for in this situation, as you have already said I don't deserve a scammer tag?


There was no need to vote specifically on the insurance contract because it did not represent a material change in the value of either company. The absolute worst you can say is that I transferred 30 bitcoins to CPA and then put it back again. I also donated personal shares of CPA back to CPA and to NYAN.B as discussed in NYAN letter to shareholders #38. What's your problem here, precisely? What remedy are you requesting?

I've already explained several times -- and this explanation has been accepted by many people -- that the contract was intended to be accelerated, hence the acceleration clause, and used as a model for other contracts. This has been explained -- to you in particular -- many times, despite the fact that you seem to continuously claim I never answer your questions. We did in fact sign several such contracts after people became aware we were offering that business -- not least of all the BAKEWELL contract which is the topic of discussion in the thread against Ian.


No, it has been explained several times, not least in letter to shareholders #38 as mentioned, and in responses to "critique of usagi's businesses" which you posted a couple months ago.... And again, here.


Do you get that you only believe that because you have no clue what went on in management discussions? You have no IDEA what you are talking about. you cannot point to a lack of evidence and then turn around and say that there is a lack of evidence, therefore I scammed pepole. That is ridiculous. Furthermore this has now been explained to you several times why we did what we did and what the results were -- we signed contracts with BAKEWELL, BITCOINMININGRS (or something), we were in talks with DMC and GBF and others as well for such contracts. All of it because of the model contract I created. Why do you think there was an acceleration clause and the amount was around equal? What would be the point of such a contract, take 500 bitcoins from BMF with limited liability of.... 500 bitcoins? Are you insane? This wasn't a scam and it wasn't conflict of interest. Wake up please.


Big mistake. I am giving you fact from the horse's mouth. I was the guy who ran CPA and BMF and I am telling you what we did and why, in response to your question. I'm kinda tired, after all these monts, of you making baseless claims from a position of ignorance. I mean come on, I give up already -- what's the point of pursuing this?

If it wasn't for four people: You, Puppet, EskimoBob, and Deeplink, there would be ZERO claims against me. Puppet was a troll who admitted he had no proof for what he was saying about me (want a link?). EskimoBob is full of shit and pretty much everyone knows it. Deeplink was a shill account, who literally ONLY posted in threads against me. When this was pointed out by augustocroppo he disappeared. And then there's you -- who, amazingly, was offered a job to troll me in public my MPOE-PR and has been publicly paid shares of MPOE.ETF by MPOE-PR after engaging in trolls against me.


One of your standard tactics is claiming that I don't answer your questions. Everyone who has followed these threads knows that's a lie -- I am, I admit, too vocal in answering each and every one of your questions.

Just stop for Christ's sake. Unless you're still getting paid? I mean seriously. You said what you had to say. Unless you're getting paid for posting this crap against me, why don't you try shutting up for a change and letting other people weigh in? Stop trying to outshout me and outshout everyone else who has posted here. Just stop for a while.

You apparently weren't even an investor in my companies and I am wrapping them up fairly. Go away. You have nothing on me, you never will have anything on me, and there is nothing on me. Why don't you go read what people have actually said about me before you start whining I ripped them off?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1349417

Just wait a couple days and I will pop up 10+ more emails I've received directly from shareholders thanking me for doing a good job wrapping up the assets.

Any of them are free to come here and complain. You, probably not so much anymore. Not that I could stop you though, I guess.

You see you keep getting confused on this.

CPA MAY have discussed the contract and had a motion on it - I recall you previosuly saying it was discussed at your round-table. But my point was always that BMF got shafted - not CPA.  BMF did NOT discuss it and there was NO BMF share-holder motion in respect of it.  First mention of it to BMF was a post by you announcing that BMF was now insured by CPA against NAV loss and giving a link to the contract.

I repeat as it just doesn't seem to sink in.  BMF investors were not told in advance and did not vote on it.  If CPA investors voted (I don't know if they did or not) good for them - BMF ones didn't: they were told about it as a done deal.  My intial post on this the insurance topic quotes your first mention of the insurance (the announcement that it's in place).

I see you still have zero explanation of how it was in BMF's interests to pay insurance premiums then not claim when entitled to do so (which isn't in dispute).  That you appear to believe a CPA investors' discussion and/or vote can decide what BMF does shows just how badly you failed to seperate your duties and responsibilities to seperate companies.

And yes - it IS my opinion.  Everything I say is my opinion.  Everything you say is your opinion.  Difference is that I can explain logically why making that insurance deal then not claiming on it had less than zero value to BMF.  You don't even make an attempt to explain how your pathetic "acceleration" excuse was in BMF's interest - or what they stood to gain from the "insurance" if acceleration was going to occur when a claim was relevant.  All you have left is a baseless claim that somehow you were right and acting in BMF shareholders interests at all times (though you don't actually seem to even accept you had an obligation to do that - let alone to have actually discharged that duty).


Two points on this:

1.  It has little relevance to what I claimed.  I claimed you misled investors about BMF being insured (they received no meaningful coverage in return for a commitment to pay 520 BTC).  You totally ignore that and whitter on about NAV - when that's never been the main thrust of my points.
2.  Publishing lists of holdings in no way "proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not attempt to mislead investors."  It just proves that you didn't attempt to mislead investors about what you held (and in fact there's room for debate on that in one instance).  It isn't some proof that you didn't mislead them about anything else.  Again - I specifically identified how you misled BMF in one instance.  I don't recall ever accusing you of misleading investors about the assets you owned.

In fact going further from 2 you can ONLY mislead someone about something by publishing it/making a claim about it.  e,g, to mislead investors about the value of your shares you'd have to publish a value for them or make a claim about the value.  Giving out information is a prerequisite to mislead someone - it's the accuracy, context and way that it's presented which determines whether it's misleading or not.

One of the problems is that this is really just your opinion, Deprived.

Yes, you believe you are right but that doesn't make it so. For example you believe I acted in conflict of interest in the BMF/CPA contract. In reality this was approved by a shareholder motion, and announced in a shareholder letter. Others also disagree with your analysis itself, such as Augustocroppo (see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1369333).

Regarding falsifying of NAVs, I said over and over that we would be adding value via analysis. Sometimes it worked out and sometimes it didn't. I also ran shareholder motions regarding this -- so sorry but this is simply what people wanted. When puppet and eskimobob (and you) started complaining about this I went out of my way to fix it, I changed the way we valued companies from my analysis data to pulling data directly off GLBSE. When people started complaining about THAT, I redid the spreadsheets AGAIN, to include both columns. After that, the accusations continued only that old, outdated data was repeatedly posted by EskimoBob, or data that he or puppet had created by hand and had nothing to do with average market prices or what we were holding.

But the point is no, I did not falsify navs.

No, I did not manipulate share prices. If we bought shares that we held in BMF and that caused the price to rise, anyone is free to sell into that high price and make a profit. If we sold into a crashing company, anyone is free to get a deal and buy into a too-low price. Manipulation of markets is next to impossible because of this. If I sell into a crashing company and then try to buy back cheaply I am competing with every other trader watching the stock. And it's well known there were several bots trading. Basically there was no way I could do this. And FWIW -- buy low sell high is NOT market manipulation on ANY SCALE. It's just good trading and it was the entire point of BMF -- to trade on behalf of investors. It seems a bit disingenuous to accuse me of market manipulation on any scale.

And no, I did not mislead investors. In fact one of the reasons I published spreadsheets and weekly letters to shareholders discussing claims is to give investors every tool possible to make their own decision about the value of my companies. Look at what puppet and eskimobob were able to do --> They took the holdings I had published and calculated their own value. Had I not given them the tools and information to make their own, informed decision --> they could not have done that. The very fact that I enabled them to do that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not attempt to mislead investors. I specifically disclosed as much as I could about everything I was doing.

That is the point -- I'm not guilty of what has been levied against me. If you want to talk about another thing you feel I did wrong, make a new thread. This one has been done to death.

This thread needs a comment but I agree with you, mods seem unwilling to comment further. This makes me exceedingly sad, as this thread and similar have now cost me an incalculable amount of time, health and money.

Ok, let me address those three points.  Do remember - I didn't start the topic and ONLY posted in here because you TOLD me to as you didn't want to discuss issues in your various threads.

Falsifying NAVs.  Some of your NAV calculations were hopelessly optimistic, lacking any grounding in reality.  Is this falsifying?  I don't know whether you did it through ill-intent or just through ignorance/incompetence.  I tend toward thinking it was mainly the latter - and hence have never said you should have a scammer tag for it.

Mainpulating Share Prices.  Again - not something I've ever really focussed on.  But didn't you specifically try to raise prices on some assets back to what you thought they should be?  Isn't that manipulation by definition?  Having 'good' (or misguided) reasons for it doesn't prevent it being manipulation.  But again whilst this is a bit dubious it's not something I'd ask for a scammer tag for.

Misleading Investors.  Guilty as charged. I'll just go back to the usual insurance one.  When you told BMF investors their NAV was insured by CPA what do you think that led them to believe:

A.  That if NAV fell they'd get it topped up by CPA in return for paying premiums,
B.  That if NAV fell CPA would keep what it had been paid so far and theyd not get a cent - and be worse off than if they'd never agreed the 'insurance policy' in the first place.

I put it to you that you led investors to believe A - then gave them B.

My accusation against you has always been that you were unable to resolve conflicts of interest and intentionally and knowingly acted against the interests of some groups of investors (in the insurance instance BMF ones) to help other groups of your investors (in that case CPA ones).  In doing that you totally failed in your fundamental obligation to your investors - that when you act on behalf of the you act in THEIR interest, not the interest of others.  When you had conflicts of interest you compromised your integrity and breeched your fiduciary duty, causing harm to some groups of investors to bail out others.

The contract DID allow you to accelerate obligations (though you never actually did so - there were no payments made as defined by the contract).  But no manager acting solely in the interests of BMF would have signed the contract AND agreed to accelerate - as doing so lost all potential benefit of the contract to BMF.  Your obligation was to represent BMF as though they were your sole responsibility (and to do the same for CPA).  If (as proved to be the case) you were unable to do that then the issue over which you were compromised should have been revealed, discussed and either agreed by investors or some manager appointed to act on one or both parties behalf.  You just never bothered claiming, never even mentioned that BMF could claim, attempted to belittle/ignore/insult anyone who asked about it and flat out lied about it on occasion (e.g. claiming the insurance contract was discussed and voted on by BMF investors - when in fact it wasn't).

My best guess of what happened (which I can't be sure of) is that you signed the contract in good faith then when the shit hit the fan and CPA had no cash to pay you tried to brush it under the carpet - probably believing it could be sorted later when things got better.  But things never got better.  And eventually you concocted the acceleration of obligations bullshit.  It's clear bullshit as you didn't actually acelerate obligations - you just stopped fulfilling them.  If you'd accelerated obligations thered have been transactions in both directions (denoted in last digits as specified in your contract) showing publicly that obligations had been accelerated.  But of course yo ucouldn't do that - as then investors would be asking "why the fuck did we sign an insurance contract then refuse to accept payment when it came time to claim?"

The alternative is that from the start you intended to accelerate obligations - which would make it a straight-forward scam, taking 520 BTC from BMF if it did well and 20 from it if it did badly with zero chance of any benefit ever to them from it.

But you still aren't even going to understand my point - as "I have most shares and therefore could do what I wanted",  "Contract allowed me to screw BMF so as manager of BMF I screwed them", "I had most shares so could only rip off myself therefore logically I couldn't rip anyone off".  All the usual crap showing either total ignorance of basic business practice, complete denial of reality and/or pathological lieing.

What I can't be sure of is whether you misled, misrepresented and generally abused the trust of BMF investors when you agreed the contract or when you failed to act in their interest and claim.  It's one or the other (maybe both).  Shortly before GLBSE went down you were actively discussing this issue (for the first time) and had admitted that CPA might owe BMF some money but were trying to persuade BMF investors that they should let CPA off (you even raised the possibility of CPA paying the claim by returning BMF shares it held - but didn't want to do so as it would leave CPA with nothing).  In those posts it was absolutely crystal clear that you were speaking to your BMF investors but acting as a spokesperson/apologist for CPA: again a conflict of interest.

That's an example - not the only instance.  But no point me writing a novel about all of them when the mods have no interest in resolving this in either direction.

You demonstrate here again that you just don't understand it.

I'm NOT talking about the ratios of sold shares - I'm talking about fixed, defined ratios in which shares will be sold announced BEFORE any are actually sold.  Investors are meant to be able to work out the risk/reward BEFORE investing - not look each week at what's actually sold and work our what their risk/reward is AFTER they've parted with their money.

So if, for example, you targetted a 1:2:3 ratio (nothing special about that - it's just an example) then you'd issue onto the market (say) 100 A, 200 B and 300 C and no more of ANY until all 3 had sold out - with Nyan picking up any slack (that WAS meant to be it's role right?)  If you weren't confident you could sell that many (or it was more than Nyan would back) then you'd issue 10,20 and 30 or 1,2 and 3.  Then investors would know the ratio and could properly assess risk/reward.  THAT's what you failed to do - defining IN ADVANCE ratios, then Nyan underwriting the issue to ensure they were strictly adhered to (and managing the flow of issuing to keep its own exposure reasonable).

You can't blame investors for selling to you low - you shouldn't have had buy orders up in the first place as they mess with the ratios and alter the risk/reward.  It's dumb saying "doing X helped A/B/C" as you have zero business helping ANY of the tiers at the expense of others - and a change in ratio that helps one tier almost certainly has negative effect on another (so buying back B may help C - by increasing the profits passing through from A - but at same times it screws A as they don't keep any more profit and now have less assets backing them).

You set the rules at the start - not make them up as you go along.  And you failed, dismally, at that.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it was fucked. For example:


The ratios were published on the spreadsheets and were relatively stable after the IPO period. In addition I announced the number of shares weekly in shareholder letters. So to put it simply, you don't understand what I did, and you are assuming I did something wrong, when I didn't.

Do you get it? You are saying I didn't publish the ratios --- BUT I DID. And not only did I publish them, I went out of my way to show them to investors by presenting the share counts in weekly letters to shareholders.


You don't understand our contract, nor the shareholder motion which I had up to vote on this. You also don't seem to understand this had been discussed and was a generally approved plan of action. M. in the previous message is acting like he doesn't understand how buying back 1,000 shares of NYAN.B would help .C investors -- it was discussed to death 3 months ago.  He doesn't need to understand it now. Secondly, the only reason why SOME of the shares were bought back under 1 is because despite my pleas to IGNORE puppet, eskimobob, and YOU, people panic sold my stock.

Don't you remember? You people viciously attacked me.

Seeing as how EskimoBob among others have NON-TRIVIAL amounts of investment in my companies, it now seems obvious you were engaged in a stock price manipulation scheme. Did you know EskimoBob's NYAN.A holdings alone are worth more than $500 US? He was in deep. Why was he pushing so hard? Was he buying on the cheap? This wasn't 1 or 2 shares. Mircea was in too. All the time MPOE-PR was shitting on me, and the trouble I had with smickles, pigeons, and so on -- and what comes out in the end? Mircea has over $1,000 US in NYAN.A alone and is invested in almost every one of my companies. What the hell? $50 bucks says you and puppet were also in. Now the picture becomes clear doesn't it?

There's actually more evidence towards you scamming me and intentionally trying to destroy my business tnan there is towards me "falsifying NAVs" (proven false), manipulating share prices (proven false), and misleading investors (proven false). Stick to the topic. Am I guilty of what has been claimed against me here, or am I innocent?


No. You are ignorant. I did what I said I would do in my contracts and I went above and beyond what everyone else was doing at the time by publishing weekly letters to shareholders. Now stick to the topic. I have been cleared of the claims made against me in the OP.

Where is the statement from the moderators?

The Nyan structure was totally fucked from the start as usagi failed to grasp or implement one of the basic requirements for a tranched CDO - that the ratio of units sold of each layer be published in advance.  Without knowing the ratio of A:B:C it's impossible to work out the risk/reward ratios.  If you consider just 2 tiers for simplicity (A and B) compare the 2 following extreme scenarios to see the point.

In both scenarios overflow profit from A gos to B, A gets first claim on assets.

Scenario 1.  100 A for each 1 B.  In this scenario all of the overflow from 100 shares of A gos to a single share of B - and in return each share of A gets claim to the assets of 1/100th of a share in B.

Scenario 2.  1 A for each 100 B.  In this scenario the overflow from 1 share of A gets split between 100 shares of B - and in return the single share of A gets claim to the assets 100 shares of B.

It's pretty obvious that in scenario 1 you wouldn't touch A (it has capped profits with no significant claim in return) but would jump on B - as it gets a ton of overflow potential.  The converse is the case in scenario B.

With multiple tiers the same principle applies - and the underlieing point is that you have to know the ratios to assess the risk/reward of the different tiers.  This dismally failed to happen with Nyan.  Parent Nyan seemingly was meant to maintain some sort of balance - but the ratios were never given, never adhered to and Nyan bailed out on it before closure (sales of A and/or C were stopped eventually - but by then the damage was done).  

When it comes to buying back one thing is an obvious fact - unless you buy back in exactly the current ratio of each tier, the act of buying back will necessarily change the ratios and hence alter the risk/reward for investors.  That's an absolute no-no to do.  The only way buying back should occur is in a total close-down - hence more typically there'd be an end date where the whole thing was liquidated (can see the reason why not to do that - lack of liquidity - but that's an argument to use a different structure not to fuck up the one used).

Put simply, usagi totally failed to implement an absolutely essential requirement to run a properly structured asset of the type it was intended to be.  And then screwed up whatever little equilibrium there was by doing buy backs - meaning anyone who had actually done some calculation just had it negated.  And that's when it actually got even worse - but that's a different tale entirely.

EDIT: to be clear this post isn't alleging scamming - just pointing out the mind-boggling degree of ignorance and incompetence associated with the way nyan was run.

Not all that bizarre. You bought them back for way less than the nominal 1 BTC face value they should've had, which also meant you were paying way less than you claimed the underlying assets were worth. Basically, you drove shareholder value into the ground through mismanagement and then picked up the wrecked shares on the cheap.

Can anyone here make sense of how the hell usagi is claiming this would've worked? For that matter, usagi, can you point to anyone other than yourself who claimed your scheme made sense? I mean, yes, it would mean that NYAN.C would get the dividend overspill from NYAN.A, but if I'm remembering your baroque structure correctly the only way this would benefit NYAN.C is if the shares being given to NYAN.B holders couldn't pull their weight dividend-wise. Which basically confirms that the GLBSE market was right to value the underlying shares at a lot less than the 1 BTC per NYAN.B share you valued them at.

Meanwhile, the idea behind paying most of the dividends from NYAN.A holdings to B and C was that in return they'd protect NYAN.A from loss of the underlying investment by transferring their holdings to NYAN.A in order to make up any shortfall. NYAN.C was basically worthless trash at that point, in effect mostly Pirate holdings IIRC, so by getting rid of NYAN.B you were stripping them of the protection you were contractually obliged to give them, but still only offering them the same level of returns as though NYAN.B was still there to protect them from losses.

WOW!
I am preserving this for the future generations

A convenient excuse for what? You seem to be under the impression that a) I invested in stuff that the contract said I wouldn't invest in, or b) invetors were not fully informed of what was in the contracts.

If that isn't what you're saying then spit it out. I only did what was in the contracts and everyone knew what I was doing. It was only after the fact when GLBSE started crashing that people attacked me, saying I knew all along, and other impossible to believe garbage.

Like you for example --> I loved how you called the NYAN shutdown "scheme" bizzare. You mean like when I bought back 1100 bitcoins of NYAN.A and NYAN.B on the open market in about a week, with 400-500 bought back the following week? Oh that's so bizzare. Oh and the shareholder motions that allowed me to do it. SO, SO bizzare, huh.

I also loved how people were saying it made a lot of sense since it would help out the NYAN.C shareholders as NYAN.B would not take up the extra dividend flow from NYAN.A. And how there were no victims because NYAN.B holders could still get 1 bitcoin per share. And thousands of shares were bought back in that manner. I did good. But now, you want to be an asshole, so you call it "bizzare". Get something straight, YOU are bizzare.

I think I get it now. People like you, who don't understand anything about investing or finance are looking for a pinata to beat up. Who knows maybe some candy will fall out. It doesn't matter that i'm not responsible for your loss, I'm just a convenient scapegoat. All I did was invest in companies on behalf of investors. I invested in a WIDE RANGE of securities according to the contracts. If you can't point out where I violated my contract for NYAN in particular, or if you cannot point out that I knew mining would crash (for example) then you CANNOT logically say I am responsible for what happened.

95% of commodity futures investors lose all their money in the first 6 months (http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/2012/12/15/opposing-forces-monetary-vs-fiscal-policy). Did you know that? When you invest in bitcoins you acquire commodity risk due to the pricing of bitcoins in US dollars. Not to mention a secondary commodity risk in the value of the hardware. If you do not understand what you are doing when you invest in mining and you lose your money IT IS ENTIRELY **YOUR** FAULT. I very, very publicly disclosed what I was doing, what I was investing in, etc. and NO ONE was lied to as to what we held. I was VERY CLEAR on the risks as well. The contracts are VERY CLEAR and were VERY PUBLIC. There is no way you can say that I am responsible for someone losing their money in a SECTOR FUND.

There is no excuse for blaming me for what happened. I know it makes you feel good to beat someone up over your loss but it's just not my fault.

That makes for a convenient excuse now, but unfortunately you and everything you operated had both well and truly failed way before the GLBSE shutdown. You'd already significantly overstated the value of the assets your securities held, and were in the process of screwing over NYAN investors through a bizarre shutdown scheme for NYAN.B that broke your contractual obligations and screwed over investors in all the NYANs except possibly NYAN.C.

after 2 months of solid trolling I think I just wanted to delete the posts I had made because I had become sickened by it.


I did not get complete and accurate shareholder lists until december 21st. What did you expect me to do, sit on my ass and make up shareholders to pay out? Did you see the crap I had to go thru when people thought I might be paying out some shareholders before others? And now, you say I should have done that earlier? How can you say that's my fault now, and my fault then? It doesn't make sense. YOU don't make sense.


Just like every other precious metals fund? Yea. So?


Yeah, some stupid fool like you blows a lot of hot air. Thanks repentance.


No, I did not say that, I said I invested with deposit holders. All of which swore up and down my investment was guaranteed and NOT in pirate. You're lying about me again.


You don't seem to remember that I had taken the advice of my round table members and cut our pirate exposure by thousands of bitcoins. A lot of people were pissed because they had 2000+ coin contracts with us and we got out of the contracts. Legally, according to the contract. The only contract we had remaining was kakosan's and we paid out the full 1100 bitcoins on it IIRC. We made almost that much anyway. The real issue is what happened with other pepole. I did what I was supposed to do. But I got blamed for other people screwing us over.


"In spite of that knowledge". You really make me sad. You're either stupid -- really stupid, and can't read, or you really just don't have a clue. And in either case why on earth are you even posting this? Nobody knew that Imsaguy was not going to be able to pay back. Saying I knew -- wow that's really a new level.


I didn't fail. GLBSE failed. And you failed to understand simple logic like no one could have predicted PH, HK, etc. five months before it happened. And the community failed me when I tried to relist to process claims. But you are wrong, I did not fail, and I won't. Unstable, yes, that's what happens when you have to put up with months and months of lies like the crap you just posted when you said "in spite of that knowledge".

No, you made the drama by deleting thousands of posts, by coming back here telling everyone how many hours you'd put into your Japanese language venture when you hadn't even sorted out the post GLBSE clusterfuck and now by trying to open a new listing which basically involves trying to sell people shares in stuff you already own.  Your internet history shows one drama after another going back years, and they all have a similar pattern.

No-one's ever going to convince you that you've done anything wrong with any of your ventures because you're so fucking delusional that you refuse to accept that the great usagi can ever be wrong.  You say that you invested with the PPTs because no-one trusted you, but apparently you refuse to look at why that was the case.  And when you pull the "other people did too" bullshit, you sound like BFL.  That others may have made the same wrong judgements you made doesn't make you less responsible for yours.  

If you want to play fund manager, you don't get to blame it on someone else when your judgement proves flawed.  It was foreseeable that pirate's ponzi would collapse and take the PPT operators down and it's ridiculous to claim that it wasn't.  If anything, you need to explain why you turned to them in spite of that knowledge and the best you've come up with so far is that people didn't trust you so you decided to try to give yourself credibility by association.

It doesn't matter whether you're an intentional scammer or not.  You're unstable as shit and your own actions have utterly destroyed any chance you had at redeeming yourself.  You need to wrap this up and move on to your next obsession.

Take it to IRC or email or reddit.  You're incapable of not being a drama queen here.  And I am sorry about your health problems but perhaps you should be sort those out first before trying to take on business ventures which are going to be inherently stressful even if successful, never mind if they fail (and failure is always a risk in business, and an especially high one in the kinds of Bitcoin enterprises you chose to launch).

Then why did you cause it? You took potshots against me for months, despite nothing ever coming of the scam accusation threads. You sit there and tell me to stop feeding the drama but it's your drama, you made it.

usagi, please stop feeding the drama.  You're saying how tired you are but you've wasted a ridiculous amount of energy in pointless arguments on here which could have been better spent on finding ways to close out your previous ventures.  You need to disengage your emotions and your ego from all of this and focus on the practical. 

What's done is done.  It doesn't matter why you made the decisions you did in the past - you did and they can't be changed.  Stop wasting energy on defending them because it achieves absolutely nothing except exhausting and overwhelming you.

You need to think about whether you can close out your previous ventures without posting here or you're just going to waste even more energy on pointless shitfights and it's not going to benefit your shareholders one bit.