Pages:
Author

Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 19. (Read 92656 times)

hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
You could learn how to manage other peoples money from Deprived. His asset on litecoinglobal has been operating for months without losing 90% of the NAV.

Yes I went there.
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
Usual usagi - "it's been discussed to death already".  No - no really.  All you ever say when it comes to any detail of it (like what this "test" was supposed to prove, why shareholders weren't told it was a test etc) is "it's already been dsicussed".  When it hasn't.

Lie much? Nice necroaccount there. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/eskimobob-puppet-deprived-etc-127096



8. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1231972
"Nyan cooking the books to cover up an interest-free loan to CPA" - as it hasn't been discussed anywhere (except briefly by me) and just about all the facts in it are already accepted by usagi."
No proof and again, I countered every one of his claims many times.

Did you or did you not commit criminal fraud by maliciously stating I had committed a crime, without any evidence, in order to damage my reputation and defraud investors and potential investors in my company, and me of their business?

Why yes, you did! Can a mod please give this scummy fuck a scammer tag and a 3 week ban? Thanks!
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
Do you have evidence that there are no such claims?

Either way it has been argued that this is not relevant to any of the scam accusations. If you don't want to refute those arguments, stop asking the same question.

Dear God.... I know I have a tendency for hyperbole but this has actually become retarded now.

Normally it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist -- this is actually one of the more well-known logically dishonest arguments because of it's use saying things like "You cannot prove God doesn't exists... therefore he exists." Now, personally, I believe there is a God. But I do not believe that the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that we cannot prove he doesn't exist.. is a logical argument to show he exists.

However in this case yes, we can actually prove that there are no such claims, because I do not have the lists from BMF or CPA.

You dont have the profit and loss statements or much in the way of actual accounting records at all. I dont know what they call it when  a "business" fails to keep their records but it cant be good for tax reasons alone. You raised thousands of bitcoins and didnt tell the tax office?

Did you even report this income ? Did you report a profit or loss to whatever country tax system BMF and CPA is under ?

hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
In cryptography we trust
The lack of consistent evidence from the accusers is overwhelming.

There is a PGP signed contract between BMF and CPA (http://i.imgur.com/txcgV.png)

One piece of consistent evidence for the scam accusations is that BMF paid for insurance and CPA didn't pay out.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
You should all be considerate of usagi and accept Japanese lessons in return for what you are owed (I guess usagi's lender didn't like that option).  If you don't leave him alone and he drinks so much that he ends up in hospital again, it will be all. your. fault. doncha know.
vip
Activity: 756
Merit: 503
This is why I didn't want you to get involved. You are not the first person who has asked for evidence or a victim. BCB did too, as did various people over the last 4-5 months. No evidence exists and no victim.

I am sorry for the interference.

It is becoming obvious that an organized campaign is in place against you. The lack of consistent evidence from the accusers is overwhelming.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500

I gave BMF 100 bitcoins of my own personal money back when the mining crash happened, and the BMF-CPA contract has been discussed to death already. So Deprived is arguing from a position of misinformation or non-information.


When asked about it usagi just ignored all questions for a month or two - calling anyone who asked a troll and claiming it had all been answered before (it hadn't).  Then finally the explanation came out - that it was somehow a test of a new contract: which is plainly bullshit given BMF investors were told they had insurance cover (NOT "here's what a contract would like like IF we had such cover") and paid some premiums.

It's not hard to understand.

Not hard to understand.. just a lie. For example, does anyone really believe I "ignored all questions for a month or two"? Oh come on, people have accused me of trolling my own threads..... no one who has been following this believes I ignored Deprived for a day, let alone two months.


Usual usagi - "it's been discussed to death already".  No - no really.  All you ever say when it comes to any detail of it (like what this "test" was supposed to prove, why shareholders weren't told it was a test etc) is "it's already been dsicussed".  When it hasn't.

Same for your last claim that you didn't ignore it.  Blatant lie.  My very first post about your comapnies raised it - it was when I'd started getting back into BTC securities, was looking at various ones, and made the mistake of asking some questions about yours: including why the insurance wasn't claimed on.

Your response - you poitned out an error I'd make then spent rest of post berating me for my low post count etc.  Same when I next asked about it - in BMF thread.  No answer (though you responded to someone who quoted me).  Then an investors asked about it as well - and was ignored.  It wasn't until a lot later that you finally came up with the bullshit "it was just a test" explanation: which you were backing away from (as noone found it credible) when GLBSE went down.

If you're going to claim you already explained why you needed to do a "test", why that had to involve BMF sending payments to CPA (to test you could use a bitcoin wallet?) and why you trumpetted it to BMF as "great news - we're insured" rather than "Great news - here's a contract that I wrote as a test but which won't actually be active" then link please.

"no one who has been following this believes I ignored Deprived", Likely true - but totally irrelevant.  You don't ignore ME - you reply to nearly every post, but yet always avoid addressing the nasty little questions which you can't answer as any answer would either obviously be a lie and/or contradict a previous statement you've made.
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
Do you have evidence that there are no such claims?

Either way it has been argued that this is not relevant to any of the scam accusations. If you don't want to refute those arguments, stop asking the same question.

Dear God.... I know I have a tendency for hyperbole but this has actually become retarded now.

Normally it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist -- this is actually one of the more well-known logically dishonest arguments because of it's use saying things like "You cannot prove God doesn't exists... therefore he exists." Now, personally, I believe there is a God. But I do not believe that the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that we cannot prove he doesn't exist.. is a logical argument to show he exists.

However in this case yes, we can actually prove that there are no such claims, because I do not have the lists from BMF or CPA.
vip
Activity: 756
Merit: 503
Do you have evidence that there are no such claims?

Of course not, otherwise I would not be asking for evidence.

Do you have evidence that there are such claims?

Either way it has been argued that this is not relevant to any of the scam accusations. If you don't want to refute those arguments, stop asking the same question.

Evidence is not relevant when the accusations are made to defame the accuser. That is what exactly you and others are doing.
vip
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
And you can find the answers in the posts above. If you have no further argument stop asking the same questions over and over again.


Where? Show me a single link for a shareholder claim! Otherwise, you do not have any evidence whatsoever!

This is why I didn't want you to get involved. You are not the first person who has asked for evidence or a victim. BCB did too, as did various people over the last 4-5 months. No evidence exists and no victim.


As far as I can tell:
1.  You don't know who your creditors are.
2.  You don't know who your shareholders are.
3.  You don't know how much value you can get from liquidation.

Given those conditions, you have no idea how much each share of debt is worth, and you have no idea how much each equity share is worth. Paying one creditor or shareholder (or any subset of them) at an assumed valuation is preferential.  It is pretty much the definition, actually.  In the real world it is a crime as described above.

For example. I've already told kjj I know who the major creditors are in this case and have said many times I would be paying everyone what they are owed. I've even outlined it 3 or 4 times.


Usagi doesnt even provide proper profit and loss statements which a company with actual shareholders must provide from time to time. For example how much does CPA or BMF owe in tax ?

He has been paying company tax....right? Usagi doesnt have any company records to produce just a bunch of hot air.

Example. Meaningless accusations. I just happen to live in a particular juristiction and situation where I do not have to pay tax. The government confirmed this with me.


So your assumptions are based on what? Lack of evidence?

Shill. How much is Usagi paying you to pick up the soap ?

Example. No explanation needed.


Quote
An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference

Usagi did not declared bankruptcy, so your evidence is worthless to support kjj's assertion.

If usagi is unable to provide proper accounting, it is reasonable to assume that he is bankrupt.

Example. "If usagi is unable to provide proper accounting, it is reasonable to assume that he is bankrupt." No, it isn't. Plus, I was never asked for such accounting nor was "proper accounting" ever defined. OTOH, I offered to explain any transactoin in the CSV file quite a few times, so this accusation is made from a position of misinformation and/or non-information. BitcoinOz really doesn't know what he is doing here.


As a CPA shareholder I demand to see the books right now. Consider this a letter of demand and if you havent produced the books in 21 days you will be considered insolvent.

This must have been a joke but it outlines how BitcoinOz and others think. If I do not acquiesce to their demands, what happens? I'm an insolvent scammer. LOL?


Usagi stated that intent himself. It wasnt like some accused him of doing it .

He said he was boxing up assets and paying out one creditor over another. Are you saying usagi was making a false statement.

Example of the kind of illogic that is being passed around. At this point actually it has become a lie to damage an individual (i.e. actual fraud. How ironic.)

I have said many, many times already that I will be paying out to everyone what they are owed. I will NOT be paying everyone at the same time BECAUSE I get the lists and claims out of order. OTOH I already know what the basic percentages are because CPA owned nothing but NYAN and BMF. So there is no problem here.


if the crux of this argument  is that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.

Then someone should be working on a scammer tag for bitfloor, correct?

As you are surely aware A., the crux is whether or not I paid someone preferentially, and I did not. --> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1365049 I might add to this that posting a wikipedia article on the definition of fraud does not mean I, Usagi, committed fraud.


Usagi is only entitled to his percentage of the equipment not 100%. He cant take the entire amount but has to divide it equally amongst existing shareholders.

He basically stole 30% or whatever percentage of shares he doesnt own.

No, money is fungible. I am not going to sell the single and account for it individually, 50 separate ways. I am going to sell things and pool things and disperse them in chunks because the accounting is easier. Why split up 20 bitcoins AND disperse 400 shares of x AND 500 shares of y AND 2000 shares of z (and so on down the line with 30 other companies) 50 different ways? No. You don't do that. That's not feasible and no one does that. You calculate the value of everything and pay people based on the value, not the actual content. Content means nothing. Only the value. Because money is fungible. Wow, I cannot believe BitcoinOz and others really don't understand this.

It's like chipping in to buy 5 pizzas for an office party and then demanding 2 slices from each pizza or it's fraud. Who friggen cares if you get 6 slices from one and 4 from another and that's it? NOBODY. And that is what is going on here. Someone is whining because I gave 1 slice to an investor who was owed 10 slices. There's plenty of pizza left for everyone.


The major problem with usagi's approach (from a practical as well as a technical point of view) is that there is no guarantee that any other assets of BMF will be realised.

I have already stated 5 or 6 times this will not be a problem because we have around 500 bitcoins worth of provable assets right now. As someone who owns or controls 70% of BMF, taking 5 or 10% of what we are owed in order to pay off company debts is fully within our means. I know for a fact there will be way more money for everyone else in short order as analogized above. So no, this is not a problem.

Repentance said in this post that he had screen caps. Others do too. I don't care if anyone posts the contracts. Go ahead. You definately have my permission to do that. I also expect people to read them if they post them. EskimoBob, Deprived and others have my contracts too. But they won't post them because they know that doing so would undermine their own arguments against me. This particular argument OTOH has nothing to do with a contract. I see that the BMF-CPA contract was posted. Another done-to-death argument that has no place here. It's like the main strategy has become obfuscation and side-stepping.


I remember when usagi had 2 motions on glbse and I giot confused because the one for BMF and the one for CPA had exactly the same wording. In effect there was no separation between the companies. You could say it was just different divisions of the same company.

Never happened with anything material.


It's all the shareholders of BMF (at that time) whose shares should have been worth a lot more had the insurance policy been claimed on.

I gave BMF 100 bitcoins of my own personal money back when the mining crash happened, and the BMF-CPA contract has been discussed to death already. So Deprived is arguing from a position of misinformation or non-information.


When asked about it usagi just ignored all questions for a month or two - calling anyone who asked a troll and claiming it had all been answered before (it hadn't).  Then finally the explanation came out - that it was somehow a test of a new contract: which is plainly bullshit given BMF investors were told they had insurance cover (NOT "here's what a contract would like like IF we had such cover") and paid some premiums.

It's not hard to understand.

Not hard to understand.. just a lie. For example, does anyone really believe I "ignored all questions for a month or two"? Oh come on, people have accused me of trolling my own threads..... no one who has been following this believes I ignored Deprived for a day, let alone two months.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
In cryptography we trust
And you can find the answers in the posts above. If you have no further argument stop asking the same questions over and over again.


Where? Show me a single link for a shareholder claim! Otherwise, you do not have any evidence whatsoever!

Argument from ignorance
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Still no evidence... I will repeat. I am not arguing, I am ASKING for the evidence.

Do you have a reference for a shareholder claim?

Do you have evidence that there are no such claims?

Either way it has been argued that this is not relevant to any of the scam accusations. If you don't want to refute those arguments, stop asking the same question.
vip
Activity: 756
Merit: 503
vip
Activity: 756
Merit: 503
And you can find the answers in the posts above. If you have no further argument stop asking the same questions over and over again.


Where? Show me a single link for a shareholder claim! Otherwise, you do not have any evidence whatsoever!

Argument from ignorance
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Still no evidence... I will repeat. I am not arguing, I am ASKING for the evidence.

Do you have a reference for a shareholder claim?
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
In cryptography we trust
And you can find the answers in the posts above. If you have no further argument stop asking the same questions over and over again.


Where? Show me a single link for a shareholder claim! Otherwise, you do not have any evidence whatsoever!

Argument from ignorance
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
vip
Activity: 756
Merit: 503
And you can find the answers in the posts above. If you have no further argument stop asking the same questions over and over again.


Where? Show me a single link for a shareholder claim! Otherwise, you do not have any evidence whatsoever!
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
In cryptography we trust
(...)
It's not hard to understand.

Cut off the chit-chat... I want to see the hard evidence. I am not interested in mere assumptions.

You are repeating the same question over and over again.

It's called an argumentum ad nauseam or argument by repetition
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/50-argument-by-repetition

I am not doing an argument. I asking a question: where is the evidence which proves that Usagi is not willing to comply with his obligations? Where are the shareholders claiming that Usagi defrauded them?

And you can find the answers in the posts above. If you have no further argument stop asking the same questions over and over again.
vip
Activity: 756
Merit: 503
(...)
It's not hard to understand.

Cut off the chit-chat... I want to see the hard evidence. I am not interested in mere assumptions.

You are repeating the same question over and over again.

It's called an argumentum ad nauseam or argument by repetition
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/50-argument-by-repetition

I am not doing an argument. I asking a question: where is the evidence which proves that Usagi is not willing to comply with his obligations? Where are the shareholders claiming that Usagi defrauded them?
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
In cryptography we trust
(...)
It's not hard to understand.

Cut off the chit-chat... I want to see the hard evidence. I am not interested in mere assumptions.

You are repeating the same question over and over again.

It's called an argumentum ad nauseam or argument by repetition
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/50-argument-by-repetition
vip
Activity: 756
Merit: 503
(...)
It's not hard to understand.

Cut off the chit-chat... I want to see the hard evidence. I am not interested in mere assumptions.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
Are you saying its only theft if the victim complains?  i.e. it's not theft when you take it (or announce that you're going to take it) - only when they notice and complain?  How does complaining change whether the act itself was right or not?

If your point is that there AREN'T customers (not the right word - but who cares) then get your calculator out.  Usagi said it + CPA owned 70% or so of BMF shares.  Type in 100. Subtract 70 from it.  Wow - the result is greater than zero!  That means there ARE shareholders other than CPA/usagi.


Where is the evidence? Where are the shareholders claiming they have been defrauded?

Wow you get stupider and stupider.

You mean if I killed someone I couldn't be charged with murder because "where's the victim claiming they have been murdered?"

Whether a wrong or a crime has happened has nothing to do with whether the victim realises or complains.  For all I know they've gone and committed suicide in shame after being scammed by someone who can't even get their story straight on what gender they are.

Sorry but you're now just obviously trolling. Ignore button time.
Pages:
Jump to: