Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 24. (Read 92656 times)

Using a lot of references to dicks, asses, assholes and fucking?  

I'm assuming that is what you are referring to since it's bolded.

As I said you're mistaken.

Here, I'll walk you through it. It begins with the odd shareholder problem. In the odd shareholder problem, case one assumes an even number of shares (say, 2,000 shares) and an odd number of investors. No matter how you divide the shares some investors will get more shares than others.

Normally it's not a problem however because there are many different assets in a portfolio and you can use smaller per-share-value assets to "make change" if you will.

Now there's 2 basic ways to do this:

1. Give each of the investors an even share of each company, more or less, or
2. Give each shareholder the bulk (or entirety of) one or more companies and then fill in with what's left over (use the smallest value company to make change).

It might not matter to you much when there are only seven investors but when there are seventy or seven hundred things begin to look different. In the case we are discussing the ownership looks like this:

(of BMF): Me and/or CPA: 70%
50-100 other people: 30%

The assets in question look like this:
A single worth ~60 bitcoins
300 shares of X worth 1 bitcoin each,
2000 shares of Y worth 0.05 bitcoins each
5000 shares of whatever else worth maybe 0.1 bitcoins each (for example).

Now, do I want to make your life difficult and transfer your 2,000 shares 50 different ways? No. That would be stupid, and a nightmare for both parties. Why would I do that? No, I will do something like:

a) Give the single and the 5000 shares to CPA/me
b) Give 1000 of the Y to a big investor
c) give chunks of shares to other big investors
d) liquidate smaller positions and give value in bitcoins to the dozen or more remaining small investors

Doing something along these lines makes sense, and is easy.

The second issue you seem to have is that I am paying off CPA's debts before I pay off someone else's. Well thank you Dr. Obvious, what do you expect me to do, wait 6 months before I start paying out claims? I can easily prove my claim on CPA and BMF assets, but random joe on the street cannot do that until I receive the lists from nefario. Handling 2 or 3% of what CPA is owed is no big deal.

Otherwise another issue you will have is YARR, which was created by CPA. Any assets that CPA owned, INCLUDING SHARES OF BMF, will pass to YARR holders as well. This is normal and natural. What do you expect, I put off paying out 5 or 6 bitcoins to YARR shareholders just because I didn't get the CPA shareholders list? That's insane.

What you are witnessing is this:
1. CPA owned shares of BMF.
2. Rather than sell the single and split up the 60 bitcoins in 60 different ways, I just gave it to someone who we owe the almost exact amount of a single +shipping (~65 bitcoins).
3. You will see me do the same in the future. I am trying to find a shareholder I can just give all 2,000 shares of BITCOINRS to, for example. I am not interested in splitting up BITCOINRS 50 different ways and I doubt you would enjoy wading through 50 different GPG signed documents either.

I can't imagine you've thought this though and realize you are asking me to split up BITCOINRS 50 different ways. It just doesn't make sense.

That.

1.

2.

4.

Sir, I will say it again -- you do not know what you are doing. From "preferential shares" to questioning the truth of the loans I took out, to requiring a GPG signed contract to transfer ownership and then trying to wiggle out of it in a scam accusation thread -- what the hell are you even doing in this thread?

Do you have something to say? Do you have any evidence I am a scammer besides the fact that I sold a single which was owned by CPA to pay off CPA debts?

Let's be clear on this.. You are being a dick. What's your problem? Just want to try trolling for a couple days?

lol

The agreement was the shares will be transferred on the exchange they are listed on. You dont get preference over other shareholders with a buyback.

The problem is you have no idea what you are doing.

You and others have created an impossible, illogical situation where someone is a scammer because it has been claimed so. The trap is a triangle; on one corner, you have gentleman's agreements in the court of public opinion -- where proof lies with such things as GPG signed documents, and the ability for mods to read the PM you sent me where you agreed that (and I quote) "A gpg signed contract transferring ownership would be good. My email is ... My public key - ID 0xDD42D4B5".

In another, you have you and others claiming all manner of unenforceable bullshit, for example, I already agreed to donate shares, or I swindled someone, or I deserve a scammer tag for deleting posts (what a joke). I am quite sure there are trolls here would call for a scammer tag and swear up and down that I did in fact agree to donate shares and that going back on my word constitutes a scammer tag solely because someone else said it. And beyond that you have people who get accused of scamming because they are following their lawyer's advice.

Right here, right now, let me clue you in as to where we are. We are in a court of public opinion where one's word is their bond, supported by such things as GPG signed contracts and PMs which are on record. You and I agreed that I had the right to transfer ownership via a GPG signed document. If you want to break your word, then you have to ask me, or you're a fucking slimeball. I don't mind working with you. Why just ten minutes ago I had the thought of claiming and selling the shares, to discern whether or not it would be easier than arranging a transfer as you had already agreed.

But do not come here and stirr up shit that I am a scammer because I am following my own, clearly stated gentleman's agreement, in order to get MY business done as quickly and cleanly as possible. In fact I don't see why you are on this thread at all. We've already concluded the bulk of our business and the only thing left to do is send you the GPG statement. Unless you wish to go back on your word. In that case.. do it in PM. I don't see why you have to drag this out in public.

P.S. since you said in PM you value each share at 0.05, feel free to transfer 100 bitcoins to my firstbits (1usagi), we could also theoretically conclude our business that way. I'll even give you a 5% cash discount, you can settle what you owe me for just 95 BTC.

I relisted on the exchange and told you to get an account there to claim your shares. Im not transferring them to anyone but the people listed on the shareholder data from glbse.

Whats the problem with this ?

No, I did not just offer not to accept them. Stop being an asshole.

You just sent me a PM last week asking for a signed GPG contract to settle our business. But now that you think you can make off like a bandit by pretending I offered not to accept your shares you pretend like the deal has already been signed. That's what an asshole does.

If you're not an asshole now is a great time to say you were just joking.

You and a lot of people around here seriously have no fucking clue when it comes to things like investing or running a company. You don't pull shit like you are doing in this thread. You don't do it because it makes you look like an idiot. You think it's so easy to just jump on someone and call them a scammer because in your own little world they aren't following the rules. The problem is you have no clue what the rules here are. You yourself don't even follow your own rules. Seriously, what the fuck are you doing in this thread besides making yourself look stupid?

Are you really claiming I am a scammer because I am ........ paying people back?

Or are you just trying to get out of giving CPA 2,000 shares of BITCOINRS? As you said above?

You do realize how dumb the accusations in this thread have become, don't you?

You already owned 2000 shares. You paid 98btc for them when the asset was listed on glbse and this was an offer to send you the same amount on the new listing.

Im sure the other shareholders will be more than happy with your donation of 2000 shares since you just offered to not accept them.

That is why when you approached me with a deal to take 2,000 shares of BitcoinRS privately on another exchange I turned you down. You were obviously trying to entrap me and/or rip off your other shareholders.

(No you weren't but it's easy to put a spin on something, isn't it?)

No it's not, because CPA owned the assets. You have failed to think this through very clearly.

CPA owned ~35% of BMF. So did I, actually. These are known, provable facts. Together this obligation amounts to around 900 bitcoins, or $10,000 US dollars. Second point, I don't have the list of shareholders from CPA or BMF yet. It makes sense to use this single to cover CPA's loans because CPA essentially owns the single, and then remove CPA's claim from that list. To allege fraud in this case you will have to show:

a) An intent to deceive (not present)
b) for financial gain (not present)
c) or to damage an individual (not present).

You can't do that because money is fungible; When we liquidate BITCOINRS, SATOSHIDICE and BTC-MINING, for example, it will be a matter of simple math to remove the 60 odd bitcoins we will get from CPA's claim. The ONLY thing not doing this will mean is that loanholders won't get paid for another 3 months. It does not mean you will get money any sooner than I get those lists from Nefario. So you guys are dreaming when you say I am stripping assets or taking anything from the company. A big fuck you to repentance and the others who insinuated that, but especially repentance because he's a fucking dink.

In no case will CPA or myself or any of my companies receive a greater proportion of the claims than any other claimant based on the shareholder lists I get from Nefario.

Please close this stinking shitball thread.

And for fuck sakes, use your brain. I cared about my companies and I used my personal money to support them. If I wanted to rip off a bunch of stupid fucks like you, I could have run a shareholder motion to give myself a performance bonus and there would be nothing you can do. This actually happens all the time in the real world, ironically especially in the mining sector. So go to hell.

Whut? Are you out of your mind?

A: "Look! A rabbit!"

B: "That's gotta be fraud, surely?"

??

The sort-of funny part is that this misrepresentation is actually quite common, I've seen it before on these forums.

Just noticed I typoed and put "BMF is being shit down" instead of "shut down" (been out drinking).

Think the typo may actually be more appropriate.

This is what I mean. The assets should be sold and distributed to ALL shareholders. Doing things differently rips them off.

Thats if there are any other shareholders by now  lol.

Well usagi has this amusing delusion that if you own a majority of shares in a company you can just help yourself to what you want from it - this has been repeatedly stated by usagi.

Usgai/cpa own a large chunk of BMF shares -  the majority apparently. If they own X of the Y shares issued and BMF is being shit down then X/Y of the value of any asset would go to them.  But why settle for that if you can just take it all?

Response will of course be the usual "You're just trolls",  "I own most of the shares so I can steal what I want" etc etc.

I think usgai genuinely believes having most of the shares allows you to steal from the remaining shareholders - it actually it believes it has that entitlement and that there's nothing wrong with doing it.  And it'll happily opst pages of insults, gibberish and lies to make it too much work for mods to award a scammer tag.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  It's easy to act with integrity when everything is going well.  The people you want to do business with are those who have the capacity to act with fairness and integrity when everything goes wrong.

I experienced what that means with glbse.

He shouldn't have deleted his old posts.  I actually remember him starting a thread trying to get "liquidity loans".  I'm trying to remember whether the loan request was phrased as it being a loan to usagi or a loan to one of his ventures (in which case that venture would be responsible for paying back the loan).  I vaguely remember him getting pissy because he wasn't getting much in the way of responses.

It is completely dodgy but it's what happens when you have these toy companies where there is no restraint on the founder/CEO/whatever acting entirely out of self interest because you can't oust someone from control of a company which doesn't actually exist.  "Shareholders" have no power in these toy companies.  It's something people need to remember for the future.