Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 26. (Read 92686 times)

Ian, are you aware of the fact I have demonstrated in the OP (of my recent scam accusation thread against EskimoBob, Puppet and Deprived) that you:

1. Defrauded CPA by lying about your intent and financial position in order to break a contract with a no expiration clause;
2. Threatened to defame me (drag my name thru the mud) if I did not agree to your demands
3. Lie about me/slander me that I was attempting to clawback funds in response to my stance on sticking to the contract

?

Seriously dude. Just stop. I have been very tired and sick recently so I did not collect all this in one place but now that I have it's pretty obvious you deserve a scammer tag for what you did. You broke a contract, you lied about it, you attempted to blow smoke over it, and you're still bitching about it even though I paid back your shareholders as per the contract. Just stop. Go away. leave me alone.  I did not want to post this about you. I did not want to have to go through this. I did not want to have to chase you down and collect this info and post a scammer accusation on you. Why? Because I was very sick recently. I do not have the energy. This is literally killing me. It's past 2am in Japan now and I have work in the morning.

But you wouldn't fucking leave me alone. Now, if you just go away, maybe a mod will forget this thread exists and you won't get a scammer tag. I don't care. I don't have the energy anymore. I have tried, I really tried, to keep up with 5 or 6 people trolling me. But one person.. just can't. In the end, you will win, because I will not be able to keep up and badbear who hates me and has demonstrated prejudice towards me will probably give me a scammer tag.

That will be a sad day but fuck it. I just can't keep up.

well something is not right here. 

Either give Usagi the scammer tag or lock the thread.

The relentless MOE-PR/JoelKatz debate paid off in getting PH a scammer tag.  Maybe there is relevance here??

But unless theymos is closely monitoring this, I have no idea what third parties could be keeping up with the quote upon quote of the he  said/she said.

If he's scammed please tag him.

I don't think investors should be able to request a scammer tag for making the mistake of investing with a bad business/business man. 

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1349658

please do not spam the same message multiple times.

Just leave me the fuck alone. One of many:

9. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1346298
"This is also when usagi started defrauding nyan investors (which I never got around to posting about) by making interest free loans to CPA (dressed up as holding YARR shares for the books)."

No interest-free loans were ever made to CPA. YARR was bought back 2500 shares. Less than 80 remained when GLBSE shut down.

Do you see why I am upset at you? You're lying about me. Go away.

I think there's another very big reason why usagi hasn't got a scammer tag.  Look at the record of who does and doesn't get tags - pretty much without exception tags are only awarded to people who don't ste up and attempt to defend themselves in the complaint thread against them.  As soon as they start writing long posts, making stuff up, referring to posts they've deleted etc it becomes a whole load of work to actually reach the truth.  Try to find an instance of someone who defended themselves as vigorously as usagi has getting a tag.  Sure - most of what it types is total garbage but it takes a lot of time and effort to actually become sure of that.

Another (and pretty valid) reason is that most of the complaints about usagi aren't being made by actual investors who lost money.  With the possible exception of Eskimo Bob - which is absolutely hilarious (have to wonder if he had a ton of fixed-rate mining bonds as well).  I can make a pretty compelling case of various cases of acting in bad faith, robbing one set of investors to bail out a different failed company etc - but as I didn't have any skin in the game the mods can just ignore it until someone who actually lost out complains.

Now, now, no need to get testy. Even without an argument I have the advantage of having been watching them for longer.


There's a scoping issue here. Claims against pirate were in the six digit range. Claims against Bitcoinica were what, 40k BTC + hundreds of k's of USD or something like that? GLBSE screwed what, hundreds? even a thousand small time investors? It's true that it wasn't that much money, all things considered, as pretty much none of the big boys indulged, but still it affected a large if insignificant cross-section of the population.

Usagi however is bush league, there's dozens that did the same exact things he did except they had the common sense to keep quiet.

That's why I put it out here. I don't really care what you think if you do not have an argument.



That's a good explanation too. However after pirate, GLBSE and Bitcoinica this is probably one of the biggest cancers on this forum. If, as you say, the mods have no time or interest in looking at this, shouldn't they apply for help or step back?

I really don't think that contention holds any water. The more likely explanation would be that the forum mods have lives outside of reading in integrum the productions of every rabbit.

Working on the theory that you want not just to teach Japanese but also to learn Economics, here's an exercise for you usagi:
- (for 3 points) explain the difference between liquid and solvent;
- (for 2 points) illustrate this difference with at least two relevant examples;
- (for 3 points) explain the meaning of "fee simple" with a view to both historical use as well as the holding of financial instruments;
- (for 2 points) discuss alternative title to financial instruments.

Work time 55 minutes, outside sources and references not allowed, 4 handwritten pages allowed at a maximum, 1 handwritten page accepted at a minimum.

Please post your response as attached scans or sufficiently large pictures.

BCB, did you get an answer from theymos?

I am just looking for reasons to explain why usagi is still untouched by the mods, because any logical reasoning would conclude that usagi is lying and deceiving with every other sentence he writes. One reason, not saying it is true and it may be far fetched, that I could think of is if there was a business relationship between theymos and usagi. The reason it even comes to mind is because usagi and Nefario have been talking about doing business together (usagi was going to value assets on GLBSE) and theymos is also connected to Nefario in the GLBSE partnership. For all I know usagi could even be one of the unknown partners in GLBSE. If that were the case then I could at least understand why he stays untouched.

IANAL but don't you have to be incorporated in order to get this kind of protection?  Are all these usagi businesses registered and incorporated?  I apologize if they are but every post and website relating to everything was deleted by usagi and I have no way to find out.

On that note why isn't usagi getting a scammer tag for personally deleting every bit of information about his businesses?  I'm not even a shareholder and I'm finding it inconvenient.  I can only imagine how much his shareholders have been screwed over by his action.

usagi's only 14 year old??

Congratulations on your pop-finance book collection.  Personally, I prefer textbooks over pulp.  For pricing, I tend to prefer Hull's Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives.  Despite the silly name, it actually covers bond (and other asset) valuation pretty well.  Spoiler alert: every method known to man, other than mark-to-market, is based on statistical models that assume that the next X years will be similar to the previous Y years.

Do you remember 2008-2009?  That was a magical time in the real world, when thousands of people learned that their fantasy models were wrong, and things really were worth what the market was willing to pay for them.  The exception being like 7 people that were liquid, solvent, unleveraged and holders of their assets in fee simple.  Those guys got to keep valuing their stuff in whatever way they wanted to.  (You were not in this group.)  Everyone else learned that the present and future are not the same as the past.

At risk of wasting my time with these other guys, I'll say it for the hundredth time, in futile hopes that you'll actually read and understand.  Mining hardware is worth either what it will produce before it wears out, or what you can sell it for, not what you paid for it.  Including shipping costs in the value is extra-LOL.

I have this image in my head of you as a 14 year old kid, sitting in mom's basement, cursing at the internet and frothing at the mouth.  You just can't figure out why yelling isn't working, so you keep yelling louder.  Despite all of your yelling, your valuations were/are bullshit.  This isn't some big conspiracy against you, you were just wrong/inexperienced/irrational/exuberant/whatever, and rather than fess up to it, you go absolutely batshit crazy whenever anyone points out your shortcomings.

P.S.  Try reading some of my posts.  I'm one of the very, very few people left here that doesn't think you should have a scammer tag.

P.P.S.  You have done a much better job defaming, demeaning and demonizing yourself than the "trolls" ever could have done.

This is definitely a real problem you're facing, but to a point it's the burden for what has happened in the past. The same reason I imagine that you deleted over a thousand posts. So long as you stay in the same user account your history, and worse your trolls, will follow you.

This isn't nearly as relevant now, other things have been presented, the thread title just hasn't been changed.

The stock was being represented as worth the NAV as presented in your spreadsheets. If an inflated number was used it would make the investment appear to be worth more. The accusation was that the values were intentionally overvalued to inflate the apparent worth of the security; which would be defrauding investors.

Trolls have spent months trying to defame, demean and demonize almost everything I do here. For example I just recently announced that I am working on flashcard software to help people learn languages -- software very similar to anki, stackz, and iKnow. I was immediately attacked over having poor Japanese regardless of the fact that nobody could criticize the actual Japanese samples I published, AND that my knowledge of japanese is not relevant to how well I can code a general purpose flashcard language learning program. This is what I have to put up with on here.

If I was going to get a scammer tag because you don't understand how to value stocks it would have happened six months ago.

Here, let me reccomend a book: The Intelligent Investor, by Benjamin Graham. Here's another, One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch. Oh and another, common stocks and uncommon profits. Hey here's another, Rich Dad poor Dad, by Kiyosaki. Let's not forget that rare gem Margin of Safety by seth klarman.

What do all these books have in common besides the obvious? For one I've read them, often twice or more; they're all sitting on my bookshelf right now.

May I suggest you read a few books on securities analysis before you start flapping your lips about it? Valuing a company, specifically the term NAV, has ZERO to do with the stock price at the moment. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. This is why you and other's accusations sound so STUPID, and yet so PLAUSABLE to the uneducated. NAV, net asset value, is something more akin to BOOK VALUE. Especially in the case of a MINING COMPANY where the entire basket of assets is MINING HARDWARE with a KNOWN PRICE.

So you can just fuck off right there. You are DEAD WRONG about how I valued stocks. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER get a scammer tag for how I valued stocks.

GO AWAY.

LOL.

Your other two claims are pretty dubious too, but this one had my rolling in the aisle.  Your valuations were related to the GLBSE data in that they were both numbers, but that's pretty much where the similarities ended.

The problem is not that I am attacking you, it's that I am attacking you for being wrong. And you are wrong. You say yourself that you don't have any supporting documents and that you are working from an understanding of what other people have said ("my understanding ...."). This invalidates everything you say factually, although you're still welcome to your opinion.


Deprived is often wrong too. He is not wrong when he says the above; but the insinuation I did what I want "carte blanche" is wrong. The point I was making by pointing out my controlling interest was twofold; one, the claims that I was invalidating swindling people or ripping people off; it makes no sense to pay $9 to swindle $1; (or more accurately since mining crashed, to swindle $0.50 by paying $4.50). Two, I was pointing out that I did not need a shareholder motion as you pointed out.

There was a very well advertised board for CPA as well, and for a long time. ~2 months after formation Nefario E-mailed me confirmation that all the board members still had their shares. That means even at the very end I could account for something like 60-70% of CPA shares too. And all of those shares usually voted as a bloc as well as my own shares.

This is how companies work. If someone controlls 85% of a company, they can pass any kind of motion they want. This is not a crime or a swindle. It's just a fact. Now, if (big if) I launched a shareholder motion, which caused a demonstrable financial loss for personal gain, then and only then would I be guilty of fraud, and ONLY because I had a duty to protect shareholder interests. The difference between that and what you are claiming though, is that by committing fraud in the manner you describe I would have destroyed my own financial holding in the company. This does not make sense.

There is no motive.

There was no gain.

There was no lie.

You keep repeating the same accusations over and over. Unfortunately repetition is not going to work here. Although I am not a mod I suggest, that if you really believe I am a scammer, you clearly and concisely show something along these lines:

1. Come up with a group of people (a class of people) who is clearly defined and identifiable whom I stole, swindled, or defrauded money from. At least one of these people and likely two or more must be able to prove that they were deliberately lied to. This will be very difficult considering the clearly advertised risk in the contracts (see #3).

2. You have to show there was an intent to decieve; particularly, in the case of fraud, that there was an intent to decieve for financial gain. You will never ever be able to prove this, because I have already proven it is false. Who would sell $9 to swindle $1? Doesn't make sense.

3. You have to show there was a way out and/or the result was a consequence of my foreknowledge if you want to blame me for the choices I made. In particular; BMF advertised itself as a niche product which was 100% invested into GLBSE mining bonds. It was unique among assets at the time. It is quite clear people were attracted to this. After the fact you cannot state I had foreknowledge. You cannot claim I could predict the future and I chose to use this knowledge to cause people to lose money. Where's the motive?

This isn't a case like Goldman Sachs fraud where they called people on the phone and said "buy this lemon" and the lemon didn't actually exist, or was known by Goldman Sachs to be rotten. That was actual fraud. People were lied to, Goldman Sachs took their money, and ran with it. I on the other hand provided an investment vehicle with clearly defined risks and rewards, and the trading process was automated. When I advertised my products I advertised what they were and their performance over x weeks or months.

I did not commit fraud, and I did not lie to people about what I was doing. Even the "creative accounting" statement is a joke. For example back when I did the interview with Garr of COGNITIVE, it was about 0.35 bitcoins. I said it was going to 0.55 or 0.6 and it did. I kept COGNITIVE around 0.5 or 0.55 bitcoins even after the mining crash because I correctly identified that people were selling out and that it was not an actual drop in value. I even bought more shares of certain companies like GIGAMINING because I correctly guessed that they represented a greater value than they were going for. Why buy a $599 single when you can buy 60 bitcoins and then buy the equivalent of two singles from a mining bond company? --> So BMF was getting a really good deal. This is undeniable.

It is not my fault GLBSE shut down. I am not Nefario, sorry.

I am not responsible for the mining crash nor leading people into a faulty investment vehicle. NO ONE could have predicted the sudden-ness, the swiftness, etc. of the mining crash. Similar with CPA and NYAN. The risks were clearly advertised in the contracts. I am absolutely and unequivocably not responsible for risks an investor chose to take on.

look, you and the other 4-5 trolls have tried and failed for months to show any nefarious intent. Howsabout you stop now, and let this board be used to find some real frauds and scammers? Look around there's plenty without you having to gum it up.

In short....

Title of thread: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and  misleading investors.
Accusations:
1. falsifying NAVs (Shown to be false -- data was pulled directly from the GLBSE in our spreadsheets)
2. manipulating share prices (meaningless, we bought and sold on GLBSE, shown to be false with #1)
3. and  misleading investors (shown to be false, no motive, etc.)

CASE CLOSED.

if you believe I am a scammer at least come up with a new accusation and post it in a new scammer accusation thread.

At this point usagi is attacking me instead of what I'm posting, and in fact skipping over entire chunks of my posts just to pull out parts where I come right out and say I'm trolling him. As well I apparently have become illiterate to his form of English.

As for clear and concise, I've tried to lay everything out in bullet points; while the post is long, there's a lot in it. You've gone at me for semantics so I tried to be very clear in what I said, then you say I'm being too wordy, the whole time ignoring what I've said. If you care to respond to it please do not cherry pick the least important parts, ignoring both the bulk and significant comments and actually respond to the 3 (yes, only three!) issues presented.

If anything it's just time to make a new thread as this one is long, more than slightly off track in a few places, and has already been evaluated once by the mods.

WHo were you scamming?  The other 10% of investors who you didn't control.  90% != 100%.

If you actually believe what you've posted there, then it shows just how totally ufnit you are to ever be trusted to manage other people#s money.

Having control of 90% does NOT give you carte blanche to do what you like with funds.  Consider the following 3 scenarios:

1.  You give away a chunk of the company's assets to yourself.
2.  You give away a chunk of the company's assets to a different company managed by yourself.
3. You sign a contract with another company managed by yourself whereby they're given a chunk of assets in return for a consideration.  You never request the consideration from you other company.

Now it IS just about possible you'll claim to believe even scenario 1 is fine - I'm reluctant to set ANY limits on the extent of your ignorance and/or willingness to lie as you've proven amply qualified in both areas.  That's to say you may actually believe that you can just help yourself to assets of a company you manage because "I have 90% of the shares".

But if you DON'T believe you can do scenario 1 - then you need to look more carefully at scenarios 2 and 3 as they have an IDENTICAL impact on the shareholders of your company.  And all three scenarios would have a high chance of landing you in prison in most western countries (can't speak for whether it's fine to just help yourself to things "because 90%" in China).  Scenario 3 is what you did.

As for "it's not my fault I lost a ton of money investing in mining bonds".  Uh - yes it is.  You bought tons of mining bonds that could NEVER be profitable at the prices you paid (just look at how many years they'd take to repay investment if difficulty didn't rise - then look at a graph of past difficulty and wonder how you could be so dumb).  Maybe you bought them on the "Bigger fool" theory - in which case you found out there actually wasn't one - but I'd guess you just didn't ever do any proper analysis.  If you HAD done proper analysis then would have posted it to explain why it wasn't your fault - but if that were the case (and they were worth what you paid) then you wouldn't have sold them for a loss, you'd have been buying more.  So clearly you accepted your initial valuation was wrong - or you'd still hold the bonds.

Here's probably when you trot out the old chestnut about "but BTC rose vs USD" - as though basing an entire investment plan on gambling that BTC wouldn't rise is somehow good management.  Not to mention that the impact of that is pretty much marginal long-term on fixed-rate bonds anyway (hint: you don't get less BTC per block just because of exchange-rate changes).

You're one of those unfortunate people we have the misfortune to encounter in life sometimes.  Everything they touch gos to shit - yet they can never quite grasp that it may actually be their fault: it's always caused by things out of their control.  Were that your only problem I'd just feel sorry for you.  But you also lie through your teeth, attempt to bully people out of pointing out your lies and (as evidence in my quoted post) apparently believe that you actually have the RIGHT to steal from people in certain cases ("I have 90% of shares so am entitled to steal from those with the other 10%").  So you're actually pretty despicable - not just just pathetic.

Nothing you ever say or do will ever make the mining bond crash my fault. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you failed to read and/or understand my last response to you.


clusterfuck = puppet, deprived, eskimobob, etc. trolling. Not my problem. Ian lied. He actually committed fraud and issued malicious criminal libel on these forums. Again, not my problem.


Not my problem. Ian broke a contract and issued a series of lies. To this day he follows me around and +1's anything a troll has to say against me. Ian should get a scammer tag for what he did.


Eskimobob and others posted full copies. Go look it up. If you do not have actual evidence to support what you are saying, do not make accusations you cannot support.

Baseless claims, unfounded accusations -- these will never net a scammer tag and are nothing but poor trolls.

Please think. isn't it true you have no actual evidence I am a scammer other than the word of a couple of liars like puppet and eskimobob?


Well I guess you're not lying per se -- but when you use language like "my understanding is..." after you admit you don't actually have any documents to support what you are saying, you don't really have any credibility. Please stop issuing second hand rumor as if it was a fact when you cannot support what you are saying.


"Great, another person hopping on the bandwagon and issuing lies and slander". Maybe a few facts will help set the record straight hmm?

And you are right that is the way I choose to play the game. Officers of a company are never personally liable for business losses. That is not how corporate law works. Just because this is bitcoin does not suddenly mean I am personally liable. I am however selling personal effects such as a $1500 guitar and $1600 amp because some of the contracts I wrote were off-GLBSE and I have a record of it and I believe those people deserve to be paid back.

But scammer? Hot shit people. Look around. This has been going on for 4-5 months not. Not a scammer... sorry!