Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 27. (Read 92686 times)

No, you're full of shit. BMF had ~2500 outstanding shares.

I personally owned 550 shares.

CPA owned around 600 or 700 as well and I owned over 10,000 shares of CPA. (The shares of BMF and CPA were bought out of personal money and did not include 250 non-saleable management shares of BMF and ~2,500 of CPA).

NYAN.A had around the same, maybe 900 shares. of BMF.

I owned or controlled at least a 90% majority of BMF.

I did not need a shareholder vote to do anything. Sorry to burst your bubble but your claim is stupid because I personally owned more than 40% of BMF. Who was I scamming? Myself? Doesn't make sense.

Mining bonds crashed, then GLBSE shut down. None of that was my fault. Everyone knew BMF was a mining fund. Nothing you ever say or do will ever make what happened my fault.

Furthermore it is well known I donated 100 of my own personal shares back to BMF to try and control the mining crash. So yeah, not a scammer. More like a hero.

As for what btharper said... clear and concise please. You failed to read my response. If you "fail to understand" something, it is not my problem.

Since a few other posts are beginning to get into longer chains of quotes, and one quote authored by usagi being attributed to me I'm just going to respond to this directly, however I agree with most of the other replies to usagi's post quoted below.

This probably should have been under conflict of interest with the later items. However, voting:
1) On non-action motions (ie "Is Usagi doing a good job?")
2) Where you're voting to represent shareholders of another holding (ie CPA voting on a NYAN motion without calling a CPA motion)
3) With unissued shares (ie shares not available for purchase by the general public held in the account segregated for such a purpose)
Is neither ethical nor a legitimate vote, in some cases such behavior would also constitute fraud. At it's height I believe NYAN.* had well over $10k USD (I assume USD because you've not specified otherwise and it's much more than $10k Yen), notwithstanding that $10k spread between NYAN.*, NYAN balancer (comprised of mixed NYAN.* holdings), BMF, and CPA is a fairly small stake at the end of the day and would not allow you to retain control of a 51% majority across all of your companies.

As an aside to troll you (from her to the next quote), how's it feel knowing that you can't even blame an incompetent, asshat fund manager for losing your $10k investment? You've only got yourself for that.

Ian asked to end all obligation to CPA and end the insurance contract. He had enough in store to I believe fulfill the full term of the CPA contract however wanted out because of the clusterfuck around CPA's liquidity after pirate fell out and a large number of contracts were collected against as a result. In Ian's own words the situation was clouding but Maged's comment simply acted to erase the last shred of confidence Ian had. Even if Bakewell did not have on funds to complete the full length of the contract the askwall maintained on GLBSE during the IPO that became unfortunately drawn out was well in excess of the required premiums, so some fabricated story about Bakewell's lack of funds is complete bullshit and exactly the kind of misleading statements (if not outright lies) that Maged was referring to. Additionally Ian attempted to work inside the terms of the contract to accelerate the normal return of funds per the contract, the same method that helped keep BMF from ever seeing a bitcent claimed against the insurance they were forced to buy.

To reply specifically to your points:
1a) Even if he was in default of his contract I fail to see how that constitutes fraud.
1b) He attempted to act on behalf of his investors (excluding yourself) who voted to terminate the contract with CPA, you changed the terms repeatedly on him attempting to avoid following through on your commitments made to Ian
2) Maged's comments surely let a few more people see what kind of crap you were pulling, hats off to him. My condolences to the people who lost money investing with you between your initial unscrupulous actions and his comment observing them.
3) There were several different interpretations of your poorly written contract, I believe the consensus was that the coins should have been returned to Ian and allowed be retained in the company for investment instead of being sent to investors against their will.
 
Unfortunately I am not able to see your deleted posts or the contracts inside them. My understanding is as follows:
-The contract was signed by the head of BMF and the head of CPA, as usagi was both this made negotiates extremely simple.
-Total premiums were 550 BTC, total coverage was 500 BTC in 100 BTC increments
-The contract was presented to investors as security that should BMF lose value (in the form of NAV) CPA would pay, thus insuring the value of BMF
-Due to poor market conditions and poor management BMF lost value after paying some premiums (I am not able to find the address currently, usagi says this was less than 100 BTC)
*** Here's where the conflict of interest and your failure to handle it correctly comes in, watch closely
-BMF chooses to "accelerate" their payment of premiums with the money that should have been used to insure NAV of BMF
*** A good chance to check how you should handle such a conflict of interest is "Would this be the choice of an operator who wasn't also in charge of the company providing insurance?" I certainly wouldn't, and I can't think of any reasons to.
-CPA pays out nothing since total premiums were in excess of coverage
-BMF still owes 50 BTC in premiums above what would be covered by insurance
-BMF investors were forced into a lose-lose situation without a motion and told they were protected
-If this were simply an experiment I see no reason for the net value of the contract to favor CPA, and I imagine that if it didn't matter CPA should refund the premiums paid since it was just for fun, or it should act the way it was advertised to shareholders as a way to protect the value of their investment and act in there favor instead of against it.

If you believe I'm still lying please let me know where the lie is, if you believe my semantics are incorrect I can restate as needed.
-BMF's total obligation to CPA was 550 BTC, the majority of which was paid through the address that I don't know and can't find usagi's post to or "accelerated" to CPA in order to avoid burdening CPA with their liabilities.
-usagi failed to properly resolve the conflict of interest.

Why would a good manager not claim coverage that was due? Why would a good manager lose 50 BTC across the lifetime obligation of a contract for no reason? How could such a risky venture like BMF get insurance if they were guaranteed to lose money?

The only thing I can see being misrepresented is that BMF was insured. Further the fact that BMF lost NAV is fine, shit happens, that's why they bought insurance (or maybe not I guess, it was just an experiment for fun), except when advertising to investors. (Man, how do you keep all this shit straight usagi?)

Also are these comparisons made on BTC value or USD value and across what timeframe? I don't want to let silly things like facts get in your way but I remember a lot of your valuations (that I can't see anymore) changing both of these in your rose-tinted view.

My apologies for messing up the semantics again. As I've already mentioned BMF was obligated to pay 550 BTC over the life of the contract for 500 BTC in coverage, leaving a difference of 50 BTC. When BMF was able to claim coverage it was avoided by "accelerating" payment of premiums but even once all the premiums owed were paid BMF was still liable for 50 BTC in premiums beyond the coverage they could claim.

-Did you or did you not act as BMF's representative in forming a contract with yourself acting as CPA's representative?
-Did you or did you not fail to act in such a way to best benefit investors of BMF in favor of CPA in a way that a third party would not have in resolving your conflict of interest as the head of both BMF and CPA?

-Will you or will you not provide substance to your rebuttals instead of just yelling that I'm a blasphemer insulting your indulgent godhood?

Or we can play it your way. usagi's an incompetent sack of shit that can't run a single company anywhere except straight into the ground. The end. Get it? (That also means you're not allowed to argue, just in case it's not obvious. I said "The end" what more proof do I need (I EVEN called you names and slept with your mother))

---

When I thought it was done:
Great, another self-centered piece of self-glorification. These new business ventures are what's calling you into question. Your first businesses were a trainwreck in the best light. Frankly I can't see any of your old posts about how you sacrificed everything for your fellow comrades who fell at bad luck due to some incompetent oaf because you've deleted them. If you've had to sacrifice to cover your losses I feel for you but that's the way you chose to play the game. (And for the record I believe Goat also had to let go of a few of his personal effects to make ends meet during some of the rougher times after the pirate fiasco).

I didn't (and never have) claimed BMF actually paid 500 coins.  BMF agreed a contract committing them to paying over 500 coins in return for 500 BTC of insurance cover.

In fact BMF only paid (from memory) 20-30 BTC in premiums.

WHo did you scam?  BMF!

You've never explained why, if (as you now claim) the contract was just a "test" you:

A)  Actually charged BMF some premiums (which were NOT returned on the designated address),
B)  Announced to BMF shareholders that they were insured.

Testing what precisely?  How to default on contracts?

You cheated BMF investors - pure and simple.  If it was just a test (of what - what purpose did announcing insurance cover actually serve in terms of "testing" anything?) then BMF shareholders should have been told it wasn't real - and not charged ANY premiums.

Your explanation is total crap - if anyone is unclear why, just look back at my earlier posts where I quoted all relevant information.  The "it's only a pretend contract" bullshit only emerged months after the event when you no longer get away with just totally ignoring all questions about it.

Further to all of this let's look at a few lists shall we?

Asset Issuers/Managers who bought bitcoins to pay investors back:
- Usagi (bought ~100 bitcoins in september to pay CPA loan holders back)

Asset Issuers/Managers who are selling personal possessions to pay investors back:
- Usagi (is selling an expensive guitar and amp and boutique pedal and has pledged the money to CPA loan holders and other former shareholders)

Anything I forgot?

Oh yeah:

Asset Issuers/Managers who rebounded with different products and services and offered first profits to help pay people back:
-Usagi (is on record stating that profits from book sales and kongzi.ca will be used to pay back loan holders and bold holders).

Did I forget anyone? Please, chime in, let's see what kind of evil scammer usagi is.

This is why no one should listen to you. 500 coins were not paid. For the billionth time, check the address on the contract before you make an ass of yourself again... please.

You are SUCH a fool. You have been making basic, fundamental mistakes in judgement like this over and over and over again. Unfortunately people like Maged started to listen to your shit and I lost actual money because of irresponsible comments that he made. You bet your pants there has been a demonstrated financial loss here.


If the insurance was made in good faith then I am not a scammer. You cannot however now speculate that I have done something wrong and deserve a scammer tag anyway.


It certainly had been explained. This has been discussed before. I've mentioned many times how I advertised the contract. You cannot state that I did not do this and then state on top of that the reason I did so (I didn't) was to scam people, because that would be a lie.


Again -- total unmitigated bullshit. YARR was bought back except for around 80 shares. That's right, almost all of the 2,500 was bought back. I lost personal money paying people back so fuck you.


As explained a dozen times to you it was a test contract which I wrote to see how such insurance would work. I didn't have to publish the contract or tell anyone anything. I accelerated the obligation and closed the contract when we started signing this kind of contract with other people including bitcoinmininginv, bakewell, luceo's vps, etc. Get it? It was a prototype. You have been told this several times.

You have made several fundamental errors in logic and judgement in your post but this is the most glaring:

There is no victim.

Where are the victims? Who did I defraud? NO ONE. So FUCK OFF, I'm not a scammer, game over, get it? Writing this contract helped me sign other contracts and gain business for CPA. We did good. People saw how it worked and wanted to get a similar contract for their own business. We helped people. Only a sick twisted slimy fuck like you would try and twist this into something negative.


Asshole. Go bother gigavps, meni rosenfeld, garr255, jwu, etc. No on second thought go fuck yourself.

No. I did not say that. I said obligation. Not payments.

And yes, you should dig out archived copies before making outrageous statements like this. Check the address for payments before arguing this, please -- it's published.

Let me clear up what happened (was me who made the first big post about this).  Have simplified some details.

1.  BMF signs contract for insurance with CPA.  BMF to pay 5 BTC/week for 2 years in return to receive insurance cover for up to 500 BTC worth of NAV loss (below NAV of 1/share).
2.  BMF pays premiums for 1st month or two.
3.  BMF's NAV falls well below 1.0 - entitleing it to claim under the policy.
4.  BMF doesn't claim.
5.  Usgai refuses to answer questions about it - claiming it's been answered before (when it hadn't).  Usagi further claims that a motion was passwed by shareholders in a vote for the insurance.  That was just an outright lie.
5.  Evenutally usagi claims that it wasn't worht claiming on the insurance - as it would have been paid back in premiums anyway - so both commitments were accelerated (allowed under the contract).
6.  No payment of the difference in the two commitments ever showed up on the listed BTC addresses.

Note that usagi also claimed (contradicting its claim detailed in 5.) that the insurance was just a "test".  Something clearly given the lei to by usagi posting an announcement bragging about the insurance cover.

What usagi singularly fails to grasp is this:

Yes - BMF WAS entitled to agree to its acceleration of obligations to CPA (the premiums) - but acting on behalf of bMF there's NO reason why it was in BMF's interest to do this.  Either:

1.  The insurance policy had NO benefit to BMF (paying over 500 ppremiums for 500 cover that would never be claimed) OR
2.  It had benefit - which usagi then failed to claim on BMF's benefit.

If it DID have benefit then usagi had no right to give up that benefit.  If it did NOT have benefit then usagi had no right to agree to the policy in the first place.  As manager of BMF usagi is supposed to act in the itnerest of BMF's shareholders NOT CPA's shareholders.  If (as seems the case) incapable of distinguising between the two then it's blatant conflict of interest and usagi should have NOT made decisions on behalf of shareholders.

Here's what  really happened.  The insurance deal was probably made in good faith - it gave cash-flow to CPA and gave BMF investors security against another price drop as they'd just recovered from.  CPA wasn't risking much - as they'd make a profit even if they paid out the full amount they were liale for.  BUT then pirate happened - where usagi fucked up royally including insuring against pirate default even when it knew pirate was about to default just to prove it was trustworthy (lol).  CPA ended up broke just when BMF needed to claim.  And usagi pretended it hadn't happened - probably hoping to sort it out later when things got better.  But things didn't get better - as usagi's incompetence contiuned to spew funds away left, right and centre in every business venture it dabbled in.  So usagi then started lieing - claiming it had been explained (it hadn't), claiming it had been voted on by shareholders (it hadn't) etc.

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).  Including "selling" YARR shares to nyan at 1.5 each when pirate was in default with a buyback of 1.0 (and AFTER usagi had given up on the pretence YARR was going to change to OBSI - always a pretence as CPA didn't have the cash to insure them - it was just a bullshit claim made to try to get some people not to cash in their insurance which there wasn't funds for).  Interetsingly, there IS an argument to be made that these interest-free loans WERE in the interest of nyan shareholders - that an interest free loan generates more profit that having the funds be actively managed by usagi.

Question on the BMF insurance is simple:

When the policy was signed, did BMF intend to claim if the conditions to claim were met?
If no - then what possible benefit was BMF getting from the policy?
If yes - then what changed to make it in BMF's interest not to claim?

Expect all manner of bullshit from usagi - but no straight answer to those few very simple questions: as there's no conceivable set of answers which would support the contention that usagi acted (on BMF's behalf) in the best interest of BMF shareholders.  Usagi consistently treated its various companies as though they were all one entity - rather than acting for each in its own interest.  Unfortunately usagi's grasp of English doesn't extend to "conflict of interest" so it hasn't yet worked out that BMF's interests may not always have been aligned with CPA's (in fact, it would have been in BMF's best interests for CPA to go broke after paying out most of the insurance cover - as then they'd not have to pay the remaining premiums).

And on ths dumb point about "all mining bonds lost 60% and I only lost 50% so I'm a good investment manager". No.  Just No.  A good investment manager wouldn't invest in something that was going to lose 50% just to "outperform" even worse managers who lost 60%.  They'd research the area first - realise it was bad to invest in - and not touch it.  That simple.  A good manager certainly wouldn't repeat their losses again (nyan.b/c) just to prove they were up there with the best at losing money.  And you compare investment companies to other investment companies - not to mining companies.

What proportion of those assets came from outside CPA shareholders who, in turn, had no say in how it was run because the majority of shares were controlled by other companies run by you? I have an odd feeling that if it were possible to trace the tangled web of corporations, it'd turn out that a substantial majority of the actual seed funds came from outsiders. You're basically confirming btharper's claim.


It may be an outright lie, but it's exactly what you claimed happened. Let me refresh your memory. This all started when someone looked at the Bitcoin addresses linked in the contract and noticed that (a) the CPA hadn't paid out under the policy despite BMF being eligible for a payout and (b) BMF hadn't kept up their repayments. You claimed that you'd decided to accelerate BMF's payments to the CPA even though BMF was under no obligation to do so, and even though this was obviously detrimental to BMF shareholders, apparently in order to cancel out the insurance payment CPA owed. Strike one. You then further argued that this was no big deal since the insurance contract you'd entered into - on behalf of BMF shareholders with another company you owned - was basically worthless anyway, since the required premiums over the life of the policy exceeded the maximum possible total payout. Strike two. You then went on a deleting spree and removed all of your posts from the forum. Strike three. (Do I have to dig out archived copies of them?)

Actual shareholders? First of all, if I invest $10k into my own company I sure as hell deserve the right to vote. Second, CPA started NYAN with 1500 BTC of it's own assets. What fantasy world do you live in where you think CPA won't maintain a controlling interest in the company? What do you think it means when owners retain 51% ownership? Are you familiar with the basic principle of property ownership? Yes, I was obviously an insider, no, voting with shares I bought fair and square is not a scam, and I really don't see where you get off coming here and saying it is.



This is total bullshit. Ian LIED to me about his financial position with BAKEWELL to try and get out of paying his premiums. Do you get this basic fact? This is DOCUMENTED what he did. The truth that came out by his own words later was he just wanted to break the contract because of what Maged said. All I did was follow the contract, and force Ian to return the bitcoins to his shareholders. This proves 3 things: 1. Ian committed fraud, he defrauded CPA and issued malicious criminal libel against me claiming I tried to clawback funds when I had repeatedly said I was sticking to the contract. 2. Maged is irresponsible, and has demonstrated that his comments caused financial damage to CPA as a direct result. 3. I stuck to my contract and am not a scammer. The bitcoins were returned to shareholders as per the contract. Puffn and some others in the thread agreed that this was a reading of the contract.

Actually to this I will add 4. Ian did not file any grievance with judge.me as per the contract; by trying to resolve a dispute by coming here to the forum he violated his contract a second time.


This is an outright lie. Either you are full of shit, or you are incompetent. The bitcoin address was listed in the contract. Anyone can see that BMF did not pay anywhere near 100 BTC to CPA, let alone 550.

Anyone can see the contract where it states that either party may accelerate it's obligation. This is what happened. Game over, contract closed. I explained many many times what this contract was for. I announced this contract in a post on the securities forum. I mentioned this contract in letters to shareholders. I published it on the web. No one complained until six weeks later when puppet, deprived and eskimobob started trolling me at Mircea's bequest.


This is both a lie and misrepresentation of what happened. it is OBVIOUS why BMF lost money. We were entirely invested into mining. it is an UNDENIABLE FACT that while companies like GIGAMINING lost 66%, BMF only lost 50%. This outperformance was due to my skills as a manager. Sorry we lost money. We were a mining fund. Get over it.


This makes no sense considering your above claim that BMF paid 550 bitcoins to CPA.


Or.. you're full of shit?

Can we please end this trainwreck of a troll? I am not a scammer. The end. Get it?

I was just going to unwatch the thread, but crap like this annoys me. The only reason this post is written in third person is to make it sound like a third party is vouching for usagi. Saying "I did things" sounds a lot different.

As far as scam accusations I'd like to add the following
6) Voting as a shareholder with interconnected stocks and personal shares.
-"Shareholder Majority" was replaced by the number of shares Usagi wanted to vote with. I believe one poll was even voted on by more shares than were outstanding before or after the vote (made active by transferring to Usagi and then back, or voting with non-voting shares).
-This voting also happened on non-action polls like "Is Usagi doing a good job?" for all the obvious reasons.
-Actual shareholders are the victims in this case held hostage to usagi's whims

7) Usagi first promised then rescinded on Bakewell insurance saying that it would be refunded at first if Ian wanted, then if the shareholders voted for it. After the shareholders voted in favor of reversing the insurance, then only if a dividend of the same amount was paid, then finally relented to if Ian promised to pay out a dividend of equal amount after
-Ian's link to here for the relevant start
-Ian's later post in the same thread here with his added emphasis on PMs between usagi and himself where usagi agreed to refund pending a motion.
-Bakewell shareholders and Ian are the victims in this case, Bakewell was held hostage to usagi denying repayment, Ian while usagi tried to drag his name through the mud for trying to end his affiliation with the "upstanding" usagi and illiquid CPA

BMF's CPA insurance plan, usagi failed to properly resolve a conflict of interest
-BMF paid 550 BTC for an insurance policy with CPA to insure against loss of NAV
-BMF lost NAV (as with most of his funds and attributed to poor abilities as an investor)
-usagi chose to "accelerate payment" on BMF's end to the amount that would have been collected from CPA
-BMF was still on the hook for the additional 50 BTC above coverage paid to CPA
-So either
*usagi acted against BMF's interest and bought overpriced insurance from CPA without a shareholder vote
*usagi acted against BMF's interest by accelerating payment unnecessarily
-BMF shareholders were the victim to usagi doing whatever he wanted and then voting with his own shares as in example 6

This.  The numbers weren't so much "approximations" as they were "pure fantasy" or "blatant falsehoods".

I have no idea if you were doing mark-to-fantasy with the intention of defrauding your customers, or if you just really thought that your assets were worth that much.  I will say that you were very inconsistent about how you did your accounting, which suggests, but does not prove, that you knew something wasn't right.  Many people were pointing out the widening gulf between your numbers and the mark-to-market numbers, which should have made you sit down and take a hard, honest look at everything.  Instead, you doubled down and got defensive about your bullshit valuations.

I haven't seen any conclusive proof of malice, so I don't think a scammer tag is justified.  But I sure won't ever invest in anything that you are involved with.

Being a bad businessperson or investor /= fraud
Im sure theymos has all the posts and could restore them. Deleting them all looks shady and makes me wonder why.
You probably shouldnt be able to delete posts in the securities section at least while you are selling an investment, like the auction section you cant edit after you bid.

Let's focus on usagi for now. This thread is not about gigavps, Nefario, DiabloD3 or Bitcoinica. Altough many actually are interconnected.

What would you call deleting around 1000 posts that document your past fraudulent business activities, which still have unresolved issues?

If you get a scammer tag for mining investments being a bad idea then giga also deserves a tag.

And what about Diablo who lost 97% of shareholders money ?

Bitcoinica people dont even have a tag.

Deleting posts is not a crime however deleting all the shareholder info is. If nefario gives it to Usagi and they fail to honour it then they might do something.

It does seem like a good idea to clearly have it stated somewhere that he has left all his previous ventures hanging with bitcoins still in limbo since he is now trying to get people to come to his new business and they ought to know going in that he has a very checkered past.

The only way I know myself is because I have been carefully following the goings on surrounding this community so that I myself am not caught unaware by someone like Usagi but that is quite a high burden to place on most people and anyone who was not around before he deleted his posts will find it more difficult to put it together.

+1

5)  Is back hawking a new business venture in this community despite there being unresolved issues surrounding his past ventures.  If the point of the scammer tag is to warn people against dealing with those who have an unsatisfactory record when it comes to meeting their obligations, then this is exactly the kind of situation in which it can be useful.

Applying for reconsideration of the scammer tag for usagi.

1) usagi has been misleading his customers in the past in various fraudulent business schemes

Even if it were the case that this was not enough for a scammer tag, he now:

2) has deleted about 1000 of this posts to remove the evidence
3) does not want those posts to be restored

Something else to be considered:

4) he has a VIP label and should therefor be under extra scrutiny

It's not relevant. And for the record, no.

I do not OWE you anything. I do not OWE you an explanation and I do not OWE you a reason.

You OTOH do in fact OWE me something. You owe me an explanation for accusing me of swinding people with fraudulent business schemes. You are a scummy troll. You cannot justify what you have said because you are a scummy troll. Maged, Theymos, Badbear, I'm sure they all hate me. But guess what? I do not deserve a scammer tag because I did not swindle people and I did not engage in fraudulent business schemes.

So until a mod actually asks me to provide information required to avoid a scammer tag, I am done with you. You are a scummy troll. Have fun alone in this thread until I'm called back by a mod.

(one of many)