Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 3. (Read 92654 times)

lending dem coins is bad ju-ju

uh oh. where have I heard this type of thing before?

You were paid in full for work you promised to do, yet you did not complete the work you promised to do. If you really want I'll unlock the scam thread against you and you can go post there. Are you interested in reopening it?

Considering you not only broke our contract but you did not pay anything, what exactly gives you any rights?

Common sense would indicate you should release the files to me. You have not. Third point - I don't care. I'm not pursuing a scammer tag against you for this, although I probably have a right to.


I have repaid all of the CPA liquidity loans save one, which is being handled privately possibly by the sale of some of my personal possessions (A gibson guitar). As promised I will step up and fill in for those loans with my personal money. As it stands the loans were essentially a gift to CPA investors and I can prove that.

Secondly I am paying back all the investors by liquidating assets as expected and will vigorously pursue all our claims.

Finally I am in talks with people over a 350btc settlement package. Here's a quote from one of our largest shareholders whom I approached to discuss this settlement (the wording and amounts) before I went public with it: "Sometimes I guess  you have to do something that's not fair to keep your reputation."

I am not saying what I am doing is fair or not fair. I am saying it is what it is and I will do the right thing no matter what. Thank you for your comment TradeFortress.

usagi had the intention of bringing his investors returns. I do not know if he has actual financial experience, (probably not), but he's hardly a scammer. He wasn't being fraudulent as a whole at the very least

if he has 5,000 BTC in BMF/NYAN/WTF he's not paying out, then he's a scammer

if he defaulted on loans, then he's a scammer

but he's not here to scam people.

I wanted to bring attention to the fact that USAGI has once again shown himself to not only be dishonest, but willing to lie even further to cover up his past mistakes to the point of implicating himself with his self contradictions.

In this thread "Topic: Counter Evidence for the BCB thread": https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1427043
(which was promptly locked)

USAGI claims that I "DEFRAUDED" him. In order for me to have defrauded him he would have to have paid for something, ANYTHING. I was paid by Mathew M. Wright for work USAGI contracted, but later refused to pay for. Because of his own issues with his investments failing he felt he did not need to honor our contract, and later claimed it was spec work (it was not). Explained in detail with quotes here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/payment-not-delivered-work-rendered-for-usagi-payment-made-by-matthew-n-102798

Furthermore Mathew M. Wright never gave me instruction to release the files to you. He told you he did in a public thread but no such action was taken. As far as I am concerned if Mathew has a problem with it he can contact me. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM I SCAMMED YOU OUT OF ANYTHING - you didn't pay for a god damned thing, and these repeated counter accusations are not only extremely childish but quite transparent. Here is his counter accusation which is shockingly deleted.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tecshare-lied-about-me-scamming-him-103045

In summation, stop making childish accusations to draw attention away from your own failures. I hope I don't have to read any more baseless accusations from you in the future.

Your post says :

""Usagi was also doing some interesting things with motions, like transferring shares to himself to vote with so the motions go his way, then sending the shares back to treasury.  eskimobob and/or puppet caught usagi in that scheme, with help from stochastic website. Usagi also ran a couple polls on the deleted wordpress site and called those "motions".  Any real motion was always burried by an additional 4 or 5 motions (enough to push the important one out of history) with things like 'do you feel Usagi is leading CPA in a strong noble manner' etc etc.""

Not sure who you're quoting.

It's certainly true that on at least one motion there were more votes in favour than the total outstanding shares - I (and others) commented on it at the time.

There was a bug in GLBSE where when you voted it added your votes to the running total - but then never removed those votes if the shares changed hands.  I PMed nefario about it ages ago (like maybe July) but he never even acknowledged the PM.

I'm not aware of any proof that it was usagi actually doing it.  He's the most obvious culprit but I can't see nefario cooperating so there's no way to prove it: and it wouldn't be fair to conclude it was definitely usagi without such evidence.

Got no info on motions on the wordpress site (didn't look around it much other than at contracts and asset lists).  I do recall a fluff motion on GLBSE along the lines of 'I'm happy with the way usagi is running the company.' (not actually sure which company it was for).  That passed with a majority large enough that either usagi must have voted and/or there must have been significant occurrences of multiple-voting by the same shares.  Clearly a motion like that where the subject of the motion controls most of the shares and votes yes would be entirely meaningless - as all it demonstrates is that they have a high opinion of themself (which we didn't need a motion for - we already knew that).  As there was no action as a result of the poll (it was just meant to prove some point - what point I have no clue: anyone still holding shares was by definition not upset enough to sell at market prices) I can't really see it as scamming of any kind.  Misleading - maybe (as if taken at face value it would suggest overwhelming support - which MAY not have been the case) - but not sufficiently so (imo) to be worth worrying about.

Deprived.

I've deleted the posts regarding the trade-in program as they are not relevant there.


We are looking for a copy of Motion 80.  There is also a description of more usagi deception tactics on the locked thread.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1431991

That trade-in program got abandoned (and rightly so).  There was a huge issue with it that never even got raised - and which is now irrelevant (so no harm actually done).  As that issue was just one of incompetence (not properly understanding how his own nyan structure worked) not scamming I don't think there's any point dwelling on it here (in brief, deleting nyan.b would screw nyan.a investors - by removing assets that were supposedly backing them without giving them any extra benefit in return.  It's part of the general nyan malaise - where it was badly defined and run so that no potential investors could ever properly assess risk/reward).

I'd ignore that proposal as it wasn't (imo) an attempt to scam, just badly conceived and never carried out (so no actual damage done).

I believe it is quoted on the forums but I do not have time to look it up as well as look up answers to all the other questions. I'll collect evidence as I can. I have companies to wind down. I'm sorry if you don't like that but it's the best I can do. I have to go to work now, so I really don't have time. I would have preferred to spend the morning winding down my companies. So you will have to wait.

I get what you are saying but as I have said I would have stepped in personally no, CPA would not release it's title under the contract. I just wouldn't allow it to happen.


Then don't get silly and just take the chance to move on. You said:


I agree. Let me the time alone to make reparations to my shareholders, for example here, and in the soon-to-be announced settlement offer. Additionally please stop clamoring for a scammer tag in such a noisy fashion at least until I have paid investors back and reached a settlement.

I've called Ian and apologized and that end of things is over.
I've apologized to vampire and he has agreed that end of things is over.
Some but not all of the things puppet said to me he has retracted, such as misvaluing hardware.
It's been shown I was not guilty of misrepresenting how I valued assets in one case.

At this point it's my personal belief you are just harming the process. Let me be to resolve my issues with my shareholders and then if you want you can be as vocal as you want about getting me a scammer tag. Please see this post. I have a lot of work to do without having to defend myself here, as you've said, some but possibly not all of the accusations are frivolous. If you have evidence give it to BCB. Does that idea seem like it will be a good way of resolving this?

usagi

Motion 80 seems to be relevent to this discussion.

could you please restore it.

quote author=usagi link=topic=116232.msg991365#msg991365 date=1340718379]

Motion 80 has passed 3,234.. to 5. This represents a clear majority of more than 99.9% of shareholders.

https://glbse.com/vote/view/80

I personally offer to buy back the shares of the people who voted no at the full price (1 bitcoin). Just send me a PM if you are interested.

As per the motion, I have wired money to Mt. Gox this afternoon, and I should be able to deposit the 100 coins on or before friday. I will post an updated NAV then.

I thank the unitholders for their support. I've been working on a new and updated dividends page which is about to be released soon -- please keep an eye on our holdings & NAV page for updates and information!
[/quote]

Just to address the first point - no, BMF wouldn't be forced to continue paying money if the claim had been made and settled when it first should have.  Reason is that after a few payments of 100 BTC from CPA, CPA would have gone broke.  At that stage CPA would no longer be able to honour its end of the contract (providing cover) so no future premiums would be due.

Moving to the issue of settlement this is where it all gets really silly.

I raised this issue in the BMF thread NOT in the scammer forum.  At that stage you stone-walled and insisted there was no conflict of interest and nothing had been done.  I ONLY moved my complaint to this thread after you refused to address it and TOLD me to take it here - here being the place where you go (in my view) when there's no longer any chance of settlement.

What makes it more irksome is that just before GLBSE died there was ongoing discussion about this (mainly between yourself and actual BMF investors if I recall correctly).  You'd reached the point of agreeing that maybe in theory CPA owed BMF money and were asking what should be done.  You even raised various possibilities - such as returning BMF shares from CPA to BMF etc (though noted that if you did so it could leave CPA with no assets).  I was actually going to make a post in that thread the day GLBSE died - pointing out that any settlement would necessarily have to be for significantly lower than the 500 BTC cover.

Then GLBSE happened and after you reappeared you were back to stone-walling and explicitly stating that the contract was always intended to be accelerated and never to have material value (a direct contradiction to the post I just quoted - which ackowledges that the contract hadn't been accelerated a few months after its start).

Settlement should be discussed with BMF investors - not here really.  Here's where it's determined whether someone scammed or not - not where it's determined what payment is necessary to make the person "a scammer who paid back" rather than "a scammer who didn't pay back".

You defrauded BMF for the financial benefit of CPA (blatantly admitted).  You then lied about it - and deleted the post which proved you were lieing.  When confronted about it (by me) instead of settling you told me to take it to the scammers forum - as clear a statement of intent not to settle as could be made.

But here's where it comes down to something I don't know for sure: what's the forum's policy on scammer tags?  If pirate came back and settled with everyone would his tag be removed (not claiming your behaviour is on same scale as pirate's - just talking about the principle)?  If forum policy is that tags are removed when settlement is made then I'd agree that if you settle no tag should be given for it.  If, on the other hand, policy is that once it's proven someone scammed they keep the tag forever then a tag should be awarded irrespective of whether settlement occurs or not.  Not my call - and I'm not convinced there's even a consistent policy on it.

BCB: can you check edit history of the post I was referring to?  WOuld like to know whether I somehow missed what usagi said at the time or whether it was edited out.  Because I don't recall ever seeing it before (which basically means I didn't see it before) - which could just be my oversight, or could alternatively be usagi editing it out back then after realising it was effectively an admission of guilt.

No it would not release them from the obligation to pay. CPA would go through a wind down process and the worst is we could attempt to sell the debt. We're not talking about bankrupcy here. I'd just pay out the money and then keep CPA around to collect the payments. Worst case I'd pay for it myself and then collect the money myself. But other than that it would ruin CPA so I see the general point you are making.


So if I go back and make reparations BMF would be forced to continue paying money to CPA and no one wants to extend this forever. Under the contract I HAVE to accelerate it at this point no matter what.

BMF already got way more out of this than it ended up paying. What do you suggest I offer to BMF investors? Everyone who bought in because of this gained money from it already. I even donated the assumed mining output of my single to BMF before it arrived out of my own pocket. I gave 100 BTC to bmf investors and something like 200 personal shares. I was desperate to make BMF work and make shareholders happy. Now all I get are accusations that I caused them damage. Ok, whatever! I admit there was a conflict of interest but what am I expected to do? You are making these claims and not suggesting any way they can be repaired. That paints me into a corner and makes me feel the situation hopeless.

You already won, I gave up a long time ago, what is it precisely that you want? I will not get a scammer tag if I make a settlement with my shareholders, right? So why push for it? Why not do the right thing and work on fixing the damage you say I caused? Doesn't that make sense?

That was my assertion all along.

Your responsibility to BMF investors was to claim - irrespective of whether it destroyed CPA.  This is the conflict of interest I kept harping on about that you denied existed.  Your conflict of interest was simple:

1.  You had a responsibility to BMF to claim - it was clearly in their interest to do.  Doubly so, in fact, if it destroyed CPA - as then they'd be released from their obligation to continue paying premiums but would keep whatever payments they'd received.
2.  You didn't want to cause CPA to collapse.

That's as clear a conflict of interest as you can get - yet when I accused you of not claiming because of a conflict of interest you called me a liar and claimed there was NO conflict of interest.

You defrauded BMF to protect CPA.  And then lied claiming it was ALWAYS the intention to accelerate when clearly that intent never formed until it would have been painful to  CPA to pay.

Thank you and for what it is worth I am sorry if I offended you and I am planning to make a large settlement with my shareholders.

NO, see below:


That is not entirely true. I did in fact give at least one payment to BMF but I admit it was not as often as I would have liked to. I also returned on one occasion ~100 BTC worth (IIRC) of personal shares to BMF. Third via motion 80 I donated 100 BTC to BMF, and finally I did give CPA shares to BMF, although it does not represent a payment of 100 BTC it was the best CPA could do at the time. We were under a lot of problems because people we relied on couldn't pay us. Even GBF stated they were refusing withdrawls for almost a 2 week period. We were going to collapse unless I did something, so I accelerated the contract and took care of what else I could personally.

When pirate collapsed I foresaw these problems but not on the order of magnitude they occurred. I immediately contacted hashking, patrick harnett, deadterra and imsaguy. I negotiated partial payments from everyone, no one was willing to pay out. If I had not done that immediately it would have blown up and CPA and NYAN would have collapsed. I did in fact support BMF, just not as often as I would have liked to. It would have taken 2,500 BTC to move BMF from 0.5 to 1.0 with 5132 outstanding shares. The 500 BTC in the contract was only enough to move it from 0.45 to 0.55. I did the best I could. I'm sorry for what happened but really, it was totally out of my hands. The 500 BTC in the contract was a token amount to test how this would work. It was real but it was also a test. Maybe I was too optimistic and hopeful so I am sorry but I just tried to do what I felt was right.


I understand your contention but I did not intend to lie as I had thought to cancel (accelerate) the contract at that time. I also note I have no proof of this but I have e-mailed James begging for the CSV files and our holdings.

However since I understand your contention i am currently working on a settlement to shareholders.

Keep in mind, that I did in fact make at least one payment of 100 BTC value to BMF. Can you please be reasonable about this. There is evidence I tried to do the right thing. I've sent an e-mail to James requesting the CSV file as it is the only way to prove that I did so. I also donated CPA shares to BMF and gave BMF 100 btc of my own money in motion 80. I did this all in part because I was afraid it would destroy CPA if I just transferred money out of CPA into BMF en masse.

I really don't believe I defrauded BMF shareholders, and as you and others have said I am working now to resolve the issue with my shareholders. I've asked BCB to mediate a settlement and he has refused. So I'm doing it directly.

Meh. My name has no interesting history, no drama, nada. I did a search awhile ago and it was boring. It isn't that hard to figure it out, but wouldn't really help much. Even if usagi figured out, he wouldn't really find any juicy stuff.

I am gonna take easy for now, since:

Mods wont tag/ban usagi, though nefario was tagged for less (imo)
Scammer tag is useless
I am getting sick of typing these posts.

So adios until usagi tries to call me out again. So I granted your wish usagi, but don't bother me.

Posting this here - but obviously it's for BCB, so no need for usagi to respond directly to me.

Latest undeletes have got back the post needed to conclusively show usagi has been lieing about the BMF/CPA insurance issue.  You will recall that usagi's recent claim has been that the contract was accelerated, had no material value and was just a test that was never intended to be honoured as an actual commitment to insurance/indemnification.

Check bottom of this post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1431741

Here's the key part (from very last paragraph) :

"The reason why BMF has not requested any money is simply because I'm confident I can repair the value of BMF by itself within a few more months. Plus, CPA is having obvious financial problems, people have defaulted on us for over 1,500 (hashking alone was 527BTC)."

That's clear acknowledgement that the contract was still at force at that point (and had NOT been accelerated).  It also confirms what I've previosuly alleged: that the reason the contract wasn't paid out had nothing to do with acceleration etc, but was just because CPA was short of cash so usagi screwed BMF investors by not claiming to protect CPA.

The explanation in that restored post very clearly puts the lie to usagi's recent explanations.  It also puts the lie to usagi's claims in other restored posts that all insurance claims had been paid (usagi failing to make a claim on behalf of BMF is identical in all practical respects to usagi claiming it then CPA failing to honour it).

The post also clearly demonstrates him acting against BMF investors' interests by not claiming when his post makes plain they were entitled to.  Pretty clearly not in BMF's interest to take out insurance then not claim on it when entitled to just in case they can make back the loss - their interest is best served by making the claim then trying to make the same profit, leaving them ABOVE 1.0 NAV.

Plainly BMF investors were defrauded at that point by the amount they were entitled to claim.  Which is multiple blocks of 100 BTC up to the lower of (500 BTC and amount necessary to take NAV/U to 1.0).  Although only 100 BTC could be claimed at a time there was no cool-down period specificed between claims - and by the time of that post BMF's NAV/U had been under 1.0 for a few months.  Any settlement would obviously be for significantly LESS than that - as BMF would have to continue making 5 BTC/week payments.

Do note that post's restored date/time is wrong - as is the case with many others (which explains vampire's confusion over puppet saying something before his account was registered - the undelete you're using is messing up some dates).  The post was actually obviously made some time after Pirate defaulted - at the end of august/beginning of september.