Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. - page 32. (Read 92686 times)

I guess I am a strict constructionist, as I don't think an operator or issuer can or should do things not spelled out in the contract.

If Usagi is not getting a scammer tag for all that bs, then whats the point of this forum in the first place?
Do we really need to wait until he has wasted all the coin on who knows what or cashes inn and runs?
Sure, then we can cry here and confirm that BTC community got fucked once more.
Really?

None of the pertinent questions have been answered, not here not elsewhere.
Usagi instead of boasting your pointless poll, can you please address the actual issues?

- Why didnt CPA pay out BMF as its contractually obliged?
- Why are you still basing you BMF NAV guidance on lies
- WHy does your asset list still show DMC shares when you claimed you sold them all for 0.1 BTC
- Why does your bitcoin position remain largely unchanged even though you have been buying for at least many 100's of BTC of shares
- Where did the bitcoins come from to buy those shares, as they were not on the asset list for your funds.
- Where did you file your recent BTC loan?

And I will add one new:

- Will you agree to an independent audit to verify if you really own all the assets you claim to own? Among many other things, I would be interested in seeing if the funds entrusted to CPA for insurance are still safe.

I would interpret the contract differently. That is, if the issuer wishes forcibly to buy back shares, it must be at 1.1 times the highest traded price. This right is reserved. It does not say that this is the only situation in which the issuer may buy back shares if sellers are selling voluntarily for a lower price.

I am a little confused.  How many shares are currently outstanding?  How many are held by other funds operated by usgai and how many are held by usagi?

As per the contract
To me this means that if the issuer is going to buy the security then it must be done at 1.1 times the highest price, otherwise the issuer cannot purchase the shares back.  As the issuer is usagi then usagi must pay at least 1.1 times the highest price over the last month.  Also, per the contract, any purchases must by the issuer must go back to BMF and not in the outstanding shares, otherwise it is not being 'purchased back'.

Is it possible to get a list of those trades?

Meh :

1.  A large chunk of those votes were you I'd bet.
2.  "All of my shareholders are happy." is not supported by the facts.  All the vote shows is that the ones who VOTED were happy.
3.  Anyone with half a brain who wasn't happy would have sold out by now - and no longer have a vote.
4.  Why do you think you were able to buy back shares at below IPO price?  It can't be because the shareholders were ecstatic about your management of the company.  

You bought out all the unhappy ones (at a loss to them) - what's left is those who don't pay attention, the terminally stupid and probably a few unfortunate souls who haven't been around for a while.

Typical usagi spin/gloss.  The vote wasn't even announced in the main BMF thread - just in one of your numerous "Important: I'm an attention whore - please listen to my bull-shit and don't argue with me" threads.

Oh - and how DID you get more yes votes than have EVER been in circulation?  You didn't by some chance transfer unsold ones to yourself to vote with (then send them back) did you?  I asked nefario about that particular nasty little trick a while back (by PM) but got no answer - so assume it IS possible for a company owner to generate as many yes votes on a motion as they like.

I thought there was only 4652 shares outstanding as of today?

Don't let usagi see you say that lol.

But your example is incomplete - as you don't say that the ONLY assets of A are the 50% of B etc., hence can't say anything about the total value of A+B+C.  The point you're trying to make is valid - and relevant, however without any public information about what CPA holds there's no way to show HOW relevant.

Riddle me this: If company A owns 50% of company B, B owns 50% of C, and C owns 50% of A *and* 1 dollar, how much is each company worth?

Obviously, A+B+C can't be worth more than 1 dollar...

I might as well lie to you. Yes, I am invested in several of Usagi's securities.

What's it to you?

~pyotr n

Something I didn't make clear in my original post:

If you check out the two listed BTC addresses You'll find:

BMF paid 4 weeks cover up front (by the end of which it's NAV had plummeted again).  There's then more 5 BTC payments which don't have the .00000012 on the end that they should have (no biggies as usagi obviously knows who they were from).  And no payments from BMF since 9th September - so it seems BMF has also defaulted on the contract now.  Of course the payments COULD be being made in other ways - non transparent ones.  As neither BMF or CPA accounts for actual transactions (just a fairy-tale valuation) there's no way to know.

And there's no payments made out to the claims address at all (so it's not just a case of "I sent it but forgot to mention it in the thread").  Of course usagi COULD claim that insurance claims were made and paid - just never mentioned (and not done in the defined transparent method) but with no rise in BMF's valuation I can't see anyone actually believing that lie.

usagi has consistently refused to answer questions about what the insurance policy covered and why there was no claim on it - in the BMF thread, in the CPA thread and now here.  Not even the usual spin attempts given on valuation questions.  The reason why is obvious - there's no explanation it can give which would be at all credible.  I half expect to see the contract vanish from its website to be honest - though wondering just what usagi could replace it with that would be at all credible.

Could you please present evidence for your statement?

Do you have investments in Usagi's business or not?

Woha. Good stuff, I had no idea. Here I was thinking the main issue was CPA's insurance of Nyan.A (which holds 60% of its assets in BMF), I had no idea CPA had also insured BMF's NAV directly. And lol, at 1 BTC per share? Even usagi himself puts it 0.5 now, and in reality its ~0.33.

 Im beginning to understand the desperation now.

Let me stress this part of the contract:

Incorrect. You base your NAV claims on the (un)"real" column and there it still shows your BFL gear at prices way above listprice. Shipping costs or wishful thinking are not assets. Keep in mind this all started by you proclaiming BMF has a NAV (NET ASSET VALUE) of 0.50, not that it has an unreal value of 0.50.


You changed it from 15000% of a sensible estimate to 14000% above any sensible estimate. You are still valuing your ABM shares as if their non upgradable BFL single would somehow be worth 375 BTC.

'nough said.

Is this true? This is a question I'd like answered.

edit:


You've made it clear so far that you believe there should be no debate. You think this discussion is unwarranted - we get it.

Your sarcasm is unnecessary for this debate.

I am not asking for apologies. I am asking if you have any investment in Usagi's business!

Do you have any investment in Usagi's business?

I'm sorry! I must have missed the "Due Diligence" subforum. Super Apology!

I didn't choose to post the thread here. To be honest I was linked here and don't even care about the subforum, though I understand some people might. I'm pretty sure Usagi asked people to stop talking about this in "Securities" anyways. And he or she just said that again in this thread as I see.


Price manipulation. Well, I guess that makes sense.

It occurred to me that price manipulation is an even bigger problem when one company holds the others' shares, am I correct?


I'm sure you'll be vindicated too. But you should act more confident.  

What is the BMF motion, by the way? I am not currently a holder nor have I been keeping up.

edit: Thank you Deprived for the big update post. I don't have time to sift through those threads and I've only been reading bitcointalk since August, so a lot of this was a mystery.

"We"? Who is "we"? Puppet, Eskimobob, Deprived and you? How many of you have any investment in Usagi's business?

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations ?

Which part of the "due diligence" you are confusing with "scam accusations"?

I think we all know that if your appeals to the mods had any merit, Puppet and any other name that you drop would be gone from the forum.

What are you so afraid of? It's just weird.

Usagi, I've noticed a significant increase in your post quality and a significant decrease in the amount of flamebait / harassment.

As someone who worries about who is managing his money, it's nice to see you stay cool-headed.

~pyotr

edit: I spoke too soon. It's all about who says what to you, isn't it? I, for one, am more interested in what is said.