Request for a moratorium on usagi post until January 7th, 2013.
Usagi, at that time please report back on your developments with paying your investors back and winding down your companies.
Thank you.
Topic: Usagi- is he or isn't he a scammer. (Read 4099 times)
usgai does not have time to respond to provide evidence that could make any scam accusations go away (i can only assume becuase providing such information would only further prove his guild) however he does have the time to open a months old scammer thread to continue this practice of obfuscation and distraction.
Usagi,
It is OBVIOUS that you are not able to or just do now want to clear your name so
PLEASE WIND DOWN YOUR COMPANIES, PAY YOUR INVESTORS BACK AND GO AWAY.
Thank you.
Dear BCB;
I will make a response to the evidence you have presented in your locked thread when I have time. I'm busy with other things right now, like closing down my companies and making payments to shareholders. First payments go out tomorrow (friday) actually, as we've gotten paid by a number of companies. Hardware payments will go up soon too, since we were refunded from BFL for 2 jalapenos and a SC single so far.
There are outstanding issues here, and TECSHARE seems to consider my right to a fair process as a "threat". He's tormenting me over it so I thought I would unlock the thread and provide an update.
Note: this is 4 or 5 months old.
The basic issue here is that TECSHARE has been paid in full for work he did not deliver. In my view his refusal to complete first revision (he promised two revisions and could not complete the first one) was unacceptable -- he said it was 'too difficult' and/or 'didn't look good'. So I fired him and he immediately opened a scam accusation against me.
Matthew N. Wright then stepped up and paid him off for me before I was even able to log on and read what happened. This all happened while I was at work IIRC.
Fast forward to today. I still do not have the hi res art files TECSHARE claimed he completed and has been fully paid for. Frankly I didn't care until he started asking me what my right was to claim the work he was paid for. Then again, how could he have completed it when he did not complete second revision, let alone first? Choosing from a bunch of samples is not a revision.
All I am asking is for TECSHARE to give me the work he says he already completed and has been paid for. If he can't do this and refuses to STFU about it, why not tag him as a scammer? I mean the remedy here is so easy -- either give me the art I paid for and allow me one more revision as was agreed, or give me the money back. It's really that simple.
Usagi,
It is OBVIOUS that you are not able to or just do now want to clear your name so
PLEASE WIND DOWN YOUR COMPANIES, PAY YOUR INVESTORS BACK AND GO AWAY.
Thank you.
Dear BCB;
I will make a response to the evidence you have presented in your locked thread when I have time. I'm busy with other things right now, like closing down my companies and making payments to shareholders. First payments go out tomorrow (friday) actually, as we've gotten paid by a number of companies. Hardware payments will go up soon too, since we were refunded from BFL for 2 jalapenos and a SC single so far.
Usagi, there's no need to defend yourself I feel, as TECSHARE has already been paid for the work. I will be instructing him to finish the work and give it to you, as I recognize this as being a miscommunication. Do with them as you will, consider it as a gift regardless from a fan ^_^
There are outstanding issues here, and TECSHARE seems to consider my right to a fair process as a "threat". He's tormenting me over it so I thought I would unlock the thread and provide an update.
Note: this is 4 or 5 months old.
The basic issue here is that TECSHARE has been paid in full for work he did not deliver. In my view his refusal to complete first revision (he promised two revisions and could not complete the first one) was unacceptable -- he said it was 'too difficult' and/or 'didn't look good'. So I fired him and he immediately opened a scam accusation against me.
Matthew N. Wright then stepped up and paid him off for me before I was even able to log on and read what happened. This all happened while I was at work IIRC.
Fast forward to today. I still do not have the hi res art files TECSHARE claimed he completed and has been fully paid for. Frankly I didn't care until he started asking me what my right was to claim the work he was paid for. Then again, how could he have completed it when he did not complete second revision, let alone first? Choosing from a bunch of samples is not a revision.
All I am asking is for TECSHARE to give me the work he says he already completed and has been paid for. If he can't do this and refuses to STFU about it, why not tag him as a scammer? I mean the remedy here is so easy -- either give me the art I paid for and allow me one more revision as was agreed, or give me the money back. It's really that simple.
were are trying to find a copy of motion 80.
"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."
Any additional info on this would be helpful.
"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."
Any additional info on this would be helpful.
Thanks to BCB for restoring this post.
It proves I did not lie when I said puppet admitted he was wrong and that I did not misrepresent value. This and many of the other postings BCB are undeleting will be used in my defense. Furthermore to this there were 2 value columns one using the "real" value puppet refers to below and also one column pulling data from GLBSE precisely so that people like puppet could make their own decision about how to value the company. I did not misrepresent value.
Furthermore my answer (unquoted, see original) regarding accrual basis accounting is not sperging nor is it opinion. It is a fact. Just like in the PMs I sent you. This was published on the forums in a letter to shareholders and only serves to show I did my best to be open and honest.
This is why I am so upset that you have passed judgement on me before examining the evidence and allowing me to make a response to the accusations.
But, for what it is worth, reading over what I wrote months ago I realize I was overly aggressive. If I could go back I would probably cut out a lot of the insulting and emotional language I used.
It proves I did not lie when I said puppet admitted he was wrong and that I did not misrepresent value. This and many of the other postings BCB are undeleting will be used in my defense. Furthermore to this there were 2 value columns one using the "real" value puppet refers to below and also one column pulling data from GLBSE precisely so that people like puppet could make their own decision about how to value the company. I did not misrepresent value.
FAQ announcement: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/glbse-bitcoin-mining-fund-see-post-2-for-faq-81993
-----
[...]
2) [puppet] Question: Even using your method, it is not difficult to see that your 'real' values are almost always quite above market price (ex. current GIGAMINING price is 5 day average 0.578 | 24h average 0.553 | 'real' value 0.63) do you think the market is really this wrong? And even if it was, don't you think it is quite misleading? How can a share be worth more than X bitcoins, if that much bitcoins could get you one now? Funny is, I was about to include a question about the value of mining gear, but writing question #2 I realized you are actually right about them
The value should be counted as the price you would pay for them, shipping included; as this is what counts in buying your shares vs. buying the gear and mining directly. As long as that value is less than what you will earn from them, of course, but then if that was the case it wouldn't make sense to buy them in the first place.
-----
[...]
2) [puppet] Question: Even using your method, it is not difficult to see that your 'real' values are almost always quite above market price (ex. current GIGAMINING price is 5 day average 0.578 | 24h average 0.553 | 'real' value 0.63) do you think the market is really this wrong? And even if it was, don't you think it is quite misleading? How can a share be worth more than X bitcoins, if that much bitcoins could get you one now? Funny is, I was about to include a question about the value of mining gear, but writing question #2 I realized you are actually right about them
The value should be counted as the price you would pay for them, shipping included; as this is what counts in buying your shares vs. buying the gear and mining directly. As long as that value is less than what you will earn from them, of course, but then if that was the case it wouldn't make sense to buy them in the first place.Furthermore my answer (unquoted, see original) regarding accrual basis accounting is not sperging nor is it opinion. It is a fact. Just like in the PMs I sent you. This was published on the forums in a letter to shareholders and only serves to show I did my best to be open and honest.
This is why I am so upset that you have passed judgement on me before examining the evidence and allowing me to make a response to the accusations.
But, for what it is worth, reading over what I wrote months ago I realize I was overly aggressive. If I could go back I would probably cut out a lot of the insulting and emotional language I used.
Name: The Crimson Permanent Assurance
Summary: The plan basically boils down thus: 1. Raise funds to be used to compensate users of a service in the event the service defaults. 2. Charge services a monthly fee for this coverage. That's about it.
Percent of majority
to change contract: 60
for general motion: 60
to issue shares: 60
Contact email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa
Accounts: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/accounts
Twitter:
Blog: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa
Full contract:
Contract:
1. Investment Hypothesis
1a. Reward
THE CPA exists to provide shareholders with exposure to all profits associated with writing insurance on customer assets, based on the war-chest method of dividend distribution as outlined above.
1b. Risk
THE CPA exists to provide shareholders with exposure to all losses associated with writing insurance on customer assets. Our value may decline dramatically in the event of large or widespread default.
1c. Commitment to 100% backing
All insured securities are 100% backed by segregated asset accounts for their exposure unit group. These segregated accounts will have no other customer claims applied against them. This means we won't leverage our assets to cover two separate types of contracts at once, but we may pool resources to cover similar contracts (see: "1. Large number of similar exposure units" in customer contract preamble).
2. Dividends
Dividends will be paid according to the following schedule:
2a. On or before the 7th of each month, 90% of net earnings for the previous month will be placed into "the war chest".
2b. We then pay pay 10% of this war chest as dividend and at management's discretion a further 10% back to the company for growth and expansion.
2c. Assets which have been released from backing a customer's contract are considered earnings and will be placed in the war chest as per 2a.
2d. THE CPA reserves the right to issue special dividends from the war chest at any time.
3. Disclosure
Full and timely disclosure will be provided regarding any material change in the company's net worth or business activities.
4. Issuance & buyback
We may issue new shares in order to support a private placement and from time to time as the company grows in size. We may issue a buyback for outstanding shares at 200% of the highest trading price over the previous year to date.
5. Risking & de-risking of the company's assets
5a. Acceptable Assets
THE CPA will use shareholder equity to back assets and synthetic instruments as THE CPA sees fit to write.
5b. These assets and instruments held by THE CPA will be pledged to back customer assets on a 100% convertible into bitcoins basis. This means we won't invest in leveraged securities thus causing us to break 1c.
5c. Bitcoins only
We will never convert assets to or from FIAT of any kind. We will never insure an asset class with assets from the same or similar sector. We will never back a writing with an asset 100% pledged to back another writing. Assets used to back our writing will be moved into a segregated account for holding for that purpose.
5d. limited segregatability (de-risking sector default/widespread default)
To mitigate the risk of the default of an entire sector, THE CPA will seek to issue no more than 25% of it's coverage to any particular sector and will and to not insure assets using other assets from the same or similar sector. For example, we will avoid securing assets of a mining company with assets from other mining companies. In cases where this is unavoidable we will limit segregatability to pay claims on a first-come-first-serve basis, with the actual contract holders for the default event taking first priority.
5e. income stream insurance
THE CPA may from time to time securitize income streams at the precise NPV of such streams at a point in time. For example, the NPV of 10 bitcoins per month at 10% per month for ten months is 61.45 bitcoins, not 100 bitcoins. This is mainly of use for miners who wish to guarantee their dividend in the event of downtime or catastrophic disaster.
6. Working with GLBSE/Customers
We reserve the right to change this contract and bind it at any time. Use of our services constitutes acceptance of these terms. We will provide timely notice and disclosure to our shareholders of any changes to this contract on our website and/or our asset page on the GLBSE.
Summary: The plan basically boils down thus: 1. Raise funds to be used to compensate users of a service in the event the service defaults. 2. Charge services a monthly fee for this coverage. That's about it.
Percent of majority
to change contract: 60
for general motion: 60
to issue shares: 60
Contact email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa
Accounts: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/accounts
Twitter:
Blog: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa
Full contract:
Contract:
1. Investment Hypothesis
1a. Reward
THE CPA exists to provide shareholders with exposure to all profits associated with writing insurance on customer assets, based on the war-chest method of dividend distribution as outlined above.
1b. Risk
THE CPA exists to provide shareholders with exposure to all losses associated with writing insurance on customer assets. Our value may decline dramatically in the event of large or widespread default.
1c. Commitment to 100% backing
All insured securities are 100% backed by segregated asset accounts for their exposure unit group. These segregated accounts will have no other customer claims applied against them. This means we won't leverage our assets to cover two separate types of contracts at once, but we may pool resources to cover similar contracts (see: "1. Large number of similar exposure units" in customer contract preamble).
2. Dividends
Dividends will be paid according to the following schedule:
2a. On or before the 7th of each month, 90% of net earnings for the previous month will be placed into "the war chest".
2b. We then pay pay 10% of this war chest as dividend and at management's discretion a further 10% back to the company for growth and expansion.
2c. Assets which have been released from backing a customer's contract are considered earnings and will be placed in the war chest as per 2a.
2d. THE CPA reserves the right to issue special dividends from the war chest at any time.
3. Disclosure
Full and timely disclosure will be provided regarding any material change in the company's net worth or business activities.
4. Issuance & buyback
We may issue new shares in order to support a private placement and from time to time as the company grows in size. We may issue a buyback for outstanding shares at 200% of the highest trading price over the previous year to date.
5. Risking & de-risking of the company's assets
5a. Acceptable Assets
THE CPA will use shareholder equity to back assets and synthetic instruments as THE CPA sees fit to write.
5b. These assets and instruments held by THE CPA will be pledged to back customer assets on a 100% convertible into bitcoins basis. This means we won't invest in leveraged securities thus causing us to break 1c.
5c. Bitcoins only
We will never convert assets to or from FIAT of any kind. We will never insure an asset class with assets from the same or similar sector. We will never back a writing with an asset 100% pledged to back another writing. Assets used to back our writing will be moved into a segregated account for holding for that purpose.
5d. limited segregatability (de-risking sector default/widespread default)
To mitigate the risk of the default of an entire sector, THE CPA will seek to issue no more than 25% of it's coverage to any particular sector and will and to not insure assets using other assets from the same or similar sector. For example, we will avoid securing assets of a mining company with assets from other mining companies. In cases where this is unavoidable we will limit segregatability to pay claims on a first-come-first-serve basis, with the actual contract holders for the default event taking first priority.
5e. income stream insurance
THE CPA may from time to time securitize income streams at the precise NPV of such streams at a point in time. For example, the NPV of 10 bitcoins per month at 10% per month for ten months is 61.45 bitcoins, not 100 bitcoins. This is mainly of use for miners who wish to guarantee their dividend in the event of downtime or catastrophic disaster.
6. Working with GLBSE/Customers
We reserve the right to change this contract and bind it at any time. Use of our services constitutes acceptance of these terms. We will provide timely notice and disclosure to our shareholders of any changes to this contract on our website and/or our asset page on the GLBSE.
This is a great idea, and I wish you the best of luck.
One question.
So assets are not 100% backed, then?
Will you report the % of backing for each exposure unit group?
One question.
1c. Commitment to 100% backing
All insured securities are 100% backed by segregated asset accounts for their exposure unit group. These segregated accounts will have no other customer claims applied against them. This means we won't leverage our assets to cover two separate types of contracts at once, but we may pool resources to cover similar contracts (see: "1. Large number of similar exposure units" in customer contract preamble).
All insured securities are 100% backed by segregated asset accounts for their exposure unit group. These segregated accounts will have no other customer claims applied against them. This means we won't leverage our assets to cover two separate types of contracts at once, but we may pool resources to cover similar contracts (see: "1. Large number of similar exposure units" in customer contract preamble).
So assets are not 100% backed, then?
Will you report the % of backing for each exposure unit group?
The intent is to provide 100% backing until we can start figuring out what the rates of defaults (and premiums) are going to be. Right now, nobody knows what these numbers are. It's a good question -- I had added the wording about exposure groups right before I published the contract and yes, the wording is a little open. What it implies by itself is that if I insure 500 bitcoins worth of miners, I can take another miner, or ten, without offering any additional backing. This would be dangerous, of course. I've also prevented it by writing rule 5d. The intent of rule 5d was to provide guidance on just this. Right now I am trying to implement safety procedures and fences against trouble such as over-writing contracts. For now, backing is going to have to be 100%. If you want that specified it can be written into a customer contract without any problem.
5d. limited segregatability (de-risking sector default/widespread default)
To mitigate the risk of the default of an entire sector, THE CPA will seek to issue no more than 25% of it's coverage to any particular sector and will and to not insure assets using other assets from the same or similar sector. For example, we will avoid securing assets of a mining company with assets from other mining companies. In cases where this is unavoidable we will limit segregatability to pay claims on a first-come-first-serve basis, with the actual contract holders for the default event taking first priority.
How this works is to provide three interlocking safety helmets. First, there's a hard 25% limit no matter what the rate of default is. Getting stung on this rule would be akin to 25% of all the cars with auto insurance getting totaled in the same month. Probably not going to happen. But if it does, we can handle it. The second safety helmet is if the entire sector blows up. I think we can both agree on how unlikely this is, but if it does, there is a minimum of 25% backing over at least four sectors (rule 1c forces us to maintain 100% backing over the entire company), so to even get to that point we would need to be equally weighted over at least four different sectors. So even if all the miners simultaneously reported a fire which destroyed their rigs, we would be able to pay out on all of those claims.
The final safety helmet is that we can't back a contract with similar assets. An example? If and when we decide to insure pirate bonds. It does not make sense to insure 400 bitcoins of pirate bonds with securities including 100 bitcoins invested into.... pirate bonds. If pirate ever defaulted, we would not be able to pay out 100%. So even with 4 sectors covered, the similar-asset rule forces us to maintaining coverage much higher than 25%. The minimum we could get away with if we calculated it is probably 33% over four sectors; we could not actually go to 25% unless we were covering five sectors, so that we could guarantee no asset is being used to insure a similar asset. This is a weak link in the company, but I can personally guarantee you we will not be "whipping out our calculators" and trying to get down to 25% just to be risky. I think a good, safe range is 75% to 100% and will remain there for a long time.
The real issue here is affordable premiums. We want to keep insurance inexpensive. This is why insurance companies exist, like the classic "maritime loans" for exploring the new world; to pool the resources of many investors to protect the one rare case where a merchant loses his goods or his ship. The danger is in some ways more real for the insurance company than for the customer; We stand to lose much more money than one customer's assets if we have to default. These rules exist so that we can continue to provide a valuable service to the community.
I think this is an order of magnitude stronger than what real-world insurance companies provide. A lot of real world companies focus on an entire sector and would blow up if the whole thing required payout.
And yes it's a little difficult to understand, so if you have a better way to word this let me know. I'll be thinking of a simpler wording as well.
Name: The Crimson Permanent Assurance
Summary: The plan basically boils down thus: 1. Raise funds to be used to compensate users of a service in the event the service defaults. 2. Charge services a monthly fee for this coverage. That's about it.
Percent of majority
to change contract: 60
for general motion: 60
to issue shares: 60
Contact email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa
Accounts: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/accounts
Twitter:
Blog: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa
Full contract:
Contract:
1. Investment Hypothesis
1a. Reward
THE CPA exists to provide shareholders with exposure to all profits associated with writing insurance on customer assets, based on the war-chest method of dividend distribution as outlined above.
1b. Risk
THE CPA exists to provide shareholders with exposure to all losses associated with writing insurance on customer assets. Our value may decline dramatically in the event of large or widespread default.
1c. Commitment to 100% backing
All insured securities are 100% backed by segregated asset accounts for their exposure unit group. These segregated accounts will have no other customer claims applied against them. This means we won't leverage our assets to cover two separate types of contracts at once, but we may pool resources to cover similar contracts (see: "1. Large number of similar exposure units" in customer contract preamble).
2. Dividends
Dividends will be paid according to the following schedule:
2a. On or before the 7th of each month, 90% of net earnings for the previous month will be placed into "the war chest".
2b. We then pay pay 10% of this war chest as dividend and at management's discretion a further 10% back to the company for growth and expansion.
2c. Assets which have been released from backing a customer's contract are considered earnings and will be placed in the war chest as per 2a.
2d. THE CPA reserves the right to issue special dividends from the war chest at any time.
3. Disclosure
Full and timely disclosure will be provided regarding any material change in the company's net worth or business activities.
4. Issuance & buyback
We may issue new shares in order to support a private placement and from time to time as the company grows in size. We may issue a buyback for outstanding shares at 200% of the highest trading price over the previous year to date.
5. Risking & de-risking of the company's assets
5a. Acceptable Assets
THE CPA will use shareholder equity to back assets and synthetic instruments as THE CPA sees fit to write.
5b. These assets and instruments held by THE CPA will be pledged to back customer assets on a 100% convertible into bitcoins basis. This means we won't invest in leveraged securities thus causing us to break 1c.
5c. Bitcoins only
We will never convert assets to or from FIAT of any kind. We will never insure an asset class with assets from the same or similar sector. We will never back a writing with an asset 100% pledged to back another writing. Assets used to back our writing will be moved into a segregated account for holding for that purpose.
5d. limited segregatability (de-risking sector default/widespread default)
To mitigate the risk of the default of an entire sector, THE CPA will seek to issue no more than 25% of it's coverage to any particular sector and will and to not insure assets using other assets from the same or similar sector. For example, we will avoid securing assets of a mining company with assets from other mining companies. In cases where this is unavoidable we will limit segregatability to pay claims on a first-come-first-serve basis, with the actual contract holders for the default event taking first priority.
5e. income stream insurance
THE CPA may from time to time securitize income streams at the precise NPV of such streams at a point in time. For example, the NPV of 10 bitcoins per month at 10% per month for ten months is 61.45 bitcoins, not 100 bitcoins. This is mainly of use for miners who wish to guarantee their dividend in the event of downtime or catastrophic disaster.
6. Working with GLBSE/Customers
We reserve the right to change this contract and bind it at any time. Use of our services constitutes acceptance of these terms. We will provide timely notice and disclosure to our shareholders of any changes to this contract on our website and/or our asset page on the GLBSE.
Summary: The plan basically boils down thus: 1. Raise funds to be used to compensate users of a service in the event the service defaults. 2. Charge services a monthly fee for this coverage. That's about it.
Percent of majority
to change contract: 60
for general motion: 60
to issue shares: 60
Contact email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa
Accounts: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/accounts
Twitter:
Blog: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa
Full contract:
Contract:
1. Investment Hypothesis
1a. Reward
THE CPA exists to provide shareholders with exposure to all profits associated with writing insurance on customer assets, based on the war-chest method of dividend distribution as outlined above.
1b. Risk
THE CPA exists to provide shareholders with exposure to all losses associated with writing insurance on customer assets. Our value may decline dramatically in the event of large or widespread default.
1c. Commitment to 100% backing
All insured securities are 100% backed by segregated asset accounts for their exposure unit group. These segregated accounts will have no other customer claims applied against them. This means we won't leverage our assets to cover two separate types of contracts at once, but we may pool resources to cover similar contracts (see: "1. Large number of similar exposure units" in customer contract preamble).
2. Dividends
Dividends will be paid according to the following schedule:
2a. On or before the 7th of each month, 90% of net earnings for the previous month will be placed into "the war chest".
2b. We then pay pay 10% of this war chest as dividend and at management's discretion a further 10% back to the company for growth and expansion.
2c. Assets which have been released from backing a customer's contract are considered earnings and will be placed in the war chest as per 2a.
2d. THE CPA reserves the right to issue special dividends from the war chest at any time.
3. Disclosure
Full and timely disclosure will be provided regarding any material change in the company's net worth or business activities.
4. Issuance & buyback
We may issue new shares in order to support a private placement and from time to time as the company grows in size. We may issue a buyback for outstanding shares at 200% of the highest trading price over the previous year to date.
5. Risking & de-risking of the company's assets
5a. Acceptable Assets
THE CPA will use shareholder equity to back assets and synthetic instruments as THE CPA sees fit to write.
5b. These assets and instruments held by THE CPA will be pledged to back customer assets on a 100% convertible into bitcoins basis. This means we won't invest in leveraged securities thus causing us to break 1c.
5c. Bitcoins only
We will never convert assets to or from FIAT of any kind. We will never insure an asset class with assets from the same or similar sector. We will never back a writing with an asset 100% pledged to back another writing. Assets used to back our writing will be moved into a segregated account for holding for that purpose.
5d. limited segregatability (de-risking sector default/widespread default)
To mitigate the risk of the default of an entire sector, THE CPA will seek to issue no more than 25% of it's coverage to any particular sector and will and to not insure assets using other assets from the same or similar sector. For example, we will avoid securing assets of a mining company with assets from other mining companies. In cases where this is unavoidable we will limit segregatability to pay claims on a first-come-first-serve basis, with the actual contract holders for the default event taking first priority.
5e. income stream insurance
THE CPA may from time to time securitize income streams at the precise NPV of such streams at a point in time. For example, the NPV of 10 bitcoins per month at 10% per month for ten months is 61.45 bitcoins, not 100 bitcoins. This is mainly of use for miners who wish to guarantee their dividend in the event of downtime or catastrophic disaster.
6. Working with GLBSE/Customers
We reserve the right to change this contract and bind it at any time. Use of our services constitutes acceptance of these terms. We will provide timely notice and disclosure to our shareholders of any changes to this contract on our website and/or our asset page on the GLBSE.
FWIW if you can't make 10% or more in today's market you really should let someone else handle your money for you..... really.
usai is at it again. Avoiding the question and making emotional pleas:
Thanks. And now, to avoid the issue of distraction, I will continue to respond to your accusations in the order I have mentioned. It's late now, it's 4am in japan as I type these words. So I really need some sleep. I have some free time tomorrow, and I'll have a look at another one of your accusations.
Some friendly advice. If you really are trying to help this get resolved fairly, then do yourself a favor; do not post too many "small" accusations. It will detract from the biggies.
For example, do you really want to make an issue out of whether I live in Korea, Japan, or China? What's the point? Maybe you feel there is a point. But I feel the CPA/BMF contract is a much bigger issue. If you do not trust me, then do not give me the chance to fillabust by responding to small issues first. It's just a thought.
Usagi
I did not ask you what time it was in Japan.
I ask you for facts and you can not even respond to simple queries.
Where you live is very important as is shows that you are not even capable of being honest about even simple facts.
I await your response to my previous question.
Thank you.
Thanks. And now, to avoid the issue of distraction, I will continue to respond to your accusations in the order I have mentioned. It's late now, it's 4am in japan as I type these words. So I really need some sleep. I have some free time tomorrow, and I'll have a look at another one of your accusations.
Some friendly advice. If you really are trying to help this get resolved fairly, then do yourself a favor; do not post too many "small" accusations. It will detract from the biggies.
For example, do you really want to make an issue out of whether I live in Korea, Japan, or China? What's the point? Maybe you feel there is a point. But I feel the CPA/BMF contract is a much bigger issue. If you do not trust me, then do not give me the chance to fillabust by responding to small issues first. It's just a thought.
Usagi
I did not ask you what time it was in Japan.
I ask you for facts and you can not even respond to simple queries.
Where you live is very important as is shows that you are not even capable of being honest about even simple facts.
I await your response to my previous question.
Thank you.
usagi just repsonded to this PM I send to stocastic and cc'd to usagi
Distraction is a technique in which the argument is a diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection (pp 44-48) (link) and the approach to deal with this is to refuse to be diverted from the original question, but stating again the real question at issue, therefore I state I refuse to answer questions which do not directly relate to evidence presented in your locked thread.
You're welcome.
usagi
in post #19 here in a quote from one of your deleted posts you state"
"P.P.S.
I have exact records for every trade done in NYAN, BMF, and CPA. I can provide and explain these records upon demand, as anyone else who did the trades would be expected to do."
please produce these records.
thank you.
Is this post a defense of usagi?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1429916
Please elaborate if you care to do so
Thank you.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1429916
Please elaborate if you care to do so
Thank you.
Distraction is a technique in which the argument is a diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection (pp 44-48) (link) and the approach to deal with this is to refuse to be diverted from the original question, but stating again the real question at issue, therefore I state I refuse to answer questions which do not directly relate to evidence presented in your locked thread.
You're welcome.
usagi
in post #19 here in a quote from one of your deleted posts you state"
"P.P.S.
I have exact records for every trade done in NYAN, BMF, and CPA. I can provide and explain these records upon demand, as anyone else who did the trades would be expected to do."
please produce these records.
thank you.
augustocroppo
That is your opinion and indeed you are entitled to it.
Now could you present facts in defense of usagi.
I deify you present evidence that usagi is not guilty to the many actions that MANY users have accused him up.
And I welcome any other bitcointalk users to come to his defense. Currently augustocroppo is the only one.
Augustocroppo, I do not care whether or not usagi gets a scammer tag. My reputation, for what it's worth, it not at stake. I am merely a community member how has been around long enough to know a scammer when he sees one and and glad to help call them out.
Just read any of my other scammer threads.
If you or anyone else can present compelling evidence that he is not a scammer I will admit my mistake and delete this tread.
until then I will continue to call usagi a scammer regardless of whether or not he gets a tag.
That is your opinion and indeed you are entitled to it.
Now could you present facts in defense of usagi.
I deify you present evidence that usagi is not guilty to the many actions that MANY users have accused him up.
And I welcome any other bitcointalk users to come to his defense. Currently augustocroppo is the only one.
Augustocroppo, I do not care whether or not usagi gets a scammer tag. My reputation, for what it's worth, it not at stake. I am merely a community member how has been around long enough to know a scammer when he sees one and and glad to help call them out.
Just read any of my other scammer threads.
If you or anyone else can present compelling evidence that he is not a scammer I will admit my mistake and delete this tread.
until then I will continue to call usagi a scammer regardless of whether or not he gets a tag.
Theymos.
Usagi is a scammer. Please tag him. Every step of this investigation has show that usagi consistently misrepresented the value of his assets. This fact has been pointed out again and again by numerous other community members. And when individuals make claims against usagi he makes scammer complaints against them.
Usagi is a scammer. Please tag him. Every step of this investigation has show that usagi consistently misrepresented the value of his assets. This fact has been pointed out again and again by numerous other community members. And when individuals make claims against usagi he makes scammer complaints against them.
Theymos,
Ignore BCB, he is completely biased and have show no capacity to evaluate the evidence presented. BCB have already admitted that he intentionally ignored Usagi responses. BCB is basing his judgment over the mere opinions of other users. As you may notice, there is an organized campaign against Usagi. BCB is basing his spurious conclusions over claims which were not proven true or genuine.
Please, consider the fact that all evidence presented to prove that Usagi did not INTENTIONALLY defraud his potential investors is being completely ignored by the accusers and by BCB. Notice that BCB just post some quotes without any explanation at all. Hence, you cannot reach a properly decision if you are not being informed of what exactly happened in the last three months.
BCB is begging for the tag because he put his reputation under scrutiny in the moment he embraced the case against Usagi. BCB knows that if you do not apply the tag, his reputation in the Bitcointalk forum will be forever damaged.
Finally, BCB became an accessory for a group of organized felons. The "community" which he talk about is not the Bitcointalk forum, but the users casting aspersion over Usagi.
BCB had proven to be an untrustworthy and unfair user to request the tag.
Theymos.
Usagi is a scammer. Please tag him. Every step of this investigation has show that usagi consistently misrepresented the value of his assets. This fact has been pointed out again and again by numerous other community members. And when individuals make claims against usagi he makes scammer complaints against them.
Usagi has been caught in lie after lie and he as deleted over 1000 posts to cover up this fact.
Finally when a link in a post could possible disprove or support a claim. Every link that leads back to usagi's website is "not found".
Tell me this: why would usagi delete over 1000 posts AND and entire website that documented his contracts and his asset valuation if ANY of this information could prove he is not guilty of the accusations?
Answer: because this deleted information proves that's usagi is dishonest liar and incompetent fund manager running a fraudulent investment scheme.
Please tag usagi now and end this fiasco. This would also send a message this this type of fraudulent activity is not accepted here.
Usagi is a scammer. Please tag him. Every step of this investigation has show that usagi consistently misrepresented the value of his assets. This fact has been pointed out again and again by numerous other community members. And when individuals make claims against usagi he makes scammer complaints against them.
Usagi has been caught in lie after lie and he as deleted over 1000 posts to cover up this fact.
Finally when a link in a post could possible disprove or support a claim. Every link that leads back to usagi's website is "not found".
Tell me this: why would usagi delete over 1000 posts AND and entire website that documented his contracts and his asset valuation if ANY of this information could prove he is not guilty of the accusations?
Answer: because this deleted information proves that's usagi is dishonest liar and incompetent fund manager running a fraudulent investment scheme.
Please tag usagi now and end this fiasco. This would also send a message this this type of fraudulent activity is not accepted here.
I've restored a deleted list of assets
This is why you shouldn't listen to EskimoBob.
I know, this is just a minor fuck up but why not include it here:
BMF sohow the following hardware at the top of the holdings-nav page
HARDWARE TRACKING
BMF sohow the following hardware at the top of the holdings-nav page
Quote
Bitforce Single 832 MH/s 2
BitForce Jalapeno 4.5 GH/s 2
BitForce 'SC' Single 60 GH/s 1
BitForce Jalapeno 4.5 GH/s 2
BitForce 'SC' Single 60 GH/s 1
HARDWARE TRACKING
Quote
Item Order No. Order Date Arrival Date
Bitforce Single 832 MH/s #7650 Sep. 10, 2012 -
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s #7839 Sep. 11, 2012 -
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s #7971 Sep. 13, 2012 -
Bitforce Single 832 MH/s #8665 Sep. 19, 2012 -
Bitforce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s #8670 Sep. 19, 2012 -
Bitforce Single 832 MH/s #7650 Sep. 10, 2012 -
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s #7839 Sep. 11, 2012 -
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s #7971 Sep. 13, 2012 -
Bitforce Single 832 MH/s #8665 Sep. 19, 2012 -
Bitforce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s #8670 Sep. 19, 2012 -
This is why you shouldn't listen to EskimoBob.
sent a pm- I will lend another 43 based on the original term if you still need it.
Accepted. This will be enough for me to close this thread.
Thank you! I'll update post #2.
As we say in Japan, どうも ありがとう ございます ^^
Dear ShadowAlexey, Ciuciu, jborkl and Anonymous #19 (You know who you are!);
Thank you very much for helping us out on this. If you would like me to rate you on OTC for this transaction please send me a message on the forums with your OTC name (i.e. #bitcoin-otc).
As a thank you gift I hereby issue each of you 1,000 options to buy CPA at 0.05 per share (expiring after 2013). Right now these options are worthless because the price of CPA per share is about 0.033. However, one day, I expect CPA to return to it's former glory. At that time, you may very well wish to exercise your options. How to do this is simple. At a later date, just ask me, and I will sell you the shares via transfer. if CPA rose to 0.1 per share for example, this would save you 50%. Typically people do this by flipping shares and that is an option too. if you wish I will send you the price difference and keep the shares myself. Good luck and thanks again. This thread was a success ^^
Thank you very much for helping us out on this. If you would like me to rate you on OTC for this transaction please send me a message on the forums with your OTC name (i.e. #bitcoin-otc).
As a thank you gift I hereby issue each of you 1,000 options to buy CPA at 0.05 per share (expiring after 2013). Right now these options are worthless because the price of CPA per share is about 0.033. However, one day, I expect CPA to return to it's former glory. At that time, you may very well wish to exercise your options. How to do this is simple. At a later date, just ask me, and I will sell you the shares via transfer. if CPA rose to 0.1 per share for example, this would save you 50%. Typically people do this by flipping shares and that is an option too. if you wish I will send you the price difference and keep the shares myself. Good luck and thanks again. This thread was a success ^^
Hello! I'd like to make a quick update.
The three people who were applying to loan us have for one reason or another been unable to complete the transaction. At this point we have taken on 338 BTC of liability, with approximately 180 to 200 BTC remaining.
We have repaid the investors we signed for the first week. If you are waiting for us to repay people before signing a loan with us please consider the fact that we have paid out 2800 BTC on YARR, we paid out 1400+ BTC on pirate insurance, 250 BTC on matthew's default, we've paid out on several options contracts (check my OTC rating). Actually my OTC rating is a good indication of my trustworthyness too.
Ok, thanks and good luck.
The three people who were applying to loan us have for one reason or another been unable to complete the transaction. At this point we have taken on 338 BTC of liability, with approximately 180 to 200 BTC remaining.
We have repaid the investors we signed for the first week. If you are waiting for us to repay people before signing a loan with us please consider the fact that we have paid out 2800 BTC on YARR, we paid out 1400+ BTC on pirate insurance, 250 BTC on matthew's default, we've paid out on several options contracts (check my OTC rating). Actually my OTC rating is a good indication of my trustworthyness too.
Ok, thanks and good luck.
Dont need? She will require all the coins she can get her hands on.
I just had a look at the NAVs of nyan.x using her own method;
NYAN.A I get ~990 BTC, down from 1619 last week -38%
NYAN.B I get ~1500 BTC, down from 1935 last week -22%
NYAN.C is more or less stable.
I just had a look at the NAVs of nyan.x using her own method;
NYAN.A I get ~990 BTC, down from 1619 last week -38%
NYAN.B I get ~1500 BTC, down from 1935 last week -22%
NYAN.C is more or less stable.
This is why you should ignore puppet. He's full of it. NAV of NYAN.A down -38%?
What?
The guy's a looney :p
Sent 58 -
I will not need the funds back early, so do not worry about that.
I will not need the funds back early, so do not worry about that.
Confirmed. Thanks. I'll put your repayment address in post #2. Your first payment will be sent this coming Sunday. Thank you and good luck.
Why would you take money that u dont need with interest more than average? Doesn't sound reasonable...
Right. Ok I'll offer him the terms everyone else got. I suspected I should anyway. It's only fair that way. If he doesn't accept, then it should be ok with the others. Thanks.
APPLICANTS
Anonymous #1: 300 BTC (accepted, sent deposit address)
Anonymous #2: 280 BTC (accepted, sent deposit address)
Anonymous #3: unknown amount (accepted, sent deposit address)
Anonymous #4: 140 BTC @ 2%/week <--- see discussion below.
The offer is now closed to new applicants. This is fine, thanks.
Anonymous #1: 300 BTC (accepted, sent deposit address)
Anonymous #2: 280 BTC (accepted, sent deposit address)
Anonymous #3: unknown amount (accepted, sent deposit address)
Anonymous #4: 140 BTC @ 2%/week <--- see discussion below.
The offer is now closed to new applicants. This is fine, thanks.
Hello everyone! Quick announcement time.
I have received four offers, listed above (and edited into post #2).
I've decided to accept them all with the exception of #4 -- I'm not sure if I should accept this one. First it would be unfair to the others and second I don't really need the money. I can do it, we make enough to cover the interest, but I have to ask myself if taking this money would be honest. I mean, I'm not here to just take money take money I have to run a business too. Hmm.
Thoughts? I gave him a deposit address, but I feel a little odd about it. Maybe I should counter-offer to just pay the original terms? If you have any comments please advise. Thanks guys, I was feeling really pissed until I saw these offers. I'll keep doing my best!
DMC isnt what you should be worried about. Usagi got his shares from diablo in an off market, under the table deal, for something like 50BTC. Its worthless rubbish but he didnt pay much for it, and its mostly older DMC shareholders that got screwed over by this deal.
What you should worry about is usagi's exposure to various ponzi's, particularly obsi.hrpt. I wrote some more on that here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1214541
What you should worry about is usagi's exposure to various ponzi's, particularly obsi.hrpt. I wrote some more on that here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1214541
This is an example of why you should ignore puppet. When I did the ASICMINER trade, I was the 60% majority shareholder in DMC. Now I am under 20%. That's right I approved a deal that made me lose majority ownership. Ask yourself why. Second point, the deal was discussed and accepted by Nefario and ColdHardMetal live, in IRC, as it was going down.
Puppet is a worthless troll and if everyone reports him maybe we can finally get rid of him. I wish Theymos would ban idiots like him once and for all.
Guys I suggest we ignore Puppet, he follows me around and makes stupid comments on my threads.
Anyway back on point, Nebulus has been repaid. I'm a little upset at him, he told me he wanted the money back to play Satoshidice. Guys, please don't step into this if you're just going to ask for your money back after 3 days.. I was able to pay back goat's 200BTC and nebulus's 50BTC but now we're back in square one with no free floating capital. If you're going to agree to depositing with us, please try to stick to the terms in the OP unless it's an emergency, from now on. Thanks.
Anyway back on point, Nebulus has been repaid. I'm a little upset at him, he told me he wanted the money back to play Satoshidice. Guys, please don't step into this if you're just going to ask for your money back after 3 days.. I was able to pay back goat's 200BTC and nebulus's 50BTC but now we're back in square one with no free floating capital. If you're going to agree to depositing with us, please try to stick to the terms in the OP unless it's an emergency, from now on. Thanks.
Due to an agreement with Usagi I was paid back the 200 BTC with no interest. I'd rather use the BTC for a different project and I assume he did not want to pay interest. We both win on this.
The debt is now void. Thank you Usagi.
The debt is now void. Thank you Usagi.
You are welcome!
Due to this event there is now an opening for an additional 200 to 300 BTC worth of investment. Anyone who would like to participate please post here or in PM, or contact me in e-mail or IRC. Thanks for helping
Asked for early repayment.
I've decided to allow it. Sure, i'll give you the same terms as goat.
This does present a problem for CPA as we now are having problems with liquidity again.
We're looking to borrow up to 350 BTC now :/ Thanks if anyone can lend us a hand, see OP for terms.
Asked for early repayment.
I've decided to allow it. Sure, i'll give you the same terms as goat.
This does present a problem for CPA as we now are having problems with liquidity again.
We're looking to borrow up to 350 BTC now :/ Thanks if anyone can lend us a hand, see OP for terms.
I feal bad, I did not mean to start a run. I can loan back the 50 BTC to cover nebulus.
Nope, it's up to me to allow the early repayment or not. I'll just wait for someone who can do the 6 weeks. We'll be ok I guess :/
I've sent usagi 50 BTC. Would like to get this confirmed.
Sorry I was at work ^^ Confirmed! I also updated the 2nd post to show your repayment address. Thanks.
Just for my own purposes :
Would you be willing to verify your Identity with Address, Picture, Legal documents to discourage Fraud and aquire Trust.
I have not found any Imprint on your Websites and your Sailor Moon Name is not helping either.
If your answer is no, why? (Hint : My first question is a rhetorical question with only one good answer.)
Would you be willing to verify your Identity with Address, Picture, Legal documents to discourage Fraud and aquire Trust.
I have not found any Imprint on your Websites and your Sailor Moon Name is not helping either.
If your answer is no, why? (Hint : My first question is a rhetorical question with only one good answer.)
I am ID verified on the GLBSE. I'm not willing to identify myself publicly because several asset issuers have recently received death threats (both Obsi and DeaDTerra, among others) due to recent market losses, liquidity crises, or flash-crashes being perceived as bad management. I am, OTOH, willing to do video chat with Nefario or ColdHardMetal to verify I really am who I am in my photo ID.
augustocroppo has supplied a lengthy refutation of Vampire and Puppet accucation that usagi intentionally mislead investor with inacurate calculations.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1429344
In it he shows the time line in which the mistake was made and show that Usagi corrected the mistake and never used the mistaken calculation to promote his fund to investors.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1429344
In it he shows the time line in which the mistake was made and show that Usagi corrected the mistake and never used the mistaken calculation to promote his fund to investors.
Usgai told BMF investors that they were indemnified against capital loss by CPA. When they lost capital they received no payments, despite having paid some premiums. Usagi NOW claims that the contract was just a test - with no intention for it ever to run through to completion normally. If we assume usagi is NOW telling the truth (he isn't - but it's not relevant) it means not only did he fail to deliver the insurance he said was in place - but he KNEW when he said it, that it was untrue and that there was no insurance.
Evidence of Usagi attempted manipulation of facts to fit his reality continue to surface.
Here he is caught in the act of submitting altered documents after the fact.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1428420
Here he is caught in the act of submitting altered documents after the fact.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1428420
Anyone anywhere can start a bitcoin investment fund, collect coins and proceed with their investment plan.
There are no bitcoin securities laws or regulations.
It seems that most inverstors seem to want their bitcoin portfolio managers
to play by generally accepted accounting/investing rules.
However that rarely seems to be the case for bitcoin securities.
1 There is no real auditing.
2. There is no filing of offering memorandums etc.
So basically portfolio managers are able to do what these see fit with their funds
and deal with disgruntled investors/creditors as they see fit. While Usagi provided an investment offering he is not necessarily being accused
of violating this contract.
It seems to be clear from these posts that Usagni:
1. Improperly/inaccurately valued Assets EDIT** see post #17
2. Was caught at least once attempting to misappropriate company funds.
3. Purposely claimed his fund was going out of business to drive down share price so he could buy back shares at a lower price.
4. Destroyed material evidence.
EDIT:
5. Took insurance payments and did not pay claims.
While Usgai has many detractors there doesn't seem to be anyone coming to his defense. Also, Usgai refused to provide specific factual evidence to support his claims but instead spams any open thread, and even starts new threads which all seems to be an attempt to obfuscate any questions at hand.
This evidence and his continued response to these accusations clearly suggests that he is not a very fit portfolio/investment manager.
Was Usagni intentionally trying to defraud his investors. Is he a scammer? It it up to the bitcointalk.org administrators to determine any further action.
I replete: I'm glad to update any or all of my previous posts here should anyone provide additional facts to refute any conclusions I have drawn.
Thanks.
There are no bitcoin securities laws or regulations.
It seems that most inverstors seem to want their bitcoin portfolio managers
to play by generally accepted accounting/investing rules.
However that rarely seems to be the case for bitcoin securities.
1 There is no real auditing.
2. There is no filing of offering memorandums etc.
So basically portfolio managers are able to do what these see fit with their funds
and deal with disgruntled investors/creditors as they see fit. While Usagi provided an investment offering he is not necessarily being accused
of violating this contract.
It seems to be clear from these posts that Usagni:
2. Was caught at least once attempting to misappropriate company funds.
3. Purposely claimed his fund was going out of business to drive down share price so he could buy back shares at a lower price.
4. Destroyed material evidence.
EDIT:
5. Took insurance payments and did not pay claims.
While Usgai has many detractors there doesn't seem to be anyone coming to his defense. Also, Usgai refused to provide specific factual evidence to support his claims but instead spams any open thread, and even starts new threads which all seems to be an attempt to obfuscate any questions at hand.
This evidence and his continued response to these accusations clearly suggests that he is not a very fit portfolio/investment manager.
Was Usagni intentionally trying to defraud his investors. Is he a scammer? It it up to the bitcointalk.org administrators to determine any further action.
I replete: I'm glad to update any or all of my previous posts here should anyone provide additional facts to refute any conclusions I have drawn.
Thanks.
Usagi has posted here in response to this thread.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/counter-evidence-for-the-bcb-thread-134011
I'm glad to update any of my posts if anyone would care to pull some FACTS out of here that refute anything I'm already stated.
Also for full disclosure I received the following PM from augustocroppo
[snip]
Shame on you, BCB.
You seem do not understand how to examine evidence...
You are being completely biased against Usagi.
[/snip]
augustocroppo,
Sorry to disappoint you but this is currently my opinion.
If you would like to pull some FACTS out of any of usagi's statements I'd be glad to update any or all of my previous posts.
Thank you.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/counter-evidence-for-the-bcb-thread-134011
I'm glad to update any of my posts if anyone would care to pull some FACTS out of here that refute anything I'm already stated.
Also for full disclosure I received the following PM from augustocroppo
[snip]
Shame on you, BCB.
You seem do not understand how to examine evidence...
You are being completely biased against Usagi.
[/snip]
augustocroppo,
Sorry to disappoint you but this is currently my opinion.
If you would like to pull some FACTS out of any of usagi's statements I'd be glad to update any or all of my previous posts.
Thank you.
deprived and makomk have posted evidence that Usagi mislead his investors to lower the share price of his assets then bought them back at a lower price.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1426523
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1426523
Deprived has pieced a time line from actual post of Usagi's attempt to misappropriate company assets.
So you think you can just keep all your clients and investors coins?
What coins are you referring to? Client's coins; yes, I will definately be keeping my client's coins that they paid, and completing my obligation to them. The only remaining client I am aware of is ABM, who prepaid for a year on insurance for one FPGA single. So yes, I will be keeping PsychoticBoy's coins, why on earth would I give them back?
Investor's coins --> See this is why you are a fucktard. First, I *just* said I will be paying back the loans I took out. So you can't read. Second point, I *just* said that everything we had was invested on GLBSE, and I will be distributing claim codes as I get them. So what's your problem? Are you mentally retarded?
The original embedd edusagi quote says that ALL his companies had gone. Puppet asks if that means usagi will keep investors coins. Usagi then (amongst the usual insults) claims that "everything we had was invested on GLBSE".
This puzzled me - as how could BMF's mining rigs/pre-orders be on GLBSE? Maybe it was just a typo and he meant to say "Most of our assets are on GLBSE but I'll distribute the proceeds from sale/cancellation of the mining rigs" - but accidentally mistyped a few words.
So I asked :
How did the mining rigs on order for your mining fund get to be invested on GLBSE? Are you going to cancel those orders and share the BTC amonst your shareholders? Or are you hoping they'll be forgotten and you can keep them? You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?
Surely now, usagi will just say "Oops - forgot about those - obviously the proceeds from those will go back to BMF investors.". Well, that's not exactly what he said:
How did the mining rigs on order for your mining fund get to be invested on GLBSE? Are you going to cancel those orders and share the BTC amonst your shareholders? Or are you hoping they'll be forgotten and you can keep them? You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?
Lol just fuck off dude. You got nothing, and the best you can do is necroaccount and necrothread.
Well OK - obviously he doesn't like me very much, but at least now I've reminded him about the mining rigs.
But what's this? Oh a scammer thread about me (and others). I can't quote the thread - as usagi locked it to prevent those he accused from responding (and in the hope his theft attempt wouldn't be noticed). But here's a link to it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/eskimobob-puppet-deprived-etc-127096
In brief he alleges that I (and others) made false accusations against him to try to ruin his business. Amongst the ones against me is #10:
"10. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1271394
"You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?"
During the times BMF had hardware on order I had never failed to mention that. A shareholder motion was created over the issue of buying hardware. I made a very public series of posts about it. I never once tried to hide the fact we had a small amount of hardware. I mentioned it several times in PM to various creditors."
This is wierd - my post he links very clearly quotes a post in which he says ALL his assets are on GLBSE and he's now accusing me or attempting to defraud him by saying that's not true. So is he saying BMF doesn't have any hardware any longer?
Later in the thread the truth starts to come out:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1349684
If you read this post you immediately see the problem of arguing with usagi. Usagi states they had hardware (so what I said was correct - it was untrue to say all assets were on GLBSE) then says : "If you weren't lying, just go away. if you were lying.. just go away. " Given that the issue I was accused of lieing about was whether BMF had assets non on GLBSE, and given usagi had in that same post said BMF had hardware, how can there possibly be ANY confusion over the fact that I was telling the truth?
So: It was just a misunderstanding - and usagi now has been reminded about the hardware.
But wait - what's this? (from the last linked post):
"I confirmed in private to loan-holders hardware had arrived. one offered to exchange the single for the debt. I turned him down until I get the info from nefario." So usagi was considering giving the single to loan-holders when the info from nefario arrived. That's strange - as the hardware belongs to BMF and the loan is guaranteed by CPA/usagi personally, not by BMF (if disputed can dig out the loan thread).
A bit strange that usagi had been discussing the hardware with loan-holders (who have nothing to do with BMF) but then he accused me of scamming when I said he had hardware. Kind of looks like he realised he couldn't get away with pretending the hardware didn't exist any longer so gave up on it - and then locked the thread accusing me, so I couldn't even reply any more (temporarily unlocking it very briefly to post an "update" in which the village idiot Augusto stated usagi was innocent).
But that's not the end of it. Now lets look back 2 days previous to the scammer accusation by usagi (only part of post quoted):
So 2 days previously they had 2 pre-orders and no physical assets. But ""I confirmed in private to loan-holders hardware had arrived.""
Remember for later the claim "we also ordered 2 FPGA singles. So besides that everything we held was on the GLBSE."
Fast forward a few days and we have this:
GOOD NEWS! Loanholders have announced interest to buy:
a) the guitar and amp I am selling
b) the hardware I have recieved
These loanholders have also given me permission to confirm that I have done this once the deals have gone thru and equipment has been verified working.
This means I will get almost 250 BTC towards paying off what CPA owes! This, along with the BTC-MINING (see post #2) and YARR news, is FANTASTIC. I'm absolutely ecstatic at this. Please continue to make claims as advertised in the OP. As mentioned you have until the end of January 2013 to make your claim. Thank you.
This has been a good couple of days for resolving the GLBSE fiasco. Please let's hope it continues and this all gets worked out in the end.
Now lets put these things in date order:
Nov 18th: "we also ordered 2 FPGA singles. So besides that everything we held was on the GLBSE.
So, first of all, I do not have any kind of massive amount of bitcoins, nor do I have any physical assets that are owned by anyone."
Nov 21st: Accuses me of attempting to defraud when I said he had assets of BMF's that weren't on GLBSE. Then changes his mind (but STILL claims I was lieing) and says:
Nov 21st : "I confirmed in private to loan-holders hardware had arrived. one offered to exchange the single for the debt. I turned him down until I get the info from nefario."
So one of the 2 FPGA singles must have arrived between 18th and 21st. Usagi won't use the singles to pay off CPA debt until info has arrived from nefario.
Nov 21st : In same post usagi again iconfirms the hardware is only FPGA singles : "Look if I said that it means either the FPGA singles we now have on order either weren't ordered yet or hadn't arrived. "
Nov 22nd : "GOOD NEWS! Loanholders have announced interest to buy:
a) the guitar and amp I am selling
b) the hardware I have recieved
These loanholders have also given me permission to confirm that I have done this once the deals have gone thru and equipment has been verified working."
That's strange - as no info had arrived from nefario. On 21st he rejects the offer and on 22nd he announces it?
Now onto a different thread and Nov 26th:
Suddenly 2 FPGAs (on the 18th that was the only pre-orders and they had no hardware) has become "a few FPGA and ASIC singles". And usagi is helping himself to one to pay off a CPA debt (note: usagi later claimed this would be deducted from CPA's share of BMF settlement so it's NOT necessarily an attempt to scam).
Are we really expected to believe that on 18th usagi only rememberd 2 singles, on 21st he forgot and he had any hardware at all (and accused me of lieing when I said he had assets not on GLBSE) then on 26th he suddenly remembers there's some other hardware as well?
Or could it be that he on 18th he tried to pretend BMF only had preorders for 2 singles, he then agreed to give one to a CPA debtor and was hoping noone would notice when he started claiming ALL his assets were on GLBSE.
Then on 21st he took his attempt to steal them a stage further - accusing me of lieing when I said he had assets that weren't on GLBSE. Look carefully at the wording:
"During the times BMF had hardware on order I had never failed to mention that. " Past tense - "had never failed to mention it" - not "have failed to mentioned it." He is saying that I was lieing when I claimed he still had assets not on GLBSE and that when he did have pre-orders, he disclosed it.
Later same day he realises the game is up and admits to having 2 FPGA singles - then locks the thread in the hope it'll die and noone will notice how he was attempting to steal from BMF. Note that we KNOW he hadn't got rid of the single then - as on 22nd he announces it's going to be used to pay off a CPA debt.
He very clearly was pretending not to have any mining hardware - to the extent of lodging a complaint over my 'lies' in the scammer forum. Why did he then admit to having them? Can only speculate on that - but most likely he realised he'd previously been quoted as having them (and had mentioned it on the 18th) and, whilst he can delete his own posts/website showing what his companies had, he can't delete other people's quotes of his posts.
And how do you forget you ordered an ASIC (and 2 jalapenos) whilst remembering the 2 FPGA singles?
Not only did he try to scam - but when I pointed it he had the bare-faced cheek to accuse ME of trying to defraud him in exposing HIS scam attempt.
If it's of any relevance, the pre-orders he actually had (or claimed to have) less than a week before GLBSE closed were:
2 Bitforce Singles
2 Jalapeno
1 Bitforce 'SC' single
Second point, GLBSE is gone and so are all my companies. So this thread is completely and utterly meaningless.
So you think you can just keep all your clients and investors coins?
What coins are you referring to? Client's coins; yes, I will definately be keeping my client's coins that they paid, and completing my obligation to them. The only remaining client I am aware of is ABM, who prepaid for a year on insurance for one FPGA single. So yes, I will be keeping PsychoticBoy's coins, why on earth would I give them back?
Investor's coins --> See this is why you are a fucktard. First, I *just* said I will be paying back the loans I took out. So you can't read. Second point, I *just* said that everything we had was invested on GLBSE, and I will be distributing claim codes as I get them. So what's your problem? Are you mentally retarded?
The original embedd edusagi quote says that ALL his companies had gone. Puppet asks if that means usagi will keep investors coins. Usagi then (amongst the usual insults) claims that "everything we had was invested on GLBSE".
This puzzled me - as how could BMF's mining rigs/pre-orders be on GLBSE? Maybe it was just a typo and he meant to say "Most of our assets are on GLBSE but I'll distribute the proceeds from sale/cancellation of the mining rigs" - but accidentally mistyped a few words.
So I asked :
Second point, I *just* said that everything we had was invested on GLBSE, and I will be distributing claim codes as I get them. So what's your problem? Are you mentally retarded?
How did the mining rigs on order for your mining fund get to be invested on GLBSE? Are you going to cancel those orders and share the BTC amonst your shareholders? Or are you hoping they'll be forgotten and you can keep them? You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?
Surely now, usagi will just say "Oops - forgot about those - obviously the proceeds from those will go back to BMF investors.". Well, that's not exactly what he said:
Second point, I *just* said that everything we had was invested on GLBSE, and I will be distributing claim codes as I get them. So what's your problem? Are you mentally retarded?
How did the mining rigs on order for your mining fund get to be invested on GLBSE? Are you going to cancel those orders and share the BTC amonst your shareholders? Or are you hoping they'll be forgotten and you can keep them? You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?
Lol just fuck off dude. You got nothing, and the best you can do is necroaccount and necrothread.
Well OK - obviously he doesn't like me very much, but at least now I've reminded him about the mining rigs.
But what's this? Oh a scammer thread about me (and others). I can't quote the thread - as usagi locked it to prevent those he accused from responding (and in the hope his theft attempt wouldn't be noticed). But here's a link to it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/eskimobob-puppet-deprived-etc-127096
In brief he alleges that I (and others) made false accusations against him to try to ruin his business. Amongst the ones against me is #10:
"10. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1271394
"You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?"
During the times BMF had hardware on order I had never failed to mention that. A shareholder motion was created over the issue of buying hardware. I made a very public series of posts about it. I never once tried to hide the fact we had a small amount of hardware. I mentioned it several times in PM to various creditors."
This is wierd - my post he links very clearly quotes a post in which he says ALL his assets are on GLBSE and he's now accusing me or attempting to defraud him by saying that's not true. So is he saying BMF doesn't have any hardware any longer?
Later in the thread the truth starts to come out:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1349684
If you read this post you immediately see the problem of arguing with usagi. Usagi states they had hardware (so what I said was correct - it was untrue to say all assets were on GLBSE) then says : "If you weren't lying, just go away. if you were lying.. just go away. " Given that the issue I was accused of lieing about was whether BMF had assets non on GLBSE, and given usagi had in that same post said BMF had hardware, how can there possibly be ANY confusion over the fact that I was telling the truth?
So: It was just a misunderstanding - and usagi now has been reminded about the hardware.
But wait - what's this? (from the last linked post):
"I confirmed in private to loan-holders hardware had arrived. one offered to exchange the single for the debt. I turned him down until I get the info from nefario." So usagi was considering giving the single to loan-holders when the info from nefario arrived. That's strange - as the hardware belongs to BMF and the loan is guaranteed by CPA/usagi personally, not by BMF (if disputed can dig out the loan thread).
A bit strange that usagi had been discussing the hardware with loan-holders (who have nothing to do with BMF) but then he accused me of scamming when I said he had hardware. Kind of looks like he realised he couldn't get away with pretending the hardware didn't exist any longer so gave up on it - and then locked the thread accusing me, so I couldn't even reply any more (temporarily unlocking it very briefly to post an "update" in which the village idiot Augusto stated usagi was innocent).
But that's not the end of it. Now lets look back 2 days previous to the scammer accusation by usagi (only part of post quoted):
First, it's important to note that I ran funds -- similar to S^2 capital management (ran by Smickles and imsaguy), or Gamma Bitcoin Fund, ran by DeadTerra. However, in contrast to S^2 and GBF, everything that my companies held was held on the GLBSE. I think, BMF might have had 20 bitcoins in it when GLBSE shut down; we also ordered 2 FPGA singles. So besides that everything we held was on the GLBSE.
So, first of all, I do not have any kind of massive amount of bitcoins, nor do I have any physical assets that are owned by anyone.
So, first of all, I do not have any kind of massive amount of bitcoins, nor do I have any physical assets that are owned by anyone.
So 2 days previously they had 2 pre-orders and no physical assets. But ""I confirmed in private to loan-holders hardware had arrived.""
Remember for later the claim "we also ordered 2 FPGA singles. So besides that everything we held was on the GLBSE."
Fast forward a few days and we have this:
GOOD NEWS!
I have received the list of YARR holders.
I have received the list of YARR holders.
GOOD NEWS! Loanholders have announced interest to buy:
a) the guitar and amp I am selling
b) the hardware I have recieved
These loanholders have also given me permission to confirm that I have done this once the deals have gone thru and equipment has been verified working.
This means I will get almost 250 BTC towards paying off what CPA owes! This, along with the BTC-MINING (see post #2) and YARR news, is FANTASTIC. I'm absolutely ecstatic at this. Please continue to make claims as advertised in the OP. As mentioned you have until the end of January 2013 to make your claim. Thank you.
This has been a good couple of days for resolving the GLBSE fiasco. Please let's hope it continues and this all gets worked out in the end.
Now lets put these things in date order:
Nov 18th: "we also ordered 2 FPGA singles. So besides that everything we held was on the GLBSE.
So, first of all, I do not have any kind of massive amount of bitcoins, nor do I have any physical assets that are owned by anyone."
Nov 21st: Accuses me of attempting to defraud when I said he had assets of BMF's that weren't on GLBSE. Then changes his mind (but STILL claims I was lieing) and says:
Nov 21st : "I confirmed in private to loan-holders hardware had arrived. one offered to exchange the single for the debt. I turned him down until I get the info from nefario."
So one of the 2 FPGA singles must have arrived between 18th and 21st. Usagi won't use the singles to pay off CPA debt until info has arrived from nefario.
Nov 21st : In same post usagi again iconfirms the hardware is only FPGA singles : "Look if I said that it means either the FPGA singles we now have on order either weren't ordered yet or hadn't arrived. "
Nov 22nd : "GOOD NEWS! Loanholders have announced interest to buy:
a) the guitar and amp I am selling
b) the hardware I have recieved
These loanholders have also given me permission to confirm that I have done this once the deals have gone thru and equipment has been verified working."
That's strange - as no info had arrived from nefario. On 21st he rejects the offer and on 22nd he announces it?
Now onto a different thread and Nov 26th:
This message regards loan holders (and loan holders solely) of CPA. For other claimants please e-mail [email protected], or wait until the GLBSE has sent me the list of asset holders and your claim will be processed automagically.
First point.
1. Due to the closing of GLBSE, CPA has ceased to exist. All of our assets were on the GLBSE so we have no money and no operations and no income from operations.
2. Before GLBSE closed, BMF ordered a few FPGA and ASIC singles.
3. Both I myself, and CPA, owned 800 and change shares of BMF.
4. Therefore I have valid, personal claim on these singles, as does CPA.
5. Therefore this FPGA will be sold to pay off a loanholder (jborkl).
STATUS: I'm boxing and shipping it today. I will update this post with links to the receipt and tracking number later.
First point.
1. Due to the closing of GLBSE, CPA has ceased to exist. All of our assets were on the GLBSE so we have no money and no operations and no income from operations.
2. Before GLBSE closed, BMF ordered a few FPGA and ASIC singles.
3. Both I myself, and CPA, owned 800 and change shares of BMF.
4. Therefore I have valid, personal claim on these singles, as does CPA.
5. Therefore this FPGA will be sold to pay off a loanholder (jborkl).
STATUS: I'm boxing and shipping it today. I will update this post with links to the receipt and tracking number later.
Suddenly 2 FPGAs (on the 18th that was the only pre-orders and they had no hardware) has become "a few FPGA and ASIC singles". And usagi is helping himself to one to pay off a CPA debt (note: usagi later claimed this would be deducted from CPA's share of BMF settlement so it's NOT necessarily an attempt to scam).
Are we really expected to believe that on 18th usagi only rememberd 2 singles, on 21st he forgot and he had any hardware at all (and accused me of lieing when I said he had assets not on GLBSE) then on 26th he suddenly remembers there's some other hardware as well?
Or could it be that he on 18th he tried to pretend BMF only had preorders for 2 singles, he then agreed to give one to a CPA debtor and was hoping noone would notice when he started claiming ALL his assets were on GLBSE.
Then on 21st he took his attempt to steal them a stage further - accusing me of lieing when I said he had assets that weren't on GLBSE. Look carefully at the wording:
"During the times BMF had hardware on order I had never failed to mention that. " Past tense - "had never failed to mention it" - not "have failed to mentioned it." He is saying that I was lieing when I claimed he still had assets not on GLBSE and that when he did have pre-orders, he disclosed it.
Later same day he realises the game is up and admits to having 2 FPGA singles - then locks the thread in the hope it'll die and noone will notice how he was attempting to steal from BMF. Note that we KNOW he hadn't got rid of the single then - as on 22nd he announces it's going to be used to pay off a CPA debt.
He very clearly was pretending not to have any mining hardware - to the extent of lodging a complaint over my 'lies' in the scammer forum. Why did he then admit to having them? Can only speculate on that - but most likely he realised he'd previously been quoted as having them (and had mentioned it on the 18th) and, whilst he can delete his own posts/website showing what his companies had, he can't delete other people's quotes of his posts.
And how do you forget you ordered an ASIC (and 2 jalapenos) whilst remembering the 2 FPGA singles?
Not only did he try to scam - but when I pointed it he had the bare-faced cheek to accuse ME of trying to defraud him in exposing HIS scam attempt.
If it's of any relevance, the pre-orders he actually had (or claimed to have) less than a week before GLBSE closed were:
2 Bitforce Singles
2 Jalapeno
1 Bitforce 'SC' single
Usagi claims to have consulted and paid an "Internet defamation lawyer" to investigate EskimoBob's Defination claims as part of his intimidation yet he can not provide an invoice that this fee was paid nor even a name of he lawyer.
Usagi Used Threats and intimidation to silence critics.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1426051
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1426051
Usgai also repeatedly states:
"...the contract clearly stated I would provide value through analysis.."
which I assume to mean that his analysis allows him to value his assets even if his analysis is wrong - which others including Usagni have pointed out was wrong not only due to faulty analysis but also due to bad math or incorrect of calculating formulas.
Does that make his inaccurate valuations ok. I would think not.
This is again an example of Usagi shirking his fiduciary responsibility.
"...the contract clearly stated I would provide value through analysis.."
which I assume to mean that his analysis allows him to value his assets even if his analysis is wrong - which others including Usagni have pointed out was wrong not only due to faulty analysis but also due to bad math or incorrect of calculating formulas.
Does that make his inaccurate valuations ok. I would think not.
This is again an example of Usagi shirking his fiduciary responsibility.
EskimoBob has responded in the other thread. He is the second investor who claims to have lost fund do to Usgai's inaccurate valuations.
All the fact are in the forum posts by me and multiple other people, who git fed up with constant BS.
Misvalued assets - yes
Tried to use company assets to pay off a personal loan - I can not recall at the moment all the details. Dig the forum, it's all here
Deleted material evidence supporting this activity to cover up this activity - yes. This has been proved in forums to ad nauseum
And refuses to supply specific facts to support his claims and instead spAms the threads - yes. This has been proved in forums to ad nauseum
1. Did you lose any funds as as result of usgai misrepresenting his various businesses and assets? - yes, because information published (now deleted by usagi) was constantly wrong - that was discovered later.
2. What facts can you provide that may support or refute these claims - it's all in the forum post.
Hello Eskimo bob. Good to hear from you as you name has come up quite frequently. So far usgai has been accused of and evidence has been provided that he:
Misvalued assets
Lied about assets owned
Tried to use company assets to pay off a personal loan
Deleted material evidence supporting this activity to cover up this activity
And refuses to supply specific facts to support his claims and instead spAms the threads
1. Did you lose any funds as as result of usgai misrepresenting his various businesses and assets?
2. What facts can you provide that may support or refute these claims
Thanks.
Misvalued assets
Lied about assets owned
Tried to use company assets to pay off a personal loan
Deleted material evidence supporting this activity to cover up this activity
And refuses to supply specific facts to support his claims and instead spAms the threads
1. Did you lose any funds as as result of usgai misrepresenting his various businesses and assets?
2. What facts can you provide that may support or refute these claims
Thanks.
All the fact are in the forum posts by me and multiple other people, who git fed up with constant BS.
Misvalued assets - yes
Tried to use company assets to pay off a personal loan - I can not recall at the moment all the details. Dig the forum, it's all here
Deleted material evidence supporting this activity to cover up this activity - yes. This has been proved in forums to ad nauseum
And refuses to supply specific facts to support his claims and instead spAms the threads - yes. This has been proved in forums to ad nauseum
1. Did you lose any funds as as result of usgai misrepresenting his various businesses and assets? - yes, because information published (now deleted by usagi) was constantly wrong - that was discovered later.
2. What facts can you provide that may support or refute these claims - it's all in the forum post.
Usagi claims to be following general accounting/inventing principals in valuing his assets and quotes a length the Financial Accounting Standards Board which states in part:
"While internal inputs are used, the objective remains the same: estimate fair value using assumptions a third party would consider in estimating fair value."
However numerous third parties with access to Usagi's valuations claim that he was NOT fairly valuing his assets. So again this is an example of Usagi using information "subjectively" to suit his position and omitting or ignoring relevant points that counter his position.
Usagi continues to provide NO FACTUAL information in his defense and when he does make statements they often end up supporting his detractors claims.
"While internal inputs are used, the objective remains the same: estimate fair value using assumptions a third party would consider in estimating fair value."
However numerous third parties with access to Usagi's valuations claim that he was NOT fairly valuing his assets. So again this is an example of Usagi using information "subjectively" to suit his position and omitting or ignoring relevant points that counter his position.
Usagi continues to provide NO FACTUAL information in his defense and when he does make statements they often end up supporting his detractors claims.
So I just heard from usagi he indicates:
"the spreadsheets were published on tsukino.ca/bmf, which was a wordpress site which I have deleted. So it is unrecoverable. "
* admitting to deleting material information.
he says he "can't remember" specific facts.
he admits to incorrectly valuing his assets:
"I mis-spoke about the nature of the formula. I think I said "average" instead of "max" – "
EDIT ** see post 17
He admits that while he was representing the value of his investments in the future - if the investor how liquidated their asset would actually receive less value.:
"The claim was that if someone wanted to liquidate their investments, that would be the price they could get. This is true "
It's not looking good for usagi.
"the spreadsheets were published on tsukino.ca/bmf, which was a wordpress site which I have deleted. So it is unrecoverable. "
* admitting to deleting material information.
he says he "can't remember" specific facts.
"I mis-spoke about the nature of the formula. I think I said "average" instead of "max" – "
EDIT ** see post 17
He admits that while he was representing the value of his investments in the future - if the investor how liquidated their asset would actually receive less value.:
"The claim was that if someone wanted to liquidate their investments, that would be the price they could get. This is true "
It's not looking good for usagi.
FROM: ianbakewell
" At various times I was a shareholder of CPA, BMF, and nearly all the NYAN offerings.
Usagi has gone back and deleted nearly 1000 of their old posts. Many of these posts made statements that built confidence and caused me to invest into the assets run by Usagi. In the resulting bullshit of Usagi swapping things around to make it look like they were not doing so bad after the pirate losses, those statements were later proven to be false or were unhonoured. The stock prices collapse and I sold out at an extreme loss.
YARR was the only good experience with Usagi, and likely only because I was able to get out at the beginning"
Another accusation of deleting documents and making false statements.
" At various times I was a shareholder of CPA, BMF, and nearly all the NYAN offerings.
Usagi has gone back and deleted nearly 1000 of their old posts. Many of these posts made statements that built confidence and caused me to invest into the assets run by Usagi. In the resulting bullshit of Usagi swapping things around to make it look like they were not doing so bad after the pirate losses, those statements were later proven to be false or were unhonoured. The stock prices collapse and I sold out at an extreme loss.
YARR was the only good experience with Usagi, and likely only because I was able to get out at the beginning"
Another accusation of deleting documents and making false statements.
Usgai deleted the agreements and all statements.
Vampire claims to prove that the financial statements are fraudulent.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1228703
This is evidence of a "Cover Up"
However it is not clear if Vampire is a creditor.
I think we have to have compelling evidence from creditors who were defrauded to consider a scammer tag.
Waiting for more evidence.....
this has been refuted in post #17 below.
Usgai was the first to answer any questions and posted many links to thinks already posted elsewhere.
I'm trying to avoid hearsay and hyperbole. One piece of evidence I find interesting is this.
http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=usagi
as opposed to this
http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=pirateat40
and this:
http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=nefario
Also it will be noted that both Usgai and I are VIP members. This means we both independently make a financial contribution to bitcointalk.org. I made a contribution because I feel that Bitcointalk.org and it's administrators and moderators are an asset to our community. They and the site have been extremely helpful and beneficial to me as I've found my way in the bitcoin world (I actively buy and sell bitcoins) so I chose to make a contribution.
There is no club or secret hand shake (though there is a very lightly trafficked private "Donators" thread which I rarely use.
I've never met nor invested with Usagi and frankly didn't know who he was or what he did until recently.
This thread is an attempt to settle any dispute with Usnagi. Whether or not he gets a scammer thread is up the theymos the bitcointalk.org administrator.
I'm trying to avoid hearsay and hyperbole. One piece of evidence I find interesting is this.
http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=usagi
as opposed to this
http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=pirateat40
and this:
http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=nefario
Also it will be noted that both Usgai and I are VIP members. This means we both independently make a financial contribution to bitcointalk.org. I made a contribution because I feel that Bitcointalk.org and it's administrators and moderators are an asset to our community. They and the site have been extremely helpful and beneficial to me as I've found my way in the bitcoin world (I actively buy and sell bitcoins) so I chose to make a contribution.
There is no club or secret hand shake (though there is a very lightly trafficked private "Donators" thread which I rarely use.
I've never met nor invested with Usagi and frankly didn't know who he was or what he did until recently.
This thread is an attempt to settle any dispute with Usnagi. Whether or not he gets a scammer thread is up the theymos the bitcointalk.org administrator.
To avoid the puppet and thread spamming by usgai and his haters please pm accusations and proof and i will post evidence for and against these claims.
Jump to: