Topic: [Weexchange issue] The fall of Ukyo III - Updates and references - page 7. (Read 49953 times)

Its not Kens problem Ukyo doenst have the BTC to pay back we exchange users...

so Ukyo wheres our BTC at, we aren't going to forget about it

updated first post with latest ActiveMining developments.

To be clear, he said he is using Company and Corporate law (as referenced by his India Corporation book) which he considers as legal advice.

On another note, Ukyo (me) has been trying to get access to sell the shares since early December to be able to distribute funds to weex users when other funds were distributed.

since you give zero information as to what exactly happened at weex and BF I am going to assume the worst. Just like every one of your customers victims. deal with it.

what other scenario could be possible for coins missing from two(2) services, both of witch you own and control? I applaud Ken for hanging you out to dry, I hope the rest of the people you burned can do the same.

Mostly I just dislike your unwillingness to be transparent, or even transparent about why you are not transparent. You say zero, except to vent your frustration at Ken in the ActM thread (which, to anyone who has been burned by BTC scammers is SWEET SWEET JUSTICE!)

Until you become transparent you sir are a low-life thieving scumbag. Go ahead, prove me wrong with some verifiable facts and info. I doubt you will.

Actually, judging from all of the BTC Guild inputs and the NastyFans outputs...I'd say that's the NastyFans mining operation but I could be wrong.

minerpart was asking about a public address that may be associated with Ukyo...

I found an old BF asset list and there was an ActM shareholder with 232,175 shares (only 175 shares more than the number of ActM Ukyo shares that Ken has listed on Crypto-Trade) and has this public address associated which had received 4623 btc in it's time.  Here the link to that address.  It's got to be Ukyo.

https://blockchain.info/address/1Mn65Q9Xm6NBoPdF8ppS3AzgRLt92ZKtTq

Here is the link to the cached webpage which has the asset list itself.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vbxit8c0mde7fs6/The-Very-Last-Google%27s-cache-of-Bitfunder-assets-list-1-Dec-2013-18-13-31-GMT.rar


Whose good as Blockchain forensics?  

Huh.  You assumed that Ken will keep selling the shares and handing the money over to an assumed third party, which can then be assumed to take care of disbursing the funds?  Why not start off by saying "I'll be making shit up as I go along, disregard"?

No, it's not Ken's job to distribute the coin.

What he has said is that he is using Company and Corporate law to declare lien upon Ukyo's ACtM shares. Ukyo has accepted all the shares should be sold. Ken has also said he is selling the shares to recover ACtM losses and according to the laws of lien he is entitled to recover only ACtM's losses and costs. Any surplus (shares or BTC) will be handed over to a third party I would assume. Ken does not have the time to organise distribution himself.

Edit - he has taken legal advice on this so is following that advice.

That's all I'm going to say on this on this thread, if you want to keep checking the ACtM thread for updates please do.

Did Ken mention anything about disbursing coin to WeEx users, or did you make that up with your brain?

No problem Pompobit, you changed it which makes it more clear. So long as people are aware this is not Kens 'personal money' - Ken is simply taking proactive steps to secure crucial company funds.



Also, and this is very important for everyone, the price Ken has listed Ukyo's shares at on CryptoTrade (0.01BTC per share) means only about 5% of them would need to be sold to cover all of ACtM's lost BTC. Ken has said he only intends to cover our losses. So the other 95% would then be either returned to Ukyo or possibly a third party/legal representative (to ensure WeEx users money is safe.)

Having said that lets be clear no-one knows if the shares will sell at that price. I don't think they will until ACtM makes some more progress and/or releases some more detailed news. So if they don't sell at 0.01BTC it's probable that Ken will need to lower their price to sell them and to recover our funds. (The market will decide what price they want to pay for these shares not Ken.) In other words ACtM would need to sell more than 5% of the shares to recover it's losses.

I accept your views on this lien and understand your concern but Ken is doing his best to get the best price for these shares so that all WeEx users do get something from their sale. A successful ACtM means more money made from Ukyo's shares and more refunds for the WeEx users. So please support ACtM because you will be supporting your own funds.

The point is that Ken wants to use the shares for his and his investors interests. So "personal company" when he his the CEO and the majority shareholder doesn't seems misleading to me, he is using an advantage he has (the detention of ukyo's shares) to get back his money before all other community members.
By the way, he is the CEO,founder and majority shareholder of AMC, so don't think that personal is inapposite here, plus it is irrelevant to the matter of the question

I appreciate that Pompobit thanks.

However 'personal company's debt' is still misleading. This should not say 'personal' atall. It is simply 'ACtM company debt'. Ukyo is making a legal point about this and he is wrong according to Ken and ACtM published company accounts - so your wording should be clear and unambiguous.

Thanks again.

If it is so, you are welcome.
I supposed you are here because I see you are very interested in ActiveMining stuffs, and suddenly to the Weexchange issues.
Although we need the help of the community, we really don't need random accusations without proofs.



corrected, thanks.



I'm not saying he could do that, I'm saying I'd approve his intentions if they were those

I doubt that would be possible (legally) since it would require that Ken got a list from Ukyo so he know who is owed what and a bitcoin address for each user (essentially what the claim portal is supposed to do). I don't think Ukyo would be allowed to disclose the users personal information like that.


A wallet is not an address.. It is many addresses. If you use Bitcoin "properly" then you should generate a new address for any transaction and never reuse an address.
Ukyo's bitcoind issue apparently appeared due to a huge wallet in the first place:

By the way Pompobit you are lieing in the first page of this thread and again on this page about this ACtM shares issue.

Ken has never said the missing WeEx BTC was his personal money. He has categorically stated that it was ACtM funds for the payment of dividends on BF, from the sale of IPO shares and for the pre-arranged (with the shareholders) transfer of shares at no cost from BF to CryptoStocks.

So please stop referring to 'Ken's personal debt' - it does not exist.

The missing BTC have been subtracted from the ACtM balance sheet and when they are returned will be put back into our liquid assets.

lol I haven't mentioned ACtM  have I?

I am investigating the loss, I am not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of the ACtM lien.


EDIT - has anyone seen the Wallet Ukyo used for his WeEx transactions? Has he released this address so people can look and investigate?

afaik the first reference to this issue was reported by lophie on October 18: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3360611

A part of this, please refrain to troll in this discussion, Ken has no rights to sell Ukyo shares and recover his debt before the rest of weexchange users. Ukyo has a lot of guilts, but this don't makes fair to steal resources that could be used for the community (as Ukyo's will).
I'd approve if Ken would sells the shares because doesn't trust Ukyo and distributes the earnings equally among the weexchange users, but he wants to pay his 106 BTC before, and THEN give us the rest. Obviously this is not acceptable, his debt has no priority at all

Oh fuck. Well that is much worse than it could have been.

It would make sense, he probably sold in the third week of October when price spiked up to 230USD from 130USD at the beginning of the month. That was a huge move up till that point so not a bad gamble - with your own money.

The spike back down to 455 USD in mid December was obviously not low enough to meet his original sell level - if it was he would have bought all the BTC back and everyone would have been paid back a few days after.

So he sold between 130 and 455. That is not looking good because BTC is very unlikely to visit these levels again.

EDIT - has anyone seen the Wallet Ukyo used for his WeEx transactions? Has he released this address so people can look and investigate?

Started from October last year I think.

Does anybody know - when did the fact that BTC was missing (delayed payouts from WeEx) first begin. If anyone knows a date I can check the charts to get a better estimate on the value Ukyo sold most of your BTC at.