Bitcoin Forum

Dear Scam Accusation Forum Connoisseurs;

As many of you are no doubt aware there are quite a few -- for lack of a better term -- pathetic -- scam accusations floating around. I'd like to make this post to raise the general level of awareness of what makes a good -- and bad -- scam accusation, and how to tell the difference.

First, as a user, you must use critical thinking and evaluate whether or not a scam accusation has merit. Here is a guideline; if a scam accusation fails any one of these points, it does not have merit:

1. There must be a clear victim.
If no one and nobody was affected by what you think is a scam, there is no scam -- period. An example is someone saying something like "I will sell you a bitcoin for $500". No one has taken the offer, been misled, or coerced into anything -- therefore it is not a scam. It would be different if said post claimed bitcoins were worth $500, that would be fraud. But in the absence of a victim -- i.e. someone who was defrauded or lied to -- there is no scam.


2. The ability to justify damages must be present for any scam accusation to have merit.
This is similar to the above, but it separates the mere act of lying from actually scamming. Example: If I told you I was from France (and that was a lie) that is not in and of itself scamming. If you then perform some action which causes you to lose money as a result of what I said, that's not damages either. I may very well have been from france; I did not cajole you into doing anything, so I did not damage you. The concept of damages is tied to that of the victim; first, there must be a victim, then damages must be established. Inability to do this means no scam took place.

On the other hand if I told you I was from France as justification for, or to convince you to perform a secondary action (such as, claiming that a black hole bitcoin address is my payment address in order to cause someone damages) then it's clear that there is a victim, and that the lie I told was for the purpose of creating a victim and then, secondarily, causing damages to that victim.


3. A remedy must be present for any scam accusation.
There are two kinds of remedy, as I understand the term. One is the remedy which must be present before the proposed scam can occur -- it is the "line" which one crosses. A great example is an asset issuer transferring shares he does not own to himself, using those shares to affect a vote, and then returning the shares. There was a clear remedy in that case -- he didn't have to do that. He made a choice. The actual "scam" is easy to be identified. There's no question on what happened. OTOH, if someone bought a car, and someone else stole that car, it's not the fault of the buyer (from an insurance standpoint, for example). Or if mining bonds crash, any random asset issuer is not to blame for market factors outside of their control.

The second kind of remedy which must be present is a kind of direct remedy the accused can perform after the fact to have the scammer tag removed. If this is not able to be proposed, then it's probably unfair/without merit to give someone a scammer tag.

We're not talking about someone with an incurable psychosis who committs mass murder -- we're talking about a bitcoin or dollar value assigned in damages. So the very least of a remedy which must be present is the complete repayment (plus interest where applicable) of damages. Each case would be different. In the case of fraud, where someone is intentionally deceived for financial gain (i.e. trashing someone's rep or company and then investing in it when it crashes), said person may also be requested to issue retractions, apologies, and repay damages amounting to that which is reasonably assumed to have been lost via lost business contracts, inability to operate normally, etc.


I know this is a little technical but the concepts of VICTIM, DAMAGES and REMEDY are extremely important. If we are going to parade ourselves around as judges, we have to be fair. If we cannot remain fair and impartial and are going to go on a witch hunt, we need to at least admit that's what we are doing -- treating people unfairly and just causing trouble.

In any scam accusation thread the Onus is ALWAYS on the accuser to provide sufficient evidence. We must adhere to "innocent until proven guilty", lest we become a ship of fools jumping at the slightest sound.

Sticky requested!

1) Wrong. First there are victimless crimes, second you broke the law of USA (by selling illegal securities).
2) Wrong. One step of fraud is a lie. Look it up.
3) Returning money is remedy for you.

I said that you're fraudster already.

Fuck your sticky thief, there should be a sticky about your lying and scamming ass.

Your post is a great example of why people should ignore scam accusations which do not meet the three criteria I've set out. What you have said is, essentially, a complete waste of everyone's time. You say "return the money" what money, and to whom? I'm already processing claims -- just like everyone else. So it's not clear why you believe I am not doing that, what money you think I owe, and who I need to return it to. That is why what you say has no merit. It is impossible to satisfy what you have said, either with evidence, damages, or remedy.

For what it's worth, you did in fact raise at least one valid point -- one step of fraud is a lie. However, you have also raised this point several times before. Each time someone new seems to come along and point out that "one step is not a flight of stairs" -- just because someone lied does not mean they committed fraud. Think:

A chicken is a bird. (true)
A bird is a chicken. (false)

You have said
Fraud implies someone told a lie. (true)
Telling a lie implies someone committed fraud. (false)

I know you passionately believe what you think is true. But that alone does not mean you are right. In fact, the passion by which you pursue your case tends to make people think you are not being logical. Try calming down and presenting some evidence instead of just blindly accusing people of committing crimes. There's at least 200 other people who issued securities on GLBSE, and another what, 50-100 on MPEX and other sites as well? Why single me out? Maybe you need to take a walk. You don't have community support on that one.

I already proved that you had lied. It's a FACT. You took folk's monies based on a lie.

Fact: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1367800#msg1367800

You refused to provide any remedy, which only reinforces that it was done on purpose, i.e. fraud.


You are a pathological liar. There is plenty of evidence of that, Mr. Oliver/Ms. Serena.

Why one takes few years of college of unix admin, but ends up as a "teacher"?

edit:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

5 steps of fraud

(1) a false statement of a material fact - Proven
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue

This one is a little harder to prove, but as the same page says:


(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim - the intent is clear to sell your worthless shares to victims. Proven.
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement - Proven
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result - Proven

In the proof you link above, you are complaining that the data I pulled off GLBSE wasn't to your liking -- that I was using either MAX or AVERAGE or something. This is a meaningless complaint -- the fact I was pulling data off GLBSE at all was in an attempt to satisfy earlier demands for transparency. Everyone was made fully aware of what we held and it's value in several different ways. Shareholder motions were run on how to value the assets. You cannot show damages and you have no case. Please stop trying to hijack my threads. Go e-mail BCB with whatever proof you think you have.


I will respond to this as a case study of what onus means in a scam accusation thread. The onus is on you to propose victim, damages and a remedy. You claim I victimized all shareholders. Okay, you are claiming there is a victim. So what money did they lose? You are saying they lost money as a direct result of me stating that I was pulling data off the GLBSE? And advertised the exact formula directly on the spreadsheet? Ok so how much money did they lose as a direct result of that? Nothing? Then there are no damages, no remedy, and no scam. See how simple those three rules are?


More money. I also went to university FWIW, and minored in Chinese/East Asian Studies. I also am a wookie who lives on Endor. This does not make sense -- therefore you have no case. Get it? It has no bearing. Stop.

Again, stop trying to hijack this thread. If you have any proof whatsoever, please PM/e-mail BCB, who is graciously trying to work this out for the benefit of the community. At least, stop spamming every thread you can with "usagi therefore scammer" Your campaign against me does not belong in this thread.

Vampire,

Please pm me with any evidence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1424892#msg1424892

Thanks.

I agree with some of what you're saying - but there's some specific issues I think you're wrong on.

There's also a more general issue - we need to be clear which of the following we're discussing.

1.  What evidence is needed to show that person X has scammed someone.
2.  What evidence is needed to show that person X is a scammer (they can be a bad scammer who fails to actually cause loss but clearly tried to).
3.  What evidence is needed for someone to be awarded a scammer tag.

#3 is not necessarily the same as either #1 or #2.

Your definition seems to apply more to #1 than to #2 - i.e. you seem to believe an unsuccesful scammer is not a scammer.

A scam is (the most relevant definition) a fraudulent business scheme.  A scammer is someone who perpetuates a scam.  There is no need for them to actually manage to successfully scam someone for them to be a scammer.  If they operate a business scheme which is fraudulent in nature then, irrespective of whether they actually defraud anyone, they are - by definition - a scammer.  The only requirement is for them to perpetuate the scheme - not to actually manage to profit or cause loss to victims.

But the real problem is that the mods/admins use a criteria that doesn't relate to the definition of scammer.  The tag is given out where someone has broken a contract but never actually operated a fraudulent scheme.  I don't disagree with that - but you need to understand that scammers (according to definition) are only a subset of the people who could be awarded the tag.  And what we REALLY need before going into any detailed discussion along the lines you propose is a clear definition from admin/mods of what categories of behaviour WILL get a tag and which won't.

Here's a few of the sort of things which aren't necessarily scams/scammers but have arisen. NONE of these are meant to refer to you - though all are vaguely based on actual threads which have occurred here.  ("You" on the below refers to the individual(s) in question.

1.  Breaking a contract entered into because of legal advice that to do otherwise would be illegal.
2.  Entering into a contract then later requiring the other parties to incur extra costs exceeding the value of the contract or you won't deliver on your end of the deal - because you claim it would be illegal for you to honour the contract without them incurring those costs.
3.  Agreeing a contract, which you wrote in a manner intended to deceive the other party to it, then interpreting some portion of it in a manner totally contrary to the apparent intent of the contract and how everyone else reading the contract interpreted it so as to have no obligations from it.
4.  Taking a loan (or investment) from another member then being unable to repay due to circumstances that were clearly unforeseen and out of your control. (i.e. it's accepted by everyone that  something totally unexpected happened).
5.  Taking a loan (or investment) from another member then being unable to repay due to circumstances that you claim were unforeseen and out of your control but where it's impossible for anyone else to determine whether or not that it is the case. (i.e. you claim something totally unexpected happened but it's not possible to verify whether it actually did occur and/or whether you expected it to occur).

For each of the above who thinks each is a scammer and who thinks each should get a scammer tag?  Assume in all cases that people lost BTC as a result.

#3 is the only one who actually 'honoured' his contract.

#s 1 and 2 amd 5 MAY be scammers by dictionary definition and #3 definitely is. #4 definitely isn't.

I suspect a lot of people would give #5 a scammer tag but not #4 - which totally removes any presumption of innocence as the ONLY difference between them is whether they can prove that something unexpected happened.

Bottom line - it isn't as simple as you claim.  And it's impossible to give guidelines without information about what categories of behaviour warrant a tag (which most definitely gos way beyond just scammers - and doesn't actually include all scammers for that matter.).  There's detailed flaws in some of your points as well - but no point arguing detail when the area covered hasn't even been defined.

I think usagi's post is quite valid. I can't say for everything involved around him with GLBSE and such, but the points above are sound to me.


1) True, in the US, victimless crimes can be punished. However, I don't consider them to be very valid on a moral or practical level. In general, I feel if there is no victim, there's no reason to prosecute. That being said, I don't know the whole situation with usagi and "illegal securities", so perhaps there is something I am missing.

2) I think in usagi's example, it would not be fraud. Now, I much prefer working with fully honest buyers and sellers. And such information, even country of residence, can weigh in to the other user's considerations. If the lie caused direct harm or misleading, I think it would align with a scam. Even so, beyond "fraud" or not fraud, I think 100% honesty is a great virtue that will be rewarded in the long run by the community.

3) If an accurate amount of damages is made and paid off, and the once-scammer does not appear likely to scam in the future, I don't see why that's insufficient to remove their scammer tag. I understand that sometimes damages can be more than just money, perhaps time or emotional stress, but I think a fair settlement can be reached.

No.

There are (very broadly) two categories of people who get scammer tags here.

1.  Those who deliberately acted in a manner designed to defraud (scammers by dictionary definition basically).  These should never get their tags removed.
2.  Those who ended up unable to fulfil their obligations without any intention to ever deceive or defraud (or where the evidence isn't clear whether they had ill-intent and so they are entitled to some degree of "Innocent until proven Guilty").  These should have their tags removed when they've provided remedy.

I would very much like to see the tag split into two seperate tags:

1.  Scammer - for people who deliberately attempt to defraud.
2.  Defaulter - for those who are in default on their obligations but where it's not proven they deserve 1.

#2 MUST get the tag until the pay back - because with a lot of scammers it can't be totally proven that they scammed, only that they defaulted.  The tag acts to warn others dealing with them to be very careful as they are already in default on other agreement(s) and so there's a significant chance they are actually scammers (and also are short of BTC to provide prompt remedy).

Tag 2 should NOT be given out if there's clear evidence that the default was entirely unexpected AND the individual is attempting to remedy in a timely fashion.  So, for example, companies listed on GLBSE would not get tags just for missing dividend payments etc - but WOULD get tags if they didn't start sorting things out once they finally got their lists of asset holders.

But I see a HUGE difference where intent to defraud exists - and in no way should tags given for that ever be removed.  They ARE scammers and should be identified as such.  Maybe a "Used to be a Scammer" tag if they go a year without further issues.

I also agree with Deprived.

I find it curious though that it seem that no users who were actually defrauded by usagi post in these threads.

Maybe they use sock puppet accounts because they are embarrassed they made bad investments.

If you made a bad investment, well, welcome to the world of bitcoin lending and bitcoin securities.  

It does not by itself make usgnai a scammer.

If you were defrauded or scammed and have proof please PM me with evidence.

What evidence did you rely on to make your investments.
What statements do you have that show the value of your investments.
What proof do you have that those investments no longer have value.
Please explain how you were scammed.


please do not include info about usagi's charater as that is currently not relevent.

Thanks!

To be clear - are you saying someone who wasn't an investor can't point out scamming?

It's an interesting perspective to take that if a victim doesn't realise they've been victimised noone else should point it out.

Makes it somewhat of a miracle that anyone ever gets convicted of murder - as I've yet to hear about a murder victim come forward and register a complaint.

Getting back to the point, are you saying that I shouldn't PM you any evidence (I have never purchased any assets issued by usagi - despite day-trading on dozens of different GLBSE assets).  Should I type it up and advertise it in Securities forum and see if any investor wants to PM it to you?

Certainly an interesting spin on things that only victims have useful evidence - and everyone else should do their best three wise monkeys impression.

Maybe it's not so simple but I've seen too many accusations here lately which contain hyperbole, are blind and overly general, and do not name victims or damages. What's the point of this place if people are going to make accusations that have no actual substance?

I think we are going to grow out of this forum soon. Maybe it sounds crazy but I don't see how the forum can continue on like this for much longer. I see the signs. Before that happens I'd like to see a serious attempt at cleaning it up and moderating it properly. A panel of judges known for their fairness and equitable judgements would be a very nice start.

If we don't get better judges, I am guessing the community will begin to move towards dumping the (useless?) scam accusation forum and use real-world lawyers. Mods are biased, sometimes extremely so, and don't even see it as their job to be fair or even look at the scam accusation forum at all. It's pretty obvious that they only handle things which they are interested in or which affect them. I also see the community getting too big and diversified to rely on a single forum on a single bb system to handle the entire community's scam problems. No one remembers any of the small time scammers from 6 months ago.

I guess I am just asking, is this really an effective system? How can we improve it?

I'm afraid I can't agree with that because it makes me think you would send a convicted con artist to jail for life. I don't believe in life imprisonment. I think most forms of white collar fraud are punishable by just a few years in life. Never is a long time.


Wow, that's a really good idea! I hope Theymos sees that and agrees. I knew something would come out of this discussion ^^


I like the defaulter tag idea a lot.

I don't think that's what he means. I think he is pointing out that most non-investors are blind. You and others have pointed out that BMF for example lost money. But there's no context. If you invested 100 bitcoins in BMF, you would have ended up being able to sell those for 50 bitcoins on the date GLBSE closed. That's a fact. If you invested 100 bitcoins in GIGAMINING, you would be able to sell them for 43 (at ~0.65/share). We did better than most miners, that's a fact. Yes there were companies that did better than BMF. That doesn't make mining companies a scam.

Take YABMC for example. 100 bitcoins at .30, and then you sell them on the day GLBSE closes for .1 if you're lucky. Your 100 btc investment is now valued at 33. BMMO was similar. we had 3775 shares. So what people are doing is they're saying OK, BMF lost money, and it was because usagi misled investors, falsified NAVs... but if you look at the actual facts, we did better than most mining companies, and all our investments were in... mining companies. We only lost money because mining crashed. And we lost less money than the sector average. CPA as well; we IPO'd at .1 and were going for 0.03 to 0.04 before the crash. We lost a lot less than mining. We did good. But only a shareholder would realize that. To someone who wasn't a shareholder, they just see that we lost money and want to blame me for being a terrible investors. The truth is completely different...

Shareholders are (or should be) happy because BMF proved to be a better investment. That is a fact! BMF was selling for 50 when everything else was going for 30 or 40. The point is, we did better, and I would like to think our investors know that. But yes we did lose money. puppet and eskimobob will never let me forget that. But it doesn't mean I stole any money or ripped anyone off.

Anyone who says differently is doing investors a great disservice. Let me put it this way. If buying BTC and holding it from $5 to $15 was such a great trade, why were so many people investing in mining stocks? for the same reason I was. We didn't know -- we couldn't predict the future. We made the best decision we could and we were wrong. Not just me -- everyone who invested with me. So that is why, I suspect, there are so few (zero? one?) investors who are complaining.

It isn't like we crashed by 50% because mining was rock-stable the whole time. Everyone who was invested widely knows BMF did better than other companies. What's the surprise?

I used to own for a brief moment some of your crap when I was trying to divest from Pirate, I sold it after you accused EskimoBob. Yea, I was a fool to believe your lies, fraudulent statements and etc. You're trying to imply that you did better than everyone else? Who cares. You were lying after I reviewed your financial statements on your website.

I sold pretty much all of my assets a long time before GLBSE shutdown.

Didn't you just access most of the mining companies of scam? Do I need to refresh your memory?

I don't think it's crazy at all.  For many of the most egregious scams real-world lawyers and real world courts are the most appropriate remedy and the scammer tag is pretty meaningless as those involved don't give a shit about being labelled a scammer on a messageboard and such a label in no way helps victims.

There are already Bitcoin specific and real world mediation options available to people but people lack confidence in using them and there's no way to compel people to use them.

You could have the fairest judges in the world, but as long as there are no real world consequences accompanying the scammer tag - which there aren't and cannot be as it exists at the moment - it's going to remain a joke.

Unfortunately, it looks like this topic has already derailed into being a discussion about your businesses in particular rather than about the value or otherwise of the existing scammer tag system.

You say I lied and gave fraudulent statements of fact -- can you actually provide evidence that I did so? If so, please PM it to BCB. Don't post it in this thread -- you're off topic hijacking is not wanted here. This thread is for intelligent people to discus an intelligent problem. If you have issues (and you do appear to have issues) you should air them somewhere else.

To address the main point of your post however, thank you for providing yet another example of why damages are important in a scam accusation case. You appear unable to show that as a result of what you claim is a lie, that you lost any more money than you would have if you invested in GIGAMINING or any other company.

Irrelevant. I made money on other mining stocks. (To be exact a stock and during a different time period).

If you did not lose money, then why do you believe I lied to you? The fact you made money in mining suggests you would have made a similar amount if you remained invested in BMF. I'm sorry you seem so convinced that I scammed or lied, but the facts don't seem to support what you are saying.

Logic just isn't your strong point is it?

Even IF we accepted that "most non-investors are blind" is that a valid reason to ignore ALL non-investors?  Let's be honest - most non-investors ARE blind.  So are most investors.   So the ones who aren't blind shold be ignored because MOST are blind?  Or is someone pre-determining that ALL non-investors are about you - and hence their accusations have no merit even before they are submitted?

And why did you start a thread claiming it to be about a general topic then start arguing your own defence?  Did I previously in this thread make any accusations against you?

You then construct a nice strawman to demolish - that I have claimed you lost money (true - and accepted by you as fact) and that that is why/how I accuse you of scamming (false).  Losing money doesn't (of itself) make ANYONE a scammer.  It doesn't necessarily even make them a bad investor.  Nowhere have I ever claimed otherwise.  So not sure why you're wasting time arguing against a contention I've never even made. 

For the record I 100% agree with you that if anyone's accusation is essentially "usagi lost me money so is a scammer"  with no other evidence then they're wrong.  If their argument is "usagi lost me money so is incomepetent" with no other evidence then they're wrong.  They-re wrong - not because you aren't (necessarily) a scammer or incompetent - but because they're saying a conclusion (scammer/incompetent) logically follows from making a loss: which is by no means a sound jump to make.

Your argument appears to be "You're wrong so shouldn't be allowed to submit evidence."  Nice try.  Maybe you should be the one who decides whether you get a tag or not - would save everyone a lot of work and obviously YOU believe you're so impartial that you can choose which evidence is valid.

Anyone can point out scammers.  However it seems a lot of people really don't like usgai but many of his most vocal critics didn't really lose any money.  I help track down scammers who didn't scam me all the time.  However it is usually pretty clear that scamming did occur.

With Usagi is seems to be much more grey.  He had some good investment vehicles and some bad investment vehicles.  Is usgai a scammer or just a bad investment manager.  

I'm not saying only victim's have useful evidence.   If you have evidence that usgai intentionally scammed his inventors please PM me.   But so far I have been PM'd by one one guy who lost funds and every just seems to hate usgai.

Also if you have knowledge of specifically what info was contained in usgai's deleted posts that would be helpful also.

 

usgai,

Please don't put words in my mouth. "I think he is pointing out that most non-investors are blind. "

What I am trying to say is that here is a lot of people who don't like you and are not creditors but still call you a scammer. 

If anyone has evidence of usagi defrauding, misleading or other wise materially misrepresenting his business please PM me.

And I will update this thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1424892#msg1424892


Right now it seems that usagi made false statments and provided inaccurate documents/formulas to represent the performance of his investments.

Then he also deleted numerous post to cover it up.

The problem with pointing out information about usage has always been that usagi replies in length - whilst avoiding the key issues.  This gives the impression of a robust defence and undoubtedly deters most from raising complaints (whether those complaints had merit or not).  Also most people not only can no longer SEE what usagi claimed in the past but can't actually remember the general nature of what was claimed by usagi - so lack the available information (because usagi deleted it) to even determine for sure whether they were cheated or not.

If it's going to taken seriously then I'll type up a proper list of some examples (some i've previously raised, others I never bothered even mentioning as seemed there was interest in purusing it).  It won't be today (gone midnight here already).  In some instances I'll be able to quote exact relevant posts from usagi - in others I'll only be able to describe roughly what was said, at about what date and in which thread: if usagi then denies that, then theymos would need to use his ability to view deleted/edited posts.  But let usagi commit to a lie by denying having made such posts before theymos wastes time undeleting them - so its easy to hand the tag out afterwards when it's proven to be a lie.

Notice that user, deprived, always trying to control the discussion with his long and boring posts when the subject can affect him. Anyone reading the securities subsection will find him there, inserting himself in every discussion where Usagi participates. If you spot Usagi in a thread, there is a great chance that deprived will follow to 'demonstrate here again that you just don't understand it'!

But it is not just that. A read in Deprived last posts is a good exercise to understand how he cleverly try to induce readers to follow his instructions. There is not one single post of deprived that a subtle command has not being given. There are always a 'you can', 'you need', 'you will', etc. in his texts.

Deprived has been constantly indicting Usagi in the last three months. Deprived and the organized felons did not save words to produce a massive amount of clueless accusations against Usagi. The consequences are very harmful not only for Usagi, but for this forum.

Evidence? Try to read this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1367636#msg1367636) and then come back to this post. If you are able to digest that, then you will perhaps understand what I am talking about.

It is impossible to determine any meaningful information in that amount of false accusations. It became a confusing puzzle of words. It is a situation where there is no escape for Usagi. The whole thing became a "snow ball".

The administration of this forum did not intervened when was necessary. Moderators were exceeding biased against Usagi. Their lack of properly response let the organized felons push the "snow ball" further down against Usagi. No one in the forum administration/moderation acted with the necessary authority to avoid the consequences.

Now 2012 is coming to a end. Bitcointalk became a den for fraudsters and people conniving at financial criminal activities. The scam accusation section, out of control, became the stage for users come and play their emotional drama and falsely accuse other users.

Deprived

Yes.  I would like to read your evidence. 


Also did you invest with Usagi?

I don't suppose we could end the "is usagi a scammer" derail (god knows there are already enough threads discussing that) and get back to talking about the scammer tag in general, whether it has any usefulness any more, under what circumstances it should be applied, etc.

Probably not.

These guys HATE usagi

No, I never invested with Usagi.

To be clear, I don't invest anyway - I day-trade.  I believe most assets sold on here have no investment value (i.e. the expected profit from them is negative) but so long as there's someone who over-values them they're fine to day-trade.

I'll happily day-trade investments that I believe are terrible investments and, in some circumstances, I'll day-trade ones that I believe are outright scams/ponzis.  Where I won't touch an investment at all even temporarily is when I believe the issuer to be manipulating the market price UP (if they manipulate it DOWN then obviously I'm in like Flynn).  I never even temporarily held any shares in assets issued by usagi.

That I didn't invest does NOT, by the way, mean I didn't suffer any loss.  Any money being invested in usagi was money not being invested in other companies.  As someone who trades, an increase in liquidity on assets that I trade is generally a good thing.  If, by misleading investors, usagi caused more money to be sucked into his companies then that will have reduced the liquidity on other assets which I DID trade: and hence reduced my profit.

I point that out NOT to try to claim I'm owed something (any losses I suffered were entirely trivial - the amount of funds I traded with then were small anyway) but to point out that there's a fallacy in assuming that only investors can be harmed.

And IF usagi scammed/defrauded/misled (for now it's officially not proven or unproven) then the victims surely extend to those who invested in other funds/assets which held usagi securities.

Consider pirate.  Would ANYONE claim that the harm caused by his actions was limited ONLY to those who knowingly invested in him? 

So you believe him to be a scammer for removing liquidity from the markets?

I disagree that this topic is about the "scammer" tag, there were few topics about this in the "meta" folder. It is more usagi is trying to prove that he isn't the worst scammer out there.

@bcb

It's usagi, not usgai. Not sure why did you spell it this way it few times. No offense man.

I'll detail it in PM when I get time to write it all up.

But in brief the summary would be that he scammed in various ways:

1.  Deliberately misleading investors (current and potential) so that they'd over-value his securities.  Clearly anyone who bought them based on false information suffered loss - as they paid more than what they would have had to pay had the false information not been promulgated (and they may not have invested at all had the false claims not been made - avoiding the inevitable loss associated with investment in usagi).

2.  Using assets from one security to prop up another.  That had the effect of transferring value from one asset to the other - defrauding all investors in the first (and enriching those in the second).

3.  Removing equity backing a guarantee - causing a loss to a specific set of investors (this one's fairly tricky to understand but blatantly obvious once you figure out the math).

4.  Extending an interest-free loan from one asset to another and disguising it as an investment. This actually defrauded a THIRD set of investors (sounds impossible - but true) rather than either of the parties to the loan.

5.  Attempting to defraud investors of assets that rightfully belonged to them (this one's ongoing).

6.  Repeatedly lieing about past events - defrauding anyone who believed those lies and invested as a result.

Note that none of these have anything to do with usagi's trading performance - that's incompetence not scamming and doesn't deserve a tag.

Note also that it is my contention that to be a scammer you do not necessaily have to succeed at scamming.  If you intentionally make misleading statements with an intent to gain financial benefit (defraud) then you are already a scammer.  If anyone then invests that makes you a successful scammer.  So I don't believe there is any need to prove that any specific individual actually suffered loss - just that there is a class of individuals who reasonably could be expected to suffer loss as a result (whether any actually did suffer such loss is irrelevant).

The reason I say this is simple:

Say I offer an investment and make a false statement in the process of selling it (claiming expertise I don't have, claiming I have personal capital I don't have, claiming person X is a good friend of mine - whatever, it doesn't matter).  IF the statement if proven to be false AND it could be reasonably concluded that the statement would increase the likelihood of people investing (by making the offer more attractive) then that should be sufficient on its own to award a scammer tag.  It should NOT be a requirement to prove that some specific individual actually invested because of that statement.  A lie was told to try to get investment - that's enough on its own in my opinion : it shows the person is a scammer, it's not necessary to determine how successful they were at scamming.

That only applies, of course, to false statements that would reasonably impact on people's decision whether to invest or not (and how high to value shares).  Minor details such as gender and name would NOT warrant a scammer tag even if given in the context of soliciting investment.  Repeatedly lieing about gender/name etc should, however, be taken into account as evidence that someone habitually lies and hence any unsupported claims made by them should be given less credibility than would be given to such claims from someone who had a record of usually being truthful (it's character evidence - which gos to determining the credibility of a witness).

EDIT:  removing liquidity from the market was just part of my explanation of how potential victims go far beyond just those who directly invested.  I have no intention of trying to claim losses or even particularly argue that point now that it's accepted I can submit evidence without having invested.

If usagi made false representations about his investments then then I would think he should be a identified as a scammer.

Where are those statements (or due to deletion: What were those statement) And where is the proof these statments were false?

I just find it curious that individuals who actually did lose money are not pursuing this as aggressively as you.

update

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.0

I just about choked when I read what you posted. I'm very upset at you because you are misrepresenting what I said. For example, you wrote "admitting to deleting material information." even though I told you I had republished the information on this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133168.0

You say "he says he "can't remember" specific facts." The facts in question are limited entirely to the mistake I made in discussion about how to value the formula. It was acknowledged by others as a mistake at the time, and quickly corrected. It was said in a discussion thread and not a thread intended to advertise BMF. The actual formula was published by me in the same post !!! and on the spreadsheet and in the shareholder letter. There was no 'can't remember' here. It was a can't remember meaning I didn't look it up while I was writing a PM.

You write "he admits to incorrectly valuing his assets:"/"I mis-spoke about the nature of the formula. I think I said "average" instead of "max" – "
this is the same as the above. It's limited to the nature of the formula, which was published in three other places and I corrected my mistake within hours of making the post in question.

You write "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."

I can't believe you said that. I had spent a long time explaining to you fair value accounting and you turn around and make a statement like this. We were a fund that held securities for the dividends they provided. It would be stupid, frankly, to value them at bid price. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_value -- this was written into our contract. I quote:

"...fair value is the amount at which the asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties, or transferred to an equivalent party, other than in a liquidation sale."

Many of the securities we bought were in IPO and were valued at the ask merely because they had not finished their IPO. it is disingenuous, false, and frankly uneducated to say we should have valued in another manner.

Everyone could see our contract not only on GLBSE and the forum but on our webpage. What's the difference? Simple, if we buy 1000 shares of BMMO for .1, and BMMO trades for 0.09 - 0.1, we value them at .1 to stabilize the value of the fund. We do not immediately value them at 0.09. No company in the world works like that. Are you suggesting we would sell 100 shares of BMF at 0.50 and then be forced to sell the other 9900 at a lower price, merely because we had paid exchange fees or that there is a bid-ask spread on ever security? That is insane. No one could ipo like that, or operate like that.

I don't know why you are misrepresenting what I said like this but I feel compelled to point it out. if you are unable to deal with this situation fairly I would be very surprised given your history here. You cannot state that I was incorrectly valuing the fund when it was written into the contract that I would use the principles of fair value accounting (added value through analysis) and then turn around and say that the use of fair value analysis constitutes misrepresentation on my part. That's exactly what you seem to have done here and I must strongly disagree. You cannot propose a victim here because the contract stated very clearly I would value through analysis. Not that I would add value to the NAV, but that I would value based on analysis. If someone didn't read the contract... that's really not my fault.

Groundhog Day.

Can you state whether or not you support the contention that I should have valued the portfolio at liquidation prices?

The contract stated that I would provide added value through analysis.

The spreadsheet stated that all values were estimates and listed, in plaintext, the exact formula used to value.

In the practice of fair market value, you are not supposed to value securities at liquidation prices.

Therefore it is wrong to claim that is what I should have done. QED.

This thread was supposed to be about the criteria for scammer accusations, not yet another pointless "is usagi a scammer" trainwreck.  Right now it's just "same shit, different day" and to be perfectly honest you might as well close it because any pretence that it's about general principals and not all about usagi can no longer be maintained.

Getting back on topic I will use what BCB said as a case study of why remedy is so important.

BCB has said that I admitted to incorrectly valuing my fund and that "it does not look good for usagi" after I had explained to him what we were using principles like fair value accounting and that it was written into our contract to do so. Okay -- then since he has stated what I did was incorrect, he now needs to propose what I should have done -- i.e. what the correct way to value the fund would have been.

The problem here is that it will invariably turn out to be a form of fair value accounting, which "...takes into account such objective factors as...acquisition/production/distribution costs, replacement costs, or costs of close substitutes". It also takes into account subjective factors such as "risk characteristics, cost of and return on capital, individually perceived utility" (i.e. dividends, perceived value, and so on). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_value]

It is well known that I performed interviews and did real analysis work on mining companies. I interviewed and published interviews with GigaVPS and garr of Cognitive. I have unpublished interviews with Juan of BTC-MINING and friedcat of ASICMINER. It is obvious I did analysis, it was written into the contract I would do analysis. Why is it now an accusation against me that I represented the value of my companies using fair value accounting, taking into account acquisition costs (what we paid, i.e. IPO price) or taking into account subjective factors" or "perceived value"?

I was in a much stronger position to evaluate such things than the average investor due to the work I did on BMF. It is not right that I am now being accused of misrepresenting the value of my funds for that. I am very upset people are saying that about me especially because I advertised what I was doing so widely. Therefore in this case there can be no victim because no one was misled as to the nature of what I was doing. If someone made an assumption and did not read the contract and got stung, it's their own fault. It doesn't mean I am a scammer, it means they should have hired a financial advisor.

Additional information about valuing and fair value accounting:
   The FASB describes Level 3 inputs as “unobservable.” If inputs from levels 1 and 2 are not available, FASB acknowledges that fair value measures of many assets and liabilities are less precise. Within this level, fair value is also estimated using a valuation technique. However, significant assumptions or inputs used in the valuation technique are based upon inputs that are not observable in the market and, therefore, necessitates the use of internal information. This category allows “for situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at the measurement date.” FASB explains that “observable inputs” are gathered from sources other than the reporting company and that they are expected to reflect assumptions made by market participants.In contrast, “unobservable inputs” are not based on independent sources but on “the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use.” The entity may only rely on internal information if the cost and effort to obtain external information is too high. In addition, financial instruments must have an input that is observable over the entire term of the instrument. While internal inputs are used, the objective remains the same: estimate fair value using assumptions a third party would consider in estimating fair value. Also known as mark to management. Despite being “assumptions about assumptions,” Level 3 inputs can provide useful information about fair values (and thus future cash flows) when they are generated legitimately and with best efforts, without any attempt to bias users’ decisions.

Many times, when an issue did not trade for 5 days, the formula would pull zero values from GLBSE, so I had no choice but to step in and enter a value manually. I would consult a file I kept on each company discussing everything from PPS payout % to mHash a share, charts I had created personally, comparisons by volume, etc -- interviews I had done -- electricity costs when known -- and so forth, and I looked at the value of other similar companies.. and then I invented a value. Yes, it was based on far more information than anyone else had but me, but I did invent it. Because I was supposed to.


I'll allow my own case to be used as a case study. You can argue the point if you want or not. But if you approach it as vampire has done, and try to hijack the thread then yes it does ruin it for everyone.

FWIW I actually agree that for assets like yours, valuing at liquidation price is a bad idea - a terrible idea if you do so based on volume not just highest bid due to low liquidity.  Where it was less clear was when you started valuing things a mile above Ask price because you had some belief that they'd be worth a load more in future.  If something trades in the range 0.9 to 1.0 then value should usually be somewhere in the 0.9-1.0 region (if you can buy them at 1.0 - and noone, including you, is snapping them up, then it's hard to see how they can be worth more than that).  An example of where it got really delusional was continuing to value OBSI.HRPT at IPO price (0.01) even when everyone (apart, apparently, from  you) knew he'd scammed and it was trading in a range a LOT lower.  And valuing hardware at the price you paid for it in BTC even when the exchange-rate had doubled and its BTC value was now half that.  If you take on exchange-rate risks, then the outcome of those risks has to be included in valuations - leaving things at what you paid for them (when beyond ANY doubt they're worth a lot less) just because you don't want to report a loss is NOT good practice.

Not actually sure it's scamming though - I just put it down to a combination of incompetence and a belief you were always right that meant even when someone pointed out a glaring mistake you just assumed you were right without even spending 10 seconds checking.

Anyway, got to do weekly report for my own fund - after that I'll see if I have time to type up details of my first allegation (there's only a handful in total that I'll bother with) and send it to BCB.

Then in principle you do not agree with the evidence used to inform the contention I was misleading investors and misrepresenting the NAV. Thank you.


I believe you are referring to COGNITIVE and ABM. ABM was selling and trading, albeit illiquidly, at ~0.45 IIRC. Sometimes it would dip down to ~0.15. After talking with PsychoticBoy and analyzing the company and the price history, I believed it was worth at least 0.35. So I marked it.

I was also right about COGNITIVE. back when it was ~0.40? or so? I predicted it would go to 0.60 or 0.65. I was right.

Yes I did make some mistakes as initially I was doing everything by hand. But I corrected every mistake which was pointed out to me.


You did not know. And there are things I know which you are not aware of. For example, I saw Obsi buy back thousands of OBSI.HRPT shares on the market to raise the price. That's when I bought in. I had discussions with Obsi about this. maybe I was his mark -- I don't know. I acted on the information I had at the time. Just because you were essentially a non-participant does not mean I wasn't. I had reasonable grounds to believe it was not a scam.


I didn't do that. All of the equipment purchases were in mid-late september at around $11-$12/BTC.


I agree.


I'm not always right. But in this case I have grounds to do what I did. I'm sorry if you don't understand all the inputs that went into my decision making, and I'm sorry if I made mistakes. But I did not defraud, scam, or lie. That is very important in judging whether or not I am a scammer -- I did not create a victim and there are no damages. If there are victims and damages you need to clearly state them. Example:

I, as an investor in BMF, was a victim of usagi's misrepresentation BECAUSE I bought into his company BECAUSE he told me that the stock was worth 1 bitcoin when the truth is, that as soon as he had bought any share whatsoever it should be valued at the bid price. Therefore usagi scammed me out of the bid-ask spread on his investments.

This is just an example -- but it's important to contain the information in the style above: 1. who is the victim, 2. what are the damages, 3. what did usagi do wrong which created the victim and the damages, which proposes the remedy (repayment, in this case).

In the above hypothetical case I could also make a proper response; You are not a victim BECAUSE the contract clearly stated I would provide value through analysis, and I did so by using fair value accounting which '...takes into account objective factors such as acquisition cost'. ... and such information was also provided in weekly shareholder letters and on our website.

See? the three guidelines in the OP are a very simple way to fairly deal with any scammer accusation case.

You fell for the oldest trick in the book.

One of the main moves in market mainpulation is to buy from yourself - making it look like demand/trade volume.

All he likely did there was buy back shares from a second account of his.  He got hundreds (or whatever) of BTC from you in return for just paying a trade fee on moving shares from a puppet account back to the issuing account.  Take a look at the really obvious ponzis pn BTC exchanges - watch how they seem to sell a chunk of shares early then post about sales being fast and they're nearly sold out (followed by them suddenly finding capacity to sell more).  Here's a clue - those sales aren't real: they're selling to themselves to make it look like there's demand.  Market-manipulators/scammers do it all the time - establishing volume at a price-point to get naive inestors to believe that an artifical range is 'real'.  Simiarly when he stopped selling shares to let the price recover - it's a safe bet that he was actually still selling, just selling pre-transferred shares from a 2nd account so shares outstanding didn't increase.

And ponzis routinely place Asks below IPO price - they don't actually NEED a fixed amount per share so can sell at any price they want.  Making it look like there's some shares for sale cheap is great for them if it'll get them a few extra sales to bargain-hunters.  So an order book loaded with his orders is fine.  Go look at MOB on LTC-GLOBAL (an obvious scam or disaster that somehow got 5 votes despite no thread, no info on issuer, lots of missing info in contract no evidence of any past activity lending and a claimed board with no identities).  IPO price is 1.0.  See the 400 for sale at 0.95?  Guess who that is (hint: there's less than 400 shares outstanding so you don't even have to guess).  If those were outstanding (rather than unissued - i.e. he had the sense to transfer them to a 2nd account and sell from that) and he bought them back would that convince you he was genuine?

Sorry that you saw something that didn't prove ANYTHING about whether obsi was a scammer or not (if legitimate he was buying back, if a scammer he was probably buying from himself or doing it as a loss-leader - so the action isn't evidence in either direction) and fell for it.

If you wanted to establish he wasn't scamming then the responsible thing to do would be to insist he prove the funds raised are being used in a business generating the profits he claimed.  Anyhting less than that (when you have suspicions) and you aren't trying to find out whether it's a scam or not - you're just trying to find an excuse to ignore the suspicion it's a scam through greed for the promised return.  Which is why all these scams work - people's greed over-rides their common-sense and they look for reasons to invest when, sensibly, they should be looking for reasons NOT to invest and only investing if there aren't any.

There's a really simple rule to follow which will let you avoid nearly all ponzis/blatangt scams and won't make you miss many (if any) real opportunities.  If they won't reveal what they do OR won't prove that they do what they claim to do then don't invest.  It really IS that simple.  Go look for examples of securities where what was being done wasn't revealed (or it WAS revealed but no rpoof given to show it was happening) and investors got their capital back - don't expect to find many (other than loss-leading small loans to set up a bigger one to run with).

First off, I'll formulate my accusations however I choose - it's not for you to somehow disallow accusations against you that don't fit some format you desire. 

I will however:

1.  Describe what you said and did, either with evidence of the post (if I have it recorded or it hasn't been deleted) or with a pretty clear explanation of where it was prior to deletion so it can be recovered.
2.  Explain why it (the action or statement) was wrong - unless it's so obviously wrong that there's no need.
3.  If something you said was untrue then explain why you MUST have known it was untrue (getting something wrong accidentally  is absolutely NOT scamming).
4.  Explain some how group of people lost out (or could have lost out) as a result of what you did

I will NOT propose a remedy.  A remedy is irrelevant to whether or not a scam occurred - which is all I'm attempting to demonstrate.  Remedy should be determined AFTER there's been a decision that there was a wrong that needs to be righted.  Similarly I won't attempt to calculate the value of damages - that only determines the SCALE of a scam, not whether or not there is/was one.

Back to doing my report - nearly had it done then found I'd typoed the exchange-rate on which it was all based when doing final double-checks before publishing.

That might be because...


That's right - when it turns out that one of usagi's biggest critics had actually lost money as a result of the actions by usagi he was complaining about, usagi accused him and everyone else who criticised of a "stock price manipulation scheme" and uses this as a further argument for why they shouldn't have been allowed to accuse him of being a scammer. Furthermore, usagi has said that he's not going to repay EskimoBob in full or even give him his own shares in full because EskimoBob accused him of scamming:


This is a good reason why people who haven't been scammed should be able to make scammer accusations. We saw a similar phenomena with Pirate's scam where he managed to intimidate most of his victims into shutting up by threatening not to repay them if they didn't.

STOP LYING.

It has not been shown that EskimoBob lost money as a NYAN.A holder. You have NO RIGHT to say that and NO EVIDENCE. This is a prime example of how false claims and emotion can ruin someone. Makomk you are being very foolish. Almost 1000 bitcoins were used to buy back NYAN.A before the GLBSE close and support a price of 1 bitcoin per share. I am now in a claims process where all NYAN.A holders will receive 1 bitcoin per share.

How dare you sit there and state that EskimoBob lost money. it's because of stupid, irresponsible comments like yours just now that I am in this situation.


No I did not say he should not be allowed to accuse me.


No I did not. You are lying. I said I would follow a community approved process. That process has now been completed by burnside on BTCT.CO and EskimoBob has his 40 shares.


See? You quoted me but you do not have the intelligence or the respect to read what I said.

The damage you, and people like you have caused me is nearly irreparable. You owe me an apology.


I'll be square with you: You need to fuck off. You don't have the intelligence or reading comprehension to understand what happened. You are operating like a blindfolded child trying to strike a pinata hoping some candy will fall out. You don't even read what you quote and don't seem to realize the stuff you quote undermines what you say.

Wow. That is right out of pirates play book. You learned at the feat of the master.

It is not looking good for usgai.

Usgai. Please site the name and address of the "Internet defamation lawyer" you consulted.

Thank you.

Huh? What?


?


You're not welcome. Why would I provide you his name? I paid a consultation fee and didn't retain him. ??? It has nothing to do with anything I'm being accused of. He certainly won't talk with you on the phone about my case unless I authorize him to, and he will likely charge you money for the telephone consultation. This is a bit of a dead end and doesn't make sense.

You're being hostile to me. You've misrepresented what I told you in PM. You are intentionally or otherwise failing to understand that the BMF contract stipulated that I would provide added value via analysis. And that vampire's contention is without merit because we had a mandate to buy and hold as a long term investment fund. I have discussed the principles of fair value accounting with you in three places now; twice in PM and once in a reply in this thread. If you cannot admit that you have grossly misrepresented what I said, then I will post our conversation in PM. I can't believe you are unable to comprehend what I said about our contract and how we valued stocks.

We wrote it into the contract friend. We did what we said we were going to do. And no one lost any money just because we followed fair value accounting principles. Unfortunately it seems you're a little short on facts.. and what facts you have you are twisting... You make me sad, I had thought you would treat this fairly.

The name of the lawyers is a fact.

I'm. Looking for facts and you can not provide any.

You use lots of words to say the same things over and over again.

Please post a copy of the invoice from the lawyer.

Please also post a copy of your contract.

Thank you.

So under your proposed ruleset Pirate doesn't get a scammer tag until he's defaulted, even though he was offering impossible returns and clearly running a Ponzi from day one.  How is this a more equitable system?  This only benefits the people looking to scam.

I could claim I built a rocket in my back yard and offer to sell flights to the moon in it.  Obviously noone would fall for it - so by usagi's definition I wouldn't be a scammer as there was no victim and no damages.

By everyone else's definition I'd be a scammer - just a very bad one who was never going to make a profit from his unsuccessful scams.  A scam is a fraudulent business scheme - there's no requirement for it to actually succeed in defrauding anyone for it to be a scam.

By that arguement then Buttery Fly Labs is a scammer.
And BTCJam is a scam.

I think there does need to be a victim. It is our job to regulate another person belief? 

I may not believe you have a rocket ship in you back yard but I would believe Richard Branson. And if Richard Branson rocket ship fails to make it to the moon does that make him a scammer?

The mods have said the same thing countless times. In trhe EskimoBob/YARR thread, badbear ruled that there must be financial loss, and that if I only lost my time and not money as a result of an attempted scam the accused would not get a tag.

If a person is greedy and or dumb enough to invest in a company paying unrealistic returns who are we to stop them. The fact that this form allows that cesspool of a lending forum to exist with only a disclaimer it is pretty clear that it is up to the buyer to beware.

I think victim who has lost money is required for a scammer tag

So while it is clear that a Lot of guys don't like usgai.

He is obviously not a very good investment manager

He also a lier and probably Delusional  he may still not be a scammer.

I warned you that if you continued to misrepresent me I would post the discussion we had. I'm going to write it up now.

BCB is not dealing with this case in a fair and equitable manner.

I sent BCB the following information in PM:
Hi. The charge of me misrepresenting the value of my assets seems central to this discussion. I would like to point out some things.

One, the spreadsheets were published on tsukino.ca/bmf, which was a wordpress site which I have deleted. So it is unrecoverable. however, you can know what was published there because I re-published the holdings of BMF here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133168.0

In response to this, BCB posted:
"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.

In the above, BCB has failed to account for what I said, that I republished the holdings of BMF. When he says that I "admit" to deleting "material information" he is blowing this out of proportion. The information was not material at the time it was deleted. Furthermore, thanks to puppet an eskimobob and not least myself there are copies of our holdings online. Taking what I said as "admitting" to deleting "material information" is a misrepresentation of what I said.



Point two was, "I had written into the contract that BMF would provide added value to investors via analysis. This was the value that I had put in to the spreadsheet initially. At a certain point in time (august?) EskimoBob, Puppet, Deprived, et. al began complaining that this was a form of falsifying NAV. So we had a long discussion. During this discussion I asked them if pulling data off GLBSE was the correct thing to do. They said yes in general (people thought it was a better idea) so I downloaded some kind of script to pull data off GLBSE and used a formula which looked at 24hr avg, 5 day avg, etc. and picked either the max or the average -- can't remember, the point being that it was data based directly off GLBSE. On the spreadsheet I announced this change and posted the exact formula. I also posted this formula in a letter to shareholders posted on the securities forum. However, in a separate discussion (not intended as advertising) I mis-spoke about the nature of the formula. I think I said "average" instead of "max" -- and this was taken as an attempt to defraud. Nothing could have been farther from the truth."

In response, BCB posted this:
he admits to incorrectly valuing his assets:
"I mis-spoke about the nature of the formula. I think I said "average" instead of "max" – "
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.:

This is a complete 180 degree turn around from what I said. I did not, absolutely not admit that I incorrectly valued my assets! I am extremely upset that BCB would lie about what I said in this manner.

Point three was,
"After I had gone through this painful process the same people (eskimobob, deprived, puppet) and others continued to complain. So in desperation I ran a shareholder motion about the valuation. I also provided three independant ways to calculate the value; the share count, from the original spreadsheet, the analysis value I had written into the contract which was my duty to provide, and the new column valuing the holdings by using the GLBSE data. I went out of my way to provide as much information as I could. What was EskimoBob and puppet's response?

They produced a spreadsheet using the minimum of last traded price, 5 day avg, and bid -- designed to make my holdings look like crap. The value ended up around half of what I had posted, and they used this to say I was lying. The claim was that if someone wanted to liquidate their investments, that would be the price they could get. This is true but also extremely misleading -- as a fund we were more interested in future value and collecting dividends. It is very unfair to say I was misleading investors because I painted a picture of future value and dividend value, instead of telling them what they would get if they sold everything in a market order.

The problem with valuing that way is we always instantly lose money. if I buy at the ask and then value at the bid, I have to report a -5% or -10% on every trade and that is not logical. No fund operates that way. Not FDBF, SS, M.ETF, MU, GBF or anything. If we pay 100 BTC for BTC-MINING for example, we would keep the stock at 100BTC until something major or material turns up about the company or until the stock price crashed. I was never concerned with day to day fluctuations of 2% here, 5% there. It was my job to provide added value through analysis. That's my feeling. I hope it helps."

In response to the comments BCb made I issued him the following clarification in PM:

In response, BCB posts this:

I told him in PM that I did not appreciate the hostile way he was treating me. He responded by saying he never asked me to work with him and that I could not bully him into doing what I wanted (???) I told him, I would not work with someone who was being hostile to me in this manner. Then he posted this:


I contend that BCB is misrepresenting what I told him and is treating me in a hostile manner. I believe he is using his position of repsect in the community, gained from dealing properly with other scammers, to pile on yet more baseless claims against me. For all the talk of evidence and fairness, BCB has responded to me with innuendo and hostility, compared me to pirate, and ignored my statements of fact about how we ran BMF.

Right - but if it was PROVED I didn't have a rocket ship in my back yard?  Would I still not be a scammer?

How about if I created a nick very similar to theymos', claimed to be a owner of this forum and offered to escrow for people?  I'd get banned for it - but are you saying I wouldn't be a scammer unless someone actually fell for it?

This gos to the point I made in my first repsonse in this thread:  that behaviour which gets a scammer tag is NOT the same as being a scammer.  If the tag is only given when actual harm is caused then you could in some cases conclude that someone IS a scammer but that they won't get a scammer tag as they didn't succeed in scamming anyone.

It's irrelevant in this case anyway - as I'll get around to examples where victims DID suffer loss from usagi anyway (though at this point it may still be repairable).  Think I'm nearly done on first one (a couple more old posts to dig out) then will no doubt hit a PM size limit and have to redo it in chunks.

Usgai
I don't know you. I dont claim to represent you. I don't have a bias either way.  I attempt to glean what scant facts are in you PM to me.

I ask for Additional facts And you respond with paragraphs of opinion.

It is based on this dialogue with you and others that I form my opinion of which I'm entitled to express untainted by you spin. I will state again publically you can not bully nor intimidate me.

If you fail to supply requested facts I will continue to shape my opinion based on factual info available to me.
You are free to post any and all private conversations we have.

But I will only post relevant comments in the other thread.

Thank you.

Deprived

That is what we are trying to do here: find proof.

I look forward to reading your message.

Is that why you called me a delusional liar?




So you are claiming to have facts which state I am a liar and that I am delusional? If so why did you then post this, which insinuates you do not have evidence?



So far all I have seen is you saying that "it doesn't look good for usagi", comparing me to pirate, and saying I am delusional and a liar. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then it's not an attempt to "bully" you -- I just choose not to deal with you because you are obviously just trolling here.

Please, prove me wrong. I'd appreciate it.

Usgai your continued Obfuscation will not work here. Nor will I repeat myself to aid in your Obfuscation.

First part sent.  Unfortunately formatting isn't too clear - as some quoted posts are from a locked thread where I can't 'quote' then copy/paste to get the codes.

Just because everyone says something doesn't make it right.  If theymos and the other mods jumped off a bridge would you do it too?  I thought the point of this thread was to establish new rules for the scammer tag as the old ones were ill-defined/not working out.  As the OP what do you have in mind for the purpose of this thread?

Usagi: We used fair value accounting as stated in our contract. Here's the proof (interviews, conversations where valuation was discussed)
BCB: Usagi has admitted he incorrectly valued the holdings, he should have used liquidation value.
Usagi: No, that's not what I said, are you misrepresenting me? I said, we had a mandate to buy and hold; fair value accounting specifically states that liquidation value will not be used.
BCB: Usagi is just like pirate. he can't bully me. He is a terrible fund manager. he is delusional and a liar.
Usagi: I refuse to deal with someone who treats me unfairly and in a hostile manner.

BCB:

Usagi

In your opinion you used "fair market value".  That is what "third parties" are disputing.

Why is your "proof" in a parenthetical undocumented clause?

Because you have no facts to back up you claims. And if you can't support your claims with facts there are not true. You even admit to destroying/deleting material evidence.

I repeat. This is not looking good for you.

Thank you for restating my current summation.

Because these scam accusation threads have been going on for months. Months. Maybe you just got here but I am sick and tired of posting the same stuff over and over.

You said it yourself:


No, it's because you're not worth my time. I said "(interviews, conversations where valuation was discussed)"

1. Interviews. If you're saying I didn't conduct the interviews you're an idiot. If you are stating I have no proof that I conducted the interviews, you're also an idiot. Just ask friedcat, juan, garr or GivaVPS if I conducted interviews. I could also post them here, but for the fact you have hijacked a thread to troll your garbage.

2. Conversations where valuation was discussed.
You have been provided links to the specific conversation in which valuation was discussed. All information has already been discussed -- to death -- for months. here are a few threads you may be interested in:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85444.msg1169998#msg1169998
In this thread, the problem of CPA's finances was discussed. On the same page, this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85444.msg1172003#msg1172003) by puffn is the first statement that CPA may be bankrupt. it was NOT ME who was making these claims. I vigorously tried to stop people from saying that. The fact I have to put up with deprived and others now claiming it was me who said that and who was trying to crash the value of my company is proof that the claims against me are without merit. it wasn't me who was trying to crash the companies, it was others. I was doing my best. Yet you call me delusional?

Do you know how long this has been going on? Everything we are talking about has been covered here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113494.msg1228275#msg1228275

And, here is the original thread vampire quoted you again since you appear to be blind:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112734.msg1225674#msg1225674

In the same thread, even ian bakewell admits my valuation at ask price is correct:
** https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112734.msg1227182#msg1227182

You see you need to understand that some people like Ian, tried to defraud me and backed out of a contract in a hostile manner. This is a fact, please see the evidence at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133362.0

Since this time, Ian in particular changed from the nice person he was in the thread marked ** above into a major troll. As it turns out he is not a trustworthy person and is involved in three separate scam accusations now; one, ripping off CPA by breaking a contract, two, not processing BMF's claim of 432 shares, and C) using unissued or company shares to vote. These are facts and they are relevant to Ian in particular's attitude to me. Ian himself is relevant because he was one of the people in addition to puffn who was claiming we were bankrupt/insolvent.

These are relevant facts. They are not opinion.


You are lying, I did not admit to destroying material evidence. I told you three times I had reposted it and given you a link to the BMF holdings. Here for instance https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133168.0
that's not an opinion the holdings are listed there.


I repeat; you are as biased as puppet and deprived. You either can't, or won't, see what is going on here.

NOTE: This was published on the forums, the company webpage, and not least of all GLBSE. All investors saw it and had the opportunity to read it before investing.
-----

NYANCAT FINANCIAL

I. Investment Hypothesis:
Nyancat Financial is a financial services company listing the GLBSE. We allow investors to make investment choices based on risk as well as interest rate, allowing you to take on as much (or as little) risk as you want.
Investment income from NYAN.A, NYAN.B, and NYAN.C is pooled. NYAN.A is paid 0.01 bitcoins per share. NYAN.B is paid 0.02 bitcoins per share, and the rest of the money is paid to NYAN.C.

The sector and risk profile is:
1. NYAN: equal (proportional) exposure to A, B and C funds
2. NYAN.A: Mining, insured investments, and other extremely low risk securities.
3. NYAN.B: Proven bitcoin-only businesses which are not mining, and not pirate.
4. NYAN.C: Pirate, OBSI.HRPT, and other unproven, high risk strategies.

II. Operations of NYAN
Nyancat Financial is a bitcoin-only financial services company. We perform various financial services for our customers including bitcoin deposit accounts, bitcoin brokerage services, bitcoin securities, bitcoin trusts, and bitcoin loans. Our operations are collected into, and segregated by, the wholly owned bitcoin only bonds NYAN.A, NYAN.B and NYAN.C. Our operations in NYAN are simple and transparent. We are a bitcoin only company; we do not use leverage and we retain 100% backing of all customer deposits. By assigning and guaranteeing risk to the various securities in addition to interest rate, we allow investors to make decisions based on risk versus reward in a completely open and transparrent manner separate from the underlying securities backing the issues. If you do not see in NYAN.A, NYAN.B or NYAN.C a risk/reward profile that fits your investment strategy please contact us. We will custom-create an investment portfolio that matches your needs. We are capable of managing offline portfolios which do not expose themselves to company risk of specific institutions such as GLBSE, MtGOX, BTC-E, MPOE, Bitcoinia, and so forth.

III. Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN (Parent Company)
1. Nyancat Financial ("NYAN") holds only NYAN.A, NYAN.B and NYAN.C, and does not hold any other stock or bond.
2. NYAN will act to balance it's ownership of NYAN.A, NYAN.B and NYAN.C by buying and selling shares.
3. NYAN will open custom accounts for customers based on a customer's desired risk and reward profile.
   o Standard requirements are what interest rate the customer wants, how frequent payouts will be, and how much risk they want to take on.
4. Nyancat Financial's operations and balance sheets will be made fully transparent to the public and backed up by signed statements from our backers where appropriate.
5. Company Risk will be mitigated by installing a dead man's switch: If the operator becomes incapable of paying out dividends, someone else will step in to do it.
6. Company Risk will be mitigated by installing a default switch: if Nyancat Financial defaults on this contract, the institutions which we hold money with will be authorized to pay out the value of our holdings to shareholders on our behalf.
7. Nyancat financial pays weekly dividends, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.A (Low-Risk/Insured Fund)

• The Low-Risk/Insured Fund ("NYAN.A") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, high quality mining securities, insured investment vehicles, and other extremely low risk securities.
• Investments are chosen entirely based on their risk profile; we seek insured investments and very low risk investments only.
• NYAN.A will pay 0.01 per week in dividends.
• The value of NYAN.A shares is guaranteed by CPA and NYAN against capital loss via the reasonably timely maintenance of a bidwall at 0.99 bitcoins per fund unit.
• The dividend interest rate is guaranteed by CPA. If NYAN is unable to pay a dividend of 0.01 on NYAN.A, CPA will pay it.
• Holders of NYAN.A are guaranteed first claim to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN.
• Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.B (Balanced Risk Fund)

• The Balanced Risk Fund ("NYAN.B") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, bitcoin businesses which are not mining operations and not exposed to "pirate".
• Investments are chosen entirely based on sector; we seek to invest in the bitcoin community at large; but again, no mining, and no pirate.
• NYAN.B will pay as dividend from the pool of A, B and C the lesser of 0.02 bitcoins per fund unit and the amount remaining after NYAN.A pays dividends.
• Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN.
• Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.C (High Risk Fund)

• The High-Risk Fund ("NYAN.C") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, high-yield securities.
• Investments are chosen entirely based on their interest rate without regard to the risk profile.
• NYAN.C will be paid whatever isn't paid to NYAN.A and NYAN.B.
• Holders of NYAN.C are guaranteed no rights or claim to any assets of NYAN, NYAN.A, or NYAN.B.
• Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

[/list][/list][/list]

Nyancat Financial Statement of Operations for 2012 Week #31 (July 29th to August 4th)

Pooled from A:    0.0000
Pooled from B:    6.0000
Pooled from C:    0.2000

Paid to A: 5.75 (0.01/unit) 1%
Paid to B: 0.45 (0.00081227/unit) 0.0812%
Paid to C: 0.00 (0.00/unit) 0%

Paid NYAN: 5.00 (0.00324464/share) 0.3%


Management Guidance:
This week's dividends were out of only one day of operations. As a result, while there was certainly enough money to pay A one way or the other, there wasn't much left over to pay B or C. Dividends to NYAN holders were therefore also adversely affected.

I had debated whether or not to pay dividends since the first week was so short. I decided to pay to exercise the system I had set up to calculate the dividends. Things went relatively well and I have developed a general procedure to help guide the system a little more. Here's how we will be doing it:

a. On Friday or Saturday, all unit and share sales will be canceled.
b. On Sunday, dividends will be calculated and paid according to the contracts (automated by the spreadsheets on the Nyancat Financial holdings & NAV page).
c. A financial statement such as this one will be published.
d. Asks will be placed for sale of units no later than monday.


This means that you won't be able to buy shares of the funds or parent company 1 or 2 days before the dividend. This helps protect shareholders and helps protect their income from holding shares and units in Nyancat Financial. If you want me to restrict share sales further, speak up. Is it fair that people can buy on a friday and receive full dividends? Well in a way, the market should take care of this by raising the price slowly as dividend day approaches. Please share your thoughts.

Guidance for Week #32 (August 5th to August 11th)
(Note: Guidance contains forward looking statements and does not represent a guarantee.)

We expect gross dividends to be about 10x higher than Week #31. Expected Dividends for A, B and C are 1%, 2% and 9%.

Finally I would like to add that Nyancat Financial will incurr a one-time expense for the development of a logo and banner add. This cost should be no more than 15 to 20 bitcoins. This fee will be paid by Nyancat Financial; the unitholders in A, B and C will not be affected. I may try to spread this out over 2 weeks to minimize the impact to shareholders. In any case I will structure it in such a way as your dividends will tend to increase over time.

NYANCAT FINANCIAL: YOUR FRIEND FOR LIFE

Nyancat Financial Weekly Letter to Shareholders
August 12th, 2012

Greetings, shareholders!

What a week!

NYAN   paid 2.70%
NYAN.A paid 1.00%
NYAN.B paid 2.00%
NYAN.C paid 8.62%

All NAVs have been reset to 1. If you are interested in buying, a maximum ask of 1,000 shares has been placed at 1 bitcoin for each security for this week.

The Week in Review:
NYAN got off to a spectacular start, with shares of NYAN.C. selling out by wednesday and aftermarket action as high as 50x1.50, although most aftermarket shares went for around 1.07. The market felt NYAN.C would not be able to beat the Pirate standard but expectations were blown out of the water by an 8.62% dividend for those that bought in at 1 bitcoin on Sunday and Monday.

This week we had an unfortunate event, the triple whammy of BMF crashing from 1.0/share to 0.72, and both ZIP.A and REBATE being halted pending an investigation into the neglegent management of Johnathan Ryan Owens. We will provide guidance and updates on these issues to NYAN shareholders as we receive more detailed information.

The good news is we have been trading like little devils and have purchased 500 shares of ASICMINER at a 10% discount. We have passed this value directly to our shareholders in the form of dividends this week. We have also obtained 4,200 shares of DMC for only 50 bitcoins in a special one-time "insider" trade with Diablo-D3. We will be holding on to these shares for the long term as we believe DMC shares are severely undervalued. This could prove to be a life-changing trade for shareholders of NYAN.B and NYAN. There is still time to get in, so don't panic if you haven't bought shares yet. The askwall will be maintained at 1.0 BTC until monday afternoon.

Management Expectations and Guidance:
Although our bad luck with BMF, ZIP.A and REBATE was partially balanced with our good luck getting ASICMINER and such a sweet deal on DMC, nevertheless we experienced special losses from these events. Assuming that there are no such defaults again next week we feel confident standing by dividend guidance of approximately 2.5% for NYAN, 1% for NYAN.A, 2% for NYAN.B and 9.5% for NYAN.C.

Thank you for your support,

Serena

NYANCAT FINANCIAL: YOUR FRIEND FOR LIFE

Nyancat Financial Weekly Letter to Shareholders
Sunday August 19th, 2012

also available at: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/2012-33-nyan-statement/

Hello again everyone, let's start with the good news.

NYAN   paid 1.12%
NYAN.A paid 1.00%
NYAN.B paid 2.00%

And now for the bad news, NYAN.C will not pay a dividend and has dropped in value from
1 BTC per share to 0.91. This is a result of this week's double whammy of Pirate closing
down Bitcoin Savings & Trust, and the Johnathan Ryan Owens/Alberto Armani fiasco. In many
ways "fiasco" is a good word here, both because of how it rhymes with San Fransisco, and
because it is derived from an Italian word which English people have borrowed to mean abject
failure. If I may,

> But, touching “fiasco,� D. J. obligingly tells me that there was once at Florence
> a celebrated harlequin by the name of Biancolelli, whose forte was the improvisation
> of comic harangues on any object which he might chance to hold in his hand. One
> evening he appeared on the stage with a flask (“fiasco�) in his hand. But, as ill-luck
> would have it, he failed in extracting any “funniments� out of the bottle. At last,
> exasperated, he thus apostrophised the flask: “It is thy fault that I am so stupid
> to-night. Fuori! Get out of this!� So saying, he threw the flask behind him, and
> shattered it into atoms. Since then, whenever an actor or singer failed to please an
> audience, they used to say that it was like Biancolelli’s “fiasco.�
> > Illustrated London News, 22 September 1883 (credit to Stephen Goranson).

 The Week in Review:
Essentially, what happened is that NYAN.C was going to make 9.5% or 10% this week in spite
of ZIP.A and REBATE, but when Pirate closed his doors three terrible things happened all
at the same time: One, the value of YARR shares held by NYAN.B went from 1.50 to 1, which
is not that big of a deal, NYAN.C would have paid out 7 or 8%. Two, the implied value of
PPT products went from ~1.05 to 1. This was big, but we still could pay 2 or 3%. The real
big problem is people stared panicking and selling PPT products at 0.50 bitcents on the
dollar.

At the time this happened, it was very late for me here in Asia but nevertheless I sprang
into action and started making trades. Nyancat Financial invested HEAVILY into the PPT
products which people were panic selling. I made trades. I made deals. I talked to people.
I bought and I sold. I was able to save a little. Therefore, NYAN.C is not worth 50 cents
on the dollar, it's worth 91 cents on the dollar. And thus we come to the situation on the
ground now:

1. Yes, NYAN.C is worth 0.91 and there will be no dividend this week for NYAN.C.
2. NYAN.C owns 50% of the backing of YARR. This means if Pirate returns all the coins,
NYAN.C will own 50% of the remaining backing of YARR, valued at over 1,200 coins.
3. NYAN.C will reap ALL of the benefit of buying PPT products at reduced rates. We were
able to purchase about 350 shares of various PPTs with an average price of ~0.6 per
share.

In short, If Pirate skips town, NYAN.C will lose at least 0.50 bitcoins per share.
However, if Pirate keeps his word, NYAN.C will skyrocket in value to over 1.50 per share.
 Management Expectations and Guidance:
We believe in Pirate and our advice is, don't panic. We have always advised a balanced
risk portfolio and you see this now; if you had invested in NYAN, or if you had invested
1/3rd into A, B and C now, you would be up several percentage points despite the pirate
crash. We continue to recommend a diverse portfolio consisting of all three funds, or
simply NYAN.

If you have not yet diversified into NYAN.C, now is a great time to get in. We have to be
truthful about how the market is valuing NYAN.C and sell it at 0.90, but if you feel that
Pirate will return the coins, NYAN.C is a great play on "trust pirate". On the other hand,
if you have been NYAN.C heavy we reccomend now buying .A and .B and holding NYAN.C.

If you MUST sell your PPT products or your NYAN.C holding, please sell them for what they
are worth. Don't get crushed by a temporary market panics and lose your money. If you
previously have panic sold your PPTs, just buy NYAN.C. You will in theory recoup any
losses should pirate indeed pay back the coins.

Thank you for your support, I will remain here to answer any questions you may have!

Serena

NYANCAT FINANCIAL: YOUR FRIEND FOR LIFE

Nyancat Financial Weekly Letter to Shareholders
Sunday August 26th, 2012

also available at: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/nyan/nyancat-statements/2012-34-nyan-statement/

Slow week. Special decision about NYAN.C. Let's get down to work.

NYAN   paid 1.00%
NYAN.A paid 1.00%
NYAN.B paid 2.00%
NYAN.C paid 2.18% (0.01961814 per share on a NAV of 0.90).

FUND PERFORMANCE:
NYAN.A
NYAN.A had a stable cash flow all week. We got paid 0.37 for each GIPPT so far, with
hopefully more to come, but in any case we received enough money from operations
that we didn't need to rely on NYAN.B for this week's income. Management advice is to
hold NYAN.A and buy under 1. It appears to be maturing as a rock-solid investment fund
and the support it gets from NYAN.B and NYAN.C is considerable. Given that the pirate crash
won't even take NYAN.C to zero, there doesn't seem to be a lot of risk inherent in A.

NYAN.B
B class shares had an amazing week. NYAN.B single-handedly made enough money to pay dividends
for NYAN.A and NYAN.B, with overflow into C -- not counting the money overflow from NYAN.A.
All in all we're pleased with the performance of NYAN.B. We chalk this up to making a few
good trades here and there. Due to the pirate panic we were able to snap up some shares on
the cheap, and turn them over for a rather large profit (over 100% profit in one case).
Although it was for a small number of shares so it was diluted by the rather average returns
(2%-2.5%) of the rest of the fund. Management advises that NYAN.B is a hold and that NYAN.B
is currently overbought. We recommend diversifying into NYAN.A at this time.

NYAN.C
We have little choice but to mark the assets in NYAN.C to market. Keep in mind that while
NYAN.A and NYAN.B participated in buying PPT's at reduced prices, any losses affect NYAN.C
first. Right now we've decided to mark the PPT's in NYAN.C to market at 0.5 bitcoins per
share. This has dropped the NAV of NYAN.C to 0.70. However, we have decided to pay dividends
of 2.18% even though the value of NYAN.C has gone down. There are two main reasons for this
decision. One is the very important idea that pirate has not defaulted yet. We feel this is
a market panic and that the value of NYAN.C will recover. It therefore does not make sense
to us to kill the value of NYAN.C completely and not pay dividends. Investors in NYAN.C are
advised to hold. We will continue to pay dividends on NYAN.C to mitigate your losses and
pray that pirate pays back the money. The deal here is that Pirate owes about $4-5 million
dollars worth of bitcoins, and it is completely reasonable that he take 2 to 3 weeks to
organize and begin paying back investors. One might think he has interest money from
continuing operations but this is not necessarily the case. Closing out his contracts may
have prevented him from profiting from continuing operations because there are no more
continuing operations. Once again we advise against market panic and advice investors to
HOLD NYAN.C. In fact if you believe Pirate will pay back, like we do, this is a nice time
to start accumulating NYAN.C.

NYAN
NYAN had a rough week because we lost NAV due to exposure to NYAN.C. But we are just
going to mark this stuff to market and get the pain over with. NYAN did pay a small
dividend this week and is worth about 1 now. Next week dividends should be about 1%
again, and we should be able to maintain a value close to 1 btc per share.


The Latest from Pirate:
(credit to Maged and others for posting these)
Aug. 19,  1:10am: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101599.msg1111681#msg1111681
Aug. 19,  2:20am: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101339.msg1111794#msg1111794
Aug. 20,  5:50pm: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101339.msg1116828#msg1116828
Aug. 21,  2:30am: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101339.msg1121336#msg1121336
Aug. 21, 10:00pm: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101339.msg1121336#msg1121336
Aug. 22,  6:10am: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101339.msg1122532#msg1122532 (The Bitlane Blowup)
Aug. 22,  6:00pm: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101339.msg1124039#msg1124039


Ok guys, thank you for your support, I will remain here to answer any questions you may have!

Serena

==========================================

Question from BinaryMage:
Q: Last week you announced a NAV of 0.90. Will you sell NYAN.C shares at 0.90?

A: Hello BinaryMage. Last week we didn't do that and kept the ask at 1, but this week we will be selling 480 shares of NYAN.C at the nav price of 0.70. We have decided to cap outstanding shares of NYAN.C at 3,000 until the other funds reach at least 3,000 (and probably 5,000) each. This is to help NYAN.C make more money and increase it's appeal to investors. A large part of the dividends on NYAN.C are overflow from A and B, especially due to the pirate crash. In this way, we can quickly repair the value of NYAN.C. It may be a rough couple of weeks until the pirate situation resolves itself, but we feel confident that once the pain is out of the system the overflow from A and B coupled together with NYAN.C's other investments will quickly repair the value of the fund.

For example let's say pirate crashes and the NAV of .C goes to 0.25. 1% overflow from .B and 1% overflow from .A is 0.02 bitcoins per share into .C. if .C itself makes 1% then that's 1% + (1%/0.25) + (1%/0.25) or 9% weekly interest rate for NYAN.C. So you see, rushing into NYAN.C is probably a bad idea NAV wise, but considering the dividend .C is likely to pay more than .A per share even when it's NAV is much lower. In a way, we feel you should value NYAN funds by the dividend they pay and not by their NAV. So then, if .A and .B both have a NAV of 1, and B pays 2x as much, is B worth 2x as much? Valuing these things can be tricky but I suggest that you just hold .C for now, regardless of the NAV, it should pay 0.01 per share or more going forward and we feel that's not too bad.

NYANCAT FINANCIAL: YOUR FRIEND FOR LIFE

Nyancat Financial Weekly Letter to Shareholders
Sunday September 2nd, 2012

also available at: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/nyan/nyancat-statements/2012-35-nyan-statement/

Good news and bad news. First the good news.

NYAN   paid 1.20%
NYAN.A paid 1.00%
NYAN.B paid 2.00%
NYAN.C paid 4.29% (0.03 per share on a NAV of 0.70).

FUND PERFORMANCE:
NYAN.A
NYAN.A had an okay week. NYAN.A is the easiest fund in the world to maintain. Step one, look
at the top three or four funds. Step two, buy a little more. Step three, if there's any hot
deals on a miner, buy it. We're currently a little overweight in BMF, but since I manage BMF
as well I can keep a very close eye on your money. I do invest specially for NYAN.A as well,
and you can see I have picked up a few choice deals especially for you guys such as JTME and
ZETA-MINING, both of which seem to be having strong results lately. The strategy is paying
off and there is a strong overflow of funds being paid into B and C. The highlights of the
week for A are a slight restructuring that traded some PPT assets for LTC-MINING. In the
future it's our goal to increase holdings of MINING, as well as certain choice investments
in BTC-MINING, FPGAMINING, and other such companies. Our long term strategy is to hold what
mining bonds we have, while using the profits to shift into non-deterministic mining "companies".
We feel that the "share the risk, share the reward" model offers much better future value than
bonds, which tend to experience capital losses as the difficulty rises with no hope of accretive
mhash/share gain. We did add a little JAH though, because we got a really good deal on it.

NYAN.B
Once again NYAN.B shocked us by returning almost 4% for the week. Most of the deals we got
from trading happened in NYAN.B. For example we were able to pick up thousands of BIB.BVPS
shares at the lows of the week. Beside BVPS we were able to catch a ton of GSDPT around 0.003,
and we cut a deal for yet more ASICMINER at below-market prices. The key here is that since
NYAN.B is getting so large, it's easy for us to maintain positions in a variety of companies
and pick up a deal whenever it falls into our lap. I'd like to see NYAN.A get this large. It
would be good for the fund. It seems a lot of people have been buying into NYAN.B. Well, we've
definitely reached critical mass here! So thanks for your support. Now it may be time to sit
on these B-class shares for a while and pick up some NYAN.A. I have some exciting plans in
store for NYAN.A, if I can get enough capital in once place I can justify cutting a deal with
a miner at up to 20% off. It may seem like NYAN.B isn't getting much for the work it's doing.
That isn't quite true; by overflowing into NYAN.C, you are protecting yourself. NYAN.C is
walking a rather thin line. If OBSI.HRPT defaults it could go to zero or almost zero, and then
one default in A or B will start hurting B's value. So fund overflow is in fact a valuable
shield for your future in NYAN.B.

NYAN.C
PPT shares remain excessively volatile, dropping to 0.1, rising to 0.30, and setting down
again around .15. We've not been trading PPTs and have marked them to their 5 day average
prices. However, our non-pirate holdings are starting to shine as OBSI.HRPT keeps chugging
along and a nice suprise from GVMNT-BOT, gaining 40% recently. This as well as the funds'
overflow from .A and .B have enabled us to pay a nice fat dividend of 4.29% while at the
same time raising the NAV from 0.70 to 0.71 this week! That's right, we're well on the road
to recovery at NYAN.C and there will only be a minor hiccup if pirate completely defaults.
We will continue to add to our non-pirate holdings and may look to take up to 10% of our
PPT holdings off the table should the price rise above last week's highs. But the big story
this week is the 750BTC hedge with Matthew. This may seem a little counter intuitive given
that we are a high risk fund, however we faced a situation where we would drop to 0.20 per
share if we didn't do this hedge. Stabilizing the fund by making this hedge felt like the
right thing to do, and now we're in a stronger position to start trading PPTs for profit.

The key strategy with .C going forward is how we can diversify. What high risk strategies
are out there now that pirate is gone? Of course a key component will be OBSI.HRPT and the
fact that we are trading like rabbits. We feel that the potential now lies with issues like
GVMT-BOT, BIF.1YR.LOAN and V.HRL (not to mention HRPT). With these and other issues we plan
to maintain a diversified dividend over 3% per week while slowly rebuilding the portfolio's
value up to 1. Overall, NYAN.C has emerged just a little smaller, but still packing a huge
dividend punch. We will increase the NAV to .72 next week if all goes well and attempt to
continue raising the NAV by 0.01 to 0.02 per week until we're back at 1.

NYAN
There are several exciting things on the horizon for NYAN. Our mandate is that we will profit
from operations as well as holding NYAN.A, B and C. However, just what operations are these
are still under development, but we are in "talks" with "companies". We may have an announcement
about this soon. Until then, NYAN will continue paying solid, safe and secure divs based on our
holdings of A, B and C.

Any questions, please ask!

Serena

==========================================

Questions from Investors:
[questions will be added here and updated throughout the week]

2012-37-NYAN-statement

NYANCAT FINANCIAL: YOUR FRIEND FOR LIFE

Nyancat Financial Weekly Letter to Shareholders
Sunday September 16th, 2012

also available at: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/nyan/nyancat-statements/2012-37-nyan-statement/

First please allow me to apologize for not releasing a letter to shareholders last week. There is a story behind this, and it's a good one, and I felt it should be told all at once. I believe NYAN shareholders will appreciate the reasons for my silece when they read this letter.

Week 36:
NYAN   paid 0.57% (0.005 per share on NAV of .88)
NYAN.A paid 1.00%
NYAN.B paid 2.00%
NYAN.C paid 1.35% (0.005 per share on a NAV of 0.37).

Week 37:
NYAN   paid 0.47% (0.00364442 on NAV of 0.78)
NYAN.A paid 1.00%
NYAN.B paid 2.00%
NYAN.C paid 1.76% (0.00411237 per share on a NAV of 0.233).

First a quick note. CPA and NYAN. CPA and NYAN are separate companies. CPA insures NYAN.A and insures that even if NYAN.B and C go to zero, NYAN.A. will always be worth 1 bitcoin and will always pay out 0.01 a share. That is the connection between the companies. CPA holds ~1100 shares of NYAN. That's it. They are not related in any other way and transactions are kept separate. People who say that I am intertwining my companies or using them to support or prop each other up are stupid trolls. I will release my CSV for NYAN publicly if I have to. These people, these trolls, are sickeningly stupid. And some of them are probably sockpuppets. I had to ask myself, why was every troll attacking CPA last week someone new with less than 50 posts? Big clue people, big clue. I don't mind answering honest questions. But trolls can go to hell.

Ok so here is the situation.

The Good.
1. We sold out 4,000 shares of ASICMINER at about a 10% profit
2. We reduced our exposure in OBSI.HRPT and will be reducing risk in NYAN.C slowly by increasing holdings of high-yield miners at bulk purchase rates.
3. NYAN.A will have continuous and considerable obverflow starting next month because it's #1 holding (BMF) just passed a motion to double dividends.
4. We sold off all our BDT several weeks ago. Because I knew, I just knew. I don't always know, but I knew this time.
5. NYAN.A is worth 1 bitcoin per share, long and strong.
6. I donated 4,000 of my own personal CPA shares to NYAN.B as a signal to investors that I am here for you and I will not stand for bullshit in these markets, NYAN is the best, end of story. If I make NYAN the best, then I will make it all back and more when NYAN gets bigger and I make more money for running it. I thank you for your patience and your trust here.

The Bad.
1. Some of the profit from ASICMINER had already been realized as capital appreciation, so NYAN.B has a small net loss (which was covered by NYAN.C, so don't worry).
2. There is a massive liquidity crunch these days because Matthew and Pirate.
3. NYAB.B lost further money because DMC is down.
4. NYAN.B is worth .95 per share --> but don't worry, this is an accounting convention. It still pays 0.02 per share each week. We will likely make back the .05 this week and if not NYAN.A will overflow. And if not we'll take the assets from NYAN.C. Don't worry just yet.

The Ugly.
1. I have heard some asset issuers have recieved death threats because investors lost money in their funds. Get a grip pepole, that is not cool. If you cannot handle losing money investing on your own put it with a competent fund manager. And do not invest more than 10% of your money in one security.
2. Matthew defaulted. It's a pity he had to throw his reputation away like that and even worse that he will take down DCOA with him, and bitcoin magazine, etc.
3. Now that the Zeek news is out it is blatantly obvious pirate has no money. I marked all PPTs to zero and will be dumping them if possible for spare change.
4. NYAN.C is worth 0.233 per share.


So ok basically what is my plan to fix all this? For one, yes I do a lot of trading but ultimately if you have chosen to invest in a high risk security like NYAN, there is not much I can do to stop any particular other company from defaulting. If you cannot handle this level of risk I strongly suggest you invest into NYAN.A or NYAN.B. I have reccomended a balanced approach from day one. This is reflected in the number of shares NYAN holds: 817 A, 299 B, 143 C. I know many of you invest in exactly the opposite way; 800 C, and 100 A. This is bound to loose you money. High risk securities should occupy only 10 or 15% of your portfolio. A wise investment strategy will invest a majority of it's assets into highly liquid, safe securities like mining, or insured issues like nyan.a.

Again, I have said from day one in these letters, don't go balls to the wall in NYAN.C. For those of you who did not listen, I am sorry. For those of you who did listen, now is a great time to buy more NYAN.C. Please see "A NEW HOPE" below.

So for now, we will just try to get through this shitty time where literally every week 1 or 2 major companies, lenders or services blow up. Then with careful asset management and good trading skills, we can slowly raise the value of NYAN.C. On my end, i'm working hard trading here. We made 25 bitcoins trading OBSI.HRPT during the confidence crisis last week when Obsi announced he would have bad news (i.e. he had been threatened by one of his investors). Further, NYAN.A has 1200 BMF and BMF recently passed a motion which will double it's dividends to almost 4% a week (in other words, to protect your income after the block reward cut in december, withot loss of NAV). So I am working hard on that not just for BMF and CPA investors but for NYAN as well. I have also scaled back on the dividends for NYAN and NYAN.C to around 0.5%-1% per week, and I will beusing the overflow to try and repair NYAN.C.


A NEW HOPE (Management Guidance for Week 38)

JRO is out of the picture.
Pirate is out of the picture.
Weak hand lenders like hashking are gone.
Personal loans as an asset class have been discredited.
Non-transparrent securities that don't tell you what they invest in have essentially been outlawed on GLBSE.
The need for insurance has been stated very clearly. So hopefully CPA will get more business. If CPA returns to .1 NYAN.B and C will benefit greatly.
BMF has passed a motion to purchase asics which will save the life of everyone invested in NYAN and BMF in the future (and double investor's rate of return in the short term).

It's indeed a brand new day. CPA and NYAN has stood the test of fire by surviving the Pirate Panic and not folding under pressure from Matthew. going forward I have bought 70 shares of FPGAMINING at around .60 for NYAN.C, and 50 more for NYAN.A Why? because it's a high-yield miner and I want to lower the risk profile for NYAN.C from "BANANNA-F******-INSANE" to "A SHOT OF WHISKEY" or maybe "FLIRTING IN A DANCE CLUB". I know that many of you were waiting until we completely wrote pirate off to invest in NYAN.C, but let's be honest. if OBSI.HRPT folds, NYAN.C will dissapear. It's one thing to be BANNANA-F-INSANE and another to be "Sensibly High Risk". I choose the latter. We need to diversify and not be just an OBSI.HRPT passthru. That's not high risk, it's just being naieve. I think everyone can see that now, hindsight is 20/20.... Remember this is not so much a managed fund; NYAN.C just invests in whatever pays the most (as per the contract). I think it's time to reign that in just a little and invest in whatever pays the most -- given the restriction that the things we invest in need to be a little bit more transparrent and above-board. So no more "personal loans" (although we'll hold what we have) and we will accumulate more securities like GVMT-BOT and high yield miners like FPGAMINING And TYGRR.BOND-A, JTME, OBSI.1MHS, and so forth. The nature of high risk may also change. ASICMINER would be considered a high risk security in my opinion because if they are not first or experience "hiccups" the opportunity cost in hindsight will become too great to bear. For example.

And now, for those of you have read this far....

I would like to present usagi's rules for NOT losing money investing in bitcoin. Please, please, please, consider what I have to say very carefully.

---> Usagi's 10 commandments for investing on your own in the Bitcoin Stock Market <---
---> Examine every stock in your portfolio, and every stock you feel like investing and ask yourself the following questions: <---

1. Has it paid regular dividends at least six times or has it been in operation longer than six months?
YES: BUY
NO: SELL

2. Does it charge more than 10% in management fees, have more than 20% in growth or maintenance fees, or does it take growth or management fees out of money allotted to dividends?
YES: SELL
NO: BUY

3. Does this security pay more than 1% a week (and is NOT a FPGA or ASIC miner?)
Yes: SELL
No: BUY

4. Does this security tell you what it invests in or what it's business model is?
Yes: BUY
No: SELL

5. Is it a personal loan or high risk passthru, or is it provided on a "best-efforts" basis?
Yes: SELL
No: BUY

6. If it is a fund, has the fund manager failed to beat the market? (I.E. for a mining fund, have they lost more than 60% over the past 3 months?)
YES: SELL
NO: BUY

7. For mining companies or bonds, is it a fixed-rate mhash per share?
YES: SELL
NO: BUY

8. Do you have more than 10% of your money in any one company?
YES: SELL
NO: BUY

9. Did you buy it because the price went UP or DOWN recently?
YES: DO SOME RESEARCH INTO THE COMPANY FIRST
NO: THEN YOU MUST HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH ALREADY AND ARE CONFIDENT IN YOUR OWN DECISION

10. Is the asset issuer ID verified on the GLBSE?
YES: BUY
NO: SELL

The most important thing you need as a private investor is CONVICTION. Conviction does not come from watching prices go up and down for a long time. Conviction comes from doing research, asking questions to the asset issuer, and doing the math. There is also obviously a place for skill and experience to come through and push and help you succeed here. Investing isn't easy. So there is one more question, the bonus question.

BONUS. Did I invest without doing honest research into what I am investing in?
YES: GIVE YOUR MONEY TO A COMPETENT FUND MANAGER LIKE USAGI
NO: GOOD WORK, KEEP IT UP!

There is no shame in investing with someone who has a proven track record of success. The chances you will beat someone who does money management for a living are slim to none. At least invest 10% of your money with a manager and practice trading with 10% of your money before going all in. See who comes out ahead after 2 or 3 months. Try it!Fund managers do charge money this is true but if the service they provide was worthless no one would invest. Or, if a better fund manager came along he would get bigger and everyone would go to him and the bad funds would go out of business.

Ok. I would like to state that I am on IRC a lot and I love to chat, if you want to talk about NYAN please find me on IRC or e-mail me at usagi@tsukino.ca. I will answer all your questions about NYAN.

Just ask. Thanks!

2012-38-NYAN-statement

NYANCAT FINANCIAL: YOUR FRIEND FOR LIFE

Nyancat Financial Weekly Letter to Shareholders
Sunday September 23rd, 2012

also available at: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/nyan/nyancat-statements/2012-38-nyan-statement/

Here is the payout for week 38:

Week 38:
NYAN   paid 0.53% (0.00415419 per share on NAV of 0.78). The NAV of NYAN is now 0.77 per share.
NYAN.A paid 1.00%
NYAN.B paid 2.00%
NYAN.C paid 1.48% (0.00345846 per share on NAV of 0.233). The NAV of NYAN.C is now 0.17 per share.

This week we have made a major shift to using an automatic script to value our portfolios. They are no longer valued by hand but by script. This takes a huge load off of me having to manually check prices and will enable me to make more money trading and less on data entry :)

Ok so here is the situation.

In general, the market acts like a fag and it's shit's retarded. Everything is down, almost without exception. The shining stars are now CPA, which has doubled in valuation to 0.06 since last week, and BMF which has now jumped to an average price of .5901. It's ironic, the companies I undervalued most by hand were my own. In general the biggest losers for the fund were FZB.A which is apparently frozen (or dying, or whatever), DMC which has dropped to 0.047 from 0.07 since being frozen, and FPGAMINING which is having trouble and has dropprd 50% (it was a major holding). As a result of this and the recent crash in OBSI.HRPT I have moved assets from NYAN.C into NYAN.A and NYAN.B to cover the loss. This is the primary reason why NYAN.C has lost 0.065 per share. However it now presents an interesting opportunity. I have spoken with Obsi and a number of other asset issuers and we now believe that the market is a coiled spring. There seems to be no compelling reason why some stocks are down 10%, 20%, 30% in some cases more. What I think is going on is a confluence of three macroeconomic factors:

1. There's no money left in the system (liquidity crisis).
a. pirate collapsed
b. as a result hashking collapsed, and likely UDN and a number of others will collapse too.

2. ASICS are coming out
a. no one wants mining bonds anymore
b. people are willing to sell down mining bonds for up to 20-30% of their true long term value because they expect to make 40% more when ASICs come out

3. Trouble on the horizon
a. There's no denying it. Something is brewing -- but WHAT? The market is spooked as hell.
b. People are freaking out. Trolls are having a heyday. Losers like puppet and deprived are expanding their operations and now attacking reputable people like Patrick Harnett and Theymos. Some guy got drunk and posted Nefario and GLBSE in scammer accusations. The world has gone insane.

Well excuse me mr. market I have something to say.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING PLANE!

I have been working feverishly behind the scenes. I can't tell you what I am doing or why but I am doing EVERYTHING I can to gain value for NYAN/A/B/C shareholders. I am trading AS IF I WAS ON A PLANE FULL OF SNAKES. That is how hard I have been working on this. And I promise that when I am done, when this is all over, I will explain what I did. I broke no rules, I broke no laws, all I did was enter numbers into a trade box. If I am right this will go down as the greatest trade in bitcoin history. It's all based on what you know. Knowledge is power, as they say.

So. What's changed in the funds? Not much. It's been a slow week (you believe me, don't you?) Well rather than give you a blow by blow, which would be boring and pointless since it didn't really affect the fund, I'll just say that I spent the week in discussions with people in the industry.. asset issuers, shareholders, GLBSE people, forum people, and so on. NYAN is currently increasing it's cash position in preparation of several new and eagerly anticipated IPOs. We may even have exclusive rights to a "certain security" which has been "discussed on the forums recently". Can't say more :/

As for NYAN.C, there is not much I can do as it's not a managed fund. All I can do is try and diversify. However looking at NYAN.C I wish to point out a few things.
1. The price of NYAN.C has remained small but pirate and matthew are not the reason anymore. We've diversified a great deal.
2. A market recovery by 10% would probably triple NYAN.C or more.
3. The overflow into NYAN.C will be significant in coming weeks due to the amount of HRPT now in A and B.
4. In 2 weeks CPA will pay dividends. I am expecting 5% to 10% depending on the liquidity situation at the time. This will likely end up overflowing into NYAN.C.

How have you done with your investments recently? Have you followed the 10 rules I set out last week? I hope so. I have to see people lose money because they made bad investment decisions. Sometimes you lose money even when you make good investment decisions. But following the rules will hopefully help limit those cases.

I remain available to answer your concerned questions regarding NYAN! You can always e-mail me at nyan@tsukino.ca or just chat here.

Good luck!

2012-39-NYAN-statement

NYANCAT FINANCIAL: YOUR FRIEND FOR LIFE

Nyancat Financial Weekly Letter to Shareholders
Sunday September 30th, 2012

also available at: http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/nyan/nyancat-statements/2012-39-nyan-statement/

Here is the payout for week 39:

Week 38:
NYAN   paid 0.51% (0.00395570 per share on NAV of 0.77). The NAV of NYAN is now 0.78 per share.
NYAN.A paid 1.00%
NYAN.B paid 2.00%
NYAN.C paid 0.53% (0.00090225 per share on NAV of 0.17). The NAV of NYAN.C is now 0.18 per share.

This week we have regretted making last week's major shift to using an automatic script to value our portfolios. Thus we will return to the old way of valuing using RMV (Real Market Value) and not NAV-as-spot-price. However, we will still publish spot price figures because I think that pulling data directly from GLBSE is kind of cool.

Simplification Week
This week was Simplification Week. NYAN was unwound as were many small positions. HRPT was moved out of A and B back to C. Shares were bought back en-masse (I actually bought back too many shares and had trouble paying this week's div. Next week will be fine.) Holdings of NYAN.A have been converted to BMF, to add stability to NYAN.A.

NYAN
After buying back almost 1,500 bicoins worth of NYAN-related securities over the past 2 weeks (900 NYAN and almost 600 NYAN.A and NYAN.B iirc), I've decided to close the NYAN ticker symbol. It will now enter a long-term process of liquidation in which it will pay approximately 0.5% to 0.7% per week and buy back shares. The NAV is currently 0.79 and this will go up as it buys back shares (even if it buys back shares at 1). CPA will accelerate this process from time to time; please feel free to put shares up for sale in the low .80's and we'll see about buying them out as time goes by. The NAV will slowly increase back to 1, so keep an eye on that as well. Any reasonable bids on NYAN will be taken and used to buy out NYAN.B.

The wind-down was done by returning all the shares in NYAN to their respective funds (save 250 NYAN.A to maintain the NAV). There was enough NYAN.B in NYAN to warrant returning about 3,500 shares of CPA back to CPA as well, so that position is also being wound down.

NYAN.A
We be unwinding all non-BMF assets in NYAN.A. This will allow me to focus on increasing NYAN's value by working on a single portfolio, NYAN.A.
Additionally, 500 OBSI.HRPT was moved to NYAN.B in exchange for MOVETO.FUND and a further 600 OBSI.HRPT was moved out for FPGAMINING (which was then traded for more BMF) at 0.5 per share of FPGAMINING. FWIW that's the current spot market price. We will continue winding down OBSI.HRPT via transfer as time goes by, just like it says in the contracts for NYAN.A, B and C, any holdings will be moved into NYAN.A if NYAN.A experiences any losses.

NYAN.B
We will continue to buy back shares of NYAN.B as we can. I think that we may try to completely buy out NYAN.B at 1 btc/share. This will take a long time, maybe a few of months all in all. We will see. I would consider selling NYAN.B if it went over 1.01/share. The basic idea is to allow all the overflow from A to reach C. Although, it's true, the trade overflow from B is substantial. In this regard OBSI.HRPT is playing a bit of a part here; I'll be transferring some of NYAN.B's safest and lowest-paying assets to NYAN.A in favor of OBSI.HRPT this week. I will also be looking at transferring more OBSI.HRPT into NYAN.C. I don't believe OBSI.HRPT is worth 0.0299, as there has been no public news from Obsi. At the same time it doesn't really belong in NYAN.A or NYAN.B because it is a high risk fund. Please keep in mind that these HRPT assets were moved from NYAN.C because of a price crash on GLBSE. There is no danger from A or B holding HRPT. The only danger is that if held long-term I may forget the risk and buy more HRPT in C. That would not be acceptable; NYAN.C should buy the HRPT back from A and B before it buys any new security. That will return the fund's risk profile to what it should be. It's a simple rule, and nothing to worry about.

We also sold ~3,900 shares of DMC between .07 and 0.09, for an approximate 800% return. This return has now been realized, previously it had only been assumed. A large part of this went out in dividends already anyway.

NYAN.C
NYAN.C is in the trenches now, there's no doubt. The problem now is OBSI.HRPT. The current top ask is 0.0299. However, what's the news? There's no news. OBSI has been paying low dividends recently, however this was announced by Obsi ahead of time and the contract allows for it anyway. OBSI.HRPT still pays better than mining; the 7 day dividend average is    2.13% per week according to stochastically.com. I don't see any reason to panic yet. After talking with Obsi several times about this on IRC I believe the value of OBSI.HRPT is not 0.0299, but 0.1. That is the price he will sell new shares at. And as nothing has changed that I am aware of or that he has told me, I refuse to destroy the setup in NYAN based on a temporary market crash. So I'll keep OBSI on the books at .1 for now. Yes, I will be actively trading OBSI.HRPT for the fund. I will be buying low and selling hi if I can do it.

We even made a few nice trades already this week buying OBSI.HRPT at ~0.02 and selling for ~0.05.

Ok ok so I've insinuated quite a few times there are things I know about OBSI.HRPT that the market does not know. While I'm not ready to spill the beans just yet, let me just point out that as the market has been selling down into .01, OBSI has been quietly buying back 500 to 1,000 shares per day over the past 4-5 days. Big hint. I think I'll just leave that there for now.

THE TROLL SITUATION
For the last 2-3 weeks, a number of scumbag trolls (Puppet, Deprived, Eskimobob and some others) have been dogging me in the forums. They follow me around to literally *every* thread I post. They lie about my companies and what I am doing with my companies. Each and every trade is scrutinized. The logic is often of the form "Usagi is running a scam because he made a trade {traded x for y} and we assume that this trade is scammy!" It makes little to no sense. They have on various occasions called my operations a scam because:
1. NYAN.C might invest in ponzis (OBSI.HRPT is not a ponzi; and the NYAN.C contract states "Investments are chosen entirely based on their interest rate without regard to the risk profile." anyway).
2. BMF does not lower it's share price each time we buy hardware. (No-one does that. it's not logical. The complaint is that we list hardware at the full purchase price including shipping. This is what we paid for it, and we price our company on the market using this info. So that's that.)
3. Puppet and EskimoBob in particular have opened scammer accusations against me for the sole reason I have reported their posts and called for tags for them. They skip from issue to issue, deny and obfuscate the single and focused claim (i.e. 1) that I have made against them, and some trolls even ignore the local rules of a thread.
4. Moderators don't do anything, suprisingly, even on clear contract violations, clear malicious criminal libel, and do not enforce local rules.

My question is.. why? Why me? I came to the conclusion that it is because I set the standard for disclosure with my online spreadsheets, websites and FAQs, and weekly letters to shareholders. I cannot deny that every day, the trolls pick apart the facts, figures, and other data on my spreadsheets. It has to stop and moderators are doing nothing.

So I've come to a decision. I just checked the contracts for BMF and NYAN. Nowhere does it say I have to provide disclosure of any kind. I think you know what I am about to say and I think it's justified.

I publish spreadsheets for everything I do. I write weekly letters to shareholders. I wrote a FAQ. I'm ID Verified on GLBSE. I set up public e-mail addresses for each one of my companies. I hang out on IRC and the forums all the time and answer questions. BMF even donated 50 BTC (fifty bitcoins) to bitcointalk.org. And this is how I am treated. I even helped Nefario set up a public panel of community members to help make decisions on IPOs and disciplinary actions. I'm the good guy here. You're looking at the GOOD guy. This troll situation is too much and a big problem is the mods. I've been on usenet for a very long time and many private blogs and boards. Unmoderated communities ALWAYS DIE. In short the mods here for all their experience and power are actually quite inexperienced and lazy, and they don't recognize value when they see it. I cannot tell you how sorry I am that I gave Theymos 50 bitcoins, I had thought that at the very least they would enforce local rules, and they ignore them. I'm actually pretty upset that Maged said I was close to a scammer tag and that I had been making misleading statements, without actually pointing out what those statements were.

Fine.

You asked for it, you really did. No more weekly letters to shareholders. No more updating online spreadsheets. I remain here to answer your e-mail. But I will only speak to shareholders, potential investors, or forum mods in PM (or when requested in public). You must obtain a signed letter of holding from Nefario as a shareholder, or pay a deposit into escrow if you are a potential investor. I really do not care if you decide not to invest with me as a result of this decision. If you are so lazy that you cannot be bothered to contact me then I do not want you as an investor of NYAN. Game over, trolls. I win.

(Of course, NYAN will continue to publish a spreadsheet, once a week or when dividends are paid. Enjoy.)

I will reverse this decision when Puppet, Deprived and EskimoBob are either banned from the forums, or recieve a scammer tag. If you wish this to happen, please petition against them in the Scam Accusations forum. Have a nice day. MPOE-PR should also probably be banned.


MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE FOR WEEK 40
In general, we will continue to buy back shares of NYAN.B aggressively and sell shares of NYAN.A, in an attempt to rescue the NYAN.C shareholders. NYAN.A and NYAN.B will continue to pay and trade as they have so far. However, paid bashers have recently begun to infect the forums and moderators have basicaly stated they will do nothing. As a result the liquidity crunch has worsened and panicky invetstors have been scared into selling. We advise you to place below-contract bids for NYAN.A and NYAN.B, if you wish to try to catch a deal. However we do not advise trying to sell A or B at 0.99 or less at this time. If I see bids up for that I will continue to buy them back. Remember, when we buy back shares at 0.99 or below, it actually increases the value of NYAN.A, B and C. Something to think about.

I remain available to answer your concerned questions regarding NYAN. You can always e-mail me at nyan@tsukino.ca or chat on IRC.

Good luck!

Usgai

I do see what is going one here. I just won't twist my opinion to fit your distorted reality. I've repeatedly asked you for facts which you refuse to or cannot provide. You respond with more questions then link to thread after thread in your convoluted fashion. All they while others have provided clear evidence of your deception and delusion. And now you resort to attacking me and my character and lumping me with everyone else who has called you on your BS.

Ill repeat:  you can not bully or intimidate me. Facts do not lie. I'm sorry this does not fit in with your reality.

Ill update my other thread shortly.

Usgai

9 posts - really?  Way to continue your Obfuscation.

You are still not answering the questions.

Fine, I'll post replies on the other thread then.

He's essentially trying to do a "Berlusconi".

Just to throw out a counterpoint here, for what it's worth, I believe that usagi has imposed a ridiculously onerous condition on himself in the wind-down of the assets now listed on BTC-TC and that the trust being created to allow for the possible recovery of toxic debt should be of much shorter duration. 

updated

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.0

Quoting this one so there's still a copy whenever usagi next has a deletion spree.

Am I reading that right - did BMF pay for usagi's VIP donation to the forum?

Also the "don't know if we've been paid yet" comments in respect of claims filed is a bit concerning (the constant use of "we" is both pretentious and annoying as fuck).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133168.0

mods, can you lock this thread seeing usagi's now started yet another "people are lying" thread?

No, I demand to be allowed to make a response to accusations.

Yes you are reading it right. This was published in a shareholder letter on September 30th and not a single person complaned for all of October, November, and December. Only now, after 90+ days, is it being casted in an unfair light.

If people are upset about this I will return the fifty bitcoins out of my own personal money. But honestly, why is it such an issue? Everyone has known I did this for three months and this is the first time anyone has complained to me. You, you're not even a shareholder. What do you care?

And no "We" is not pretentious, NYAN was owned by CPA, and WE referred to the CPA round table.

Consisting of:
Patrick Harnett,
DeadTerra,
Mollison,
gohkan-san
teek

Mollison and Patrick Harnett were removed from the board, in particular Patrick harnett was removed from the board before he made any noise about KRAKEN.

You know very well what WE referrs to. Or are you operating from a position of ignorance in these matters?


No, YOU are annoying as fuck. You don't even know wtf you are talking about when you criticize me. You also lie: what "don't know if we've been paid yet" comments are you referring to? There are none in the shareholder letter you quoted!

Well considering it was deleted for the majority of october, november and december and only reappeared yetserday it would have been hard for people to respond to it.  Or had you forgotten you deleted it early in October?

Think when GLBSE went down people had other things on their mind than commenting on posts by you that were invisible due to deletion.

There also seem to be quite a few asset issuers you haven't bothered contacting yet.  It is your job to be on top of the claims process and to be aware of what payments you've already received.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133168.0

You seem to forget that this latest drama was spawned by you making a thread in which you tried to control the discussion and force everyone else to accept your definition of scammer.  This thread hasn't gone the way you hoped so you've started another.  You do this every single time the drama surrounding your business activities is dying down.  

A few days ago you were going to wind down your companies and leave forever.  A few days ago you were content to have your assets listed on BTC-TC with restrictions so you could wind down.  Now you want to list new assets and despite having whined endlessly about the difficulty of dealing with this community apparently you want to continue doing business with this community.  Why you expect people to trust someone who is so erratic is totally beyond me.

But keep right on sperging.  It's not going to change a single person's opinion in your favour but at least it's free entertainment and maybe your meltdowns will go viral and you'll get all the attention you crave so badly.

So you're actually complaining that I said I was looking into it and that I am providing regular updates. Nice.

No, I'm suggesting that if you have the time and energy to start new threads and compose novel length posts then you certainly have the time and energy to establish whether those claims have been paid (it should take less than the four hours you claim to have spent on formulating a response to a single point raised by BCB).

I believe that when you said the other day you were very, very tired and all you wanted to do was finish winding down your companies, you were telling the truth.  The problem arises when you claim on the one hand to be very, very tired and finding the winding down process overwhelming and then you put what time and energy you do have elsewhere - like starting a thread in the hope of defining scammer in a way which couldn't possibly include you and then starting yet another thread when the first one doesn't turn out like you hoped.

You asked for help the other day and you got it.  It's unlikely that BTC-TC would have let you list without people lobbying on your behalf (or perhaps more accurately, on behalf of your users) behind the scenes.  You said that was all you wanted, but it didn't stay all you wanted for very long.  You then wanted to list SILVER and seem quite put out at that proposal being rejected, apparently not comprehending why nobody wants anything to do with a new asset of yours while the previous ones are still an unresolved clusterfuck.

https://btct.co/security/BMF (click on contract and prospectus tab)

For whatever reason, you decided now would be a good time to seek vindication.  You keep saying you're too tired to deal with all this shit and yet you started a thread which dragged it all up again just when your assets had been listed on BTC-TC and there was a slight glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.  And now you don't like the outcome of that extremely ill-advised action so you're taking a discussion you initiated to a venue you control.  Can you truly not understand that it's your own impulsive and erratic behaviour which makes people distrust you more than any scammer accusations ever could?

For what it's worth, I think the 10 year trust you're proposing in the other thread is a mistake which disadvantages you.  Neither you nor your users want to be tied to each other for the next 10 years and it's an unreasonable length of time to expect you to keep trying to recover funds.  I believe you should re-evaluate the length of time the trust will exist.

Good point. Let BCB do what he said he would do and send evidence to him, I say.


Then support the effort in an alternate way, to let me be. Stating that Eskimobob lost money in NYAN.A is a blatant lie and it has now come out that by EskimoBob's own mouth he is up over 10% right now. Stuff like that, I don't want to have to spend time correcting.


SILVER was listed before I asked for help. The contract was the same as BTC-GOLD's and I had photos of the assets -- which were substantial (approx $5,000 US). I was downvoted entirely because of these threads.


No, I'm pretty sure it's the people who are running scam accusations against me.


Make a suggestion. Say I recover 500 bitcoins from hashking (somehow) 18 months from now. What do I do with the money?

You're wrong on that.

Pretty sure burnside listed the assets without anyone lobbying - though some (including myself) had stated we had no problems with usagi listing so long as he couldnt sell new shares.

BMF was listed first as a normal attempt to relocate from GLBSE - it got significant neagtive votes from mods pretty immediately.
SILVER was then listed and voted down by mods too.
Usagi then made his 'Final post ever' thread.
It was after that, that burnside offered to relist all of the assets but locked for trading.

My suggestion is that you don't set up a trust at all.  Rather you set some reasonable deadline a few months away (say end of March).

If at that date claims haven't been settled then you auction off in public whatever assets you have left.  So you'd sell hashking's remaining debt by public auction and distribute the proceeds.  Lets everything get shut down neatly.

Same as I wouldn't distribute shares out at all - people invest in funds (in part) precisely because they DON'T want the hassle of owning loads of different shares.  Sell what you can at decent prices then auction off the rest (splitting into chunks if the asset is actually listed so splittable) and distribute all proceeds as cash.  Avoids a load of hassle, makes accounting simple, makes everything transparent, has a nice clean end date and removes a load of areas where otherwise there's the possibility of error (misvaluing an asset, dividending out proceeds after redistributing shares that were entitled to those proceeds etc).

Yes.  this.

getting back to the original question...

I will always blame the scammer before blaming the victim as the scammer performed some action to scam, however PLEASE, for the love of all that is Bitcoin:

• take warnings about foul business practices or suspect people seriously
• learn everything you can about how bitcoin is processed. also learn about other payment methods you use and their terms of use
• do your due diligence in researching "investments" in this bitcoin space
• ask for help and guidance rather than going it alone - a scammer will be prepared for this game far more than you likely will be

if it helps, assume everyone is a scammer until proven otherwise.
assume every borrower wants to run off without paying.
assume everyone you don't know well is misrepresenting themselves.

it's ok to ask for ID, AML/KYC type documents, contact info, etc., before conducting a trade - without this kind of information, your chances at some remedy are pretty thin

If someone removes over 1000 of their posts which involve securities they have listed they should get a scammer tag as it is equivalent too destroying evidence.

Oh god, why did you revive this? Now we're going to have usagi going crazy again.

Isn't that what you want?

To Trent and others; The relevant posts have (apparently) been undeleted and/or given to BCB. I had a chat with BCB and a few others about it. Beyond that i've already explained why I deleted the posts.

As far as I can tell from talking to BCB the complaints come down to I'm a jerk/asshole and I was irresponsible as a manager. So I've decided to pay back investors out of my own pocket by (likely) forfeiting my own stake in my companies (or something to that effect). At the end of the day i'm sorry you don't like me, or if you think I am crazy (like greyhawk), but I'm paying for what I did. I'm doing the honorable thing. If that's not good enough for you then there's nothing else I can say.

Good luck with your other investments,