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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, for now. The asset isn't going to be approved any time soon. It would be different if it had upvotes, then I wouldn't sell this stuff and I'd use it to start the fund. I really want to do business in the community.

It makes me sad -- the contract was the same as BTC-GOLD, I have an excellent OTC rating and no scammer tag, and I clearly had the assets and experience running an issue. I was downvoted because of allegations. I was labeled guilty until proven innocent.

Maybe I'll try again later after I close down my companies, and people see that I did the right thing. There's really no logical reason why I shouldn't be able to run SILVER. No one really lost any money in my companies that they wouldn't have lost investing in anything else like GIGAMINING or YABMC. In fact, they lost much more than we did both per share and in market cap. C'est la vie.

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.

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.

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.

Not stupid at all. The lists have been processed on btct.co. Please sign up there with the e-mail address you used to claim on GLBSE. I will then be able to transfer shares and value to you. The shares don't trade on the market, so we'd have to arrange a private buy-back.

The plan now is to move as many of the assets into the accounts as possible (see the above list) and then pay out dividends. Whatever's still owed will be placed in some sort of trust and monitored/given regular updates. For example, while Matthew N. Wright owes NYAN about 750 bitcoins, it's unlikely we will ever get that money or even a part of it. We may end up selling the debt for ten cents on the dollar and counting our lucky stars. It's still too early to tell.

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'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.

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 still don't have the hi-res images you were paid for... Isn't that odd.

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.

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.

Sticky requested!

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.

Please see OP for updates.

Steps in italic have already been completed.
Steps in bold are being actively worked on as of December 29th, 2012.

1. I will contact all NYAN.A participants and give them rights in proportion to the BMF which was held by NYAN.A.
2. I will offer them the chance of receiving the BMF shares on BTC.CO or having me liquidate their BMF value and transfer to them.
3. I will contact all CPA holders as in #1 and give them the same offer as #2.
Note: #1, #2 and #3 do not constitute final payments. There are other assets in NYAN.A and CPA which will be distributed.
5. I will process all holdings of BMF in order, transfer the value to BTC.CO, and make distributions and dividend payments.
6. When finished (approximately at the end of January 2013) BMF will be removed as an asset from BTC.CO.
7. I will then focus on winding down all assets of NYAN and CPA and paying first the balance of NYAN.A to 1 bitcoin.
8. I will then distribute any CPA shares held by NYAN/A/B/C shareholders, and wind down CPA in the same manner as BMF and NYAN; liquidate assets and pay dividends.

Status of outstanding claims after de-listing from from btct.co:
We will pursue claims against Matthew N. Wright (for 750 bitcoins), Hashking (approximately 500 bitcoins), and Imsaguy (approximately 300 bitcoins) and others such as Obsi, UDN, etc. with a sense of urgency, as we discover them during the above-mentioned process of liquidation. When and if these monies, in bitcoin or dollars converted to bitcoin are ever recovered, they will be moved into a trust which will perpetually allow claims to be made against it's holdings for a period of ten years (until January 1st, 2023). If at this time there is money remaining in the account it will be given to usagi, and all outstanding claims the trust has against anyone will be written off, and the trust will permanently close.

Any questions?

Just open a scam accusation forum thread against him. I have one up here, which deals with a separate issue against him. You should pursue your grievances there IMO. I think by now it's pretty obvious he scammed his investors in multiple ways. A good scam accusation thread will clearly lay out the evidence and suggest a remedy by which Ian can perform some action to avoid a scammer tag.

I don't think he deserves a scammer tag "no matter what", I think there is still time for him to fix this. But I am not responsible for making that decision.. just weighing in.

I'm going to be starting my own independant investigation soon, I had about 500 or 600 bitcoins in it when GLBSE shut down.

As I recall it shouldn't be too hard to get something done about this. The facts as I understand them;

a) people knew who Obsi is/was -- i.e. someone out there can dox him -- maybe.
    If not, it may be possible to track him down in other ways (legal letters to ISPs, etc.) but this would require money.
    My lawyer has told me it will cost approx. $1,500 Canadian to track someone down via an IP address or e-mail address.
    The more info you can collect on someone the easier. I.E. maybe only $1200 if you have e-mail and IP.
    It's worth it to me personally, since I would intend to recover $8,000+. I'd want to work with others on this though.
    I don't mind contributing my fair share of the money to this.
    Obsi needs to be contacted NOT BECAUSE HE OWES US ANY MONEY, but to establish whether or not he told the truth.

b) Obsi invested the money in a payday loans chain, which means it will be easy to establish who the people he invested in were
    The fact is that if Obsi told us the truth he does not owe us any money.
    We need to determine however if there was fraud on the part of Obsi by investigating this claim.

c) The police were contacted by Obsi (this is the last fact I heard from him) and were going to investigate.
    We need to determine if there was fraud on the part of who he invested in, because then we would have the legal right to pursue the case there.

I am not sure if he was ID verified. Maybe? Can't remember. I don't think nefario would help though.

We just need his contact info to determine wtf happened. If he contacted the police, we would need proof of that. If that can't be provided, it would almost certainly have been a big scam and he would likely have pocketed the money. So the thing about the Obsi case will be, we need simple, quick and direct proof -- there's no need for stalling, secrecy, or any kind of crap. It's almost certainly not Obsi's fault -- and the only reason he should cut and run is if he scammed.

I'll need at least a couple of weeks or a month to get into this though. I am very busy with shutting down the bulk of my companies before I start chasing down people like Obsi.