Maybe there would be a way to do both, have the betting as it is now and add on a second set of bets with a more InTrade like functionality? Sounds like there is a sudden opening in internet real estate that is just begging to be filled by a bitcoin company.
The idea is that entrepreneurial individuals provide that service on the BitBet infrastructure. It's easy enough to do and from what you're saying profitable. Actually, I never used intrade. Could anybody describe how it is different than the way bitbet works? It was totally different. Bets were treated as contracts - with one created whenever a buyer and seller agreed on a price for it via the market. If you've ever used Betfair for sports betting then it was far more like that - whilst Bitbet is more like a Tote type system. On intrade if we agreed (via bidding on the open market) that a proposition was 3 times more likely to occur than not occur then the one backing that it would occur would pay $7.50 and the one saying that it would NOT occur would pay $2.50 - giving a total value to the contract of $10 paid to the winner when the bet was resolved. Where you had multiple contracts on linked events (for example bets for and against different candidates in an election) then your total exposure was calculated and funds reserved to cover the maximum possible loss you could incur. All contracts could be freely traded - with the market price reflecting overall sentiment about the shifting likelihood of the various results. |
|
|
|
Deprived,
Just from reading these boards, it seems you are involved with too many scam companies.
I would say 98% of the companies listed are scams.
Be careful.
Right now I am just invested in ASIC MINER because I cant find any other non scams out there.
Thoughts?
Depends what you mean by a scam. I'd say majority of companies (including this one) didn't start off with any intention to scam or defraud investors. Most fail because of gross incompetence. People believing they can run before they've properly learnt how to walk. People exaggerating things to sell shares (take a look at OP for this one - he claims a dedicated team of professionals yet soon as problems start he's whining about it being a one-man operation). As I run a fund that trades, and as the majority of companies are badly run I have no option but to trade in them. Whilst trading doesn't have the same degree of exposure as investment (I don't EXPECT them to make a profit for me - my profit comes from their investors) I do necessarily have exposure when a company suddenly gos bad (more accurately, when it suddenly becomes visible to everyone that it's bad - most were rotten inside from the start). I have to manage that risk - which so far I've done OK at. There's other non-scam businesses out there besides ASIC-MINER. Most will make a loss for you if you invest long-term, but they'll do so (fairly) honestly if that's any consolation. And don't forget ASIC-MINER was a gamble when it started - there was a significant chance they'd be late/never to market. That ASIC-MINER has done so well is largely down to the total incompetence/deceitful behaviour of two of their main rivals. |
|
|
|
TRADE HISTORY:
2013-04-21 05:20:09 Market 44 Ł 0.455 Ł 20.02
2013-04-21 05:20:04 Market 200 Ł 0.46 Ł 92
Just noticed that you can't even get basic facts straight. The 44 at .455 was actually ME buying, so I know for certain it wasn't you. No, I didn't say THAT 44 was me. You're misquoting me and putting words in my mouth -- that is a cut and paste from the public log of trading at https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/LTC-ATF.B1 (see "History"). Why do you lie just for the sake of it when it's obvious to everyone that you're lieing. Here's the bit you failed to quote: LTC-ATF.B1 REPORT CARD #1 : APRIL 21st, 2013
MANAGER'S GRADE: B (76.3%)
SHARE INCREASE
On April 21st, while market-making LTC-ATF.B1, I purchased a quantity of 244 shares at 0.455 and 0.46.
See - you DID say it was you buying them. Just for once write a post without lieing in it please. It gets silly when you make a post with a lie/error in it then go so far as to lie about what you said even though the evidence is still visible. |
|
|
|
LTC-ATF.B1 REPORT CARD #1 : APRIL 21st, 2013
MANAGER'S GRADE: B (76.3%)
SHARE INCREASE
On April 21st, while market-making LTC-ATF.B1, I purchased a quantity of 244 shares at 0.455 and 0.46. The face value of 0.01 BTC converted into LTC going rate was 0.451 at the time. I then noticed the number of outstanding shares of LTC-ATF.B1 had increased from 15793 by 244 shares. Here's the relevant data:
DIVIDENDS:
2013-04-21 05:15 Ł 42.6411 15793 0.00270000 COMPLETE
TRADE HISTORY:
2013-04-21 05:20:09 Market 44 Ł 0.455 Ł 20.02
2013-04-21 05:20:04 Market 200 Ł 0.46 Ł 92
Just noticed that you can't even get basic facts straight. The 44 at .455 was actually ME buying, so I know for certain it wasn't you. After the dividend went through I placed a buy order from my personal account (at face value + just over 1%) then sold into it and the 200 order at .46 (which WAS yours I believe). So your claim that you bought 244 shares is incorrect. You bought 200 bonds. Not particularly important - but please pay some attention to detail before you end up making false claims that actually matter. At that time I had face-value at .4479 - minor difference from your .451 is likely because you're having to look at trade data whilst I was going by what was actually available on the exchange right that instant (as it was after dividend payment I obviously didn't convert funds - if you can't see why that's obvious consider what happens to cash balances in each currency, and hence to the ratio of assets per currency, when I pay the dividend). |
|
|
|
Deprived has time and time again lied about showing he has the cash: 1. After this week's report I'll PROVE that I have all the cash I claim to have.
I can very easily prove I have the cash I claim to have.
Sure - will do that. I usually do reports Sunday evening - after this week's I'll flash the cash (place orders on all sites). You ruined an otherwise decent post with this. Read my whole response. Further down in same post I say: I'll need a pretty precise time agreed in advance for it plus a list of assets/site and you can give some 3 digit ending you want so you can see the bids are the size I state AND the right ending so are obviously mine (or someone else putting them up on my behalf I guess). There's obviously no point me cancelling order etc unless I know you'll be around to see the bids I put up. You made no effort to indicate a time at which you'd like to see the cash - and when I did, shortly after making that post, put up bids with our cash on LTC-Global and BTC.CO (amounting to more than total cash outstanding in bonds) there was zero acknowledgement of it despite the bids staying up whilst I slept overnight. That's why I want a time agreed in advance - so you can't pretend you didn't see the cash afterwards. Offer's open for this week (later today) after doing weekly reports as well. I'd like to modify it slightly however (giving you MORE information, not less). For BTC.CO/LTC-GLobal I'll just sling up bids - as can do it there without cancelling anything. For Bitfunder/CoinBR/BTC-E I'll show the cash over Teamviewer - so you can see the account name and balances. You can also then verify that I do, indeed, have on CoinBR the shares backing the pass-thoughs and the extra float of shares I hold in each (which are declared in my report anyway). The cash + those shares on CoinBR will likely add up to 85%+ of all LTC-ATF assets so whilst it won't prove my valuation is accurate it WILL prove that we have assets of around the claimed magnitude (and I assume you're not going to claim I hold zero securities - so you'd know it can't be too far off). I just need a time to do it - somewhere between about 18:00 and 23:00 GMT would work best for me, then I can make sure to do the weekly report shortly beforehand. I'm open to other reasonable suggestions on showing the cash - I have absolutely no objection to doing so. My only condition remains that you post here and confirm having seen it. Obviously I can't do much if someone buys or sells to me between the report being produced and you viewing cash (I draw the line at cancelling all Asks in particular). If that happens then you can obviously comment on that discrepancy when you report back - depending on which site and asset it is, I MAY be able and willing to prove that a transaction actually occurred changing cash on hand (some assets I don't particularly mind revealing trades in). |
|
|
|
|
Just to address a couple of perfectly valid points raised.
1. Me saying we haven't the cash to trade ASICMINER-PT whilst having 80% cash.
There's two seperate parts to how these two things reconcile:
A. A significant part of cash is in LTC. It can't be converted to BTC - as LTC-ATF is committed to holding around 85% of net assets in LTC.
B. Whilst we have plenty of cash, it's committed to buy orders. This is of particular importance on Bitfunder - where the same cash can't be applied to orders on different assets. So right this instant I have 79.227 BTC cash on Bitfunder but under 0.2 BTC available to place on new orders - the other 79 is already commited to Bids. So I can't bid on ASICMINER-PT there without cancelling other bids - and I don't want to cancel other bids or I wouldn't have them up in the first place.
2. Me selling shares near dividend date.
Usually I don't do this - though see my next paragraph for the exception. But 2700 were sold back to the fund by ThickAsThieves late in the week, so I was willing to sell a small number to replace the cash I'd used to buy his bonds back.
One a general point, do remember that I can't control the price you (or anyone else bids at).
So, for example, right now face value for a bond + our 1% markup is around .455 (I just sold into a few order slightly above that). But if you had a bid up at (say) .5 then I'm not going to refuse to sell into it because it's more than 1% over face value. If people place bids at high prices then rather obviously when I place an Ask at the correct price it'll fill their order - and there's nothing I can do to prevent that other than not sell bonds. Which does lead to the other exceptions where I'll sell near the end of the week:
1. If bids are up at 1.6% or more over face-value. Then the purchaser is paying for the week's interest so the usual reason not to sell near end of week no longer applies.
2. If there's little liquidity on the ask side on BTC-E and I need to convert BTC into LTC to balance currencies. In that instance I can sell at 1% over face value and the 0.6% I lose on paying a week's interest for newly sold shares is balanced by me saving a 0.2% transaction fee plus having to convert at a less favourable rate (because of a lack of volume of asks near the current trading price).
In general my policy is to check LTC-ATF.B1 order book regularly while I'm online. If I see Asks that can be filled at 99% or less of face-value (at the rate I could convert at) then I'll buy them back. If I see Bids at 101% or more of face-value (and I'm looking to sell more bonds) then I'll fill them.
I don't tend to put up Asks myself unless the exchange-rate is very stable - a 1% margin is too small to leave orders up unattended in a volatile market (this is the one BIG disadvantage of having a bond denominated in BTC but transacted in LTC).
Anyway, thanks for market-making : eventually I'd like to get my bot to do it, but that's some way off. I'm waiting for someone to start writing options on the bonds - it's possible to speculate on the BTC/LTC exchange-rate by doing that. Do be aware there's at least two other people who do it (market-make) from time to time - though one of them only does it with tiny orders (1-5 bonds).
FYI at present I'll be selling bonds if/when orders exist up to about 180 BTC total face-value. I'd indicated 200 BTC as a likely target in last week's LTC-ATF report but we won't need to sell that many as I've stopped trading a couple of thiings. If you (or anyone else) wants to buy at face-value + 1% then feel free to drop me a PM after placing an order and I'll fill it soon as I notice (if exchange-rate hasn't changed).
|
|
|
|
The one part I disagree with you on is your assertion that the exchanges will be the ones who will get the ball rolling.
I agree exchanges aren't the solution - in many respects they're actually part of the problem. Exchanges allow incompetents to attract investment without having to engage in a dialogue with investors themselves. I don't think people on the exchanges are incompetent per se. They are just operating under very information-scarce circumstances. If, lets say, you had ASICMINER publishing full statements with granular details, the only people who would put money in any of the opaque miners are the 5% of guys who are total gamblers. You would effectively starve most of the bad businesses out. My reference to incompetents referred to those running businesses - not the investors who, as you point out, are largely operating in an information vacuum. Many of the people running business ARE incompetent - incompetent at running businesses that is. |
|
|
|
Many other funds, such as Deprived's LTC-ATF actually refuse to release their books, despite suspicion of fraud.
Deprived hit the nail on the head -- but what he didn't tell you is that his own fund has serious problems as well. He's been put on the spot more than once and he has promised to provide proof for his financial statements, but he never does. Whether it's that he forgot or that he's committing fraud is unknown. That's why it's so important that businesses hire independent auditing.
If you have accusations against me make them in one of my threads or in a new thread here (or in scam accusations if you prefer). To OP: be aware that usagi is a delusional fuck-wit with a string of failed businesses behind him (or her - as he can't even get his gender straight and has been known to outright lie about it). The accusations he refers to are all by him - mainly based on basic misunderstandings he has plus the inability/unwillingness to even look at simple facts/figures in the public domain. I have to respond this once - as if I don't issue a denial then some may assume that to be an admission. I won't, however, respond further to any of his junk in this thread. |
|
|
|
The one part I disagree with you on is your assertion that the exchanges will be the ones who will get the ball rolling.
I agree exchanges aren't the solution - in many respects they're actually part of the problem. Exchanges allow incompetents to attract investment without having to engage in a dialogue with investors themselves. |
|
|
|
would be nice if we can hear from ziggap a bit of the current situation and the future plan
Uh, let me ask you this: Would you want to buy BTC from a website that disappears for 2 weeks at a time? That just stops paying dividends? IMO, it doesn't matter that the website is up. ZigGap is over at this point. It's highly unlikely that Ziggap is "over". Bitfloor has closed this past week, Coinbase is having issues, and BitInstant is in dire need of competition. If it comes back to life, Ziggap's future looks quite bright, actually. You're living in cloud cuckoo land. Remember that Aethero has a personal commitment to repay the BTCjam loan. Yet his finances were so dismal that he had to sell shares of the company into tiny bids to raise a few BTC. You think he did that whilst Ziggap had hundred of BTC sitting around? Seomehow he managed to raise the funds to pay off last month's BTCjam payment - but where's the next one coming from? Do you really believe this was down to some personal emergency? If so, I suggest you look at when he started selling shares - it was NOT when he vanished, it was earlier. Do you honestly believe a lightning strike took out his laptop - in the process somehow removing his ability to regain his password here - and also jumped down his Internet connection and took the website down? Did you miss that ZIggap actually logged in but didn't post whilst he was saying on irc he needed to recover his password? Here's what I had to say about it (to investors in my fund) BEFORE he showed up or commented at all (we had shares in it): ZIGGAP
A money-exchange website that clearly had serious problems and financial incompetence from the start. I've traded it pretty profitably for us previously - that someone is doomed isn't a reason not to trade it, just a reason to get out of it in time. I got the timing wrong on this. My calculations had indicated that the shit wouldn't hit the fan for them until at least mid-April. I was wrong - clearly there were non-visible factors I hadn't factored in (e.g. some share-sales were faked so didn't raise capital, they had other undiclosed debts etc).
This week someone dumped shares at tiny prices - including a good sized bunch into our orders. On quick investigation it was obvious it was the asset issuer. Their website had been non-functional for much of the week (unfortunately I hadn't realised this) and they missed a dividend payment at around the time of the dump. Dumping those shares was totally against the contract - which specified a minimum price for further shares to be sold at.
Issuer has logged in since but not posted.
The main reason our profits are depressed this week is because I applied a very large write-down on the value of these shares. The price hasn't totally collapsed yet - Asks are still well above what we paid, let alone what they're now marked down to. I would have written them down even further were it not for the fact that the website is now back up and functional and there's some signs of life. I don't believe this company will be viable as an investment (there's structural faults in their plan and a total lack of understanding of exchange-rate risk/mitigation) - but if they make ANY sort of positive announcement there'll be enough idiots around for us to get rid of our remaining holdings without further lossm probbaly at a profit to current book value and quite feasibly at a profit to what we actually paid.
Without the write-down of these, we'd have been up around 6-7% this week. If the issuer totally fails to return then profits will be reduced again next week by writing them down to near zero.
I'm less inclined to dump these for cheap as I did with the Bakewell ones - as issuer has some credibility in the community which they'll likely exploit to delay their collapse (and allow us to exit with profit). I expect some vague announcement about unspecified problems which are being resolved and an assurance that everything will be OK : which should generate enough Bids for our purpose. Note the bolded sentence at the end - which is a pretty accurate depiction of what actually happened. |
|
|
|
|
The interesting thing with those accounts are they appear to show that they made about a 400 BTC loss from selling BTC. i.e. if they hadn't bothered doing any business at all they'd be 400 BTC better off.
That's because they sold BTC for USD then the price of BTC rose sharply whilst their funds were stuck in USD - meaning by the time they converted back into BTC it was at a much higher rate.
That little gem of information (that they'd been making a loss from slow conversion) wasn't revealed until AFTER they'd sold shares of course. Whilst the information disclosed by companies after they've sold shares is bad it's nothing compared to the total lack of any information whatsoever provided at IPO time.
The problem companies like that one face is that if they revealed information up front properly then noone would invest - as it would be obvious that it wasn't really a BTC-denominated investment and that the operators apparently don't even understand the degree to which their business model is exposed to exchange-rate risk. And that (full disclosure in advance leading to slow/no sales) is not in their interest OR the interest of the exchange - so they get to list without any advance notice, any chance to ask questions or any financial records provided.
My guess is that it'll take a handful going bust (as is happening with Ziggap) before Bitfunder decide to tighten up on listing requirements and demand proper accounting BEFORE IPO. BTC.CO/LTC-Global are taking steps in that direction already (very tight restrictions on new listings now) after a bunch of crappy ones recently - but all that does is force the ones who can't/won't provide proper information to list elsewhere. Unfortunately when there's multiple exchanges the temptation is to lower standards to attract customers when raising standards is what's really needed.
The fundamental problem is that most people who try to run Bitcoin businesses are not competent to do so. And, by extension, most Bitcoin investments will make a loss for investors compared to just holding Bitcoins. The real threat to investors' funds isn't (so much) scams - it's well-intentioned but utterly incompetent business owners. Running a business requires skills and competence in running businesses - somehow a whole load of people miss that and assume competence is technical areas relevant to the business is a sufficient replacement. It's not. And unfortunately it seems the investing public want a second lesson in that - the many failures on GLBSE not being adequate proof that being able to make a website and a few hundred $ profit is NOT sufficient qualification to run a business several orders of magnitude larger.
Solve the core competence issue and the financial disclosure will sort itself out - any competent business manager will already have all key data tracked and accounted for. Until then just sit back and watch the parade of failures - with associated claims of everything being great right up until the company busts (typically because what's being declared as profit isn't actually profit at all).
|
|
|
|
At this point, the shareholder list will remain visible on the BitFunder asset list should someone want to copy and paste it.
There are no immediate plans to remove BAKEWELL the list, but might happen in the next few months.
I think it should stay public for a while so anyone else can get a copy for reference.
This is all I have to help with, wish it was more.
There's a quick something (two things in fact) you could do Ukyo that may help. When lists of shareholders are imported to Bitfunder they don't show up in the public asset list unless/until the account-holder enters a BTC address. Can you confirm whether or not the public list is actually complete? If not, could you email those not on it to add a BTC address. Second thng you could do is identify which BTC addresses in the list are Ian's. |
|
|
|
Lying, not lieing.
Thanks - keep on doing that despite knowing the correct spelling. |
|
|
|
The truth is you wouldn't DARE post an accusation in a moderated thread because you know you are full of shit.
The reason I don't post in moderated threads is ... wait for it .. because they're moderated and my effort is likely to be wasted by the post being deleted. There's nothing brave about posting in a moderated thread to make it worthy of a dare. Not sure what problem it is you think I have with my security BTW. Sure - I didn't get back to the HWM last week - but so what? We made a decent profit nearly getting back to where we were before LTC's massive rise vs BTC. Which means same LTC value and a much higher BTC one. NAV/U is still almost exactly same as at last report (down 0.01%) - despite LTC rising a fair bit. So we've made 2% or so trading this week so far which has been wiped out by exchange-rate rise. Nothing I can do about that - nor am I unhappy about it. As the fund has explicit exposure to BTC of around 15% that sort of thing is inevitable. There's nothing wrong, nothing broken and nothing to fix. |
|
|
|
I'm not requesting a scammer tag,
So you're just being a dick then? Cool story bro. Thanks for the bump. Will likely rename the thread to something more general and discuss another of your lies/misleading statements each day. That should keep the thread nicely up for a few months - longer if you make any more posts in the meantime obviously (as you seem to struggle to make a post of any length without lieing or making misleading statements). Feel free to respond but totally ignore addressing the fact that you lied (or are you saying you didn't promise to personally repay Nyan.A in full?). |
|
|
|
|
So did you promise to pay it in full personally or not? Your whiny little response somehow missed that rather key point out.
You accused me of lieing when I said that you did - yet now seem to be saying that you ARE paying in full. Which is it?
Can you even remember what the difference is between a lie and the truth (assuming you once actually knew)?
This can stay here - I'm not requesting a scammer tag, just making sure users of this forum are aware that you'll lie about promises you made then try to weasel out it by showing that you're kind of keeping part of it (to selected investors).
News-flash for usagi: There's a dividend facility facility available on LTC-GLobal. It lets you make transparent payments to ALL investors equally (yeah I know that's not the way you like to do things). Obviously it should only be used by those intending to actually honour their commitments - those trying to weasel out of them should continue to pay some investors in private and lie about what promises they made.
|
|
|
|
The person selling the bonds back to Deprived and the fund was me.
I am very grateful he made himself available quickly, and made good on fulfilling their value with no hiccups whatsoever.
This enabled me to sell the BTC at market rate and buy during the dip to 51 last night, just as planned.
As I told Deprived, his assets are probably my favorite in all of cryptocoin investing, and I WILL be back for more. I just wanted to have as much loose btc as possible to play against the current volatility.
Thanks for confirming it wasn't me (not that it would have mattered even if it was me - I can sell mine back same as anyone else). Would have maybe preferred if you hadn't as it's always amusing to read usagi's deluded accusations when I'm a bit bored. You got back into BTC better than me. Other than the 35 BTC I used to buy your bonds (which was my hedge against the chance BTC would just rise straight up fast) I only got in at about 58 (was out when the bottom was hit). Sold at 74 then got back in at 64. Looking like might be time to sell again soon. To be clear: the BTC trading I refer to above has nothing to do with the fund - I don't do currency-trading on BTC/USD for the fund (fund never holds USD other than for a second when I do the occasional manual arbitrage on BTC-E - but haven't done that for ages as too many bots doing it now). |
|
|
|
Some of you will be aware that I've commented at various times on usagi's assorted failed businesses and the scummy/scammy practices conducted by said issuer. The more alert of you will have noticed that usagi has locked various threads and is back to sticking his head in the sand and pretending that's all is well. What few of you will have realised is that usagi moved the conversation about his businesses into threads for the small fund and associated bond that I run. As they're traded in LTC and on LTC-Global, those threads are in the alternate cryptocurrencies section of the forum. Most of his posts there are of little interest - asserting that as I make a decent profit I must be lieing and begging me to show him my books so he can work out how to make a profit himself. Obviously he doesn't word it like that  This post is only going to address one very specific issue - where usagi is plainly lying and is clearly attempting to back out of a commitment made to his investors. Recently usagi asked in one of my threads (as his own relevant ones are locked of course) what I wanted him to do for me to stop posting about his securities. Here's his response to one of my points: NYAN.A: You promised to repay this in full personally.
Another lie. It was insured by CPA. There's a big difference. What I actually said has been posted on the forums since pretty much November. Well that's wierd because: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133168.msg1482060#msg1482060Letter to Shareholders of all my companies:
In response to some recent enquirers I'd like to remind people that I DO NOT HAVE PERSONAL LIABILITY. The contracts were all very clear. NYAN.A was insured by CPA and CPA existed to expose investors to both the rewards -- and the risks -- of insurance. You knew that before you invested, so it's a little late to start complaining. Do not bother to try and shift the scam accusations from "usagi is responsible for the mining crash" to "usagi has personal liability". I will simply ignore you.
You have to understand. If I invest in a company like BitVPS, and the boss (rg) dumps his WoT/OTC key on pastebin, sells his company and moves to timbuktu -- that I am not responsible for covering investor's loss. Some people seem to think that taking 5% of investment dividend qualifies me to shoulder 100% of the risk. That's just not going to happen on many levels, least of all the contract stating I am not responsible.
This is very important to understand because I will be, breathtakingly, assuming personal liability for NYAN.A.
Yes, you heard it here first. I will be paying what is remaining on NYAN.A out of my personal salary over a period of months because so many companies blew up that all of the value in NYAN.B and most of the value in NYAN.A has disappeared. BITVPS is gone. That was our gem. We're not on the list of BITCOINRS (fancy that). And so on. I've also sold $4,000 worth of my personal gold and silver in order to make bids on BMF securities (see auction) and to buy out the JAH and RSM positions so that my shareholders can receive full value. I've done this in auction or on the market so shareholders know they are getting a better deal than if I didn't do this. I've also relinquished my personal stake in these companies back to shareholders to increase their value.
It's sad that I won't be able to save any money during this time but I believe that contractual obligations be damned -- it's the right thing to do.
In a better world the people who owe me money (as listed in the claims thread) would do the same thing. But they aren't. They're running and hiding and pretending they don't owe me any money.
That makes me sick. And what's worse is a handful of very confused individuals who believe it's all my fault.
Well there's nothing I can really say to anyone over this, because actions speak louder than words.
At any rate, Chinese New Year is coming up soon so let's enjoy ourselves Smiley" As clear as anything he explains how he doesn't have to accept personal laibilty (true) then equally states that despite that he's going to accept that liability and pay them out of his wages. Obviously that never happened - it's usagi so promises are just things you say because they sound good not actual commitments. But now he's even denying ever saying it - despite (as of now) the post still being viewable. Hopefully a few of you see it before it vanishes - into whatever black-hole the promise (and payments) have vanished. In fairness, in the past usagi has generally kept actual explicit promises (just fucked up everything he touched, lied through his teeth, made false claims regularly and failed to understand even basic issues germane to the businesses he purported to run). Seems like now he's going the extra mile and progressing to not just failing to keep promises/commitments - but actually lying about having made the commitment. Be VERY careful if you have to deal with this piece of shit. Now to see if he's dumb enough to quote the first sentence of his post without bothering to refresh his memory on the rest of what he said. |
|
|
|
That company also deleted all posts, won't respond (thread is locked), won't provide updated information, refuses to pay out funds to shareholders...
All four of the above statements are complete fabrications you are fully aware of, especially as the thread was locked due to your own trolling on our April 4th update. Well dealing with the 4 statements in order: 1. Deleted all posts. TRUE - after GLBSE vanished you deleted the vast majority of ALL your posts not just BMF ones. How is that a lie? It's a lie because you are not telling the truth. I did not delete posts germaine to outstanding contracts or the CPA liquidity loan. I also remained active and I posted during the timeframe where I was deleting my other posts. That is why it's a lie -- because you lied. 2. Locking thread. TRUE - you admit so yourself. That you did it because you didn't want to reply to what you viewed as me trolling is the reason WHY it's locked not evidence of it NOT being locked.
It's a lie because you said "won't respond (locked the thread)". Here you re-arrange the order in which you give your excuse, dealing with "(locked the thread)" as if it were a sole statement of fact. It was not, you used the fact that I locked my thread to show that I was refusing to respond. Your lie is even more ridiculous due to the fact that the thread in question was locked after giving a response to your puerile accusations. You were fully aware of the fact I was responding. you just decided to lie about it. 3. Won't provide updated information. TRUE. My post that you believe was trolling pointed out that, contrary to your previous post, the information in OP was NOT up to date. Have you updated it? No.
Sorry, not up to date or not providing updates? Sure, there's some out of date info in the thread. I'm not a machine. But you didn't say that, you said I "won't provide updated information," -- in short, you lied. 4. Refuses to pay out to shareholders. TRUE. You HAD stated you weren't going to pay out more funds until your securities were approved for trading. That appears to have been deleted from your contract on BTC.CO now.
No, this is a load of horseshit. You are making it sound like there is a line of angry shareholders demanding payment. Sorry jack, that's a lie. I've made it very clear for months that I had not wished to shut down BMF and some of my other companies. You in particular suggested a liquidation auction which I did on the condition that you said you thought it would help me get listed. Well it didn't, and the companies still have assets. I've made it very clear how we will proceed with the companies. You are not running my companies. I don't have to pay anyone anything. I least of all have to buy anything back. Please show me where it states in my contract that I am forced to buy back or pay anything out to shareholders. Go ahead, the posts were un-deleted with my permission. What do I want you to do? Pretty simple:
BMF: Produce a proper accounting of what happened to all assets, ESPECIALLY the mining hardware and the funds raised from them. If there's still significant assets left then, with proper info on what assets the shares have, I don't personally object to BMF being traded provided you dividend out further funds as they're received. Right now I (and others) believe there's some very dubious crap going on over the hardware - and that some hardware listed as belonging to the company before GLBSE shutdown has vanished without trace.
Done. See the final claims thread esp. the spreadsheets showing the payment of all funds refunded by BFL to shareholders. There is still one BFL single for which BFL has ignored multiple requests to provide a shipping number. I think they walked off with it. Now it's your turn, please release the holdings of your company or stop running a LTC-GLOBAL moderated fund. I'm sure your shareholders would love to know more about how you committed securities fraud by issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back. I'm sure you will claim they were sold back to the fund. Okay then, show us the books. Oh, you don't want to show us the books? Well then don't ask me to show you my books either. You're a hypocritical liar. I published the books for BMF and they were updated almost every single day for months. Who do you think you are to ask me to publish my books like I have been hiding something? You're the one who refuses to publish his books. NYAN.A: You promised to repay this in full personally.
Another lie. It was insured by CPA. There's a big difference. What I actually said has been posted on the forums since pretty much November. NYAN.B/C: These have zero value - and should either be closed or left dormant indefinitely (in case obsi evr shows up).
Who are you to say what my companies are worth? If you have any sort of weight here at all, then get my securities listed like you said you would try to help me do if I ran an asset liquidation auction. NYAN/CPA: CPA had some assets - specifically BMF shares at least. Proceeds from this need to go to NYAN.A unless you're honouring your previous promise to repay NYAN.A in full.
You are clueless. You have no idea what CPA's priorities are, what assets it holds/held, or anything. I've been in contact with the relevant people (for the most part). You? You're a tard, you know nothing because you are not involved in any of what we are doing. That is a fact. Here's a big hint. If CPA owed someone on a contract they signed, CPA's first priority would be to pay out on that contract, not liquidate it's assets and pay shareholders. And their second priority would be fufilling any other terms of their contracts before randomly liquidating all assets and paying out to shareholders. Seriously, are you retarded? Stop telling me how to run my companies. TU.SILVER: You need to decide what it actually is and amend contract to reflect that.
You need to read our audited and approved financial reports and stop being a dink. Basically sort out the mess on the old companies and decide what the new one is and stick to it (and have a contract that reflects what it IS not what is was, presumably, originally intended to be). All the time you leave BMF/NYAN.A lieing around festering for no reason and with no clear accounting you can rely on me regularly raising it. If you look at my last post in your TU.SILVER thread I believe I have a slightly less hostile than usual explanation there of what the problem is with what you're trying to do - selling options on shares than are 75% effectively just BTC is near worthless and dishonest when you portray them as being options on silver.
Done, thanks. You can get back to managing your own fund now. It has serious problems. You can't even beat your own HWM so I would suggest you go look after your own chickens before trying to tell me how to run my cattle ranch. Quote for posterity in case it gets deleted or edited. |
|
|
|
I'm sure your shareholders would love to know more about how you committed securities fraud by issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back. I'm sure you will claim they were sold back to the fund. Okay then, show us the books.
You really are full of shit. An investor asked to sell back a bunch of bonds yesterday. I bought 3500 from him personally and the fund bought back 2200-odd. I don't have the right to release his identity to you without his agreement. The 2200 odd were paid for by me transferring BTC to him on BTC.CO (at 99% of face value as per the contract). The 3500 I bought personally were paid for by a BTC transfer from me to an address he provided. 2013-04-15 21:42:03 Internal Transfer To XXXXXX txid: TXFR-Deprived-1366058523 22.28490000 BTC There's the transaction, with recipient's name blacked out. Complete with transaction ID. Feel free to ask burnside if that transaction exists and matches in time 2200-odd shares being sent back by someone with the same account name on LTC.CO (he actually returned to my personal account by mistake and I promptly sent them on to the issuing account). Incidentally, even someone as retarded as yourself should have realised that your claim that of me "issuing yourself 2,218 shares when it was time to pay the dividend and then cancelling them without placing a market order to buy them back." wasn't correct. You just needed to look at the number of shares outstanding at time of each dividend and now. And it would have been apparent that what happened was someone sold back. Now that COULD have been me - but as it happens it wasn't. And if it had been - so what. READ THE FUCKING CONTRACT. ANY investor can just send shares to me without placing a market order. And I'll sell the relevant quantity of BTC and transfer them 99% of the received LTC. It's in the contract. Your level of retardedness is reaching new levels - which is one hell of an achievement. I'm not that interested in wasting my time discussing your various failed/failing "businesses" in this thread. If you ever have an unopened unmoderated thread about them we can continue the discussion there. I'm assuming if I posted in your silver thread explaining how what you do doesn't match the contract my post would just get moderated. If I'm feeling bored and have some spare time I'll make a seperate discussion thread for it one day. I will however respond to the most obvious and blatant lie in a thread of its own - as it deserves a bit more publicity than it would get here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
