Just some advice on reporting it to the police.

DON'T wander into your local Police station with nothing planned or prepared then proceed to totally confuse whoever you speak to.
DO prepare a full written summary of what happened first - referencing either evidence or where evidence could be obtained from.

My recommendation would be that the initial report be from someone who gave him a simple loan.  That's far easier to explain than trying to explain what being a Bakewell shareholder means.  The key of the initial report is to get an investigation opened - then all the other loans/shorts/shares etc can get added in.

To get an investigation opened the main thing you need to convince them of is that there' a reasonable prospect of a conviction at the end of it.  That definitely IS the case here - but it's easy to fail to make that clear if you don't plan in advance and end up waffling on about irreleavnt things rather than hammering home that the evidence does exist/is recoverable and that there's no doubt over the identity of the perpetrator.

Don't delay giving 2nd chances / last chances etc.  Some evidence only has a limited life-span (e.g. ISP logs of allocated IP addresses) and you really want the Police involved BEFORE the Avalons arrive - so that they can be seized by the Police on arrival then disposed of appropriately at the end of their investigation.  It may be that Ian's lawyer (he'd have one by then) may advise him to turn the Avalon over to someone continuing to operate Bakewell.  Remember failing to repay the loans isn't necessarily criminal, stealing the investors' computers definitely is - and once Police involvement forces him to get a lawyer he'll have that explained to him.

This needs to be dealt with by going to the police - not by share-holder motions on a company that has no legal existence.

Of the two Avalons, one was paid for by a loan to the company - which still hasn't been discharged in full.  So from ANY perspective the shareholders do not have clear title to that even if it were accepted that the "company" was a legal person.

There's 0% chance Yifu will intervene.  He'd expose himself and his company to risk for no benefit and set a precedent whereby he'd end up inundated with people claiming Avalon X was paid for with their money so should be sent to them.  He refused to intervene in one such dispute over a loan before.

But if you DO go ahead with this, you could also consider sending a letter to BFL (no translation neeed) and see if they'll do anything about the preordered hardware for usagi's company BMF which has still not accounted for for all the hardware it claimed to have before GLBSE closed.  That company also deleted all posts, won't respond (thread is locked), won't provide updated information, refuses to pay out funds to shareholders and has made promises (repaying all NYAN.A investors in full) that the rise in BTC price has made unlikely ever to be fulfilled.

Rather than attemtion-whoring here with dodgy proposals (you're asking Yifu to break a contract made with Ian Bakewell - without a court order he CAN'T legally confiscate the Avalons), usagi would be better served spending the time finally sorting out the finances of his own companies which have languished without attention since January.  Yes - we GET that you want to list them so you can buy the shares back for cheap by forcing investors into submission by never doing anything, failing to update accounts and withholding their money.  Whining about Bakewell not paying his investors/honouring his promises is the ultimate in hypocrisy as you're doing precisely the same to your own ones.  Or is there somewhere a schedule of how/when you'll meet your promise to refund NYAN.A investors in full?

So you stopped paying the dividends you'd promised in October last year.  Then about 4-5 months later make a few lines post on your blog - and somehow that's supposed to be fine?

I can explain why the MPEx dividend changed.

Originally 10% of shares were sold on MPEx - hence the dividend being 10%.  Remainder were either held by Erik himself or by other private investors.  Last month (or maybe February) one of the other investors decided to sell some of his stake - and it was sold in the market.  This increased the shares on MPEx from 10% of total equity to 13% - and the dividend increased accordingly.

Would assume the systems operator is doing stuff like checking for double-spend attacks (and other variations on the same theme) which take a reasonable amount of effort and expertise to do.  Obviously it does eat into the bottom-line and share valuation of course.

Not unless LTC falls back a lot further vs BTC.  The rise in LTC vs BTC meant our LTC-Denominated cash/assets increased massively in BTC value - so even after buying a back of units we're still very safely covering our bond exposure (bonds currently equal under 40% of NAV - with 150% the maximum we're allowed).  When that gets over about 75% is when I'd think about selling more units - which would need LTC falling to fairly near .01 vs BTC.  At present it looks like LTC may manage to stay well above that - at least for a while - though I still expect it to crash back below that eventually.  But if it delays crashing back then we may well have made enough profit by then not to need to sell more units anyway.

On a seperate point there's an absolute howler of a mistake in this week's spreadsheet.

If you look at the LTC cash on LTC-GLobal it says 8048 LTC then reports that as being worth 8100 BTC!  Obviously what happened is that at some point I typed the LTC balance into the BTC-value field and never noticed.  The mistake has no ramifications other than being embarassing - the BTC-value there isn't used in any calculations of significance and doesn't impact on the final NAV.  If (and it HAS happened) I enter a wrong figure into a cell that actually matters then I tend to notice it immediately as it causes a massive unexpected move in NAV/U - which lets me know I just made a cockup.

Before submitting the report one of things I do is check all holdings/balances match ones on the actual sites - that doesn't, of course, mean I'll notice changes in values that are calculated for display only and not otherwise used.

So when are you going to pay all the back dividends you owe?

You originally promised some large % per month, paid it for a while then when sales slowed up paid occasional small amounts but nothing like what you'd promised.  You then released a news item saying you'd explain about the missed dividends - but have never mentioned them since.

For those not aware this was an obvious ponzi/scam from the start.  Whilst he was selling shares he would pay out about 1/3 of what he sold as dividends.  Soon as share sales stopped he stopped paying dividends.  Now he's back for another try.

WEEKLY REPORT




I'm sure it will come as no surprise that we made a loss this week.  LTC rose massively vs BTC before moving back down but has ended the week (at least at the point when I prepared this) at .00258.  That's still nearly three times what it was at last week.

We've finished up with a 10.8% reduction in NAV/U (at one stage during the week we were at -20%).  Typically I'd expect a doubling of exchange-rate to result in a drop of NAV/U of around 10-12%.  That we've kept the drop down to 10.8% indicates some reasonable trading profits.  In fact trading profits were pretty good - it's hard to be exact but I'd guess around 10-12% before writing down prices.  Because the exchange-rate movement was so extreme it managed to hit with a double-whammy.  Not only did we lose value on the BTC part of our portfolio but a lot of our LTC-denominated investments had to be significantly written down.

Of course it's not all bad news.  The value of our units if expressed in BTC or USD rose enormously.  Whilst the units ARE denominated in LTC and DID make a loss I'm pretty confident most investors would happily take a 10% or so hair-cut on unit value in LTC in return for LTC trebling vs BTC and quadrupling or more vs USD.  A month of it doing that every week and anyone holding a decent number of units would never need to work again.

ZigGap is proceeding largely as predicted last week.  The asset issuer showed up, gave a totally unconvincing and vague explanation plus the obligatory assurance that everything would be OK.  Reaction in the market wasn't as good as I'd hoped - but it WAS a pretty piss-poor explanation which only the most blinkered of optimists would take seriously.  It does actually appear like the issuer may well try to struggle on - presumably having begged, borrowed or stole some cash from somewhere.  We picked up a nice bunch more of the shares absolutely dirt cheap and have since since sold a fair few at more than we paid.  So at the end of the week we own more shares with a total book value significantly lower than it was last week AND have taken some profit from it.  Our holdings there are now cheap enough that it's no longer a significant issue.  I haven't marked them down further (just averaged cost as usual) as right now I could sell them into Bids for more than they're on the books for anyway - but I'm holding off as I'm confident an opportunity to sell for more will show up at some point.

This week also saw significant sale of unit back to the fund - with a good chunk of them being my own.  Speaking for myself I sold to lock in exchange-rate gains - with the intent to buy back into the fund if necessary (i.e. if the rate plunged back down).  That works out well for both the fund and myself if it happens - I get good profit from exchange-rate movement and the fund gets to buy shares off me then sell them back at a pretty hefty markup.  When the rate was high the fund obviously didn't need the capital.  In fact there's still absolutely need for the fund to resell any of the units that were sold back.  The exchange-rate would need to drop to close to 0.01 before I'd have to start selling the units again.

If anyone else wants to sell units please feel free to do so : if the exchange-rate stays where it is I'd love to see another 50-60 units sold back and would sell back half of those myself if someone else sells back the rest (I'd like to keep my personal holding at around 50% of all units).

Looking ahead, I see a pretty dry period for us on LTC-Global.  The price of nearly all securities there has crashed.  There's three seperate, but linked, reasons for this:

1.  Most shares are effectively fully or largely valued in either BTC or USD.  So LTC's rise in exchange-rates has naturally lowered their price.  That means even if the same volume of shares changes hands the volume of LTC traded will be much smaller.
2.  The sharp price in value of lTC has, in my view, prompted a change in the view-point of many investors.  Suddenly they're thinking of it as "money" rather than as "LTC".  And that means they're more careful/cautious about investing it.
3.  There's been dodgy goings on and shoddy/non-existent accounting in a number of securities (that's not an exclusive to LTC-GLobal).  THis is in part due to the rise in LTC/BTC vs USD - whereby those who borrowed denominated in Crypto to spend in Fiat are a little bit screwed when it comes time to repay.

With the LTC exchange-rate madness I've had little time recently to work on our software.  I'll try to put some time aside for this week - and also for the other new projects I have lined up for us.

Management fee of 0 units is due this week.  HWM stays as it was - no management fee for me until I get NAV/U back over where it was at the start of this week.
WIll check exchange-rate and put up a suitable Bid after posting this.

A more tempting offer than most we see.  I have a few questions:

1.  Have you verified the profits are what was claimed?  It looks like it should be fairly easy to confirm.
2.  Have you taken any legal advice on whether this would face any difficulties from the gambling element of it?  My guess is that these can be avoided by careful wording of what's offered - but basing an investment on a guess is always risky.
3.  Would investors be required to acquire "real" shares in their real identities?
4.  Do you have (or anticipate) escrow arrangements to be in place to ensure that you get the site after sending the BTC for it.

Nice to see a request for investment where I could immediately understand what was offered and what the potential upside was.

So, um what happens if (as has just happened) LTC rises sharply vs BTC and suddenly the NAV of these reserves exceeds the "face value" of 0.25 BTC per share?  Do you then dividend it out?

What I can't figure out is how - if you didn't need to hold back 30% of revenue when you were making a loss - you suddenly need to do so when you're making a profit.  I thought YOU pay the various expenses - regardless of what profit/loss was.  And as you hold most of the shares you gain more from dividends now anyway.

Holding the funds inactive does nothing.  Using it to pay for costs that were YOUR responsibility is near enough stealing from investors.

Have to say I gave up on taking this IPO seriously when you set a minimum of shares that had to be sold for the IPO to proceed - then, when that wasn't reached, edited the contract mid-IPO to reduce the target!  Are ALL assets on Cryto::Stocks allowed to just change IPO terms like that - or just yours?  I actually agree that, in theory, the change made some sense - as BTC had risen vs USD.  But if you want to price shares/set limits based on USD rather than BTC then you do so IN THE CONTRACT BEFORE SELLING ANY SHARES.

The preferred order for things to happen is:
1.  Decide what you're going to do.
2.  Sell shares.
3.  Do what you said you'd do.

So far you seem to have problems with #1, had to change the IPO mid-launch to sort of achieve #2 and now appear to have no intention of doing #3 at all.

Apparently emma's the name of his young daughter.

Noone (or very few people) knows who the devs are - they only correspond through a few sock-puppets/spammers.

Why would they want other people to do transactions?  Better for them if they're the only ones able to dump into the pump on BTC-E. Expect some sort of message along the lines of "oops - we gave you all the wrong client" once the pump/dump is over.

That's the risk you take when you buy into a clone of BTC that lacks the network power and where the devs are too embarassed to even show themselves here.

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/

Good for charts, not so much for tracking current prices.

Glad I unignored you - that's one hell of a kiln!

What exchange-rate did you use EB?

EDIT:  Just realised you were quoitng last month's report.  At that point LTC was at a low - its current price is after a massive rise which didn't start until about a week into March.

But it's an excuse to lie about a simple fact that could be verified in 10 seconds?

Hehe missed this.

This actually happened in Poker backing/staking.  Some idiot oversold himself for a large tournament then failed to bust out early and ended up finishing 2nd.  He then had the awkward problem of having to pay out huge profit shares to about well over 100% of shares in himself.

It's actually not that different to what a bunch of recent IPOs are doing: taking large upfront chunks of cash out of the IPO proceeds, safe in the knowledge that the "business" will never actually make that much.  It's a different model - but still the same principle of fleecing investors via a dishonest valuation.

And the fiat-based companies that don't produce full accounts have an entirely different way to steal.  They can decide whether or not, for the purpsoes of reporting to investors, they've held cash as BTC or USD AFTER seeing which way exchange-rates move: pocketing any difference themselves.  Bob's surplus was apparently held in BTC - whilst LTC had risen sharply.  If he'd actually been holding LTC he could have bought the BTC at the old rate with 1/3-1/4 of it and pocketed the rest - and investors couldn't tell the difference.

Only way investors can have confidence THAT sort of thing doesn't occur is if the denomination in which cash will be held is stated in advance (e.g. for LTC-ATF it's policy that it's kept in the range of 80-90% LTC and 10-20% BTC).  That's another area where "businesses" are leaving htemselves open opportunities to defraud investors simply failing to make clear a very basic policy that there's no good reason to hide.

Wow - how can you take a point you were essentially correct on then manage to isolate a single statement I make and make an entirely false claim?  Do you ever actually check facts before making statements about them?

Do you know what unique means?
How about you go look at some of the fiat companies I referred to.
And notice that their contracts say they'll produce statements.
Then look and see no such statements.
You only have to find ONE more for him not to be unique (look the word up first - so you know what it means).
You'll find lots.

Feel free to change the subjest as you usually do when you're wrong.

You could start by looking at ZIGGAP and BitPride - and see that neither is managed to stick to a dividend schedule let alone accompanying statements.  Then maybe look at Tabita/S.Wihee on LTC-GLobal - the same platform as EB's security.  See the bits in their contracts about accounts?

Also, on a simple point of logic:

If I say "EB is not unique in X"
You saying "Yes he is - he's unique in Y"
Is NOT a response to what I posted - it's an entirely seperate (and this case, STILL entirely wrong) one.

X being "Produced accounts"
Y being "Was contractually obliged to produce accounts and failed to do so".

NOT the same thing.

He's hardly unique in his failure to post accounts.  Don't think ANY of the fiat-based assets on LTC-Global have posted anything resembling accounts or even lists of assets this month.  Nor (unless today - just reading threads now) have any of the fiat-based ones on Bitfunder - except usagi's.  Don't think there's any ones on BTC.CO to do so (I'm not counting mining securities - as most of those have no economic activity needing regular accounts).

The situation's not a lot better for non-fiat denominated "businesses" either.  Most funds do produce balance/asset lists (which is about all they need to produce - as investors only own the assets not the company) but things listed as shares generally fail dismally in providing any records at all, no matter which site they're on (exception being MPEx).

The simple test of whether a company is providing sufficient information is this:  Go to their thread and read it.  If you believe everything the asset issuer tells you, what is the underlieing/book value of your share/unit?  Is there ANY basis on which you can calculate ANY value for your share/unit from what they've told you?  If not, then they're failing you.  Most BTC/LTC businesses totally fail at this.

That's in no way to excuse EB - just pointing out the problem is a very wide-spread one.

How about whoever the developer(s) are come and introduce themselves and ask for advice if they want it?

Seems noone seems to want to own up to being responsible for it.  For all we know the developer(s) have already worked out how to fix the problem and are developing a patch.

Think most people prefer to speak to the mechanic rather than the greasy rag.

Actually, if you want to sell your bonds I'll take them personally off you at 2% over face-value (as I want some more myself but aren't issuing any on fund until I see where LTC price settles) - so you can even get out at a profit.  Send them to my personal account on LTC-GLobal (Deprived) and post here a BTC address you want the cash sent to + number of bonds.

Not sure how many you have - as the % you claim doesn't match what's on your email address.  Offer's limited to 25 BTC worth - which I'm sure covers you.  For clarity I'd be paying exactly .0102 BTC per bond.

For the last time - the fund is NOT denominated in BTC, but in LTC.

Learn to fucking read please.

At time of last report, the value of a unit had grown by a bit over 500% in the 6 months it had been running (in LTC).  That's from 10 to 60-odd.

If you valued those shares in BTC then the rise is MUCH higher - as LTC was worth 3 times as much vs BTC at the time of report as at start of the fund.  SO obviously if it's value is now 6 times what it was in LTC it'll be 18 times as much in BTC just because of how exchange-rate has changed.

SInce that report, LTC again quadrupled vs BTC (now back down to a bit over treble) - so the value MEASURED in BTC has trebled again despite falling in LTC.

Either stop trolling or work out the VERY BASICS of how exchange-rate changes effect the value of something held in currency X if you choose to value it in currency Y.  At this stage I seriously think you may just be trolling - as you're misunderstanding an absolutely simple point (and still haven't grasped how the bonds actually work).

You also mentioned you'd like to liquidate your bonds.  Sure - you can either do it via market or by redmeption via me at 99% of face value.  Just transfer the shares back to me on LTC-GLOBAL and tell me whether you want LTC or BTC and I'll send it.  I'd recommend taking BTC then I won't have to explain to you how exchange-rates work and why you got the number of LTC you did.