Bitcoin Forum
July 02, 2024, 11:21:13 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 »
1961  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Selling FreiCoins 5000 frc @2 btc on: January 01, 2013, 10:48:59 AM
I'm selling FRC at .0004 BTC per FRC (2 btc for 5000frc), Feel free to PM me if interested

PS

Is that 5000 FRC before or after demurrage?

I.e. are you offering 5000 FRC with an actual value lower than that due to demurrage, or are you offering an amount of FRC greater than 5000 which will have a value of 5000 FRC after demurrage is applied up to the time at which the transaction occurs?
1962  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BTCI mining stocks investment fund IPO on: January 01, 2013, 04:30:25 AM
https://btct.co/security/BTCI

Bitcoin Investments - Mining stocks Investment fund

To use the proceeds of the IPO to buy shares in mainly in bitcoin based mining stocks with a strong organic growth plan.   To focus on the soon to be five listed mining stocks on the exchange.  We will also look into other bitcoin securities with a strong growth plan also on other exchanges.  We will try to avoid bonds.  47.5% of the profits made will be reinvested into buying more shares and increasing our market capitalisation as well as increasing dividends.  It could be decided by motion to increase this amount but not decrease it until our market capitalisation is too large or the fund staff can earn a full time living wage by working for the fund.  Another 47.5% will be paid out in dividends.  With 5% being paid to the fund operators.  The funds operators will receive 1% of all shares created.  25,000 shares will be created and issued at 0.01BTC.  Any future share issues will be decided by motion.  Any major shareholder can ask for a motion and any group of small shareholders can ask for a motion.  The only motions not allowed unless agreed to by the fund operators are on decreasing the growth fund, on closing the fund down or replacing the chief operator (Matthew Holt).

Accounts Spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap02rO_j4NLvdGtoZlhpNHZiOXNIMldIU2xsUHkxLVE

A few issues (mainly minor) that hopefully you can fix before unlocking the assets for mods to vote on :

1.  You say you'll invest mainly in securities that have a "strong organic growth plan".  Could you please explain the difference between this and a "strongth growth plan" and how your fund works out whether growth is organic rather than inorganic?  i.e. is "organic" just a buzzword you threw in or does it have some significant meaning?

2.  You say "The funds operators will receive 1% of all shares created".  Do you actually mean this - or do you mean 1% of all shares sold?  As written you'd start off with 250 shares - meaning you'd own 100% of the fund , 50% after 250 shares were sold etc.  

3.  You need a close-down plan.

4.  As it claims to be a fund, how is liquidity being provided?  Will some means be provided for investors to sell back their shares at near to NAV/U?  This is of particular concern since the initial tranches of shares being sold is fairly large (more than your lTC fund has sold in the 3 months+ it has been running) so there'll be a price ceiling but no floor is being set.

5.  Is the price of the first 25000 share going to stay fixed at 1.0 even if NAV/U significantly changes?  If so then that prevents any growth in price if NAV/U rises - and means investors have no way to realise any  value from increased NAV/U until the whole 25000 have sold out.  It also means if NAV/U falls you have to continue selling units at 1.0 - even when it's become unrealistic/unattractive- making it very hard to sell any more (as happened with your LTC fund for a few months).

6.  What is the policy on the price of extra shares issued after the first 25000?

7.  What is the fund's policy on buying back shares on the market (linked a bit, but not entirely, to point 4)?  Are managerial shares returned in ratio if this happens? Is there any restriction on whether the manager can sell the shares he is given (obviously relates to previous sentence)?

8.  Do you have any policy on spreading risk / limiting risk per asset and /or per issuer (where one person issues multiple assets)?

9.  Will you only invest in BTC-denominated assets or will you also invest in ones denominated in other crypto-currencies (presently that would be mainly LTC - but obviously that could change over time)?

9.  There should be a statement in the contract that you won't invest in any other asset managed by yourself (it's banned under BTC.CO rules anyway - but should be explicitly stated).

On point 8 you need to make sure you understand the (exchange's) restrictions on long-term investment companies -as your LTC fund is in breach of them.  Main ones are no investing in other stuff you manage and no investing in other long-term investment funds (the 2nd one is what your LTC fund has broken - by holding DMF).  To explain why that rule exists (from my recollection of discussion at the time) any investor in your fund is paying THREE management fees on dividends from assets invested in by DMF's - the asset's own fees, DMF's management fee and then yours on top.  Plus you're charging a fee to manage the fund, then delegating responsibility for investment decisions on a portion of the fund to DMF's management but still taking a fee on the proceeds from that.  Plus your fund's exposure to risk per asset/ asset issuer is no longer entirely in your hands (as you gain/lose exposure when DMF changes its investments).  Plus if you can invest in DMF then DMF could invest in you - then we'd have a feedback situation where both of your prices could move together in an unrealistic manner due entirely to changes in one feeding back to the other and then repeatedly going through the same cycle.

I'm not trying to put you off running the fund - just want to make sure everything's clear before you start.
1963  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Ian Bakewell on: December 31, 2012, 07:26:51 PM
do you consent to burnside confirming whether or not shares in bakewell were issued to it?

Burnside knows what e-mail address I used to lay claim to GLBSE shares because it's at the top of all the lists he owns.

Not sure that's strictly accurate.

All burnside knows is what email is at the top of the lists you sent him.  He has no way of knowing whether it's the email address you provided nefario with (or were the lists signed with nefario's public key?  If so, then yes- burnside does know assuming he verified the signature).

As you and Ian are both (pretty much) claiming the other is lieing there's no way he can take either of your word for anything is there?  If he'll take your word that X is the email address you gave nefario then he may just as well take your word for it that Ian stole your shares.  That's why I said the email address used needed to be verified by a disinterested party.

Unfortunately you also need to verify that you actually owned shares.  If nefario will cooperate you can do that.  What you need to do is email nefario, provide your email address (and sufficient information that he can know it's yours - which won't be hard) then ask him whether you owned Bakewell shares and if so, to confirm in a GPG signed email that you held X shares and that those shares were in the list provided to Bakewell at the email address you provided.  Then you can forward the email to burnside (and publish it here) and have him confirm that email address wasn't in the list bakewell provided.  Obviously if nefario replies that you didn't own any shares then an apology would be in order.

Similarly, bakewell (if honest) could email nefario asking for nefario to send him a signed copy of the list - then provide that to burnside and have burnside confirm it's same as the list he received.

Obviously there's a pretty good chance nefario won't assist - but whichever of you two is telling the truth should surely be trying to actually prove their innocence and the other party's guilt.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't have any particular view on which (either or both) of you is telling (or in usagi's case thinks they're telling - as the shares could have been sold and forgotten about or not even noticed) the truth.
1964  Other / Archival / Re: btt on: December 31, 2012, 07:06:41 PM
I've been contacted by multiple potential investors, interested in buying shares, but concerned that a GLBSE like default could occur at BTC-TC leaving bASIC-MINING shareholders in limbo. I'd like to assure everyone that BTC-TC has been set up in such a way that a complete loss of shareholder data is not possible. Asset issuer accounts are automatically emailed updated shareholder lists every 12hrs. These lists contain the email address of record and number of shares held by each investor in bASIC-MINING.

I receive these lists and they are stored in an outlook data file, which is backed up once/week on my file server. I've also created a hard copy of this information and filed it away for safe keeping(I'm a meticulous record keeper) and I'll update this copy once/week. Please rest assured that every precaution has been taken to avoid a repeat of the disastrous GLBSE default. If contact with BTC-TC is lost for a contiguous 72hrs I will retrieve the most recent shareholder list and begin confirming holdings via email, 48hrs after that if contact with BTC-TC has not been restored I will begin collecting payment addresses from confirmed shareholders so that manual payments may resume within 7 days. Any shares that cannot be matched to a payment address will have their share of dividends set aside until such time as payments can be resumed.

Thank you and please be assured that although investing will always entails some measure of risk, this particular risk has been all but eliminated.   

At present if the site vanishes then using the methodology described above you'd have data that was 0-12 hours out of date (which means it likely wouldn't be wrong by much - but there's a good chance it WOULD be inaccurate.  You can already pretty much eliminate that by polling the list via an API  call - a cron job running curl with output to a file should do the job if using linux.  Think there'll be a website tracking trading before too long - which will mean an easy way to find out if a list IS still up to date.  And a windows tool to grab the list regularly wouldn't exactly be hard to write.
1965  Economy / Securities / Re: {Bakewell} Get an equitable stake in a transparent & growing mining company on: December 31, 2012, 06:49:45 PM
Yes, please look in your email / spam folder for an email from btct.co (the addy you used with the glbse) with login info for a throwaway account that was created for you.
This account should hold your shares and any received dividends. Please PM me if you are having difficulty and I will sort you out Smiley

Well, you pretty much knew who we were on your asset list, since we were one of your largest shareholders with a well-known number of shares. You're probably going to continue to deny we were on your list and there's no way for me to prove we were. In fact you now must, for if you go back on what you gave burnside it will be an instant case of fraud and there would be no way for you to avoid a scammer tag over it.

Have you tried emailing nefario?  That would be the obvious place to start.  It's a shame nefario is too incompetent to send lists of what they held to investors - as it would clear up a lot of issues for a lot of people (right now, plenty of people still don't have a clue what shares they hold in what) as well as providing some initial evidence if an asset issuer tries to scam.

Also - were your shares on sale (and, if so,  have you checked the last GLBSE transacations to see if there were total Bakewell sales late in GLBSE's life large enough to have been yours)?

Barring a cockup by nefario or the shares having been sold one of the two of you is pretty clearly scamming.  No way for me to know which (as there's no public records of what assets BMF had shortly before GLBSE went down and afaik you made no statement about them afterwards) but I'd definitely like to know which - as obviously if Ian then I need to value his shares down from where they presently are (about half IPO price as he's said he intends to steal 30% of assets if the company closes and vote with shares he doesn't own) and make sure anyone he deals with (here, on Second Life etc) knows that not only does he SAY he'll steal, but actually HAS stolen.

As it stands, there's no way for anyone other than you two to make a convincing accusation against the other one on this issue - whichever of you is wronged is probably going to need nefario's cooperation (and then one or more exchange operators' cooperation) to make a convincing case.

Diablo's list of shareholders for DMC should be imported in next few days - so you'll find out then if he's allocating you shares.
1966  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Gamma SatoshiDICE Pass Through on: December 31, 2012, 05:24:21 PM
What about dividends, will they be added to the balances of the trading site we decide upon?
Dividends will be paid out once all/a big majority of the shares has been claimed.
//DeaDTerra

Looks like over 95% of shares have been claimed now (a quick mental add-up came to about 317k of 322k - which I'm pretty sure is a big majority by any definition).  So will you be paying out the old dividends at same time as December's one?

Over 95% of the IPO shares have been sold on MPEX now too!   4% left Smiley

I was referring to 95% of the already sold shares (from GLBSE) having been claimed.  DeadTerra can't sell new shares yet  - until he's paid the dividends he collected whilst GLBSE was down (as those have to go only to the shares sold when the dividends were paid).

There's very little on the market on BitFunder - there WAS a 100k sell order up at .0036 but that got pulled soon after the announcement of the fat dividends for December.  Now there's just a few k up - cheapest were at .0035 last time I looked.
1967  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Gamma SatoshiDICE Pass Through on: December 31, 2012, 04:51:10 PM
What about dividends, will they be added to the balances of the trading site we decide upon?
Dividends will be paid out once all/a big majority of the shares has been claimed.
//DeaDTerra

Looks like over 95% of shares have been claimed now (a quick mental add-up came to about 317k of 322k - which I'm pretty sure is a big majority by any definition).  So will you be paying out the old dividends at same time as December's one?
1968  Economy / Securities / Re: {Bakewell} Get an equitable stake in a transparent & growing mining company on: December 31, 2012, 03:40:19 PM
Dividend has been paid.

I am having some issues with the 50btc pool last night and this morning, getting huge amounts of rejects, etc... It cost us some loot Sad
So I switched over to BTC Guild for the time being, back up and running well Smiley And to make up for the downtime I threw in a bit from my pocket.

Then I figured what the hell... I'll double it up to BTC3.2 - 'tis the season you know

2012-12-24 10:59   ฿ 3.2   5700   0.00056140

1500 * 0.00056140 = BTC0.8421 received on growth and maintenance


Ian, just catching up a little - I haven't received any dividend, where was this sent?

On BTC.CO.

Most likely the email to you from them ended in your spam folder.

There'll be an email detailing an account created for you on BTC.CO - if you log into it you'll find your shares (and dividend payment).  You can then either continue using that account or make a new one and transfer the shares/BTC to it.
1969  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Onus & Remedy in Scam Accusation Threads on: December 31, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
Make a suggestion. Say I recover 500 bitcoins from hashking (somehow) 18 months from now. What do I do with the money?

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

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

Same as I wouldn't distribute shares out at all - people invest in funds (in part) precisely because they DON'T want the hassle of owning loads of different shares.  Sell what you can at decent prices then auction off the rest (splitting into chunks if the asset is actually listed so splittable) and distribute all proceeds as cash.  Avoids a load of hassle, makes accounting simple, makes everything transparent, has a nice clean end date and removes a load of areas where otherwise there's the possibility of error (misvaluing an asset, dividending out proceeds after redistributing shares that were entitled to those proceeds etc).
1970  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Onus & Remedy in Scam Accusation Threads on: December 31, 2012, 10:28:20 AM
You asked for help the other day and you got it.  It's unlikely that BTC-TC would have let you list without people lobbying on your behalf (or perhaps more accurately, on behalf of your users) behind the scenes.  You said that was all you wanted, but it didn't stay all you wanted for very long.  You then wanted to list SILVER and seem quite put out at that proposal being rejected, apparently not comprehending why nobody wants anything to do with a new asset of yours while the previous ones are still an unresolved clusterfuck.

You're wrong on that.

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

BMF was listed first as a normal attempt to relocate from GLBSE - it got significant neagtive votes from mods pretty immediately.
SILVER was then listed and voted down by mods too.
Usagi then made his 'Final post ever' thread.
It was after that, that burnside offered to relist all of the assets but locked for trading.
1971  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. on: December 31, 2012, 10:19:42 AM
He has a locked thread accusing me of stealing company funds, and he has not provided any evidence for that, nor most of his other claims.

Hypocrisy at his best.

You made a thread accusing me and others of scamming.

There's 10 seperate accusations against me in it.

YOU locked the thread.

Your evidence for each of the 10 accusations against me was pretty much the same - you quoted me and said I was lieing/defrauding/defaming but provided no evidence to support your allegation.

One of the allegations you repeated in a seperate post in the thread.

Here it is in its entirety (can't quote it properly as you locked the thread).

"10. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114820.msg1271394#msg1271394
"You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?"
During the times BMF had hardware on order I had never failed to mention that. A shareholder motion was created over the issue of buying hardware. I made a very public series of posts about it. I never once tried to hide the fact we had a small amount of hardware. I mentioned it several times in PM to various creditors."

So - I was apparently lieing/defruading you/libelling you/whatever when I said that everything you had being on GLBSE wasn't true.

Yet TODAY you've admitted you actually have pre-orders that you're cancelling.  Those aren't on GLBSE are they?  So what was untrue with my statement - let alone causing you harm?  Obviously at that time you were trying to PRETEND you only had GLBSE assets - to the extent you made a scam accusation against someone for saying that wasn't true.

And when I pointed out how obviously you were wrong you went and locked the thread.

And NOW, having made accusations against me where you never provided evidence or demonstrated loss (impossible when your allegations were false) you somehow feel morally entitled to make a thread berating others for the low quality of their own scam accusations?

And having locked a thread accusing others - so they couldn't respond - you now whine about someone doing the same to you?

Pretty despicable really.

1972  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. on: December 31, 2012, 03:17:51 AM
Mods, can we have a moratorium on new usagi threads (either about or by) please?

Doh - and I was going to make a new locked thread to respond to usagi's responses to BCB's quotes of me explaining how usagi's ealier responses were contradictory!

But more seriously, it DOES seem like the way to avoid a scammer tag is just to make a new thread every time you start losing the plot in the current one.  Then cherry-pick a few quotes to respond to, claim you're proved your innocent and hopefully everyone's so bored, confused or disinterested that it all dies away again.

Not that fussed about him actually getting a scammer tag myself anyway - so long as he doesn't get to abuse/misuse/lose fresh investor's funds I'm satisfied.  I'd personally dropped the subject until he decided to bump this thread himself - letting it lie here dormant while he returned investors' funds was fine by me - as that's far more important than some tag by his name.
1973  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: NYAN statement week 39 on: December 31, 2012, 03:06:11 AM
words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think when GLBSE went down people had other things on their mind than commenting on posts by you that were invisible due to deletion.
1974  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: NYAN statement week 39 on: December 30, 2012, 07:30:34 PM
2012-39-NYAN-statement

NYANCAT FINANCIAL: YOUR FRIEND FOR LIFE

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

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

Here is the payout for week 39:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine.

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

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

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


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

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

Good luck!


Quoting this one so there's still a copy whenever usagi next has a deletion spree.
1975  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. on: December 30, 2012, 05:59:10 PM
Actually it was far worse than that (was looking in this thread for some posts about a different issue I'm PMing BCB about).

Usagi basically said 'If another of CPA's debtors defaults then CPA will have nothing left'

This, perhaps? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85444.msg1175547#msg1175547
I actually have an archived copy of the full comment by usagi that quote is from, if anyone's interested. Edit: Someone else has quoted the whole thing here (Also, notice how usagi's renamed the thread to have the very informative and easy to locate title of "post".)

Then a few days later usagi actually boasted about how some investors had sold CPA shares very cheaply and he'd bought them - and made some derogatory remark about people panicking for no reason and that things weren't as bad as they might look: totally ignoring that they'd only panicked becase HE said there was good reason to.  I never raised this as a scam issue - had just treated is as one of the emo sessions usagi has every few days.
Not sure where you might find that though, sorry.

Yeah looks very familiar.  I remember being amazed at part of it - the following sentence:

"it's basically come down to, if the last 2 people I invested money with can't pay back, there will be no way to hide or avoid the losses, and CPA's net value will go to zero."

What amazed me was the admission that he'd happily hide losses if he could - he talks about "there will be no way to hide or avoid the losses" as though hiding losses is a perfectly acceptable way to do things.  But then comes here and talks about transparency.  

There was also this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102798.0

It's an accusation that usagi failed to pay for services requested.  Post 7 (they're PMs sent by usagi) is of relevance:

"Hi!

Unfortunately Pirate's BTCS&T just blew up. As an insurance company we're launching all zigs. I have to stop this. I am not going to be able to use any of the designs, and we might go under.

Sorry o_o it was a bad time for us to get into the insurance business, right before pirate collapsed :>"

So at that point there was a PM from usagi quoted in which usagi said CPA might go under - small wonder then if some investors panicked.  As an amusing aside, usagi's debt there was paid by Matthew N Wright - who later scammed loads of people (including usagi) with the pirate bet.

Note also this from the last post in the thread :

"I am not going to be able to use any of the designs, and we might go under." - claims on August 18th CPA may go under (or is it some other insurance company he runs?)

But on Aug 23rd says to CPA investors:

"In the event of a full pirate default, NYAN.C will loose out, and CPA holds NYAN which holds NYAN.C. Then we have contracts on the outside as well. All in all CPA will remain very solvent, it may lose 20% of it's value in a full default. But we stands just as ready to gain 20% if pirate doesn't default." - it will remain very solvent.

Confused yet?  You will be, because usagi was telling Nyan investors a few days later :

In fact if you believe Pirate will pay back, like we do, this is a nice time
to start accumulating NYAN.C.

So someone he owed money to was told they couldn't be paid because of pirate - yet a week or so later he's telling nyan he believes pirate will repay (so, surely he should have been telling his creditor that payment might be a bit late whilst he waiting for pirate to process withdrawals - not that CPA may go bust).  Was there ANYONE who became MORE confident pirate would pay as time passed?  

Telling ANYONE that your company may go bust (especially if you don't believe it will) is shockingly bad - let alone someone you're trying to stiff on a debt who will then go and post it in scammer forum.

If you read the "post" thread you'll find other amusing stuff.  Like someone pointing out that usagi's spreadsheet showed over a 40% exposure to pirate when the contract for CPA didn't allow more than 20%.  Usagi's response?  That the spreadsheet hand't been updated and that exposure was only 20-25%.  Followed, of course, a few days later by an announcement that losses would be 40%+ at a minimum (and more as some debtors were going to default).  Was the spreadsheet really out of date - or was it accurately reflecting pirate exposure above the level it was allowed to have by contract?  A week AFTER pirate's default became apparent would usagi REALLY be making posts about the level of exposure his company had to pirate without updating the spreadsheet that calculated it?  Wouldn't you think that would rather obviously be a piece of information investors would like to have SOME degree of relevance given the situation and which you'd keep up to date?

etc etc etc
1976  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Securities Exchange now with Dividend Reinvestment Program on: December 30, 2012, 02:23:09 PM
Question - how do we change the deposit/withdraw addresses ? 2. Was this disabled temporarily ?


Deposit address can't be changed at present.

To change withdrawal address:

Click "Wallet" near top of screen.

There's an option there to change your withdrawal address (you enter new address then click on "Update address".  IF you chose to permanently lock it then obviously you can't change it - as that would entirely defeat the objective of having an option to permanently lock it.
1977  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Onus & Remedy in Scam Accusation Threads on: December 30, 2012, 02:15:52 PM
First part sent.  Unfortunately formatting isn't too clear - as some quoted posts are from a locked thread where I can't 'quote' then copy/paste to get the codes.
1978  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Onus & Remedy in Scam Accusation Threads on: December 30, 2012, 12:57:37 PM
1. There must be a clear victim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's irrelevant in this case anyway - as I'll get around to examples where victims DID suffer loss from usagi anyway (though at this point it may still be repairable).  Think I'm nearly done on first one (a couple more old posts to dig out) then will no doubt hit a PM size limit and have to redo it in chunks.
1979  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Onus & Remedy in Scam Accusation Threads on: December 30, 2012, 12:31:26 PM
1. There must be a clear victim.

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

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

By everyone else's definition I'd be a scammer - just a very bad one who was never going to make a profit from his unsuccessful scams.  A scam is a fraudulent business scheme - there's no requirement for it to actually succeed in defrauding anyone for it to be a scam.
1980  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors. on: December 30, 2012, 11:50:25 AM
Usagi claimed in one of their deleted threads that CPA was on the verge of collapse which then caused the price to tank. If that isnt manipulating the share price then what is ?





Actually it was far worse than that (was looking in this thread for some posts about a different issue I'm PMing BCB about).

Usagi basically said 'If another of CPA's debtors defaults then CPA will have nothing left'

Then a few days later usagi actually boasted about how some investors had sold CPA shares very cheaply and he'd bought them - and made some derogatory remark about people panicking for no reason and that things weren't as bad as they might look: totally ignoring that they'd only panicked becase HE said there was good reason to.  I never raised this as a scam issue - had just treated is as one of the emo sessions usagi has every few days.

Somewhere someone DID quote that (the boasting part at least - not sure on the other) - problem is working out in which of the umpteen usagi thread with deleted titles it is.  If anyone can work out which thread used to be CPA one then the posts should be in there.

Back to looking for the quote I was trying to find.
Pages: « 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!