WEEKLY REPORT




I'd been expecting a very quiet week over Christmas - in the end we made a pretty healthy profit of a it over 7%.  LTC fell vs BTC significantly - but even discounting that we made a trading profit of just over 6%.

Of the BTC exchanges we trade on:

BTC.CO is picking up nicely - we're going to need more capital there as the range of securities expands (at one stage this week we had almost all our funds there invested in assets).

Bitfunder is picking up more slowly - I DO expect us to need more capital there eventually, but not in the short-term.

CRYPTO - there's very few assets with any liquidity there.  There ARE a few good opportunities there but I'm not expecting to need more capital there in the foreseeable future (it would take some large asset relocating to there - which I'd say is fairly unlikely given how horrible the platform is to use).

This week we'll be releasing 400 more bonds (taking BTC bond-capital to 20 BTC) with that being moved to BTC.CO for use there.

At the moment we still have a fairly significant percentage of Net assets in BTC - in fact it rose this week (I did no fund movements - the rise is due to us making a higher percentage profit in BTC trades than LTC ones plus the fact that bond interest and the continuing depreciation of the ticker cost are both charged in LTC).  There's three ways to lower that:

1. Convert some BTC back to LTC.
2. Sell more units in the fund.
3. Sell more bonds and don't convert the proceeds to BTC.

All of these are unacceptable for the same reason - we don't need more LTC-denominated capital.  So for now we'll just accept slightly higher BTC exposure than ideally I'd like.  If the LTC-GLOBAL market stays with some assets market-manipulated (into artifical trading ranges - where a collapse any time is possible), others totally illiquid and others totally unreliable then we can reconsider down the line.  At least the bonds have got our exposure more than halved from the 38% it would be had the capital been raised from selling more units.

We've now passed 3 months of operation - and despite losing over a quart of NAV due to GLBSE closing, we're up over 75% from where we started.  Not a bad start - hopefully we can build on it next year.

I've updated the historical results table in OP of this thread.

Bid at : 17.1 (a bit wider than usual as the exchange-rate is currently moving quite quickly).

Management fee of 3 units will be transferred shortly after posting this.

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

I will however:

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

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

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

You fell for the oldest trick in the book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason I say this is simple:

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

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

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

No, I never invested with Usagi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logic just isn't your strong point is it?

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

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

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

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

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

Sales to date in settings looks fine now - thanks.

Just encountered a minor niggle - easily fixed I hope.

If I go to the market for an asset and Cancel one of my orders it takes me back to "My Assets" - instead of back to an updated view of the market for that asset.  Most times I cancel an order it's to put it back up at a different price - so staying in the market should be the default behaviour.  Cancelling an order doesn't change my assets - so no reason it should go them.  It's most annoying when cancelling a bid - as if I don't already own any of them I can't even go directly back to the asset from "My Assets" and have to go back via the main market.

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He wasn't verified at all.  He made posts refusing to verify.

And I wouldn't refer to him reporting it to the police as a "fact" - I'd happily bet that he hasn't reported anything to the police at all.  He'd promised that if he was scammed himself he'd provide information on the parties he dealt with to investors (I got him to do that - precisely so that when he stopped paying interest but didn't return funds it would be obvious he was the scammer.).  Although he deleted his posts, my reply quoting him (made, of course, because I expected him to delete his posts at some point) is still there.  At that point he also said if he was scammed he'd leave it to investors to chase it up - but obviously he can't do that as he'd have no make up a loan company to blame.

His email address was a Tormail one so would assume his IP address would be a Tor exit node - so no way to track from that unless he used the email address elsewhere.  He never struck me as being stupid - so would at least have used a bouncer on irc if he wasn't connecting via Tor.  But he did buy or sell some mining hardware once I believe - some information may be available from whoever he dealt with.

Maybe after pirate AND him, people will stop throwing money at vague businesses with no proof of actual existence.  Unfortunately, I suspect not - and the next one doing the same will still blind people to the obvious scam occuring with a high rate of interest.

I wrote my 20 shares off the day after GLBSE went down (if it went down a few hours earlier would have caught me with a bunch more).  Might seem strange me saying it was an obvious scam but holding shares - however I was just trading at the bottom (Buying at .005 and selling at .01): there's enough idiots around that you can make a profit trading totally worthless crap.  Never touched them all the time he was paying interest - as they could only  go down in value and was no way to confidently predict when he'd stop paying interest (only that he definitely would once he wasn't selling enough new ones to cover his payments).

Gonna comment on these briefly (the ones I know about).  This is all done from memory so may not be totally accurate.

matthewh3 - not as interesting as you think.  matthew made a dumb offer to buy back shares (on behalf of his company) for more than they were worth.  He then realised buying them back at all was a bad idea.  The buyer (who has a staff tag) decided to try to bully matthew into paying - but also agreed to take a much lower price than had been originally agreed.  matthew agrees in principle to buy back - but not until his company's ASICs arrive.   On the one hand matthew IS breaking a contract - but is it scamming?  IF he honoured that agreement he'd be potentially harming ALL his investors with whom he already had a pre-existing contract.  The first contract (with investors) should take priority over the second - he never had authority to offer on the company's behalf to buy back shares at above value.  matthew should personally reimubrse buyer for any dmeonstrable losses buyer suffered as a result of contract being broken.

Gigamining math - already know about this one.  If you recall (in the original gigamining scam thread) you flip-fopped your position because of a post I made.  I don't believe the math issue deserves a scammer tag.  I increasingly believe the fact he's making no provision for smaller investors to get anything back without paying more in apostille fees than their assets are worth DOES deserve a scammer tag.  If he needed information it was his responsibility to ask for it before the contract was entered into.  If he now finds he can't legally honour the contract without such information then the contract should be anulled - and original investment less dividends paid returned.

Bitcoin Magazines : Never fails to entertain.  Yes I knew matthew ower nyan funds - you actually had the bet listed in your assets for a while

TORwallet : thought this was just a routine case of someone sending money to a person with no history, no public identity etc.  Will look again.

PatrickHarnett : Had a long argument with Joel Katz in this thread.  He had some ludicrous theory that everyone should have known PH was investing with pirate so it was as much investors fault as PH's.  I thought kraken investors got back about half of what they invested
(which doesn't alter that it appears to have been a scam from the start).

Ian Bakewell : Know all about this one.  And it's going to get worse.  Was just posting in his company thread before I visited here.  He hasn't quite (in my view) crossed the line to scammer yet - but I'd be betting he does.  He now appears to believe the 30% growth shares are his personal property lol.  Like yourself, I supported him early on - think we both made an error of judgment on that one.

This'll be my last post in this thread unless a moderator asks for information, I'm referred to in the thread or it's to post some new allegation against you about something new which occurs (i.e. NOT about things you've done in the past).


EDIT: I see Augusto has popped up to post before me.  Not even going to bother unignoring him to see what the retard has to say.  He's the ONLY person I've ever put on ignore here - you read his posts and end up knowing less when you finish than you knew before you started.

How the fuck can we see the context when you DELETED THE CONTEXT?

Your memory is shot to hell.

You also say mining had crashed 50%.  Here's the order in which things happened:

There was a big slump in mining, BMF's NAV plummetted (down to about 60-65%).
You announced that recovery was going well.
You stated NAV was back to about .875.
You made the quoted post.

FOr about the 10th time.  There WAS NO MOTION PASSED BY SHAREHOLDERS ABOUT THE CONTRACT.  Do you get that yet?  It was never voted on.  It was never mentioned in the thread until the post I quoted.  Here's the entire post:


The motion referred to in the embedded post from you was one to resume dividends once NAV got back to 1.0 (they'd previously been suspended for the rest of the year after your NAV plummetted).

Now what did I misunderstand?

You tell shareholders "To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss"
And in your previous post today you say "Again, reading comprehension issues -- it would not indemnify if we didn't accelerate it, because the value of the policy was limited to around the total amount CPA would receive plus 20 bitcoins."

That's not just misleading it's an outright lie.  You claim there that the contract wouldn't indemnify if not accelerated and we know it didn't when it WAS accelerated - but tell shareholders the opposite.

You start the sentence with "To this end", which can only refer to "repairing our NAV and resuming dividends".  How can a contract whcich (you claim) had no material effect achieve either of those ends?  Let alone within a week.  Again - misleading.


"1. BMF will send 5 bitcoins per calendar week for 110 weeks to CPA at
   [1EGXZ8kPwEeomiepZwwZayZYdH5nQTkc1f] ("CPA Marked Deposit Address")."

119 * 5 = 550.  That's the money sent FROM BMF TO CPA.  Where does your plus 20 bitcoins come from?  Mine refers to the 20 BTC BMF paid to CPA at the start (the only payment ever made in either direction in the manner defined in the contract - though it looks like BMF made a few more 5 BTC payments but left off the identifier in the last 2 digits).

Anyway, I'm done with this topic I think unless mods ask for explanation from me.  Just one last point - you've now said in a ocuple of psots that I've said you don't deserve a scammer tag.  That's not true.  I've said recently that on SOME of the accusations against you, you don't - which isn't quite the same thing.

Will do a 2nd reply responding to other stuff (unrelated to insurance) in your last post.

wrong answer.

Contract includes:

"My compensation will be received as dividends on my 20,000 shares "

It doesnt' say "My compensation will be received as dividends on 20,000 of my 50,000 shares" - so it clearly defines the number of shares you own as being 20,000.

Nor does it say "My combensations will the dividends on the 20,000 founders shares and the equity of all founders shares and growth shares."

A case could be made that by defining your compensation as you did, you aren't even entitled to the equity of founder's shares (any benefit you receive without paying for it is compensation).  I wouldn't personally argue that harshly.

I suggest if you hold to that line that you start liquidating now - as for sure you won't sell any more shares.  But i'm guessing you already know that and are trying to grab as much as you can whilst hoping noone will notice you thieving.  Can't stop you thieving obviously - but can make sure everyone knows about it if you do (assuming the RL info you've provided is real).

OK, here's what you told investors:

"To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss.

We have decided to publish this contract, to give a clearer picture of what is going on with BMF these days.

This contract means we will likely begin paying dividends again by next week."

You now say that the contract had no material effect - as it was always going to be accelerated.

If true, how did signing that contract indemnify against capital loss?  If the contract hadn't been accelerated then it would indemnigy - but if the agreement was always to accelerate then it didn't indemnify.

And how could a contract that had no material effect impact on whether BMF could pay dividends the next week?  The only change by the next week was BMF was 20 BTC poorer from paying the first 4 weeks premiums up front.

The clear message you gave investors was "Now we're nearly back to full NAV we've taken out insurance from CPA to stop it ever falling again - and so should be able to start paying dividends again shortly as our NAV can't fall any more".  You intentionally misled investors.

Noone would read what you told investors as "We've signed a test contract with CPA which will be accelerated and have no material effect on us."

Plus why 520 in premiums and 500 in cover if it was meant to have no material effect?  Why not 500 in premiums and 500 in cover?

And if the insurance contract was important enough (despite having no material effect) to announce, then why wasn't the acceleration/cancellation of it?

And if the insurance contarct had no material effect why did you (as you freshly claimed yesterday) make a personal payment to BMF of 100 BTC in respect of the contract?  (I'm not saying I believe you did for a moment obviously)

BMF's NAV wasn't down by 500 BTC when the contract was agreed.  So if acceleration occurred immediately after signing CPA wouldn't have owed 500 BTC back to BMF.  Were you THAT confident you'd make enough losses that acceleration would end up neutral (well, within 20 BTC of neutral)?  If not then acceleration would have left CPA with a hefty profit.  So was your deal with yourself that you'd accelerate as soon as you'd managed to make a 500 BTC loss?  What was the plan if you accidentally stumbled into profit (or stayed above a 500 loss) and CPA no longer had any obligations to accelerate?

Feel free to ignore my questions as usual and then later post, as you did earlier, that you always answer my questions.

Would also suggest you look back at the bumping of this thread just before christmas.  Notice how it had died until you bumped it.  Read my first post after you bumped - I made no accusations, suggested you dropped this topic and got on with closing down your company.  But nope - you insisted on dragging it on and changing your story from post to post.  I'd love the mods to undelete your posts just before GLBSE shut down and see how none of this new stuff was mentioned then and you in fact accepted that in theory CPA owed BMF 500 BTC now.  Your argument then for acceleration was along the lines of "well BMF would have to pay it back anyway so it seemed simpler just to accelerate both obligations".

Unfortunately your confidence that you can lie because the mods/admins won't undelete is probably entirely justified (or maybe you just have a bad memory and can't remember what you wrote then).

Looking forward to your next version of "the truth".

I assume you know what "insured" means.  Were BMF insured by CPA?  If you want to explain how your contract insured BMF then go ahead and do so - pretty sure you can find a copy of the contract quicker than I can.  But why are you even interested in what the contract said when you just earlier claimed it had zero material value and was just a PR stunt to try to raise company value.

When the contract was signed did BMF (represented by you) agree with CPA (represented by you) that the contract would be accelerated after BMF paid some premiums?  Or was that agreement made later?

Feel free to find something to nit-pick in my posts and ignore the substantive parts by the way - you're getting pretty good at it.  And don't forget to add an insult or two - it makes you look clever and proves you're winning.

Simple question:

Who owns those shares?  Is it:

a) The company
b) Ian Bakewell

Here's a clue: B) isn't the right answer.

They are NOT the same as other shares.  If the company closes down, assets are sold and proceeds distributed do they get part of that? If so, what happens to it?  If they did get distribution it would become part of the assets to be distributed and have to be shared out again (and again, and again).  Those shares don't own equity - they're just a device to set aside funds.  Vague crap about "they'll be important in the future" is just that - vague crap.

There won't be a "down the road" unless you start getting your act together and doing the stuff that needs doing like fixing the contract, working out a valuation for current assets (you won't be able to sell new shares if they're priced way above what assets are backing current shares - that may not be case of course), getting rid of the growth shares so new investors aren't put off by you appearing to control a massive chunk of voting power that you never bought etc.  Oh - and working out a plan to go forward.

ASICMINER's chips arrived from the foundry yesterday.  They could well be mining within a few weeks.  Strangely this could actually be GOOD news for you so long as you get your act together within a few months (it's bad news for any mining company that has pre-orders on ASICs).

Ah, silly me.  There was me thinking the main purpose of an insurance contract was to ..... wait for it .... provide insurance.


Silly me again.  Forgot you always manipulated your assets' prices so that they were totally unrelated to their value.  Their 'value' being some deluded construct of your wisful thinking based on the imaginary profits you thought you'd make.

Not sure what argument you think I've lost.  You don't win an argument by saying "I've won!" (or by getting your little idiot hanger-on Augusto to do it).

You've admitted (or claimed - don't know if it's true) that when you told BMF investors "Our NAV is now insured by CPA" it was a lie.  Yet still you claim you didn't mislead them?  Or are you now going to somehow claim that they WERE insured (and come up with the next version of "the truth")?