I'd suggest doing it a bit differently - only voting once doesn't allow changes to the vote (obviously).  Sometimes a No vote may be cast for a specific reason - if addressed the vote should be able to be changed.

What I'd suggest is that (if feasible - don't know how well the system handles loads of votes but why not find out?) you open a vote for each asset with an end date say way into the future so it effectively never ends.

When some minimum number of votes has been reached and at least a day has passed since the motion was made you vote if there's a 100 or more excess of votes in favour of either option.  If not enough votes (or margin is under 100) then you abstain.  Thereafter vote can be changed if you notice the voting has swung other way or if someone notifies you of it (so you don't have to keep checking all the votes).  Maybe require a 200 margin to change the vote other way (once a vote is cast one way it shouldn't ideally go to an abstain).

Your votes (including abstentions) should be marked with some public identifying tag (e.g. "BTC Trading - PT") or text so that there can be no disputing that you voted the way investors chose.

I think a one-time vote is short-sighted - assets that start off weak can improve and (unfortunately more often the case) ones that start off well can fall by the wayside.  Investors should have some way to register changes in opinion about an asset - leaving the vote open indefinitely allows that: there's no reason why a vote for this purpose needs to have a fixed end point.

I'd further propose that you change the definition of margin of votes needed.  At present it's 100 - that could end up insignificant.  I'd suggest "The larger of 100 and 10% of outstanding shares" and then "The larger of 20 and 20% of shares" to reverse a vote - any change of opinion needs to be very clear.

That's just totally out of order.

You're saying that if someone doesn't reply to your email in just over a week during the holiday season they lose the right to their shares?  After you just vanished for a fortnight yourself.

Just get crypto to import the remaining details, create accounts etc like they did the first time.  If they get YOUR email then they'd get one sent from crypto-stocks.  Seems like there's a few asset issuers trying set deadlines, impose hoops to jump through etc just to try to get out of returning funds to some investors.  You have their email addresses - that's all crypto need to make an account and put the shares into it.

Can't believe you're seriously saying that if in a fortnight someone emails you saying they were away on holiday you're just going to say "Sorry - I know I had your email address and could have given you shares on crypto, but you mssed the bit in the contract where you can't go away for more than 10 days at a time (or be in hospital longer than that, or lose internet longer than that etc) or I get to take your shares back and keep all the outstanding and future dividends myself."

Think you misunderstand what I'm saying.

List you got from nefario has a load of items each of which is a number of shares, email address and BTC account.

You don't want to give shares to certain people on that list.

So just remove the entries for those people.  If you're concerned abut being accused of fraud over it then remember that the end result is exactly same as if you MANUALLY give everyone except those people shares - just without the chances for operator error.

If you htink it somehow helps then send burnside the full list AND a second list (to import) with the ones you don't want to have shares removed.  Or ask him to remove certain email addresses before processing.

I'm just suggesting how you can save yourself time, save investors hassle, avoid the possibility of an investor not getting shares if your email to them somehow gets overlooked/blocked by a spam filter (or they don't check it for ages) etc.

I asn't suggesting what you're proposing to do was fraudulent (it's not unless you intend to keep shares if your emails aren't replied to) - it's just horribly inefficient and exposes you to risks you don't need to take.  It's like you're intentionally picking the slowest most inefficient way to get shares into accounts associated with investors' email addresses.

Not even sure what you think burnside can do with the lists if you don't want him to import the shares : reason he needs them for companies relisting on BTC.CO is so as to automatically create accounts for each investor with correct number of shares in, then email them the login details for it so they can assume control of the shares.

You could always give him the lists and first remove those who there are issues with (i.e. those who owe you funds) - then you can subsequently manually transfer to them shares if necessary.  Ones like namworld you're negotiating with aren't a problem - as they can transfer the shares back if you make a deal.

Key is to get all the smaller, undisputed, ones into the system - otherwise you're left unable to do any distributions whilst you wait for them all to respond to your emails (plus you still have to then do something with their shares - as you know their email address and BTC address you can hardly just return the shares to treasury).  Plus doing it through burnside removes several nasty possibilities - like someone spoofing someone else's email address in an email to you to get you to send to wrong account on BTC.CO.

burnside:

Sounds a decent plan.  Only thing you probably should do is create the assets with exactly the number of shares due to be allocated - that prevents unsold shares being transferred and becoming outstanding shares that dilute dividends or otherwise confuse the issue.  Preventing issue of new paper is the key restriction.  Assume this is just basically a case of setting all the assets to having trade permanently frozen.  No need to worry about things like forced recalls at a tiny price - as usagi wouldn't be listing in the first place if he was intending to just steal all the funds.

I assume investors will be able to do private trades via transfer - don't see any problems with that and its necessary to consolidate from temporary accounts anyway.

Usagi: no need to get investors to make accounts, they'll get ones made for them during import - then they can keep those or make new ones to transfer to if they prefer.

I don't think that's what he's doing at all - and I've been one of the most vocal critics of usagi.  I think he set out with good intentions then made some bad decisions when times got tough - and the deceptions came from trying to pretend things were alright rather than facing up to the fact they'd gone wrong (or the extent to which they'd gone wrong).  To be totally clear, I could lend BTC to usagi and not lose sleep worrying whether I'd get it back - but I'd suffer insomnia if I gave usagi funds to invest/manage on my behalf.

Pretty sure BMF will get listed on BTC.CO to make closing down easier.  Even those of us who have a record of ciriticisng usagi shouldn't be trying to thwart that - returning funds/assets held by usagi to his investors is a good thing which I totally support and would hope everyone else does too.  Listing new assets before the old ones have closed down is obviously a different issue - there the past questions over segregation of funds / conflict of interest raise their ugly heads.

Just let this thread die.  There's NO way moderators could ever state "usagi isn't a scammer", same as they couldn't state "Deprived isn't a scammer" - as it's impossible for them ever to be certain of that.  And there's equally no way they're going to bother reading the whole thread which largely relates to things you've deleted anyway.

If you're closing your companies down and returning funds to investors then I've zero interest in prolonging this thread's life.  Yeah -I could waste my time explaining yet again what I assert you did wrong, but to what end?  Mods aren't going to wade through this thread and give a ruling - and if you aren't asking for any more investments then I don't care whether you get a tag or not.  Do recall that the only reason I posted in this thread in the first place was because you refused to address issues in your own threads and told me to come and post in this thread.

If you want to change people's views on you then you'll achieve far more by focussing efforts on closing your companies down in a timely, transparent and fair manner than by expending energy posting here.

Then when that's done come and bump this thread again and maybe it'll change people's views about you a bit.

There's no harm in it being traded provided a list of assets it holds is published.  Other key is to clear market orders each time a chunk od realised assets is distributed via dividend - that way people can trade based on current asset list, knowing their bids wont get filled right after a payment is made and they're no longer reasonable.  I explained the process to do it in the other thread.  Yeah - having a cut-off date would make sense - i.e. any assets unable to be sold at fair price before date X are then sold by public auction with proceeds distributed as final dividend.

So long as process is clear and current asset list transparent, trading is beneficial to all - those who need cash fast (sellers) those who want short to mid-term profit (buyers), the exchange (trade fees) and those trading betting they can value more accurately than the rest (my fund and others).

Check the other thread - I've explained there how to do the close-down.

You'll get moderator approval over a few days I expect - it always takes time.

As it's Christmas, here's an explanation of how to do the shut-down process on BTC.CO.  I assume you'll get moderator approval to close-down - though it could take a day or two (not seen much that didn't take a few days).

Import the shareholder data via burnside.

Make an extra account each for yourself, nyan and CPA (think those all own BMF shares).

Transfer to each of those accounts the number of shares of BMF they held.  Transfers are free on BTC.CO.

Make a simple spreadsheet listing each asset (e.g. 100 XYZ shares) with a value column and a status column.  Value column should have your estimated value in if you can value that asset.  Publish the spreadhseet (google is fine).  Now people have something on which to base prices if they choose to trade.

When an asset is converted to BTC (and it's an amount worht dividending) you do the following:
1.  Lock BMF against trading and cancel all market orders.  This prevents someone who bid on old data getting shafted post-dividend.  You'll find option to do this at top of contract details for the asset.
2.  Dividend out the BTC.
3.  Update status in spreadsheet for the asset to "Sold for X BTC, Dividend on day/month/year"
4.  Unlock BMF for trading again.
5.  Send funds received on CPA/NYAN/personal accounts to wherever you want.

You need ideally to get back the cash for mining hardware that you gave to CPA and dividend it out.  If that's not possible then you'll have to add it as an asset then pay it out once it can be returned (either from other sources or from dividend payments received from BMF).

If you end up (and you will) with assets that just can't be converted to BTC at a reasonable rate then sell them by public auction.  So if you have 200 shares of XYZ and XYZ is illiquid/unlisted then just do an auction here selling them in blocks to highest bidders.  That way it's transparent, fair and investors in BMF can get some themself if they want.

Quite - I'd fully support listing just to help expedite closing down (and allow trading whilst the process was ongoing) and made that plain in my first post.  Rest of my posts are trying to explain WHY it should close down anyway - but seems like usagi doesn't actually want to close down (despite having taken some of the assets already in part settlement of his own/CPA's shares).

You had mining hardware (delivered and/or pre-ordered).  But oh yeah - you already took the cash from that to (fully or partially) buy out your own/CPA's shares.  Don't suppose you'll be sharing that out equally with the other BMF investors will you?

I haven't voted on your asset - at present I don't hold 10 LTC-Global shares TO vote (I trade - not invest).  I've had no discussion with anyone is regards to your listing and have no idea who has voted no (though I can think of a few moderators who will almost certainly vote NO on anything of yours whatever is in the contract).  I can guess who voted No, made comments then changed vote when you changed contract - if it's who I guess then comments wouldn't have been anonymous.

Just had a quick look over the new contract - it's definitely had changes made that address many of the issues I had with the old version.  There's still nothing in there about how the fund is valued and liquidity.  As a fund it should offer liquidity (i.e. a bidwall investors can sell into) at some reasonable fee below NAV/U - obviously with a limit on how much can be bought back (e.g. 5% of outstanding units per day or 5% per week or whatever).  That's how funds work - they offer liquid investment with a variable value (shares don't offer the liquidity, bonds shouldn't have the variable value).

There's also the issue of BTC.CO specific rules on not owning shares in other assets run by same issuer etc (though I guess from memory you may be able to use the loophole that your other assets aren't listed on BTC.CO).  And you may want to check BTC.CO's restrictions on long-term investment vehicles (such as BMF) being barred from investing in other assets that also hold investments long-term.

My last but one concern is that in the past you've shown a belief that you can change the contract of things like funds and bonds simply by owning a majority of them - and have used your own cross-ownership between your various assets to make such changes, without offering a 100% face value exit for anyone disagreeing (a fund/bond shouldn't really have a contract change at all without a full buy-back - but an offer to buyback at full value seems reasonable).  I'm concerned that if you continue you'll vote through whatever changes you like and anyone currently invested who wants out won't be able to get out with cash at full value.

And my final concern is that not long back you were taking cash from sales of BMF's hardware as part payment for CPA's shares of BMF.  Rather obviously that cash would need to be returned if you're doing anything other than closing down - your only justification for doing it at all was that everyone else would be paid out too.  If BMF isn't closing then its most valuable asset (BTC) obviously shouldn't be used to buy out yourself whilst everyone else has to wait a month just to find out whether the company's even closing.

I still think a liquidation and pay out all in BTC would be ideal (or in assets IF some investors would prefer them) then restart afresh if you want to.  That guarantees noone is locked in - and also avoids any ponzi-like behaviour where new units are sold to buy out old ones with the underlieing assets being illiquid/non-valuable/over-valued.

On the insurance thing, no - you never explained the fundamental basis of my allegation: that you acted against the interest of BMF's investors due to a conflict of interest caused by you representing both parties in the contract.  At no stage have you explained how it helped BMF investors to pay for insurance which would then be accelerated (causing them a net loss) if they became entitled to claim on it.  If their NAV never fell they'd pay 520 premiums for nothing.  When, as was the case, their NAV tanked they got zero back (in fact lost 20 or BTC from memory).  Which post explains how that contract (and your decision to accelerate) made sense for BMF?  The contract COULD have made sense for BMF without the acceleration - with acceleration it gives less than zero benefit to BMF (a loss of BTC) in all scenarios.  So no - I won't be admitting I'm wrong as I'm not wrong.  You're still not seeing the difference between "The contract allows me to do X" and "Doing X is in the interest of the investors I represent": To do X (when acting on BMF's behalf) you need to both be entitled to do it AND it needs to be in BMF's interest - the latter is where you went wrong in that particular instance.

It's a pretty common model which seems to appeal to some BTC/LTC users.  Not sure why - but it does.

A few questions to usagi

1. Could you please post a photo with something demonstrating that its actually YOUR silver in it.  If you look at other similar offerings you'll see it's normal for there to be a piece of paper with (nick)name/date on in the photo.

2.  You may want to modify your rather generous exit strategy.  To quote : "For those that do not want to receive their Physical Silver, I will liquidate the remaining bullion and pay out your share value at current Gold spot market value."  Aside from whether you liquidate or not being entirely irrelevant if you pay out at spot regardless, I imagine you intend to pay out at SILVER spot not GOLD. 

3,  Your bullion guarantee is confusing as it refers to gold as well as silver - when fund otherwise appears to only be for silver.  Not seeing how if you hold a mix of gold and silver you can guarantee 100% silver backing.  Unless you also hold more silver than total outstanding units represents- at which point mentioning the gold at all seems irrelevant.  If reads as though the contract was originally written to deal with both silver and gold, then edited down to just silver with some references to gold not removed.

If the asset is only going to be used to close down the fund and not continue operations then I'd strongly urge moderators to vote YES.  I don't hold a very opinion of usagi but am 100% in favour of anything which would expedite the return of funds to investors.

If the fund intends to continue (listed on BTC.CO) then there's some pretty basic areas of the contract which would need clarification - e.g. liquidity (it's listed as a fund - so should be committing to maintaining bids for those wanting to sell out), how often reports will be made and dividends paid, how profit is calculated (from IPO price? from last high-water mark? profit only in trading period?  profit based on NAV, market value or just calling all revenue profit?) + various others.  It would also need to come into compliance with BTC.CO's rules on things like not holding other assets managed by same issuer, not investing in other long-term investment-holding companies etc. 

Basically the prospectus needs a lot less "I'm a good manager" and a lot more "This is how things will be done".  But if you're just going to close it down then contract should be replaced with the one actually in force - with a statement that the fund is being closed down, no new units will be issued etc.  I'd hope moderators would then vote yes to unlock it.

I'm not going to go into the various allegations against you other than to say, as my name was specifically raised, that I've put forward clear evidence of one instance (the insurance that wasn't honoured) which people can find the details of elsewhere but will nowhere find a convincing or credible rebuttal from you.

My comments above about the contract needing clarification refer to the version of the contract which was up last night - it now appears to have been deleted.

WEEKLY RESULTS




Another fairly slow week - we made 2.8% trading profit, up from last week's 2.4% but still well below what we'd been used to previously.  Whether this sort of result or previous ones represent the 'norm' is up for debate - I believe the likely average result lies somewhere in between.

We still have fairly significant BTC exposure - due to me moving extra funds over to BTC.CO.  I'm not sure whether we need more there permanently yet (I'm certain we'll need significantly more before too long).  For now I'm just going finish selling last of current batch of bonds (up to 1600 total) - think that'll do us until another liquid security or two relist there.

We made a profit on all 4 sites we trade on this week - the extra capital from bonds is definitely paying for itself.  I'd guesstimate profits this week from LTC-Global only would be around 1.5% - there's a few securities in a slump and others where large-scale market-fixing is going on, making it harder than to usual to trade profitably there (though a slump CAN sometimes deliver slightly longer-term profit when price recovers).

Management fee this week is 1 unit - which will be transferred after posting this.  Note that if profits ever fall below about 2% per week I won't get a management fee at all (though I'd still do OK on the ~half of units I personally own of course).

Bid at 16.16

I think what usagi is saying is that his claim for shares IS in Diablo's list - just Diablo jumped the gun because he didn't recognise any email on the list as being usagi's.  Usagi could have used an entirely different email on GLBSE (to the ones Diablo knew he used), in which case he likely already has an email from Diablo confirming the shares (though Diablo doesn't realise it's usagi) so KNOWS his claim has been forwarded.  If that's the case then this thread is pointless and the title is untrue.  Obviously I have no idea if that's the case.

I checked back to see where I got the impression usagi had sold DMC for 0.1 - turns out that was just nyan.b's DMC (the ones obtained in the interesting swap), not all of them.

My instinct and the available facts tell me that on this particular issue usagi is telling the truth and Diablo just jumped to a wrong conclusion.

Thought usagi sold his shares back to you for 0.1 each shortly after DMC got unlocked by nefario.

Quoting in case it changes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110352.msg1402942#msg1402942

It's almost like I expected this ...

That link says nothing about the SEC going crazy on nefario - it's just nefario confirming that the SEC were investigating pirate.

Getting back on topic - can you offer ANY proof at all that whatever funds you raise are being used to purchase shares (as opposed to say, being use to run a ponzi)?  I can't see a list anywhere of what you even CLAIM to be invested in - let alone any proof that you're actually invested.  As you're a new account you may not have realised, but there have benn cases in the past where people have refused to prove they were doing what they were claiming to do and instead have been running ponzis/scamming/doing something entirely different.  As you don't have any history or reputation here to lose, can you offer ANY evidence that you're acting in good faith?