How does more exchanges give more depth?

All more exchanges does is spread the depth thinner across more sites - leading to very shallow order books everywhere and an exchange-rate that fluctuates even more wildly due to increased arbitragin opportunities.

The way to get more depth (And more stability) is to have more uses for LTC - it's really that simple.  Right now the exchange-rate is set long-term by whim and short-term by bots(mainly) and traders arbitraging across LTC/BTC and LTC/USD to correct imbalances caused by changes in the BTC/USD market.  Meaningful stability is still a long way off even for BTC - let alone LTC -as nothing of note is priced in BTC (price is set in fiat then converted temporarily to BTC for the transaction).

I'm not AGAINST more exchanges - but increased depth isn't what they'd provide (other than if they're in a currency not support yet - in which case it isn't more depth it's new depth in a new market).

The LTC-GLOBAL shares are actually now proxy-held shares in BTC Trading Corp.  If you check motions on LTC-GLOBAL you'll see last one was to appoint a director in Bermuda for BTC Trading Corp, which wouldn't otherwise make sense.  Basically owners of those those shares own both sites (remember only a minority of shares were sold to public - burnside still owns ~90%).

Dunno if BTCTC cross-references to LTC-GLOBAL shareholders for asset-approval but it would seem likely - judging by the test votes on LTC-MINING from burnside.

Exchange-rate : 0.00545

Adjusted NAV/U : 11.79257
Bid at : 11.6

Have had a few decent trades last few days.  In the meantime LTC keeps falling vs BTC - if we'd still had significant BTC-denominated assets we'd be up a whole ton more.

Someone gets a scammer tag if the mods decide they deserve one - which is based on the available evidence not on some magic ability they posses to divine with certainty whether someone actually IS a scammer or not.

Plenty of scammers don't have scammer tags - in fact it only takes elementary logic to work out out that ALL scammers didn't have a scammer tag at some point (they don't get given them the instant they sign up for the forum).

The set of forum members without scammer tags contains ALL of the following groups of people:

Ones who aren't scammers,
Ones who are scammers but haven't scammed on this forum,
Ones who have scammed on this forum but noone has realised it yet,
Ones who have scammed on this forum but the evidence hasn't been sufficient to convince mods to give the tag.

Now you certainly belong in one of those four groups - as do I, and as does every member who doesn't have a scammer tag.  But the lack of a tag, of itself, says NOTHING about which of those four groups you (or anyone else) actually belongs to.  I'm not that interested in arguing here which group you're in - just pointing out the trivial fallacy of your repeated claim about you not having a scammer tag actually being proof of innocence.

And let's be clear JUST how stupid "I don't have a scammer tag so I'm not a scammer" is.  IF that were somehow logically sound then NOONE should ever get a scammer tag.  After all, right before the scammer tag was awarded they didn't have a tag.  And that proves they aren't a scammer, right?  So therefore they shouldn't be given one - and the tag should just be deleted.

Surprised noone's asked the obvious question yet - is this business venture insured by CPA?

And now usagi's claiming to be female - yet in a drunken post previosuly referred to "My wife".  China/Japan (at varous times you've stated/implied being in both these countries) have lesbian marriages now?

And isn't it the case YOU linked to books with an author of "Oliver Richman" claiming you wrote them?

I don't particularly care what sex someone I encounter on the Internet is - but I DO care when they lie about it: as if they lie about something there's no reason to lie about then it's kind of hard to believe any claims they make which actually matter.

How you getting with selling off your mining rigs/cancelling your ASIC orders ready to distribute back to your BMF investors btw?

Wrong section of the forum surely?

If you want a loan then post in Lending section.
If you want to discuss development of the site/software then there's a section for that.
If you want to sell the books then there's an area for that.
If you want to sell the service you provide then there's a sub-forum for that.

This particular one (Securities) is for "This section is for topics about individual Bitcoin bonds, stocks, etc." - which you've explicitly stated you aren't issuing.

Mildly amusing that someone who professes to teach English somehow picked the one sub-forum that their post clearly doesn't belong in.

I can answer some of that for you.

Only a small minority of shares were sold to the public - burnside holds the majority (THINK I remember him saying he'd sold 10%).  So the vote passing is pretty automatic - but form demands a vote be held, as much to create a record of it passing as anything.

The director is almost certainly just a figurehead - likely a local representative is needed for the company.

Again, from memory last time brunside commented on it there were 18 shareholders who held 10 or more shares (and so can vote to approve assets).  There's likely a lot more shareholders holding less than 10 shares.

To become a shareholder you just buy 1 or more shares on the exchange.  Cheapest for sale at moment for LTC-GLOBAL are about 250 LTC.  Get 10 shares and you can vote to approve or deny new assets (or put messages about them up for everyone to see).

Exchange-rate : 0.0064
Adjusted NAV/U : 11.37739
Bid at : 11.23

Seems like there's some active buyers around at moment - at the rate our assets have been selling so far today we'll be entirely in cash by the end of it (if that happened, NAV/U would be at around 12 at a guess).  Every single asset on LTC-GLOBAL is either up or unchanged - definitely some buying happening (which makes it harder to get more assets cheaply, but great for realising profits - have relisted some of our last stuff at higher prices).

I've posted (a rather hefty) proposal in the litecoin forums:

http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html

If you're reading this post on BTC forums (I post all my updates to both forums) then sorry for only posting it on the other forum - but I'd prefer all discussion (if anyone actually reads it all) in one place.  Here's the CN for the thread - so you can decide if it's of interest before visiting:

SUMMARY (CN)

I am proposing that when LTC-ATF begins trading on BTC-GLOBAL, we raise funds for it by issuing bonds paying a fixed-rate of interest rather by issuing more units.  This would greatly reduce NAV/U volatility caused by exchange-rate fluctuations and would keep the bulk of profits for existing unit-holders rather than giving them to new investors.  This comes with the risk that if we make a loss trading we lose more than we would do if additional capital was raised by issuing more units.[/b]

I keep looking at this thread hoping that somewhere you'll actually give an example that's even vaguely comparable to what happened.  But, yet again, you disappoint.

Here's your example rewritten to at least have a crude similarity to the situation 0 but with your conlusions left intact.

"As a silly example, suppose I ask you to lend me some money.  You know that a lot of people are borrowing money and gambling on the slots so you ask whether I intend to gamble on the slots.  I say no.  You ask whether I'll lend the money to others who gamble on slots and I say no.  Say you also believe what I tell you and therefore loan me money, fully believing that I won't gamble it on the slots or lend it to other who will gamble it on the slots.  In this case, if I lend the money to someone who gambles on the slots and they lose the $50, it's not fair for me to be responsible to you for the entire $50, lost profits, and so on.  When you have a common mistake, made equally by both parties, with no significantly greater fault falling on either party, it is inequitable to try to enforce the contract as agreed. In our gambling case, our contract never addresses the case where I lose money because neither of us considered it possible -- it can't say what should happen in that case because neither of us ever tried to make it do so."

Do you see now just how dumb it is?

Elsewhere you've claimed PH was somehow "trying to do the impossible".  Your claims that it's impossible to make 1% a week without investing in Pirate is unproven - yet your entire argument relies on it (if it's not totally impossible then your argument fails immediately - as you'd have to accept an investor couldn't know whether PH was investing/lending to such an alternative).  Somewhere you've somehow conflated "investments in pirate were going to fail" with "all investments paying 1%+ per week were invested directly or indirectly in pirate" and have constructed an entirely fallacious chain of evidence based on that very elementary mistake.  And now you keep on constructing different analagoies- none of which are actually analagous.

Here's a few pointers for your next attempt at an alternative comparable scenario.  It needs to contain the following elements:

1.  There's a well-known risk.
2.  The Investor asks the Investment whether they have exposure to that risk.
3.  The Investment indicates they have NO exposure to that risk (they do't say "Yes" as in your above-quoted dismal failure of an attempt at an analogy).
4.  The Investor does not know the details of how the investment will be used - and has no way to find out (Again, totally unlike your above example).
5.  The Investment uses the raised funds to expose themselves to the risk.  They claim this was unintentional.

You would appear to maybe be claiming that my points 2-4 are irrelevant as investing in Pirate was the ONLY thing PH could be doing.  Are we meant to take your word for that?  If we find ONE company that paid 1% per week around then without pirate exposure would that disprove it?  Or do you have some (so far unreleased) information indicating that PH, specifically, was bound to be invested in Pirate - even if others could make 1%+ per week without pirate exposure?

Note that the above quote is from our thread in the Litecoin forums - if you click it here it'll take you to some entirely unrelated post.  If there's a query on one thread which I respond to in any length then I tend to cross-post on both to give context to my comments and save me having to answer the same question again later.

Not a glitch - just none have been traded in the last 7 days.  I'm not selling new units at the moment and seems noone wants to sell theirs back to me (or to other  bidders who have put buys up at just over NAV/U, overbidding my buyback).  Haven't seen an Ask up that's within 20% of NAV/U - so seems like existing investors don't want to sell and new ones can't get in at a reasonable price, hence no trades.

Would suggest you just manually value LTC-ATF shares at my quoted NAV/U - most of our holdings are usually in cash (as you can see in the report) and the shares we hold are all valued at or below their 7-day average, so my official NAV/U is a slightly pessimistic one compared to most valuations.  As I've mentioned before, other than investments I expect to take a while to sell (due to pricing typically) I generally value everything at what I paid for them until I sell them.  As volume's so low, 7-day average for most securities jumps around all over the place - so if I used that, my NAV/U would jump all over the place without reflecting any real change in the value of our assets. 

Exchange-rate : .0064
Adjusted NAV/U : 11.0238
Bid up at 10.87

We've remained solidly holding LTC - so haven't gained or lost anything significant from LTC dropping below .006 then rebounding back up to where it now is.

Was the suggestion to send flowers to nefario or a wreath to his wife? (not gonna dig back through the thread to find out).  The latter isn't quite as friendly as some of you might think.

I don't think most investors are too interested in nefario being friendly.  They'd far prefer he became somewhat competent and acted in a timely manner.

You don't see how this totally undermines your argument in the MP/PH situation?

One of the foundations of your argument is that neither PH/MP knew PH was exposed to pirate.  Doesn't his behaviour with Kraken suggest that MAYBE he DID know he was exposed to pirate but chose to lie about it to raise more funds?

The basis of a common mistake is common knowledge - which is where your argument has always fallen down.  PH KNEW where he was invested, his depositors/investors had to take his word about it.  As he had more information AND made assertions which his depositors/investors had to take his word for, there's absolutely no basis on which a common mistake could be concluded.

Otherwise, by your twisted logic, EVERY defaulter could use your argument - after all, neither they or the lender believed they would be unable to repay (or they wouldn't have entered the agreement).  Hence they shared a "common mistake" of believing that repayment would be possible, hence they share fault.

All your examples about cherries, sunk ships etc share one element in common that is NOT common to the PH/MP deal - symmetry of information.  The information in PH's deals (with MP and also Kraken) was asymmetrical - PH KNEW what his investments were, the other parties didn't.  Accordingly, any error in assertions made by PH about those investments HAS to be his fault if wrong - as he was the only one in a position to make any judgment about them.  Common mistake has nothing to do with one party making an assertion that they can verify but the other can't.  It has to do with an assumption made by both parties where neither has significantly more information than the other.

A good example of what WOULD be common mistake would be losses caused by the failure of GLBSE - where no mention of that (or responsibility in the event of its collapse) had ever been made in negotiation or in contract.  But where one party has made an assertion that they could reasonably be expected to have significantly more information about than the other party then there's no longer anything "common" about it.

PH explicitly took on the risk of losses caused by pirate default anyway.  You can't explicitly take on a risk then walk away from it when it happens because "I was wrong and you believed me - so we're both at fault."  And, to get back to the original point of this post, given what's transpired with Kraken it's arguable that he's no longer even entitled to an assumption that he was being honest in his discussion with MP anyway: did Kraken somehow accidentally, and without his own knowledge, end up owning large chunks of pirate debt rather than what it was supposed to be invested in?  If someone's intentionally misrepresented themself on a very specific issue once do you really believe an argument predicated on the basis that when they made such a representation previously it was honest has any validity)?

I assume you accept that if PH KNEW he was invested in pirate but lied about it to MP then there was no common mistake.  Given Kraken and that he definitely KNEW what his Starfish investments were (MP didn't) how confident can you possibly be that he was honest when he made that assertion to MP?

UPDATE AND REPORT



Trade picked up this week - in conjunction with LTC falling vs BTC.  That's actually a pretty common pattern - when LTC is strong investors sell shares to get LTC, when LTC weakens investors buy more shares as they see it as a way to protect against LTC falling in value.  That's not actually as irrational as it may sound - as many shares' value (either capital or revenue) is effectively denominated in fiat so rises (in LTC) when LTC falls.

We've been solidly in LTC all week - so, unfortunately, haven't gained from holding BTC in the way we would have before GLBSE shut down.

You may have noticed a new section in the bottom right of the spread-sheet - this shows the calculation adjusting my management fee for currency fluctuation (only applies when LTC weakens).  The calculation done there is actually slightly different to that prescribed in the contract - when convering recalculated profit from BTC to LTC I used the OLD rather than the NEW exchange-rate.  Had I used the old rate (as per contract) it would actually have increased my management fee.  The method in the ocntract was devised on the basis that most of our portfolio would be in BTC - as such it's actually pretty irrelevant now we're almost entirely in LTC.  Just about all profits are from trading (just a tiny amount from appreciation of the assets stuck on GLBSE).  In fact the fairest calculation would use the mid-point between old and new rates - to reflect that (typically) profits were made throughout the week as the exchange-rate moved rather than all at either the beginning or the end.

I'm not proposing to update the contract in respect of this calculation - as I hope that, before too long, some decent market for BTC-denominated securities will emerge and we'll be back to having a chunk of assets in BTC and the calculation will become relevant again.  For now I'll just use the least favourable (to me - most favourable to investors) of the formula detailed in the contract and what I consider a common-sense/logical calculation.

I expect our position to remain largely cash until LTC next rises.  There's absolutely no reason to panic buy - I try to only buy when I'm confident I can sell for a profit and would far rather hold cash (LTC) than securities I bought at a fair price.  So, for now at least, I won't be putting more units up for sale - that can, of course, change very rapidly if market conditions change and/or a significant number of our orders get filled.

HWM will be updated and 2 units transferred to my personal account as this week's management fee.

Bid at : 10.7

Well, looking at what happened it obviously wasn't (whatever his steps were to ensure his deposits were pirate-free, those steps were clearly woefully inadequate). But what we NOW know isn't particularly relevant to the discussion in this thread.

At the time I had no idea whether it was viable or not.  As stated earlier, I avoid investing in anything where the business is undefined.  With this sort of lending business, the recipients' businesses are unknown to me - hence I can't assess the risk so won't touch the investment.  That's a decision I've made because there's little/no ability and/or willingness for lenders to take action against defaulters - so unless I can be confident there's likely to be no reason for default I won't invest.

The issues isn't whether his business model was sound anyway - it's whether it was KNOWN to be unsound.  We already know that wasn't accepted by all - you've already accepted neither PH or MP knew it (or even believed it) and have yet to demonstrate that any significant number of people believed it.

No, my argument is NOT that PH's business method was sound.  My argument is that you aren't entitled to assume that everyone KNEW that he was exposed to pirate risk.  And you sure aren't entitled to expect those PH owes money to to take a large haircut just because somewhere on the forums you and/or your friends posted that PH was incompetent and/or exposed to pirate so they should have taken your word for it over PH's.

I've never invested in ANY of the loan/undisclosed businesses - be it pirate, PH or whoever (sole exception being trading OBSI.HRPT AFTER it had collapsed).  In an anonymous arena like bitcoin I'm just not interested in investing in undisclosed businesses - and loan companies here are undisclosed businesses one step removed from me.  If I don't have the information to assess the risks myself then I simply don't invest (and I invest short-term rather than long-term anyway as most 'businesses' here will never make a profit for long-term investors anyway - e.g. nearly all mining bonds/stocks).

I object to your insistence that you have the right to assert that something was common knowledge whilst, at the same time, also insisting that those directly involved didn't know it.  I also object to you attempting to make some kind of defence for PH which he's never raised or supported himself.  If he has a defence against the claims against him then HE should make it - rather than you dragging his name through the mud claiming he was so obviously incompetent that everyone on the forums knew he was exposed to pirate except himself and MP.  And I finally object to your claim that if someone misrepresents the nature of their assets when making a deal then it's the fault of the other party if that party chooses to believe them.

That's why I'm posting - not because I invested in pirate or PH - so not quite sure what lesson it is I'm supposed to have learned but haven't.

I just don't see how you can confidently say "There was nothing PH knew that would have changed MP's view. ".  Do you actually KNOW who all PH's customers were at the time that deal was made?  Do you actually KNOW what steps he took to ensure they weren't going to use the funds to invest in pirate?  Unless YOU know EVERYTHING PH knew you can't possibly give any credible comment on how much of that someone else would have known.

Now IF PH's methodology was simply to ask people "Are you going to invest this money in pirate?" AND IF it was well known (KNOWN, not suspected) that was his entire methodology then you might have a point.  Is this what you're claiming?

On the general issue that people gamble whilst (at least partially intentionally) ignoring the risks I have no argument.  Most idiots (as opposed to rational people) look at pretty obvious ponzi schemes and try to look for reasons to believe they're legitimate - when they should, rationally, be looking for reasons to confirm they're NOT legitimate.  So they get into a mind-set of effectively trying to persuade/tallk themselves into investing when they should be doing the opposite - and insisting that the operator give full disclosure, answer in detail all queries etc.

But that's neither here nor there in this specific case.  MP wasn't investing in an obvious ponzi - in fact appeared to want to totally avoid pirate exposure.  MP's biggest mistake was likely assuming PH was competent to run his business - which WAS an erroneous belief both parties had in common: however someone fooling others that they have more competence than they do has never been an issue which, on its own, will invalidate a contract.

When this deal occurred, I also shared the mistaken belief that PH was likely competent to run his business.  When offering loans the most basic of skills needed is the ability to properly vet loan applications to determine ability to repay.  This obviously includes assessing the general reliability of the individual but also includes determining the means for which the loan would be used.  If your contention is that he wasn't doing that (or was just asking, not verifying) then obviously his business was just a disaster waiting to happen - but that doesn't mean that AT THAT TIME all and sundry knew that.  Even if there's threads pointing this out (or suggesting it) that doesn't mean that everyone read those threads - or that those who did read them gave more weight to the views of the posters than to a pillar of the community like PH.  Where's even ONE thread where there's general consensus that PH's investments MUST have heavy pirate exposure?

Just because YOU may have believed something at that time - which subsequently turned out to be correct - does not mean (or give you the right to assert) that everyone else should have realised the same thing.  And it's still a big leap from "should have known" to "did know" - where the latter would be the relevant condition.

As for your claim that not knowing who PH's customers were was irrelevant, thta makes no sense.  Are you asserting that EVERY customer of PH's invested the money in pirate and defaulted?  If not, then you already accept that SOME people borrow money at PH's rates and DON'T invest in pirate/similar.  So we then have two groups of people:

1.  Those who borrow and invest in pirate/similar,
2.  Those who borrow and don't invest in pirate/similar.

How do we find out how many of each?  Either:

1.  Investigate the customers,
2.  Ask PH.

MP didn't have the list of customers, so had to use #2.  PH was confident that pirate exposure was minimal/zero.  PH should know - from whatever due diligence he performed before (and after) loaning.  Doubting his word on that would make no sense - if you didn't believe him competent to undertake even the most basic requirements of successful loaning (doing enough due diligence to have decent confidence in repayment - which includes determining a use that isn't random gambling/spunking away on ponzis) then you shouldn't even be considering investing in him anyway.

I repeat in case you missed it.  Unless you claim ALL borrowers from PH were pirate investors then you NEED the list to work out whether, at any point, his exposure to pirate is 0%,10%, 30%, 50% or 100%.

PH fooled people (including himself) that he was competent to run a lending business/bank.  Your argument, at root, is that because people were stupid enough to be fooled by PH they deserve to lose out and that he shouldn't be punished for it.  That's a scammer's charter - aside from anything else.  You're basically saying that if you can talk people into an investment that, with full 20/20 hindsight vision, is clearly bad then they're as much as fault as the individual offering the investment (as both of them should have known it was too good to be true).  You also massively over-rate the weight people give to whatever threads (at that time) supported your proposition that PH was incompetent, out of his depth and very clearly exposed to pirate.

You really just don't get it, do you?

1.  MP didn't know who PH's customers were.
2.  Those customers swore they weren't invested in pirate to PH, not to MP - more accurately, MP took PH's word that they'd said such - as MP COULD NOT verify that due to 1.
3.  PH had responsibility to assess the credibility of his customers' claims not to be invested in pirate because a) They were his customers,  b) MP couldn't due to 1.

If you accept the above then the following is each party's degree of knowledge:

PH had either been told (or not told) by his customers that they weren't invested in pirate.
PH either did or did not do due diligence on those customers.

MP knew that PH claimed he was satisfied that his customers weren't invested in pirate.

MP's knowledge about the specific investments was limited to ONLY what PH divulged.  There's no equality of information there.

Your argument then gos back to its default state which is:

"Everyone knew PH was invested indirectly in pirate"
"PH didn't know he was invested in pirate"
"MP didn't know PH was invested in pirate"

It's blatantly obvious that the first of those three statements directly contradicts the last two.  That lots of others also invested in PH also disproves your key assertion (that it was common knowledge PH was at risk to pirate exposure) - as noone who wanted pirate exposure would have invested at 1% per week.

Not only is your argument logically inconsistent ("everyone knew X",  "Except the people who had the most interest in knowing X", "And specifically except the only person who COULD know X"), it's also totally irrelevant anyway.  At no stage has PH claimed he should be released from his obligations because "everyone who invested must have known I was exposed to pirate so should take a massive haircut if they ever get paid back as their ignorance trumps my incompetence.".

Seems to me like PH made some errors of judgment, was unable to fulfil his commitments, still accepts he has those commitments but is unable/unwilling to resolve them in any sort of timely manner.  As such there's no point him posting here - as he isn't disputing any of MP's facts or what he owes.  If policy was consistent then I'd actually expect him to get a tag about same time after default as nefario did (both broke an off-forum agreement - more clearly tbh in PH's case).  Both have reasons outside their own control why they believed they had no choice but to break existing agreements.  Both, arguably, should have known that risk existed (in PH's case by properly doing due diligence on how his customers were using their loans).  Luckily for PH I don't think any of his victims are mods - so he's probably safe.

Exchange-rate : 0.00689

Adjusted NAV/U : 10.565177

Bid at 10.43

You're repeating the same fallacy again and again.  The two cases aren't remotely similar.

In the cherries case either:

1.  Both parties can (or have) verify the contents of the truck (e.g. they're standing by it) - both equally at fault,
2.  Neither party can (or have) verify the contents of the truck (truck in neither of their possession) - contract void.

In this case PH, as you specifically pointed out, PH's assertion was:

"in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that"

Only PH can verify what his assets are - MP can't.

Going back to the cherry case, that makes the actual analogy:

PH: I have a truck with 1500 pounds of cherries on to sell you.
MP: Are there really 1500 pounds of cherries on it?
PH: Yes.
MP: OK I'll buy the truck.

Some months Later.

PH: About that truck ...  The truck's bust and turns out it had 5 pounds of bananas in it not any cherries.  So you can't have the money you paid me back as you should have known I couldn't possibly have any cherries.

At no stage was MP shown the truck - but made the deal assuming PH acted in good faith and knew what in his truck.  The above is YOUR argument, not one PH himself has made btw.

Now you're arguing that everyone knew PH only grew bananas so anyone who tried to buy cherries off him is as much at fault as he was for trying to sell them and for not looking inside his own truck that noone else had access to.

The saddest thing about your little argument is that PH himself seems to accept that he owes the funds - and hence that the error was his.  Not once does he appear to argue that his own incompetence (by YOUR definition - as he apparently couldnt reach a conclusion that you believe everyone else with less information could reach) negates the debt he owes or alters the fact that he's in default.

And no - both parties did NOT make the same mistake.  PH's mistake was not properly evaluating his OWN investments to ensure they were pirate-free - compounded by asserting that to obtain new business.  MP's mistake was believing PH's assertion.  If someone portrays themselves as competent in an area (in this case, assessing the viability of loans) then subsequent evidence that they weren't as competent as they liked to think doesn't remove from them their contractual obligations just because "well, everyone should have known he was wrong."

You can't have a common mistake where only one party is in a position to ascertain the relevant facts and the second party relies on an assertion from the first party.  Your example very carefully avoids the issue of who has possession of the truck/cherries and whether either/both parties have looked into it.  Written more clearly your example would clarify that PH owned the truck and asserted that he had verified its contents.  Moreover his "in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that" is analogous to a claim of "even if the truck is empty I have enough cherries to give you yours anyway."

It's a terrible analogy backing up an even worse argument.