LOL.  Now all of a sudden usagi's backtracking in its other threads and talking about actually claiming on the insurance.

Let's have a quote and comment on it :


How about option 3:

3.  CPA pays BMF 500 bitcoins now.  BMF pays its premiums per schedule and in the meantime uses the 500 BTC to make profit.

If BMF can't make profit with bitcoins then what the fuck is it doing in business in the first place?  At best the contract was only ever a low-interest loan (as the premiums add up to more than the cover) - so at least take the little bit of benefit the contract entitles BMF to.

And if you take option 1. then here's a summary of how the insurance works out:

If BMF NAV stayed above 1, BMF pays 550 BTC to CPA over 2 years.
If BMF NAV falls below 1, they don't claim from CPA because umm, because well, because it really isn't worht it as they could just give the money back and call it quits.

Wow! What brilliant value that contract would be for BMF - if they're lucky (NAV stays above 1) they lose 550 BTC and if they're unlucky (NAV falls below 1) they only lose 50 BTC.  Good job they have such a clever person running them, with no conflicts of interest whatsoever.  With a less biased incompetent person in charge they could have mistakenly claimed on their insurance policy when they were entitled to and had cash now.

And option 2.?  It's not really worth claiming for?

Let me get this straight.  USAGI wrote and signed an insurance policy committing BMF to 550 in premiums.  But USAGI ITSELF is saying the policy isn't worth claiming on?  Am I really reading that right? Is Usagi really saying that it fucked up so bad that it committed to spending 550 BTC on something of zero value?  And bear in mind that if claiming on it now is "not really worth it" then claiming on it later in the contract would be worth even less.

The contract was for 100 BTC payments.  The contract even spells out the address to which those coins should be sent and that their amounts should have 12 satoshis added to them to clarify and make transparent their purpose.  THAT is the means by which a claim should be settled.

Is usagi trying to audition for BOTH lead  roles in a sequel to Dumb and Dumber or something?

I shied away from posting in your threads because you banned me from them in you local rules lol.

This ain't your thread.  You can't stop me exposing your lies, scams etc here.  Your childish attempts to intimidate me won't work.

When I posted about this in your other trheads you told me to go post in scammers forum.  I did that - albeit in an abortion of a thread that mainly seemed to deal with issues of valuations which only pertain to your incompetence not to whether you're a scammer.  You then ignored my post and told me to ask it in your main threads.  I posted it in your main BMF thread - where it's now sat for days without answer (even after being quoted by someone who claims to be a shareholder).  When I asked about it other threads you locked them and made new ones from which I was banned in your local rules.

And now I post here I'm suddenly supposed to post in some other thread - where you've already ignored my questions, claimed to have answered them (without actually doing so) or from which I am banned?

Get real.  Now you've made the one post I wanted (giving a bullshit excuse for the insurance) I don't care whether you psot here again or not.  Until you actually gave an obvious pack of lies as an answer, people could give you the benefit of the doubt.  Now anyone reading this - and seeing your post - will KNOW you're lieing through your teeth.

If you want to keep posting - go for it.  You won't tell the truth (you can't really now you've committed to a lie) so are unlikely to add anything of value.

News Flash for usagi : This isn't your thread.  There's no local rules here to stop people asking awkward questions.  You can tell me to fuck off, shut up etc etc - but have approximately zero chance of it having the effect you'd like it to.  I'll likely lock this thread later today, after I've done some work, and make a nice shiny new one - where i'll spell out in a nice step-by-step fashion exactly what happened, quote your little pack of lies and explain precisely why they are obviously lies.

I'll probably make the thread in this forum - then if anyone with a financial interest (e.g. a current BMF shareholder or an ex-BMF shareholder who sold for less than they should have because of your THEFT from them) wants to make a scammer thread about it they can.

So go back to your own threads and spin a bit more bullshit to your investors.  I'll be respecting your local rules UNLESS you actually post about me: I doubt very much the mods will enforce a local rule banning someone from defending themselves against accusations made against them.

Hmm, maybe when I've collated it all we could have a poll.  Something like:

"Having read usagi's account of how the insurance policy was just an experiment do you believe:

A.  usagi is a lieing sack of shit who defrauded its investors.
B.  usagi is a practical joker who was just having some fun by telling BMF investors they were insured when it was actually just an experiment designed to test nothing, prove nothing and achieve nothing (plus cost BMF 20 BTC).
C.  usagi is a great company manager with the highest standards of integrity who would never knowingly mislead investors or act in a manner counter to their interests.

I predict option C would get 2+X votes.  The 2 being usagi + Atlas and the X whatever number of sock-puppet accounts usagi cares to make.

You saying something doesn't make it "shown beyond a shadow of a doubt".  In fact it likely adds doubt to something I may well otherwise have believed without question.

You have no reasonable explanation for why you'd say to your shareholders:


That's not the entire message - snipped irrelevant parts at start and end.

If it was "just an experiment" in which the only action was BMF GIVING 20 BTC to CPA how would it improve BMF's ability to pay dividends?  Why even announce it? Why send the 20 BTC - you needed to test your wallet worked or something?

I don't believe anyone reading that psot of yours would get the impression it was a meaningless experiment - rather they would very clearly get the impression that BMF was now insured (as per the contract).

You defrauded your BMF investors and are now lieing about it.

Yeah - it's possible sometimes my posting gets a bit trollish.  Better that than your behaviour - which is solidly at the compulsive liar end of the spectrum with a heavy dose of scammer/fraud thrown in.

Wow - an even less credible excuse than I expected. Let's see you expect us to believe that:

1.  You signed the contract and announced to your shareholders that BMF was now insured against loss of capital.  Biut in fact it was just an experiment and you never had any intent of there being any insurance.
2.  BMF paid some premiums then lost NAV and was in a position to claim.  Instead of just claiming you acclerated BMF's payments to cancel out the claim.  But you didn't announce this at ALL to your share-holders in BMF.

Note that the decision to accelerate both claim AND premiums could ONLY be made if BMF was entitled to claim 500 BTC - otherwise there wasn't any cancellation of premiums CPA could accelerate.

That is total and utter bullshit.  You are lieing through your teeth.  I can't put it any clearer.

You explained it to me MANY times?  Point to ONE place where you've explained in ANY thread about that you accelerated premiums.  I haven't seen any posting telling your share-holders "Oh BTW, we were entitled to 500 BTC from CPA but I decided to pay all our premiums now instead of accepting it."  

What a pile of steaming horse-shit.  Is that the best pathetic excuse you could come up with?  The truth is that CPA couldn't afford to pay - so you hoped to brush it under the carpet (maybe you intended to pay later - when CPA got some funds).

Here's the things that make no sense about your crappy little lies:

1.  If it was an experiment - what did actually signing the contract achieve?  Without actually honouring the contract you learn nothing from just the act of signing it then cancelling it.
2.  If it was an experiment why tell your share-holders they were now insured by CPA?
3.  If you announced signing the contract why not announce ending it?
4.  If BMF were entitled to 500 BTC from CPA how is it in BMF shareholders' interest to then speed up their own payment of premiums?
5.  Your contract plainly specified how payments were to be made (the bitcoin addresses and the .00000012 suffix).  No such payments exist - yet even if your crappy little story were true there should be at least one (as the outstanding premiums didn't add up to exactly 500 BTC).
6.  Even in your little fairy tale you seem to be claiming you gave away 20 BTC from BMF to CPA as part of an "experiment". (Go check the blockexlorer logs - the 1st payment was 20 not the 10 you claim).  Why?

Point 4, BTW is where your conflict of interest came in - a concept you very clearly don't understand.

You're a more brazen liar than I'd previously given you credit for.  Not only are you lieing about what happened (someone just has to read your post to BMF shareholders to realise this was no meaningless experiment - you were proud you'd got insurance) but you're repeatedly claiming to have explained things when, in fact, quite the opposite is the case.  You've consistently stone-walled on the insurance - until you've finally cracked and told the totally unbelievable pack of lies I expected.

I don't know WHEN you came up with this story - it may have been a while back.  But it sure as heck wasn't until AFTER BMF were entitled to claim and you realised CPA couldn't afford to pay up.  Then you just went and cheated your BMF investors and are now lieing through your teeth about it.

You never said there was a motion?


Bolded the relevant bit.  That jog your memory at all?

You're on the wrong track there.

The ask-walls are to raise new funds to buy more hardware - think each one is enough for one rig or something like that.

The mining hardware is ordered but not delivered (from memory there may have been one old rig usagi donated or is loaning to BMF), so no way photos of any substantial amount of gear could be provided.

Remember, BMF started as an investment company then passed a motion to change to doing mining (bear in mind usagi controls the majority of shares so can pass any motions it wants) - so it's not like it SHOULD have a load of mining gear as it's only just transitioning.

Just clearing that up as I don't want totally wrong accusations in here - 'cos that gives usagi the easy way out of answering an inaccurate accusation then claiming that somehow proves every other accusation is wrong.

I've never claimed you SHOULD get a scammer tag for mining crashing.  I've additionally stated on numerous occasions that I don't believe you should get a scammer tag for losing a shit-load of investors' funds.

The ONLY thing I accused you of in the scammer thread was the BMF insurance issue - where it's crystal clear you intentionally did not act in the interests of your (BMF) share-holders (by refusing to claim on their insurance policy).

Incompetence (on its own) does not warrant a scammer tag.  Acting in bad faith likely does.

If you really want me to shut up about the BMF insurance issue then here's how we could do it:

I'll write a list of propositions about the incident - things which you should easily be able to agree with or disagree with.  Here we go:

1. BMF was insured by CPA against its NAV dropping below 1.0.
2. usagi acted for BMF in agreeing this insurance cover.
3. IF BMF's NAV fell below 1.0 then BMF was entitled to ask CPA to audit BMF and determine whether the NAV actually was below 1.0.
4. usagi reported BMF's nav as being below to 1.0 on multiple occasions (right through to the present).
5. No report has ever been made of BMF requesting an audit of their NAV.
6. Were such an audit to be made then it would be found that BMF's NAV is below 1.0
7. If such an audit were made and BMF's NAV were agreed to be below 1.0 then BMF would be entitled to 100 BTC from CPA.
8. 100 BTC would increase BMF's NAV.
9. The contract defines no waiting period between successive claims.
10. At some undefined point after receiving 100 BTC, BMF could apply for another 100 BTC (if NAV was still below 1.0).
11. Increasing BMF's NAV would be a good thing for BMF shareholders.
12. The responsibility of BMF's manager when making decisions on BMF's behalf is to BMF's shareholders collectively, not to CPA's shareholders.
13. Claiming 100 BTC (or multiple sets of 100 BTC) from CPA under the insurance policy would give more benefit to BMF shareholders than not claiming any BTC at all.
14. No notification has ever been given to all BMF shareholders that the insurance policy was cancelled.

Once we agree on the facts of what happened (a very quick draft of them are above - I've ignore irrelevancies like you lieing about there having been a motion/vote by BMF on the policy) then anyone reading it can see what the agreed facts are - and only has to decide whether or not my accusation has any merit.

To be totally clear what my accusation is:

"By failing to claim on the insurance policy, usagi acted against the interests of BMF share-holders.  This inaction caused direct loss to any shareholder who subsequently sold shares for less than those shares would have been worth had the insurance policy been claimed on and honoured.  It continues to cause shares held by BMF shareholders to be worth less than they should be."

In my book, deliberately causing your shareholders to lose money (i.e. have less money than they otherwise would) to prop up another business is a scam-worthy action.

The "caused loss" bit COULD be countered by claiming that CPA could not afford to pay out - hence no actual loss was caused.  That would be a fallacious argument - I can explain why if you choose to take that route.

But like I said - which of the FACTS do you disagree with?  I can reword them if necessary to clarify something.  The process i'm proposing is akin to "admissions" in a court - where a set of statements are agreed as being accepted by both sides, leaving only conclusions/interpretation of those facts to be determined by the judge/jury/magistrate/whoever the verdict-maker is.  It saves a lot of pointless debate and general confusion.

Or, of course, you can continue to try to avoid discussing facts - and we can just sling mud at one another a bit more.  The latter probably being the more entertaining but less useful of the two alternatives.

EDIT: I've simplified some of the propositions just to keep it simple.  If usagi wants to make them all absolutely precise then we can do that.  An example is that I've talked about BMF being able to claim 100 BTC.  More accurately every time I should say "the lower of 100 BTC and the amount needed to restore BMF's NAV/share to 1.0".  I know from experience that usagi likes to find one or two tiny details that are wrong so as to avoid having to answer the actual issues.  Whilst I believe it a waste of time I'm fine with getting every tiny detail precise if required - eventually usagi would run out of little details to nit-pick on and have to talk about the important points.

Ooh please - can I guess?

You're going to start taking deposits - for yet another way to lose investors' funds?

On the buying back two points:

1. How much of that "buying back" was from yourself (in the guise of nyan - whose nyan.a/b/c holdings appear to have mostly vanished)?  GLBSE data certainly shows very little "buying back" in the last 5 days.
2.  You had no business buying back nyan.b (which wasn't guaranteed) when in the process you made yourself unable to keep buying back nyan.a (who DO have a guarantee).

In fact the whole "buying back" (even from nyan.a) totally defeats the purpose of having a tranched security in the first place.  With totally flexible (both up and down) numbers of each tranche active there's no way any investor can properly assess the risk/reward ratio for each tranche.

As I explained elsewhere, the number of active units of each tranche is pretty key in determining the value of the various trade-offs between risk/reward across the tranches.  It's yet another thing showing how little understanding you have of the things you try to do.

The issue on the bidwall is what "in a reasonably timely fashion" (or whatever weasel words it was you used) means.  Timely (without qualification) would tend to mean "whenever needed".  "Reasonably timely" means - well you tell me as you wrote it.  Does it mean "when we can afford to"?  Or maybe "If we can be bothered?"

Let me be clear about something.

I DO NOT believe you ever set out to scam your investors.
I DO believe you're trying your best to make your companies recover.

unfortunately I also believe:

You aren't competent to run the businesses you run.
You spend more time trying to pretend you're succeeding than working out what you did wrong and making sure it won't happen again.
You cross the lines from propaganda into just flat out lieing on occasion.
You are totally unable to run each of your companies in the interest of its own shareholders.  Instead you try to treat them all as parts of one company and have them help out the other parts even when it's blatantly against their own interest.
The last two points, in my view, warrant a scammer tag - not because you're a nasty, thieving individual but because you lack the skill-set and honesty (as much to yourself as anything) needed to be entrusted with other people's funds.

You need to learn to walk (run one company) before you try to run (run a bunch of inter-connected ones).  You're still struggling to get to the crawling stage but believe (or pretend to believe - not totally sure which) you're a world-record holding sprinter.

CPA shareholder pretty much = usagi.

When someone has a conflict or interests, usual practice is for them not to vote on whatever the issue is.  Not for them to just do it without anyone having input.  Definitely not for them then to lie and claim it was voted on.

Doh fuckwit - just realised what you got wrong.  Have bolded the "second line" which my second quotedreferred to correcting.  See how that makes more sense that your dumb theory?

There WAS NO MOTION.  When it said there was a motion and it was voted on that was just a bare-faced lie.

Not sure WTF usagi is on about about me/puppet.  Puppet pointed out I'd written BMF when what I wrote also applied to nyan.a.  I said it was a typo - and that I'd meant to type nyan.a in the first place.  Just because I AGREE when someone corrects me, doesn't make us the same person.  I think maybe usagi misunderstood what was being said - I edited the OP after puppet pointed out my mistake.

Look at c.  look at d.

If BMF has only sent 10 bitcoins (which is in fact incorrect - it sent 20 right at the start) then BMF is in default.

"per calendar week for 110 weeks" has a meaning.

IF your argument is "Well yeah - CPA is on the hook, but BMF hasn't claimed and the 110 weeks aren't so over so there's no default" then you seriously have some issues.

In your role as manager of BMF you have a responsibility to act in BMF's interest.  How is it in their interest not to claim when they're entitled to?  Anyone who sold shares since a claim would have been valid has sold at a lower price than they should have, had you not decided that your conflict of interest would be addressed by acting in CPA's favour and putting your fingers in your ears every time you were asked about it.

It's plain and simple : By not claiming you defrauded your BMF shareholders.  The fact you also run CPA in no way absolves you from doing what's right for BMF investors if it might happen to inconvenience CPA.

That's why your sort of intertwined mess of half-baked, failing companies should never be allowed to happen.  And if you can't even SEE why it's wrong to act against against the best interests of BMF then you shouldn't be allowed to run anything.

How the fuck does it help BMF to pay 5 BTC per to CPA per week then not claim when they're entitled to?  They already agreed to pay more in premiums than the amount covered - so the least that should happen is they get promptly paid when they're actually entitled to claim.

And as you wear both hats (CPA and BMF) you should be extra careful in making clear to ivnestors what is happening when the two entities interact.  i,e, explain to them why you aren't claiming, or that you HAVE claimed - just never mentioned and have no deadline on when they'll get paid.

Or is the plan to say "well BMF missed its payments and defaulted - so there's not any cover any more"?  That would be the most hilarious excuse ever - that you (deliberately) defaulted on yourself so as to screw one of your companies to help another stay afloat.

You totally and utterly fucked up on that contract.  You MUST know you did.

I do, however, agree that technically CPA may not have defaulted.  BMF definitely has (by not making the agreed payments).  But the ONLY reason CPA hasn't defaulted (if it hasn't) is because YOU decided that BMF wouldn't claim (and we KNOW BMF hasn't claimed - do I need to quote you to prove it?) for no conceivable reason of benefit to BMF's shareholders.  They were entitled to funds from CPA - you refused to claim those funds (or pretended you hadn't noticed - which in some ways is even worse).

You need to learn to read.  I'm talking about CPA's guarantee on nyan.a - not the already defaulted-on cover of BMF.  You're guaranteeing nyan.a against loss (and trying to close nyan.b - leaving them without protection from nyan.b's assets).  nyan.a is heavily invested in BMF - and CPA is pretty much entirely invested in BMF.  So how can CPA guarantee against BMF loss?  If BMF massively devalues, CPA has nothing to use to honour that guarantee with.

Sure -it's an IF.  But isn't that what insurance is for you idiot?  If you KNEW it wouldn't happen you wouldn't NEED insurance or a guarantee.  If you knew it WOULD happen then you wouldn't do it.  It's only when there's a CHANCE of it happening that you want insurance or a guarantee - and you don't want your insurer to be in a position where if you need cover it's a guarantee they can't give it.

And of course we ALL believe that you were going to impose that (unverifiable) condition.  I presume they could sell shares they already hold?  How about if they sell them by transfer to someone else (who may, or may not, be another account of theirs or working in collusion with them) for 1.0 and that someone else then sells them for .99?

It's a dumb idea.  Period.

Yes - plenty of IPOs offer discounts on bulk purchases.  But it only makes sense if the IPO is going to sell out (or if there's a deadline on sales) - otherwise they just end up with further sales blocked by resellers making a quick profit on a flip, with no extra shares sold (a problem I've seen a few IPOs run into).

What a laod of junk.

You made the contract to "test that kind of contract"?

Then annouced to your shareholders that they were insured - but never paid out when what they were insured against came to happen? Some test.  

You also stated that the policy was passed by a motion.  What motion?

Where did I complain that the contract existed?  What I said (in summary) was that if it didn't cover BMF against loss of NAV what DID it cover?  And you've still not explained what it covered if it wasn't that.

Just saying "there's nothing wrong with what I did" and "it was just an experiment" (the latter a paraphrase) in NO WAY WHATOSEVER explains what benefit BMF got from signing that contract.

Exchange-rate at around 0.0046.  No real volume from .0045-.00473.  Decent volume at both ends is at about .005 sell and .0043 buy - which is what my overnight bid/ask will be set based on.

NAV/U at 10.079.

Bids going at 9.4 and Asks at 10.6

We started the day with NAV/U below 10 at an exchange-rate of 0.0045 - so despite LTC strengthening by 2%ish we've still made a profit.  If/when LTC finally falls back down our NAV/U will go through the roof.

I'd not recommend buying at my overnight rate unless either the exchange-rate drops below 0.0044 OR you're very confident LTC will drop sharply soon (you're better off putting up an ask at 10.3 - 10.5 which I'd likely sell to in the morning if the exchange-rate hasn't fallen far).

I wouldn't recommend selling to my bid unless the exchange-rate gets pretty close to 0.005 (and you actually want to sell anyway of course).  As ever, I'd recommend AGAINST investing anyway if you believe LTC will continue to gain on BTC at a decent speed.  Conversely, if you believe LTC is likely to fall against BTC in the near future then investing not only gets you growth from the exchange-rate change, but also from my trading activities.

Yeah, conflict of interest is definitely one the problems that has happened.  I've specifically referred to it a few times - most notably in the CPA insuring BMF debacle.  usagi negotiated and agreed the contract for BOTH parties to it - without bothering to even inform share-holders in advance, let alone ask them to approve it.

There's been other conflicts of interests - such as one of the nyans (can't remember for sure which one - 95% sure it was nyan.b) lending cash interest-free to CPA and disguising it on the books as an investment.  That was clearly against nyan.b's interest.  Hmm, on reflection maybe it wasn't - there's a case to be made that nyan.b giving an interest-free loan that it was confident would be repaid is more profitable (i.e. makes less loss) than usagi actually investing it.  I somehow doubt usagi would use that argument though.  Not only was that a conflict of interest - there was also an attempt to deceive investors by putting it on the books as an investment.

There's other examples as well - but they aren't amusing enough to warrant the time explaining them in detail really.

Because of all the inbred share holdings in one another, there's an ongoing conflict of interest.  e.g. nyan.a holds a ton of shares in BMF.  nyan badly needs liquidity (to buy-back all the sells at 0.99) and BMF needs to sell more shares.  IF the two had seperate management then there's a good chance nyan.a would just start selling off its BMF - but it won't whilst usagi also runs BMF and is desperate for its price to rise into the ask-walls for funds to get new hardware.

Which reminds me - time to buy up some BMF and relist at .49 which is where usagi has stated it'll be supporting the price.  More free money I guess (I would be doing that if I was actually confident usagi would deliver - I'm not confident, so I won't: but it's free money for any true believers still left).

Nyan only really exists because usagi totally bodged up the way the nyan.x thing was set up.

In a tranched CDO there should only be one pooled collection of assets - so one portfolio jointly owned by nyan.a, b and c.  With the dividends distributed to the various tranches (and the assets distributed in the case of closure).  For whatever wierd reason, usagi instead tried to have a seperate portfolio for each.

I suspect it thought that was the way to spread risk between the different nyans - when it fact risk is already distributed based on the seniorities of the various nyans (the order in which they have claim on assets).  Similarly, reward is split based on the defined means of dividend payout.

So instead of the current mess - where assets are shuffled between different nyans (fairly transparently, in all honesty) there should just be a single portfolio shared by all.  And the content of that portfolio could be defined as being kept to X% high-risk, Y% medium risk, Z% usagi's own businesses - or whatever.

But then you start to run into problems if the number of each type of nyan sold isn't roughly in proportion to the risk categories.  That COULD be managed (if you had a single portfolio) by dynamically adjusting the % of each type of investment in line with the outstanding bonds of each type.

The official reason for nyan was to attempt to manage the balancing of the different other nyans.  The real reason (in my view and this is pure conjecture) is that usagi just wanted to make something very 'clever' and 'complicated' to impress the market.

One of the main reasons nyan (the whole thing, not just the parent company) is in such a mess is that usagi totally screwed up keeping the investments balanced.  nyan.c was the main thing that sold - and nyan never had the capital to attempt to create a more balanced funds.

Despite the APPARENT seperation of nyan.a, b and c the fact remains that the way they actually operated is as though it were all one big portfolio.  And that portfolio ended up being pretty largely invested in very high-risk stuff.

Of itself, that isn't a problem - after all, most of the sold bonds are ALSO nyan.c.  But then you run into the problem that screw it all up.  usagi is in total denial when it loses money - and tries to maintain the fiction that all's well when it ain't.  That means that usagi was over-valuing nyan.b and nyan.c and then compounding the error by buying back stock at the fictitious price.  That buying back (because it's at too high a price) further devalues the TRUE value of what assets remains, making the actual realisable value for the remaining nyan.b stock-holders even worse than it already was.  That then led to even more fantasy valuations, exascerbating the problem even more.

Going back a little bit, why does the ratio of nyan.a/b and c actually matter?  Well you have to consider what function each provides to the other:

(I'll just discuss nyan.b and c - but similar principle applies with .a as well)

nyan.c provides nyan.b with extra security - as nyan.b gets to call on the chunk of assets 'held' by nyan.c before nyan.c does.

In return nyan.c gets any overflow of profits from nyan.b

The actual VALUE of those benefits depends very much on the relative number of each type of nyan.

if there's 10 nyan.b to each nyan.c then each nyan.b is getting the protection of 1/10th of a nyan.c worth of assets in return for handing over to the single nyan.c the overflow from 10 units of nyan.b.

Conversely, if there's 1 nyan.b to each 10 nyan.c then each nyan.b is getting the protection of 10 nyan.c worth of assets in return for handing over to the 10 nyan.c the overflow from 1/10th of a unit of nyan.b each.

It should be immediately obvious that there's a 100-fold difference between the two scenarios above in terms of the value each nyan type provides to the other.

Parent nyan was meant to balance the types of different nyan in the wildr.  That target balance was never disclosed, probably was never defined on any rational basis and definitely no balance was ever achieved.  I don't believe usagi ever truly understood how this sort of offering should be properly structured - as is clearly demonstrated by various of my points above.

Upgrading your offering may well help.  As someone who day-trades and has been looking at various stocks, here's why your share price has crashed:

Compare what you offer to Gigamining.

You:

Bitbond at .21

* Free:  2M/s BITBOND converts to 12.5Mh/s BITBOND.ASIC for free
* Small upgrade:  2M/s BITBOND converts to 45Mh/s BITBOND.ASIC for 0.25 btc
* Large upgrade: 2M/s BITBOND converts to 450Mh/s BITBOND.ASIC for 5.5 btc

free = .0168 per mh/s
small = .46/45 = .01022 btc per /mh/s
large = 5.71/450 =  .01268 btc /mh/s

Now look at Gigamining's (each tera bond is 9 Mh/s):

Giga .56

Free - 36 mh/s
paid - 81 mh/s

    FREE UPGRADE: This is a one for four swap of GIGAMINING for the bond.
    PAID UPGRADE: This is a one for fifteen swap of GIGAMINING for the bond. A payment of .29 BTC per GIGAMINING bond is also required.

free = .015555 BTC per mh/s
paid = .85/(15*9) = .00629 BTC per mh/s

Two things are obvious:

1. At current market share prices you get more mh/s for your BTC with giga than with you.
2.  Now your share price has dropped your large upgrade no longer makes any sense.

You need to roughly double the mh/s your large offer gives you make it competitive with giga AT CURRENT SHARE PRICES.  More than double it if you want the share price to rise (unless giga's falls).  The free upgrade isn't all that uncompetitive - a 50% rise in that would make it better value than giga's: though who in their right mind will take the free upgrade anyway?

The sharp share-price fall was just the market revaluing your share in an entirely rational manner.  Hence why Giga's didn't fall in the same way.  Nothing to do with bad management - just bad value (at the old price).

Keep up this trolling and I'll ban you from my thread!!!

[/sarcasm]