I guess he also needs to explain what shares he "sold" to himself and at what price.  If his personal account holds a big chunk of shares (worse if he used them to vote on his motion) then scammer tag would seem inevitable - unless he can point to a sharp rise in NAV caused by the influx of him buying the shares at 1.0.  That's something nefario could probably very easily check for - what shares he transferred to himself and at what price.

The transaction that most smells of scam is this:

His current listed nav/share as of his last report was about 0.05/share.
Prior to that he issued a large chunk of shares to CPA/nyan at under 0.02 per share.

Obviously prior to that there were a lot less DMC shares - so nav/share would have been higher than the 0.05 it was after that new issue.

What was the rationale for that swap?  Clearly it was terrible for all existing shareholders - as it (and the other 10k or so newly issued shares) totally diluted what little value he'd still got left in the company.  Why did he need 50 BTC so badly as to totally screw over his existing shareholders?  And what blackhole did that 50 BTC vanish into?

And nefario - were you aware that the shares sold to usagi for a grand total of 50 BTC (at around 0.015 per share) outnumber (for voting) all the shares issued to IPO investors (who paid 1 bTC per share).  'original shareholders' at most amount to 25% of outstanding shares after Diablo's recent splurge of giving away/selling cheap/whatever new shares.

I'd see three things Diablo needs to do to get supported in his vote:

1.  Provide a proper asset list for DMC - including non-GLBSE assets.
2.  Account in broad-strokes where all the rest of the money has gone (lost X BTC buying 500 of share Y at 3 times what it was worth then traded it for 1k shares of Z which was even worse etc..).
3.  Explain what swaps/sales of brand new shares occured to quadruple outstanding shares and explain the raionale behind them.

I'm not optimistic of him being able/willing to answer any of those three points (as if he told the truth it would get him a scammer tag after everyone stopped laughing) - but would be nice to be pleasantly surprised.

What site(s) are your horses playing on?
Where do you recruit horses?
Do you back US horses? (In which case there's an additional risk as it means the funds will be on sites that the DOJ could act against)
AS the funds would be converted to fiat what's your plan if BTC rises sharply?
What are the terms of your deal with your horses (makeup/reloads etc)?  If staking is with makeup then how is such makeup valued for the purpose of determining fund value when invetsors want to withdraw?
Links to stats for the horses please?
What proof of ID do you request from your horses?

Why are you backing cash (very high variance) rather than SNGs (lower variance and higher ROI)?

1k hands per day at microstakes is tiny - and good players at that level usually aren't. The genuinely good ones move up, the rest are ones who had a few good days/weeks/months and insist on believing that;'s their true form even after their actual results revert to mean.  They then manage to fool gullible backers into backing them and lose the backer's money too.  Then there's the good ones with no BR management - they lose their own funds taking shots and will happily do the same for backers as well.

Sounds more like you're trying to raise money to player poker yourself than trying to run a fund tbh.

The contract as offered by you would be a terrible one to accept for a few reasons:

1.  It's not hard to increase NAV if that's all you want to do - either legitimately or otherwise.
a) legitimately - all you have to do is invest (direct or via pass-through) all CPA's assets into Patrick's own fixed-interest offerings.  At that point the only way CPA nav can fall is if Patrick defaults.
b) non-legitimately - haven't looked at a breakdown of CPA's current nav but I'd guess a large chunk of its holdings are companies you run yourself where obviously their declared value can be manipulated by you.  Worse, assets can be transferred between these companies by e.g. insurance 'policies' that aren't claimed on, interest-free loans or just direct transfer of wealth.

2)  Whilst the NAV of CPA can be verified, whether an increase in that NAV represents good business can't.  e.g. if the nav of CPA falls by 100 BTC you can just donate 250 NAV (from personal funds or off-the-books from another of your comapnies) and suddenly it's increased by 150 instead.  As all you report are current holdings not a full transaction history no meaningful verification of how any change in nav occurred can be made.

Let me be clear on a few points, as I think I'm one of the people you made this thread in response to:

1) I'm in no way associated with the earlier poster in this thread.  I don't believe you're trying to scam, nor do I believe you won't match the ID you registered with GLBSE.
2) I DO believe the complicated interactions between your various companies make it very hard for anyone outside to accurately value them - and an inaccurate valuation of (say) nyan.c will automatically lead to a bad valuation for nyan and cpa (and to a lesser extent nyan.a and nyan.b) due to the cross-ownership of blocks of shares.
3) I DO believe you've made some terrible decisions - such as insuring pirate investments at a rate where you couldn't invest the covering funds in 'safe' investments and general total income more than just investing direct into pirate yourself.
4) I believe some of your current invetsments that you think of as low-risk are in fact highly toxic - if you want me to give an example I will.

CPA is supposedly an insurance company.  If you want to make a bet on your ability to make profit from offering insurance (excluding any policies written to your own companies that could choose not to claim) then that would be a far more reasonable bet. 

What IS cpa's target for profitability from insurance? Presumably somewhere or at some time you actually had some vague idea of what profit you intended to make - i.e. to average Z% profit per month with Z comprised of X% profit from insurance (premiums-payouts) and Y% from investing the capital backing the insurance.  What X% are you willing to bet on achieving?

If instead you want to bet on your other offerings then here's points to consider about each:

nyan.a - probably not worth betting on though interesting that it values its holdings of YARR shares at 1.5 now (claimed to be market value when they haven't traded as high as 1.5 for a month).  Pretty sure yesterday it showed them valued at 1.0 (though not certain).  That extra 50 BTC is all that makes nyan.a look like it retained nav.  Have screen-shotted them at 1.5 - just in case when the "typo" is fixed you claim I was lieing about it.  Reason nyan.a isn't worth betting on is that its fall in value is likely to be too slow for returns from shorting to beat other opportunities.

nyan.b - Would definitely we worth shorting in the very short-term, longer would need more analysis.  One particular investment is going to lose heavily very shortly (i.e. this week) though, in fairness, you won't have lost much overall on your investment in it (albeit you invested for the wrong reasons).  If you want me to explain precisely why it'll lower your nav and why you invested for the wrong reasons (and how I KNOW you invested for the wrong reasons) then I'll do so.

nyan.c - betting on this is essentially betting on whether obsi will default during the period of shorting (the income from the investment in him covers most other stuff and when he defaults the loss would wipe out the profit from everything else).

Yarr - not currently operational.  Seems to be offering old shareholders an absolute bargain - for their 1 BTC valued share they can get 10 obsi shares (worth over 1 total at market) AND those shares are insured.  Or are they insured?  You seemed to dodge a few direct questions about that in the thread - yet the motion to change only changed the underlieing investment (from pirate to obsi) and didn't vary anything relating to them being insured.  Not meaningful to short this - though clearly if it's a pass though with insurance then any short just becomes a bet on when obsi will default.

The whole situation looks a mess largely because of all the various inter-twined enterprises being run by the same individual.

example:

BMF is insured by CPA.  Here's the full text of the policy (call me paranoid - but I don't want no record of it after I've posted) other than the dispute resolution (which is standard - and irrelevant given it's the same party on both ends of the contract):

"A. NAV Insurance Contract
1. BMF ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
   as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of less than 1 per unit.
2. CPA will not be liable for loss greater than 500 bitcoins.
3. Multiple indemnification payments are allowed so far as the total amount
   does not exceed 500 bitcoins.
4. Neither party may cancel this contract although any party may choose to
   accelerate their obligation at any time.
5. All payments by either party must be tagged with .000012 to show that
   they belong to CPA Contract #12. Ex. a payment of 95 btc would be sent
   as 95.000012.

B. Payment of Premium
1. BMF will send 5 bitcoins per calendar week for 110 weeks to CPA at
   [1EGXZ8kPwEeomiepZwwZayZYdH5nQTkc1f] ("CPA Marked Deposit Address").
2. Any and all payments of 5 bitcoins sent to this address will satisfy
   BMF's obligation in this regard.
3. Payments made late (after the insured period begins) will be assigned
   a late fee of 10%.
4. Multiple payments may be sent at the same time provided the marker is
   not changed (i.e. 10.000012 for two weeks, 15.000012 for three weeks).

C. Indemnification
1. From time to time (and/or at the bequest of BMF), CPA will monitor
   BMF's NAV (Net Asset Value).
2. At that time, should BMF's NAV be less than one, CPA will transfer
   100 bitcoins to BMF at address [1N9xQivX5yEYXafjJfeQYtSiq1iT6h9sek]
   ("BMF Marked Deposit Address")."

BMF has just reported it's NAV at 0.57 - but has not signalled any intent to claim under this policy.  A policy which is shoddy - to say the least.

Total liabilty for CPA is 500 BTC - but each individual claim is limited to being 100 BTC.  Multiple claims are allowed yet there's NO MENTION of the cooling-down period (or other criteria) to allow a second claim after a first has been settled.  The sole criteria for paying out is that NAV is below 1 - making the 100 BTC per claim restriction totally pointless as a second claim can immediately be lodged to get another 100 BTC.

WIll there be an insurance claim?  Seems at the moment the insurance policy has been forgotten and the "plan" for BMF is to become a mining company rather than just invest in others.  So why buy the insurance?  To help prop up CPA?

There's also no mention in the contract of what happens if the full 500 BTC is paid out.  Do all future payments end?  Or is BMF obliged to continue paying 5 bTC per week for the remainder of the 110 weeks - despite having no further cover?  If the latter is the case then it's hardly insurance where the total fees for cover over the duration of a single contract exceed the total amount which can be claimed (it's an option for a bailout loan at a low rate of interest).  If the former is the case then charging a 1% premium for cover per week to a company that has just recovered from an earlier drop in nav seems 'generous' at best.

There's other interactions between the various entities run by usagi which look far more like them propping one another up (at the expense of their own share-holders) than indiviudal companies each being run in the interest of their owners. 

e.g.  nyan.a and nyan.b have both currently got 100 BTC loans to nyan.c.  nyan.a supposoedly only invests in low-risk things (a bit like BMF - mainly invetsing in mining shares that have little risk of achieveing anything other than losing NAV faster than dividends can pay for it).  Is nyan.c low risk?  By usagi's own definition (and its catastrophic performance) it's explicitly high-risk.

All this web of comapnies does is obfuscate what's really happening with funds - allow funds to be traded between them so as to prop one another up (on paper, at least).  CPA owns nyan (though is trying to sell it) which is the main investor in nyan.a, nyan,b and nyan.c.  nyan.b, strangely, also has an invetsment in CPA (from book value would guess this is the shares usagi picked up cheap).  none of the nyan's generate any management fee - CPA's profit (lol) from them comes from their own investment in them via nyan.  So if nyan.b is owned by CPA but holds CPA shares we have a nice little circle-jerk which achieves nothing other than increasing apparent liquidity/value of both.

And if usagi sells off CPA's nyan shares then usagi ends up running nyan.a,b and c without any management fee and with no profit from them going to CPA (unless they take out insurance of course).

I'm not accusing usagi of trying to defraud anyone - I don't actually believe he/she is.  I just think they're in way over their head and trying to cover up the mess.  Plus there's shocking insurance policies being written (see above plus the pirate-related ones) - I assume because CPA needs to issue SOME insurance policies to continue to pretend they're an insurance company (what % of current assets are actually backing policies as opposed to being spunked away in mining-bonds, obsi's ponzi or whatever?)

There's one or two real shockers of investments by some of the nyans as well - but here's not the place to discuss that.

If NAV has fallen below 1 shouldn't you just ask CPA to audit and pay-out on your insurance policy?  The policy was for NAV falling below 1 - and you stated it was about 0.57.  If that doesn't trigger a payout what does?

Yeah, didn't make it clear but meant teek.a not teek.b

Below is current asks for teek.a

ASKS QUANTITY   PRICE
22   0.87499
37   0.875
100   0.91
12   0.98
2   0.999
4806   1.0

It looked similar earlier - though it's possible all those were added today.  Reason I asked is because IF you're actually honouring your contract then if orders look similar next saturday I can obviously buy the 0.89 ones and flip them back to you at 1.0.

Obviously if anyone who put up the orders at 1.0 or lwoer did so prior to today then that would make you a liar (as there's no trade volume today approaching 5% of issued shares).  As that would be rather a stupid (and easily proven) lie I'll assume you're telling the truth and keep an eye on the order book for an opportunity to make some very easy money next week.

What time do you put these bids up?

It just baffles me how someone could actually look at two options:

A)  Invest in pirate pass-through and get (say) 6% per week with risk of losing their capital if pirate defaults,
B)  Insure others investing in pirate and invest their capital elsewhere and get (say) 5% per week with exact same risk of losing their capital AND an additional risk of losing DOUBLE their capital if 2nd investment gos south as well

And come to the conclusion that B) was the better option.  What conceivable thought-process could reach that choice?

The only way this would work would be if capital were only a small part of the amount insured - but that couldn't be done when you were only insuring one ponzi (as all policies would come due at the same time).   If CPA had been insuring a lot of ponzis then it could be profitable (as you could run with a lot lower capital:cover ratio) - but you'd need seriously good data about how long on average they operated for before running with the funds.

The only thing more baffling to me than this is how others could think that the person who chose B) was a good choice to invest in (or to stay invested in).  

I'm only just starting to get involved in investing here - but there's something I just don't understand about the decision to insure Pirate bonds in the first place.

Roughly what CPA did appears to be:

You had X bit coins.
You sold insurance on X amount of pirate investment charging 1.5% per week.
You also invested the X bitcoins elsewhere generating naother 1-2% per week.

Possible outcomes each week:

1.  Everything gos well (no pirate default) - you make 2.5%-3% per week on your capital.
2.  Pirate defaults - you lose 98-99% of your X bitcoins.

For the life of me I can't see how this is better than just investing your X bitcoins directly with Pirate (or in a pass-through).  The extra returns you were making from your (supposedly non-Pirate) investment didn't cover the difference between the 2.5%-3% you stood to make each week and the rate you could have got just investing directly into Pirate (whilst still having full exposure to him defaulting). 

The only way the insurance could do better than investing in Pirate was if you only actually had a small fraction of X in actual bitcoins in the first place.  But you didn't do that (and rightly so).

Am I missing something - or was your pirate insurance always effectively a charity offering that accepted pirate risk whilst not delivering anything like the returns of actually investing in him?

Note also that investing direct in Pirate wouldn't introduce the extra risk your insurance added - of default by your other investment targets when Pirate defaults, where you lose X AND owe X to your policy holders.

As someone who actually runs various businesses I expect any software provider to fall in one of two camps:

1.  Open Source - it's down to me (or my employees) to verify that the software will perform as expected.
2.  Closed Source - I have to take the developers' word that the software functions and so expect the name/address to whom legal action should be directed if the software fails to perform as expected (yes - most software has clauses that they accept no liability but in most jurisdictions that clause isn't enforcable due to being unreasonable if the user has no way of establishing in advance the software's capabilty).


Microcash appears to want to be some sort of hybrid - closed source but with totally anonymous developers.   There's just zero way any serious business is going to gamble on trusting something like that to work: there's wno way to check in advance what the software does and noone on whom you have recourse if the software fails/scams you/doesn't do what it's supposed to.

Even if someone IS a 'believer' in SC, mining would be dumb.  They'd be better off mining LTC then selling them and buying SC - getting more than if they directly mined the SC.

Of course how many of those who profess to believe in SC actually do is very open for debate.  All the time the price was decent (before the change in generation rate) the sensible thing to do was to mine and (falsely) claim you believed in SC, in the hope that some 'true believers' would actually buy the SC you mined.

There is a risk though that hardly anyone really believes in SC - and nearly all of them are pretending to in order to encourage others to drive the price up by buying.  If true that would obviously explain why they're trading well below the cost to produce them - as all the ''believers' are talking the talk (that SC will be the best thing ever) but hardly any are walking the walk (buying the useless things because they REALLY believe what they're saying).

In theory someone who became a trusted node through having a wallet balance > 1 million could opt not to update their client and continue validating old blocks.

Of course there's two problems with that:

1.  I'd bet the code doesn't actually support people becoming trusted nodes based on wallet balance - i.e. if you got your wallet balance over 1 million you'#d still not generate the even blocks.
2.  Reducing the production per block helps ensure noone other than RS/cronies will get to be a trusted node in the forseeable future.

And of course the above is part of the reason he can't release source because:

1.  It would make clear point 1 above,
2.  People could make modified clients to get around some of his rules.

Well here's a clue.  All crypto-currencies other than BTC curentl;y have no significant use other than to speculate on and trade against BTC.  Mervchants aren't touching them.  If you belive you have soimne iside infoirmation then by all means trade them - otherwise ou're just gambling on the success of BTC but insulatingyourself from that success by one step.

Arguably you could invest in SC2 rather than BTC if you believe some anonymous guy with control over 12 million premined coins and over the netowrk is a better bet than the consensus on which BTC operates. 


If you don't have inside info or trust in RS then investing in alt-chains is gambling at best and burning money at worst.

I'm not seeing how the target numbers (the semi-primes that have to be factorised) would be generated.

Isn't it against the forum rules here to advertise and distribute pirated software?

Yeah figured it out soon as I hit enter - saw the time was 3.00am and tried running the client.  Had beer induced amnesia causing me to forget that until later this month te UK isn't actually on GMT.

Doh, ignore that.  Have had a few beers and forgot we're (in the UK) still on BST which is an hour ahead of GMT.

How long till 3am GMT?

You already have 7 mill+ of them - why would you NEED to conjure more (obviously if you managed to sell those 7mill then you would - but don't think you've manged that so far)?

I'm not claiming you INTEND to cash out the 7 mill premined/pregenned - but if you DO intend to cash out on the chain then selling those is of far more importance than creating even more (unsellable) coins.