Latest posts of: Deprived

Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 130 »

901

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: June 26, 2013, 04:03:07 PM

Sold 1090 Swapped 0 Total 1090 Price 0.053891 Total 58.74119 Less Fee 58.62370762 Man Fee 1.758711229 BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,164.12209001 12500 LTC-ATF.B1 125.00000000 TOTAL ASSETS 1,289.12209001 Outstanding MINING 24777 Outstanding SELLING 24777 Outstanding PURCHASE 322 Effective Units 25099 Block reward 25 Difficulty 19,339,258 Hashes per MINING 5000000 Daily Dividend 0.00013002 50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00650111 100 days (Forced Close) 0.01300222 365 days (Buyback) 0.04745810 405 days (IPO) 0.05265898 400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.05200887 410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.05330910 NAV Post MINING Div 1,285.85866319 NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.05123147 Days Dividend Post Div 394.02 SELLING Dividend - NAV Post SELLING Div 1,285.85866319 NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.05123147 PURCHASE selling price 0.05379304 PURCHASE buy-back price 0.05020684

902

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors

on: June 26, 2013, 11:55:28 AM

Have amended thread title - now BMF is approved there's no point addressing LTC-Global Moderators. Rather than making a new thread I'll just use this one for occasional glimpses of the farce that is usagi attempting to run businesses. Let's have a look quickly at how usagi set his current price he's trying to offload TU.SILVER at : Quote from: usagi on June 26, 2013, 07:15:19 AM [All I can do is create pressure. I can place bids over the ask or try to cool the heat by selling at less than NAV. But that damages the company's finances -- you cannot declare by fiat what other people will pay for your security (see: ART). So to create pressure I decided to pay out close to what we make from trading, which allows investors to set the value of TU.SILVER based on the income it generates. Investors can compare the payment of TU.SILVER to something like BTC-BOND. For example (just for example) if BTC-BOND is worth 0.01 per share and pays approx. 11% a year in interest, then what would TU.SILVER be worth if it paid 10x as much per day as BTC-BOND? And later, if I lower the distribution it will be okay, because investors will recognize that the cash is being used to reinvest into the company. So their value still increases, just via capital gain instead of via distributions. Well in theory, a payment of 10x per day what BTC-BOND would insinuate that all other things being equal, TU.SILVER would be worth 10x what BTC-BOND is worth. That is why I put up all the shares we had for 0.1. of course I am sure that TU.SILVER is not as "trustworthy" as BTC-BOND, but then again there is real silver backing each share of TU.SILVER, not just an investment position. But the long and short of it is I am simply unwilling to say "TU.SILVER is worth 0.05 per share" because then I get yokels like EskimoBob posting fake spreadsheets telling people I scammed 8,000 BTC. It's not worth the trouble, sorry bro. There's two things VERY wrong with this approach: 1. Cherry-picking. Why, I wonder, did he happen to pick BTC-BOND to compare with? Could it possibly be that was the lowest paying fixed-rate security he could find? TU.SILVER is listed on Bitfunder - BTC-BOND is listed on BTC-TC. Wouldn't it have been easier to compare with GRAET.LOAN which is conveniently just above TU.SILVER in the securities list on Bitfunder? Well - it may be easier to get to (same site and all that) - but the problem is it pays rather a higher rate of interest than BTC-BOND (both BTC-BOND and GRAET.LOAN are effectively personal loans). If usagi had compared to that, then he'd have ended up having to value TU.SILVER way lower. Other fixed-rate investments include Coinlender and LTC-ATF.B1 - both paying significantly more than BTC-BOND - but GRAET.LOAN is the obviosu one to compare to IF comparing to a fixed-rate instrument is valid in the first place. WHich leads nicely to the second point. 2. Apples and Oranges. Bonds and funds aren't the same thing. At 0.1 per share, only a small minority of TU.SILVER's price is guaranteed by silver backing, whilst 100% of BTC-BOND and GRAET.LOAN are guaranteed by their issuers. Usagi COULD make a case that those guarantees aren't necessarily credible in all circumstances - but they're still more guaranteed than no guarantee at all. So not only is Usagi comparing Apples and Oranges (or maybe Apples and a Lemon) but he's deliberately picking the smallest apple to compare to. That sort of behaviour will, of course, come as no surprise to those familiar with usagi. Historically he's always claimed that BMF outperformed ALL mining stocks. That's a lie (Moore is the easiest example of one it didn't outperform - it paid dividends AND retained full value). And it's also the wrong comparison - he should be comparing to funds. He still continues to compare BMF to just about anyhting other than other funds. At present he's trying to compare it to PMBs, bonds etc - but not a single fund. Where are the meaningful comparisons - to things like BTCInvest or LTC-ATF? Or the most obvious one of all - to MININGCO.ETF which is a fund investing (like BMF) in mining securities and listed on the same exchange as it? The onbvious answer is that at some level usagi knows that his policy of spewing cash away on overpriced PMBs won't make BMF look good if compared to anything where the manager actually does analysis. And no usagi - just because 'analysis' has 'anal' in it does NOT mean talking out of your arse is analysis.

903

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: June 25, 2013, 04:23:52 PM

Sold 1752 Swapped 0 Total 1752 Price 0.053963 Total 94.543176 Less Fee 94.35408965 Man Fee 2.830622689 BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,110.37873254 12500 LTC-ATF.B1 125.00000000 TOTAL ASSETS 1,235.37873254 Outstanding MINING 23586 Outstanding SELLING 23586 Outstanding PURCHASE 423 Effective Units 24009 Block reward 25 Difficulty 19,339,258 Hashes per MINING 5000000 Daily Dividend 0.00013002 50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00650111 100 days (Forced Close) 0.01300222 365 days (Buyback) 0.04745810 405 days (IPO) 0.05265898 400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.05200887 410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.05330910 NAV Post MINING Div 1,232.25702990 NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.05132480 Days Dividend Post Div 394.74 SELLING Dividend - NAV Post SELLING Div 1,232.25702990 NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.05132480 PURCHASE selling price 0.05389104 PURCHASE buy-back price 0.05029830

904

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 03:30:11 PM

Quote from: usagi on June 25, 2013, 01:26:21 PM You have demonstrated you have no idea how a market works. I can not 'tempt overbids' if the market moves against me. You can not declare market price by fiat (you can try, but the market will move against you). Second issue is that there are no BMF shares for sale, I've only issued bids, which pretty much blows everything you said to shit. For example, if I am attempting to disguise the share count this will work against me because it will lead people not to sell. So what then is my goal here? Your theory is illogical. What you are saying does not make sense. LOL - stupid or just lying? You intend to sell - not buy. Like all market manipulators you don't put the shares you intend to sell up - as that scares people into going lower. You build the price up with bids, wait for someone to bid above you then sell to them - so it always looks like there's a shortage of supply. Most 'investors' don't look at anyhting much other than what's on the market - if it looks like something's the range a security trades in they bid or ask in that range. There's some really horrid examples of this happening on LTC-GLobal - where one investor has got most of the shares in a security and is successfully keeping the price high. If you're trying to sell (and you MUST be if you want to even pretend you're intending to close the other companies out) then you want the range high. SO rather trivially you WANT sells people put up to be high - leaving more room below it for bids to rise into. And, of course, you want people placing Bids to over-estimate the price. So: Are you too stupid to know that? Or were you just lying as usual? Or were you telling the truth here - but lying about Nyan/CPA intending to close (and hence needing so sell their shares back)? And why don't you distribute their shares? Right now there's no way for investors to see how many shares are actually outstanding. I can't think of any GOOD reasons why that would be desirable - it only helps in various deceptions.

905

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 03:22:59 PM

Quote from: Entropy-uc on June 25, 2013, 03:20:21 PM It looks like BMF got it's 5 votes on BTC-TC. Yeah - it did. The bad news is investors there get to lose money, the good news is we get continued entertainment.

906

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 03:18:04 PM

Quote from: usagi on June 25, 2013, 01:26:21 PM You offered me 105%, I hope you're not planning to back out on that? I can't quite recall if you stated it was a standing offer, but I don't think you said when it would expire. Surely you wouldn't back out of that commitment? Can you clarify what you said? At any rate I'm getting 110%+ for them on the market right now, although I am not sure how long that will last... (EDIT: I found the post, and it has been edited down to 2% over face value. I guess I shouldn't complain...) In any case LTC or BTC as you wish, I am guessing you like BTC in this instance because of DMS, right. That offer wasn't edited - feel free to ask a Mod to check (I give my permission for them to confirm it never said 105% - or any amount other than what's still in it). You're just misremembering/lying - as usual. The offer clearly said I was looking for 25 BTC-worth max personally, which I obtained long ago after you showed no interest. If you wanted to sell to me personally at 102% you should have said yes when I offered - not expect me to stop looking for other sources after you said you didn't even want an offer for them and meant LTC-ATF. Makes no odds to me whether you want BTC or LTC - LTC is more hassle for me but you get less BTC-worth and have to wait a few hours (or longer if burnside isn't around) to get it. As I said - I need to know which you want, what accounts are sending (so I don't pay for shares someone else sent) and which account you want the funds sent to. Then soon as I see your message/post and confirm arrival of the shares I'll do my half. EDIT: To be crystal clear the offer is full face value in BTC or 99% face value converted into LTC (with likely slippage when I sell). My guess is you never intended to sell anyway - and are just trying to find a way to change your mind. Though it's strange you'd hold LTC-ATF.B1 - it's not mining and it doesn't make a loss so doesn't really fit your usual investment profile on both counts.

907

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 11:11:41 AM

And one final point - even if TU.SILVER DOES have enough cash to buy back all shares at 0.1 it says NOTHING about the value of the company - liabilities (such as the loans from yourself) need to be deducted from assets when working out a valuation. The amount of cash, on its own, is meaningless. A business (or person) can have a pile of cash yet have a value less than zero. A subtle point that I appreciate you may have problems comprehending.

908

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 11:03:04 AM

Quote from: usagi on June 25, 2013, 10:39:31 AM Quote from: Deprived on June 24, 2013, 07:33:01 AM Perhaps the best and fairest way to look at how good his reporting is would be to look at his active, running asset - TU.SILVER. So let's have a look at its NAV/U, Hmm, I can't. To look at the accounts I'd have to spend $90 buying a share then give it to him. Luckily he has weekly reports, so I don't need to see the accounts - and can just look at the NAV/U there. Hmm, that's strange. There's no mention in of it in the last few. In fact the last mention of any NAV/U or similar is in the monthly report at the end of May where it says : "Internal Calculation of 0.04348010" Guess it hasn't changed much and that's still around what the NAV/U is. And there's another clue as to where the price lies in a later post of his: Quote from: usagi on June 07, 2013, 10:42:46 PM An example of an un-reasonable price (imo) is 0.033 and 0.099. The people with those orders up should be unlikely to get them filled! His advice to investors, BTW, is just to guess what the price is - put up an order and if he likes it he'll fill it. So over we trot to the Bitfunder order book to pick up some of the shares - we know there should be some for sale as he just got some new silver in. Hmm - fuck all volume on the Bid side (he long since gave up the pretence that he was going to provide visible liquidity) and on the Ask side: 21 ฿0.09090 45 ฿0.0910 700 ฿0.10 Nothing under .09. And we know the 700 order is his (check asset lists and noone other that him holds anything near that number) - at a price he himself said was unreasonable not that long ago (and with no news in between to suggest it had suddenly become reasonable). What's happening here is actually classic usagi. He tries to sell his shares at well above their value - making sure to either give no information or wrong information to investors. If some sucker actually buys at that price, that then increases NAV/U and he can either pay it out as dividends or brag about how his trading is making profit. When all he's really doing is running a near ponzi - where the profit for existing shares come from new sales. 1. I am not obliged to buy or sell shares at any price. The FACT that the market participants do not want to sell shares under 0.09 should be a big clue to you. 2. Here's another clue, doofus: 2013-06-25 05:21:40 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09090000/ea ฿0.09090000 2013-06-24 19:03:56 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09090000/ea ฿0.09090000 2013-06-23 22:10:04 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 5 ฿0.09000000/ea ฿0.45000000 2013-06-23 08:08:02 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09090000/ea ฿0.09090000 2013-06-23 06:51:00 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07000000/ea ฿0.07000000 2013-06-23 06:50:52 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07100000/ea ฿0.07100000 2013-06-23 06:50:44 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07200000/ea ฿0.07200000 2013-06-23 06:50:37 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07300000/ea ฿0.07300000 2013-06-23 06:50:30 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07400000/ea ฿0.07400000 2013-06-23 06:50:24 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07500000/ea ฿0.07500000 2013-06-23 03:20:55 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000 2013-06-20 12:59:17 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07000000/ea ฿0.07000000 2013-06-20 12:59:00 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07600000/ea ฿0.07600000 2013-06-20 09:07:12 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000 2013-06-19 16:58:39 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000 2013-06-18 08:23:39 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09000000/ea ฿0.09000000 2013-06-18 08:23:38 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.08100000/ea ฿0.08100000 2013-06-17 11:22:09 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09000000/ea ฿0.09000000 2013-06-15 22:20:33 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09099900/ea ฿0.09099900 2013-06-15 04:01:14 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000 2013-06-14 00:52:59 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06100000/ea ฿0.06100000 2013-06-14 00:52:53 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06200000/ea ฿0.06200000 2013-06-14 00:52:45 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06300000/ea ฿0.06300000 2013-06-14 00:52:40 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06400000/ea ฿0.06400000 2013-06-14 00:52:35 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06500000/ea ฿0.06500000 2013-06-14 00:52:23 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06600000/ea ฿0.06600000 2013-06-13 22:02:31 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000 2013-06-13 00:55:50 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000 2013-06-12 05:48:21 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.09100000 2013-06-11 08:02:26 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 2 ฿0.09100000/ea ฿0.18200000 2013-06-11 00:47:15 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.06500000/ea ฿0.06500000 2013-06-11 00:47:00 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07000000/ea ฿0.07000000 2013-06-11 00:46:48 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.07500000/ea ฿0.07500000 2013-06-11 00:46:36 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.08000000/ea ฿0.08000000 2013-06-11 00:46:28 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09000000/ea ฿0.09000000 2013-06-11 00:46:13 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09500000/ea ฿0.09500000 2013-06-10 23:19:59 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.09900000/ea ฿0.09900000 2013-06-08 03:55:34 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 23 ฿0.05250000/ea ฿1.20750000 2013-06-08 03:37:33 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 17 ฿0.05250000/ea ฿0.89250000 2013-06-06 10:37:48 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 67 ฿0.05399000/ea ฿3.61733000 2013-06-06 10:36:44 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 33 ฿0.05399000/ea ฿1.78167000 2013-06-06 10:36:05 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 8 ฿0.05354000/ea ฿0.42832000 2013-06-06 10:35:26 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.05354000/ea ฿0.05354000 2013-06-01 13:45:24 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 75 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿3.67500000 2013-06-01 10:58:41 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 3 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿0.14700000 2013-06-01 10:58:08 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 4 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿0.19600000 2013-06-01 09:49:59 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 1 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿0.04900000 2013-06-01 02:35:59 BUY: (TU.SILVER): 5 ฿0.04900000/ea ฿0.24500000 This is a snippet from my personal trading account. This is me buying back over 30% of issued shares at a price above book value. And there is a reason why I am doing it. As for the rest of your comments, you clearly have no clue how to run an asset. The fact that I and the company can buy back shares at this price is proof the company is worth that much. Hint: If the company has the cash to buy back all it's outstanding shares at 0.1, it is worth at least that much because it has the cash on hand. If no one else wants to buy or sell shares at that price, it is meaningless. The fact remains; no one wants to sell at anywhere close to NAV, and that is a sign of incredible faith in management. Tu.SILVER will be worth more and more as time goes by because the hefty distribution payment will be reinvested by the company. Aren't you really just whining because no one wants to sell their shares under 0.09? Because you can't buy cheap shares? Well, sucks to be you doesn't it? Try playing nice and I'll consider a PP for 500+ shares at 10% off. Till then, have fun lying about me and my funds. It's not working anymore. Oh, one other thing. Can you juke 5,000 LTC-ATF.B1 for me? I've decided your fund sucks and will be investing elsewhere. Pretty hilarious post. Your point 1 is that noone will sell back under .09. Then in your point 2 you produce proof of people doing exactly that - selling back under .09. You then talk about how if a company can afford to buy-back shares at .1 it means something. But you'd just said that the buy-backs were with your PERSONAL account and not by the company at all. And with your company attempting to SELL at 0.1 Not BUY. Noone wanting to sell near NAV means exactly squat when you don't even tell people what NAV is! They're entitled to expect the price you're trying to sell at is near NAV as your contract says : "How it works We calculate the price of silver in bitcoins and add a small markup for shipping and vault storage." and also : "The lowest price in BTC Compare our prices to most online coin shops and we believe you will choose TU.SILVER." You brag about having a small markup and being cheap - which can ONLY be true if you sell slightly over NAV/U. Obviously it's just a pack of lies - but maybe not all investors are familiar with your lying ways - and so assume your selling price has some relationship to the NAV/U. Now BMF's approved I guess the market has to put up with the same crap there - specifically : Small bids up to over NAV/U from you to try to tempt overbids. Disguised issued share count - tempting investors who try to calculate NAV/U from holdings to forget all the unseen off-the-books shares held by you/your companies and end up believing it much higher than it is. Dumps from you when some idiot overbids your own bids. Buy-backs (likely undisclosed) to drain cash (if you ever get any) to your other companies/yourself. Lack of regular updates on NAV/U to help investors make mistakes. On LTC-ATF.B1 you can sell back the bonds for either BTC or LTC. If you want BTC then you can have full face value. If you want LTC then it'll take slightly longer - and you'll get (per the contract) whatever LTC is raised by selling 99% of face value (so 49.5 BTC) into bids on BTC-E. Delay will just be however long it takes for burnside to approve a withdrawal - there'd be 0 delay on the other direction as would immediately pay if from LTC already held on LTC-Global. In either case DMS would be taking them so you'd need to : 1. Send the shares to DeprivedMining on LTC-Global (you can send to DeprivedAsset - the issuer - if you prefer). 2. PM me or reply here saying whether you want LTC or BTC, which account you want it sent to (user name) and which user names you sent from (PM may be better if you don't want all your user names made public - it must be at least 4 different accounts if you have 5k). 3. If BTC you'll get a transfer soon as I notice, if LTC I'll submit a BTC withdrawal immediately - sell it when it lands then promptly send you the LTC. Obviously selling ~50 BTC at once may take the price down somewhat. BTC would come from DeprivedMining on BTC-TC, LTC would come from DeprivedAsset on LTC-Global.

909

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 02:22:55 AM

Quote from: usagi on June 25, 2013, 02:08:55 AM Quote from: Deprived on June 25, 2013, 01:43:17 AM Quote from: usagi on June 24, 2013, 05:44:54 PM The proceeds from the sale of shares went directly to the shareholders, for example. This is published and on the forums for months. It was linked to you several times. You were the one, in fact, who suggested the liquidation auction -- which I ran despite a shareholder vote saying my shareholders did not want me to do this. It severely crippled BMF, but I did it because you said you would promise to help me get listed. A promise you broke almost immediately when you resumed attacking me and claiming there was no list of assets. Usagi deliberately misunderstanding what was said - as usual. I referred to the holdings of NYAN - NOT nyan.a/b/c. The auction has nothing to do with NYAN (that's the parent company) - the assets of that had long since vanished (before GLBSE even went down). A whole paragraph arguing against a claim I didn't even make. YOU may want to conveniently forget that NYAN had assets that were stripped off removing cover from nyan.a/b, but it doesn't alter the fact that it happened. NYAN only held NYAN.A and some BMF when GLBSE closed. Relaunching BMF is really the first step in paying people back. Remember -- you don't know what you are talking about, the books were closed because people like you are not allowed to know what we're doing. Reading comprehension really isn't your strong point is it? I'd already stated I was talking about the assets that vanished BEFORE GLBSE closed down. That's assets that WERE disclosed to the public - back before you decided it wasn't clever to leave the proof of your various trickery public. Anyway, back to deleting your posts - as it's obvious you'll just keep lieing and changing the subject. You can, of course, respond in your own thread : e.g. with a denial that Nyan used to hold a lot more assets - but that would be rather dumb of you when the post where you said you were getting rid of them may be one of the ones undeleted. EDIT: and it would be far quicker to pay people back by just selling the assets and making a final dividend payment. That way you don't have to wait until you find suckers to buy the shares via the market.

910

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 02:02:55 AM

Quote from: usagi on June 24, 2013, 05:44:54 PM You care because if BMF lists it will compete with your funds and you know that I am a far, far better asset manager than you. Comedy gold. BMF - down to 5% or less of initial selling price with maybe 20% (could be a bit more or a lot less) of original selling price ever dividended out. LTC-ATF - at 500% of original selling price with another 250% dividended out. How could I (or anyone else) possibly conclude you were a better asset manager? The reason I don't want you to list is simple - I don't want investors' money sucked into a financial blackhole managed by you. I want it circulating in viable assets that I can trade. The reason why I waste so much of my time actually posting about it IS more personal - but in no way detracts from the truth of what I post or yout unfitness to manage other people's cash.

911

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 01:49:43 AM

Quote from: usagi on June 24, 2013, 05:44:54 PM I also didn't deny making any commitment, quote me. What I said is I am not contractually obliged to step in and cover NYAN.A personally, which is a truth. Sure - here's the quote where you deny promising to repay it (not just that you weren't contractually comitted). Specifically you accused ME of lieing when I said you'd promised to personally repay it. Something you now accept is the truth. Quote from: usagi on April 16, 2013, 05:05:09 AM Quote from: Deprived on April 11, 2013, 04:58:57 PM NYAN.A: You promised to repay this in full personally. Another lie. It was insured by CPA. There's a big difference. What I actually said has been posted on the forums since pretty much November. You pile lies on top of lies - then lie about having lied.

912

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 25, 2013, 01:43:17 AM

Quote from: usagi on June 24, 2013, 05:44:54 PM The proceeds from the sale of shares went directly to the shareholders, for example. This is published and on the forums for months. It was linked to you several times. You were the one, in fact, who suggested the liquidation auction -- which I ran despite a shareholder vote saying my shareholders did not want me to do this. It severely crippled BMF, but I did it because you said you would promise to help me get listed. A promise you broke almost immediately when you resumed attacking me and claiming there was no list of assets. Usagi deliberately misunderstanding what was said - as usual. I referred to the holdings of NYAN - NOT nyan.a/b/c. The auction has nothing to do with NYAN (that's the parent company) - the assets of that had long since vanished (before GLBSE even went down). A whole paragraph arguing against a claim I didn't even make. YOU may want to conveniently forget that NYAN had assets that were stripped off removing cover from nyan.a/b, but it doesn't alter the fact that it happened.

913

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: June 24, 2013, 04:48:13 PM

Quote from: alexius89 on June 24, 2013, 04:38:18 PM When will be the next Rise of the Difficulty? Approx. 20%? What's the estimated Dividend of SELLING by that time? Hard to say as network hashpower has been very inconsistent recently. Looks at moment like only about a 5% rise which would mean SELLING dividend was very small if any at all. But that could easily change iif hashpower went back up for the rest of the period before change.

914

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: June 24, 2013, 04:46:06 PM

Sold 921 Swapped 0 Total 921 Price 0.054062 Total 49.791102 Less Fee 49.6915198 Man Fee 1.490745594 BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,021.74489794 12500 LTC-ATF.B1 125.00000000 TOTAL ASSETS 1,146.74489794 Outstanding MINING 21854 Outstanding SELLING 21854 Outstanding PURCHASE 403 Effective Units 22257 Block reward 25 Difficulty 19,339,258 Hashes per MINING 5000000 Daily Dividend 0.00013002 50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00650111 100 days (Forced Close) 0.01300222 365 days (Buyback) 0.04745810 405 days (IPO) 0.05265898 400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.05200887 410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.05330910 NAV Post MINING Div 1,143.85099417 NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.05139286 Days Dividend Post Div 395.26 SELLING Dividend - NAV Post SELLING Div 1,143.85099417 NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.05139286 PURCHASE selling price 0.05396251 PURCHASE buy-back price 0.05036501

915

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 24, 2013, 04:44:35 PM

Appears he now actually DOES have enough YES votes - which in no way alters the fact that he didn't when he made his post earlier. And of course doesn't make him any more (un)fit to run a company than was the case earlier. You'll note that he repeatedly accuses me of lying - yet doesn't point out what the lies are. So, for example, with Nyan my claim (ignoring the details) was: Nyan had significant holdings, Nyan's holdings were contractually committed to back Nyan.a/b Usagi sold all those holdings and the proceeds didn't go to Nyan.a/b Which part of that is supposedly the lie? It can all be established as fact. In respect of Nyan.a : He personally promised (early this year) to fully repay Nyan.a its 1 BTC He ceased making any effort to do so after a few desultory dividends He then denied having made the commitment at all (a lie he's no longer telling - yet) He threatened not to keep his word at all if BMF wasn't approved Any of those a lie? etc.

916

Economy / Securities / Re: [POLL!] Usagi (Nyan) vs Deprived (BMF) - which one is better investment fund

on: June 24, 2013, 11:55:50 AM

You may want to remake the poll. BMF is another of usagi's failures. My fund is LTC-ATF. Please don't associate me with BMF.

917

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 24, 2013, 11:41:23 AM

I can't work out whether haveagr8day is trolling to genuinely try to support usagi or trolling to try to harm usagi by being seen as representative of the standard of those supporting usagi's continued fumblings.

918

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 24, 2013, 11:29:41 AM

Quote from: usagi on June 24, 2013, 11:24:32 AM Quote from: ArcticWolf on June 24, 2013, 11:20:20 AM Quote from: haveagr8day on June 24, 2013, 11:18:11 AM OK but u voted yourself? isn't that cheating are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders? He waited until the majority of other shareholders had voted yes before casting his votes The issue he is raising is quorum. He's attacking me because of the small number of shares which voted (and I did not vote with any shares under my control) while using as evidence a vote he took where he voted using his own shares. The issue I'm raising is that you claim to have the support of shareholders when you only actually have the support of 11% of shareholders excluding yourself. In the vote of mine I quoted I had the support of all but 1 shareholder (who held a single share and wasn't around in the 2 days the vote ran for). Whenever I run votes I only vote late with my own shares - and will vote NO if there's any significant votes against. I also then offer to buy back any shares anyone wants to sell at over NAV/U for a week or two. My point wasn't that you couldn't pass the motion - you could, by allocating your own shares and voting (and with no NO votes that would certainly be legitimate). My point WAS that it was typical deception by you claiming shareholder support when you only had support from a small minority of shareholders. 11% voted yes, the other 89% couldn't be bothered to even vote at all - THAT's how keen and eager their support is. Shareholders is not the same thing as shares. If one person holds 90% of shares and 10 others hold 1% each and then in a vote the 90% votes yes and the other 10 all vote no : It's TRUE to say a majority of shares voted yes. It's true to say the motion was passed by 90% to 10%. It's a LIE to say a majority of shareholders voted yes - under 10% did. And if you were the 90% it would be a LIE to say you had the support of shareholders - truth would be you bludgeoned the motion through whilst opposed by ALL other shareholders with zero support other than yourself. The above example is slightly worse than the BMF situation - just trying to illustrate the point. You tried claiming your investors supported you, but the truth is the only way you can pass a vote is with your own majority of shares which almost certainly means only a minority of shareholders supported it (unless all the shares that didn't vote are held by a few people - which seems unlikely).

919

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 24, 2013, 11:21:31 AM

Quote from: haveagr8day on June 24, 2013, 11:18:11 AM OK but u voted yourself? isn't that cheating are you acting in the best niterests of yoru shareholders? Not sure who's sockpuppet troll you are - but go back to trolling the lending forums and trying to buy feedback. Further posts of yours will be deleted. For anyone interested just look at his posting history - he's spamming like mad trying to build up post count.

920

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

on: June 24, 2013, 11:17:54 AM

Quote from: haveagr8day on June 24, 2013, 11:13:27 AM Deprived what is your fund? https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/LTC-ATF That's where the motion I posted results of came from.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 130 »