|
Maybe they are implementing an update, and had to shut the site down to do the switch over and check for bugs? (Although, I am not sure why they would need two full days to do that?)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what kind of announcement will come Saturday?
|
|
|
|
GLBSE seems to be having a bit of trouble lately.
So does MPEX. In fact I heard someone say that MPEX was a scam. What can we learn from this?Look, you're supposed to be a PR agent for MPOE. You're doing a really shitty job. You wanna talk conflict of interest? You're issuing malicious criminal libel against GLBSE. For god's sake. Don't you understand that this is business, and that there will be competitors? Stop making an ass of yourself... Honestly, yes, there are problems with GLBSE. No on denies that. But we really don't need the spokesman from MPOE doing nothing but trolling GLBSE. Seriously, look at your last 20 posts. I'm willing to bet that no more than one or two of them had anything to do with MPOE and the other 18 were just comments against other people/exchanges not connected with MPOE. What the fuck is wrong with you? Don't you know you are destroying whatever is left of Mircea's rep? I don't think "conflict of interest" means what you think it means. By the way, have you seen the new thread in the scammer accusations board? |
|
|
|
|
Maybe Nefario has suddenly gone silet because the guy investigating from the SEC gave him a silncing order?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it requires a motion. Just follow through with the contract as written, ask CPA for however many bitcoins would bring NAV back up above the contractual level. Why would you not ask for 500 btc if that is contractually owed to you?
|
|
|
|
Discussed in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115284.0Usagi never discloses the many conflicts of interest involved in the dealings between CPA, BMF, and Nyan. For example, BMF signed a contract with CPA to insure the NAV to stay above 1.0. The NAV fell below that level, but BMF never claimed the insurance they were entitled to. Now Usagi is caliming that both parties agreed to accelerate the contract to its end, which is detrimental to BMF shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
I think the conflict of interest (and lack of disclosing it) should merit a scammer tag for Usagi.
|
|
|
|
...
Guess what puppet, it's not my job to donate personal money to BMF. I do it because I love my shareholders. But I do not love you because you are an evil troll. You are banned from posting on this thread, and your post will be deleted. If you keep posting here I really hope you get banned from the forums. Couldnt you repair BMF NAV using the insurance it supposedly holds with CPA ? If not , why not ? Let's look at two scenarios. 1. Under the contract BMF and CPA can choose to accelerate their obligations to the point where the contract expires. In this case BMF would owe CPA exactly 10 bitcoins. I could do that (and I have stated I have -- although I have not made an exact accounting of it, the figure should be very close to that). 2. CPA could easily "give 100 bitcoins" by returning 200 shares of BMF to BMF. Hell, it could easily give 1,000 shares to BMF (500 bitcoins value). What would this accomplish? Well, CPA would get the money back yes, but it would weaken CPA and indebit BMF to CPA for 2 years. The BMF share price would go up but BMF has been around 0.5 for 2 months now. BMF has a plan for increasing in value. I don't think it is really necessary. Actually now that you have made me think about it a little more, this looks like the kind of thing a motion could solve. Do you think I should put this up as a BMF motion? Technically it's BMF that would have to ask for the insurance. I just don't think it's worthwhile to do. So, what you are saying is that the "insurance" is not worth shit, and it was just a ploy to make yourself look more solvent than you are? |
|
|
|
A cash on hand balance, while valuable, isn't the most important factor for a corporation.
A more important indicator is an asset valuation.
So IBB lost about as much money from defaults (43.5 BTC) as it has earned since it started, right?
And IBB is paying out dividends and calling this "income", when in fact you are depleting your capital to do this?
Yes, for investors (or potential investors), what we want to see in each monthly report is: current assets (cash on hand, investments), current liabilities, monthly expenses, monthly revenue, monthly profit/loss, the monthly equity changes (dividends, stock sales). You know, the financial statements. All this "total since the beginning of time" and "on average per month" stuff just obfuscates the facts. Give a monthly report, and give a yearly report, but make it clear which one you are doing. |
|
|
|
Who of all the assets currently follows GAAP?
Although I am not a CPA, I believe I have followed GAAP for GLBSE:MPOE.ETF and GLBSE:SS Note however that MPOE.ETF is now winding down. And all the other asset operators could learn much by looking at the way you present your reports. |
|
|
|
|
Okay, here is another one to look at: BTC-BOND, any thoughts? I think it looks decent.
|
|
|
|
|
Who of all the assets currently follows GAAP?
|
|
|
|
NO.
We should be using GAAP or IAS.
Coming up with our own standards will undoubtedly lead to confusion, scamming, and any number of other bad things.
Well stated. |
|
|
|
Not only is this sort of insurance cover wrong and meaningless - it's also specifically against the contract of CPA. I quote:
"5d. limited segregatability (de-risking sector default/widespread default)
To mitigate the risk of the default of an entire sector, THE CPA will seek to issue no more than 25% of it's coverage to any particular sector and will and to not insure assets using other assets from the same or similar sector. For example, we will avoid securing assets of a mining company with assets from other mining companies. In cases where this is unavoidable we will limit segregatability to pay claims on a first-come-first-serve basis, with the actual contract holders for the default event taking first priority. "
Now, inadvertently ending up in this situation is NOT (of itself) a breach of the contract. But CPA SHOULD be acting to get its funds properly segregated quickly - right now EVERY insurance policy it has out rests on a single asset (BMF) which doesn't exactly have a stellar record of growth expressed in BTC. And, whine all you want, about how it's gained in USD - how many of CPA's insurance policies are denominated in USD? (I could be wrong here - it may well be that CPA actually doesn't have any/many other policies out).
But it does raise the question: WHEN did CPA's holdings in BMF go over 25%? HOW did they get to nearly 100% without it ever being noticed? Has CPA actually been BUYING more BMF even after it had passsed its own 25% rule?
I am not sure you are applying this section correctly. The way I see it, this is dealing with *insurance* not *investments*. This section says that no more than 25% of the insurance policies sold will cover the same sector, however you want to define sector. The issue with BMF is more that all of CPA's investments (capital) is in one place. This is a huge red flag, a disaster waiting to happen, as you pointed out, but this section of the contract just does not apply. The rest of what you said is good though. |
|
|
|
A mining company should have to report operating equipment and the hash rate it operates at.
What if someone says 100 ghash farm but they are only outputting 80 ghash?
That is not a viable business, that is taking money from the future to pay dividends today.
It is very easy to show what your output is
If they say they produce 100 ghash and only actually produce 80, then that would be lying. I am not sure how to stop lying? How do you show what your output is to prove it? |
|
|
|
No need to reinvent the wheel here people. Use GAAP. It exists for a reason, and there's no reason it doesn't apply to business conducted using Bitcoins vs business conducted using other financial instruments.
The only item in your list that GAAP doesn't apply to is #2. And to that, I really don't even understand what you are requesting. Company funds are not to be mixed? Mixed with what? Why?
In the real world, mixing personal and corporate funds is called commingling. It lands you in prison, typically. If that's what he meant, then I agree, unless the person is on the sole-propriety level of business. If they are actually incorporated, then yes, the funds absolutely need to be kept separately. If they are a sole-proprietor or equivalent, they can mix their funds between business and personal. If you are listed on the exchange you are no longer on the level of sole-proprietor. If people want to invest somewhere that mixes business and personal funds, they can go to The Bank of Dank. |
|
|
|
|
There should definately be more stringent reportin for companies around here. It would be nice if the GLBSE had a way to publish financial statements. It would also be nice if people around here used standard financial statements. It does not have to be too complicated, there should be a (monthly, quarterly, yearly, as specified in the asset) statement showing profit, loss, current assets, current liabilities, outstanding shares. Why should bitcoinland be different than other places? we should be given the same statements using the same rules for accounting.
|
|
|
|
Huh? Oh, weird.. Maybe I entered 0.2 by mistake when I meant to enter 0.02? Hmm. Well I'll change it to IPO price.
Why would you change it to IPO price? What is your reasoning that fair market value is 10x the current highest bid and 5x the 5 day average? Missing a zero could be an honest mistake. Deliberately inflating your asset value by 10x is not. Here's a question for you: Can you explain WHY people are selling to 0.02 on an asset that has had no negative news, is currently in operation, and run by the same guy who runs Satoshidice? I'm all ears. There have been reports of the site not working, and the response has been slow to say the least. It appears the site is working, but there is not a whole lot of activity on it, which means that the original estimations were incorrect. The website also has not been updated in a while, and the longer they wait to add features the more likely it is that somebody else will make something as good or better. The price of bitcoins has doubled since it was IPOed, and while that increases the value of this company slightly, I would not say the value has doubled. I would actually call the value somewhere between 0.03 and 0.02 (I would buy at 0.02 but sell at 0.03), I think the recent sales have just been people exiting the market due to the Goat/Nefario kerflufle, but since the volume has been so low it is hard to get a meaningful price from the market. The complaints of bad service are on a separate thread, in "marketplace" or somewhere, I will see if I can find it ... found it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106242.0 |
|
|
|
You are taking a page from Obsi's book: posting a daily update of your payment to drive up sales to support your scam?
I'm not the scammer; you are. You are attempting to scare people into selling down the assets I run. It won't work. If you want to call me a scammer whatever, but since I am not taking other peoples money I don't see how it makes any difference. I am not the one assigning made up numbers to value the assets in a publicly traded company and sloshing assets between various funds to make myself look good. There have been too many scams around here, and it is good for people to take a hard look at things before investing. I think you are in over your head and you have taken this set of funds out past your understanding of accounting. You need to take a step back, slow down, read up on correct accounting principles, have a good long talk with somebody who knows what they are doing (Smickles?), stop shouting at anybody who tries to give you constructive criticism. Just some freindly words of advise, there have been enough colapsing businesses in bitcoinland, I just want to keep you from hurting other people. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
