FPGAMINING scam ongoing

[Francesco]

Currently he is "still saying" he will slowly buy back shares from mining profits and his personal funds.

You mean the formerly "personal funds" of his investors?

Not tagging a scammer hoping that so he will behave better in the future is silly. He will scam more at any chance.
It would be better tagging him a.s.a.p. and maybe remove his tag once he cleared his mess if he do it fast.

And anyway that is not the only retaliation his investors should opt for. Asking Nefario to freeze his assets maybe another one.

Yes, I am really sick of scammers getting away with it because if we aren't super-nice with them they might get upset and not pay back. If you think like this, then in your interest you shouldn't invest as in half the cases you're going to beg scammers to return part of your  money. This attitude is probably the reason offers like FPGAMINING even exist: take money, screw investors, have them all grateful to have part of their funds back after months, no other consequencies. Hell, I don't now why I haven't done it myself yet.

In my opinion, since the hardware was bought with our funds, he should liquidate it and buy back our shares as soon as he can. Or continue paying dividends. No other option -expecially with such blatant refusal to give any detail about when we can expect to see our money back.

[1714118696]

1714118696

[conspirosphere.tk]

a big red scammer tag for moparguy would be appreciated.

Theymos, do you copy?
Is anyone in charge?

[silverfuture]

Currently he is "still saying" he will slowly buy back shares from mining profits and his personal funds.

You mean the formerly "personal funds" of his investors?

Not tagging a scammer hoping that so he will behave better in the future is silly. He will scam more at any chance.
It would be better tagging him a.s.a.p. and maybe remove his tag once he cleared his mess if he do it fast.

And anyway that is not the only retaliation his investors should opt for. Asking Nefario to freeze his assets maybe another one.

Yes, I am really sick of scammers getting away with it because if we aren't super-nice with them they might get upset and not pay back. If you think like this, then in your interest you shouldn't invest as in half the cases you're going to beg scammers to return part of your  money. This attitude is probably the reason offers like FPGAMINING even exist: take money, screw investors, have them all grateful to have part of their funds back after months, no other consequencies. Hell, I don't now why I haven't done it myself yet.

In my opinion, since the hardware was bought with our funds, he should liquidate it and buy back our shares as soon as he can. Or continue paying dividends. No other option -expecially with such blatant refusal to give any detail about when we can expect to see our money back.

  My sentiment exactly.

[augustocroppo]

a big red scammer tag for moparguy would be appreciated.

Theymos, do you copy?
Is anyone in charge?

I guess there are various ones in charge... Just be patient, the administrators and moderators of this community are overloaded with unusual requirements to judge cases. It is a job which demands a great deal of reading comprehension.

[Maged]

When I first opened this thread, I thought "Oh good. This must be about a well-respected member of the forum who will actually care about the scammer tag." But, then I clicked on the profile.

Seriously, what the hell are you guys thinking? Why should we even bother investigating a case involving such an obvious throw-away account?

[silverfuture]

Scammer tags are only for well respected members WTF? Moparguy is verified on GLBSE but I don't understand why someone would have to be trusted to get a tagged profile.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Why should we even bother investigating

There is nothing to investigate: just a look at the contract and dividends paid would take less than 10 seconds.
Then maybe you might consider to tag even someone with much higher rep who is still defending the scammer on his asset thread, so putting innocent bystanders' savings at risk (since the asset is still traded on the GLBSE).

[stochastic]

I think a scammer tag should be applied in this case, or until asset issuer conforms to his or her GLBSE contract. 

A contract should say what a issuer can do.  Anything not on there should be assumed to be breaking the contract.
The only reason as stated in the contract for no dividends is that the administrative and energy costs are the same amount or more than what was mined in bitcoins.

Another way that no dividends may not be paid is that no mining occurred.  Although, in the contract it never states in that the issuer can stop mining.  Thus the mining should continue to the best of the issuers ability.

It states a way to purchase back shares from the secondary market.  This is 1.05 times the average price the asset was traded for the previous 7 days.  I would advise people to make sure they put their shares for sale no less than 1.05 times the 7-day average.

This is a really bad contract.  These kinds of things should go to GLBSE though so the trading can be halted until the issuer stops breaking the contract.  There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract.

Some questions to ask to determine a good contract or not.
1.  Is it a loan or a percentage of ownership?
2.  If the operation will be shut down, how will it be done, what time frame, and at what cost?
3.  What will the capital raised by selling shares be used for?  If there is excess or unused capital, can those go to purchase back the asset shares or be paid back in dividends?
4.  Who is responsible if operations stop due to unforeseen circumstances.  Is there insurance?
5.  When are dividends and financial reports made?  If they are not made on time what kind of penalty does the operator face?
6.  How can motions be raised?
7.  How can investors see the financials?
8.  How can management be removed?
9.  How will dividends be distributed to shareholders?

https://glbse.com/asset/view/FPGAMINING

This bond is a for share in a very large FPGA (high efficiency) mining operation. Bond holders will receive weekly coupon payments of the total BTCs mined by the pool less energy and administrative costs (both minimal due to using ONLY low energy use FPGAs procured in bulk at significant discount). Coupon payments will be made Monday for the previous 7 days of mining activity. The coupons will grow as the FPGA cluster is increased in size. The initial clusters are running and significant size/space improvements will occur concurrently. The issuer can buy back the bond at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the average price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous 1 week.
Issuer reserves the right to upgrade to ASICs in lieu of FPGA clusters as economics warrant.

[conspirosphere.tk]

There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract.

Good idea. I just contacted support@glbse.com
My request for a scammer tag remains though.

[ShireSilver]

There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract.

Good idea. I just contacted support@glbse.com
My request for a scammer tag remains though.

That is a good idea, although I would like to see it be voluntary. In the verification section it could have a "Bonded" indicator that could either be a checkbox or an amount bonded.

[OgNasty]

There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract.

I've suggested this many times to Nefario.  It could be another level of verification (and the only one that would actually matter in my eyes).
"Bonded for X BTC against default" would go a long way in providing a bottom for shares and instilling confidence in GLBSE assets.

[conspirosphere.tk]

There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract.

I've suggested this many times to Nefario.  It could be another level of verification (and the only one that would actually matter in my eyes).
"Bonded for X BTC against default" would go a long way in providing a bottom for shares and instilling confidence in GLBSE assets.

This is really worth of another thread. It could be entirely voluntary and fractional (e.g. cover an x% of the value of the total shares issued).
With such guarantee (to be managed by GLBSE in case of a proven breach of the contract) many (if not all) investors would be happy to accept a much lower interest, so it would be a positive-sum game since everybody would gain something.

edit: but it is to be solved what happens when someone keeps issuing more and more shares, even after he already defaulted like in this case.

[Puppet]

Question: who bought 200+ more shares of FPGAMINING after this scam was made public?
Answer: Usagi for his BMF fund.

28/09:
FPGAMINING   300      
https://i.imgur.com/M7gWf.png

Now:
FPGAMINING   515   
http://tsukino.ca/bmf/holdings-nav/

Bonus question: at what price does usagi value them for his NAV calculations?
Answer: 0.7 BTC per share or almost twice GLBSE 5 day average.

So, does usagi know something about FPGAMINING that you dont, or is he just buying up distressed shares that he already owned to temporarily push up GLSBE prices to inflate his book value (and even then doubling that value in his books like he does with most things anyway)?

[conspirosphere.tk]

So, does usagi know something about FPGAMINING that you dont, or is he just buying up distressed shares that he already owned to temporarily push up GLSBE prices to inflate his book value (and even then doubling that value in his books)?

lol. Another nth-degree scam? That's what happens when you don't stop a scam fast.

[MPOE-PR]

There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract.

I've suggested this many times to Nefario.  It could be another level of verification (and the only one that would actually matter in my eyes).
"Bonded for X BTC against default" would go a long way in providing a bottom for shares and instilling confidence in GLBSE assets.

This "idea" is exactly the sort of silliness coming from the unqualified. Think about it: if the bond is large enough to indemnify shareholders then it makes absolutely zero sense for a company to list. Herp-derp, company sold shares for 100 BTC of which 100 BTC are held in a bond. What's the benefit of that, for the company?

If on the other hand the bond is less than enough to indemnify shareholders then it's of no interest to scammers. So they list an "asset", sell 100 BTC of "shares", leave 50 BTC in the bond, pocket the 50 and disappear, big deal. It is however a pain in the ass to legitimate shareholders, who now have to pay dividends (presumably) without being able to invest half the proceeds (cause they're in a bond).

This path leads to nothing.

There really should be some kind of bond that the issuer would lose in case they break their contract.

I've suggested this many times to Nefario.  It could be another level of verification (and the only one that would actually matter in my eyes).
"Bonded for X BTC against default" would go a long way in providing a bottom for shares and instilling confidence in GLBSE assets.

This is really worth of another thread. It could be entirely voluntary and fractional (e.g. cover an x% of the value of the total shares issued).
With such guarantee (to be managed by GLBSE in case of a proven breach of the contract) many (if not all) investors would be happy to accept a much lower interest, so it would be a positive-sum game since everybody would gain something.

edit: but it is to be solved what happens when someone keeps issuing more and more shares, even after he already defaulted like in this case.

MPEx actually has these fractional values. Grep a contract for:

In the event of liquidation or breach of this Agreement they solemnly promise and warrant to repay all investors holding shares at this minimum value.

[conspirosphere.tk]

If on the other hand the bond is less than enough to indemnify shareholders then it's of no interest to scammers. So they list an "asset", sell 100 BTC of "shares", leave 50 BTC in the bond, pocket the 50 and disappear, big deal. It is however a pain in the ass to legitimate shareholders, who now have to pay dividends (presumably) without being able to invest half the proceeds (cause they're in a bond).

This path leads to nothing.

It would not be a pain in the ass if -in case of breach of the contract- the asset get forcibly liquidated using the fund to indemnify (partially) the investors. It could be seen like an insurance, and it may make sense if the asset issuer contribute significantly to it (in advance, not just with the funds raised from investors).

edit: honest asset issuers would be motivated to fund even a 100% insurance fund, since that money remains their -even if locked for a period- until they behave honestly.

[MPOE-PR]

If on the other hand the bond is less than enough to indemnify shareholders then it's of no interest to scammers. So they list an "asset", sell 100 BTC of "shares", leave 50 BTC in the bond, pocket the 50 and disappear, big deal. It is however a pain in the ass to legitimate shareholders, who now have to pay dividends (presumably) without being able to invest half the proceeds (cause they're in a bond).

This path leads to nothing.

It would not be a pain in the ass if -in case of breach of the contract- the asset get forcibly liquidated using the fund to indemnify (partially) the investors. It could be seen like an insurance, and it may make sense if the asset issuer contribute significantly to it (in advance, not just with the funds raised from investors).

edit: honest asset issuers would be motivated to fund even a 100% insurance fund, since that money remains their -even if locked for a period- until they behave honestly.

The asset issuer trades something of value (the shares) for something of no value (money locked somewhere). This isn't how these things work.

[AngryCatfish]

With no communication it's coming off like stall tactics :/.

[vrtrasura]

Usagi, does this mean in general it's ok to stop paying dividends to cause a price crash so one can buyback cheap? 

Seems like bs to me.  What happened to all of our funds?  I don't want a buy back at no value compared to the investment we put in.  If he decided to close up shop he because he didn't feel like continuing should, he should return the funds or as much of them as possible.  I bought into this fund because it was verified, and there is text about upgrading to ASIC's, turns ou that was a bad choice but I certainly didn't think he would just quit paying divs.  If he took all the investor money and bought FPGAs great I understand there's nothing to return to us, but it's just wrong to turn around and steal it from us by buying back after forcing a crash.  He probably still has the FPGAs mining away while we sit here wondering if we lost all our money on this.

[Puppet]

I hold 635 shares of FPGAMINING (15% or so). He appears to be buying back shares.

So you bought over 300 shares now after he stopped dividend payments.
Thanks for confirming my earlier point.