Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2019, 04:32:34 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.  (Read 92328 times)
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 04:00:57 PM
Last edit: September 29, 2012, 09:54:51 PM by Puppet
 #1

The is a split from the thread where Usagi accuses EskimoBob and Usagi himself came under scrutiny by Maged. To avoid that thread from derailing even further, I will continue this here.

I already provided evidence that Usagi is deliberately and grossly misleading investors about the value of his assets here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1225358#msg1225358

Basically he told investors that BMF fund has a NAV of 0.50 (link) and that a price of 0.57 BTC per share would be completely reasonable (link),  and people should  not sell below those prices, while his own books at that time showed the NAV to be ~0.4  even after inflating almost everything he holds by 20% or more. He listed mining hardware up to almost 30% above list price, included shipping costs as assets, doubled some share prices, etc. Any factual calculation using list prices for the hardware and GLBSE prices for the other assets  put the NAV around 0.32-0.35 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112734.msg1225573#msg1225573).

Its hard to argue against basic mathematics, so since I started calculating his actual NAV using GLBSE prices, Usagi has resorted to new tricks. He has updated his spreadsheet (http://tsukino.ca/bmf/holdings-nav/) to show a "real value" column instead of GLBSE averages,  with no explanation of how he achieves "real value".  The "real" numbers are on average almost 50% above average GLBSE 5day average prices. And even that isnt enough to warrant his 0.5 BTC claim, so on top of that he has resorted to attempting to manipulate GLSBE share prices of some of the ultra low volume assets he holds. Here is a good example:

A few days ago, Usagi's BMF fund held 200 shares in ABM and ABM traded for 0.125 5-day average. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112734.msg1225573#msg1225573)
As of now,  Usagi holds 210 shares and ABM traded (briefly) for 0.45BTC. As a result, GLBSE 5 day avg shot up to 0.25 , though the shareprice is now again lower than it was before usagi bought in, trading at ~0.10 as of the time of writing (link).

Now putting the nav for ABM at 0.25BTC could be considered rather questionable already, but usagi actually put 0.35 BTC/share as "real value" in his books. So I decided to check out ABM to see if there was a rational explanation for that.

ABM has only one asset: 1 BFL single, thats mining with horrendous electricity costs and no ASIC upgrade path. 25% of the mining revenue is kept to cover costs. ABM has issued 1000 shares. These are facts, confirmed by ABM's CEO.

So, usagi thinks the "real value" of this one $599 single is 1000*73.5/210= 350 BTC and he almost certainly bought a few shares at a price that would only be warranted if this single was worth ~700 BTC!

For the record, list price for a BFL single is $599 or ~12 BTC (and that will give you 100% of the hashrate, not just 75%, plus it will let you upgrade to ASICs, whereas ABM does not offer an  ASIC upgrade path).

After exposing this, Usagi has "adjusted" his "real value" of ABM to 300 BTC, which still is roughly 10x more than the market value of 75% of a used BFL single, and since there is no upgrade to asics, arguably 50x above any reasonable estimate.

ABM is just an example, if you go over Usagi's spreadsheet, you will find almost nothing but numbers that are similarly detached from reality, although not all of them are quite this extreme.

Now why would Usagi do this? The answer is simple; Usagi needs to inflate his bubbles.  Nyan holds a truckload of BMF shares, especially his Nyan.A bond. At current prices, 60% of its value is in BMF shares. Why is that a problem? Because if BMF shares were to be valued around a reasonable NAV instead of some 50% higher, the NAV of those Nyan bonds would tank even further. Nyan.A by my estimate currently has an actual NAV of ~0.66 if you apply more sane numbers for BMF; but Nyan.A is insured by CPA to be worth 1 BTC. CPA is another Usagi company and this company already has liquidity problems

edit: I wasnt aware of this, but if you read further on in this thread, it turns out CPA also directly insured BMF against a NAV loss below 1 BTC per share (!). BMF shareholders have apparently paid over 500 BTC to CPA for this insurance, but they  are getting nothing in return for it. CPA (ran by usagi) has refused to pay out BMF (ran by usagi) for reasons he is not disclosing.

So usagi has been aggressively buying up BMF shares to push up the price far above any reasonable NAV estimate,  has been buying for just a few BTC incredibly overpriced low volume assets such as ABM to further boost his own funds apparent value,  and has been spreading what can only be described as factual lies to support this price lvel and avoid people selling in to his meager bidwall.

At this point, I fear this is more than just about lying and misleading, and Im beginning to fear this whole thing is a scam that goes a lot further than what I described here. I have many other red flags pointing in that direction, but I will give usagi a chance to explain first before I list them here. But IMO, the above alone would be enough to put him in jail in any regulated market.
1575736354
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575736354

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575736354
Reply with quote  #2

1575736354
Report to moderator
1575736354
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575736354

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575736354
Reply with quote  #2

1575736354
Report to moderator
1575736354
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575736354

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575736354
Reply with quote  #2

1575736354
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
vampire
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
September 28, 2012, 04:55:42 PM
 #2

Well I was preparing some documentation, and I didn't have enough time to prepare.. But since puppet posted, I'll release my accusation of usagi's lies:

Exhibit
The spreadsheet uses a formula which uses the average of the 24h and 5 day averages* Not a scam.
*=max(fetchTicker(concatenate(A13), "t5davg"), fetchTicker(concatenate(A13), "t24havg"))/100000000

The above formula isn't average, it returns the largest of two averages.
 
Quote
the MAX function returns the largest value from the numbers provided.

Exhibit
 
I wrote several books, including highschool textbooks and some free books on Go on the internet using my real name. Take a second look at that link. I make it blatantly clear I do not care who knows my "real name". I am who I am. And I have nothing to hide. I used usagi and my name interchangably all the time on KGS (a go server). I created the advanced study room in 2006 using these names.

Thank you for your support,
 
Serena

Identifies himself as Oliver in the first post, but constantly signs with Serena. One of the above is a lie.
 
 
EskimoBob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000


Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 05:17:20 PM
 #3

I concur.
He has earned a scammer tag for misleading his investors too many times.

While reading what I wrote, use the most friendliest and relaxing voice in your head.
BTW, Things in BTC bubble universes are getting ugly....
pyrkne
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 05:21:16 PM
 #4

At this point, I fear this is more than just about lying and misleading, and Im beginning to fear this whole thing is a scam that goes a lot further than what I described here. I have many other red flags pointing in that direction, but I will give usagi a chance to explain first before I list them here. But IMO, the above alone would be enough to put him in jail in any regulated market.

I don't have all day to dedicate to the forum, but I've been following along best I can. When I'm moving so many BTC in and out of securities, it is a small price to pay to get a heads up once in awhile.

I won't comment on the numbers (there are those of you far more qualified than I) but Usagi's behavior alone has been unsettling as of late. He or she tries hard to chase the concerned investors trolls out of his or her threads - this would be fine if the trolls were actually trolls, or if usagi didn't come off as desperately defensive every time.

It's like Usagi is mad at you and others for trying to kick over his or her house of cards.

If it's not a house of cards, it can stand a little kicking. And if it is... I appreciate you collapsing it early before it can take anyone else's BTC.
augustocroppo
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 05:51:22 PM
Last edit: September 28, 2012, 06:10:16 PM by augustocroppo
 #5


At this point, I fear this is more than just about lying and misleading, and Im beginning to fear this whole thing is a scam that goes a lot further than what I described here. I have many other red flags pointing in that direction, but I will give usagi a chance to explain first before I list them here. But IMO, the above alone would be enough to put him in jail in any regulated market.

You have only proved that Usagi needs to improve his skills with Microsoft Excel and Google Docs, as well the ability to perform mathematical calculations.
pyrkne
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 06:10:58 PM
 #6


At this point, I fear this is more than just about lying and misleading, and Im beginning to fear this whole thing is a scam that goes a lot further than what I described here. I have many other red flags pointing in that direction, but I will give usagi a chance to explain first before I list them here. But IMO, the above alone would be enough to put him in jail in any regulated market.

You have only proved that Usagi needs to improve his skills with Microsoft Excel and Google Docs, as well the ability to perform financial mathematical calculations.

I don't know about you, but I have coin with Usagi. As such I hope he or she improves said skills. If scammer accusations are what it takes, so be it - Usagi hasn't exactly pledged to improve his or her accounting practices.

To be fair, even if we prove nothing from this thread at least we have a place to discuss Usagi's securities. Discussion in the official threads is less-than-endorsed. If it even could be a scam, we should think and talk about it. It's called due diligence.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 06:13:29 PM
 #7

You have only proved that Usagi needs to improve his skills with Microsoft Excel and Google Docs, as well the ability to perform financial mathematical calculations.

If it was a due to some colossal "lack of skill" but with honest intentions,  he would have corrected his "errors" after they were pointed out, and he would have amended his investors guidance. He has done neither (quite the opposite in fact).
 
Im also quite confident usagi himself will not agree with you that gross incompetence plays any role here. Its not like you need a PhD to understand that a $599 BFL single isnt worth 350 or 700BTC.
augustocroppo
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 06:30:48 PM
 #8


I don't know about you, but I have coin with Usagi. As such I hope he or she improves said skills. If scammer accusations are what it takes, so be it - Usagi hasn't exactly pledged to improve his or her accounting practices.

To be fair, even if we prove nothing from this thread at least we have a place to discuss Usagi's securities. Discussion in the official threads is less-than-endorsed. If it even could be a scam, we should think and talk about it. It's called due diligence.

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations ?

It is up to the investors to investigate the ability of the people they employ to manage their funds:

Quote
"Due diligence" is a term used for a number of concepts involving either an investigation of a business or person prior to signing a contract, or an act with a certain standard of care. It can be a legal obligation, but the term will more commonly apply to voluntary investigations.

(...)

The term "due diligence" first came into common use as a result of the United States' Securities Act of 1933. This Act included a defence at Sec. 11, referred to as the "Due Diligence" defence, which could be used by broker-dealers when accused of inadequate disclosure to investors of material information with respect to the purchase of securities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Diligence
pyrkne
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 07:35:49 PM
 #9

It is up to the investors to investigate the ability of the people they employ to manage their funds.

Thank you, that is exactly right. Hence what we are doing.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 08:12:09 PM
 #10

A lot of the accusations against usage relate to the valuation of its various companies (I'll use "its" for usagi as he/she has portayed himself/herself as being male and female at different times - and "its" is shorter than using his/her or he/she every time).  The problem with those accusation is that, whilst they may well have merit (I believe some do) they're largely subjective, are prone to honest mistakes and so difficult to support a scammer accusation with.

Instead I'll address two specific issues - both of which indicate that usagi intentionally acts against the interest of its share-holders in one company to assist a different company.

usagi runs a bunch of companies - most of which own shares in various other companies also run by usagi.  There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this - however it DOES lead to the following three things occurring:

1.  Because the companies' holdings of one another form a loop (company A holds company B which holds company C which company A's shares) any change to the valuation of one repeatedly feeds back through the loop - allowing very easy manipulation of company values.
2.  The cross-holdings in shares give usagi very heavy weight in any share-holder votes: way above the amount that would be due if the shares usagi voted on behalf of were all purchased with its own funds.
3.  usagi has different responsibilities to each set of investors.  usagi SHOULD be careful to avoid situations where there is a potential clash of interest.

I'm going to deal with two seperate incidents where there is a clear indication of usagi acting against the interest of one group of shareholders in favor of shareholders in a different company also managed by usagi.  In neither case is there any need to value shares.  In both instances, if I'm mistaken, usagi should have no problem easily demonstrating it.

I'll do each instance in a seperate post - bear in mind I'm typing it up as I go along, so don't expect another 2 posts immediately.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 08:55:53 PM
 #11

1.  INSURANCE AGAINST WHAT?

A brief time-line for BMF - an investment company (mis)managed by usagi.  This is relevant to set the scene.  All quotes here (other than when identified otherwise) come from the BMT thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81993.0

May 16th - the fund starts.  The OP includes amongst its various points:

*6: I'm well aware of how markets work, I'm not going to bid up (or pay too high a price) for the bitcoin miners after the IPO just to get my hands on their shares. If I did that the NAV would fall after the IPO because I'm an idiot of a trader. I wish to avoid that at all costs.

Obviously usagi then went and did precisely what it had said it wouldn't do - that was just incompetence (and overestimating its own ability) not scamming in my opinion.  The share IPOed at 1 BTC per share.

A bit over a month later the value of shares in BMF had dropped by around one third.

As of now, we have 2954 shares outstanding (plus 650 taken as management fee under Motion 61) and we have 1987 bitcoins in assets under management. This leads us to a NAV of approximately 0.67.

But good news - within less than a month the NAV of BMF shares had allegedly been nearly repaired (I have no knowledge of whether it genuinely had grown back or was the result of creative accounting).

NAV update:

Through precision trading we have raised the nav from 0.65 at the time of the motion to 0.866 today!

usagi then signed an insurance contract with CPA - to insure against NAV loss.  usagi also runs CPA - which is pretty much a black box (or even a black-hole).  usagi was thus representing both BMF and CPA when agreeing the contract.  Here is the first mention of it in BMF's thread:

NAV update:

Through precision trading we have raised the nav from 0.65 at the time of the motion to 0.866 today!

This puts us within a month away from recovery. If I can pull a few more good deals like this we could be paying divs again by the end of the month.

I just want you to know I am doing my best to get this done. Let's all hope for the best, thanks.

We have continued to make best efforts towards repairing our NAV and resuming dividends.

To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss.

We have decided to publish this contract, to give a clearer picture of what is going on with BMF these days.

This contract means we will likely begin paying dividends again by next week.

This is good news! Ok, don't celebrate yet, let's get through the week first Smiley

Thank you for your support, shareholders.

It's clear from the post that usagi was confident nav was about to reach 1.0 again - and was taking out insurance to ensure it couldn't fall below 1.0 again.  Note also that there was no earlier mention of this contract, no share-holder vote on it and no explanation in any detail of what the contract contained.

 I quote below the text 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").

D. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
1. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or
   the breach of this contract, shall be settled by binding internet
   arbitration at judge.me in accordance with the judge.me arbitration
   agreement. The arbitrator's decision shall be final and legally binding
   and judgment may be entered thereon.
2. The customer must indemnify (make whole) CPA's incurred legal fees if
   they lose their claim, limited to the amount required to be paid by CPA
   to judge.me.
3. All judge.me fees related to this contract must be paid in bitcoins."

Here's a summary of the key points:

1.  BMF is paying 5 BTC per week for 110 weeks - total premiums of 550 BTC.
2. BMF is insured against "loss defined as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of less than 1 per unit."
3.  The total which BMF can claim back is 500 BTC - but only in 100 BTC blocks (there's no mention of any qualifying period between successive claims).

It all seems very straightfroward.

But then towards the end of the month, Pirate defaults and share prices crash everywhere.  BMF loses a whole chunk of value and CPA, the insurers, have a major liquidity crisis - to the extent that usagi worried in a different thread that CPA may go to a NAV of zero.  CPA's liquidity issues were, of course, not the concern of BMF investors.  BMF would just have to wait in line with the other creditors to get paid out, right?  Well no - as usagi never claimed on the policy for BMF (and hasn't to this day).

On September 9th I made the following post in the thread:

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?

My post was then quoted by someone else and usagi replied to them (but not to my question) as follows:

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?

If I am reading this correctly, CPA signed a contract to payout when BMF was below 1 ?

But BMF was already below 1 when the contract was signed.

Quote
Quote from: usagi on July 15, 2012, 05:36:53 PM
NAV update:

Through precision trading we have raised the nav from 0.65 at the time of the motion to 0.866 today!

This puts us within a month away from recovery. If I can pull a few more good deals like this we could be paying divs again by the end of the month.

I just want you to know I am doing my best to get this done. Let's all hope for the best, thanks.

We have continued to make best efforts towards repairing our NAV and resuming dividends.

To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss.

We have decided to publish this contract, to give a clearer picture of what is going on with BMF these days.

This contract means we will likely begin paying dividends again by next week.

This is good news! Ok, don't celebrate yet, let's get through the week first Smiley

Thank you for your support, shareholders.


This is like signing a contract to pay out on your house getting burnt down when your house has already burnt down.


You can't be serious. Look at the date on the post you are quoting. This was announced, publicized, motioned, voted on and passed two months ago. If you wanted to complain you should have done it then. Seriously, go bother hashking, pirate or matthew; look around and you will see I run the finest companies on GLBSE.

And while you're at it, read the contract we signed VERY VERY CLOSELY and you will "see what I did there".

Now. If you're a shareholder, please go vote on the motion Smiley Seriously - You wanna know what my shareholders think of me? Wait till the motion passes and look at the numbers. Until then if you are not a shareholder do not post on this thread or I'll lock it and make a new one with local rules. Please, don't ruin this by dragging innuendo and BS onto here as well.

Now look at what usagi claims in response (to bitcoin.me, my question was ignored):

"This was announced, publicized, motioned, voted on and passed two months ago."

Oh really?  Where?  This is a blatant lie.  There is no publicity and no motion prior to the post announcing it as a done deal.

It is debatable whether the original contract was ever in the interests of BMF shareholders.  At a minimum, given that usagi was also wearing the hat of the other party (CPA) shareholders should have been given a proper explanation of what the contract meant for them and why it was good value to pay 550 BTC for 500 BTC of insurance cover.

It's not (in my view) debatable that failing to claim under the insurance (because CPA were short of cash) is defrauding and scamming the investors of BMF.  They paid for something - and usagi should have ensured they got that something (and is the only person in a position to honour that insurance).  Instead they're just paying 5 BTC a week to CPA for absolutely no gain.

It's absolutely clear from the contract and the context in which it was introduced to investors what this insurance was against.  Yet usagi has refused to ever claim on it.

My second point will have to be made later (hopefully today) as I have other things I need to tend to.


pyrkne
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 09:05:18 PM
 #12

Usagi, I've noticed a significant increase in your post quality and a significant decrease in the amount of flamebait / harassment.

As someone who worries about who is managing his money, it's nice to see you stay cool-headed.

~pyotr

edit: I spoke too soon. It's all about who says what to you, isn't it? I, for one, am more interested in what is said.
pyrkne
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 09:12:31 PM
 #13

I think we all know that if your appeals to the mods had any merit, Puppet and any other name that you drop would be gone from the forum.

What are you so afraid of? It's just weird.
augustocroppo
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 09:55:18 PM
 #14

It is up to the investors to investigate the ability of the people they employ to manage their funds.

Thank you, that is exactly right. Hence what we are doing.


"We"? Who is "we"? Puppet, Eskimobob, Deprived and you? How many of you have any investment in Usagi's business?

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations ?

Which part of the "due diligence" you are confusing with "scam accusations"?
pyrkne
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 10:08:31 PM
 #15

It is up to the investors to investigate the ability of the people they employ to manage their funds.

Thank you, that is exactly right. Hence what we are doing.


"We"? Who is "we"? Puppet, Eskimobob, Deprived and you? How many of you have any investment in Usagi's business?

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations ?

Which part of the "due diligence" you are confusing with "scam accusations"?

I'm sorry! I must have missed the "Due Diligence" subforum. Super Apology!

I didn't choose to post the thread here. To be honest I was linked here and don't even care about the subforum, though I understand some people might. I'm pretty sure Usagi asked people to stop talking about this in "Securities" anyways. And he or she just said that again in this thread as I see.

Some people had placed sell orders at .98 and .97 as if their only intent was to get out rather than to allow me to buy back at .99. I did buy back at .99 and 1 -- over 500 shares of A and B all in all. And within 24 hours IIRC. People also sold down BMF to .25. I believe that what the trolls I have named have done is to manipulate market prices by scaring people into selling my stocks. I believe they are, or someone who hired them is, attempting to profit from this manipulation.

Price manipulation. Well, I guess that makes sense.

It occurred to me that price manipulation is an even bigger problem when one company holds the others' shares, am I correct?

That is what I am afraid of; because I am quite confident that in another few days when the BMF motion passes, and then again in another few months when everyone sees "the usagiponzi has not collapsesz" that I will be vindicated. Of course, there will always be people who will claim that just means the collapse is imminent. But those people should be ignored.

I'm sure you'll be vindicated too. But you should act more confident.  Tongue

What is the BMF motion, by the way? I am not currently a holder nor have I been keeping up.

edit: Thank you Deprived for the big update post. I don't have time to sift through those threads and I've only been reading bitcointalk since August, so a lot of this was a mystery.
augustocroppo
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 10:17:09 PM
 #16

It is up to the investors to investigate the ability of the people they employ to manage their funds.

Thank you, that is exactly right. Hence what we are doing.


"We"? Who is "we"? Puppet, Eskimobob, Deprived and you? How many of you have any investment in Usagi's business?

Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Trading Discussion > Scam Accusations ?

Which part of the "due diligence" you are confusing with "scam accusations"?

I'm sorry! I must have missed the "Due Diligence" subforum. Super Apology!

Your sarcasm is unnecessary for this debate.

I am not asking for apologies. I am asking if you have any investment in Usagi's business!

Do you have any investment in Usagi's business?
pyrkne
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Last edit: September 28, 2012, 11:12:29 PM by pyrkne
 #17

Now look at what usagi claims in response (to bitcoin.me, my question was ignored):

"This was announced, publicized, motioned, voted on and passed two months ago."

Oh really?  Where?  This is a blatant lie.  There is no publicity and no motion prior to the post announcing it as a done deal.

Is this true? This is a question I'd like answered.

edit:

Your sarcasm is unnecessary for this debate.

You've made it clear so far that you believe there should be no debate. You think this discussion is unwarranted - we get it.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 11:06:03 PM
 #18

First, when he pointed out in the eskimobob thread (iirc) that I was including shipping price (i.e. the full amount from the bitpay invoice) I changed my spreadsheets to allow investors to see full disclosure; not just the price we paid on the bitpay invoice but the actual market value which puppet proposed.

Incorrect. You base your NAV claims on the (un)"real" column and there it still shows your BFL gear at prices way above listprice. Shipping costs or wishful thinking are not assets. Keep in mind this all started by you proclaiming BMF has a NAV (NET ASSET VALUE) of 0.50, not that it has an unreal value of 0.50.

Quote
Secondly, when puppet recently pointed out I may have been overvaluing ABM and explained his reasons why, (in the BMF news and updates thread on the securities forum) I accepted his reasoning and changed the valuation.

You changed it from 15000% of a sensible estimate to 14000% above any sensible estimate. You are still valuing your ABM shares as if their non upgradable BFL single would somehow be worth 375 BTC.

'nough said.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 11:27:42 PM
 #19

1.  INSURANCE AGAINST WHAT?

..

his contract, no share-holder vote on it and no explanation in any detail of what the contract contained.

 I quote below the text 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.


Woha. Good stuff, I had no idea. Here I was thinking the main issue was CPA's insurance of Nyan.A (which holds 60% of its assets in BMF), I had no idea CPA had also insured BMF's NAV directly. And lol, at 1 BTC per share? Even usagi himself puts it 0.5 now, and in reality its ~0.33.

 Im beginning to understand the desperation now.

Let me stress this part of the contract:

Quote
4. Neither party may cancel this contract although any party may choose to
   accelerate their obligation at any time.
augustocroppo
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 502


View Profile
September 28, 2012, 11:32:00 PM
 #20


You've made it clear so far that you believe there should be no debate. You think this discussion is unwarranted - we get it.

Could you please present evidence for your statement?

Do you have investments in Usagi's business or not?
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 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!