Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.

[Deprived]

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.

If usagi would honor the contract that is. Im beginning to understand the desperation now.

Let me stress this part of the contract:

4. Neither party may cancel this contract although any party may choose to
   accelerate their obligation at any time.

Something I didn't make clear in my original post:

If you check out the two listed BTC addresses You'll find:

BMF paid 4 weeks cover up front (by the end of which it's NAV had plummeted again).  There's then more 5 BTC payments which don't have the .00000012 on the end that they should have (no biggies as usagi obviously knows who they were from).  And no payments from BMF since 9th September - so it seems BMF has also defaulted on the contract now.  Of course the payments COULD be being made in other ways - non transparent ones.  As neither BMF or CPA accounts for actual transactions (just a fairy-tale valuation) there's no way to know.

And there's no payments made out to the claims address at all (so it's not just a case of "I sent it but forgot to mention it in the thread").  Of course usagi COULD claim that insurance claims were made and paid - just never mentioned (and not done in the defined transparent method) but with no rise in BMF's valuation I can't see anyone actually believing that lie.

usagi has consistently refused to answer questions about what the insurance policy covered and why there was no claim on it - in the BMF thread, in the CPA thread and now here.  Not even the usual spin attempts given on valuation questions.  The reason why is obvious - there's no explanation it can give which would be at all credible.  I half expect to see the contract vanish from its website to be honest - though wondering just what usagi could replace it with that would be at all credible.

[pyrkne]

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?

I might as well lie to you. Yes, I am invested in several of Usagi's securities.

What's it to you?

~pyotr n

[nimda]

Riddle me this: If company A owns 50% of company B, B owns 50% of C, and C owns 50% of A *and* 1 dollar, how much is each company worth?

Obviously, A+B+C can't be worth more than 1 dollar...

[Deprived]

Riddle me this: If company A owns 50% of company B, B owns 50% of C, and C owns 50% of A *and* 1 dollar, how much is each company worth?

Obviously, A+B+C can't be worth more than 1 dollar...

Don't let usagi see you say that lol.

But your example is incomplete - as you don't say that the ONLY assets of A are the 50% of B etc., hence can't say anything about the total value of A+B+C.  The point you're trying to make is valid - and relevant, however without any public information about what CPA holds there's no way to show HOW relevant.

[stochastic]

Motion passed by 100%. All of my shareholders are happy.

Motion ID:148
Ticker symbol: BMF
Expires:2012-09-28
Required to pass motion:0%

Motion text

This is an opinion poll with no actionable result. As a shareholder, are you satisfied with BMF's management style? Please carefully consider the performance of the fund, and the actions I have taken to protect shareholders including weekly letters to shareholders, full disclosure of assets and trading, motions 80 and 124, and the current daily dividends policy before answering. Thank you and have a nice day. Note: If you are at all unsatisfied with the performance of this fund, as a shareholder, please do not hesitate to contact us at bmf@tsukino.ca and maybe we can work together to resolve any problems you are experiencing. Thank you!
Voting result
% to pass motion: 0
Voted Yea:8148
Voted Nay:0

I thought there was only 4652 shares outstanding as of today?

[Deprived]

Motion passed by 100%. All of my shareholders are happy.

Motion ID:148
Ticker symbol: BMF
Expires:2012-09-28
Required to pass motion:0%

Motion text

This is an opinion poll with no actionable result. As a shareholder, are you satisfied with BMF's management style? Please carefully consider the performance of the fund, and the actions I have taken to protect shareholders including weekly letters to shareholders, full disclosure of assets and trading, motions 80 and 124, and the current daily dividends policy before answering. Thank you and have a nice day. Note: If you are at all unsatisfied with the performance of this fund, as a shareholder, please do not hesitate to contact us at bmf@tsukino.ca and maybe we can work together to resolve any problems you are experiencing. Thank you!
Voting result
% to pass motion: 0
Voted Yea:8148
Voted Nay:0

Meh :

1.  A large chunk of those votes were you I'd bet.
2.  "All of my shareholders are happy." is not supported by the facts.  All the vote shows is that the ones who VOTED were happy.
3.  Anyone with half a brain who wasn't happy would have sold out by now - and no longer have a vote.
4.  Why do you think you were able to buy back shares at below IPO price?  It can't be because the shareholders were ecstatic about your management of the company.  

You bought out all the unhappy ones (at a loss to them) - what's left is those who don't pay attention, the terminally stupid and probably a few unfortunate souls who haven't been around for a while.

Typical usagi spin/gloss.  The vote wasn't even announced in the main BMF thread - just in one of your numerous "Important: I'm an attention whore - please listen to my bull-shit and don't argue with me" threads.

Oh - and how DID you get more yes votes than have EVER been in circulation?  You didn't by some chance transfer unsold ones to yourself to vote with (then send them back) did you?  I asked nefario about that particular nasty little trick a while back (by PM) but got no answer - so assume it IS possible for a company owner to generate as many yes votes on a motion as they like.

[stochastic]

I am a little confused.  How many shares are currently outstanding?  How many are held by other funds operated by usgai and how many are held by usagi?

As per the contract

The issuer reserves the right purchase back the security at 1.1 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous month.

To me this means that if the issuer is going to buy the security then it must be done at 1.1 times the highest price, otherwise the issuer cannot purchase the shares back.  As the issuer is usagi then usagi must pay at least 1.1 times the highest price over the last month.  Also, per the contract, any purchases must by the issuer must go back to BMF and not in the outstanding shares, otherwise it is not being 'purchased back'.

Is it possible to get a list of those trades?

[brendio]

As per the contract

The issuer reserves the right purchase back the security at 1.1 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous month.

To me this means that if the issuer is going to buy the security then it must be done at 1.1 times the highest price, otherwise the issuer cannot purchase the shares back.  As the issuer is usagi then usagi must pay at least 1.1 times the highest price over the last month.

I would interpret the contract differently. That is, if the issuer wishes forcibly to buy back shares, it must be at 1.1 times the highest traded price. This right is reserved. It does not say that this is the only situation in which the issuer may buy back shares if sellers are selling voluntarily for a lower price.

[Puppet]

None of the pertinent questions have been answered, not here not elsewhere.
Usagi instead of boasting your pointless poll, can you please address the actual issues?

- Why didnt CPA pay out BMF as its contractually obliged?
- Why are you still basing you BMF NAV guidance on lies
- WHy does your asset list still show DMC shares when you claimed you sold them all for 0.1 BTC
- Why does your bitcoin position remain largely unchanged even though you have been buying for at least many 100's of BTC of shares
- Where did the bitcoins come from to buy those shares, as they were not on the asset list for your funds.
- Where did you file your recent BTC loan?

And I will add one new:

- Will you agree to an independent audit to verify if you really own all the assets you claim to own? Among many other things, I would be interested in seeing if the funds entrusted to CPA for insurance are still safe.

[EskimoBob]

If Usagi is not getting a scammer tag for all that bs, then whats the point of this forum in the first place?
Do we really need to wait until he has wasted all the coin on who knows what or cashes inn and runs?
Sure, then we can cry here and confirm that BTC community got fucked once more.
Really?

[stochastic]

As per the contract

The issuer reserves the right purchase back the security at 1.1 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous month.

To me this means that if the issuer is going to buy the security then it must be done at 1.1 times the highest price, otherwise the issuer cannot purchase the shares back.  As the issuer is usagi then usagi must pay at least 1.1 times the highest price over the last month.

I would interpret the contract differently. That is, if the issuer wishes forcibly to buy back shares, it must be at 1.1 times the highest traded price. This right is reserved. It does not say that this is the only situation in which the issuer may buy back shares if sellers are selling voluntarily for a lower price.

I guess I am a strict constructionist, as I don't think an operator or issuer can or should do things not spelled out in the contract.

[vampire]

If Usagi is not getting a scammer tag for all that bs, then whats the point of this forum in the first place?
Do we really need to wait until he has wasted all the coin on who knows what or cashes inn and runs?
Sure, then we can cry here and confirm that BTC community got fucked once more.
Really?

The forum shouldn't be about trading, these tags are useless IMO.

[Puppet]

So f'in what? If I mark down the price every time I buy hardware eventually I will be selling shares for 1 or 2 satoshis. That's stupid.

If you buy a BFL single, eventually it will be worth only a few satoshi's per share, indeed. Did you intend to keep it on your books for listprice forever?

Now we are not even talking about depreciation here, if you put full list price in your books that would still be defensible, but thats not what you are doing; you are telling people to buy BMF at a certain price, because you claim it has assets that are worth that much (ie, NAV), and you "prove" that by valuing your (very very late) preorders some 30% more than what BFL claims, 100% more than what BFL sellers claim, and in the case of ABM, you claim its worth almost as much as its weight in pure gold. Now THAT is stupid. Or as you said "That is not how companies value assets".

At least not honest companies.

As for the rest of your rant, in half the time you wrote that, you could have answered the questions.  If you think I dont deserve an answer, then surely your shareholders do.

[pyrkne]

I for one don't care about the scammer's tag. I would like to believe that we can have this discussion without pursuing a tag.

If Usagi's companies (or anyone else's for that matter) have questionable finances, people can post here. Asset issuers can then defend themselves and answer questions. There are few opportunities to get more information about these assets, and this forum is one of them.

[stochastic]

As per the contract

The issuer reserves the right purchase back the security at 1.1 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the previous month.

To me this means that if the issuer is going to buy the security then it must be done at 1.1 times the highest price, otherwise the issuer cannot purchase the shares back.  As the issuer is usagi then usagi must pay at least 1.1 times the highest price over the last month.

I would interpret the contract differently. That is, if the issuer wishes forcibly to buy back shares, it must be at 1.1 times the highest traded price. This right is reserved. It does not say that this is the only situation in which the issuer may buy back shares if sellers are selling voluntarily for a lower price.

I agree and think this is standard.

So contracts should be interpreted by things not written in the contract like the intent of the security/operation?

[MPOE-PR]

If Usagi is not getting a scammer tag for all that bs, then whats the point of this forum in the first place?
Do we really need to wait until he has wasted all the coin on who knows what or cashes inn and runs?
Sure, then we can cry here and confirm that BTC community got fucked once more.
Really?

The forum shouldn't be about trading, these tags are useless IMO.

The people that haven't yet figured out irc eke out a meager existence trying to trade on the forum still.

[Deprived]

Amusing how usagi totally refuses to discuss the BMF insurance issue.

That was (I believe) the very first question I asked about its companies.  Just about every other question raised, usagi will try to bluster around with an explanation that (often) doesn't make sense - but at least is an explanation of sorts.  On this particular issue, it can't even think of a bullshit explanation to give of what value BMF were getting for their 550 BTC and why they aren't receiving that benefit.

And THAT's why I posted the whole contract in my original post in the CPA thread about a month back (usagi accused me of being a noob for pasting the whole contract rather than just linking it).  Not because I don't know how to link - but because I wanted acknowledgement of what was AT that link to prevent it getting changed later if, in fact, usagi were defrauding BMF investors to help CPA out.

[Puppet]

You also had a second such incident you wanted to report on? IF its only half as clear cut as the first one, I am very curious to read it.

[Puppet]

(modified crosspost)

For those not following the FPGAMINING thread; a few days ago, conspirosphere.tk posted about it,  the issuer stopped honoring its contract, stopped dividend payments and it appears to be yet another blatant scam:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112969.0

BMF has a substantial investment in FPGAMINING. Usagi posted in that thread, so he was aware. What does Usagi do?

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

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

Yep, he buys 215 more shares, and pays top dollar for them. Note this quote in the OP 3 days ago:
now there are just bids for 2 bonds above 0.2202 BTC (from an IPO price of 1.0 BTC)

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

5 day trading volume is 231, so essentially Usagi is the only one buying.  and most likely the only one bidding.

And at what price does usagi value them for his NAV calculations?
0.7 BTC per share or almost twice GLBSE 5 day average, the average only he pushed this high.

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)?

[augustocroppo]

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

In that shot, I read it as 20th September 2012.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us