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

[EskimoBob]

LOL at augustocroppo's deep thoughts.

Enough Said 

[augustocroppo]

LOL at augustocroppo's deep thoughts.

Enough Said 

I am still waiting to you answer the questions. If you refuse to answer the questions, I will assume you are only trying to defame Usagi.

[guruvan]

You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.

no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK.

The more evidence I see, the more convinced I am that usagi is not incompetent but is acting with the criminal intent to steal funds from investors

When I first met usagi, I thought it was an idiot. When it made CPA, I was pretty sure it was a crook. Now that we're starting to look more deeply into the books, I'm quite certain that usagi is a crook.

1. Manipulating held asset value
2. Mind-bogglingly stupid investment decisions that are likely obfuscated attempts to inject funds into the multi-headed ponzi scheme being run
3. Hiding losses through manipulated asset value
4. Double dealing (the BMF-CPA contract is probably criminal in most jurisdictions)
5. Attempts to silence critics - the volume and hysteria has grown the closer to the truth people investigating usagi have gotten.
6. misrepresenting physical asset value
7. apparently representing expenses as assets
8. Has silently defaulted on contracts between its own companies. Apparently failed to notify shareholders of both companies the default.
9. Apparently manipulating shareholder motion votes
10. Manipulation of share prices

Add this to the red flags in usagi's actual behaviour, and you have a classic cornered criminal.

[augustocroppo]

You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.

no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK.

Usagi securities are not registered and not regulated by any of this bodies.

[guruvan]

You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.

no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK.

Usagi securities are not registered and not regulated by any of this bodies.

(FTFY)

Which may of course be the biggest problem when those bodies are contacted.

Certainly, in the US, it's a significant issue to sell securities to unaccredited, non-sophisticated investors (especially unregistered securities) - thus it's a potential issue for and foreign citizen selling securities to US citizens. The US has brass balls when enforcing money regulations. (it's illegal to sell securities to non-sophisticated investors because a fraudulent issuer could present a rosy picture, much as usagi has, and coerce more money out of non-sophisticated investors than they can actually afford to lose....i.e. the old man's life savings)

Also, just because a security is unregistered doesn't mean it's unregulated.

Furthermore they are the bodies in those countries that investigate securities fraud, which is what I certainly suspect is going on here. It's not like those agencies will not investigate suspected securities fraud simply because the security wasn't registered. Just because it's bitcoin, not dollars or yen, doesn't mean they won't investigate either. The SEC doesn't care if investments are denominated in USD, EUR, JPY, coal, gold, or bitcoins. Investments are investments; the definition of "security" is quite broad.

[kjj]

You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.

no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK.

Usagi securities are not registered and not regulated by any of this bodies.

(FTFY)

Which may of course be the biggest problem when those bodies are contacted.

Certainly, in the US, it's a significant issue to sell securities to unaccredited, non-sophisticated investors (especially unregistered securities) - thus it's a potential issue for and foreign citizen selling securities to US citizens. The US has brass balls when enforcing money regulations. (it's illegal to sell securities to non-sophisticated investors because a fraudulent issuer could present a rosy picture, much as usagi has, and coerce more money out of non-sophisticated investors than they can actually afford to lose....i.e. the old man's life savings)

Also, just because a security is unregistered doesn't mean it's unregulated.

Furthermore they are the bodies in those countries that investigate securities fraud, which is what I certainly suspect is going on here. It's not like those agencies will not investigate suspected securities fraud simply because the security wasn't registered. Just because it's bitcoin, not dollars or yen, doesn't mean they won't investigate either. The SEC doesn't care if investments are denominated in USD, EUR, JPY, coal, gold, or bitcoins. Investments are investments; the definition of "security" is quite broad.

Agreed.  I think there is a shitstorm coming.

The question will also come up as to whether these things being traded on the exchanges are securities or not.  Both possible answers are potentially very bad.  If they are securities, everyone could be in big trouble for violations of securities laws.  If they are not securities, everyone could be in big trouble for selling them as securities (aka fraud).

[Atlas]

All investments come with risks. Deal with it.

[guruvan]

All investments come with risks. Deal with it.

Those risks should not include the assets issuer falsifying valuations, manipulating prices, and siphoning off funds.

[stochastic]

You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.

no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK.

Usagi securities are not registered and not regulated by any of this bodies.

(FTFY)

Which may of course be the biggest problem when those bodies are contacted.

Certainly, in the US, it's a significant issue to sell securities to unaccredited, non-sophisticated investors (especially unregistered securities) - thus it's a potential issue for and foreign citizen selling securities to US citizens. The US has brass balls when enforcing money regulations. (it's illegal to sell securities to non-sophisticated investors because a fraudulent issuer could present a rosy picture, much as usagi has, and coerce more money out of non-sophisticated investors than they can actually afford to lose....i.e. the old man's life savings)

Also, just because a security is unregistered doesn't mean it's unregulated.

Furthermore they are the bodies in those countries that investigate securities fraud, which is what I certainly suspect is going on here. It's not like those agencies will not investigate suspected securities fraud simply because the security wasn't registered. Just because it's bitcoin, not dollars or yen, doesn't mean they won't investigate either. The SEC doesn't care if investments are denominated in USD, EUR, JPY, coal, gold, or bitcoins. Investments are investments; the definition of "security" is quite broad.

So you are willing to purchase unregistered securities but when you don't get your way then you will contact the State?  Seems hypocritical.  Remember, anyone that promoted any of the securities on GLBSE is technically doing something potentially against regulation.  If you kick a hornets nest, don't be surprised if it stings you too.  If you want to buy securities with disclosure rules then go buy stock from the NYSE or NASDAQ.  In truth, some of the disclosures from GLBSE securities are better than some developing world stock markets.

If you are unhappy with the contract or you think the operations do not conform to the contract then contact GLBSE/nefario.

[MPOE-PR]

In truth, some of the disclosures from GLBSE securities are better than some developing world stock markets.

But in fact the ones we're discussing aren't in that group, so this'd be a red herring (and yes, ALL GLBSE crud is worse documented than prevailing industry standards for BTC financials).

If you are unhappy with the contract or you think the operations do not conform to the contract then contact GLBSE/nefario.

You've been away the past week or so I take it.

usagi: Five posts in a row? Simmer down will you. Nobody reads that shit anymore anyway.

[Deprived]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81993.msg1233186#msg1233186

All questions regarding BMF should be posted to the above thread. There are similar threads for NYAN and CPA.

To date I have recieved zero e-mails at bmf@tsukino.ca, and zero e-mails at nyan@tsukino.ca requesting information on the company. I do not have time to run around the forums all day and respond to scammer accusations from the same 4-5 people. Post your questions to the above thread or one of the similar threads for NYAN or CPA. I will remain available here if the mods have a question for me but I might not see it for a day or two. Thanks and have a great day.

No offence - but when I asked in the BMF thread ages ago (and also in the CPA one) why BMF wasn't claiming on its insurance policy (and what that policy covered if it wasn't loss of NAV) you refused to answer it.

You then started telling everyone who had comments/questions to post in THIS forum - which we did.

Now we post here you still won't comment on the insurance question here - but now want it posted back in BMF.  That's the ONLY thing I've asked about here.  It's the FIRST thing (I think) I ever asked about your companies (back when I first came across you whilst looking through and evaluating securities).

OK - I'll ask it as a few simple questions in the BMF thread as that's now what you apparently want.  Not that I have any expectation of getting an answer this time either.

[EskimoBob]

This is from usagis/atlas circle jerk tread

Hello, i'd like to make a quick announcement.

Daily dividends for October 1st have now been paid!

yay!

if you bought in at .49 last week when we made this announcement, here is your profit/loss statement:

BMF [1@0.49BTC] (since: 2012-09-25) paid: 0.01112149 BTC. Last price: 0.49 BTC. Capital gain: 0 BTC. Total: 0.01112149 BTC. (2.3%)

Expected dividend payments from now until sunday are 1.5%.

No he has started to hide hes incompetence as a portfolio manager, quoting is loser fund performance from a 2012-09-25

While this is what has really happened:

Code:

BMF [1@1BTC] 
paid: 0.10922454 BTC. 
Last price: 0.40000001 BTC. 
Capital gain: -0.59999999 BTC. 
Total: -0.49077545 BTC. (-49.1%)

This bull shit has to end now.

Here is the market depth as of now:

QUANTITY   PRICE
BID
1   0.40000001
1   0.4
1   0.39199997
1   0.33
1   0.33
2   0.3202
10   0.32
2   0.3102
10   0.31
2   0.2502
10   0.25
30   0.1253
400   0.1
500   0.02
100   0.01

ASK
QUANTITY   PRICE
1   0.48999996
2   0.48999997
6   0.48999998
6   0.48999999
118   0.49
120   0.5
120   0.5
120   0.5
120   0.5
120   0.5
120   0.5
120   0.5
120   0.5
120   0.5
120   0.5
... (10 more at 120 and so on)

[augustocroppo]

http://human-brain.org/evidence.html

What is "evidence"

When should an observation be regarded as evidence for a proposition?

(...)

"Evidence" for a proposition is any thing that increases the estimate of the probability of the truthfulness of the proposition. Note that this definition means that what is evidence is dependent on the agent that estimates the probability. That is why the question in the first sentence is not the simpler question "When is an observation an evidence for a proposition?" The answer to this question is actually agent-dependent, unless it is interpreted as if it is the question in the first sentence.

(...)

An important point to note is that the second part is important as well: an observation that is compatible with other plausible states of affairs should not be taken as an evidence for a proposition.

(...)

Even though the logic is obvious, there is a strong tendency to ignore the second condition above. It is quite common for people to regard as evidence for some proposition an observation which is compatible with many other plausible states of affairs. In some cases, they justify it by considering only restricted set of the other plausible states of affairs (I call this the "Misanalyzing the 'Null Hypothesis'" error in Reasoning errors). In other cases, they don't bother to justify it at all, and seem to do it simply because they like the proposition, and hence accept automatically the observation as evidence (implicitly doing the "conclusion-validation" error, Reasoning errors).

[guruvan]

You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.

no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK.

Usagi securities are not registered and not regulated by any of this bodies.

(FTFY)

Which may of course be the biggest problem when those bodies are contacted.

Certainly, in the US, it's a significant issue to sell securities to unaccredited, non-sophisticated investors (especially unregistered securities) - thus it's a potential issue for and foreign citizen selling securities to US citizens. The US has brass balls when enforcing money regulations. (it's illegal to sell securities to non-sophisticated investors because a fraudulent issuer could present a rosy picture, much as usagi has, and coerce more money out of non-sophisticated investors than they can actually afford to lose....i.e. the old man's life savings)

Also, just because a security is unregistered doesn't mean it's unregulated.

Furthermore they are the bodies in those countries that investigate securities fraud, which is what I certainly suspect is going on here. It's not like those agencies will not investigate suspected securities fraud simply because the security wasn't registered. Just because it's bitcoin, not dollars or yen, doesn't mean they won't investigate either. The SEC doesn't care if investments are denominated in USD, EUR, JPY, coal, gold, or bitcoins. Investments are investments; the definition of "security" is quite broad.

So you are willing to purchase unregistered securities but when you don't get your way then you will contact the State?  Seems hypocritical.  Remember, anyone that promoted any of the securities on GLBSE is technically doing something potentially against regulation.  If you kick a hornets nest, don't be surprised if it stings you too.  If you want to buy securities with disclosure rules then go buy stock from the NYSE or NASDAQ.  In truth, some of the disclosures from GLBSE securities are better than some developing world stock markets.

If you are unhappy with the contract or you think the operations do not conform to the contract then contact GLBSE/nefario.

1. I sure as hell don't own and usagi securities. I flipped 10 shares of CPA once, but never held. I'm not crazy.Nor did I "not get my way" My interest here is to see a crime stopped.

2. Registered, unregistered, I really don't care. A crime is a crime, and should generally be reported to authorities. The other option here is to "take the law into your own hands" and I'm not sure that's what we'd prefer. If you have a better suggestion on how to make there be consequences for theft via securities fraud, I'm all eyes.

3. Otherwise, you're suggesting that we should buy securities with no disclosure, and no legal remedy, no alternative remedy, and just be satisfied when we get fucked? OK. GLWT.

and LOL. Contact GLBSE/Nefario. That's useful. Isn't usagi on his new board advising which securities to approve for listing? The reasonable nefario who's been delisting assets without legitimate reason or notice? Yeah...I'll get right on that.

[EskimoBob]

Looks like nothing has changed.
Usagi keep lying to forum readers and publishing unreal NAV's.

And now he is really busy deleting (forum mods deleting for him?) questions from forum threads.

...

I am interested how you will answer these questions as well?

Deprived is banned from posting in this thread. If you have a question, I'll answer it, but do not cut and paste Deprived's post. I'm going to ask you to delete it and ask your own questions or I will have to report your post as well. Thanks.

Don't be a 'tard. We're in the process of selling assets and buying back shares. Over 1100 shares were bought back in the last couple of weeks.

How many of those 1100 shares were bought back from the public via GLBSE as opposed to bought back at "FMV" from your own companies via private transfer?  Nyan seems to have managed to divest itself of nearly all its assets - the assets that supposedly secure nyan.a and nyan.b

"Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN."

Shame those assets all vanished back to CPA (by selling off its nyan.a/b/c ahead of other people trying to sell then buying back its own shares from CPA).

Oh - and:

"The value of NYAN.A shares is guaranteed by CPA and NYAN against capital loss via the reasonably timely maintenance of a bidwall at 0.99 bitcoins per fund unit."

bidwall's still missing - has been for days.  145 nyan.a shares on market at .99 or less and only a trading volume of <5 BTC worth of them in last 5 days.

Yes - I saw your local rule thing.  No need to quote me to point it out.  But if YOU won't follow what's in the OP of your threads (e.g. the nyan.a bidwall) then you can hardly expect anyone else to.

How is that relevant to this thread?  Well CPA are supposed to be guaranteeing nyan.a by maintaining that bid-wall (your words, quoted above, not mine).  If they can't do that then their guarantee of value for nyan.a is defunct - and you shouldn't be closing down nyan.b before nyan.a.  Normally in a tranched security the senior tranche (nyan.a here) is closed out first.  Whilst nyan.a had a credible guarantee it seemed reasonable to not enforce that.  But if CPA is now refusing/unable to honour its guarantee (and YES - you knew it wasn't: I pointed it out a few times before) then you really should be closing out the senior tranche first.

I am interested how you will answer these questions as well?

 
I am not aware that there is a scammer protection rule that allows thread starter usagi to ban anyone asking questions or speaking up against his bull shit posts.  If there is, can I have the link for this forum rule?

Thank you.

[EskimoBob]

There is, and you are an asshole, and your posts WILL be deleted from that thread. Do yourself a favor and go delete them yourself and stop shitting on my threads. All you do is spam spam spam the same tired shit all day.

HINT: I DO NOT HAVE A SCAMMER TAG NOW, BECAUSE I AM NOT A SCAMMER.

Go read the contract EB.

This is very mature, I must say. Nice. 

Can I have a link to that rule because I like to read it?
Can I have link to those forum post where I lie about you or your failures to manage investors money? I have asked this how many times now? ... I have lost count.

Your lies about NYAN*, BMF etc NAV's and so on are all over this forum. Are you planning to delete those too?

[MPOE-PR]

Bumped, because the guy is back with new "business ideas".

[deeplink]

Your lies about NYAN*, BMF etc NAV's and so on are all over this forum. Are you planning to delete those too?

Looks like he did. What a scumbag.

[Zeeks]

Huh, I was reading the threads when Usagi had turned out to be pulling a lot of shady tricks and unethical business practices (circular investing in his own funds to control the price and inflating his value shamelessly with imagined numbers) and looking back over the old threads they have been scrubbed. Almost all relevant posts are gone, there are just a couple quoted posts missed but most posts quoting his posts are gone too. Someone on the moderation staff would have to have done that...

This forum is probably the worst thing for Bitcoin right now.

[deeplink]

Huh, I was reading the threads when Usagi had turned out to be pulling a lot of shady tricks and unethical business practices (circular investing in his own funds to control the price and inflating his value shamelessly with imagined numbers) and looking back over the old threads they have been scrubbed. Almost all relevant posts are gone, there are just a couple quoted posts missed but most posts quoting his posts are gone too. Someone on the moderation staff would have to have done that...

This forum is probably the worst thing for Bitcoin right now.

No he did it himself after GLBSE went down.