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

[kjj]

Then maybe it's time to revisit.  Anyone care to read this thread and summarize.

Summary: puppet said Usagi falsified navs, conveniently forgetting to mention that the spreadsheets in question explicitly state that all numbers are approximations. Then usagi redoes the spreadsheets to pull data directly off the GLBSE, and puppet/EB/etc cry foul again stating that usagi is using an unfair/biased formula. So usagi redoes the spreadsheets a third time, backed by shareholder motions, using both formulas and allowing investors to make their own decision about how to value the shares. The trolls go bananas and everyone starts to realize no, usagi is not a scammer, and the trolls are just dicks. Then GLBSE shuts down and "therefore usagi is a scammer".

Unfortunately there are some people here who think they can say anything they want and that being anonymous on the internet will protect them. You just have to put up with their shit, I guess.

This.  The numbers weren't so much "approximations" as they were "pure fantasy" or "blatant falsehoods".

I have no idea if you were doing mark-to-fantasy with the intention of defrauding your customers, or if you just really thought that your assets were worth that much.  I will say that you were very inconsistent about how you did your accounting, which suggests, but does not prove, that you knew something wasn't right.  Many people were pointing out the widening gulf between your numbers and the mark-to-market numbers, which should have made you sit down and take a hard, honest look at everything.  Instead, you doubled down and got defensive about your bullshit valuations.

I haven't seen any conclusive proof of malice, so I don't think a scammer tag is justified.  But I sure won't ever invest in anything that you are involved with.

[1714680589]

1714680589

[btharper]

Then maybe it's time to revisit.  Anyone care to read this thread and summarize.

Summary: puppet said Usagi falsified navs, conveniently forgetting to mention that the spreadsheets in question explicitly state that all numbers are approximations. Then usagi redoes the spreadsheets to pull data directly off the GLBSE, and puppet/EB/etc cry foul again stating that usagi is using an unfair/biased formula. So usagi redoes the spreadsheets a third time, backed by shareholder motions, using both formulas and allowing investors to make their own decision about how to value the shares. The trolls go bananas and everyone starts to realize no, usagi is not a scammer, and the trolls are just dicks. Then GLBSE shuts down and "therefore usagi is a scammer".

Unfortunately there are some people here who think they can say anything they want and that being anonymous on the internet will protect them. You just have to put up with their shit, I guess.

I was just going to unwatch the thread, but crap like this annoys me. The only reason this post is written in third person is to make it sound like a third party is vouching for usagi. Saying "I did things" sounds a lot different.

As far as scam accusations I'd like to add the following
6) Voting as a shareholder with interconnected stocks and personal shares.
-"Shareholder Majority" was replaced by the number of shares Usagi wanted to vote with. I believe one poll was even voted on by more shares than were outstanding before or after the vote (made active by transferring to Usagi and then back, or voting with non-voting shares).
-This voting also happened on non-action polls like "Is Usagi doing a good job?" for all the obvious reasons.
-Actual shareholders are the victims in this case held hostage to usagi's whims

7) Usagi first promised then rescinded on Bakewell insurance saying that it would be refunded at first if Ian wanted, then if the shareholders voted for it. After the shareholders voted in favor of reversing the insurance, then only if a dividend of the same amount was paid, then finally relented to if Ian promised to pay out a dividend of equal amount after
-Ian's link to here for the relevant start
-Ian's later post in the same thread here with his added emphasis on PMs between usagi and himself where usagi agreed to refund pending a motion.
-Bakewell shareholders and Ian are the victims in this case, Bakewell was held hostage to usagi denying repayment, Ian while usagi tried to drag his name through the mud for trying to end his affiliation with the "upstanding" usagi and illiquid CPA

BMF's CPA insurance plan, usagi failed to properly resolve a conflict of interest
-BMF paid 550 BTC for an insurance policy with CPA to insure against loss of NAV
-BMF lost NAV (as with most of his funds and attributed to poor abilities as an investor)
-usagi chose to "accelerate payment" on BMF's end to the amount that would have been collected from CPA
-BMF was still on the hook for the additional 50 BTC above coverage paid to CPA
-So either
*usagi acted against BMF's interest and bought overpriced insurance from CPA without a shareholder vote
*usagi acted against BMF's interest by accelerating payment unnecessarily
-BMF shareholders were the victim to usagi doing whatever he wanted and then voting with his own shares as in example 6

[usagi]

As far as scam accusations I'd like to add the following
6) Voting as a shareholder with interconnected stocks and personal shares.
-"Shareholder Majority" was replaced by the number of shares Usagi wanted to vote with. I believe one poll was even voted on by more shares than were outstanding before or after the vote (made active by transferring to Usagi and then back, or voting with non-voting shares).
-This voting also happened on non-action polls like "Is Usagi doing a good job?" for all the obvious reasons.
-Actual shareholders are the victims in this case held hostage to usagi's whims

Actual shareholders? First of all, if I invest $10k into my own company I sure as hell deserve the right to vote. Second, CPA started NYAN with 1500 BTC of it's own assets. What fantasy world do you live in where you think CPA won't maintain a controlling interest in the company? What do you think it means when owners retain 51% ownership? Are you familiar with the basic principle of property ownership? Yes, I was obviously an insider, no, voting with shares I bought fair and square is not a scam, and I really don't see where you get off coming here and saying it is.

7) Usagi first promised then rescinded on Bakewell insurance saying that it would be refunded at first if Ian wanted, then if the shareholders voted for it. After the shareholders voted in favor of reversing the insurance, then only if a dividend of the same amount was paid, then finally relented to if Ian promised to pay out a dividend of equal amount after
-Ian's link to here for the relevant start
-Ian's later post in the same thread here with his added emphasis on PMs between usagi and himself where usagi agreed to refund pending a motion.
-Bakewell shareholders and Ian are the victims in this case, Bakewell was held hostage to usagi denying repayment, Ian while usagi tried to drag his name through the mud for trying to end his affiliation with the "upstanding" usagi and illiquid CPA

This is total bullshit. Ian LIED to me about his financial position with BAKEWELL to try and get out of paying his premiums. Do you get this basic fact? This is DOCUMENTED what he did. The truth that came out by his own words later was he just wanted to break the contract because of what Maged said. All I did was follow the contract, and force Ian to return the bitcoins to his shareholders. This proves 3 things: 1. Ian committed fraud, he defrauded CPA and issued malicious criminal libel against me claiming I tried to clawback funds when I had repeatedly said I was sticking to the contract. 2. Maged is irresponsible, and has demonstrated that his comments caused financial damage to CPA as a direct result. 3. I stuck to my contract and am not a scammer. The bitcoins were returned to shareholders as per the contract. Puffn and some others in the thread agreed that this was a reading of the contract.

Actually to this I will add 4. Ian did not file any grievance with judge.me as per the contract; by trying to resolve a dispute by coming here to the forum he violated his contract a second time.

BMF's CPA insurance plan, usagi failed to properly resolve a conflict of interest
-BMF paid 550 BTC for an insurance policy with CPA to insure against loss of NAV

This is an outright lie. Either you are full of shit, or you are incompetent. The bitcoin address was listed in the contract. Anyone can see that BMF did not pay anywhere near 100 BTC to CPA, let alone 550.

Anyone can see the contract where it states that either party may accelerate it's obligation. This is what happened. Game over, contract closed. I explained many many times what this contract was for. I announced this contract in a post on the securities forum. I mentioned this contract in letters to shareholders. I published it on the web. No one complained until six weeks later when puppet, deprived and eskimobob started trolling me at Mircea's bequest.

-BMF lost NAV (as with most of his funds and attributed to poor abilities as an investor)

This is both a lie and misrepresentation of what happened. it is OBVIOUS why BMF lost money. We were entirely invested into mining. it is an UNDENIABLE FACT that while companies like GIGAMINING lost 66%, BMF only lost 50%. This outperformance was due to my skills as a manager. Sorry we lost money. We were a mining fund. Get over it.

-usagi chose to "accelerate payment" on BMF's end to the amount that would have been collected from CPA
-BMF was still on the hook for the additional 50 BTC above coverage paid to CPA

This makes no sense considering your above claim that BMF paid 550 bitcoins to CPA.

-So either
*usagi acted against BMF's interest and bought overpriced insurance from CPA without a shareholder vote
*usagi acted against BMF's interest by accelerating payment unnecessarily
-BMF shareholders were the victim to usagi doing whatever he wanted and then voting with his own shares as in example 6

Or.. you're full of shit?

Can we please end this trainwreck of a troll? I am not a scammer. The end. Get it?

[makomk]

Second, CPA started NYAN with 1500 BTC of it's own assets. What fantasy world do you live in where you think CPA won't maintain a controlling interest in the company? What do you think it means when owners retain 51% ownership? Are you familiar with the basic principle of property ownership? Yes, I was obviously an insider, no, voting with shares I bought fair and square is not a scam, and I really don't see where you get off coming here and saying it is.

What proportion of those assets came from outside CPA shareholders who, in turn, had no say in how it was run because the majority of shares were controlled by other companies run by you? I have an odd feeling that if it were possible to trace the tangled web of corporations, it'd turn out that a substantial majority of the actual seed funds came from outsiders. You're basically confirming btharper's claim.

This is an outright lie. Either you are full of shit, or you are incompetent. The bitcoin address was listed in the contract. Anyone can see that BMF did not pay anywhere near 100 BTC to CPA, let alone 550.

It may be an outright lie, but it's exactly what you claimed happened. Let me refresh your memory. This all started when someone looked at the Bitcoin addresses linked in the contract and noticed that (a) the CPA hadn't paid out under the policy despite BMF being eligible for a payout and (b) BMF hadn't kept up their repayments. You claimed that you'd decided to accelerate BMF's payments to the CPA even though BMF was under no obligation to do so, and even though this was obviously detrimental to BMF shareholders, apparently in order to cancel out the insurance payment CPA owed. Strike one. You then further argued that this was no big deal since the insurance contract you'd entered into - on behalf of BMF shareholders with another company you owned - was basically worthless anyway, since the required premiums over the life of the policy exceeded the maximum possible total payout. Strike two. You then went on a deleting spree and removed all of your posts from the forum. Strike three. (Do I have to dig out archived copies of them?)

[Deprived]

Second, CPA started NYAN with 1500 BTC of it's own assets. What fantasy world do you live in where you think CPA won't maintain a controlling interest in the company? What do you think it means when owners retain 51% ownership? Are you familiar with the basic principle of property ownership? Yes, I was obviously an insider, no, voting with shares I bought fair and square is not a scam, and I really don't see where you get off coming here and saying it is.

What proportion of those assets came from outside CPA shareholders who, in turn, had no say in how it was run because the majority of shares were controlled by other companies run by you? I have an odd feeling that if it were possible to trace the tangled web of corporations, it'd turn out that a substantial majority of the actual seed funds came from outsiders. You're basically confirming btharper's claim.

This is an outright lie. Either you are full of shit, or you are incompetent. The bitcoin address was listed in the contract. Anyone can see that BMF did not pay anywhere near 100 BTC to CPA, let alone 550.

It may be an outright lie, but it's exactly what you claimed happened. Let me refresh your memory. This all started when someone looked at the Bitcoin addresses linked in the contract and noticed that (a) the CPA hadn't paid out under the policy despite BMF being eligible for a payout and (b) BMF hadn't kept up their repayments. You claimed that you'd decided to accelerate BMF's payments to the CPA even though BMF was under no obligation to do so, and even though this was obviously detrimental to BMF shareholders, apparently in order to cancel out the insurance payment CPA owed. Strike one. You then further argued that this was no big deal since the insurance contract you'd entered into - on behalf of BMF shareholders with another company you owned - was basically worthless anyway, since the required premiums over the life of the policy exceeded the maximum possible total payout. Strike two. You then went on a deleting spree and removed all of your posts from the forum. Strike three. (Do I have to dig out archived copies of them?)

Let me clear up what happened (was me who made the first big post about this).  Have simplified some details.

1.  BMF signs contract for insurance with CPA.  BMF to pay 5 BTC/week for 2 years in return to receive insurance cover for up to 500 BTC worth of NAV loss (below NAV of 1/share).
2.  BMF pays premiums for 1st month or two.
3.  BMF's NAV falls well below 1.0 - entitleing it to claim under the policy.
4.  BMF doesn't claim.
5.  Usgai refuses to answer questions about it - claiming it's been answered before (when it hadn't).  Usagi further claims that a motion was passwed by shareholders in a vote for the insurance.  That was just an outright lie.
5.  Evenutally usagi claims that it wasn't worht claiming on the insurance - as it would have been paid back in premiums anyway - so both commitments were accelerated (allowed under the contract).
6.  No payment of the difference in the two commitments ever showed up on the listed BTC addresses.

Note that usagi also claimed (contradicting its claim detailed in 5.) that the insurance was just a "test".  Something clearly given the lei to by usagi posting an announcement bragging about the insurance cover.

What usagi singularly fails to grasp is this:

Yes - BMF WAS entitled to agree to its acceleration of obligations to CPA (the premiums) - but acting on behalf of bMF there's NO reason why it was in BMF's interest to do this.  Either:

1.  The insurance policy had NO benefit to BMF (paying over 500 ppremiums for 500 cover that would never be claimed) OR
2.  It had benefit - which usagi then failed to claim on BMF's benefit.

If it DID have benefit then usagi had no right to give up that benefit.  If it did NOT have benefit then usagi had no right to agree to the policy in the first place.  As manager of BMF usagi is supposed to act in the itnerest of BMF's shareholders NOT CPA's shareholders.  If (as seems the case) incapable of distinguising between the two then it's blatant conflict of interest and usagi should have NOT made decisions on behalf of shareholders.

Here's what  really happened.  The insurance deal was probably made in good faith - it gave cash-flow to CPA and gave BMF investors security against another price drop as they'd just recovered from.  CPA wasn't risking much - as they'd make a profit even if they paid out the full amount they were liale for.  BUT then pirate happened - where usagi fucked up royally including insuring against pirate default even when it knew pirate was about to default just to prove it was trustworthy (lol).  CPA ended up broke just when BMF needed to claim.  And usagi pretended it hadn't happened - probably hoping to sort it out later when things got better.  But things didn't get better - as usagi's incompetence contiuned to spew funds away left, right and centre in every business venture it dabbled in.  So usagi then started lieing - claiming it had been explained (it hadn't), claiming it had been voted on by shareholders (it hadn't) etc.

This is also when usagi started defrauding nyan investors (which I never got around to posting about) by making interest free loans to CPA (dressed up as holding YARR shares for the books).  Including "selling" YARR shares to nyan at 1.5 each when pirate was in default with a buyback of 1.0 (and AFTER usagi had given up on the pretence YARR was going to change to OBSI - always a pretence as CPA didn't have the cash to insure them - it was just a bullshit claim made to try to get some people not to cash in their insurance which there wasn't funds for).  Interetsingly, there IS an argument to be made that these interest-free loans WERE in the interest of nyan shareholders - that an interest free loan generates more profit that having the funds be actively managed by usagi.

Question on the BMF insurance is simple:

When the policy was signed, did BMF intend to claim if the conditions to claim were met?
If no - then what possible benefit was BMF getting from the policy?
If yes - then what changed to make it in BMF's interest not to claim?

Expect all manner of bullshit from usagi - but no straight answer to those few very simple questions: as there's no conceivable set of answers which would support the contention that usagi acted (on BMF's behalf) in the best interest of BMF shareholders.  Usagi consistently treated its various companies as though they were all one entity - rather than acting for each in its own interest.  Unfortunately usagi's grasp of English doesn't extend to "conflict of interest" so it hasn't yet worked out that BMF's interests may not always have been aligned with CPA's (in fact, it would have been in BMF's best interests for CPA to go broke after paying out most of the insurance cover - as then they'd not have to pay the remaining premiums).

And on ths dumb point about "all mining bonds lost 60% and I only lost 50% so I'm a good investment manager". No.  Just No.  A good investment manager wouldn't invest in something that was going to lose 50% just to "outperform" even worse managers who lost 60%.  They'd research the area first - realise it was bad to invest in - and not touch it.  That simple.  A good manager certainly wouldn't repeat their losses again (nyan.b/c) just to prove they were up there with the best at losing money.  And you compare investment companies to other investment companies - not to mining companies.

[usagi]

Second, CPA started NYAN with 1500 BTC of it's own assets. What fantasy world do you live in where you think CPA won't maintain a controlling interest in the company? What do you think it means when owners retain 51% ownership? Are you familiar with the basic principle of property ownership? Yes, I was obviously an insider, no, voting with shares I bought fair and square is not a scam, and I really don't see where you get off coming here and saying it is.

What proportion of those assets came from outside CPA shareholders who, in turn, had no say in how it was run because the majority of shares were controlled by other companies run by you? I have an odd feeling that if it were possible to trace the tangled web of corporations, it'd turn out that a substantial majority of the actual seed funds came from outsiders. You're basically confirming btharper's claim.

This is an outright lie. Either you are full of shit, or you are incompetent. The bitcoin address was listed in the contract. Anyone can see that BMF did not pay anywhere near 100 BTC to CPA, let alone 550.

It may be an outright lie, but it's exactly what you claimed happened. Let me refresh your memory. This all started when someone looked at the Bitcoin addresses linked in the contract and noticed that (a) the CPA hadn't paid out under the policy despite BMF being eligible for a payout and (b) BMF hadn't kept up their repayments. You claimed that you'd decided to accelerate BMF's payments to the CPA even though BMF was under no obligation to do so, and even though this was obviously detrimental to BMF shareholders, apparently in order to cancel out the insurance payment CPA owed. Strike one. You then further argued that this was no big deal since the insurance contract you'd entered into - on behalf of BMF shareholders with another company you owned - was basically worthless anyway, since the required premiums over the life of the policy exceeded the maximum possible total payout. Strike two. You then went on a deleting spree and removed all of your posts from the forum. Strike three. (Do I have to dig out archived copies of them?)

No. I did not say that. I said obligation. Not payments.

And yes, you should dig out archived copies before making outrageous statements like this. Check the address for payments before arguing this, please -- it's published.

[usagi]

1.  The insurance policy had NO benefit to BMF (paying over 500 ppremiums for 500 cover that would never be claimed) OR
2.  It had benefit - which usagi then failed to claim on BMF's benefit.

This is why no one should listen to you. 500 coins were not paid. For the billionth time, check the address on the contract before you make an ass of yourself again... please.

You are SUCH a fool. You have been making basic, fundamental mistakes in judgement like this over and over and over again. Unfortunately people like Maged started to listen to your shit and I lost actual money because of irresponsible comments that he made. You bet your pants there has been a demonstrated financial loss here.

Here's what  really happened.

The insurance deal was probably made in good faith - it gave cash-flow to CPA and gave BMF investors security against another price drop as they'd just recovered from.

If the insurance was made in good faith then I am not a scammer. You cannot however now speculate that I have done something wrong and deserve a scammer tag anyway.

CPA wasn't risking much - as they'd make a profit even if they paid out the full amount they were liale for.  BUT then pirate happened - where usagi fucked up royally including insuring against pirate default even when it knew pirate was about to default just to prove it was trustworthy (lol).  CPA ended up broke just when BMF needed to claim.  And usagi pretended it hadn't happened - probably hoping to sort it out later when things got better.  But things didn't get better - as usagi's incompetence contiuned to spew funds away left, right and centre in every business venture it dabbled in.  So usagi then started lieing - claiming it had been explained (it hadn't), claiming it had been voted on by shareholders (it hadn't) etc.

It certainly had been explained. This has been discussed before. I've mentioned many times how I advertised the contract. You cannot state that I did not do this and then state on top of that the reason I did so (I didn't) was to scam people, because that would be a lie.

This is also when usagi started defrauding nyan investors (which I never got around to posting about) by making interest free loans to CPA (dressed up as holding YARR shares for the books).  Including "selling" YARR shares to nyan at 1.5 each when pirate was in default with a buyback of 1.0 (and AFTER usagi had given up on the pretence YARR was going to change to OBSI - always a pretence as CPA didn't have the cash to insure them - it was just a bullshit claim made to try to get some people not to cash in their insurance which there wasn't funds for).  Interetsingly, there IS an argument to be made that these interest-free loans WERE in the interest of nyan shareholders - that an interest free loan generates more profit that having the funds be actively managed by usagi.

Again -- total unmitigated bullshit. YARR was bought back except for around 80 shares. That's right, almost all of the 2,500 was bought back. I lost personal money paying people back so fuck you.

Question on the BMF insurance is simple:

When the policy was signed, did BMF intend to claim if the conditions to claim were met?
If no - then what possible benefit was BMF getting from the policy?
If yes - then what changed to make it in BMF's interest not to claim?

As explained a dozen times to you it was a test contract which I wrote to see how such insurance would work. I didn't have to publish the contract or tell anyone anything. I accelerated the obligation and closed the contract when we started signing this kind of contract with other people including bitcoinmininginv, bakewell, luceo's vps, etc. Get it? It was a prototype. You have been told this several times.

You have made several fundamental errors in logic and judgement in your post but this is the most glaring:

There is no victim.

Where are the victims? Who did I defraud? NO ONE. So FUCK OFF, I'm not a scammer, game over, get it? Writing this contract helped me sign other contracts and gain business for CPA. We did good. People saw how it worked and wanted to get a similar contract for their own business. We helped people. Only a sick twisted slimy fuck like you would try and twist this into something negative.

And on ths dumb point about "all mining bonds lost 60% and I only lost 50% so I'm a good investment manager". No.  Just No.  A good investment manager wouldn't invest in something that was going to lose 50% just to "outperform" even worse managers who lost 60%.  They'd research the area first - realise it was bad to invest in - and not touch it.  That simple.  A good manager certainly wouldn't repeat their losses again (nyan.b/c) just to prove they were up there with the best at losing money.  And you compare investment companies to other investment companies - not to mining companies.

Asshole. Go bother gigavps, meni rosenfeld, garr255, jwu, etc. No on second thought go fuck yourself.

[usagi]

Further to all of this let's look at a few lists shall we?

Asset Issuers/Managers who bought bitcoins to pay investors back:
- Usagi (bought ~100 bitcoins in september to pay CPA loan holders back)

Asset Issuers/Managers who are selling personal possessions to pay investors back:
- Usagi (is selling an expensive guitar and amp and boutique pedal and has pledged the money to CPA loan holders and other former shareholders)

Anything I forgot?

Oh yeah:

Asset Issuers/Managers who rebounded with different products and services and offered first profits to help pay people back:
-Usagi (is on record stating that profits from book sales and kongzi.ca will be used to pay back loan holders and bold holders).

Did I forget anyone? Please, chime in, let's see what kind of evil scammer usagi is.

[Deprived]

1.  The insurance policy had NO benefit to BMF (paying over 500 ppremiums for 500 cover that would never be claimed) OR
2.  It had benefit - which usagi then failed to claim on BMF's benefit.

This is why no one should listen to you. 500 coins were not paid. For the billionth time, check the address on the contract before you make an ass of yourself again... please.

I didn't (and never have) claimed BMF actually paid 500 coins.  BMF agreed a contract committing them to paying over 500 coins in return for 500 BTC of insurance cover.

In fact BMF only paid (from memory) 20-30 BTC in premiums.

WHo did you scam?  BMF!

You've never explained why, if (as you now claim) the contract was just a "test" you:

A)  Actually charged BMF some premiums (which were NOT returned on the designated address),
B)  Announced to BMF shareholders that they were insured.

Testing what precisely?  How to default on contracts?

You cheated BMF investors - pure and simple.  If it was just a test (of what - what purpose did announcing insurance cover actually serve in terms of "testing" anything?) then BMF shareholders should have been told it wasn't real - and not charged ANY premiums.

Your explanation is total crap - if anyone is unclear why, just look back at my earlier posts where I quoted all relevant information.  The "it's only a pretend contract" bullshit only emerged months after the event when you no longer get away with just totally ignoring all questions about it.

[btharper]

Since a few other posts are beginning to get into longer chains of quotes, and one quote authored by usagi being attributed to me I'm just going to respond to this directly, however I agree with most of the other replies to usagi's post quoted below.

As far as scam accusations I'd like to add the following
6) Voting as a shareholder with interconnected stocks and personal shares.
-"Shareholder Majority" was replaced by the number of shares Usagi wanted to vote with. I believe one poll was even voted on by more shares than were outstanding before or after the vote (made active by transferring to Usagi and then back, or voting with non-voting shares).
-This voting also happened on non-action polls like "Is Usagi doing a good job?" for all the obvious reasons.
-Actual shareholders are the victims in this case held hostage to usagi's whims

Actual shareholders? First of all, if I invest $10k into my own company I sure as hell deserve the right to vote. Second, CPA started NYAN with 1500 BTC of it's own assets. What fantasy world do you live in where you think CPA won't maintain a controlling interest in the company? What do you think it means when owners retain 51% ownership? Are you familiar with the basic principle of property ownership? Yes, I was obviously an insider, no, voting with shares I bought fair and square is not a scam, and I really don't see where you get off coming here and saying it is.

This probably should have been under conflict of interest with the later items. However, voting:
1) On non-action motions (ie "Is Usagi doing a good job?")
2) Where you're voting to represent shareholders of another holding (ie CPA voting on a NYAN motion without calling a CPA motion)
3) With unissued shares (ie shares not available for purchase by the general public held in the account segregated for such a purpose)
Is neither ethical nor a legitimate vote, in some cases such behavior would also constitute fraud. At it's height I believe NYAN.* had well over $10k USD (I assume USD because you've not specified otherwise and it's much more than $10k Yen), notwithstanding that $10k spread between NYAN.*, NYAN balancer (comprised of mixed NYAN.* holdings), BMF, and CPA is a fairly small stake at the end of the day and would not allow you to retain control of a 51% majority across all of your companies.

As an aside to troll you (from her to the next quote), how's it feel knowing that you can't even blame an incompetent, asshat fund manager for losing your $10k investment? You've only got yourself for that.

7) Usagi first promised then rescinded on Bakewell insurance saying that it would be refunded at first if Ian wanted, then if the shareholders voted for it. After the shareholders voted in favor of reversing the insurance, then only if a dividend of the same amount was paid, then finally relented to if Ian promised to pay out a dividend of equal amount after
-Ian's link to here for the relevant start
-Ian's later post in the same thread here with his added emphasis on PMs between usagi and himself where usagi agreed to refund pending a motion.
-Bakewell shareholders and Ian are the victims in this case, Bakewell was held hostage to usagi denying repayment, Ian while usagi tried to drag his name through the mud for trying to end his affiliation with the "upstanding" usagi and illiquid CPA

This is total bullshit. Ian LIED to me about his financial position with BAKEWELL to try and get out of paying his premiums. Do you get this basic fact? This is DOCUMENTED what he did. The truth that came out by his own words later was he just wanted to break the contract because of what Maged said. All I did was follow the contract, and force Ian to return the bitcoins to his shareholders. This proves 3 things: 1. Ian committed fraud, he defrauded CPA and issued malicious criminal libel against me claiming I tried to clawback funds when I had repeatedly said I was sticking to the contract. 2. Maged is irresponsible, and has demonstrated that his comments caused financial damage to CPA as a direct result. 3. I stuck to my contract and am not a scammer. The bitcoins were returned to shareholders as per the contract. Puffn and some others in the thread agreed that this was a reading of the contract.

Actually to this I will add 4. Ian did not file any grievance with judge.me as per the contract; by trying to resolve a dispute by coming here to the forum he violated his contract a second time.

Ian asked to end all obligation to CPA and end the insurance contract. He had enough in store to I believe fulfill the full term of the CPA contract however wanted out because of the clusterfuck around CPA's liquidity after pirate fell out and a large number of contracts were collected against as a result. In Ian's own words the situation was clouding but Maged's comment simply acted to erase the last shred of confidence Ian had. Even if Bakewell did not have on funds to complete the full length of the contract the askwall maintained on GLBSE during the IPO that became unfortunately drawn out was well in excess of the required premiums, so some fabricated story about Bakewell's lack of funds is complete bullshit and exactly the kind of misleading statements (if not outright lies) that Maged was referring to. Additionally Ian attempted to work inside the terms of the contract to accelerate the normal return of funds per the contract, the same method that helped keep BMF from ever seeing a bitcent claimed against the insurance they were forced to buy.

To reply specifically to your points:
1a) Even if he was in default of his contract I fail to see how that constitutes fraud.
1b) He attempted to act on behalf of his investors (excluding yourself) who voted to terminate the contract with CPA, you changed the terms repeatedly on him attempting to avoid following through on your commitments made to Ian
2) Maged's comments surely let a few more people see what kind of crap you were pulling, hats off to him. My condolences to the people who lost money investing with you between your initial unscrupulous actions and his comment observing them.
3) There were several different interpretations of your poorly written contract, I believe the consensus was that the coins should have been returned to Ian and allowed be retained in the company for investment instead of being sent to investors against their will.
 

BMF's CPA insurance plan, usagi failed to properly resolve a conflict of interest
-BMF paid 550 BTC for an insurance policy with CPA to insure against loss of NAV

This is an outright lie. Either you are full of shit, or you are incompetent. The bitcoin address was listed in the contract. Anyone can see that BMF did not pay anywhere near 100 BTC to CPA, let alone 550.

Anyone can see the contract where it states that either party may accelerate it's obligation. This is what happened. Game over, contract closed. I explained many many times what this contract was for. I announced this contract in a post on the securities forum. I mentioned this contract in letters to shareholders. I published it on the web. No one complained until six weeks later when puppet, deprived and eskimobob started trolling me at Mircea's bequest.

Unfortunately I am not able to see your deleted posts or the contracts inside them. My understanding is as follows:
-The contract was signed by the head of BMF and the head of CPA, as usagi was both this made negotiates extremely simple.
-Total premiums were 550 BTC, total coverage was 500 BTC in 100 BTC increments
-The contract was presented to investors as security that should BMF lose value (in the form of NAV) CPA would pay, thus insuring the value of BMF
-Due to poor market conditions and poor management BMF lost value after paying some premiums (I am not able to find the address currently, usagi says this was less than 100 BTC)
*** Here's where the conflict of interest and your failure to handle it correctly comes in, watch closely
-BMF chooses to "accelerate" their payment of premiums with the money that should have been used to insure NAV of BMF
*** A good chance to check how you should handle such a conflict of interest is "Would this be the choice of an operator who wasn't also in charge of the company providing insurance?" I certainly wouldn't, and I can't think of any reasons to.
-CPA pays out nothing since total premiums were in excess of coverage
-BMF still owes 50 BTC in premiums above what would be covered by insurance
-BMF investors were forced into a lose-lose situation without a motion and told they were protected
-If this were simply an experiment I see no reason for the net value of the contract to favor CPA, and I imagine that if it didn't matter CPA should refund the premiums paid since it was just for fun, or it should act the way it was advertised to shareholders as a way to protect the value of their investment and act in there favor instead of against it.

If you believe I'm still lying please let me know where the lie is, if you believe my semantics are incorrect I can restate as needed.
-BMF's total obligation to CPA was 550 BTC, the majority of which was paid through the address that I don't know and can't find usagi's post to or "accelerated" to CPA in order to avoid burdening CPA with their liabilities.
-usagi failed to properly resolve the conflict of interest.

-BMF lost NAV (as with most of his funds and attributed to poor abilities as an investor)

This is both a lie and misrepresentation of what happened. it is OBVIOUS why BMF lost money. We were entirely invested into mining. it is an UNDENIABLE FACT that while companies like GIGAMINING lost 66%, BMF only lost 50%. This outperformance was due to my skills as a manager. Sorry we lost money. We were a mining fund. Get over it.

Why would a good manager not claim coverage that was due? Why would a good manager lose 50 BTC across the lifetime obligation of a contract for no reason? How could such a risky venture like BMF get insurance if they were guaranteed to lose money?

The only thing I can see being misrepresented is that BMF was insured. Further the fact that BMF lost NAV is fine, shit happens, that's why they bought insurance (or maybe not I guess, it was just an experiment for fun), except when advertising to investors. (Man, how do you keep all this shit straight usagi?)

Also are these comparisons made on BTC value or USD value and across what timeframe? I don't want to let silly things like facts get in your way but I remember a lot of your valuations (that I can't see anymore) changing both of these in your rose-tinted view.

-usagi chose to "accelerate payment" on BMF's end to the amount that would have been collected from CPA
-BMF was still on the hook for the additional 50 BTC above coverage paid to CPA

This makes no sense considering your above claim that BMF paid 550 bitcoins to CPA.

My apologies for messing up the semantics again. As I've already mentioned BMF was obligated to pay 550 BTC over the life of the contract for 500 BTC in coverage, leaving a difference of 50 BTC. When BMF was able to claim coverage it was avoided by "accelerating" payment of premiums but even once all the premiums owed were paid BMF was still liable for 50 BTC in premiums beyond the coverage they could claim.

-So either
*usagi acted against BMF's interest and bought overpriced insurance from CPA without a shareholder vote
*usagi acted against BMF's interest by accelerating payment unnecessarily
-BMF shareholders were the victim to usagi doing whatever he wanted and then voting with his own shares as in example 6

Or.. you're full of shit?

Can we please end this trainwreck of a troll? I am not a scammer. The end. Get it?

-Did you or did you not act as BMF's representative in forming a contract with yourself acting as CPA's representative?
-Did you or did you not fail to act in such a way to best benefit investors of BMF in favor of CPA in a way that a third party would not have in resolving your conflict of interest as the head of both BMF and CPA?

-Will you or will you not provide substance to your rebuttals instead of just yelling that I'm a blasphemer insulting your indulgent godhood?

Or we can play it your way. usagi's an incompetent sack of shit that can't run a single company anywhere except straight into the ground. The end. Get it? (That also means you're not allowed to argue, just in case it's not obvious. I said "The end" what more proof do I need (I EVEN called you names and slept with your mother))

When I thought it was done:

Further to all of this let's look at a few lists shall we?

Asset Issuers/Managers who bought bitcoins to pay investors back:
- Usagi (bought ~100 bitcoins in september to pay CPA loan holders back)

Asset Issuers/Managers who are selling personal possessions to pay investors back:
- Usagi (is selling an expensive guitar and amp and boutique pedal and has pledged the money to CPA loan holders and other former shareholders)

Anything I forgot?

Oh yeah:

Asset Issuers/Managers who rebounded with different products and services and offered first profits to help pay people back:
-Usagi (is on record stating that profits from book sales and kongzi.ca will be used to pay back loan holders and bold holders).

Did I forget anyone? Please, chime in, let's see what kind of evil scammer usagi is.

Great, another self-centered piece of self-glorification. These new business ventures are what's calling you into question. Your first businesses were a trainwreck in the best light. Frankly I can't see any of your old posts about how you sacrificed everything for your fellow comrades who fell at bad luck due to some incompetent oaf because you've deleted them. If you've had to sacrifice to cover your losses I feel for you but that's the way you chose to play the game. (And for the record I believe Goat also had to let go of a few of his personal effects to make ends meet during some of the rougher times after the pirate fiasco).

[usagi]

WHo did you scam?  BMF!

No, you're full of shit. BMF had ~2500 outstanding shares.

I personally owned 550 shares.

CPA owned around 600 or 700 as well and I owned over 10,000 shares of CPA. (The shares of BMF and CPA were bought out of personal money and did not include 250 non-saleable management shares of BMF and ~2,500 of CPA).

NYAN.A had around the same, maybe 900 shares. of BMF.

I owned or controlled at least a 90% majority of BMF.

I did not need a shareholder vote to do anything. Sorry to burst your bubble but your claim is stupid because I personally owned more than 40% of BMF. Who was I scamming? Myself? Doesn't make sense.

Mining bonds crashed, then GLBSE shut down. None of that was my fault. Everyone knew BMF was a mining fund. Nothing you ever say or do will ever make what happened my fault.

Furthermore it is well known I donated 100 of my own personal shares back to BMF to try and control the mining crash. So yeah, not a scammer. More like a hero.

As for what btharper said... clear and concise please. You failed to read my response. If you "fail to understand" something, it is not my problem.

[usagi]

As an aside to troll you (from her to the next quote), how's it feel knowing that you can't even blame an incompetent, asshat fund manager for losing your $10k investment? You've only got yourself for that.

Nothing you ever say or do will ever make the mining bond crash my fault. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you failed to read and/or understand my last response to you.

Ian asked to end all obligation to CPA and end the insurance contract. He had enough in store to I believe fulfill the full term of the CPA contract however wanted out because of the clusterfuck around CPA's liquidity after pirate fell out and a large number of contracts were collected against as a result.

clusterfuck = puppet, deprived, eskimobob, etc. trolling. Not my problem. Ian lied. He actually committed fraud and issued malicious criminal libel on these forums. Again, not my problem.

In Ian's own words the situation was clouding but Maged's comment simply acted to erase the last shred of confidence Ian had.

Not my problem. Ian broke a contract and issued a series of lies. To this day he follows me around and +1's anything a troll has to say against me. Ian should get a scammer tag for what he did.

Unfortunately I am not able to see your deleted posts or the contracts inside them.

Eskimobob and others posted full copies. Go look it up. If you do not have actual evidence to support what you are saying, do not make accusations you cannot support.

Baseless claims, unfounded accusations -- these will never net a scammer tag and are nothing but poor trolls.

Please think. isn't it true you have no actual evidence I am a scammer other than the word of a couple of liars like puppet and eskimobob?

If you believe I'm still lying please let me know where the lie is, if you believe my semantics are incorrect I can restate as needed.

Well I guess you're not lying per se -- but when you use language like "my understanding is..." after you admit you don't actually have any documents to support what you are saying, you don't really have any credibility. Please stop issuing second hand rumor as if it was a fact when you cannot support what you are saying.

Great, another self-centered piece of self-glorification. These new business ventures are what's calling you into question. Your first businesses were a trainwreck in the best light. Frankly I can't see any of your old posts about how you sacrificed everything for your fellow comrades who fell at bad luck due to some incompetent oaf because you've deleted them. If you've had to sacrifice to cover your losses I feel for you but that's the way you chose to play the game. (And for the record I believe Goat also had to let go of a few of his personal effects to make ends meet during some of the rougher times after the pirate fiasco).

"Great, another person hopping on the bandwagon and issuing lies and slander". Maybe a few facts will help set the record straight hmm?

And you are right that is the way I choose to play the game. Officers of a company are never personally liable for business losses. That is not how corporate law works. Just because this is bitcoin does not suddenly mean I am personally liable. I am however selling personal effects such as a $1500 guitar and $1600 amp because some of the contracts I wrote were off-GLBSE and I have a record of it and I believe those people deserve to be paid back.

But scammer? Hot shit people. Look around. This has been going on for 4-5 months not. Not a scammer... sorry!

[Deprived]

WHo did you scam?  BMF!

No, you're full of shit. BMF had ~2500 outstanding shares.

I personally owned 550 shares.

CPA owned around 600 or 700 as well and I owned over 10,000 shares of CPA. (The shares of BMF and CPA were bought out of personal money and did not include 250 non-saleable management shares of BMF and ~2,500 of CPA).

NYAN.A had around the same, maybe 900 shares. of BMF.

I owned or controlled at least a 90% majority of BMF.

I did not need a shareholder vote to do anything. Sorry to burst your bubble but your claim is stupid because I personally owned more than 40% of BMF. Who was I scamming? Myself? Doesn't make sense.

Mining bonds crashed, then GLBSE shut down. None of that was my fault. Everyone knew BMF was a mining fund. Nothing you ever say or do will ever make what happened my fault.

Furthermore it is well known I donated 100 of my own personal shares back to BMF to try and control the mining crash. So yeah, not a scammer. More like a hero.

As for what btharper said... clear and concise please. You failed to read my response. If you "fail to understand" something, it is not my problem.

WHo were you scamming?  The other 10% of investors who you didn't control.  90% != 100%.

If you actually believe what you've posted there, then it shows just how totally ufnit you are to ever be trusted to manage other people#s money.

Having control of 90% does NOT give you carte blanche to do what you like with funds.  Consider the following 3 scenarios:

1.  You give away a chunk of the company's assets to yourself.
2.  You give away a chunk of the company's assets to a different company managed by yourself.
3. You sign a contract with another company managed by yourself whereby they're given a chunk of assets in return for a consideration.  You never request the consideration from you other company.

Now it IS just about possible you'll claim to believe even scenario 1 is fine - I'm reluctant to set ANY limits on the extent of your ignorance and/or willingness to lie as you've proven amply qualified in both areas.  That's to say you may actually believe that you can just help yourself to assets of a company you manage because "I have 90% of the shares".

But if you DON'T believe you can do scenario 1 - then you need to look more carefully at scenarios 2 and 3 as they have an IDENTICAL impact on the shareholders of your company.  And all three scenarios would have a high chance of landing you in prison in most western countries (can't speak for whether it's fine to just help yourself to things "because 90%" in China).  Scenario 3 is what you did.

As for "it's not my fault I lost a ton of money investing in mining bonds".  Uh - yes it is.  You bought tons of mining bonds that could NEVER be profitable at the prices you paid (just look at how many years they'd take to repay investment if difficulty didn't rise - then look at a graph of past difficulty and wonder how you could be so dumb).  Maybe you bought them on the "Bigger fool" theory - in which case you found out there actually wasn't one - but I'd guess you just didn't ever do any proper analysis.  If you HAD done proper analysis then would have posted it to explain why it wasn't your fault - but if that were the case (and they were worth what you paid) then you wouldn't have sold them for a loss, you'd have been buying more.  So clearly you accepted your initial valuation was wrong - or you'd still hold the bonds.

Here's probably when you trot out the old chestnut about "but BTC rose vs USD" - as though basing an entire investment plan on gambling that BTC wouldn't rise is somehow good management.  Not to mention that the impact of that is pretty much marginal long-term on fixed-rate bonds anyway (hint: you don't get less BTC per block just because of exchange-rate changes).

You're one of those unfortunate people we have the misfortune to encounter in life sometimes.  Everything they touch gos to shit - yet they can never quite grasp that it may actually be their fault: it's always caused by things out of their control.  Were that your only problem I'd just feel sorry for you.  But you also lie through your teeth, attempt to bully people out of pointing out your lies and (as evidence in my quoted post) apparently believe that you actually have the RIGHT to steal from people in certain cases ("I have 90% of shares so am entitled to steal from those with the other 10%").  So you're actually pretty despicable - not just just pathetic.

[btharper]

At this point usagi is attacking me instead of what I'm posting, and in fact skipping over entire chunks of my posts just to pull out parts where I come right out and say I'm trolling him. As well I apparently have become illiterate to his form of English.

As for clear and concise, I've tried to lay everything out in bullet points; while the post is long, there's a lot in it. You've gone at me for semantics so I tried to be very clear in what I said, then you say I'm being too wordy, the whole time ignoring what I've said. If you care to respond to it please do not cherry pick the least important parts, ignoring both the bulk and significant comments and actually respond to the 3 (yes, only three!) issues presented.

If anything it's just time to make a new thread as this one is long, more than slightly off track in a few places, and has already been evaluated once by the mods.

[usagi]

At this point usagi is attacking me instead of what I'm posting, and in fact skipping over entire chunks of my posts just to pull out parts where I come right out and say I'm trolling him. As well I apparently have become illiterate to his form of English.

As for clear and concise, I've tried to lay everything out in bullet points; while the post is long, there's a lot in it. You've gone at me for semantics so I tried to be very clear in what I said, then you say I'm being too wordy, the whole time ignoring what I've said. If you care to respond to it please do not cherry pick the least important parts, ignoring both the bulk and significant comments and actually respond to the 3 (yes, only three!) issues presented.

If anything it's just time to make a new thread as this one is long, more than slightly off track in a few places, and has already been evaluated once by the mods.

The problem is not that I am attacking you, it's that I am attacking you for being wrong. And you are wrong. You say yourself that you don't have any supporting documents and that you are working from an understanding of what other people have said ("my understanding ...."). This invalidates everything you say factually, although you're still welcome to your opinion.

Having control of 90% does NOT give you carte blanche to do what you like with funds.  Consider the following 3 scenarios:

Deprived is often wrong too. He is not wrong when he says the above; but the insinuation I did what I want "carte blanche" is wrong. The point I was making by pointing out my controlling interest was twofold; one, the claims that I was invalidating swindling people or ripping people off; it makes no sense to pay $9 to swindle $1; (or more accurately since mining crashed, to swindle $0.50 by paying $4.50). Two, I was pointing out that I did not need a shareholder motion as you pointed out.

There was a very well advertised board for CPA as well, and for a long time. ~2 months after formation Nefario E-mailed me confirmation that all the board members still had their shares. That means even at the very end I could account for something like 60-70% of CPA shares too. And all of those shares usually voted as a bloc as well as my own shares.

This is how companies work. If someone controlls 85% of a company, they can pass any kind of motion they want. This is not a crime or a swindle. It's just a fact. Now, if (big if) I launched a shareholder motion, which caused a demonstrable financial loss for personal gain, then and only then would I be guilty of fraud, and ONLY because I had a duty to protect shareholder interests. The difference between that and what you are claiming though, is that by committing fraud in the manner you describe I would have destroyed my own financial holding in the company. This does not make sense.

There is no motive.

There was no gain.

There was no lie.

You keep repeating the same accusations over and over. Unfortunately repetition is not going to work here. Although I am not a mod I suggest, that if you really believe I am a scammer, you clearly and concisely show something along these lines:

1. Come up with a group of people (a class of people) who is clearly defined and identifiable whom I stole, swindled, or defrauded money from. At least one of these people and likely two or more must be able to prove that they were deliberately lied to. This will be very difficult considering the clearly advertised risk in the contracts (see #3).

2. You have to show there was an intent to decieve; particularly, in the case of fraud, that there was an intent to decieve for financial gain. You will never ever be able to prove this, because I have already proven it is false. Who would sell $9 to swindle $1? Doesn't make sense.

3. You have to show there was a way out and/or the result was a consequence of my foreknowledge if you want to blame me for the choices I made. In particular; BMF advertised itself as a niche product which was 100% invested into GLBSE mining bonds. It was unique among assets at the time. It is quite clear people were attracted to this. After the fact you cannot state I had foreknowledge. You cannot claim I could predict the future and I chose to use this knowledge to cause people to lose money. Where's the motive?

This isn't a case like Goldman Sachs fraud where they called people on the phone and said "buy this lemon" and the lemon didn't actually exist, or was known by Goldman Sachs to be rotten. That was actual fraud. People were lied to, Goldman Sachs took their money, and ran with it. I on the other hand provided an investment vehicle with clearly defined risks and rewards, and the trading process was automated. When I advertised my products I advertised what they were and their performance over x weeks or months.

I did not commit fraud, and I did not lie to people about what I was doing. Even the "creative accounting" statement is a joke. For example back when I did the interview with Garr of COGNITIVE, it was about 0.35 bitcoins. I said it was going to 0.55 or 0.6 and it did. I kept COGNITIVE around 0.5 or 0.55 bitcoins even after the mining crash because I correctly identified that people were selling out and that it was not an actual drop in value. I even bought more shares of certain companies like GIGAMINING because I correctly guessed that they represented a greater value than they were going for. Why buy a $599 single when you can buy 60 bitcoins and then buy the equivalent of two singles from a mining bond company? --> So BMF was getting a really good deal. This is undeniable.

It is not my fault GLBSE shut down. I am not Nefario, sorry.

I am not responsible for the mining crash nor leading people into a faulty investment vehicle. NO ONE could have predicted the sudden-ness, the swiftness, etc. of the mining crash. Similar with CPA and NYAN. The risks were clearly advertised in the contracts. I am absolutely and unequivocably not responsible for risks an investor chose to take on.

look, you and the other 4-5 trolls have tried and failed for months to show any nefarious intent. Howsabout you stop now, and let this board be used to find some real frauds and scammers? Look around there's plenty without you having to gum it up.

In short....

Title of thread: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and  misleading investors.
Accusations:
1. falsifying NAVs (Shown to be false -- data was pulled directly from the GLBSE in our spreadsheets)
2. manipulating share prices (meaningless, we bought and sold on GLBSE, shown to be false with #1)
3. and  misleading investors (shown to be false, no motive, etc.)

CASE CLOSED.

if you believe I am a scammer at least come up with a new accusation and post it in a new scammer accusation thread.

[kjj]

Title of thread: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and  misleading investors.
Accusations:
1. falsifying NAVs (Shown to be false -- data was pulled directly from the GLBSE in our spreadsheets)

LOL.

Your other two claims are pretty dubious too, but this one had my rolling in the aisle.  Your valuations were related to the GLBSE data in that they were both numbers, but that's pretty much where the similarities ended.

[usagi]

Title of thread: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and  misleading investors.
Accusations:
1. falsifying NAVs (Shown to be false -- data was pulled directly from the GLBSE in our spreadsheets)

LOL.

Your other two claims are pretty dubious too, but this one had my rolling in the aisle.  Your valuations were related to the GLBSE data in that they were both numbers, but that's pretty much where the similarities ended.

Trolls have spent months trying to defame, demean and demonize almost everything I do here. For example I just recently announced that I am working on flashcard software to help people learn languages -- software very similar to anki, stackz, and iKnow. I was immediately attacked over having poor Japanese regardless of the fact that nobody could criticize the actual Japanese samples I published, AND that my knowledge of japanese is not relevant to how well I can code a general purpose flashcard language learning program. This is what I have to put up with on here.

If I was going to get a scammer tag because you don't understand how to value stocks it would have happened six months ago.

Here, let me reccomend a book: The Intelligent Investor, by Benjamin Graham. Here's another, One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch. Oh and another, common stocks and uncommon profits. Hey here's another, Rich Dad poor Dad, by Kiyosaki. Let's not forget that rare gem Margin of Safety by seth klarman.

What do all these books have in common besides the obvious? For one I've read them, often twice or more; they're all sitting on my bookshelf right now.

May I suggest you read a few books on securities analysis before you start flapping your lips about it? Valuing a company, specifically the term NAV, has ZERO to do with the stock price at the moment. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. This is why you and other's accusations sound so STUPID, and yet so PLAUSABLE to the uneducated. NAV, net asset value, is something more akin to BOOK VALUE. Especially in the case of a MINING COMPANY where the entire basket of assets is MINING HARDWARE with a KNOWN PRICE.

So you can just fuck off right there. You are DEAD WRONG about how I valued stocks. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER get a scammer tag for how I valued stocks.

GO AWAY.

[btharper]

I just recently announced that I am working on flashcard software to help people learn languages -- software very similar to anki, stackz, and iKnow. I was immediately attacked over having poor Japanese regardless of the fact that nobody could criticize the actual Japanese samples I published, AND that my knowledge of japanese is not relevant to how well I can code a general purpose flashcard language learning program. This is what I have to put up with on here.

This is definitely a real problem you're facing, but to a point it's the burden for what has happened in the past. The same reason I imagine that you deleted over a thousand posts. So long as you stay in the same user account your history, and worse your trolls, will follow you.

If I was going to get a scammer tag because you don't understand how to value stocks it would have happened six months ago.

This isn't nearly as relevant now, other things have been presented, the thread title just hasn't been changed.

May I suggest you read a few books on securities analysis before you start flapping your lips about it? Valuing a company, specifically the term NAV, has ZERO to do with the stock price at the moment. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. This is why you and other's accusations sound so STUPID, and yet so PLAUSABLE to the uneducated. NAV, net asset value, is something more akin to BOOK VALUE. Especially in the case of a MINING COMPANY where the entire basket of assets is MINING HARDWARE with a KNOWN PRICE.

So you can just fuck off right there. You are DEAD WRONG about how I valued stocks. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER get a scammer tag for how I valued stocks.

GO AWAY.

The stock was being represented as worth the NAV as presented in your spreadsheets. If an inflated number was used it would make the investment appear to be worth more. The accusation was that the values were intentionally overvalued to inflate the apparent worth of the security; which would be defrauding investors.

[kjj]

Title of thread: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and  misleading investors.
Accusations:
1. falsifying NAVs (Shown to be false -- data was pulled directly from the GLBSE in our spreadsheets)

LOL.

Your other two claims are pretty dubious too, but this one had my rolling in the aisle.  Your valuations were related to the GLBSE data in that they were both numbers, but that's pretty much where the similarities ended.

Trolls have spent months trying to defame, demean and demonize almost everything I do here. For example I just recently announced that I am working on flashcard software to help people learn languages -- software very similar to anki, stackz, and iKnow. I was immediately attacked over having poor Japanese regardless of the fact that nobody could criticize the actual Japanese samples I published, AND that my knowledge of japanese is not relevant to how well I can code a general purpose flashcard language learning program. This is what I have to put up with on here.

If I was going to get a scammer tag because you don't understand how to value stocks it would have happened six months ago.

Here, let me reccomend a book: The Intelligent Investor, by Benjamin Graham. Here's another, One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch. Oh and another, common stocks and uncommon profits. Hey here's another, Rich Dad poor Dad, by Kiyosaki. Let's not forget that rare gem Margin of Safety by seth klarman.

What do all these books have in common besides the obvious? For one I've read them, often twice or more; they're all sitting on my bookshelf right now.

May I suggest you read a few books on securities analysis before you start flapping your lips about it? Valuing a company, specifically the term NAV, has ZERO to do with the stock price at the moment. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. This is why you and other's accusations sound so STUPID, and yet so PLAUSABLE to the uneducated. NAV, net asset value, is something more akin to BOOK VALUE. Especially in the case of a MINING COMPANY where the entire basket of assets is MINING HARDWARE with a KNOWN PRICE.

So you can just fuck off right there. You are DEAD WRONG about how I valued stocks. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER get a scammer tag for how I valued stocks.

GO AWAY.

Congratulations on your pop-finance book collection.  Personally, I prefer textbooks over pulp.  For pricing, I tend to prefer Hull's Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives.  Despite the silly name, it actually covers bond (and other asset) valuation pretty well.  Spoiler alert: every method known to man, other than mark-to-market, is based on statistical models that assume that the next X years will be similar to the previous Y years.

Do you remember 2008-2009?  That was a magical time in the real world, when thousands of people learned that their fantasy models were wrong, and things really were worth what the market was willing to pay for them.  The exception being like 7 people that were liquid, solvent, unleveraged and holders of their assets in fee simple.  Those guys got to keep valuing their stuff in whatever way they wanted to.  (You were not in this group.)  Everyone else learned that the present and future are not the same as the past.

At risk of wasting my time with these other guys, I'll say it for the hundredth time, in futile hopes that you'll actually read and understand.  Mining hardware is worth either what it will produce before it wears out, or what you can sell it for, not what you paid for it.  Including shipping costs in the value is extra-LOL.

I have this image in my head of you as a 14 year old kid, sitting in mom's basement, cursing at the internet and frothing at the mouth.  You just can't figure out why yelling isn't working, so you keep yelling louder.  Despite all of your yelling, your valuations were/are bullshit.  This isn't some big conspiracy against you, you were just wrong/inexperienced/irrational/exuberant/whatever, and rather than fess up to it, you go absolutely batshit crazy whenever anyone points out your shortcomings.

P.S.  Try reading some of my posts.  I'm one of the very, very few people left here that doesn't think you should have a scammer tag.

P.P.S.  You have done a much better job defaming, demeaning and demonizing yourself than the "trolls" ever could have done.

[BCB]

usagi's only 14 year old??