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

[usagi]

The Nyan structure was totally fucked from the start...

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it was fucked. For example:

With multiple tiers the same principle applies - and the underlieing point is that you have to know the ratios to assess the risk/reward of the different tiers.  This dismally failed to happen with Nyan.  Parent Nyan seemingly was meant to maintain some sort of balance - but the ratios were never given, never adhered to and Nyan bailed out on it before closure (sales of A and/or C were stopped eventually - but by then the damage was done).

The ratios were published on the spreadsheets and were relatively stable after the IPO period. In addition I announced the number of shares weekly in shareholder letters. So to put it simply, you don't understand what I did, and you are assuming I did something wrong, when I didn't.

Do you get it? You are saying I didn't publish the ratios --- BUT I DID. And not only did I publish them, I went out of my way to show them to investors by presenting the share counts in weekly letters to shareholders.

When it comes to buying back one thing is an obvious fact - unless you buy back in exactly the current ratio of each tier, the act of buying back will necessarily change the ratios and hence alter the risk/reward for investors. That's an absolute no-no to do.

You don't understand our contract, nor the shareholder motion which I had up to vote on this. You also don't seem to understand this had been discussed and was a generally approved plan of action. M. in the previous message is acting like he doesn't understand how buying back 1,000 shares of NYAN.B would help .C investors -- it was discussed to death 3 months ago.  He doesn't need to understand it now. Secondly, the only reason why SOME of the shares were bought back under 1 is because despite my pleas to IGNORE puppet, eskimobob, and YOU, people panic sold my stock.

Don't you remember? You people viciously attacked me.

Seeing as how EskimoBob among others have NON-TRIVIAL amounts of investment in my companies, it now seems obvious you were engaged in a stock price manipulation scheme. Did you know EskimoBob's NYAN.A holdings alone are worth more than $500 US? He was in deep. Why was he pushing so hard? Was he buying on the cheap? This wasn't 1 or 2 shares. Mircea was in too. All the time MPOE-PR was shitting on me, and the trouble I had with smickles, pigeons, and so on -- and what comes out in the end? Mircea has over $1,000 US in NYAN.A alone and is invested in almost every one of my companies. What the hell? $50 bucks says you and puppet were also in. Now the picture becomes clear doesn't it?

There's actually more evidence towards you scamming me and intentionally trying to destroy my business tnan there is towards me "falsifying NAVs" (proven false), manipulating share prices (proven false), and misleading investors (proven false). Stick to the topic. Am I guilty of what has been claimed against me here, or am I innocent?

Put simply, usagi totally failed to implement an absolutely essential requirement to run a properly structured asset of the type it was intended to be.  And then screwed up whatever little equilibrium there was by doing buy backs - meaning anyone who had actually done some calculation just had it negated.  And that's when it actually got even worse - but that's a different tale entirely.

EDIT: to be clear this post isn't alleging scamming - just pointing out the mind-boggling degree of ignorance and incompetence associated with the way nyan was run.

No. You are ignorant. I did what I said I would do in my contracts and I went above and beyond what everyone else was doing at the time by publishing weekly letters to shareholders. Now stick to the topic. I have been cleared of the claims made against me in the OP.

Where is the statement from the moderators?

[Deprived]

The ratios were published on the spreadsheets and were relatively stable after the IPO period. In addition I announced the number of shares weekly in shareholder letters. So to put it simply, you don't understand what I did, and you are assuming I did something wrong, when I didn't.

Do you get it? You are saying I didn't publish the ratios --- BUT I DID. And not only did I publish them, I went out of my way to show them to investors by presenting the share counts in weekly letters to shareholders.

You demonstrate here again that you just don't understand it.

I'm NOT talking about the ratios of sold shares - I'm talking about fixed, defined ratios in which shares will be sold announced BEFORE any are actually sold.  Investors are meant to be able to work out the risk/reward BEFORE investing - not look each week at what's actually sold and work our what their risk/reward is AFTER they've parted with their money.

So if, for example, you targetted a 1:2:3 ratio (nothing special about that - it's just an example) then you'd issue onto the market (say) 100 A, 200 B and 300 C and no more of ANY until all 3 had sold out - with Nyan picking up any slack (that WAS meant to be it's role right?)  If you weren't confident you could sell that many (or it was more than Nyan would back) then you'd issue 10,20 and 30 or 1,2 and 3.  Then investors would know the ratio and could properly assess risk/reward.  THAT's what you failed to do - defining IN ADVANCE ratios, then Nyan underwriting the issue to ensure they were strictly adhered to (and managing the flow of issuing to keep its own exposure reasonable).

You can't blame investors for selling to you low - you shouldn't have had buy orders up in the first place as they mess with the ratios and alter the risk/reward.  It's dumb saying "doing X helped A/B/C" as you have zero business helping ANY of the tiers at the expense of others - and a change in ratio that helps one tier almost certainly has negative effect on another (so buying back B may help C - by increasing the profits passing through from A - but at same times it screws A as they don't keep any more profit and now have less assets backing them).

You set the rules at the start - not make them up as you go along.  And you failed, dismally, at that.

[Deprived]

There's actually more evidence towards you scamming me and intentionally trying to destroy my business tnan there is towards me "falsifying NAVs" (proven false), manipulating share prices (proven false), and misleading investors (proven false). Stick to the topic. Am I guilty of what has been claimed against me here, or am I innocent?

Ok, let me address those three points.  Do remember - I didn't start the topic and ONLY posted in here because you TOLD me to as you didn't want to discuss issues in your various threads.

Falsifying NAVs.  Some of your NAV calculations were hopelessly optimistic, lacking any grounding in reality.  Is this falsifying?  I don't know whether you did it through ill-intent or just through ignorance/incompetence.  I tend toward thinking it was mainly the latter - and hence have never said you should have a scammer tag for it.

Mainpulating Share Prices.  Again - not something I've ever really focussed on.  But didn't you specifically try to raise prices on some assets back to what you thought they should be?  Isn't that manipulation by definition?  Having 'good' (or misguided) reasons for it doesn't prevent it being manipulation.  But again whilst this is a bit dubious it's not something I'd ask for a scammer tag for.

Misleading Investors.  Guilty as charged. I'll just go back to the usual insurance one.  When you told BMF investors their NAV was insured by CPA what do you think that led them to believe:

A.  That if NAV fell they'd get it topped up by CPA in return for paying premiums,
B.  That if NAV fell CPA would keep what it had been paid so far and theyd not get a cent - and be worse off than if they'd never agreed the 'insurance policy' in the first place.

I put it to you that you led investors to believe A - then gave them B.

My accusation against you has always been that you were unable to resolve conflicts of interest and intentionally and knowingly acted against the interests of some groups of investors (in the insurance instance BMF ones) to help other groups of your investors (in that case CPA ones).  In doing that you totally failed in your fundamental obligation to your investors - that when you act on behalf of the you act in THEIR interest, not the interest of others.  When you had conflicts of interest you compromised your integrity and breeched your fiduciary duty, causing harm to some groups of investors to bail out others.

The contract DID allow you to accelerate obligations (though you never actually did so - there were no payments made as defined by the contract).  But no manager acting solely in the interests of BMF would have signed the contract AND agreed to accelerate - as doing so lost all potential benefit of the contract to BMF.  Your obligation was to represent BMF as though they were your sole responsibility (and to do the same for CPA).  If (as proved to be the case) you were unable to do that then the issue over which you were compromised should have been revealed, discussed and either agreed by investors or some manager appointed to act on one or both parties behalf.  You just never bothered claiming, never even mentioned that BMF could claim, attempted to belittle/ignore/insult anyone who asked about it and flat out lied about it on occasion (e.g. claiming the insurance contract was discussed and voted on by BMF investors - when in fact it wasn't).

My best guess of what happened (which I can't be sure of) is that you signed the contract in good faith then when the shit hit the fan and CPA had no cash to pay you tried to brush it under the carpet - probably believing it could be sorted later when things got better.  But things never got better.  And eventually you concocted the acceleration of obligations bullshit.  It's clear bullshit as you didn't actually acelerate obligations - you just stopped fulfilling them.  If you'd accelerated obligations thered have been transactions in both directions (denoted in last digits as specified in your contract) showing publicly that obligations had been accelerated.  But of course yo ucouldn't do that - as then investors would be asking "why the fuck did we sign an insurance contract then refuse to accept payment when it came time to claim?"

The alternative is that from the start you intended to accelerate obligations - which would make it a straight-forward scam, taking 520 BTC from BMF if it did well and 20 from it if it did badly with zero chance of any benefit ever to them from it.

But you still aren't even going to understand my point - as "I have most shares and therefore could do what I wanted",  "Contract allowed me to screw BMF so as manager of BMF I screwed them", "I had most shares so could only rip off myself therefore logically I couldn't rip anyone off".  All the usual crap showing either total ignorance of basic business practice, complete denial of reality and/or pathological lieing.

What I can't be sure of is whether you misled, misrepresented and generally abused the trust of BMF investors when you agreed the contract or when you failed to act in their interest and claim.  It's one or the other (maybe both).  Shortly before GLBSE went down you were actively discussing this issue (for the first time) and had admitted that CPA might owe BMF some money but were trying to persuade BMF investors that they should let CPA off (you even raised the possibility of CPA paying the claim by returning BMF shares it held - but didn't want to do so as it would leave CPA with nothing).  In those posts it was absolutely crystal clear that you were speaking to your BMF investors but acting as a spokesperson/apologist for CPA: again a conflict of interest.

That's an example - not the only instance.  But no point me writing a novel about all of them when the mods have no interest in resolving this in either direction.

[usagi]

One of the problems is that this is really just your opinion, Deprived.

Yes, you believe you are right but that doesn't make it so. For example you believe I acted in conflict of interest in the BMF/CPA contract. In reality this was approved by a shareholder motion, and announced in a shareholder letter. Others also disagree with your analysis itself, such as Augustocroppo (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1369333#msg1369333).

Regarding falsifying of NAVs, I said over and over that we would be adding value via analysis. Sometimes it worked out and sometimes it didn't. I also ran shareholder motions regarding this -- so sorry but this is simply what people wanted. When puppet and eskimobob (and you) started complaining about this I went out of my way to fix it, I changed the way we valued companies from my analysis data to pulling data directly off GLBSE. When people started complaining about THAT, I redid the spreadsheets AGAIN, to include both columns. After that, the accusations continued only that old, outdated data was repeatedly posted by EskimoBob, or data that he or puppet had created by hand and had nothing to do with average market prices or what we were holding.

But the point is no, I did not falsify navs.

No, I did not manipulate share prices. If we bought shares that we held in BMF and that caused the price to rise, anyone is free to sell into that high price and make a profit. If we sold into a crashing company, anyone is free to get a deal and buy into a too-low price. Manipulation of markets is next to impossible because of this. If I sell into a crashing company and then try to buy back cheaply I am competing with every other trader watching the stock. And it's well known there were several bots trading. Basically there was no way I could do this. And FWIW -- buy low sell high is NOT market manipulation on ANY SCALE. It's just good trading and it was the entire point of BMF -- to trade on behalf of investors. It seems a bit disingenuous to accuse me of market manipulation on any scale.

And no, I did not mislead investors. In fact one of the reasons I published spreadsheets and weekly letters to shareholders discussing claims is to give investors every tool possible to make their own decision about the value of my companies. Look at what puppet and eskimobob were able to do --> They took the holdings I had published and calculated their own value. Had I not given them the tools and information to make their own, informed decision --> they could not have done that. The very fact that I enabled them to do that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not attempt to mislead investors. I specifically disclosed as much as I could about everything I was doing.

That is the point -- I'm not guilty of what has been levied against me. If you want to talk about another thing you feel I did wrong, make a new thread. This one has been done to death.

This thread needs a comment but I agree with you, mods seem unwilling to comment further. This makes me exceedingly sad, as this thread and similar have now cost me an incalculable amount of time, health and money.

[Deprived]

Yes, you believe you are right but that doesn't make it so. For example you believe I acted in conflict of interest in the BMF/CPA contract. In reality this was approved by a shareholder motion, and announced in a shareholder letter. Others also disagree with your analysis itself, such as Augustocroppo (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1369333#msg1369333).

You see you keep getting confused on this.

CPA MAY have discussed the contract and had a motion on it - I recall you previosuly saying it was discussed at your round-table. But my point was always that BMF got shafted - not CPA.  BMF did NOT discuss it and there was NO BMF share-holder motion in respect of it.  First mention of it to BMF was a post by you announcing that BMF was now insured by CPA against NAV loss and giving a link to the contract.

I repeat as it just doesn't seem to sink in.  BMF investors were not told in advance and did not vote on it.  If CPA investors voted (I don't know if they did or not) good for them - BMF ones didn't: they were told about it as a done deal.  My intial post on this the insurance topic quotes your first mention of the insurance (the announcement that it's in place).

I see you still have zero explanation of how it was in BMF's interests to pay insurance premiums then not claim when entitled to do so (which isn't in dispute).  That you appear to believe a CPA investors' discussion and/or vote can decide what BMF does shows just how badly you failed to seperate your duties and responsibilities to seperate companies.

And yes - it IS my opinion.  Everything I say is my opinion.  Everything you say is your opinion.  Difference is that I can explain logically why making that insurance deal then not claiming on it had less than zero value to BMF.  You don't even make an attempt to explain how your pathetic "acceleration" excuse was in BMF's interest - or what they stood to gain from the "insurance" if acceleration was going to occur when a claim was relevant.  All you have left is a baseless claim that somehow you were right and acting in BMF shareholders interests at all times (though you don't actually seem to even accept you had an obligation to do that - let alone to have actually discharged that duty).

And no, I did not mislead investors. In fact one of the reasons I published spreadsheets and weekly letters to shareholders discussing claims is to give investors every tool possible to make their own decision about the value of my companies. Look at what puppet and eskimobob were able to do --> They took the holdings I had published and calculated their own value. Had I not given them the tools and information to make their own, informed decision --> they could not have done that. The very fact that I enabled them to do that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not attempt to mislead investors. I specifically disclosed as much as I could about everything I was doing.

Two points on this:

1.  It has little relevance to what I claimed.  I claimed you misled investors about BMF being insured (they received no meaningful coverage in return for a commitment to pay 520 BTC).  You totally ignore that and whitter on about NAV - when that's never been the main thrust of my points.
2.  Publishing lists of holdings in no way "proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not attempt to mislead investors."  It just proves that you didn't attempt to mislead investors about what you held (and in fact there's room for debate on that in one instance).  It isn't some proof that you didn't mislead them about anything else.  Again - I specifically identified how you misled BMF in one instance.  I don't recall ever accusing you of misleading investors about the assets you owned.

In fact going further from 2 you can ONLY mislead someone about something by publishing it/making a claim about it.  e,g, to mislead investors about the value of your shares you'd have to publish a value for them or make a claim about the value.  Giving out information is a prerequisite to mislead someone - it's the accuracy, context and way that it's presented which determines whether it's misleading or not.

[usagi]

CPA MAY have discussed the contract and had a motion on it - I recall you previosuly saying it was discussed at your round-table. But my point was always that BMF got shafted - not CPA.

I don't think so and no shareholder has ever said so. BMF paid about 30 bitcoins to CPA. In return I gave 100 bitcoins of my own personal money to BMF. If you want me to make reparations, fine, I will -- by taking back the balance of 70 bitcoins and putting it in my personal account. Is that what you want? Will that satisfy you? What precise remedy are you looking for in this situation, as you have already said I don't deserve a scammer tag?

I repeat as it just doesn't seem to sink in.  BMF investors were not told in advance and did not vote on it.

There was no need to vote specifically on the insurance contract because it did not represent a material change in the value of either company. The absolute worst you can say is that I transferred 30 bitcoins to CPA and then put it back again. I also donated personal shares of CPA back to CPA and to NYAN.B as discussed in NYAN letter to shareholders #38. What's your problem here, precisely? What remedy are you requesting?

I've already explained several times -- and this explanation has been accepted by many people -- that the contract was intended to be accelerated, hence the acceleration clause, and used as a model for other contracts. This has been explained -- to you in particular -- many times, despite the fact that you seem to continuously claim I never answer your questions. We did in fact sign several such contracts after people became aware we were offering that business -- not least of all the BAKEWELL contract which is the topic of discussion in the thread against Ian.

I see you still have zero explanation of how it was in BMF's interests to pay insurance premiums then not claim when entitled to do so (which isn't in dispute).

No, it has been explained several times, not least in letter to shareholders #38 as mentioned, and in responses to "critique of usagi's businesses" which you posted a couple months ago.... And again, here.

That you appear to believe a CPA investors' discussion and/or vote can decide what BMF does shows just how badly you failed to seperate your duties and responsibilities to seperate companies.

Do you get that you only believe that because you have no clue what went on in management discussions? You have no IDEA what you are talking about. you cannot point to a lack of evidence and then turn around and say that there is a lack of evidence, therefore I scammed pepole. That is ridiculous. Furthermore this has now been explained to you several times why we did what we did and what the results were -- we signed contracts with BAKEWELL, BITCOINMININGRS (or something), we were in talks with DMC and GBF and others as well for such contracts. All of it because of the model contract I created. Why do you think there was an acceleration clause and the amount was around equal? What would be the point of such a contract, take 500 bitcoins from BMF with limited liability of.... 500 bitcoins? Are you insane? This wasn't a scam and it wasn't conflict of interest. Wake up please.

And yes - it IS my opinion.  Everything I say is my opinion.  Everything you say is your opinion.

Big mistake. I am giving you fact from the horse's mouth. I was the guy who ran CPA and BMF and I am telling you what we did and why, in response to your question. I'm kinda tired, after all these monts, of you making baseless claims from a position of ignorance. I mean come on, I give up already -- what's the point of pursuing this?

If it wasn't for four people: You, Puppet, EskimoBob, and Deeplink, there would be ZERO claims against me. Puppet was a troll who admitted he had no proof for what he was saying about me (want a link?). EskimoBob is full of shit and pretty much everyone knows it. Deeplink was a shill account, who literally ONLY posted in threads against me. When this was pointed out by augustocroppo he disappeared. And then there's you -- who, amazingly, was offered a job to troll me in public my MPOE-PR and has been publicly paid shares of MPOE.ETF by MPOE-PR after engaging in trolls against me.

Difference is that I can explain logically why making that insurance deal then not claiming on it had less than zero value to BMF.  You don't even make an attempt to explain how your pathetic "acceleration" excuse was in BMF's interest - or what they stood to gain from the "insurance" if acceleration was going to occur when a claim was relevant.

One of your standard tactics is claiming that I don't answer your questions. Everyone who has followed these threads knows that's a lie -- I am, I admit, too vocal in answering each and every one of your questions.

Just stop for Christ's sake. Unless you're still getting paid? I mean seriously. You said what you had to say. Unless you're getting paid for posting this crap against me, why don't you try shutting up for a change and letting other people weigh in? Stop trying to outshout me and outshout everyone else who has posted here. Just stop for a while.

You apparently weren't even an investor in my companies and I am wrapping them up fairly. Go away. You have nothing on me, you never will have anything on me, and there is nothing on me. Why don't you go read what people have actually said about me before you start whining I ripped them off?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127096.msg1349417#msg1349417

Just wait a couple days and I will pop up 10+ more emails I've received directly from shareholders thanking me for doing a good job wrapping up the assets.

Any of them are free to come here and complain. You, probably not so much anymore. Not that I could stop you though, I guess.

[usagi]

I claimed you misled investors about BMF being insured (they received no meaningful coverage in return for a commitment to pay 520 BTC).  You totally ignore that and whitter on about NAV - when that's never been the main thrust of my points.

second to this;

a) they DID receive coverage -- I accelerated the contract and they paid ~500 bitcoins for ~500 bitcoins of return coverage. Read the contract. It contained an acceleration clause.
b) the coverage was not meaningful because, as explained, the contract was not material.

c) I "whitter on" about NAV because that is the subject of this thread against me. Now that you yourself have said I don't deserve a scammer tag for these accusations, can you please leave me alone?

[deeplink]

Deeplink was a shill account, who literally ONLY posted in threads against me. When this was pointed out by augustocroppo he disappeared.

Three lies in two sentences. Must be a record even for usagi.

The truth is that I got tired of the lies, personal attacks and logical fallacies and have lost interest all together in "arguing" with you and AugustoCrappo. I am still reading your threads however because of my psychological interest in delusional thinking and pathological liars like yourself.

My opinion that you have scammed, manipulated and misled is stronger than ever, but I just don't care enough to continue talking to you.

[usagi]

Deeplink was a shill account, who literally ONLY posted in threads against me. When this was pointed out by augustocroppo he disappeared.

Three lies in two sentences. Must be a record even for usagi.

The truth is that I got tired of the lies, personal attacks and logical fallacies and have lost interest all together in "arguing" with you and AugustoCrappo.

Oh. That must be why I haven't seen you around. Whatever.

I am still reading your threads however because of my psychological interest in delusional thinking and pathological liars like yourself.

My opinion that you have scammed, manipulated and misled is stronger than ever, but I just don't care enough to continue talking to you.

Thanks. There's enough noise on the forums already.

[makomk]

Seeing as how EskimoBob among others have NON-TRIVIAL amounts of investment in my companies, it now seems obvious you were engaged in a stock price manipulation scheme. Did you know EskimoBob's NYAN.A holdings alone are worth more than $500 US? He was in deep. Why was he pushing so hard? Was he buying on the cheap? This wasn't 1 or 2 shares. Mircea was in too. All the time MPOE-PR was shitting on me, and the trouble I had with smickles, pigeons, and so on -- and what comes out in the end? Mircea has over $1,000 US in NYAN.A alone and is invested in almost every one of my companies. What the hell? $50 bucks says you and puppet were also in. Now the picture becomes clear doesn't it?

So let me get this straight. When the people who were criticising you didn't have any evidence that they owned NYAN shares, you accused them of maliciously slandering you and said that you hadn't done anything wrong because no actual investors had complained. Now when it turns out that they do own NYAN.A shares that were affected by your decisions, you instead accuse them of a "stock price manipulation scheme". Are there any circumstances - any at all - under which you wouldn't loudly and repeatedly accuse anyone who criticised you of doing it maliciously?

a) they DID receive coverage -- I accelerated the contract and they paid ~500 bitcoins for ~500 bitcoins of return coverage. Read the contract. It contained an acceleration clause.

Which makes the contract worthless to BMF. They could've got the same results more cheaply by self-insuring - it'd have been cheaper if they did claim (BMF paid more than the coverage amount), much cheaper if they didn't since they'd get to keep the 500 BTC, and they also wouldn't have had the counterparty risk from dealing with CPA.

[Deprived]

Which makes the contract worthless to BMF. They could've got the same results more cheaply by self-insuring - it'd have been cheaper if they did claim (BMF paid more than the coverage amount), much cheaper if they didn't since they'd get to keep the 500 BTC, and they also wouldn't have had the counterparty risk from dealing with CPA.

IF the contract had been honoured then it wasn't actually a terrible deal for BMF.  Mining shares tend to devalue - and BMF was paying out dividends received so maintaining NAV was always going to be difficult.  The acceleration made it worthless.  If honoured it was more like a low-interest loan (taken as needed) than real insurance - but I can see a case for it being of benefit to BMF.  The premiums had to be high as usagi was managing BMF, so losses (and hence claims) were pretty inevitable and CPA had to expect to pay out the full 500 BTC over the 2 year period.  Absolute worst-case for CPA was getting 20 BTC interest for a 500 BTC loan over 2 years, so not too bad a risk for them given the non-zero chance usagi might luck out and go 2 years without losing 500 BTC.

Where usgai's lies become apparent are from the start.

The announcement made to BMF wasn't "Here's a test contract showing how we'd get insurance cover against NAV loss" it was "We're now insured by CPA".

And saying it was a test makes zero sense.  What was this "testing" supposed to actually test?  That BMF could send BTC to CPA?  Failing to see anyhting else that this "test" demonstrated that couldn't have been determined without signing the contract.  How did BMF sending 20-30 BTC to CPA to help CPA "test" a contract benefit BMF shareholders?   

Claiming NOW that 100 BTC of personal funds was sent to BMF in compensation is beyond belief.  Yes - usagi HAS claimed in the past to have given personal funds to BMF.  Whether he has or not I have no clue - as no accounts were ever published (just lists of assets / balances).  But at no stage has ANY announcement EVER been made before along the lines of "The contract with CPA has been cancelled/accelerated and I've personally given 100 BTC compensation to BMF for the loss they incurred helpng CPA out by pretending to have insurance cover when they didn't".  Convenient that this claim only emerges now (ages after the event) when it's impossible to prove/disprove.

The contract defined BTC accounts to which all payments in respect of the contract were to be made.  I see no payment of 100 BTC to the designated BTC account for BMF.  In fact there's ZERO payments there to the BMF one.  But we're meant to accept usagi's word taht he did something which was a) never announced, b) not done in the method defined in the contract usagi wrote (and signed on behalf of both parties).  Similarly aceleration, if it occurred, should have had seen payments by both parties to the designated BTC addresses.  Of course as that excuse wasn't made up until much later (it only first emerged shortly before GLBSE went down)  that couldn't be done - as the block-chain can't be manipulated to insert transactions back-dated by months.

Just to be clear - it seems usagi is now that claiming that BMF WEREN'T insured by CPA (they just signed a test contract that was never intended to be honoured).  So isn't that pretty much proof on its own that shareholders were misled when they were told BMF was insured by CPA?  Either they WERE insured (what they were told then) or they WEREN'T (what usagi seems to be claiming now).  IF what they were told (insured) isn't what was actually the case (they weren't?) then that's about as blatant a case of misleading investors as you can get.

[Deprived]

And finally let's just be clear how ludicrous usagi's current position (that the contract was a test and was always intended to be accelerated) is.

If BMF's NAV had risen then accelerating the contract would mean that BMF would send 520 BTC (less premiums already paid) to CPA IMMEDIATELY (at the point of acceleration) and receive nothing in return.

Yet usagi is expecting us to believe that signing it with the intention to accelerate obligations was somehow in the interests of BMF investors?  Get real.

[usagi]

And finally let's just be clear how ludicrous usagi's current position (that the contract was a test and was always intended to be accelerated) is.

If BMF's NAV had risen then accelerating the contract would mean that BMF would send 520 BTC (less premiums already paid) to CPA IMMEDIATELY (at the point of acceleration) and receive nothing in return.

Yet usagi is expecting us to believe that signing it with the intention to accelerate obligations was somehow in the interests of BMF investors?  Get real.

The contract was signed while the NAV was already below 1, therefore the situation you are describing was known to be impossible. That was the intention and why it was done this way. Furthermore you cannot presume what I would have done and then say that therefore I did in reality scam people. That's crazy.

What you are saying is intentional deception. You are attempting to manipulate the price of my companies and destroy my reputation.

[Deprived]

And finally let's just be clear how ludicrous usagi's current position (that the contract was a test and was always intended to be accelerated) is.

If BMF's NAV had risen then accelerating the contract would mean that BMF would send 520 BTC (less premiums already paid) to CPA IMMEDIATELY (at the point of acceleration) and receive nothing in return.

Yet usagi is expecting us to believe that signing it with the intention to accelerate obligations was somehow in the interests of BMF investors?  Get real.

The contract was signed while the NAV was already below 1, therefore the situation you are describing was known to be impossible. That was the intention and why it was done this way. Furthermore you cannot presume what I would have done and then say that therefore I did in reality scam people. That's crazy.

What you are saying is intentional deception. You are attempting to manipulate the price of my companies and destroy my reputation.

What price?  They aren't tradable anywhere.
What reputation?

It doesn't matter what NAV was when contract was signed - it's what NAV was when acceleration occurs that matters.  Or arey ou now saying you DIDN'T intend to accelerate?  You say I was presuming what yo uwould have done - are you saying in some circumstances you WOULDN'T have accelerated?  Like if it wasn't in CPA's interest to do so?  At least get your story a LITTLE bit consistent.

Either you signed it with the intent to accelerate (and as a test) - then misled BMF by telling they were insured.

OR

You signed it intending it to be honoured - then changed your mind to help CPA and at that stage defrauded BMF.

OR

You signed it and hadn't decided whether to accelerate or not (making your claims it was a test a lie AND misleading BMF).

Which is it?  I can't read your mind and work WHICH of what you said was the lie or WHEN you defrauded/misled your BMF investors.  But I can logically work out that EVERY possiiblity involves you lieing and/or defrauding investors at some stage.  Therefore you lied and/or defrauded BMF investors.

As I've offered before - if you want to try to prove me wrong it's easy.  I can give a simple list of factual statements you can agree or disagree with plus some very simple questions. 

Exmaple statements of fact would be:

1.  When signing a contract on behalf of BMF you have a responsibility only to do so if (in your opinion) BMF is better off agreeing to the contract than not agreeing it.  When making that assessment you must ignore any obligations you have to other companies you manage and, in good faith, act in the best interest of BMF's share-holders.
2.  BMF had no obligation under the contract to accelerate its obligations.

etc.  If you have problems with mutiple-part ones like #1 then it could be broken down into smaller pieces until we find what it is we disagree on.

Example questions would be:

1.  When you signed the contract did you intend to accelerate it and never actually claim on behalf of BMF? (Yes, No or hadn't decided are all possible answers)
2.  If you never intended to claim, were BMF meaningfully insured in any way?
3.  If BMF weren't insured why did you tell investors that they were?

etc.  By being simple questions I don't need to discuss any simple answers you give - or dispute them - as if you say you signed the contract always intending to accelerate then I'll have to accept your word for it.  I may or may not believe you - but I've no problem assuming it to be true as lieing can only change HOW/WHEN you lied/defrauded not that you did.  There just isn't ANY explanation that has you consistently making decisions in the best interests of BMF investors and being honest with them.

But no way in the world you can do that - as you'd struggle to answer those 3 questions (honestly OR lieing) without making your behaviour obvious - let alone the rest (such as how accelerating was more beneficial to BMF than claiming - as the contract never obliged BMF to accelerate).

I will now contradict myself - as there IS actually one set of answers to every question I'd ask which would have you neither lieing to investors back then (about anything to do with insurance) or defrauding them.  But no way in the world is it the truth - and no way you'd ever claim it.  And it would make some of what you've posted in the last day a lie plus make you have lied about something to investors which I'm sure you believe to be the truth.  Only mentioning it as technically there IS an explanation - but it's irrelevant.

[usagi]

So let me get this straight. When the people who were criticising you didn't have any evidence that they owned NYAN shares, you accused them of maliciously slandering you and said that you hadn't done anything wrong because no actual investors had complained. Now when it turns out that they do own NYAN.A shares that were affected by your decisions, you instead accuse them of a "stock price manipulation scheme". Are there any circumstances - any at all - under which you wouldn't loudly and repeatedly accuse anyone who criticised you of doing it maliciously?

So EskimoBob owned 40 NYAN? You make it sound like a parade of people. And, it is just as much a suprise to me as it is to anyone. Wasn't it EskimoBob who said many times he would never invest in my companies? For god's sake think -- the whole scam accusation thread against EskimoBob is because he signed a contract with me that I would buy back 5 BMF shares (FIVE, yes FIVE) and he couldn't keep his end of the bargain. He did not represent himself as a shareholder of my companies at all. He made it clear he was not invested and did not want to invest. Mircea Popescu and gang were the same. So many times, MPOE-PR said what I was doing was garbage. Then boom, what does it turn out? Not only was Mircea Popescu invested in NYAN.A to the tune of 100 shares (100 bitcoins), he based his own competing CDO directly off of that investment!!!

It now appears as if there was an organized campaign against me to crash my companies so people could buy shares on the cheap. Unfortunately GLBSE crashed. Their plan failed.

Can you think of another explanation for their vocal actions and misrepresentationof their position? This reeks of people like Soros saying gold was in a bubble even as he was buying up as much gold as he could. Six months ago, remember that? People always talk their own books. Think about it.

...Which makes the contract worthless to BMF. They could've got the same results more cheaply by self-insuring - it'd have been cheaper if they did claim (BMF paid more than the coverage amount), much cheaper if they didn't since they'd get to keep the 500 BTC, and they also wouldn't have had the counterparty risk from dealing with CPA.

Do you get that the value of BMF and CPA went up after we signed those contracts because CPA got more business, and was able to invest a little more into BMF, which allowed BMF to participate in bulk offer IPOs? Not to mention the additional income streams for CPA? The contract had zero material value to both companies. However, it enabled me to start a new line of business and sign quite a few contracts. Do you get that?

There isn't a shareholder in the world that would have said no to increasing the revenues and net value of my companies. You need to think.

[Deprived]

Do you get that the value of BMF and CPA went up after we signed those contracts because CPA got more business, and was able to invest a little more into BMF, which allowed BMF to participate in bulk offer IPOs? Not to mention the additional income streams for CPA? The contract had zero material value to both companies. However, it enabled me to start a new line of business and sign quite a few contracts. Do you get that?

Ah, so it wasn't a test - you now claim it was an attempt to manipulate your share price upwards by pretending that CPA had signed an insurance policy with CPA.  And so you misled your investors when you told them they were insured by CPA - but that was good for them as CPA then invested more into BMF?

Then when everything went wrong, BMF chose to not ask for what the contract entitled it to, as you'd promised yourself you wouldn't do that (but not told anyone else - as then your deception wouldn't have worked)?

Interesting how you claim BMF's price went up after that - when in fact it went down.

But thanks for admitting you misled your investors (and everyone else) to try to get your price to rise.  IF you (on behalf of BMF) had no intention to ever claim then very obviously BMF were NOT insured by CPA.  Claiming otherwise was 100% misleading investors - and you actually seem to think it's an achievement to get a change in your own share's market value by lieing.  I sometimes wonder if you KNOW what telling the truth is - as you'll happily post here admitting you lied and then in the next breath say you don't lie or mislead.

[usagi]

Do you get that the value of BMF and CPA went up after we signed those contracts because CPA got more business, and was able to invest a little more into BMF, which allowed BMF to participate in bulk offer IPOs? Not to mention the additional income streams for CPA? The contract had zero material value to both companies. However, it enabled me to start a new line of business and sign quite a few contracts. Do you get that?

Ah, so it wasn't a test - you now claim it was an attempt to manipulate your share price upwards by pretending that CPA had signed an insurance policy with CPA.  And so you misled your investors when you told them they were insured by CPA - but that was good for them as CPA then invested more into BMF?

That was a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Of course the entire purpose of the contract was to show people we were in that line of business.

Code:

ma·nip·u·late  
/məˈnipyəˌlāt/
Verb

    Handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner: "he manipulated the dials".
    Alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.

Synonyms
handle - operate

It was indeed a very skillful thing to do, you know, show people that we were capable of doing certain kinds of business.

Then when everything went wrong, BMF chose to not ask for what the contract entitled it to, as you'd promised yourself you wouldn't do that (but not told anyone else - as then your deception wouldn't have worked)?

Interesting how you claim BMF's price went up after that - when in fact it went down.

You have major reading comprehension issues; I said value, not price:

Do you get that the value of BMF and CPA went up...

You seem to have a complete lack of respect for my intelligence. Believe me, it shows -- and I'm the one that keeps pointing it out to you.

But thanks for admitting you misled your investors (and everyone else) to try to get your price to rise.  IF you (on behalf of BMF) had no intention to ever claim then very obviously BMF were NOT insured by CPA.  Claiming otherwise was 100% misleading investors - and you actually seem to think it's an achievement to get a change in your own share's market value by lieing.  I sometimes wonder if you KNOW what telling the truth is - as you'll happily post here admitting you lied and then in the next breath say you don't lie or mislead.

Do you finally understand how badly you have lost this part of the argument? I didn't admit anything -- you mischaracterized what I did, misquoted me, and then pretended your lack of mental acuity was an admission, on my behalf, of misleading investors. You're either being paid to troll me, or you're insane. Please, just go away. Everyone else did.

[Deprived]

That was a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Of course the entire purpose of the contract was to show people we were in that line of business.

Ah, silly me.  There was me thinking the main purpose of an insurance contract was to ..... wait for it .... provide insurance.

That was a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Of course the entire purpose of the contract was to show people we were in that line of business.

Then when everything went wrong, BMF chose to not ask for what the contract entitled it to, as you'd promised yourself you wouldn't do that (but not told anyone else - as then your deception wouldn't have worked)?

Interesting how you claim BMF's price went up after that - when in fact it went down.

You have major reading comprehension issues; I said value, not price:

Silly me again.  Forgot you always manipulated your assets' prices so that they were totally unrelated to their value.  Their 'value' being some deluded construct of your wisful thinking based on the imaginary profits you thought you'd make.

Not sure what argument you think I've lost.  You don't win an argument by saying "I've won!" (or by getting your little idiot hanger-on Augusto to do it).

You've admitted (or claimed - don't know if it's true) that when you told BMF investors "Our NAV is now insured by CPA" it was a lie.  Yet still you claim you didn't mislead them?  Or are you now going to somehow claim that they WERE insured (and come up with the next version of "the truth")?

[usagi]

That was a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Of course the entire purpose of the contract was to show people we were in that line of business.

Ah, silly me.  There was me thinking the main purpose of an insurance contract was to ..... wait for it .... provide insurance.

That was a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Of course the entire purpose of the contract was to show people we were in that line of business.

Then when everything went wrong, BMF chose to not ask for what the contract entitled it to, as you'd promised yourself you wouldn't do that (but not told anyone else - as then your deception wouldn't have worked)?

Interesting how you claim BMF's price went up after that - when in fact it went down.

You have major reading comprehension issues; I said value, not price:

Silly me again.  Forgot you always manipulated your assets' prices so that they were totally unrelated to their value.  Their 'value' being some deluded construct of your wisful thinking based on the imaginary profits you thought you'd make.

Not sure what argument you think I've lost.  You don't win an argument by saying "I've won!" (or by getting your little idiot hanger-on Augusto to do it).

You've admitted (or claimed - don't know if it's true) that when you told BMF investors "Our NAV is now insured by CPA" it was a lie.  Yet still you claim you didn't mislead them?  Or are you now going to somehow claim that they WERE insured (and come up with the next version of "the truth")?

I said, you have major reading comprehension issues. Feel free to post the contract and we'll go through it line by line.

[Deprived]

That was a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Of course the entire purpose of the contract was to show people we were in that line of business.

Ah, silly me.  There was me thinking the main purpose of an insurance contract was to ..... wait for it .... provide insurance.

That was a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Of course the entire purpose of the contract was to show people we were in that line of business.

Then when everything went wrong, BMF chose to not ask for what the contract entitled it to, as you'd promised yourself you wouldn't do that (but not told anyone else - as then your deception wouldn't have worked)?

Interesting how you claim BMF's price went up after that - when in fact it went down.

You have major reading comprehension issues; I said value, not price:

Silly me again.  Forgot you always manipulated your assets' prices so that they were totally unrelated to their value.  Their 'value' being some deluded construct of your wisful thinking based on the imaginary profits you thought you'd make.

Not sure what argument you think I've lost.  You don't win an argument by saying "I've won!" (or by getting your little idiot hanger-on Augusto to do it).

You've admitted (or claimed - don't know if it's true) that when you told BMF investors "Our NAV is now insured by CPA" it was a lie.  Yet still you claim you didn't mislead them?  Or are you now going to somehow claim that they WERE insured (and come up with the next version of "the truth")?

I said, you have major reading comprehension issues. Feel free to post the contract and we'll go through it line by line.

I assume you know what "insured" means.  Were BMF insured by CPA?  If you want to explain how your contract insured BMF then go ahead and do so - pretty sure you can find a copy of the contract quicker than I can.  But why are you even interested in what the contract said when you just earlier claimed it had zero material value and was just a PR stunt to try to raise company value.

When the contract was signed did BMF (represented by you) agree with CPA (represented by you) that the contract would be accelerated after BMF paid some premiums?  Or was that agreement made later?

Feel free to find something to nit-pick in my posts and ignore the substantive parts by the way - you're getting pretty good at it.  And don't forget to add an insult or two - it makes you look clever and proves you're winning.