Usagi: Simple contract violation

[nimda]

It is with great sadness and regret that I must announce my plan to close down the fund (NYAN.B).

Your choice of an equal weighting of 3 to 5 securities from NYAN.B or NYAN.C.

To encourage everyone to get this done quickly, it's going to be first-come first-serve as to who gets to choose which assets. After all shares have been exchanged back into the fund and/or bought back, NYAN.B will be delisted. It sucks, but I'm going to do the right thing here. Again, if you *prefer* any of these assets, let me know.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.B (Balanced Risk Fund)
1. The Balanced Risk Fund ("NYAN.B") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, bitcoin businesses which are not mining operations and not exposed to "pirate".
2. Investments are chosen entirely based on sector; we seek to invest in the bitcoin community at large; but again, no mining, and no pirate.
3. NYAN.B will pay as dividend from the pool of A, B and C the lesser of 0.02 bitcoins per fund unit and the amount remaining after NYAN.A pays dividends.
4. Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN.
5. Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.C (High Risk Fund)
1. The High-Risk Fund ("NYAN.C") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, high-yield securities.
2. Investments are chosen entirely based on their interest rate without regard to the risk profile.
3. NYAN.C will be paid whatever isn't paid to NYAN.A and NYAN.B.
4. Holders of NYAN.C are guaranteed no rights or claim to any assets of NYAN, NYAN.A, or NYAN.B.
5. Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Usagi should not be shutting down NYAN in this order. It's simple contract violation.

[1713975957]

1713975957

[1713975957]

1713975957

[1713975957]

1713975957

[1713975957]

1713975957

[stochastic]

It is with great sadness and regret that I must announce my plan to close down the fund (NYAN.B).

Your choice of an equal weighting of 3 to 5 securities from NYAN.B or NYAN.C.

To encourage everyone to get this done quickly, it's going to be first-come first-serve as to who gets to choose which assets. After all shares have been exchanged back into the fund and/or bought back, NYAN.B will be delisted. It sucks, but I'm going to do the right thing here. Again, if you *prefer* any of these assets, let me know.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.B (Balanced Risk Fund)
1. The Balanced Risk Fund ("NYAN.B") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, bitcoin businesses which are not mining operations and not exposed to "pirate".
2. Investments are chosen entirely based on sector; we seek to invest in the bitcoin community at large; but again, no mining, and no pirate.
3. NYAN.B will pay as dividend from the pool of A, B and C the lesser of 0.02 bitcoins per fund unit and the amount remaining after NYAN.A pays dividends.
4. Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN.
5. Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.C (High Risk Fund)
1. The High-Risk Fund ("NYAN.C") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, high-yield securities.
2. Investments are chosen entirely based on their interest rate without regard to the risk profile.
3. NYAN.C will be paid whatever isn't paid to NYAN.A and NYAN.B.
4. Holders of NYAN.C are guaranteed no rights or claim to any assets of NYAN, NYAN.A, or NYAN.B.
5. Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Usagi should not be shutting down NYAN in this order. It's simple contract violation.

Did you contact usagi about this? GLBSE?  other shareholders? What was their response?

[nimda]

It is with great sadness and regret that I must announce my plan to close down the fund (NYAN.B).

Your choice of an equal weighting of 3 to 5 securities from NYAN.B or NYAN.C.

To encourage everyone to get this done quickly, it's going to be first-come first-serve as to who gets to choose which assets. After all shares have been exchanged back into the fund and/or bought back, NYAN.B will be delisted. It sucks, but I'm going to do the right thing here. Again, if you *prefer* any of these assets, let me know.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.B (Balanced Risk Fund)
1. The Balanced Risk Fund ("NYAN.B") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, bitcoin businesses which are not mining operations and not exposed to "pirate".
2. Investments are chosen entirely based on sector; we seek to invest in the bitcoin community at large; but again, no mining, and no pirate.
3. NYAN.B will pay as dividend from the pool of A, B and C the lesser of 0.02 bitcoins per fund unit and the amount remaining after NYAN.A pays dividends.
4. Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN.
5. Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.C (High Risk Fund)
1. The High-Risk Fund ("NYAN.C") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, high-yield securities.
2. Investments are chosen entirely based on their interest rate without regard to the risk profile.
3. NYAN.C will be paid whatever isn't paid to NYAN.A and NYAN.B.
4. Holders of NYAN.C are guaranteed no rights or claim to any assets of NYAN, NYAN.A, or NYAN.B.
5. Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.

Usagi should not be shutting down NYAN in this order. It's simple contract violation.

Did you contact usagi about this? GLBSE?  other shareholders? What was their response?

No, I just noticed it.
(and I'm certainly not a shareholder)

[Bitcoin Oz]

I am a NYAn.B shareholder and I find it unnacceptable that its being shut down in this manner. NYAN.C needs to be closed first by transferring its assets to NYAN.B otherwise we are being scammed.

The defaulted assets should be moved from B and sent to C and any non defaulted assets sent to B, which is what the contract says.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I am a NYAn.B shareholder and I find it unnacceptable that its being shut down in this manner. NYAN.C needs to be closed first by transferring its assets to NYAN.B otherwise we are being scammed.

The defaulted assets should be moved from B and sent to C and any non defaulted assets sent to B, which is what the contract says.

This has been explained to you. You own 50 shares. There are 1542 shares out. Your voice counts, but you cannot tell me what to do with my fund.

I work for the shareholders and I don't even take management fees on NYAN.B. If you want a motion will be entered.

That's about it. This doesn't deserve a scam accusations post. Nimda is just an asshole.

Just buy people out at current NAV and be done with it. Anything else will cause further shitstorms.

[greyhawk]

Lol do you want me to run a motion on it? Oh wait, you're not a shareholder, and you have a history of trolling. Suprise suprise.

No, actually, Nimda does not have a history of trolling. What he does have is a history of calling out fraudulent behaviour when he sees it. That is NOT trolling. You should not misuse words in an attempt to wrongly discredit nimda. You claim to be an English teacher after all.

[guruvan]

Lol do you want me to run a motion on it? Oh wait, you're not a shareholder, and you have a history of trolling. Suprise suprise.

No, actually, Nimda does not have a history of trolling. What he does have is a history of calling out fraudulent behaviour when he sees it. That is NOT trolling. You should not misuse words in an attempt to wrongly discredit nimda. You claim to be an English teacher after all.

+1000

This goes for the several people calling out fraudulent behavior.

Frankly, it makes you looks stupid, usagi, to continually be abusive, and call people stupid trolls for pointing out that your actions are consistent with fraud. You should instead be showing calmly how it is not, if indeed it isn't. But you don't seem to be able to do this.

[CJGoodings]

Lol do you want me to run a motion on it? Oh wait, you're not a shareholder, and you have a history of trolling. Suprise suprise.

No, actually, Nimda does not have a history of trolling. What he does have is a history of calling out fraudulent behaviour when he sees it. That is NOT trolling. You should not misuse words in an attempt to wrongly discredit nimda. You claim to be an English teacher after all.

Amen to that.

[nimda]

Still looks like simple contract violation to me. NYAN.C should be liquidated and its assets given to NYAN.B.

[MPOE-PR]

I remember lurking back when the nyan idea came into play.
It came as a result of this thread I believe: A risk/reward analysis of insured Pirate returns: PPT.X, YARR, GIPPT, Hashking
The thread gives a few clear examples.

"Shit Nimda copied from the person that they've been attacking ever since for the obvious reason that nobody likes those they steal from."

There is a fourth option; This is how my new issue, Nyancat Financial is set up to work. NYAN.C will probably pay about 9-10% per week.

You can read more about Nyancat Financial here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96415.0

p.s. I posted my idea first :p

Well actually it's just an (uncredited) repost:

This is a little complex, so pour yourself a cup of coffee and take a comfy seat.

A CDO is basically an arrangement that works as follows : an issuer (I) takes a pile of debt of various entities (D1...Dn) in set ammounts (Q1...Qn) and piles it all together. The pile is then tranched, which means say that 25% of it goes to class A, which gets pA, 35% goes to class B, which gets pB and the remainder 40% goes to class C, which gets pC. The catch is that with respect to capital, class A gets paid first. If and only if there's anything left, class B gets paid. If after all B is satisfied there's anything left over, class C gets paid. The counter-catch is that pC is significantly above pA.

Now let's work this out with an example.

MPEx takes in 1000 BTC of debt from entity D1, which pays a weekly 15% ; 500 BTC of debt from entity D2, which pays a weekly 12% ; 1500 BTC of debt from entity D3, which pays 11.5% and 2000 BTC debt from entity D4, which pays 10%, and bundles it all into a CDO. The total weekly revenue of this CDO is 1000×.15+500×.12+1500×.115+2000×.1 = 582.5 BTC, and the total capital in the CDO is 5000 BTC.

The CDO is now tranched, as follows : 1250 shares class A, which pay 7% per month, 1750 shares class B, which pay 11% per month, and 2000 shares class C, which pay 15.125%.

In the event all four entities remain solvent, the class C realises a 15.125% interest, which is superior both in ammount and as principal to the 1k @15% available from entity D1.

In the event any entity goes bankrupt, the CDO plays out as follows :
class A is due 1250 in principal and 87.5 interest = 1337.5 BTC.
class B is due 1750 in principal and 192.5 interest = 1942.5 BTC
class C is due 2000 in principal and 302.5 interest = 2302.5 BTC.

Should entity D2 have gone bankrupt, the total value of the CDO is now 1150 + 0 + 1672.5 + 2200 = 5022.5. This means that class A receives its 1337.5 BTC in full, and there's 3685 left over. Class B receives its 1942.5 BTC in full, and there's 1752.5 left over, so class C realises a 24% theoretical loss or 13% practical loss (principal only).

Should entities D2 and D4 have gone bankrupt, the total value of the CDO remains 1150 + 0 + 1672.5 + 0 = 2822.5 BTC, thus class A receives its 1337.5 in full, class B receives 1485 on its 1942.5 claim and class C realises a 100% loss.

The advantages of the CDO are then apparent : class A obtains excellent security (it loses no money even if half the debtors default) for a small interest, whereas class C obtains better interest than available in the market, in exchange for footing the risk.

Obviously, the actual % wouldn't be the ones quoted, this was just a numeric example.

So now, given that MPEx is considering creating a CDO of this sort, which lenders here would be interested to participate ? (Obviously people with a track record, good ratings etc).

Thanks for reading !

[nimda]

I remember lurking back when the nyan idea came into play.
It came as a result of this thread I believe: A risk/reward analysis of insured Pirate returns: PPT.X, YARR, GIPPT, Hashking
The thread gives a few clear examples.

"Shit Nimda copied from the person that they've been attacking ever since for the obvious reason that nobody likes those they steal from."

There is a fourth option; This is how my new issue, Nyancat Financial is set up to work. NYAN.C will probably pay about 9-10% per week.

You can read more about Nyancat Financial here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96415.0

p.s. I posted my idea first :p

Well actually it's just an (uncredited) repost:

This is a little complex, so pour yourself a cup of coffee and take a comfy seat.

A CDO is basically an arrangement that works as follows : an issuer (I) takes a pile of debt of various entities (D1...Dn) in set ammounts (Q1...Qn) and piles it all together. The pile is then tranched, which means say that 25% of it goes to class A, which gets pA, 35% goes to class B, which gets pB and the remainder 40% goes to class C, which gets pC. The catch is that with respect to capital, class A gets paid first. If and only if there's anything left, class B gets paid. If after all B is satisfied there's anything left over, class C gets paid. The counter-catch is that pC is significantly above pA.

Now let's work this out with an example.

MPEx takes in 1000 BTC of debt from entity D1, which pays a weekly 15% ; 500 BTC of debt from entity D2, which pays a weekly 12% ; 1500 BTC of debt from entity D3, which pays 11.5% and 2000 BTC debt from entity D4, which pays 10%, and bundles it all into a CDO. The total weekly revenue of this CDO is 1000×.15+500×.12+1500×.115+2000×.1 = 582.5 BTC, and the total capital in the CDO is 5000 BTC.

The CDO is now tranched, as follows : 1250 shares class A, which pay 7% per month, 1750 shares class B, which pay 11% per month, and 2000 shares class C, which pay 15.125%.

In the event all four entities remain solvent, the class C realises a 15.125% interest, which is superior both in ammount and as principal to the 1k @15% available from entity D1.

In the event any entity goes bankrupt, the CDO plays out as follows :
class A is due 1250 in principal and 87.5 interest = 1337.5 BTC.
class B is due 1750 in principal and 192.5 interest = 1942.5 BTC
class C is due 2000 in principal and 302.5 interest = 2302.5 BTC.

Should entity D2 have gone bankrupt, the total value of the CDO is now 1150 + 0 + 1672.5 + 2200 = 5022.5. This means that class A receives its 1337.5 BTC in full, and there's 3685 left over. Class B receives its 1942.5 BTC in full, and there's 1752.5 left over, so class C realises a 24% theoretical loss or 13% practical loss (principal only).

Should entities D2 and D4 have gone bankrupt, the total value of the CDO remains 1150 + 0 + 1672.5 + 0 = 2822.5 BTC, thus class A receives its 1337.5 in full, class B receives 1485 on its 1942.5 claim and class C realises a 100% loss.

The advantages of the CDO are then apparent : class A obtains excellent security (it loses no money even if half the debtors default) for a small interest, whereas class C obtains better interest than available in the market, in exchange for footing the risk.

Obviously, the actual % wouldn't be the ones quoted, this was just a numeric example.

So now, given that MPEx is considering creating a CDO of this sort, which lenders here would be interested to participate ? (Obviously people with a track record, good ratings etc).

Thanks for reading !

This discussion is offtopic, but I had never read your post. My "PPT paying > 7% weekly" was directly derived from my insured PPT analysis.

[pyrkne]

Lol do you want me to run a motion on it? Oh wait, you're not a shareholder, and you have a history of trolling. Suprise suprise.

No, actually, Nimda does not have a history of trolling. What he does have is a history of calling out fraudulent behaviour when he sees it. That is NOT trolling. You should not misuse words in an attempt to wrongly discredit nimda. You claim to be an English teacher after all.

+1000

This goes for the several people calling out fraudulent behavior.

Frankly, it makes you looks stupid, usagi, to continually be abusive, and call people stupid trolls for pointing out that your actions are consistent with fraud. You should instead be showing calmly how it is not, if indeed it isn't. But you don't seem to be able to do this.

It makes Usagi look stupid, and it really brings down the stands of communication and interaction for the community.

If "Can you please explain the NAV for xxx?" is trolling, the standards of trolling have really changed.

[nimda]

because he felt that insurance should cover the cost of the premium -- a totally ridiculous concept. He supported it wit some kind of theory .. staked capital, that was based on a twisted form of opportunity cost.. and he wouldn't shut up.

Again, my model (not theory) correctly evaluated the risk of different bonds. It was mathematically sound, and I invite you to attempt to prove otherwise.

He got very personal over it. I had to ban him from posting in my threads because he was that much of a problem. I am seriously not suprised to see him come up with some bullshit scam accusation against me, just in an attempt to kick me when I am down.

You're the one getting personal. Correct math is never personal.

Can a mod lock these threads please?

Absolutely not.

[stochastic]

because he felt that insurance should cover the cost of the premium -- a totally ridiculous concept. He supported it wit some kind of theory .. staked capital, that was based on a twisted form of opportunity cost.. and he wouldn't shut up.

Again, my model (not theory) correctly evaluated the risk of different bonds. It was mathematically sound, and I invite you to attempt to prove otherwise.

He got very personal over it. I had to ban him from posting in my threads because he was that much of a problem. I am seriously not suprised to see him come up with some bullshit scam accusation against me, just in an attempt to kick me when I am down.

You're the one getting personal. Correct math is never personal.

Can a mod lock these threads please?

Absolutely not.

What was the model?

[nimda]

because he felt that insurance should cover the cost of the premium -- a totally ridiculous concept. He supported it wit some kind of theory .. staked capital, that was based on a twisted form of opportunity cost.. and he wouldn't shut up.

Again, my model (not theory) correctly evaluated the risk of different bonds. It was mathematically sound, and I invite you to attempt to prove otherwise.

He got very personal over it. I had to ban him from posting in my threads because he was that much of a problem. I am seriously not suprised to see him come up with some bullshit scam accusation against me, just in an attempt to kick me when I am down.

You're the one getting personal. Correct math is never personal.

Can a mod lock these threads please?

Absolutely not.

What was the model?

This is rather off-topic (thanks usagi), but the model is posted here: A risk/reward analysis of insured pirate: YARR, PPT.X, GIPPT, Hashking, Goat
A more accessible explanation of the model is posted later in the thread: A Pirate-Pass-Through paying MORE than 7% Weekly!. It is mathematically equivalent to the calculations done in the first post; simply replace "exposed capital" with "lender B."

It does not factor in counterparty risk; that is for each investor to decide individually.

[repentance]

Despite being online 9 hours ago, usagi hasn't posted for 36 hours.  That must be a record for him/her. 

[greyhawk]

I like how the usagi has now emptied all of its recent threads.

This will not help. Law enforcement surely already has copies.

[repentance]

I like how the usagi has now emptied all of its recent threads.

This will not help. Law enforcement surely already has copies.

Not to mention how many of usagi's posts were quoted and/or screen-capped.

[greyhawk]

I don't think the judge will be swayed by your argumentation along "You are a troll and stupid". 

[repentance]

I don't think the judge will be swayed by your argumentation along "You are a troll and stupid".  

Fortunately, the internet never forgets because this isn't the only place usagi has been deleting stuff.  I've helpfully screen-capped stuff just in case usagi ever wants to restore it.