program

[EskimoBob]

How do you get so warped NAV's for those portfolios?

UTC 16.20 2012.03.10 NYAN.B (if you actually hold what you have published) is about 0.50665 BTC and this is very generous.
Looks like you managed to pick up another 2651 OBSI.HRPT (now 8218). I bet all the share holders are ecstatic about that.
There is someone, who want 53 shares of that junk and is willing to pay 0.005302 (notice the .00 !)

[1714240725]

1714240725

[1714240725]

1714240725

[1714240725]

1714240725

[1714240725]

1714240725

[1714240725]

1714240725

[burnside]

NYAN.B proudly stands by it's RMV value of 0.2 for FZB.A and we have no intention of selling shares at 0.02.

0.2? LOL.
It was never over 0.1, no one is even ASKING 0.2, let alone bid 1/10th of that.
https://glbse.com/asset/view/FZB.A

Huh? Oh, weird.. Maybe I entered 0.2 by mistake when I meant to enter 0.02? Hmm. Well I'll change it to IPO price. I dunno how that happened. Ok, well I changed it. Thanks.

What's the value of the fund after that change?

[pyrkne]

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

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

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

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

Oh - and:

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

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

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

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

Been wondering about the .A bidwall myself. The few times I wanted to liquidate .A, there was no bidwall. I haven't seen one anytime recently either.

[P4man]

Im interested in the answer to these questions too

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

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

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

Oh - and:

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

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

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

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

[P4man]

Huh? Oh, weird.. Maybe I entered 0.2 by mistake when I meant to enter 0.02? Hmm. Well I'll change it to IPO price.

Why would you change it to IPO price? What is your reasoning that fair market value is 10x the current highest bid and 5x the 5 day average?
Missing a zero could be an honest mistake.  Deliberately inflating your asset value by 10x is not.

[bitcoinbear]

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

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

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

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

Oh - and:

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

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

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

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

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

[pyrkne]

Huh? Oh, weird.. Maybe I entered 0.2 by mistake when I meant to enter 0.02? Hmm. Well I'll change it to IPO price.

Why would you change it to IPO price? What is your reasoning that fair market value is 10x the current highest bid and 5x the 5 day average?
Missing a zero could be an honest mistake.  Deliberately inflating your asset value by 10x is not.

Here's a question for you:

Can you explain WHY people are selling to 0.02 on an asset that has had no negative news, is currently in operation, and run by the same guy who runs Satoshidice?

I'm all ears.

Are you talking about FZB? I believe there is in fact negative news - multiple reports of users unable to start funding campaigns, multiple reports of users unable to get their coins back.

I would have more faith in "the same guy who runs Satoshidice" if I got the feeling he had time for other ventures.

[EskimoBob]

...

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

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

There is no rule that allows you to ban anyone asking or speaking up against your bull shit. If there is, can I have the link for this forum rule? (not your made up rule, that helps you in spreading lies and incorrect information about the NAV etc of those portfolios, you have single handedly destroyed.

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

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

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

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

Oh - and:

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

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

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

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

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

So, you are refusing to answer honest questions? How long do you think you can keep lying to pole on this forum?
What if they all start asking those same questions but with different wording?

 

[bitcoinbear]

Huh? Oh, weird.. Maybe I entered 0.2 by mistake when I meant to enter 0.02? Hmm. Well I'll change it to IPO price.

Why would you change it to IPO price? What is your reasoning that fair market value is 10x the current highest bid and 5x the 5 day average?
Missing a zero could be an honest mistake.  Deliberately inflating your asset value by 10x is not.

Here's a question for you:

Can you explain WHY people are selling to 0.02 on an asset that has had no negative news, is currently in operation, and run by the same guy who runs Satoshidice?

I'm all ears.

There have been reports of the site not working, and the response has been slow to say the least. It appears the site is working, but there is not a whole lot of activity on it, which means that the original estimations were incorrect. The website also has not been updated in a while, and the longer they wait to add features the more likely it is that somebody else will make something as good or better. The price of bitcoins has doubled since it was IPOed, and while that increases the value of this company slightly, I would not say the value has doubled. I would actually call the value somewhere between 0.03 and 0.02 (I would buy at 0.02 but sell at 0.03), I think the recent sales have just been people exiting the market due to the Goat/Nefario kerflufle, but since the volume has been so low it is hard to get a meaningful price from the market.

The complaints of bad service are on a separate thread, in "marketplace" or somewhere, I will see if I can find it ... found it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106242.0

[P4man]

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

My question is, what is your answer to deprived's questions. They seem quite valid questions,  I see no reason why I or anyone else should waste time rephrasing them.

BTW this local rule ban stuff makes you look like a 12 year old trying to weasel his way out of something. Its not reflecting well on you at all.

[P4man]

Here's a question for you:

Can you explain WHY people are selling to 0.02 on an asset that has had no negative news, is currently in operation, and run by the same guy who runs Satoshidice?

I'm all ears.

Others have touched upon this already, but the answer is that it doesnt matter. If it interests you, you should ask the people selling why they are selling at that price, but the price is not what you think its worth, nor is it what you ask, its what a fool is willing to pay. Ever since the IPO,  no fool has been willing to pay anything like IPO price. The biggest fool right now is bidding 0.012 and for almost no shares. The only real volume is at a 10x lower price even.  100x what you say is a fair price. 1000x what you had in your books
You might want to think about that for a second.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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

My question is, what is your answer to deprived's questions. They seem quite valid questions,  I see no reason why I or anyone else should waste time rephrasing them.

BTW this local rule ban stuff makes you look like a 12 year old trying to weasel his way out of something. Its not reflecting well on you at all.

I don't care. Deprived is an asshole who twists facts. Not interested. If you have a question, ask.

Bitcoinbear: thanks, I'll look at it tomorrow; it's way late and I need to sleep.

Ok, I will ask them on other people's behalf.

How many of those 1100 shares were bought back from the public via GLBSE as opposed to bought back at "RMV" from your own companies via private transfer? 

Where is the contractually required bidwall at .99 for NYAN.A ? Is CPA still honouring its contract for NYAN.A ?

[pyrkne]

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

My question is, what is your answer to deprived's questions. They seem quite valid questions,  I see no reason why I or anyone else should waste time rephrasing them.

BTW this local rule ban stuff makes you look like a 12 year old trying to weasel his way out of something. Its not reflecting well on you at all.

I don't care. Deprived is an asshole who twists facts. Not interested. If you have a question, ask.

Bitcoinbear: thanks, I'll look at it tomorrow; it's way late and I need to sleep.

Ok, I will ask them on other people's behalf.

How many of those 1100 shares were bought back from the public via GLBSE as opposed to bought back at "RMV" from your own companies via private transfer? 

Where is the contractually required bidwall at .99 for NYAN.A ? Is CPA still honouring its contract for NYAN.A ?

These two sound like a good start.

[capn noe]

Where is the contractually required bidwall at .99 for NYAN.A ? Is CPA still honouring its contract for NYAN.A ?

Since this is being asked repeatedly I assume you have prepared a statement?

[P4man]

Please see the FAQ in this thread -- post #2 question #4.

it's been there for days...

Thats not an answer, its a rant.
You sold Nyan.A as a zero risk asset with the explicit guarantees of NAV and .99 rebuy.
It doesnt matter that you say you are trying when in reality, you are doing neither. NAV has fallen well below 1 BTC and there is no bid wall. There is an askwall and I expect it will be gone in a few days replaced by the bidwall you promised in your contract.

As for the reason why people are selling, in case you are interested, it has nothing to do with "trolls", it has everything to do with you proving yourself dishonest and or incapable. Its clear to me the CPA guarantee is absolutely worthless, NYAN.A is not worth what you say it is,  and now that you are closing  Nyan.B for a price far above its actual NAV, it doesnt take a genius to figure out where this is headed.

Hint: its not above 1 BTC.

[guruvan]

Huh? Oh, weird.. Maybe I entered 0.2 by mistake when I meant to enter 0.02? Hmm. Well I'll change it to IPO price.

Why would you change it to IPO price? What is your reasoning that fair market value is 10x the current highest bid and 5x the 5 day average?
Missing a zero could be an honest mistake.  Deliberately inflating your asset value by 10x is not.

Here's a question for you:

Can you explain WHY people are selling to 0.02 on an asset that has had no negative news, is currently in operation, and run by the same guy who runs Satoshidice?

I'm all ears.

Because Twitter advertising is a waste of time, money, and energy. IMO, .02 is FMV for FZB.  unless you've got some earning numbers to support it. Further, Twitter isn't the most reliable when it comes to operating through their platform....they tend towards arbitrary rule changes (sound familiar, usagi?) Finally, basing a company completely off another company's platform, fixing all your revenue to that other company's performance, and continued production of the product yours is based off of, and contued permission/potential for you to actually base your product off theirs is a recipe for a short lived business. Twitter could kill FZB in an instant with a rule change, or in other ways changing their platform. There's plent of example of, say MSFT doing this to companies. I said most of this (to Erik) when FZB first came out. It's still true now. If I needed one more thing: Erik seems to move quickly onto new projects - I don't suspect FZB will be much improved over its life.

In fact, I wouldn't even pay .02 for it. It's done nothing but fall since IPO. (usagi's favorite kind of issue to invest it!! )

[btharper]

...

Local Rules: the following accounts are banned from posting in this thread: Puppet, EskimoBob, Deprived, Factory, nimda, 556j, MPOE-PR, cunicula and guruvan. Please post scam accusations in the scam accusation forum or you will be banned from next month's thread.

Guruvan, delete your post and stop being an asswipe.

Actually he's trying to make a solid point about FZB valuation which was an active discussion here already - there is significant risk involved with depending on twitter as a business model. This is just a good example of how your local rules are just causing you to make an ass of yourself at the expense of yourself and your investors.

That being said I'd agree with others that the whole reason to buy insurance from CPA - a distinct company on paper - is to provide an appropriate bidwall for NYAN.A. In now way is the market supposed to play into that. CPA is an insurance company who is now being asked, and required by contract, to provide their services. Is there a reason CPA cannot make good on it's contract?

[MrTeal]

...

Local Rules: the following accounts are banned from posting in this thread: Puppet, EskimoBob, Deprived, Factory, nimda, 556j, MPOE-PR, cunicula and guruvan. Please post scam accusations in the scam accusation forum or you will be banned from next month's thread.

Guruvan, delete your post and stop being an asswipe.

Actually he's trying to make a solid point about FZB valuation which was an active discussion here already - there is significant risk involved with depending on twitter as a business model. This is just a good example of how your local rules are just causing you to make an ass of yourself at the expense of yourself and your investors.

That being said I'd agree with others that the whole reason to buy insurance from CPA - a distinct company on paper - is to provide an appropriate bidwall for NYAN.A. In now way is the market supposed to play into that. CPA is an insurance company who is now being asked, and required by contract, to provide their services. Is there a reason CPA cannot make good on it's contract?

Doesn't matter. Guruvan is not a shareholder and he has issued threats to me in the past. He is a troll and he is banned from posting on this thread.

I'll just leave this here. Glad to see you've quickly recovered recovered from your three wine spritzers, usagi.

How solvent are your companies if you've lost your life savings and your wife is going to kill you?

glbse has shut down............

i just transferred 200 BTC to GLBSE.......

I am so sorry.. wtf.... glbse shut down.... i have been talking about this for days.. my life ssvings is gone,,,

Look guys I am asorrt...l I am  druni now.... its not my fault.. I will gibe you my work  money. My wife wil kil me.. I mk sorry I am sorry.. I am sorry..///

[pyrkne]

...

Local Rules: the following accounts are banned from posting in this thread: Puppet, EskimoBob, Deprived, Factory, nimda, 556j, MPOE-PR, cunicula and guruvan. Please post scam accusations in the scam accusation forum or you will be banned from next month's thread.

Guruvan, delete your post and stop being an asswipe.

Actually he's trying to make a solid point about FZB valuation which was an active discussion here already - there is significant risk involved with depending on twitter as a business model. This is just a good example of how your local rules are just causing you to make an ass of yourself at the expense of yourself and your investors.

That being said I'd agree with others that the whole reason to buy insurance from CPA - a distinct company on paper - is to provide an appropriate bidwall for NYAN.A. In now way is the market supposed to play into that. CPA is an insurance company who is now being asked, and required by contract, to provide their services. Is there a reason CPA cannot make good on it's contract?

Doesn't matter. Guruvan is not a shareholder and he has issued threats to me in the past. He is a troll and he is banned from posting on this thread.

With this GLBSE thing, I hope that I'm still a shareholder in a few days.

I'm starting to think we should treat the site as though it is in a sort of beta.

[burnside]

...

Local Rules: the following accounts are banned from posting in this thread: Puppet, EskimoBob, Deprived, Factory, nimda, 556j, MPOE-PR, cunicula and guruvan. Please post scam accusations in the scam accusation forum or you will be banned from next month's thread.

Guruvan, delete your post and stop being an asswipe.

Actually he's trying to make a solid point about FZB valuation which was an active discussion here already - there is significant risk involved with depending on twitter as a business model. This is just a good example of how your local rules are just causing you to make an ass of yourself at the expense of yourself and your investors.

That being said I'd agree with others that the whole reason to buy insurance from CPA - a distinct company on paper - is to provide an appropriate bidwall for NYAN.A. In now way is the market supposed to play into that. CPA is an insurance company who is now being asked, and required by contract, to provide their services. Is there a reason CPA cannot make good on it's contract?

Doesn't matter. Guruvan is not a shareholder and he has issued threats to me in the past. He is a troll and he is banned from posting on this thread.

With this GLBSE thing, I hope that I'm still a shareholder in a few days.

I'm starting to think we should treat the site as though it is in a sort of beta.

GLBSE has had wording on the main page that it is in beta as long as I have been using it.