Critique of the various businesses run by usagi

[Deprived]

REASON TWO (Pretty massive one):

The test of a party's willingness to honour their obligations is how they've behaved in the past.  Ideally we'd like to look at some other situation where one of usagi's companies was insure by CPA.  Luckily we can - all the gory details are here :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1229467#msg1229467

In brief, CPA (usagi) insured BMF (usagi) against BMF losing NAV.  When BMF lost NAV (usagi's special area of expertise) the insurance policy was not discussed, claimed upon or mentioned again.  If usagi didn't honour the policy with BMF why should anyone believe (an even less formal) guarantee for nyan.a

Pretty lame reason. You already asked this, I'm pretty sure I put it in the FAQ. The contract was a test of what would eventually become the shareholder protection contract. This isn't something like I didn't honor an agreement with BAKEWELL (I actually took a lot of flak for sticking to my contract there -- see, I told you, I wasn't going to let myself get trolled over this. Sorry trolls.) This is me running 2 companies and doing something very, very public. This contract was posted about on the forums and posted on the CPA website. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I did. Previously you were complaining that the contract existed. When it was explained to you I did this to test that kind of contract you started whining that I was breaking contracts. Please dude, read the contract. Nothing was broken. You simply aren't a very good businessman.

What a laod of junk.

You made the contract to "test that kind of contract"?

Then annouced to your shareholders that they were insured - but never paid out when what they were insured against came to happen? Some test.  

You also stated that the policy was passed by a motion.  What motion?

Where did I complain that the contract existed?  What I said (in summary) was that if it didn't cover BMF against loss of NAV what DID it cover?  And you've still not explained what it covered if it wasn't that.

Just saying "there's nothing wrong with what I did" and "it was just an experiment" (the latter a paraphrase) in NO WAY WHATOSEVER explains what benefit BMF got from signing that contract.

[1714047778]

1714047778

[1714047778]

1714047778

[1714047778]

1714047778

[1714047778]

1714047778

[Deprived]

So usagi is offering to sell nyan.a shares at 0.9, having offered a guarantee to buy them back at 0.99.  That smells like giving away money for free to me.  Buy at 0.9, list at .99, wait for contractual obligations to be fulfilled, rinse and repeat.

Or is the 10% off some imaginary RMV?

And who foots the bill for that 10%?  The investors?  CPA?

Instead of assuming you know what is going on, why don't you just ask? Dumping all these theories on the ground without thinking makes you look like a jerk. Here's a theory: you have an IQ of 50 and are unqualified to make the kind of reports you are purporting to make. Is that a good theory? Maybe and maybe not. But wouldn't it just be easier to discuss it with you privately? Why bother to incessantly lie about someone -- repeatedly -- often repeating the same questions which you asked (and had answered) in a FAQ?

The deal with the 10% off, is that holders must agree not to sell the shares between 0.90 and 1 inclusive for a period of three months, depending on the size of the order. If they do that, then 10% off is not out of the question. I'd also require a purchase of at 200 shares.

And of course we ALL believe that you were going to impose that (unverifiable) condition.  I presume they could sell shares they already hold?  How about if they sell them by transfer to someone else (who may, or may not, be another account of theirs or working in collusion with them) for 1.0 and that someone else then sells them for .99?

It's a dumb idea.  Period.

Yes - plenty of IPOs offer discounts on bulk purchases.  But it only makes sense if the IPO is going to sell out (or if there's a deadline on sales) - otherwise they just end up with further sales blocked by resellers making a quick profit on a flip, with no extra shares sold (a problem I've seen a few IPOs run into).

[Deprived]

So if BMF collapses/largely devalues (through...a big drop in mining profitability) - WHERE does CPA get the funds from to cover its guarantee?  You CAN'T meaningfully insure something if the insurance is covered by the very thing that is insured.

Oops, troll abortion in progress (emphasis mine). No, CPA doesn't really insure BMF. This was explained to you quite recently. Read the contract. Do I need to spell it out for you?

You need to learn to read.  I'm talking about CPA's guarantee on nyan.a - not the already defaulted-on cover of BMF.  You're guaranteeing nyan.a against loss (and trying to close nyan.b - leaving them without protection from nyan.b's assets).  nyan.a is heavily invested in BMF - and CPA is pretty much entirely invested in BMF.  So how can CPA guarantee against BMF loss?  If BMF massively devalues, CPA has nothing to use to honour that guarantee with.

Sure -it's an IF.  But isn't that what insurance is for you idiot?  If you KNEW it wouldn't happen you wouldn't NEED insurance or a guarantee.  If you knew it WOULD happen then you wouldn't do it.  It's only when there's a CHANCE of it happening that you want insurance or a guarantee - and you don't want your insurer to be in a position where if you need cover it's a guarantee they can't give it.

[Bitcoin Oz]

So, let's get this clear:

Half (roughly) of nyan.a's holdings are BMF.
BMF is insured by CPA.
CPA's only assets of any note are BMF.

Its even worse than that, CPA also insures Nyan.A.

NYAN ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
   as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of NYAN.A less than 1 per unit.
http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/customers/account-15/

Was actually a typo which I'll correct - 2nd line was meant to say "Nyan.a is insured by CPA".

You just fucked up.

You made a typo -- as puppet -- and corrected it as Deprived.

I was waiting for this, asshole.

How do you manage the apparent major conflicts of interest that appear to happen with all these funds and the insurance company you are running ?

I dont think people would be complaining if you were only running a mining fund.

When you did the motion for BMF to sign the contract with CPA did you even mention that you are the operator of CPA and thus it would present a major conflict of interest ?

Im simply pointing out that you fail to declare these conflicts of interest nearly every time. You dont need to declare anything if you sign a contract with "bumfuck insurance" but you do when its with CPA. A company YOU RUN You made a motion and failed to declare your conflict of interest to the shareholders, which may have changed the outcome.

[Deprived]

a) 2. CPA will not be liable for loss greater than 500 bitcoins.
b) 3. Multiple indemnification payments are allowed so far as the total amount does not exceed 500 bitcoins.
c) 1. BMF will send 5 bitcoins per calendar week for 110 weeks to CPA...
d) 4. Neither party may cancel this contract although any party may choose to
   accelerate their obligation at any time.

All that has happened here is 10 bitcoins were transferred to CPA. Furthermore, this agreement is valid for 110 weeks (over 2 years). Where's the break? Where's the default? Your accusations over this contract are meaningless.

Look at c.  look at d.

If BMF has only sent 10 bitcoins (which is in fact incorrect - it sent 20 right at the start) then BMF is in default.

"per calendar week for 110 weeks" has a meaning.

IF your argument is "Well yeah - CPA is on the hook, but BMF hasn't claimed and the 110 weeks aren't so over so there's no default" then you seriously have some issues.

In your role as manager of BMF you have a responsibility to act in BMF's interest.  How is it in their interest not to claim when they're entitled to?  Anyone who sold shares since a claim would have been valid has sold at a lower price than they should have, had you not decided that your conflict of interest would be addressed by acting in CPA's favour and putting your fingers in your ears every time you were asked about it.

It's plain and simple : By not claiming you defrauded your BMF shareholders.  The fact you also run CPA in no way absolves you from doing what's right for BMF investors if it might happen to inconvenience CPA.

That's why your sort of intertwined mess of half-baked, failing companies should never be allowed to happen.  And if you can't even SEE why it's wrong to act against against the best interests of BMF then you shouldn't be allowed to run anything.

How the fuck does it help BMF to pay 5 BTC per to CPA per week then not claim when they're entitled to?  They already agreed to pay more in premiums than the amount covered - so the least that should happen is they get promptly paid when they're actually entitled to claim.

And as you wear both hats (CPA and BMF) you should be extra careful in making clear to ivnestors what is happening when the two entities interact.  i,e, explain to them why you aren't claiming, or that you HAVE claimed - just never mentioned and have no deadline on when they'll get paid.

Or is the plan to say "well BMF missed its payments and defaulted - so there's not any cover any more"?  That would be the most hilarious excuse ever - that you (deliberately) defaulted on yourself so as to screw one of your companies to help another stay afloat.

You totally and utterly fucked up on that contract.  You MUST know you did.

I do, however, agree that technically CPA may not have defaulted.  BMF definitely has (by not making the agreed payments).  But the ONLY reason CPA hasn't defaulted (if it hasn't) is because YOU decided that BMF wouldn't claim (and we KNOW BMF hasn't claimed - do I need to quote you to prove it?) for no conceivable reason of benefit to BMF's shareholders.  They were entitled to funds from CPA - you refused to claim those funds (or pretended you hadn't noticed - which in some ways is even worse).

[Deprived]

So, let's get this clear:

Half (roughly) of nyan.a's holdings are BMF.
BMF is insured by CPA.
CPA's only assets of any note are BMF.

Its even worse than that, CPA also insures Nyan.A.

NYAN ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
   as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of NYAN.A less than 1 per unit.
http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/customers/account-15/

Was actually a typo which I'll correct - 2nd line was meant to say "Nyan.a is insured by CPA".

You just fucked up.

You made a typo -- as puppet -- and corrected it as Deprived.

I was waiting for this, asshole.

How do you manage the apparent major conflicts of interest that appear to happen with all these funds and the insurance company you are running ?

I dont think people would be complaining if you were only running a mining fund.

When you did the motion for BMF to sign the contract with CPA did you even mention that you are the operator of CPA and thus it would present a major conflict of interest ?

Im simply pointing out that you fail to declare these conflicts of interest nearly every time. You dont need to declare anything if you sign a contract with "bumfuck insurance" but you do when its with CPA. A company YOU RUN You made a motion and failed to declare your conflict of interest to the shareholders, which may have changed the outcome.

There WAS NO MOTION.  When it said there was a motion and it was voted on that was just a bare-faced lie.

Not sure WTF usagi is on about about me/puppet.  Puppet pointed out I'd written BMF when what I wrote also applied to nyan.a.  I said it was a typo - and that I'd meant to type nyan.a in the first place.  Just because I AGREE when someone corrects me, doesn't make us the same person.  I think maybe usagi misunderstood what was being said - I edited the OP after puppet pointed out my mistake.

[Deprived]

So, let's get this clear:

Half (roughly) of nyan.a's holdings are BMF.
BMF is insured by CPA.
CPA's only assets of any note are BMF.

Its even worse than that, CPA also insures Nyan.A.

NYAN ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
   as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of NYAN.A less than 1 per unit.
http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/customers/account-15/

Was actually a typo which I'll correct - 2nd line was meant to say "Nyan.a is insured by CPA".

You just fucked up.

You made a typo -- as puppet -- and corrected it as Deprived.

I was waiting for this, asshole.

Doh fuckwit - just realised what you got wrong.  Have bolded the "second line" which my second quotedreferred to correcting.  See how that makes more sense that your dumb theory?

[Bitcoin Oz]

So, let's get this clear:

Half (roughly) of nyan.a's holdings are BMF.
BMF is insured by CPA.
CPA's only assets of any note are BMF.

Its even worse than that, CPA also insures Nyan.A.

NYAN ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
   as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of NYAN.A less than 1 per unit.
http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/customers/account-15/

Was actually a typo which I'll correct - 2nd line was meant to say "Nyan.a is insured by CPA".

You just fucked up.

You made a typo -- as puppet -- and corrected it as Deprived.

I was waiting for this, asshole.

How do you manage the apparent major conflicts of interest that appear to happen with all these funds and the insurance company you are running ?

I dont think people would be complaining if you were only running a mining fund.

When you did the motion for BMF to sign the contract with CPA did you even mention that you are the operator of CPA and thus it would present a major conflict of interest ?

Im simply pointing out that you fail to declare these conflicts of interest nearly every time. You dont need to declare anything if you sign a contract with "bumfuck insurance" but you do when its with CPA. A company YOU RUN You made a motion and failed to declare your conflict of interest to the shareholders, which may have changed the outcome.

There WAS NO MOTION.  When it said there was a motion and it was voted on that was just a bare-faced lie.

Not sure WTF usagi is on about about me/puppet.  Puppet pointed out I'd written BMF when what I wrote also applied to nyan.a.  I said it was a typo - and that I'd meant to type nyan.a in the first place.  Just because I AGREE when someone corrects me, doesn't make us the same person.  I think maybe usagi misunderstood what was being said - I edited the OP after puppet pointed out my mistake.

Ah i see. I just went through the old motions for BMF and cant find one wrt signing an insurance contract although
I did find two motions that are exactly the same for CPA and BMF lol. So CPA shareholders voted n something that concerned BMF shareholders  

[Deprived]

So, let's get this clear:

Half (roughly) of nyan.a's holdings are BMF.
BMF is insured by CPA.
CPA's only assets of any note are BMF.

Its even worse than that, CPA also insures Nyan.A.

NYAN ("the customer") will be indemnified (by CPA) against loss defined
   as a NAV (Net Asset Value) of NYAN.A less than 1 per unit.
http://www.tsukino.ca/cpa/customers/account-15/

Was actually a typo which I'll correct - 2nd line was meant to say "Nyan.a is insured by CPA".

You just fucked up.

You made a typo -- as puppet -- and corrected it as Deprived.

I was waiting for this, asshole.

How do you manage the apparent major conflicts of interest that appear to happen with all these funds and the insurance company you are running ?

I dont think people would be complaining if you were only running a mining fund.

When you did the motion for BMF to sign the contract with CPA did you even mention that you are the operator of CPA and thus it would present a major conflict of interest ?

Im simply pointing out that you fail to declare these conflicts of interest nearly every time. You dont need to declare anything if you sign a contract with "bumfuck insurance" but you do when its with CPA. A company YOU RUN You made a motion and failed to declare your conflict of interest to the shareholders, which may have changed the outcome.

There WAS NO MOTION.  When it said there was a motion and it was voted on that was just a bare-faced lie.

Not sure WTF usagi is on about about me/puppet.  Puppet pointed out I'd written BMF when what I wrote also applied to nyan.a.  I said it was a typo - and that I'd meant to type nyan.a in the first place.  Just because I AGREE when someone corrects me, doesn't make us the same person.  I think maybe usagi misunderstood what was being said - I edited the OP after puppet pointed out my mistake.

Ah i see. I just went through the old motions for BMF and cant find one wrt signing an insurance contract although
I did find two motions that are exactly the same for CPA and BMF lol. So CPA shareholders voted n something that concerned BMF shareholders  

CPA shareholder pretty much = usagi.

When someone has a conflict or interests, usual practice is for them not to vote on whatever the issue is.  Not for them to just do it without anyone having input.  Definitely not for them then to lie and claim it was voted on.

[Deprived]

CPA and NYAN are still afloat while all deposit takers have now been wiped-out.

When CPA repays it's massive 600-BTC liquidity loan, which was raised in the community during the troll attack by eskimobob, puppet and deprived, even as they had entered scam accusations against me, then I will proffer a wonderful suprise. I think you can guess what it will be from what I just said.

Anyways what happened here is simple; 3 out of 4 sectors crashed and only one (mining, via BMF) is left. That doesn't mean we broke 5d -- it means we KEPT it, and we are very very lucky we did.

I would just like to say how borderline fraudulent it is for trolls to claim we are breaking 5d in a situation like this. And I've already commented on buying back 1150+ BTC worth of shares in the last 3 weeks. So when people way we are not maintaining a bidwall... they're lying.

Ooh please - can I guess?

You're going to start taking deposits - for yet another way to lose investors' funds?

On the buying back two points:

1. How much of that "buying back" was from yourself (in the guise of nyan - whose nyan.a/b/c holdings appear to have mostly vanished)?  GLBSE data certainly shows very little "buying back" in the last 5 days.
2.  You had no business buying back nyan.b (which wasn't guaranteed) when in the process you made yourself unable to keep buying back nyan.a (who DO have a guarantee).

In fact the whole "buying back" (even from nyan.a) totally defeats the purpose of having a tranched security in the first place.  With totally flexible (both up and down) numbers of each tranche active there's no way any investor can properly assess the risk/reward ratio for each tranche.

As I explained elsewhere, the number of active units of each tranche is pretty key in determining the value of the various trade-offs between risk/reward across the tranches.  It's yet another thing showing how little understanding you have of the things you try to do.

The issue on the bidwall is what "in a reasonably timely fashion" (or whatever weasel words it was you used) means.  Timely (without qualification) would tend to mean "whenever needed".  "Reasonably timely" means - well you tell me as you wrote it.  Does it mean "when we can afford to"?  Or maybe "If we can be bothered?"

Let me be clear about something.

I DO NOT believe you ever set out to scam your investors.
I DO believe you're trying your best to make your companies recover.

unfortunately I also believe:

You aren't competent to run the businesses you run.
You spend more time trying to pretend you're succeeding than working out what you did wrong and making sure it won't happen again.
You cross the lines from propaganda into just flat out lieing on occasion.
You are totally unable to run each of your companies in the interest of its own shareholders.  Instead you try to treat them all as parts of one company and have them help out the other parts even when it's blatantly against their own interest.
The last two points, in my view, warrant a scammer tag - not because you're a nasty, thieving individual but because you lack the skill-set and honesty (as much to yourself as anything) needed to be entrusted with other people's funds.

You need to learn to walk (run one company) before you try to run (run a bunch of inter-connected ones).  You're still struggling to get to the crawling stage but believe (or pretend to believe - not totally sure which) you're a world-record holding sprinter.

[pyrkne]

Usagi should be viewed as a case study regarding what happens when a person with nearly zero knowledge of finance and business tries to manage a venture (let alone multiple ventures at once.)

On a similar note, several of you have been regularly labeled trolls - in the interests of disclosure, thank you all for asking the hard questions.

Because this isn't just about usagi. This is about future securities being better quality than the fare we have to trade right now. If the community is willing to ask hard questions and pore over spreadsheets, this can only help asset quality.

Right now it might just seem like the drama of the month. But I'm willing to bet that there will be some important lessons learned from all this. Hopefully leading to some permanent changes.

~pyotr

[Deprived]

I am never going to get a scammer tag because mining crashed. It just simply is not my fault.

I've never claimed you SHOULD get a scammer tag for mining crashing.  I've additionally stated on numerous occasions that I don't believe you should get a scammer tag for losing a shit-load of investors' funds.

The ONLY thing I accused you of in the scammer thread was the BMF insurance issue - where it's crystal clear you intentionally did not act in the interests of your (BMF) share-holders (by refusing to claim on their insurance policy).

Incompetence (on its own) does not warrant a scammer tag.  Acting in bad faith likely does.

If you really want me to shut up about the BMF insurance issue then here's how we could do it:

I'll write a list of propositions about the incident - things which you should easily be able to agree with or disagree with.  Here we go:

1. BMF was insured by CPA against its NAV dropping below 1.0.
2. usagi acted for BMF in agreeing this insurance cover.
3. IF BMF's NAV fell below 1.0 then BMF was entitled to ask CPA to audit BMF and determine whether the NAV actually was below 1.0.
4. usagi reported BMF's nav as being below to 1.0 on multiple occasions (right through to the present).
5. No report has ever been made of BMF requesting an audit of their NAV.
6. Were such an audit to be made then it would be found that BMF's NAV is below 1.0
7. If such an audit were made and BMF's NAV were agreed to be below 1.0 then BMF would be entitled to 100 BTC from CPA.
8. 100 BTC would increase BMF's NAV.
9. The contract defines no waiting period between successive claims.
10. At some undefined point after receiving 100 BTC, BMF could apply for another 100 BTC (if NAV was still below 1.0).
11. Increasing BMF's NAV would be a good thing for BMF shareholders.
12. The responsibility of BMF's manager when making decisions on BMF's behalf is to BMF's shareholders collectively, not to CPA's shareholders.
13. Claiming 100 BTC (or multiple sets of 100 BTC) from CPA under the insurance policy would give more benefit to BMF shareholders than not claiming any BTC at all.
14. No notification has ever been given to all BMF shareholders that the insurance policy was cancelled.

Once we agree on the facts of what happened (a very quick draft of them are above - I've ignore irrelevancies like you lieing about there having been a motion/vote by BMF on the policy) then anyone reading it can see what the agreed facts are - and only has to decide whether or not my accusation has any merit.

To be totally clear what my accusation is:

"By failing to claim on the insurance policy, usagi acted against the interests of BMF share-holders.  This inaction caused direct loss to any shareholder who subsequently sold shares for less than those shares would have been worth had the insurance policy been claimed on and honoured.  It continues to cause shares held by BMF shareholders to be worth less than they should be."

In my book, deliberately causing your shareholders to lose money (i.e. have less money than they otherwise would) to prop up another business is a scam-worthy action.

The "caused loss" bit COULD be countered by claiming that CPA could not afford to pay out - hence no actual loss was caused.  That would be a fallacious argument - I can explain why if you choose to take that route.

But like I said - which of the FACTS do you disagree with?  I can reword them if necessary to clarify something.  The process i'm proposing is akin to "admissions" in a court - where a set of statements are agreed as being accepted by both sides, leaving only conclusions/interpretation of those facts to be determined by the judge/jury/magistrate/whoever the verdict-maker is.  It saves a lot of pointless debate and general confusion.

Or, of course, you can continue to try to avoid discussing facts - and we can just sling mud at one another a bit more.  The latter probably being the more entertaining but less useful of the two alternatives.

EDIT: I've simplified some of the propositions just to keep it simple.  If usagi wants to make them all absolutely precise then we can do that.  An example is that I've talked about BMF being able to claim 100 BTC.  More accurately every time I should say "the lower of 100 BTC and the amount needed to restore BMF's NAV/share to 1.0".  I know from experience that usagi likes to find one or two tiny details that are wrong so as to avoid having to answer the actual issues.  Whilst I believe it a waste of time I'm fine with getting every tiny detail precise if required - eventually usagi would run out of little details to nit-pick on and have to talk about the important points.

[pyrkne]

I was skimming through the thread (haven't read it entirely yet) and was reminded of the "liquidity loan." I didn't think much - more along the lines of "I haven't read the Lending forum in awhile."

Surely other people have read posts about how unverified mining operations could easily be simple loans, paying back "mining rewards." This kind of discussion has been popping up lately.

With these two things in mind, I recalled the many askwalls recently placed for BMF.

I've stayed up all night working - my mind is probably just tired and paranoid. But on the other hand, I'd love photo evidence of BMFs mining hardware! Got to rest now before it gets any brighter.

~pyotr

[Deprived]

I was skimming through the thread (haven't read it entirely yet) and was reminded of the "liquidity loan." I didn't think much - more along the lines of "I haven't read the Lending forum in awhile."

Surely other people have read posts about how unverified mining operations could easily be simple loans, paying back "mining rewards." This kind of discussion has been popping up lately.

With these two things in mind, I recalled the many askwalls recently placed for BMF.

I've stayed up all night working - my mind is probably just tired and paranoid. But on the other hand, I'd love photo evidence of BMFs mining hardware! Got to rest now before it gets any brighter.

~pyotr

You're on the wrong track there.

The ask-walls are to raise new funds to buy more hardware - think each one is enough for one rig or something like that.

The mining hardware is ordered but not delivered (from memory there may have been one old rig usagi donated or is loaning to BMF), so no way photos of any substantial amount of gear could be provided.

Remember, BMF started as an investment company then passed a motion to change to doing mining (bear in mind usagi controls the majority of shares so can pass any motions it wants) - so it's not like it SHOULD have a load of mining gear as it's only just transitioning.

Just clearing that up as I don't want totally wrong accusations in here - 'cos that gives usagi the easy way out of answering an inaccurate accusation then claiming that somehow proves every other accusation is wrong.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I was skimming through the thread (haven't read it entirely yet) and was reminded of the "liquidity loan." I didn't think much - more along the lines of "I haven't read the Lending forum in awhile."

Surely other people have read posts about how unverified mining operations could easily be simple loans, paying back "mining rewards." This kind of discussion has been popping up lately.

With these two things in mind, I recalled the many askwalls recently placed for BMF.

I've stayed up all night working - my mind is probably just tired and paranoid. But on the other hand, I'd love photo evidence of BMFs mining hardware! Got to rest now before it gets any brighter.

~pyotr

You're on the wrong track there.

The ask-walls are to raise new funds to buy more hardware - think each one is enough for one rig or something like that.

The mining hardware is ordered but not delivered (from memory there may have been one old rig usagi donated or is loaning to BMF), so no way photos of any substantial amount of gear could be provided.

Remember, BMF started as an investment company then passed a motion to change to doing mining (bear in mind usagi controls the majority of shares so can pass any motions it wants) - so it's not like it SHOULD have a load of mining gear as it's only just transitioning.

Just clearing that up as I don't want totally wrong accusations in here - 'cos that gives usagi the easy way out of answering an inaccurate accusation then claiming that somehow proves every other accusation is wrong.

It would only be relevent if usagi started a perpetual mining bond on glbse. I hope they do no such thing because people would immediately question it.

[Puppet]

Surely other people have read posts about how unverified mining operations could easily be simple loans, paying back "mining rewards." This kind of discussion has been popping up lately.

What deprived said.
However, as a general concern, it is IMO valid if you replace mining gear with GLBSE assets. Is there anyway we can independently verify what a fund actually holds?

Thing is, an easy way to make money is start a fund and claim to invest in all the easy to spot loser shares, then claim your investors money was burned because X or Y defaulted or crashed, while in reality you never invested in them and the coins are safely in your wallet. For the record, I dont think usagi is doing this, because it would take some foresight and intelligence, and I doubt he has that. Unless he is extremely skilled at pretending he doesnt.

[Deprived]

There WAS NO MOTION.  When it said there was a motion and it was voted on that was just a bare-faced lie.

I never said there was a motion -- you misquoted me. I told you this twice already.. wake up. I said it was announced and publicized. It was posted here on the forum and on the CPA webpage. A link was posted to the contract. No one cared for 2 months until you started whining like a little bitch about it. You can't even understand the contract. Why are you the only one complaining? You're not even a shareholder. Go away.

You never said there was a motion?

If NAV has fallen below 1 shouldn't you just ask CPA to audit and pay-out on your insurance policy?  The policy was for NAV falling below 1 - and you stated it was about 0.57.  If that doesn't trigger a payout what does?

If I am reading this correctly, CPA signed a contract to payout when BMF was below 1 ?

But BMF was already below 1 when the contract was signed.

Quote from: usagi on July 15, 2012, 05:36:53 PM
NAV update:

Through precision trading we have raised the nav from 0.65 at the time of the motion to 0.866 today!

This puts us within a month away from recovery. If I can pull a few more good deals like this we could be paying divs again by the end of the month.

I just want you to know I am doing my best to get this done. Let's all hope for the best, thanks.

We have continued to make best efforts towards repairing our NAV and resuming dividends.

To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss.

We have decided to publish this contract, to give a clearer picture of what is going on with BMF these days.

This contract means we will likely begin paying dividends again by next week.

This is good news! Ok, don't celebrate yet, let's get through the week first Smiley

Thank you for your support, shareholders.

This is like signing a contract to pay out on your house getting burnt down when your house has already burnt down.

You can't be serious. Look at the date on the post you are quoting. This was announced, publicized, motioned, voted on and passed two months ago. If you wanted to complain you should have done it then. Seriously, go bother hashking, pirate or matthew; look around and you will see I run the finest companies on GLBSE.

And while you're at it, read the contract we signed VERY VERY CLOSELY and you will "see what I did there".

Now. If you're a shareholder, please go vote on the motion Seriously - You wanna know what my shareholders think of me? Wait till the motion passes and look at the numbers. Until then if you are not a shareholder do not post on this thread or I'll lock it and make a new one with local rules. Please, don't ruin this by dragging innuendo and BS onto here as well.

Bolded the relevant bit.  That jog your memory at all?

[Bitcoin Oz]

There WAS NO MOTION.  When it said there was a motion and it was voted on that was just a bare-faced lie.

I never said there was a motion -- you misquoted me. I told you this twice already.. wake up. I said it was announced and publicized. It was posted here on the forum and on the CPA webpage. A link was posted to the contract. No one cared for 2 months until you started whining like a little bitch about it. You can't even understand the contract. Why are you the only one complaining? You're not even a shareholder. Go away.

You never said there was a motion?

If NAV has fallen below 1 shouldn't you just ask CPA to audit and pay-out on your insurance policy?  The policy was for NAV falling below 1 - and you stated it was about 0.57.  If that doesn't trigger a payout what does?

If I am reading this correctly, CPA signed a contract to payout when BMF was below 1 ?

But BMF was already below 1 when the contract was signed.

Quote from: usagi on July 15, 2012, 05:36:53 PM
NAV update:

Through precision trading we have raised the nav from 0.65 at the time of the motion to 0.866 today!

This puts us within a month away from recovery. If I can pull a few more good deals like this we could be paying divs again by the end of the month.

I just want you to know I am doing my best to get this done. Let's all hope for the best, thanks.

We have continued to make best efforts towards repairing our NAV and resuming dividends.

To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss.

We have decided to publish this contract, to give a clearer picture of what is going on with BMF these days.

This contract means we will likely begin paying dividends again by next week.

This is good news! Ok, don't celebrate yet, let's get through the week first Smiley

Thank you for your support, shareholders.

This is like signing a contract to pay out on your house getting burnt down when your house has already burnt down.

You can't be serious. Look at the date on the post you are quoting. This was announced, publicized, motioned, voted on and passed two months ago. If you wanted to complain you should have done it then. Seriously, go bother hashking, pirate or matthew; look around and you will see I run the finest companies on GLBSE.

And while you're at it, read the contract we signed VERY VERY CLOSELY and you will "see what I did there".

Now. If you're a shareholder, please go vote on the motion Seriously - You wanna know what my shareholders think of me? Wait till the motion passes and look at the numbers. Until then if you are not a shareholder do not post on this thread or I'll lock it and make a new one with local rules. Please, don't ruin this by dragging innuendo and BS onto here as well.

Bolded the relevant bit.  That jog your memory at all?

oops.

[Deprived]

"per calendar week for 110 weeks" has a meaning.

IF your argument is "Well yeah - CPA is on the hook, but BMF hasn't claimed and the 110 weeks aren't so over so there's no default" then you seriously have some issues.

No. BMF has paid CPA a couple times, and then I decided to accelerate both BMF and CPA's obligation; I just stated that BMF paid CPA approximately 100 times and then CPA gave BMF 500 bitcoins. This canceled the contract. Read the contract. You have a mental problem; this has been explained to you many many times.

Wow - an even less credible excuse than I expected. Let's see you expect us to believe that:

1.  You signed the contract and announced to your shareholders that BMF was now insured against loss of capital.  Biut in fact it was just an experiment and you never had any intent of there being any insurance.
2.  BMF paid some premiums then lost NAV and was in a position to claim.  Instead of just claiming you acclerated BMF's payments to cancel out the claim.  But you didn't announce this at ALL to your share-holders in BMF.

Note that the decision to accelerate both claim AND premiums could ONLY be made if BMF was entitled to claim 500 BTC - otherwise there wasn't any cancellation of premiums CPA could accelerate.

That is total and utter bullshit.  You are lieing through your teeth.  I can't put it any clearer.

You explained it to me MANY times?  Point to ONE place where you've explained in ANY thread about that you accelerated premiums.  I haven't seen any posting telling your share-holders "Oh BTW, we were entitled to 500 BTC from CPA but I decided to pay all our premiums now instead of accepting it."  

What a pile of steaming horse-shit.  Is that the best pathetic excuse you could come up with?  The truth is that CPA couldn't afford to pay - so you hoped to brush it under the carpet (maybe you intended to pay later - when CPA got some funds).

Here's the things that make no sense about your crappy little lies:

1.  If it was an experiment - what did actually signing the contract achieve?  Without actually honouring the contract you learn nothing from just the act of signing it then cancelling it.
2.  If it was an experiment why tell your share-holders they were now insured by CPA?
3.  If you announced signing the contract why not announce ending it?
4.  If BMF were entitled to 500 BTC from CPA how is it in BMF shareholders' interest to then speed up their own payment of premiums?
5.  Your contract plainly specified how payments were to be made (the bitcoin addresses and the .00000012 suffix).  No such payments exist - yet even if your crappy little story were true there should be at least one (as the outstanding premiums didn't add up to exactly 500 BTC).
6.  Even in your little fairy tale you seem to be claiming you gave away 20 BTC from BMF to CPA as part of an "experiment". (Go check the blockexlorer logs - the 1st payment was 20 not the 10 you claim).  Why?

Point 4, BTW is where your conflict of interest came in - a concept you very clearly don't understand.

You're a more brazen liar than I'd previously given you credit for.  Not only are you lieing about what happened (someone just has to read your post to BMF shareholders to realise this was no meaningless experiment - you were proud you'd got insurance) but you're repeatedly claiming to have explained things when, in fact, quite the opposite is the case.  You've consistently stone-walled on the insurance - until you've finally cracked and told the totally unbelievable pack of lies I expected.

I don't know WHEN you came up with this story - it may have been a while back.  But it sure as heck wasn't until AFTER BMF were entitled to claim and you realised CPA couldn't afford to pay up.  Then you just went and cheated your BMF investors and are now lieing through your teeth about it.

[Deprived]

oops.

First Deprived and puppet et. al were whining that the contract was even made in the first place. That there was a conflict of interest. When it was shown beyond a shadow of a doubt there was no conflict of interest....

then they were whining that it wasn't kept. When it was explained that it WAS kept, merely accelerated and closed as per it's own wording...

then they now complain that I said it was motioned on (which was a mistake) the point of which itself is irrelevant because the contract itself is meaningless, does not affect the operation of either company, and was done in public.

Do you get that you are being trolled here, bitcoin.me? The contract is meaningless and affects no one and no thing.

I will never ever get a scammer tag for this. It isn't even on the radar considering such terms as logic and critical thinking. Deprived needs a ban to get it into his head it is not his job to try and hurt people's business.

This next part isn't for you bitcoin.me...

Trolls, seriously guys get a fucking life.

I've been under the microscope for about a month now. Do you get it? I'm not doing anything wrong. Now fuck off.

You saying something doesn't make it "shown beyond a shadow of a doubt".  In fact it likely adds doubt to something I may well otherwise have believed without question.

You have no reasonable explanation for why you'd say to your shareholders:

To this end we have signed an insurance contract with CPA which indemnifies us against capital loss.

We have decided to publish this contract, to give a clearer picture of what is going on with BMF these days.

This contract means we will likely begin paying dividends again by next week.

This is good news! Ok, don't celebrate yet, let's get through the week first

That's not the entire message - snipped irrelevant parts at start and end.

If it was "just an experiment" in which the only action was BMF GIVING 20 BTC to CPA how would it improve BMF's ability to pay dividends?  Why even announce it? Why send the 20 BTC - you needed to test your wallet worked or something?

I don't believe anyone reading that psot of yours would get the impression it was a meaningless experiment - rather they would very clearly get the impression that BMF was now insured (as per the contract).

You defrauded your BMF investors and are now lieing about it.

Yeah - it's possible sometimes my posting gets a bit trollish.  Better that than your behaviour - which is solidly at the compulsive liar end of the spectrum with a heavy dose of scammer/fraud thrown in.