Critique of the various businesses run by usagi

[Deprived]

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

No, let me be clear; I wasn't talking to you(plural) i.e. my shareholders, I was talking to you(singular) meaning the entity known as Deprived. And my meaning was along the lines of "I do not give a fuck about you."


See when bitcoin.me asks, as a shareholder, I'm nice, I try to be accommodating, and I offer to run a motion since it's obvious that he has a valid issue. Maybe not an issue every shareholder agrees with or cares about, but it is possible a motion could solve a great many issues.

When YOU ask, I just tell you to fuck off because you are a deceitful, fraudulent asshole. Capiche? I do not care about you.

It's very obvious you do not care about the truth. if you cared about the truth you would ask a question on the FAQ thread and I would answer it. You shied away from doing that very very quickly because you saw it was working in my favor. You just make these troll threads, and infect other serious discussion threads with your bullshit. You know the deal, Deprived. Go post a question on the faq thread, or fuck off. Your choice. No one is paying me to deal with your bullshit so don't be suprised when I sidestep you.

I shied away from posting in your threads because you banned me from them in you local rules lol.

This ain't your thread.  You can't stop me exposing your lies, scams etc here.  Your childish attempts to intimidate me won't work.

When I posted about this in your other trheads you told me to go post in scammers forum.  I did that - albeit in an abortion of a thread that mainly seemed to deal with issues of valuations which only pertain to your incompetence not to whether you're a scammer.  You then ignored my post and told me to ask it in your main threads.  I posted it in your main BMF thread - where it's now sat for days without answer (even after being quoted by someone who claims to be a shareholder).  When I asked about it other threads you locked them and made new ones from which I was banned in your local rules.

And now I post here I'm suddenly supposed to post in some other thread - where you've already ignored my questions, claimed to have answered them (without actually doing so) or from which I am banned?

Get real.  Now you've made the one post I wanted (giving a bullshit excuse for the insurance) I don't care whether you psot here again or not.  Until you actually gave an obvious pack of lies as an answer, people could give you the benefit of the doubt.  Now anyone reading this - and seeing your post - will KNOW you're lieing through your teeth.

If you want to keep posting - go for it.  You won't tell the truth (you can't really now you've committed to a lie) so are unlikely to add anything of value.

News Flash for usagi : This isn't your thread.  There's no local rules here to stop people asking awkward questions.  You can tell me to fuck off, shut up etc etc - but have approximately zero chance of it having the effect you'd like it to.  I'll likely lock this thread later today, after I've done some work, and make a nice shiny new one - where i'll spell out in a nice step-by-step fashion exactly what happened, quote your little pack of lies and explain precisely why they are obviously lies.

I'll probably make the thread in this forum - then if anyone with a financial interest (e.g. a current BMF shareholder or an ex-BMF shareholder who sold for less than they should have because of your THEFT from them) wants to make a scammer thread about it they can.

So go back to your own threads and spin a bit more bullshit to your investors.  I'll be respecting your local rules UNLESS you actually post about me: I doubt very much the mods will enforce a local rule banning someone from defending themselves against accusations made against them.

Hmm, maybe when I've collated it all we could have a poll.  Something like:

"Having read usagi's account of how the insurance policy was just an experiment do you believe:

A.  usagi is a lieing sack of shit who defrauded its investors.
B.  usagi is a practical joker who was just having some fun by telling BMF investors they were insured when it was actually just an experiment designed to test nothing, prove nothing and achieve nothing (plus cost BMF 20 BTC).
C.  usagi is a great company manager with the highest standards of integrity who would never knowingly mislead investors or act in a manner counter to their interests.

I predict option C would get 2+X votes.  The 2 being usagi + Atlas and the X whatever number of sock-puppet accounts usagi cares to make.

[Deprived]

LOL.  Now all of a sudden usagi's backtracking in its other threads and talking about actually claiming on the insurance.

Let's have a quote and comment on it :

...

Guess what puppet, it's not my job to donate personal money to BMF. I do it because I love my shareholders. But I do not love you because you are an evil troll. You are banned from posting on this thread, and your post will be deleted. If you keep posting here I really hope you get banned from the forums.

Couldnt you repair BMF NAV using the insurance it supposedly holds with CPA ?

If not , why not ?

Let's look at two scenarios.
1. Under the contract BMF and CPA can choose to accelerate their obligations to the point where the contract expires. In this case BMF would owe CPA exactly 10 bitcoins. I could do that (and I have stated I have -- although I have not made an exact accounting of it, the figure should be very close to that).

2. CPA could easily "give 100 bitcoins" by returning 200 shares of BMF to BMF. Hell, it could easily give 1,000 shares to BMF (500 bitcoins value). What would this accomplish? Well, CPA would get the money back yes, but it would weaken CPA and indebit BMF to CPA for 2 years. The BMF share price would go up but BMF has been around 0.5 for 2 months now. BMF has a plan for increasing in value. I don't think it is really necessary.

Actually now that you have made me think about it a little more, this looks like the kind of thing a motion could solve.

Do you think I should put this up as a BMF motion? Technically it's BMF that would have to ask for the insurance. I just don't think it's worthwhile to do.

How about option 3:

3.  CPA pays BMF 500 bitcoins now.  BMF pays its premiums per schedule and in the meantime uses the 500 BTC to make profit.

If BMF can't make profit with bitcoins then what the fuck is it doing in business in the first place?  At best the contract was only ever a low-interest loan (as the premiums add up to more than the cover) - so at least take the little bit of benefit the contract entitles BMF to.

And if you take option 1. then here's a summary of how the insurance works out:

If BMF NAV stayed above 1, BMF pays 550 BTC to CPA over 2 years.
If BMF NAV falls below 1, they don't claim from CPA because umm, because well, because it really isn't worht it as they could just give the money back and call it quits.

Wow! What brilliant value that contract would be for BMF - if they're lucky (NAV stays above 1) they lose 550 BTC and if they're unlucky (NAV falls below 1) they only lose 50 BTC.  Good job they have such a clever person running them, with no conflicts of interest whatsoever.  With a less biased incompetent person in charge they could have mistakenly claimed on their insurance policy when they were entitled to and had cash now.

And option 2.?  It's not really worth claiming for?

Let me get this straight.  USAGI wrote and signed an insurance policy committing BMF to 550 in premiums.  But USAGI ITSELF is saying the policy isn't worth claiming on?  Am I really reading that right? Is Usagi really saying that it fucked up so bad that it committed to spending 550 BTC on something of zero value?  And bear in mind that if claiming on it now is "not really worth it" then claiming on it later in the contract would be worth even less.

The contract was for 100 BTC payments.  The contract even spells out the address to which those coins should be sent and that their amounts should have 12 satoshis added to them to clarify and make transparent their purpose.  THAT is the means by which a claim should be settled.

Is usagi trying to audition for BOTH lead  roles in a sequel to Dumb and Dumber or something?

[bitcoinbear]

I think the conflict of interest (and lack of disclosing it) should merit a scammer tag for Usagi.

[Deprived]

Do you think I should put this up as a BMF motion? Technically it's BMF that would have to ask for the insurance. I just don't think it's worthwhile to do.

So, what you are saying is that the "insurance" is not worth shit, and it was just a ploy to make yourself look more solvent than you are?

No -- I'm saying your opinion isn't worth shit, because even if you're a shareholder, you're not the only one, and I am asking if you think I should run a motion.

As for the contract, trading 10 bitcoins for 10 bitcoins does not make anyone more or less solvent. Especially not 10 bitcoins when you have a market cap of 2500. So  yeah, let me know when you are planning to actually communicate with me cuz I just asked you a question (Do you think I should put this up as a BMF motion?)

usagi trying to shove it back under the carpet with a motion.  Of course usagi controls most of the shares and is unlikely to abstain due to its conflict of interest.  As usagi doesn't appear to even understand what a conflict of interest is, here's a simple explanation:

CPA owes BMF 500 BTC (make it 100 BTC for the purpsoe of discussion if anyone wants - but it's actually 500).

It's in CPA's interest (obviously) not to actually pay this.
It's in BMF's interest to get as much as it can (up to what it's due).

usagi speaks for both CPA and BMF - so has to bear in mind the interests of both CPA and BMF.  But there's a conflict between those interests - as they want opposing things.  That's why it's called a conflict of interest - as (in theory at least) usagi has reponsibilities to both and what benefits one is detrimental to the other.

The usual step in this situation is for the conflicted individual to step aside and let others resolve the issue - but that's not so easy here as there's no other management for either BMF or CPA.

There's no need for a motion at this stage - whatever usagi says.  If you take out an insurance policy and the situation arises where you can claim on it and there's no down-side to YOU in claiming then you claim.  It really IS that simple here.  The first stage is for BMF to claim on the policy.  That should be for the full 500 for two reasons:

1.  There's no specified period between successive claims.  So if BMF claims 100 it can then immediately claim the next 100.
2.  Even if you assume some reasonable period (like a week) between claims, all 5 claims should have been made by now.  The only reason they haven't is usagi's prevarication, lieing and deceit in an attempt to make life easy for CPA at the expense of BMF.

Where it becomes more messy is when the response to the claim is (as it would pretty much have to be) "Well we haven't actually got 500 BTC liquid.  Let's negotiate."

And the problem there is that there's absolutely no way usagi can be trusted to negotiate robustly and in the interests of BMF.  Because it has a conflict of interest, no moral fibre and has already shown a propensity to lie and deceive to protect CPA even when doing so hurts BMF's investors.

The silly thing is that there's actually a few ways it could be resolved without too much pain to CPA (if we forget about the losses caused to earlier investors who should have received more for selling their shares).  But the fair settlement for this will likely not be reached - as usagi won't properly look at each position on its own merit, assess what their bargaining chips are, what their objectives SHOULD be from negotiation and then negotiate.  You really CAN'T negotiate for both sides in a situation like that without letting down on side or the other: there's no way to bluff yourself, no way to hide your objectives from yourself and no way to get around any preconceived ideas you may have of how to resolve the situation.

If CPA acknowledge the debt and their inability to pay it in BTC right now it actually becomes EASIER to settle the issue - not harder.  As those involved can now focus on finding a solution, agreeing what the situation actually IS.  Instead we'll now have usagi trying to weasel-word its way out of it, trying to force through crappy inequitable solutions via motions and the like - ending in a total mess for all involved.

[bitcoinbear]

Started a new scammer thread about not disclosing the conflict of interest. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115411.0

[Deprived]

LOL.  Now all of a sudden usagi's backtracking in its other threads and talking about actually claiming on the insurance.

Enough of your bullshit. I have responded to your accusations in the OP and I will now ignore this thread.

New policy, like it or not:
If you have any other accusation to make, post it in a new thread and I will make exactly ONE response to you, and I will then ignore the rest of the thread except in instances where someone provides a correction or question directly relating to what I said which I did not already answer. This will be done because you are dodging posting questions in the FAQ thread. I will not allow you to control this discussion. I will control it. You will have my responses to your questions and that will be all. Have a nice day Mr. Troll.

(For the curious this policy was suggested to me by a former member of CPA's round table who wishes to remain nameless.)

Thought I made it plain already.  I'm NOT interested in hearing any more of your crap anyway.  I don't WANT any more responses from you LOL.  You won't tell the truth and I've no interest in your lies.

I'm just gonna discuss stuff in here with others who are interested in it - some of them may share my views, others may not: all are welcome.  And if any of them happen to be share-holders and want to take it up with you then that's their business.

And no - you won't control this discussion (if you mean the discussion in here).  Noone will control it (unless a mod chooses to) - and definitely someone who isn't going to post again in this topic isn't going to.  If you mean some other discussion in one of your own threads then go ahead - control it.

And no - I'm not playing your silly little games of being sent from thread to thread and each time being told I'm a troll or "banned" etc.  I'm doing you the courtesy of now staying out of your threads (unless you make an inaccurate statement about me).  You can stay out of this thread, post in it, ignore it - do what you like about it.  I really don't care.  If you post in here I will likely respond - and help you dig your hole deeper.

[usagi]

I'm doing you the courtesy of now staying out of your threads (unless you make an inaccurate statement about me).

Thank you and goodbye (hopefully).

You should have done this 3 weeks ago.

[Deprived]

Started a new scammer thread about not disclosing the conflict of interest. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115411.0

Bit premature for that in my opinion.  Let usagi build a tighter noose for itself by blatantly trying to get BMF investors to act against their own interest via a motion.  When usagi's properly ripe for the picking on this one I'll see if I can motivate myself to properly document one of the nyan conflict of interest scenarios that's happened - and make any scammer accusation rock-solid by demonstrating that this insurance mess isn't some one-off occurrence.

[Deprived]

I'm doing you the courtesy of now staying out of your threads (unless you make an inaccurate statement about me).

Thank you and goodbye (hopefully).

You should have done this 3 weeks ago.

LOL, why do I get the feeling usagi misread "staying out of your threads" as "staying out of all threads about you".

[Deprived]

As for the contract, trading 10 bitcoins for 10 bitcoins does not make anyone more or less solvent. Especially not 10 bitcoins when you have a market cap of 2500. So  yeah, let me know when you are planning to actually communicate with me cuz I just asked you a question (Do you think I should put this up as a BMF motion?)

Missed that little gem.

Trading 10 BTC NOW for 10 BTC NOW definitely doesn't make anyone more or less solvent.  Trading 500 BTC NOW for a promise to repay 500 BTC over 2 years definitely DOES make someone more solvent.

Further to that:

1.  If the time element is irrelevant what was the purpose of the insurance contract again?  Wouldn't that make it a loser for BMF whatever happened - as they were agreeing to pay 550 in return for 500.
2.  If trading bitcoins now for bitcoins in the future doesn't make anyone more or less solvent why did usagi make a thread specifically to borrow a few hundred bitcoins?
3.  What has "10 bitcoins when you have a market cap of 2500" have to do with a debt of 500 bitcoins?

Predictions on how long before usagi suddenly remembers/realises/is told by someone it listens to that getting 500 bitcoins now and only having to pay them back over 2 years is actually very useful.

At least we've progressed past the "it was a joke, it wasn't an actual contract silly" stage.  Now we're on the "well yeah it was a proper contract but that's not really a good reason to actually stick to it" stage.  Wonder what act 3 will be - maybe the "well CPA can't pay it so there's no point us making a fuss about it" stage with a brief intermission of "let's vote on it as I control most of the shares and can vote as many times as I want with them".

My predictions for any motion:

Option 1 : Let's claim our 500 BTC from CPA.
Option 2 : Let's just forget about it as noone's been hurt by anything.

With option 2 winning by Y votes to option 1's X votes where:

X is slightly smaller than the number of shares controlled by anyone other than usagi.
Y is larger than the total number of BMF shares in circulation (as in the last one).

[capn noe]

I'm just catching up on all this, but I am ASTOUNDED by what usagi has going on here.

The conflict of interest is patently true, the NYAN accounts are being shut down out of order, CPA is an absolute scam, and all he has to say is that folks with questions are 'IDIOTS' and then demand they stop posting.

I'm really amazed at how little leverage ya'all have against someone that is so obviously fleecing the hell out of your community. How he doesn't have a scammer tag is beyond me.

[deeplink]

I'm just catching up on all this, but I am ASTOUNDED by what usagi has going on here.

The conflict of interest is patently true, the NYAN accounts are being shut down out of order, CPA is an absolute scam, and all he has to say is that folks with questions are 'IDIOTS' and then demand they stop posting.

I'm really amazed at how little leverage ya'all have against someone that is so obviously fleecing the hell out of your community. How he doesn't have a scammer tag is beyond me.

It is beyond me too. The positive thing is that some community members keep questioning and analyzing his "businesses" and eventually you would expect him to give up, his investors dry up or he makes a mistake after which even forum moderators will feel comfortable tagging him a scammer.

Also we have to wait and see what happens with GLBSE. If the plug is pulled, the problem solves itself (for now). I even think that would be the best outcome for most of these asset scammers. That way they can get out of their mess before it completely implodes with only one black eye.

Usagi and Diablo have already started to blame GLBSE and Nefario for their failures. Most of them will probably even profit from GLBSE closing down (i.e. if they didn't keep their BTC there) because they can keep the investors money they still have left and blame it on Nefario that they cannot pay it back.

[usagi]

I'm just catching up on all this, but I am ASTOUNDED by what usagi has going on here.

The conflict of interest is patently true, the NYAN accounts are being shut down out of order, CPA is an absolute scam, and all he has to say is that folks with questions are 'IDIOTS' and then demand they stop posting.

I'm really amazed at how little leverage ya'all have against someone that is so obviously fleecing the hell out of your community. How he doesn't have a scammer tag is beyond me.

Because you got trolled. Everything I did was according to my contracts, I published everything I did and wrote letters to shareholders. Before this little trollfest took root I was getting compliments, daily, for how I was running CPA, NYAN and BMF.

Get it? I don't have a scammer tag because I'm not a scammer.

[memvola]

Because you got trolled. Everything I did was according to my contracts, I published everything I did and wrote letters to shareholders. Before this little trollfest took root I was getting compliments, daily, for how I was running CPA, NYAN and BMF.

True, but it's more about how you react to the critique than the trolling. Patrick, Victor, Kluge and a few others have set good examples on how to respond to criticism.

The only measure is how successful your businesses are, so focusing on the critics and even blaming makes you look more guilty than you really are. One of the methods us investors use is to gauge people's trustworthiness is to observe their behavior here. I've invested in CPA before the "trolling" began because of the reasons you say. However, ahem, coincidentally, the "trolling" intensified as you started losing money. It is nothing but an expected part of business. The fact that you don't (at least seem to) look at it that way made me lose trust.

So why don't you go ahead and make us money? That's the only way you will show them (or us, depending on the criticism).

[Bitcoin Oz]

Because you got trolled. Everything I did was according to my contracts, I published everything I did and wrote letters to shareholders. Before this little trollfest took root I was getting compliments, daily, for how I was running CPA, NYAN and BMF.

True, but it's more about how you react to the critique than the trolling. Patrick, Victor, Kluge and a few others have set good examples on how to respond to criticism.

The only measure is how successful your businesses are, so focusing on the critics and even blaming makes you look more guilty than you really are. One of the methods us investors use is to gauge people's trustworthiness is to observe their behavior here. I've invested in CPA before the "trolling" began because of the reasons you say. However, ahem, coincidentally, the "trolling" intensified as you started losing money. It is nothing but an expected part of business. The fact that you don't (at least seem to) look at it that way made me lose trust.

So why don't you go ahead and make us money? That's the only way you will show them (or us, depending on the criticism).

Its true that if you make people money they dont care as much if youre an asshole.

[memvola]

Companies acting on technicalities such as "accelerating payments to cancel each other" makes it apparent that there is a huge conflict of interest.

The only way I see these issues getting resolved is getting fresh managers on board. Would usagi be willing to let us appoint different managers/CEOs to some or all of these funds/companies, if any suitable candidates come up? I'm asking both usagi and the shareholders.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Companies acting on technicalities such as "accelerating payments to cancel each other" makes it apparent that there is a huge conflict of interest.

The only way I see these issues getting resolved is getting fresh managers on board. Would usagi be willing to let us appoint different managers/CEOs to some or all of these funds/companies, if any suitable candidates come up? I'm asking both usagi and the shareholders.

This is the only way to solve the conflict of interest.

[usagi]

Companies acting on technicalities such as "accelerating payments to cancel each other" makes it apparent that there is a huge conflict of interest.

The only way I see these issues getting resolved is getting fresh managers on board. Would usagi be willing to let us appoint different managers/CEOs to some or all of these funds/companies, if any suitable candidates come up? I'm asking both usagi and the shareholders.

Yes. I say, let's do it.

If anyone is interested in this we can arrange for them to run it for 1, 2, 3 months, or even permanently. We don't even need to motion on it because the business operation and contracts would not change.

Sure, I'll step down. Let someone else run the company and do a better job.

[Factory]

Companies acting on technicalities such as "accelerating payments to cancel each other" makes it apparent that there is a huge conflict of interest.

The only way I see these issues getting resolved is getting fresh managers on board. Would usagi be willing to let us appoint different managers/CEOs to some or all of these funds/companies, if any suitable candidates come up? I'm asking both usagi and the shareholders.

This is the only way to solve the conflict of interest.

In all honesty, it will not matter. The basic idea of insurance ins quite simple, but it is quite difficult to perform successfully and consistently. Doing it in an unregulated and murky market such as bitcoin compounds the difficulty. The risk models that insurance would be based off of would likely never represent anything close to reality; even if you had a large group people focusing on it. This is why it is clear Usagi is foolish; he thinks that he (an individual with 0 experience or advanced education in math, finance, or business) can operate an entire insurance company. This isn't even counting the fact that he also manages NYAN and BMF. No one with a a reasonable understanding of these matters would have done what Usagi has.

Removing some of the conflicts of interest is only a portion of the overall problem.

[usagi]

Started a new scammer thread about not disclosing the conflict of interest. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115411.0

Bit premature for that in my opinion.  Let usagi build a tighter noose for itself by blatantly trying to get BMF investors to act against their own interest via a motion.  When usagi's properly ripe for the picking on this one I'll see if I can motivate myself to properly document one of the nyan conflict of interest scenarios that's happened - and make any scammer accusation rock-solid by demonstrating that this insurance mess isn't some one-off occurrence.

So what you're saying is you have absolutely no proof, after all this time, but you are determined to trash me and my companies every chance you get, in the hopes that I'll actually scam someone?

So in other words I haven't done anything scammy yet? Oh this just keeps getting better and better.