Scammer tag for PsychoticBoy

[DutchBrat]

• Investors overpaid for a BFL single at IPO
• Investors bought shares of an asset valued in USD (BFL Single) and BTC/USD went up

No scam occurred here, unless there is some proof of wrongdoing with regards to the OP's purchases of his own shares.

From the contract:

The issuer can buy back the share at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the prior 15 days

You guys are lucky it wasn't bought back for zero, following the strict wording of the contract which had no provision for a GLBSE shutdown.  I think the OP's buyback price is quite reasonable.

If GLBSE had still been open but there was no trade in these shares for 15 days... would the issuer then be in the right if he invoked the buy back clause for 0.00

Same goes for all the other issuers that have such a buy back clause....

Disclaimer: I have/had no shares in this venture

[PsychoticBoy]

For the kiddies among us, I`ll explain it in childlanguage.

I bought a box of Lego duplo which contains 1000 pieces, I sell 300 pieces this means the 700 remaining pieces are still mine.
So if for some reason I have to buy those back, then I only have to buy 300 back because the other 700 are still owned by me.

This is exactly the same with The BFL Single that is divided in 1000 shares (pieces).

[usagi]

PSYCHOTICBOY IS A THIEF AND A SCAMMER BE WARNED!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129941

This is a stupid thread, and PsychoticBoy is almost certainly not a thief or a scammer.

This forum really took a turn for the worse when people began to realize how badly the mods dropped the ball re trolls/etc.

This and the recent other pointless, banal scam accusation threads are the pudding.

[PsychoticBoy]

This is a stupid thread, and PsychoticBoy is almost certainly not a thief or a scammer.

This forum really took a turn for the worse when people began to realize how badly the mods dropped the ball re trolls/etc.

This and the recent other pointless, banal scam accusation threads are the pudding.

wtf are you talking about? You obtained money from PB as part of an insurance contract, didn't you? Why are you even commenting in here, Captain Conflict-Of-Interest?

Deprived is correct. The buyback is not the full scam. The buyback is the realisation (in the bringing-into-concrete-reality sense) of the scam. The money raised was misappropriated and the shares instantly devalued in the actual IPO itself.

So, the initial IPO was the scam. Note in the original *thread* (I'd love to see the original GLBSE contract) he "sold" just one BFL FPGA device which a buyback clause which allowed him to buy it back at market value and instantly make about $1200. If he'd wanted to. If he weren't the one who completed the IPO, etc. That would not have been a problem..  if he'd been up-front about it from the start. He wasn't!

Note that he uses the misleading parentheses-surrounded plural "(`s)" on the mining hardware in the IPO announcement, and doesn't do any clarification for another day, and even then, states ambiguously "I will only issue more shares if I have the hardware to back it up." He doesn't actually say anything to clarify that none of the money raised is going to purchase new hardware. He never says that in the thread. Even the CPA insurance only insures the one FPGA Single--but doesn't say anything about the murky question of additional hardware.

Check out msg#20! "We will still be backed up by our GPU`s and FPGA`s. It`s an extra insurrance." Who's "we"? Well, just him of course. And where did the insurance money actually come from? So the other scam's beneficiary is the one who issued the "insurance" policy!

And yes, PsychoticBoy, everyone knew difficulty was going up. Including you. It's an exponential curve. All you mining hashrate-based companies were betting against your customers that difficulty would save you from ever having to fully pay back any of their investment, and not even promising them correct odds. It was a sure thing for you. The risk was so minimal on your part, you could just pocket the money and buy hookers with it.

Even if difficulty had stayed the same, your tiny payouts meant that it would have been.. what? Multiple years before the original value of the people investing in the IPO would be realised and profit gained?

This is strong evidence, and his later insistence that the first FPGA Single was the only thing anyone ever bought an interest in, that he was running a scam from the start.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Deprived is wrong. I don't see PsychoticBoy responding to Deprived anywhere. Do you? Why doesn't he answer that? He's relying on the fact that Jurek can't make a coherent case, and hoping this will simply go away.

That is why he deserves the scammer tag; not because of the close-down. Jurek here just happens to be realising that he was playing a losing game from the start and isn't too happy about it. And rightly so!

You are mixing 2 companies ABM (the thread you qouted this all from) and PGM (read OP for link) the company I took over from paladon.

PS:
To all shit stirrers:
Please make sure you know what you talk about before posting.

[Jurek]

Actually the same applies to PGM.

[PsychoticBoy]

This is the only contract that is valid for PGM, the ABM thread got nothing to do with PGM!

Copied the OP from the PGM thread (contract)
----------
[PGM] Paladon Green Mining https://glbse.com/asset/view/PGM


Hardware
1 Butterfly Labs Single @ 0.82Gh/s (be upgraded to BFL Single ‘SC’ @ 40Gh/s)

Share
1000 shares will be issued @ 0.25 BTC each. This price is including the ASIC upgrade. If upgrade will not be possible and I get refund of BFL, I will repay 0.07 BTC per share to stockholders.
Each share = 0.82Mh/s right now. After upgrade each share = 40Mh/s upgrade has been ordered! (or 60Mh/s according latest BFL info)
All of the Generated BTC will be payed as dividend every week -/- expenses

Revenue
All mining revenue will be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends (after expenses). Dividends will be paid weekly. Profits are the net income remaining after expenses including operating costs (electricity, repair work, maintenance, small hardware), investments in existing or new service development, and any other action capital investment that the organization deems necessary to take part in.
Electricity is de largest part of the operating costs. Electricity price is € 0,22 p/Kwh (I know this looks expensive for a lot of people but a very normal price in The Netherlands). Electricity is green electricity so guaranteed no pollution. (I am thinking of building my own solar panels in the near future).

Currently the expenses% = ~25%. So ~75% of the generated BTC will be paid as dividend weekly.

Miscellaneous
Mining will occur at a mining pool of the company`s choice or solo mining if profitable. The operator of the company reserves the right regardless of the number of shares held to raise a motion and to liquidate the company's assets and cease operations. The operator also reserves the right to issue more shares to expand operation. Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered advisory and non binding. Shares do represent an ownership share in the mining hardware in the event of liquidation. In case of liquidation the mining hardware will be sold and minus expences be paid to the shareholders. The issuer can change the % of the expenses if needed to cover the expenses of the company. If the expenses of the company exceeds the income of the generated BTC, the company has to right to temporary shut down the operation. The issuer can buy back the share at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the highest price the asset was traded on GLBSE over the prior 15 days. The operator of the company has the right to retain shares in the company.

About Me
I am living in The Netherlands and 36 years old and I will be doing my utmost best for you to keep this company up and running. Off course I wil identify bij GLBSE. More questions? Just ask!


Best regards,
Paladon
----------

Hope this will help you.

[Deprived]

You are mixing 2 companies ABM (the thread you qouted this all from) and PGM (read OP for link) the company I took over from paladon.

PS:
To all shit stirrers:
Please make sure you know what you talk about before posting.

I notice you aren't disputing any facts. Go on, dispute some facts. If I'm wrong, unlike most of the other chuckleheads on this forum, I'll retract my posts and post an apology. Am I wrong?

Your business plan(s) are essentially identical to all the other hashrate-based rather than enterprise-based mining scams out there: you are betting on difficulty continuing to go up, which is exactly what it's going to do. The upgrade to ASIC being in some other venture (which you are still running) is a stupid red herring: the money raised from these "stocks" is something you will only ever have to fractionally pay back, because you've never stated that the profits will be used to keep the mining return current with difficulty.

In other words, the "profit" isn't actually a profit, and due to rising difficulty will slowly be eroded away until the 60MH/s is just as worthless as the 0.8MH/s was. You're getting the public to pay for your miners, in advance, and have thus realised an ROI on your IPO at the expense of a tiny amount of effort going forward.

ABM, or PGM, it doesn't matter. The only difference is time-to-realised-scam, and the fact that the OP mis-labelled this scam thread.

The "price" includes the price of an ASIC upgrade!? So in other words, the users were still charged about double of even the full-price of the ASIC. Now why did you do that, anyway? Why would you so severely overcharge?

Call me a shit-disturber again. Go on.

AS I said right at the start of the thread - you (investors) made your loss the moment you decided to invest and pay a massive mark-up on the hardware as a management fee.

The closing-down payment is NOT a scam.  The ownership of the remaining shares is irrelevant - as 1 share is worth 1/1000 of the BFL single + upgrade irrespective of who owns the rest.

If it was a scam anywhere it would have to be at the launch by charging such a steep markup and basically gauranteeing no initial ivnestor could ever make a profit.  But that isn't really a good basis for a scam accusation as there was no deception.  Sure it was a shockingly bad, horribly over-priced investment.  But a scam?  No.  If it were then majority of mining companies/bonds should have their own threads in here - as very few will/have ever made a profit for investors.

All the shutdown has done is finally made it obvious to all investors just how they wasted their BTC investing in it.  Had it kept going you'd still probably lose the same amount (might be more, might be less - my guess is probably more if anything) - just spread out over a longer period.

[PsychoticBoy]

I will explain it one more time:

When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.

This is all there is to it, I am done here.

[Deprived]

I will explain it one more time:

When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.

This is all there is to it, I am done here.

You are weaseling. With ABM, you never said it was limited to just 0.82MH/s. Where did you say that? You said words like "currently" and used a plural in your original IPO. In fact, where in the *entire* ABM thread did you ever say it was limited to just 0.82MH/s?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78638.0;all

All you're confirming is that this was fraud from the outset, even if we accept Deprived's claim that you were honest about it from the start. Which I don't. You and all the other people who overcharged so much that it couldn't possibly have ever made any investor any money, ever, you are all fraudsters betting against your customers.

I'm NOT claiming he as honest about it from the start - was accepting that the contract he posted was the relevant one.  Think it's a bit confusing at times which of the two bad investments we're talking about: the one closing down or the one staying open.  Certainly one of them had an entirely unclear OP - whether that was the contract on GLBSE or not I have no idea.

I'd certainly agree that paying three times the cost of a BFL single for the rights to the mining output from one isn't exactly going to win any best-value awards.  And wording the contract such that's not clear just how gigantic a management fee is being taken is certainly scummy.  But is it a scam?  My best guess is that admins are going to say that so long as you get what you paid for it's not scam - and if you weren't sure what you were going to get you should find out before parting with your cash.

I see it as more of an idiot tax than a scam.  I wouldn't run something so horribly bad value myself - and I certainly wouldn't want to ever be associated with or have to deal with the individuals perpetuating it.  But that doesn't make them scammers - the deception involved was self-deception from investors, who decided to believe (along with loads of others) that mining is somehow an amazingly profitable endeavour that can be profitable for investors even after asset issuers take a massive chunk of gross revenue (taking the cut up front is similar impact to taking from gross revenue).

It'd be nice to see a legitimate mining company - where the manager only gets a share of profits as their fee (profits being AFTER costs AND depreciation of equipment value).  But don't hold your breath for that.

[PsychoticBoy]

I will explain it one more time:

When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.

This is all there is to it, I am done here.

You are weaseling. With ABM, you never said it was limited to just 0.82MH/s. Where did you say that? You said words like "currently" and used a plural in your original IPO. In fact, where in the *entire* ABM thread did you ever say it was limited to just 0.82MH/s?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78638.0;all

All you're confirming is that this was fraud from the outset, even if we accept Deprived's claim that you were honest about it from the start. Which I don't. You and all the other people who overcharged so much that it couldn't possibly have ever made any investor any money, ever, you are all fraudsters betting against your customers.

I am not talking about ABM!
ABM is relisted on BitFunder, I never bought any ABM shares back!

This is about PGM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97263.0 , READ!!!

[Deprived]

I will explain it one more time:

When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.

This is all there is to it, I am done here.

Actually that's not quite accurate is it?

Didn't they buy 1/1000th BFL Single AND 1/1000th of the upgrade of that to an ASIC?

So what they were entitled to was 0.07 BTC for the cancelled upgrade (that amount is explicitly defined in contract) + 1/1000th of value of the BFL Single.  Which I guess is what you actually paid out - just your post seems to state otherwise.

[PsychoticBoy]

I will explain it one more time:

When you bought shares you only bought the right of 1/1000th BFL Single(SC) (0.82 Mh/s)
You have only recieved dividend equal to 0.82 Mh/s so now I had to buy the shares back, so you only have the right to recieve 1/1000th of the BFL Single's market value per share.

This is all there is to it, I am done here.

Actually that's not quite accurate is it?

Didn't they buy 1/1000th BFL Single AND 1/1000th of the upgrade of that to an ASIC?

So what they were entitled to was 0.07 BTC for the cancelled upgrade (that amount is explicitly defined in contract) + 1/1000th of value of the BFL Single.  Which I guess is what you actually paid out - just your post seems to state otherwise.

Shares do represent an ownership share in the mining hardware in the event of liquidation. In case of liquidation the mining hardware will be sold and minus expences be paid to the shareholders.
BFL Single (+upgrade) or SC is worth 1300$.


So your telling me they are entiteled to 600$ for the BFL Single (600/ 13.5= 44.44444444 BTC/1000= 0.044 BTC) +0.07 BTC is 0.114 BTC
In that case they are entiteled to 0.005 btc a share more than I paid.
I can set that straight.

[PsychoticBoy]

Send everyone that was included in the shareholders list the 0.005 btc a share that I paid short + 0.011 btc per shareholder (to make up for my math)

This is the tx 6dc5140990326bb7e0ebcc9d27e9e6b4118b7a98237f4ff60b5b87f60be1bf7b

[Fjordbit]

I remember this offering and I thought it was pretty clear that he was raising $2,500 for a $1,399 item. After that analysis, I decided it was not worth investing in. I figured other people bought in because

a) they didn't have a whole $1,399 and would prefer to have a piece of the ASIC future
b) didn't have mining expertise and had no desire to learn
c) didn't want to manage their own equipment for various (usually spousal) reasons
d) desired liquidity

Make no mistake about this: if BFL had delivered on time, then that 1/1000th of an ASIC would have been worth a lot more than $2.50. While it wasn't an early order, it was still relatively early in the preorder line. This alone would make the worth of the device much higher than $1,399, and it could have been as much as worth  $10,000. The dividends from the device would quickly eclipse your investment. It would have been a good call. Not as good as buying your own device, but still quite profitable.

Now, if BFL delivers next month, then it still might have been a good call. You wouldn't be rolling in coins, but the initial dividends might be good depending on what happens with the other vendors. However, you guys won't know because you voted to liquidate. I think the problem here is that the majority of the shareholders, the ones who fit the criteria above, don't really understand mining and so they didn't really get that liquidation meant a lot less money.

It's kind of like if a bunch of Amish people did a corporate takeover of Google, then voted to wipe all the hard drives and liquidate the equipment. Then they would be stuck there going "why are we getting so much less than we paid for. This is a scam."

But it's not a scam, they just acted on a business they don't know anything about. And that's what the shareholders here did. PsychoticBoy didn't do this to you, you did it to yourself.

tl;dr - Scammer tag?

[MPOE-PR]

I remember this offering and I thought it was pretty clear that he was raising $2,500 for a $1,399 item. After that analysis, I decided it was not worth investing in. I figured other people bought in because

a) they didn't have a whole $1,399 and would prefer to have a piece of the ASIC future
b) didn't have mining expertise and had no desire to learn
c) didn't want to manage their own equipment for various (usually spousal) reasons
d) desired liquidity

Make no mistake about this: if BFL had delivered on time, then that 1/1000th of an ASIC would have been worth a lot more than $2.50. While it wasn't an early order, it was still relatively early in the preorder line. This alone would make the worth of the device much higher than $1,399, and it could have been as much as worth  $10,000. The dividends from the device would quickly eclipse your investment. It would have been a good call. Not as good as buying your own device, but still quite profitable.

Now, if BFL delivers next month, then it still might have been a good call. You wouldn't be rolling in coins, but the initial dividends might be good depending on what happens with the other vendors. However, you guys won't know because you voted to liquidate. I think the problem here is that the majority of the shareholders, the ones who fit the criteria above, don't really understand mining and so they didn't really get that liquidation meant a lot less money.

It's kind of like if a bunch of Amish people did a corporate takeover of Google, then voted to wipe all the hard drives and liquidate the equipment. Then they would be stuck there going "why are we getting so much less than we paid for. This is a scam."

But it's not a scam, they just acted on a business they don't know anything about. And that's what the shareholders here did. PsychoticBoy didn't do this to you, you did it to yourself.

tl;dr - Scammer tag?

Interesting points you bring to the table.

[pazor]

give him what he deserves

[deeplink]

Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?

Mining contracts have always been a bad deal for investors. But they could have figured that out by informing themselves and doing the math, like many of us did. In this case the only way investors could have made a tiny profit was if the ASIC would have been delivered. But it wasn't. On top they voted to liquidate early. The risk and decision to liquidate were taken voluntarily, now deal with your loss.

[Jurek]

Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?

ASIC upgrade + possible expansion using money gathered in IPO. Issuer's intention to screw his shareholders was never clear.

[ElectricMucus]

Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?

ASIC upgrade + possible expansion using money gathered in IPO. Issuer's intention to screw his shareholders was never clear.

Rule of Acquisition No. 17: A contract is a contract is a contract...but only between Ferengi.

[deeplink]

Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?

ASIC upgrade + possible expansion using money gathered in IPO. Issuer's intention to screw his shareholders was never clear.

That's vague, isn't it? How much expansion? How much money? When? I wouldn't invest on those vague promises.

Investors trusted the operator and that trust was maybe broken. It is a matter of opinion, because the investors choose to liquidate before any ASIC upgrade or "possible expansion". So maybe it is scummy, but there is not enough to call it a scam.