Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators and BMF/NYAN investors

[usagi]

Hello!

As the issuer of BMF, CPA and NYAN, I require a final decision on listing before June 30th, 2013.

If LTC-GLOBAL does not approve the listings before June 30th, 2013, they must be withdrawn.

LTC-GLOBAL moderators have had over six months to contact me with any concerns and to date no one has done so. I have gone far out of my way to communicate with LTC-GLOBAL moderators and to address each one of their concerns -- even the obvious trolls. In return, LTC-GLOBAL moderators have largely failed to do their duty, issuing broad, sweeping libel in place of constructive criticism, and failing to read or demonstrate competency of understanding of the actual contracts as written. I personally feel this practice has shown the asset moderation process to be a failure in it's current iteration. Burnside has shown limited agreement, but it has been months since he agreed certain changes should be made to the process and they have not been made.

My investors cannot wait forever. If the companies are not approved by that time they will cease to exist in their current form.

I'm not abandoning my investors. If you are an investor in my companies, feel free to contact me privately and ask whatever questions you like, as you have always been welcome to do.

[1714183059]

1714183059

[1714183059]

1714183059

[1714183059]

1714183059

[1714183059]

1714183059

[1714183059]

1714183059

[1714183059]

1714183059

[usagi]

Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators.

https://btct.co/security/BMF

This security has had +4/-3 votes for the past six months (shows up as 4/6).

Will some of you please just vote yes on the asset so I can pay off my shareholders?

What's the hold up? I mean, six months? There's at least ten mods that haven't even voted on BMF yet.

Guys, I have been waiting for six months plus on this. Can I get some yes votes please. Thx!

Anonymous voted NO with comment: Cannot approve. TU.SILVER on Bitfunder does not seem to be well managed. Clean things up, then maybe.
Response: It's been three months. I think it's safe to vote YES now.

Anonymous voted NO with comment: 6 months after GLBSE shut down and still no list of assets (specifically mining rigs/ASIC orders). Seems abandoned to focus on new silver asset.
This comment was wrong when it was made and I don't know why this moderator hasn't been fired yet. There is a list of assets in the final closure thread and there was a list of assets in the public auctions (second auction) on the auctions forum. Secondly, this has been advertised in the BMF application for three months. Why hasn't this vote been changed?

I wrote in the asset asking the moderators to contact me with their concerns and for six months no one has bothered at all. I don't understand what the holdup is. It's almost as if the moderators simply aren't doing their job.

CASE FOR RE-LIST:

1. Assets --> Yes, there are many assets which have not yet been sold.
--> See the above-linked lists. One example is 22,000 shares of BitVPS.

2. I have pledged to put 100 BTC of my personal assets behind a relisted BMF.
--> It has assets, and it will have more assets if it lists.

3. My shareholders want it to list.
--> BMF was shut down involuntarily and has shareholder support to re-list. Look at who was voting NO on my securities; Ian Bakewell, EskimoBob, and BitcoinOz. The best you can say about EskimoBob is that his LTC-TC business was a complete and utter failure. The other two turned out to be scammers. If these people have NO votes on my security I want them removed and I would like a fair shot please.

4. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I am an excellent and trustworthy funds manager.
--> Just ask cusdog, my CA, or DeaDTerra, my financial advisor. or the 30 shareholders of TU.SILVER on BitFunder. I do a good job.

Gonna cut this short because I'm a little incensed at having to wait so many months to get approved. I have done everything the moderators have asked, and I would really like to see this listed. Thank you.

[Deprived]

Anonymous voted NO with comment: 6 months after GLBSE shut down and still no list of assets (specifically mining rigs/ASIC orders). Seems abandoned to focus on new silver asset.
This comment was wrong when it was made and I don't know why this moderator hasn't been fired yet. There is a list of assets in the final closure thread and there was a list of assets in the public auctions (second auction) on the auctions forum. Secondly, this has been advertised in the BMF application for three months. Why hasn't this vote been changed?

I haven't got a vote (don't hold 10 shares) but maybe the moderators are having the same problem I'm having.

Nowhere can I see a list of what assets BMF holds.

The linked closure post nowhere has mining hardware listed - which is specifically referred to in the quoted portion of your text.  And it also has things like:

"DMC (1300 shares, claimed on BitFunder, unknown value)
Jan 27 - Estimated value is 0.1 per share based on holdings of 1,000 ASICMINER and 1000 BTC-MINING. We have the shares on BitFunder. Have sold 300. Will post an update after auction closes."

The auction closed months back.  1k DMC is quite afew BTC - yet it's impossible to tell from your psot whether you own them or not.

You're asking moderators to approve for trading something where they can't see what assets it CURRENTLY has (unless they want to wade through a ton of threads and work it out for themselves).

You're also asking for approval of something with a contract that is vastly different to what it was when listed on GLBSE - without, as best I can tell, any shareholder motion ever passed to change the contract.

There's no way in the world the nyans should get approval (they don't even have proper contracts up).  BMF - maybe - but I don't see it happening all the time you refuse to provide simple details of what it currently holds.  If you intend people to have to read a bunch of different threads just to work out current assets then you shouldn't be allowed to run an asset.  If you intend to provide that information in a neat spreadsheet in the future (like you used to) then maybe, just maybe, doing it right now might tip one of the No votes or abstains into a yes.

[burnside]

Quick note to the mods.  This issue shows up on the locked tab, but contrary to most locked issues, Usagi's imported issues you can still vote on.  This is because of the special mode I created for these assets.

Will some of you please just vote yes on the asset so I can pay off my shareholders?

The only real issue I have (and I've stated this a couple of times now) is that the claim that approval is necessary to make investors whole is not entirely accurate.  I created a special mode when we imported these that allow private trading and forced buyback to function.  The lock is only on public trading.  Unless there's something else I'm missing, there is no reason to approve this just to close it down or buy it out.

If you are a voter and you vote to approve this, expect it to be an ongoing concern, like any of the other assets on the exchange.  (good or bad, it's your call.)

Cheers.

[usagi]

Quick note to the mods.  This issue shows up on the locked tab, but contrary to most locked issues, Usagi's imported issues you can still vote on.  This is because of the special mode I created for these assets.

Will some of you please just vote yes on the asset so I can pay off my shareholders?

The only real issue I have (and I've stated this a couple of times now) is that the claim that approval is necessary to make investors whole is not entirely accurate.  I created a special mode when we imported these that allow private trading and forced buyback to function.  The lock is only on public trading.  Unless there's something else I'm missing, there is no reason to approve this just to close it down or buy it out.

I've made my case to continue operation. I am not pushing this because it is required to pay out the shareholders. I made that very clear in my previous message by stating I wanted to continue operation and stating I would put 100 BTC of my own money behind the new BMF. Besides, we've already seen what happened when I tried to do a final buyout of NYAN.B and NYAN.C. The shareholders complained because that is not what they want.

If you are a voter and you vote to approve this, expect it to be an ongoing concern, like any of the other assets on the exchange.  (good or bad, it's your call.)

Cheers.

Sure. Just like all the other assets on the exchange. That is precisely what I am after -- a fair shot.

[usagi]

Anonymous voted NO with comment: 6 months after GLBSE shut down and still no list of assets (specifically mining rigs/ASIC orders). Seems abandoned to focus on new silver asset.
This comment was wrong when it was made and I don't know why this moderator hasn't been fired yet. There is a list of assets in the final closure thread and there was a list of assets in the public auctions (second auction) on the auctions forum. Secondly, this has been advertised in the BMF application for three months. Why hasn't this vote been changed?

I haven't got a vote (don't hold 10 shares) but maybe the moderators are having the same problem I'm having.

Nowhere can I see a list of what assets BMF holds.

I've already responded to this. In fact, there are three links in the text you just quoted which link to lists of assets. I'll provide an updated list below. It's time for you to stop this nutty rant that there's no list of assets.

There's no way in the world the nyans should get approval...

This is about BMF, and you're not a moderator. Your input is valuable but you're not qualified to do the moderator's job for them.

If you intend to provide that information in a neat spreadsheet in the future (like you used to) then maybe, ...

Sure, just like before.

[usagi]

List of assets taken from BTC-TC account:

   576      B.YABMC
   1,431      BTC-BOND
   50      ESECURITYSABTC
   200      PAJKA.BOND
   137      ESECURITY-SA
   1,100      ESECURITY-SA2
   3,192      LTC-ATF.B1

This is a partial list of distribution paying assets that I would use to restart the relevant listings. Absent are holdings such as ART and BITVPS which currently don't pay distributions. I am not going to provide the full list, for the same reason Deprived refuses to list his individual holdings. However, I would also donate 100 BTC to BMF should it be approved.

Let this forever lay to rest the ridiculous notion that there are no assets. There are substantial assets.

According to my calculations these assets generate 0.58 BTC and change per week. Over 1513 currently listed shares that is a weekly payment of 0.000383. Based on a 1% per week calculation, and some minor future goodwill, that indicates a value of around 0.04 per share (plus the 0.087 and change that has already been paid out). The 100 BTC I plan to toss in will add about 0.06 per share for a total value of about 0.01/share.

Given the BTC price rose by an entire order of magnitude (by more than 10x) since it last traded I would say that's a damn fair deal given what you have said about me over the last ten months and the market we invested in. Look at stocks like COGNITIVE; we did better than them. Look at bonds like YABMC, which fell much more. We certainly did better than them. That is why BMF should list again. Because it was the best, and it will be the best.

[Vbs]

List of assets taken from BTC-TC account:

   576      B.YABMC
   1,431      BTC-BOND
   50      ESECURITYSABTC
   200      PAJKA.BOND
   137      ESECURITY-SA
   1,100      ESECURITY-SA2
   3,192      LTC-ATF.B1

This is a partial list of distribution paying assets that I would use to restart the relevant listings. Absent are holdings such as ART and BITVPS which currently don't pay distributions. I am not going to provide the full list, for the same reason Deprived refuses to list his individual holdings. However, I would also donate 100 BTC to BMF should it be approved.

Let this forever lay to rest the ridiculous notion that there are no assets. There are substantial assets.

You hold LTC-ATF.B1 and ART? There is hope in this world after all!

Anyway, best of luck getting it approved quickly!

[Carnth]

What about your other NYAN assets. Especially NYAN.A (disclosure: I own a few). They still seem to be in limbo and want to be put to rest.

NYAN.A is still owed ~.80 per share according to my calculations. Will you force-buyback NYAN.A?
And the other NYANs? Will you force-buyback them as well (even if it's 0.00000001 for NYAN.C)?


According to burnside, you can still force-buyback your assets, even though they are locked.

I created a special mode when we imported these that allow private trading and forced buyback to function.  The lock is only on public trading.

I'd feel better about BMF if these other GLBSE loose ends were tied up.

[usagi]

I'd feel better about BMF if these other GLBSE loose ends were tied up.

BMF must be decided first because NYAN owned ~1000 BMF. Second point, the remaining funds on NYAN.A. I'm sure you would like me to repay the full 1 BTC now that BTC has gone up 20x since when NYAN started. Yes, I'll stand by it, but on my terms. And my terms are simple: The securities will list on BTC-TC before June 30th or the deal is off. I'm really tired of making all these grand promises just to coax a listing. No one has gone as far as I have to massage the LTC-GLOBAL moderators to approve a listing. This is really it, no more promises. You have your cake, now you have to decide if you want to eat it or not. That's all I want. A final decision.

I mean, I agree -- the GLBSE "loose ends" were supposed to be tied up six months ago by getting listed on BTC-TC and making payments/buying back stock. Just like everyone else.... like YABMC, COGNITIVE, or BTC-BOND, RSM, PAJKA.BOND, BITCOINRS, BAKEWELL... etc. Look around. What exactly was the problem with BMF? A bunch of trolls. Nothing ever came of it. I'm still here. I didn't run with the money.

I even attempted a force-buy-back of NYAN.B and NYAN.C a few months ago. There was a massive outrage from shareholders. So I paid burnside out of my own pocket to go back and reconstruct the shareholder lists from the database. As a result of that, it has been announced for 2 months now that until the securities trade I will not pay any further distribution payments. I'll take that to mean "Until BMF trades", because really, it's the most important one from the standpoint of shutting down the others.

In closing, I appreciate your vote either way Carnth. But after six months, wouldn't it be nice if the other 10 moderators who didn't vote log in and do so? I'm a little disappointed with how this moderation system has turned out, I used to be a moderator myself and I always took care to weigh the options carefully and to vote on stuff I hadn't voted on yet. To see most of the moderators not even bother to vote is disheartening and honestly it's why I sold my LTC-GLOBAL stock. I do not believe the policies are in my best interest as a shareholder. I really should not have this much trouble getting listed. I mean come on, this is a lot of trouble over nothing. You and everyone else knows that if BMF gets listed it will be a really good fund and it will be just as popular as before. What's the holdup?

[usagi]

You can see the reason why I have had so much trouble in Deprived's recent post, which is nothing but harrassment. He has a lot of weight socially here, apparently, and he makes it his business to target me, to single me out, and to do as much financial damage to me and my companies as he can. It's been 10 months of his BS now. It needs to end.

Please vote against his hypocritical lying BS by approving BMF for listing. You can vote here. That will be all, thank you.

[burnside]

I think the problem the shareholders of NYAN.B and NYAN.C had was that NYAN.A was supposed to be resolved first, followed by B, then C, then the root NYAN asset.  (If there's anything left.)  I agree that the chances of there being anything left for B and C are almost Nil, but that was the issue behind that particular action.

Regarding BMF, approved or not as you say, it has assets.  You could liquidate those, then buyback NYAN.A with the proceeds.  If what you say is correct and NYAN held a bunch of BMF, then NYAN.A would be the beneficiary of that, and those proceeds could be distributed.

It feels to me like you're wanting to get BMF listed to sell a bunch, then use those proceeds to boost NYAN?  There's nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell, but please don't be bitter at the mods if they have as hard a time figuring it all out as I do.

Also, since you've posted the assets you claim to have in the thread, I suppose there's no harm in proving that you are holding them.  You can turn on the public portfolio feature (Account -> Settings, turn it on, then a new URL will appear on the main Account summary tab) and post the URL's.  That potentially would address some of the mods concerns?  Once verified by a community member or two, you could turn it back off.

Hope that helps.

Cheers.

[usagi]

I think the problem the shareholders of NYAN.B and NYAN.C had was that NYAN.A was supposed to be resolved first, followed by B, then C, then the root NYAN asset.  (If there's anything left.)  I agree that the chances of there being anything left for B and C are almost Nil, but that was the issue behind that particular action.

Regarding BMF, approved or not as you say, it has assets.  You could liquidate those, then buyback NYAN.A with the proceeds.  If what you say is correct and NYAN held a bunch of BMF, then NYAN.A would be the beneficiary of that, and those proceeds could be distributed.

It feels to me like you're wanting to get BMF listed to sell a bunch, then use those proceeds to boost NYAN?  There's nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell, but please don't be bitter at the mods if they have as hard a time figuring it all out as I do.

Also, since you've posted the assets you claim to have in the thread, I suppose there's no harm in proving that you are holding them.  You can turn on the public portfolio feature (Account -> Settings, turn it on, then a new URL will appear on the main Account summary tab) and post the URL's.  That potentially would address some of the mods concerns?  Once verified by a community member or two, you could turn it back off.

Hope that helps.

Cheers.

Trying to make the mods responsible for NYAN.A not paying out definitely irks me.   

It seems bound to backfire.

Look. I don't know why we're still having these issues 6-7 months down the road.

I want a fair shot to list my companies and trade them. As a show of good faith I agreed to cover NYAN.A's debt to the full 1 BTC a share personally, to give up all my personal shares in BMF/etc, and to donate an additional 100 BTC of my own personal money. None of that was ever under any sort of question.

In return, I've faced a ridiculous amount of undue criticism. News flash, I get paid for running a company like BMF. And I am willing to give back to the community if I am allowed to continue to run it. That's all.

Now, there's some news here. I have received the following moderator comment:

Code:

(23 hours ago):
A peer voted NO on your security: BMF
Their public comments: Cannot approve.  Clean things up, then maybe.
Their private comments: I'll change this to a yes if you provide a link to the updated spreadsheet in the prospectus.
If you get NO votes, you may need to improve your Business Plan.

As a result of this I will post an updated spreadsheet on tsukino.ca and start building up a BMF website again.

No tricks. I will keep my promises, and I expect everyone else to as well. That goes for every single turtle on down, and I will be making my rounds.

[usagi]

Why is it 'good faith' to make good on your contractual obligation to payout on NYAN.A?  Why would meeting your contractual obligation be conditional on anything at all?

I have no stake in this, just seriously puzzled by your reasoning process.

Because I don't have a contractual obligation to payout on NYAN.A beyond the value of it's assets and the value of CPA's assets. NYAN.A was insured by CPA. I assumed personal liability as a show of good faith, because I wanted people to know I was serious and I was not trying to scam anyone. The reason I did this is because I wanted to list BMF (and my other companies) for trading on BTC-TC. See, I am willing to give back and stick my neck out for my investors. I am not taking the money and running like Ian Bakewell or BitcoinOZ.

Yes, it's true, I want to keep working (and making money) in the bitcoin community. And I recognize that sometimes life isn't fair and you have to pay the price in order to keep your good name even if it isn't your fault. And that is what I am willing to do. But don't get the wrong idea. I don't owe anyone anything with a capital O. Pretty much everything has been liquidated and paid out except for the BITVPS shares. The assets I am proposing to restart BMF with are my own personal assets. This has all been made very public in the liquidation auction threads and will be made even more so once I set up the BMF webpage again.

Actually the issue with it going down has more to do with justhost screwing things up with CIRA and their legendary bad tech support than me taking it down, I think all the files are still there but it may take a day to put them back up. I'll post here again when I make some progress. I think I just got postfix working again but dovecot is being a pain.. anyway..

[usagi]

BTC-TC has the following in its terms:

"Securities created by the same issuer or organization, in cooperation with the same issuer or organization, or in collusion with the issuer or organization are not to invest in each other on BTC-TC. "

At present CPA and at least one of the Nyans own a significant chunk of BMF.  Worse - those holdings are not even represented in the outstanding shares (because usagi uses same account for all of them AND for his personal holdings).

I agree, he needs to separate the NYAN's (collectively), BMF, and CPA into separate accounts from his personal account.  There's no other way to make heads nor tails of what has what and what owns what.

Once that is done, I'm not sure how to unwind things like NYAN owning BMF, because BMF isn't trading and thus can't be liquidated.  So NYAN could never be listed.  CPA I think is in a similar situation.  BMF I don't think he listed having any CPA or NYAN, so that one by itself (and with exclusion of the others) is possible, assuming the account split mentioned above is done.  I may be missing something here though, I find all the cross connections extremely confusing.

BMF is the only company applying for listing now, and it does not own shares in any of my other companies. I've made it very clear that BMF needs to be unwound first precisely for this reason. So nothing Deprived said actually matters. He's full of shit.

This is a great example of how Deprived will say or do anything to prevent me from getting listed though. It's clear to me that he's talking his own book; I would be a major (perhaps the only) competitor to LTC-ATF. He's very biased.

The second issue is that you find the cross-connections confusing. That could be because there are no cross-connections. It's quite simple; BMF is a mining fund, CPA and NYAN invested in BMF because it was a very large and popular fund. That's it.

Once I publish the BMF holdings, it will be a lot less confusing. At that time I will also get moderator approval, according to moderator's private comments to me, and since there's no actual issue here except Deprived's depraved attempt to get me unlisted, I expect things to go smoothly. I remain here to answer any questions.

[burnside]

BTC-TC has the following in its terms:

"Securities created by the same issuer or organization, in cooperation with the same issuer or organization, or in collusion with the issuer or organization are not to invest in each other on BTC-TC. "

At present CPA and at least one of the Nyans own a significant chunk of BMF.  Worse - those holdings are not even represented in the outstanding shares (because usagi uses same account for all of them AND for his personal holdings).

I agree, he needs to separate the NYAN's (collectively), BMF, and CPA into separate accounts from his personal account.  There's no other way to make heads nor tails of what has what and what owns what.

Once that is done, I'm not sure how to unwind things like NYAN owning BMF, because BMF isn't trading and thus can't be liquidated.  So NYAN could never be listed.  CPA I think is in a similar situation.  BMF I don't think he listed having any CPA or NYAN, so that one by itself (and with exclusion of the others) is possible, assuming the account split mentioned above is done.  I may be missing something here though, I find all the cross connections extremely confusing.

BMF is the only company applying for listing now, and it does not own shares in any of my other companies. I've made it very clear that BMF needs to be unwound first precisely for this reason. So nothing Deprived said actually matters. He's full of shit.

This is a great example of how Deprived will say or do anything to prevent me from getting listed though. It's clear to me that he's talking his own book; I would be a major (perhaps the only) competitor to LTC-ATF. He's very biased.

The second issue is that you find the cross-connections confusing. That could be because there are no cross-connections. It's quite simple; BMF is a mining fund, CPA and NYAN invested in BMF because it was a very large and popular fund. That's it.

Once I publish the BMF holdings, it will be a lot less confusing. At that time I will also get moderator approval, according to moderator's private comments to me, and since there's no actual issue here except Deprived's depraved attempt to get me unlisted, I expect things to go smoothly. I remain here to answer any questions.

Actually, he's made a very good, and valid point.  That is that you can't maintain the transparency required by the exchange if all of these are held under the same account.  Yes, this is an inconvenient technical limitation of the platform, (sorry.) but BMF before it can be traded will need to be moved to another account.  While we're at it, it probably makes sense to do the same with CPA and NYAN.

If you can create an UsagiBMF, UsagiCPA, and UsagiNYAN account, I'll facilitate the transfer of the issues to those accounts respectively.  After that, you can distribute the shares held according to the spreadsheet.

Thankfully confusing is a relative term.  It may make perfect sense to you, you set it all up and operated it. 

Cheers.

[usagi]

Yes, this is an inconvenient technical limitation of the platform, (sorry.) but BMF before it can be traded will need to be moved to another account.  While we're at it, it probably makes sense to do the same with CPA and NYAN.

If you can create an UsagiBMF, UsagiCPA, and UsagiNYAN account, I'll facilitate the transfer of the issues to those accounts respectively.  After that, you can distribute the shares held according to the spreadsheet.

Thankfully confusing is a relative term.  It may make perfect sense to you, you set it all up and operated it. 

Cheers.

If that will make it easier then I'm all for it. And I'll do my best to make the holdings clearer than they are now. I think getting the bmf site up and operational will go a long way towards that. I'm looking to have it set up this evening.

[EskimoBob]

List of assets taken from BTC-TC account:

   576      B.YABMC
   1,431      BTC-BOND
   50      ESECURITYSABTC
   200      PAJKA.BOND
   137      ESECURITY-SA
   1,100      ESECURITY-SA2
   3,192      LTC-ATF.B1

This is a partial list of distribution paying assets that I would use to restart the relevant listings. Absent are holdings such as ART and BITVPS which currently don't pay distributions. I am not going to provide the full list, for the same reason Deprived refuses to list his individual holdings. However, I would also donate 100 BTC to BMF should it be approved.
...

This is really bad news that you hold ART. Can you please sell those ASAP so I do not have to deal with your tantrums.  

BTW, if you exclude some shares from your assets because they "don't pay distributions", you are lying to your funds unit (you call them shares) holders AGAIN! and guess what, I am one of those lucky ones, who have few units of those grossly mismanaged funds of yours.

I hope this stuff gets listed soon so I can sell every unit I hold and forget I ever had them

[usagi]

This is really bad news that you hold ART. Can you please sell those ASAP so I do not have to deal with your tantrums.

I think I ribbed you once, for ART, and I was reasonably happy with the answer I got. See, I'm a happy ART holder. I believe ART is a good buy now. Not at 1 LTC when you IPO'd, but right now. ART wasn't the only security affected by the rise in BTC (and LTC) prices!

BTW, if you exclude some shares from your assets because they "don't pay distributions", you are lying to your funds unit (you call them shares) holders AGAIN!

I don't understand what you mean. You can see the complete list of assets right now, on the BMF holdings & NAV page.

I hope this stuff gets listed soon so I can sell every unit I hold and forget I ever had them

Sure, and I will make sure you get a fair price for them. Good luck!

[usagi]

Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators!

There are just 7 days left to approve BMF before it's listing application will be withdrawn.

Since I began this process, a number of issues have come to light regarding both BMF and the moderation process itself. What I once thought was a very good idea (the LTC-GLOBAL moderation process) has turned into a disaster, primarily due to there being no oversight whatsoever, no standard, and no training for moderators. As a result I sold my own LTC-GLOBAL shares (I was a moderator myself). Ultimately, while my moderation style received a lot of praise by burnside and others, I could not abide by the lack of standard employed by moderators. I think the best moderator right now is odolvlobo. I do not like anonymous moderators. I feel that it is an abuse of power.

In general, LTC-GLOBAL moderators are voting inconsistently and are voting against the best interests of LTC-GLOBAL. Further, at least three LTC-GLOBAL moderators have not yet kept their promise to me to change their vote to YES should I acquiesce to their policy. This message is a plea to those three moderators in particular. On two occasions, at least one moderator has simply changed their vote to a different reason.

1. I was asked to provide identity escrow. I have done so, and the vote was changed to ABSTAIN or NO without offering any additional explanation.
2. I was asked to publish the holdings of BMF. I have done so, and the vote has not been changed from NO to YES yet.
3. I was asked to show that I was dedicated to running BMF and that I had not abandoned it. When I did so, the vote was changed to ABSTAIN or NO without any comment.
4. Someone has voted NO, despite all accusations against me either being proven false, being withdrawn, or (most notably wrt Deprived's 'PSA's) being shown to have been made out of spite or for petty revenge, solely to damage my reputation.
5. Possibly separate (or connected) to the above, two known moderators have refused to answer PM's (sent many months ago) requesting discourse over their votes. (Actually, I do think Carnth responded, but he appeared unwilling to offer any criticism regarding his vote.)

Besides the above, I have made good on personal promises to step in and donate 100s of BTC to BMF and NYAN shareholders.

I have moved all the BMF assets to a separate BTC-TC account and opened the portfolio to public view.

I have shareholder support. Shareholder have voted AGAINST closing BMF and have voted FOR listing with the new contract.

I have resumed paying daily dividends and shown that it is within the capability of BMF to continue the current policy indefinitely. (I have done the same thing with TU.SILVER as well, for the record).

The most frustrating thing about all this is the five moderators who have refused to discuss their NO and/or ABSTAIN votes with me for over six months. This shows extreme negligence on the part of the moderators. Many of the moderators themselves run securities that I heavily invest in both personally and with BMF. Some of them also run securities which would be in competition with BMF.

There are still 7 days left to vote correctly. If you've voted NO or ABSTAIN on BMF, please take a long look at that -- not why you've done so (you have a right to your own decision) -- but why you have refused to give a reason or to allow me to make amends for whatever you feel is wrong with BMF. Yes, as a moderator it is your duty to be tough on new assets, but it is also your duty to be constructive and explain why you have voted NO, and by not doing that you have given BTC-TC a rather poor reputation. Is BTC-TC a place which is fair, or is BTC-TC a place run by a clique who is unfair?