Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors

[Deprived]

This is a self-moderated topic.  Posts by usagi may be deleted - depending on whether I find them amusing or not.  Posts by usagi apologists (where i'm fairly confident it isn't a usagi sock-puppet - and if there still are any) WILL be allowed to remain.

I didn't particularly want to do this - but feel forced to after usagi:

1.  Deleted a post from me in his thread with the same title as this one (I was fine with just ignoring that as I've wasted enough time on that failure already)
2.  Then responded to that deleted post in the thread for one of my own securities - I've no problem with him occasionally trolling and exposing his ignorance there provided it's actually about my own securities.  I will not, however, accept him dragging discussion of his failed endeavours into threads for my own securities.

Recently I've tried to be constructive towards him and offer legitimate advice on the reasons why he's been struggling to get approval for his securities.  He doesn't see it that way - but my recent comments have been me being nice to him and trying to help him sort his mess out to some extent.  If he doesn't want to take advice or even properly read what is written then fine - I'll stop being nice.  Being nice wasn't fun anyway

So here, first of all, is the deleted post.  Then in a subsequent posts I'll explain why you should vote NO on all of usagi's current securities and not approve ANY securities he attempts to list.  In brief the reasons are:

1.  He lies habitually.
2.  He routinely makes promises that he fails to deliver on.
3.  He changes his mind as a matter of course - either forgetting and/or lieing about what he's previously said.
4.  He totally ignores the rights of investors - and I don't just mean in his past (admitted by him) conflict of interest over BMF/CPA.
5.  Even when he doesn't outright lie he makes intentionally misleading statements.

I'll explain each of the above points - with examples.  It will not all get posted tonight (in fact little will) - but I'd strongly urge holding off on voting YES (if that was your intent) and changing any current YES votes to Abstain until you've read what I have to say.  You can then verify the accuracy of what I say - and also watch usagi avoid addressing the detail of them whilst denying the allegations themselves (likely with some attempts to attack me - which I'll just be ignoring).  Whilst I'll probably delete some of his responses I'll leave any where he actually attempts to explain any of the specific allegations made - i.e. don't expect to see any of his posts here.

Here's the (pretty innocuous) deleted post of mine:

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.

Are you saying that those assets belong to BMF?  Or are those assets that belong to various of your assets (including TU.SILVER)?

You refer to me not providing detail of my precise holdings (for my fund).  That is correct.  I do, however, weekly provide a precise valuation of all assets held by it - and exact detail is provided for (typically) around 90% of those holdings (that being cash or disclosed holdings in shares to which I run pass-throughs).  And that's why providing detail of my investments isn't as important as in an investment fund - the valuation of my fund isn't heavily influenced by my valuation of securities it holds.  In an investment fund where little cash is held the valuation of securities held IS the valuation of the fund.

Investors (including potential ones) need either a credible valuation of assets OR a detailed list of assets (so they can work their own out).

A partial list of shares held in an account used for half a dozen securities  is of no use in assessing the value of any single asset.

BMF holds cash as well (a refund was received from BMF but has not been distributed - so there's at least that).

My point is simply that I can't work out the NAV/U of BMF - and I doubt very much anyone else can.  So you're asking for approval for an asset that has SOME assets but which refuses to provide information necessary to calculate any value for it.  If approved that means anyone trading it would be doing so totally blind - with no idea at all what it was actually worth on ANY basis.  That's not good - I can see the attraction of it for your shareholders but I don't support the listing of ANY security which refuses to provide a valuation of assets OR a list of assets.

Here, also for reference, is the current contract for BMF.  Note that BMF is already in existence so should already be following its contract to whatever extent it can.  I'll explain how usagi is already showing clear intent not to bother following his contract before he's even received approval to be listed.  You'll find that to be a common strand throughout much of what I explain about usagi's behaviour - essentially he says whatever he thinks will serve him best without regard for whether it's true and with no real intention of following through when such statements refer to future intent.

Purpose: BMF allows investors to safely diversify among mining companies.
1. BMF will not invest in any company unless the operator is a known
and trusted community member.
2. BMF will not invest in any company unless it has paid regular
dividends for at least sixty days.
3. BMF will only invest in companies approved by shareholder motion.
4. BMF will not invest more than 2% of it's holdings in a company
unless it has obtained the identity of the person operating the
company, or the operator of the company has provided identity escrow,
or is accountable in some other way for the operations of said
company. We do not list in unaccountable, anonymous entities.

Transparency: The fund seeks maximum transparency by fully disclosing
all assets held in the fund at any time.
1. A spreadsheet will be created listing all assets held.
2. An independent financial advisor will be hired to provide oversight
and ensure that things are running smoothly.
3. A support e-mail address will be operated by the manager, to
provide disclosure and give investors the tools they need to make
their own decisions should anything be required.


Dividends: The fund will pass through dividends received by the fund
using a combined growth and income policy.
1. Upon receiving a dividend, the fund will use approximately half the
money to buy more assets (growth via capital gains) and make payments
to shareholders (income via distributions).
2. Dividends will be paid within a reasonable time frame after
receipt; within 72 hours barring any extenuating circumstances.

Net Asset Value
The Net Asset Value (NAV) is the value of all assets in the fund plus
the cash on hand.
The Net Asset Value per share is the value divided by number of units
outstanding. This is also known as NAV/U.

Management Fees
Management will be compensated with 5% of all dividends paid. No other
payment or fees will ever be taken by management.

Underlying Asset Motions
Underlying assets held by the fund may periodically raise motions to
vote. This fund will vote on motions on underlying assets favoring the
best interest of the fund. Shareholder may request a motion for proxy
voting the fund's shares of an underlying asset.

Risk to shareholders
Although research has been put into each underlying asset, Mining
assets in the past have been unpredictable. The fund's value relies on
the the value of the underlying assets. If the underlying asset value
decreases, the entire fund's value will also decrease. Additional
risks to Mining assets include the price of Bitcoin, the price of
mining equipment, the difficulty mining Bitcoins the Bitcoin reward
per block, mining equipment upgrades, as well as many other risks.
This fund does not hedge against any of these risks. Each shareholder
must understand these risks before investing.

Fund Closure
Management reserves the right to close this fund for any reason giving
30 days notice. All assets in the fund including unpaid dividends will
be liquidated on the respective markets and paid to shareholders.

[Deprived]

On a general note, this post belongs in this section - as it is, at root, an appeal to Moderators (on LTC-Global/BTC.CO) in respect of the listing of assorted securities.

The general thrust of argument will be that usagi isn't fit to manage ANY security.  That's a position already accepted as fact by many on this forum - but apparently not realised by at least 4 people.

This topic has an identical title to one by usagi.  That is intentional - both topics deal with exactly the same point (whether usagi's securities should be approved) and should be read in conjunction.  That two threads are needed is the sad reality of life with self-moderated topics (a horrible thing to have implemented on the securities forum).

Usagi's thread is for those supporting approval of his securities (and for those expressing mild criticisms which he feels he can address).  This thread is where the opposing view-point can be freely aired.

[Deprived]

First off let's look at a post JUST made by usagi - specifically at the first paragraph of it.

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.

This immediately illustrates just how little value usagi places in promises or keeping his word.

He explicitly acknowledges that he has promised to personally repay the 1 BTC/share to Nyan.A investors but states that he will only keep that promise if his securities get listed on BTC-TC.  He's blatantly attempting to blackmail or bribe any moderators unfortunate enough to hold Nyan.A by threatening not to keep his word unless they vote Yes.

He's even bold-faced enough to say "I'm really tired of making all these grand promises just to coax a listing" - explicitly acknowledging that he only makes promises to try to get a result (having already clarified that making a promise doesn't mean he'll actually keep it).

Can you trust someone who will so openly threaten to break their word if they don't get their own way to honour a contract?

In the same post he continues (this time about past events) :

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.

This is, at best, misleading.

At present he is completely able to make dividend payments and buy back stock.  What he can't do is :

1.  Manipulate a market price so as to get investors to sell back at below what they're entitled to.
2.  Peddle his crap to unwitting investors who aren't already his victims.

It's pretty apparent he intends to do 1. with Nyan.A (i.e. pay small/non-existent dividends until investors sell into his low buy orders - hence getting out of his promise to repay in full) and 2. with BMF.

Note that his stated intent at the time of listing was :

"Written Jan 2, 2013:
1. I will acquire and liquidate the assets of BMF to the best of my ability and distribute the proceeds as dividend payments to shareholders of record."

(from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220185.msg2318024#msg2318024 - a usagi thread so, as usual, locked and not able to be directly quoted)

Today he says:

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.

Again - breaking a commitment to investors because he hasn't got his own way on listing.  In this case holding back funds due to investors to attempt to blackmail/bribe moderators into approving his securities.

Is it safe to trust someone who behave like that to honour their contracts if they don't get their way on everything?  Obviously not.

Will continue tomorrow.

[burnside]

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

It seems bound to backfire.

[Deprived]

Posting a response to a post made by burnside in usagi's thread - no point me answering there as one or both of our posts would likely be deleted.

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.

Showing those assets wouldn't help anything much - due to another problem with the way usagi runs things.  Usagi doesn't properly segregate assets belonging to different companies.

The same wallet holds assets belong to BMF, Nyan, CPA (if it has any), and probably TU.Silver and also stuff belonging to usagi personally.  Usagi has a history of being 'creative' (a polite term) over the ownership of assets and of merrily transferring things between his companies without any transparency or accountability.

You can verify that immediately - just by seeing that BMF and all the others share the same issuing account.  Assets should NOT share the same issuing account unless they are all part of the same concern.

It's doubly stupid when you consider that some of the other assets actually own shares in BMF - which are not even issued as shares in the system as cross-company holdings can't be represented in one account when that account issued both securities.  That's why the (5 months out of date) spreadsheet listing BMF's holdings has seperate columns for nyan, CPA and usagi personally - as he has to calculate the share of dividends for each OFF the exchange due to being too stupid and/or lazy to do it properly.

Needless to say when I was helping him get listed I explained how he'd need different accounts for each security group (the nyans should all share one) but that was in one ear and out the other.  Leaving the current mess where outstanding share counts are inaccurate, dividend payments don't reflect the amount actually distributed, assets are comingled between various assets etc.

Basic incompetence on very simple things like this is another of the many reasons why usagi shouldn't be running securities.  Of course it may not be incompetence - it could just be that it's easier for him to move stuff between securities however he sees fit if they're already stored in the same account.  For many of usagi's actions it's impossible for an outside observer to determine whether it's ignorance/incompetence or dishonesty/scamming - luckily we don't need to determine which it is to know he shouldn't be running securities.

[Deprived]

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

It seems bound to backfire.

Well, as you'll see when I get around to posting about his lieing, trying to blame it on the mods is only the latest in his attempts to wriggle out of paying.  He tried outright lieing - denying that he'd made the promise at all - which was unfortunate as he'd never got around to deleting or editing the post in which he made the promise (not sure if it's still up - but as I quoted and located it a mod could undelete it if it ever vanishes).

[burnside]

Sounds like he needs some help figuring out how to split the assets across separate accounts.  I'm willing to help with that if he asks for it.  All he'd need to do is say "hey, all this is currently under account A, I need it split out into accounts B, and C, like so: ... "

By splitting stuff out I mean shifting the issues themselves, such that he could clearly delineate asset ownership.

If I had everything under one account I'd lose my marbles... no wonder he has such a hard time with it. 

[Entropy-uc]

Sounds like he needs some help figuring out how to split the assets across separate accounts.  I'm willing to help with that if he asks for it.  All he'd need to do is say "hey, all this is currently under account A, I need it split out into accounts B, and C, like so: ... "

By splitting stuff out I mean shifting the issues themselves, such that he could clearly delineate asset ownership.

If I had everything under one account I'd lose my marbles... no wonder he has such a hard time with it. 

Has usagi provided you with definitive proof of identity?  I remember when he first started his blitzkrieg of interlocking share offerings that he was pretending to be a Japanese girl, even going so far as to hold off on posting until daylight hours in Asia.

[burnside]

Sounds like he needs some help figuring out how to split the assets across separate accounts.  I'm willing to help with that if he asks for it.  All he'd need to do is say "hey, all this is currently under account A, I need it split out into accounts B, and C, like so: ... "

By splitting stuff out I mean shifting the issues themselves, such that he could clearly delineate asset ownership.

If I had everything under one account I'd lose my marbles... no wonder he has such a hard time with it. 

Has usagi provided you with definitive proof of identity?  I remember when he first started his blitzkrieg of interlocking share offerings that he was pretending to be a Japanese girl, even going so far as to hold off on posting until daylight hours in Asia.

No, we don't require this of anyone.  It's pretty obvious though that the ones who do provide it end up with better mod scores.

[Deprived]

Sounds like he needs some help figuring out how to split the assets across separate accounts.  I'm willing to help with that if he asks for it.  All he'd need to do is say "hey, all this is currently under account A, I need it split out into accounts B, and C, like so: ... "

By splitting stuff out I mean shifting the issues themselves, such that he could clearly delineate asset ownership.

If I had everything under one account I'd lose my marbles... no wonder he has such a hard time with it. 

Has usagi provided you with definitive proof of identity?  I remember when he first started his blitzkrieg of interlocking share offerings that he was pretending to be a Japanese girl, even going so far as to hold off on posting until daylight hours in Asia.

He lives in Asia - ROC (otherwise known as Taiwan) to be more precise : so the asian hours wasn't a pretence (though using Tokyo time was as, from memory, Taiwan is in a 1 hour different time-zone).

Think he's given up on pretending to be an asian female now and openly admits to being a male of Canadian origins.  He certainly stopped signing his posts "Serena" a long time back but was happily outright lieing about his gender until well after GLBSE closed.  Obviously his gender is irrelevant - but that he'd lie about it was an immediately give-away that we were dealing with a pathological liar.  When I get up (about to head to bed) I'll see if I can details some totally blatant lies made more recently - when he says something then a few posts later denies saying it even though the post in which he says it is just a few posts up.  Lies about insignificant things are in many ways more concerning than ones about important things - as if someone will lie when there's no reason to do so then it's a very safe bet they'll lie any time it's in their advantage to do so.

[Entropy-uc]

Sounds like he needs some help figuring out how to split the assets across separate accounts.  I'm willing to help with that if he asks for it.  All he'd need to do is say "hey, all this is currently under account A, I need it split out into accounts B, and C, like so: ... "

By splitting stuff out I mean shifting the issues themselves, such that he could clearly delineate asset ownership.

If I had everything under one account I'd lose my marbles... no wonder he has such a hard time with it. 

Has usagi provided you with definitive proof of identity?  I remember when he first started his blitzkrieg of interlocking share offerings that he was pretending to be a Japanese girl, even going so far as to hold off on posting until daylight hours in Asia.

No, we don't require this of anyone.  It's pretty obvious though that the ones who do provide it end up with better mod scores.

It seems like a history of being intentionally misleading about your identity would be a dealbreaker.  Perhaps that kind of deception could be overlooked by full disclosure now, but without such disclosure I think you're just asking for trouble to allow him to list with you.

[Deprived]

Sorry for not providing more information quicker - I'll get around to it when I can, but for now here's an imperative reason why approval should NOT be given (and why, even if it is, I believe it unlikely that BMF would get administrative unlocking anyway).

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).

It is almost inconceivable that trading could be allowed in BMF until after these cross investments were cleared because the rules were introduced in direct response to usagi's abuse of these specific investments by some usagi companies into others.  It was these very cross-investments that caused rules to be added banning such activity on BTC-TC.

Let's be totally clear about why usagi wants trading to resume BEFORE unwinding those investments.  Usagi wants to be able to inflate/manipulate the price of BMF on the market (which would happen anyway if anyone mistakenly assumed the shown outstanding shares represented the actual outstanding shares) so as to sell his own companies' holdings in it to innocent victims for far more than they're worth.  How do we know this?  Because he did it before - manipulating share price up so as to justify (off-market) sales of his own shares by his own companies (in the process reducing the real value for all other investors AND destroying a contractual obligation - will give more info on this when I have time as it's an incident that noone else spotted the significance of afaik and which has never been explained before).

Ignoring everything else (i.e. the reasons he shouldn't be allowed to list anything) before BMF can trade the following MUST happen:

1.  All ownership by other usagi companies in it be bought out or otherwise cancelled.
2.  His use of one account to hold the assets of disparate (and, for that matter, desperate) companies AND his personal assets fixed.
3.  Outstanding shares must reflect actual outstanding shares - the situation where shares listed as unsold are actually owned needs to be corrected.

[burnside]

Sorry for not providing more information quicker - I'll get around to it when I can, but for now here's an imperative reason why approval should NOT be given (and why, even if it is, I believe it unlikely that BMF would get administrative unlocking anyway).

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).

It is almost inconceivable that trading could be allowed in BMF until after these cross investments were cleared because the rules were introduced in direct response to usagi's abuse of these specific investments by some usagi companies into others.  It was these very cross-investments that caused rules to be added banning such activity on BTC-TC.

Let's be totally clear about why usagi wants trading to resume BEFORE unwinding those investments.  Usagi wants to be able to inflate/manipulate the price of BMF on the market (which would happen anyway if anyone mistakenly assumed the shown outstanding shares represented the actual outstanding shares) so as to sell his own companies' holdings in it to innocent victims for far more than they're worth.  How do we know this?  Because he did it before - manipulating share price up so as to justify (off-market) sales of his own shares by his own companies (in the process reducing the real value for all other investors AND destroying a contractual obligation - will give more info on this when I have time as it's an incident that noone else spotted the significance of afaik and which has never been explained before).

Ignoring everything else (i.e. the reasons he shouldn't be allowed to list anything) before BMF can trade the following MUST happen:

1.  All ownership by other usagi companies in it be bought out or otherwise cancelled.
2.  His use of one account to hold the assets of disparate (and, for that matter, desperate) companies AND his personal assets fixed.
3.  Outstanding shares must reflect actual outstanding shares - the situation where shares listed as unsold are actually owned needs to be corrected.

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.

[Deprived]

Sorry for not providing more information quicker - I'll get around to it when I can, but for now here's an imperative reason why approval should NOT be given (and why, even if it is, I believe it unlikely that BMF would get administrative unlocking anyway).

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).

It is almost inconceivable that trading could be allowed in BMF until after these cross investments were cleared because the rules were introduced in direct response to usagi's abuse of these specific investments by some usagi companies into others.  It was these very cross-investments that caused rules to be added banning such activity on BTC-TC.

Let's be totally clear about why usagi wants trading to resume BEFORE unwinding those investments.  Usagi wants to be able to inflate/manipulate the price of BMF on the market (which would happen anyway if anyone mistakenly assumed the shown outstanding shares represented the actual outstanding shares) so as to sell his own companies' holdings in it to innocent victims for far more than they're worth.  How do we know this?  Because he did it before - manipulating share price up so as to justify (off-market) sales of his own shares by his own companies (in the process reducing the real value for all other investors AND destroying a contractual obligation - will give more info on this when I have time as it's an incident that noone else spotted the significance of afaik and which has never been explained before).

Ignoring everything else (i.e. the reasons he shouldn't be allowed to list anything) before BMF can trade the following MUST happen:

1.  All ownership by other usagi companies in it be bought out or otherwise cancelled.
2.  His use of one account to hold the assets of disparate (and, for that matter, desperate) companies AND his personal assets fixed.
3.  Outstanding shares must reflect actual outstanding shares - the situation where shares listed as unsold are actually owned needs to be corrected.

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.

Part of the reason (I thought) of the rule was to prevent an issuer having undue voting power by voting with shares held by other assets they also controlled.  In that context do remember that usagi's securities are the ones which had more Yes votes in motion on GLBSE than there were shares outstanding (there was a bug where the asset issuer could vote, move the shares from the asset wallet to their own - which was on same account - and vote again, then move them back.).

The rule applies to assets LISTED on BTC-TC not just to ones TRADING.  Arguably BMF/Nyan etc are ALL listed - just disabled from trading.

BMF could buy-back its shares or they could be sold by private transfer - including to usagi himself (there's no rule against him personally owning them).

Usagi recently stated :

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.

The BitVPS belong to Nyan not BMF.  If he's saying all BMF has left is cash then there's absolutely no reason why he couldn't liquidate - or at least buy back the shares held by Nyan/CPA with their portion of that cash.  To NOT do so is unnecessarily adding delay to paying Nyan off.  He's just stated BMF has no assets of significance left - so the only thing stopping him paying out Nyan is his own attempt to use the threat of delayed/non-payment as a crude tool to try to bludgeon moderators into voting yes.

On the topic of undwinding there HAS already been significant unwinding - much to the detriment of some investors.  I'll do another post and explain how that went down - and how he screwed his Nyan.A investors in the process.

[Deprived]

Let's have a chat about Nyan.  Not so much Nyan.A/B/C, as Nyan itself - the holding company that never gets mentioned as it has no investors and no assets.  It wasn't, however, always that way - and in the process of getting to where it now is usagi royally screwed over Nyan.a investors.

Here's a quote from usagi made in the last few days:

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'm not concerned here with usagi's personal obligation (it was a promise made this year - not a contractual obligation - we'll leave why usagi believes promises aren't as important as contractual obligations to a later post).  It's the last part of that sentence which is incomplete.

In addition to the contractual obligation for CPA to pay out, there is also a contractual obligation for nyan's assets to be used to pay off Nyan.A AND Nyan.B (Nyan.B would only receive funds if there were assets left after Nyan.A was paid out in full).  Now the failure to mention that COULD be considered as innocent (as nyan has no assets) until you look into WHY it has no assets.  And that means going back quite a while and looking at one of the most dishonest acts usagi ever conducted (which got very little attention as not long afterwards GLBSE vanished - and so did usagi's posts - and everyone had larger fish to fry).

But I get ahead of myself - let's start from the beginning.

Nyan was created by CPA giving it cash in return for share in nyan.  Nyan was thus wholly owned by CPA in practice - at some point there was talk of selling shares in it to the public but I don't believe that ever happened.

Nyan.A, Nyan.B and Nyan.C were then created - and parent Nyan bought shares in all three.

A/B/C were meant to be a form of tranched CDO - but they were badly designed from the start.  Specifically two enormous factors were left out:

• A need for defined ratios between the number of each type that would be issued - without these it's impossible for anyone to value them.
• A need for a reset/settlement date - without this the risk is run of the risk/reward ratio for one or more tranches to become schewed beyond repair (as was the case - where Nyan.C hit zero value fast and was left being propped up by the other two whilst offering no reward in return and with no defined means of resetting to restore any sort of sense).

This sort of incompetence is common from usagi - but not the main thrust of this post.

Nyan's job was to maintain some sort of balance between A/B/C (though that was never defined) to provide liquidity and to underwrite to an extent any losses that would otherwise be incurred by A and B - by its own holdings being pledged to A and B in the event of a short-fall (if this happened then it would effectively mean the assets were split between less shares - a sort of reverse dilution effect having the result of increasing returned capital to other investors).

In general Nyan DID fulfil those roles.  Until suddenly it didn't.

Remember that Nyan's capital originally came from CPA - in effect nyan was ring-fencing CPA cash into being committed to cover any loss of value to Nyan.A and B.  Well CPA got very short of cash - to the extent that it couldn't pay off its own debt in a timely manner (some of its debt has only recently been finally settled).  At the same time Nyan.C had hit zero - and Nyan.B was down a lot.  Having lost CPA's cash on one obvious ponzi (Pirate) usagi had proceeded to go double-or-quits on another one with Nyan.B/C's cash (obsi) and of course the result wasn't quits.

We're now at a point not long before GLBSE vanished.  What did usagi do?

Nyan sold its holdings of Nyan.A/B/C in off the market transactions then gave the cash back to CPA in return for cancellation of the shares in it.  In one fell swoop usagi totally removed a protection that Nyan.A and Nyan.B were contractually entitled to - to try to bail out CPA.  That was done without any vote and worse was almost certainly done by selling the shares back to Nyan.A/B/C at inflated prices (usagi had been artificially valuing them high - by pretending obsi hadn't scammed so valuing his shares WAY above market).  So not only did their contractual protection vanish - but they got cleaned out of what liquid cash they had as well.

Removing those assets - that were contractually supposed to protect Nyan.A/B - is little short of outright theft.

That's why Nyan wasn't mentioned when usagi detailed the contractual sources of funds to pay out Nyan.A.  Because that contractual obligation became worthless when usagi deceitfully and in a blatant conflict of interest decided to make it worthless to try to bail out his (then) favourite failed asset CPA.  BMF had already been screwed to try to help CPA (that's the insurance contract where usagi eventually admitted to a conflict of interest - despite having previously claimed my accusation of conflict was false and even cited that claim by me as grounds for me being a scammer).  Nyan were further screwed to help CPA by making interest-free loans to it dressed up as investments - though on a much smaller scale.

Do moderators really think that sort of behaviour is compatible with approving usagi to trade another asset?

That'll have to do for today - got other things to get on with.

[Deprived]

Some more spin posting by usagi today.  Let's look at a bit of it - and see just how usagi lies and misleads at every opportunity.

In it's time, BMF was the largest and most successful investment fund in this community.

You are correct if you consider "successful" as losing a large portion of it's value. This is provable with basic math.

It is also provable with basic math that BMF outperformed every mining issue while listed on the GLBSE. I guess it all depends on how you define successful. Did you have fun investing in PMBs, Factory?

Let's start with some basic facts.

Investors bought BMF shares for a certain price.  By the time GLBSE closed, if you added the remaining value (or market price) of those shares to all dividend payments they had received it was a LOT less than they originally paid.  They had made a loss.

Usagi does his best Bill Clinton impression by saying "it all depends on how you define successful".

To claim you were more successful than someone else you HAVE to have been successful to some extent.

If company A loses 80% of invested capital and company B loses 20% of invested capital then you CAN say that:

Company B had less disastrous results than company A.
Company B didn't perform as badly as company A.

But you can NOT say that company A was more successful than company B - as NEITHER was successful at all.  If you weighed the amount of "success" both had then the scales wouldn't budge for either - they both failed.  Just one didn't fail quite as badly as the other.  Of course it COULD be the case that usagi's goal wasn't to make profit for investors (e.g. it COULD have been to prop up CPA) - so by some measure other than profit maybe BMF had some degree of success.  But without defining that other objective the claim is meaningless.

Next note how usagi says "most successful investment fund" but then when trying to justify the claim talks about "outperformed every mining issue".  Usagi claims to be the the best orange (investment fund) then tries to justify it by comparing to apples (mining issues).  You can't compare apples and oranges.

And the claim to have "outperformed every mining issue" is just an outright lie.  The easiest example I can think of - which BMF did not outperform - is Moore.  Which paid out weekly dividends and maintained a value at exactly initial IPO price - including buying back at that exact price.  Investors in that made a profit.  Investors in BMF made a loss.  How did BMF outperform it?  It didn't - it's just usagi lieing as usual (whilst making a comparison that wouldn't even be valid if it were true).

One more note to moderators:

Do be aware that usagi is NOT asking you to approve a contract.

The contract listed in BMF is not the one currently active - NOR is it the one he intends to have.  He has posted asking for advice on what should be in the contract - i.e. he wants approval before he's even ready to determine what the contract is.  So you're being asked to approve something that isn't even defined.

Of course that's not really unreasonable - GLBSE did only just close, so it's not like he's add any great amount of time to sort things out or decide what he wants to do.[/sarcasm]

[Deprived]

Moderators should be aware that there is a significant difference between the contract currently up for BMF and the one usagi is proposing to use in his thread.

Transparency:
Transparency: The fund seeks maximum transparency by fully disclosing all assets held in the fund at any time:
5. We publish our spreadsheets. You must request access, and you may not publish or distribute the information to any other party.
6. An independent financial advisor will be hired to provide oversight and ensure that things are running smoothly.
7. A support e-mail address will be operated by the manager, to provide disclosure and give investors the tools they need to make their own decisions should anything be required.
8. Monthly reports will be published to the forums (and/or reddit or any other widely read news source).

Point 5 is a new addition.

What usagi is doing is saying that only SOME investors will have access to information about the fund.

This has two problems:

1.  It directly faciliates insider-trading.  There will be a privileged (to the extent anyone sending BTC to usagi can be considered privileged) class of investors able to see accurate information on the state of the fund - and use it to trade with an advantage on the market.
2,  It creates an asymmetry of information.  If someone selling shares has access to the financical information then anyone without such information who wants to buy is forced into acting based on a much lower level of information/knowledge.  That means that they are forced to compete on the market and enter into trades at an unfair disadvantage.

Both of these things are entirely undesirable.  The SAME infomation should be provided to all current investors AND to all prospective new investors.  If information is only going to be released to investors then the security should NOT be listed for public trading.  Public trading requires public disclosure.  That does NOT mean that full details of every transaction should be provided to everyone.  It DOES mean that whatever is provided to one investor should be provided to all (whether invested or not).  If something needs to be kept private for legitimate reasons then it needs to be withheld from ALL investors.

Usagi has long been a proponent of having multiple tiers of investors - the ones who know what's going on (or at least have been tricked into thinking they do) and the rest.  It's an abhorrent practice and one which should not be approved.  It is entirely incompatible with the notion of a public company.

[Deprived]

Usual crap from usagi.

In one of his very recent posts, he turns a simple requirement for people to request access to our books into a horror story where people have to pay for access and a statement that some investors won't be able to trade using access to the books.

There is no cost. There is no mal-intent -- except from Deprived. I simply wish to exclude deprived from the books, while not having to lower myself by mentioning his name in the contract.

There's a misunderstanding he's made here - he believes I'm accusing him of charging people to see his books.  I'm not.  I think he got that idea from me saying :

"There will be a privileged (to the extent anyone sending BTC to usagi can be considered privileged) class of investors"

And read it as meaning that the "sending BTC" referred to a payment to see the books.  It didn't.  It referred to the fact that any investor in BMF has sent BTC to usagi - and so referring to them as 'privileged' is a bit of a stretch.  They have BTC with someone who has yet to return funds in Nyan.A 9 months after GLBSE closed down.  That's funds that were backed by the assets of Nyan.A,B AND C.  Backed by a guarantee from CPA.  Backed by the assets of Nyan.  And backed by usagi's personal promise to cover them.  And yet 9 months on they've received what - under 20% back.  Hence my reluctance to use the term 'privileged' about anyone whose funds are in the grasp of usagi.

If the intention of requesting access is just to deny access to me (or to me and a few others) then we hit a dilemma:

Either anyone requesting information has to reveal enough information about themselves to usagi for usagi to be confident it isn't someone he doesn't want having access.

OR

Anyone who wants access can just make a new account and get it - making the whole effort pointless.

And here's the other thing.  The clause not to tell other people doesn't just prevent the information reaching whoever usagi considers undesirable.  It also prevents investors from having ANY meaningful discussion in public about the fund's performance or assets - as they can't say much without revealing information that's Top Secret.  Maybe that's the real intent - as a few minutes creating a sock-puppet (or 0.01 BTC to buy an account) would get ME access.  The clause doesn't DO what usagi CLAIMS it's meant to do - it prevents ALL public discussion of his asset in any detail and prevents ANY new investor getting information when usagi is offline.  If usagi isn't around to give permission to access the data then how can a new investor find out anything?

To be clear my point isn't about what information usagi reveals.  It's about ensuring that all market participants get the same information - ideally without having to give biographies, copies of IDs and notarised statements that they aren't me plus an apostilled NDA

[EskimoBob]

BMF (and all the rest of your "investment funds") dealt only in BTC. So, fiat was/is and will be irrelevant.

I'm sorry you feel that way, would you like BFL to refund you in BTC now, for a September 2012 order? Good luck!
.....

I personally had nothing to do with BFL, so I do not understand your question.

Allegedly you  bought the following with BFM coin:

Code:

Product                          USD     Units   BTC
BF Single 832 MH/s                599     3     149.12863
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s        149     2      24.73029
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s     1299     1     107.80083

For some reason, this information makes uagi twitch violently.

[Deprived]

BMF (and all the rest of your "investment funds") dealt only in BTC. So, fiat was/is and will be irrelevant.

I'm sorry you feel that way, would you like BFL to refund you in BTC now, for a September 2012 order? Good luck!
.....

I personally had nothing to do with BFL, so I do not understand your question.

Allegedly you  bought the following with BFM coin:

Code:

Product                          USD     Units   BTC
BF Single 832 MH/s                599     3     149.12863
BitForce Jalapeno 3.5 GH/s        149     2      24.73029
BitForce 'SC' Single 40 GH/s     1299     1     107.80083

For some reason, this information makes uagi twitch violently.

Thought it was only 5 pieces of hardware from memory - not 6.

But it had dropped to 3 somehow in January (in his spreadsheet showing what he'd done with BMF's hardware) - and usagi changed his story over what had happened to one that was sold and used to pay off a CPA debt (having claimed it was sold to pay CPA's debts he later tried saying he "thought" it was only the mining from it that was used to pay off CPA).

He's amazingly bad at remembering his own actions and posts. e.g. completely forgetting about his personal liability to Nyan.A (denying he'd made the promise even though he'd not deleted the post in which he made it).  Even simple things like why he deleted all his posts prompt a loss of memory.  His stock answer when asked is 'I've explained it before'.  But if you go back to the one time he DIDN'T claim to have explained it before you'll find a guess.  Yep - he guessed why he deleted them.  Can't remember exact wording (don't know if it's been deleted yet) but it was something like "I guess I might have deleted them because ..." - it definitely avoided committing him to any single specific explanation.

When someone has such a poor memory over their past actions - even to the extent of forgetting what they posted a few posts previously in the same thread (and being too lazy to read their own posts) - it's a bit risky to be relying on them remembering what they did with the funds you invested with them.