Response to this:
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There are just 7 days left to approve BMF before it's listing application will be withdrawn.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 Someone has voted NO, despite all accusations against me either being proven false, being withdrawn, or (most notably wrt Deprived's 'PSA's) being shown to have been made out of spite or for petty revenge, solely to damage my reputation.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?
Attention LTC-GLOBAL moderators!
There are just 7 days left to put up with usagii's whining then he'll be out of your hair for good.
Rather than pick holes in every line of his post let's look at what he's actually done.
He posted a public spreadsheet calculating the NAV/U (or Book Value) for BMF. It was massively wrong - due to a simple error that basically doubled it. When he became aware he'd made that cock-up (probably from my post in this thread) and found it he then REMOVED the spreadsheet from public view rather than simply correcting it.
In his own thread you'll see his reported NAV/U fall from ~.06 to ~.03 - or you WOULD see it were it not that he deleted various of his own posts as well as those of people pointing it out. But some evidence still remains of how he couldn't even work out his own NAV/U:
After the 100BTC in assets I've donated to relaunch the fund, the current NAV/U of BMF stands at approximatelty 0.05.
June 13th, 2013: 0.03610483 NAV/U (4,022 outstanding shares).
It was previously quoted even higher but that got deleted. No doubt my accusation that his NAV/U was wrong is one of the many things I supposedly got wrong or were proven untrue.
Perhaps the best and fairest way to look at how good his reporting is would be to look at his active, running asset - TU.SILVER. So let's have a look at its NAV/U,
Hmm, I can't. To look at the accounts I'd have to spend $90 buying a share then give it to him. Luckily he has weekly reports, so I don't need to see the accounts - and can just look at the NAV/U there.
Hmm, that's strange. There's no mention in of it in the last few. In fact the last mention of any NAV/U or similar is in the monthly report at the end of May where it says :
"Internal Calculation of 0.04348010"
Guess it hasn't changed much and that's still around what the NAV/U is. And there's another clue as to where the price lies in a later post of his:
An example of an un-reasonable price (imo) is 0.033 and 0.099. The people with those orders up should be unlikely to get them filled!
His advice to investors, BTW, is just to guess what the price is - put up an order and if he likes it he'll fill it.
So over we trot to the Bitfunder order book to pick up some of the shares - we know there should be some for sale as he just got some new silver in.
Hmm - fuck all volume on the Bid side (he long since gave up the pretence that he was going to provide visible liquidity) and on the Ask side:
21 ฿0.09090
45 ฿0.0910
700 ฿0.10
Nothing under .09. And we know the 700 order is his (check asset lists and noone other that him holds anything near that number) - at a price he himself said was unreasonable not that long ago (and with no news in between to suggest it had suddenly become reasonable).
What's happening here is actually classic usagi. He tries to sell his shares at well above their value - making sure to either give no information or wrong information to investors. If some sucker actually buys at that price, that then increases NAV/U and he can either pay it out as dividends or brag about how his trading is making profit. When all he's really doing is running a near ponzi - where the profit for existing shares come from new sales.
And if the price gets high enough he can then justify using that to buy back personal shares or shares held by his other companies - screwing all other investors. Which is exactly what happened with nyan/bmf not long before GLBSE died. He had a spell of price pumping in which he was allegedly buying back shares. But in practice what happened was the prices were inflated with small trades then the big volume of buybacks were off-exchange ones involving his own companies' holdings in one another (that's when nyan's holdings - supposed to be there to protect nyan.a/b - vanished). Actual investors who wanted to sell back found there was no way THEY could get to sell at the fake prices.
Don't fall for his whining, lieing and deceit. NOTHING he does is done in a sraightforward manner - it's ALL about tricking and misleading investors : with one of his favourites being failing to provide information then claiming it isn't his fault if investors paid too much. When of COURSE it's his fault when he doesn't publish NAV/U or a public list of holdings. With TU.SILVER the contract says :
"How it works
We calculate the price of silver in bitcoins and add a small markup for shipping and vault storage."
So when you see Asks up and know he's got new silver in stock, then check the BTC address and see it's his, you'd assume the price he was selling at WAS the value of the share + a small markup. Is it? Well - I don't know, as he doesn't publish NAV/U.
But if it is NOT a small a markup then he's lieing.
And if it IS a small markup then he really should have, at some stage, told investors the NAV/U had more than doubled since the last report. I mean - isn't that something they'd like to (and should) know?
Now for the final laugh:
Make no mistake, TU.SILVER is the most trustworthy fund in the entire community, or my name isn't Tsukino Usagi!
The important word here is "or". So long as the second part is true the first part doesn't have to be (and if you use the exclusive meaning of 'or' the first part has to be untrue).
Is he a character from Sailor Moon? If not then his name isn't Tsukino Usagi and all doubt should be on the veracity of the first part of the sentence (that TU.SILVER is the most trustworthy fund).
Not sure if this was a conscious attempt to deceive whilst being able to argue that technically what he said was true (i.e. one part of the 'or' was true which makes the whole sentence true).
