[Weexchange issue] The fall of Ukyo III - Updates and references

[kano]

... and after finding out more of the details of the layout of Weex that I misunderstood ...

Since both Weex companies are owned by Ukyo, I'm am incorrect in saying that Weex would need to lay the charges against Ukyo.
Since he is the owner, he is indeed a person who could be the target of any charges anyone was considering laying against Weex.

[1713898836]

1713898836

[1713898836]

1713898836

[1713898836]

1713898836

[gogxmagog]

until ukyo comes clean about what happened to the coins I will assume he stole them.  there can be no legal reason for keeping this info secret. he is merely trying to dodge the consequences. most likely he ran his business like a gambler, playing with our money and losing while trying to buy time and hedge his bets, until BF went down and his source of gambling money dried up and now hes cornered and empty handed.

even when there are legal gag-orders or strategic business related reasons to with hold info, you can still give vague descriptions of the situation. The press does it all the time. Ukyo is obviously hiding something. user virtualspade found a good lawyer versed in digital law and familiar with the bitcoin ecosystem. He is working on the labcoin scam right now. I suggest class-action here guys. Others have already placed liens on some of ukyo's properties to recoup losses, get in there before there is truly nothing left.

[Ukyo]

until ukyo comes clean about what happened to the coins I will assume he stole them.  there can be no legal reason for keeping this info secret. he is merely trying to dodge the consequences. most likely he ran his business like a gambler, playing with our money and losing while trying to buy time and hedge his bets, until BF went down and his source of gambling money dried up and now hes cornered and empty handed.

even when there are legal gag-orders or strategic business related reasons to with hold info, you can still give vague descriptions of the situation. The press does it all the time. Ukyo is obviously hiding something. user virtualspade found a good lawyer versed in digital law and familiar with the bitcoin ecosystem. He is working on the labcoin scam right now. I suggest class-action here guys. Others have already placed liens on some of ukyo's properties to recoup losses, get in there before there is truly nothing left.

That is a very amusing scenario you have dreamed up.
If that was the case though, I would probably have chosen to not close BF knowing all of this and use the hundreds of btc of monthly would be profits to cover any losses. BitFunder was only growing.

Sorry to put a snag in your dreams.

[Pompobit]

updated the first post.

added:

- posts from Ukyo about the ActM issue (he his trying to sell his ActM shares to pays back a portion of his debt)
- posts from Ken Slaughter (CEO of ActiveMining) about the same issue (he wants to sell Ukyo's shares to recover his debt with weexchange)
- posts from cryptocyprus about a small update on his work on weexxchange.


references:

Repeated cross-post from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4699685#msg4699685

Ken Slaughter thinks his personal debt is more important than all other Weex users and is using his book education in Indian law to personally keep 100+ BTC worth of shares that I have been trying to sell to distribute to WeEx debtors.

He has gone as far as laugh it off with "good luck gong to belize to sue us"

I will explain it to you, a corporation has a lien on its shares for any sums owed by a shareholder, so we have a lien on your shares.  You are the owner of Bitfunder and the funds where on Bitfunder.  Because they where transferred to WeEx in a contract that you had with them does not relieve you of your obligation to pay us our funds.  Also, 38 BTC was left on Bitfunder and I have screenshots of it being there.  I did not authorize it to be transferred to WeEx.

Also from PM:

Just to give you a fair warning, there are a lot of laws in the us about disclosing customer information.

Good luck going to Belize to sue us.

I will explain it to you, a corporation has a lien on its shares for any sums owed by a shareholder, so we have a lien on your shares.  You are the owner of Bitfunder and the funds where on Bitfunder.  Because they where transferred to WeEx in a contract that you had with them does not relieve you of your obligation to pay us our funds.  Also, 38 BTC was left on Bitfunder and I have screenshots of it being there.  I did not authorize it to be transferred to WeEx.

The shares have a lien on them.  You are hereby notified that if the ~100 BTC is not paid in the next 10 days, we will sell your shares to the public to satisfy your debt to the company.  Should the shares not satisfy your debt to the company you will still be liable for the remaining debt.  Any amouts over the debt will be disperse to you less any cost of the sale.

I appreciate your 'good luck to sue us'. That's a real show of character.
I suggest all shareholders take heed of this warning.
What is wrong with posting your history? Are you afraid of something? You seem pretty concerned if your willing to make threats over it.

Notice was given 45 days before the transfer from BitFunder to WeExchange.
The site was shutting down and it was known to you that the only method of bitcoin transfer is via WeExchange which you accepted and used.

You should have no funds left on BitFunder. Any account that was properly linked (Which would be the ActM official account) had its full balance transferred. I think everyone is well aware that only a few people who had linking issues with weex have a small stuck balance.

How is it you have an account with 38btc that is not ActM that you are linking into this?
How many more accounts exactly did you create for trading on BitFunder than the handful I know of?
I suppose I will have to do a more in depth search on all of you ip addresses, linked accounts and addresses.
Why have you not claimed or reported this stuck 38btc prior?
You have not mentioned the 6% claimed from the portal yet either and subtracted that.

In the end, your argument is that I owe you XXX btc personally.
If your argument holds up then that means you are not the only debtor.
If this was the case, as someone mentioned prior, any funds of mine would need to be proportionally distributed.
This is not a mechanics lien.  You did not do work or provide services. You do not have first right to the funds.
Also I see you are not including "legal costs" of unspecified amounts into what you plan to take from any proceeds.
It sounds like no matter what, your intention it to keep 100% for your personal issues.

And just because you are CEO of a company does not mean you can abuse that authority on behalf of your own personal
problems and desires.

So to be clear, you are using your position as CEO of a company to force a sale of a shareholders shares to ensure your personal BTC losses are covered before other debtors can claim their portion when you have absolutely no evidence to show that the shareholder has directly owes you anything.

You do understand the difference between a corporation and an individual?
I hope you have this same understanding with accounting practices and funds.

WeExchange has a debt to many individuals and not just you.

Again, why the sudden rush and need to sell the shares? Why can't they just be locked worst case scenario?
You seem desperate. Why? I figure it will take you at least 2~3 more months to finish buying back ActM shares.
Why the need for threats? What is it you are so afraid of?

I bet people would love to see the complete shareholder listing as it stands. Would probably be more interesting
if ownership names could be included / proven.

Also, for a lien you must file something, somewhere with a valid reason and provide notification to the person you are filing against.
Normally, unless it is a mechanics lien, you file a lien against a person or entity.

I think you need to talk to your Belize lawyers and not whatever lawyer gave you a book quote rather than an official statutory listing.
(Personally, I would fire that lawyer and hire a new one.)

I found your link very interesting though. How about linking some documentation regarding Belize Corporate law instead?
Unless this is a confession that you are operating as a Indian entity and these are shares of an Indian entity?
You do realize that book is about Corporate laws in India... right? Your lawyer must be short on time and not taken notice.
Next time you are gasping at straws, you should check the first few chapters for relevance and stop trying to mislead people.

(For those of you who are curious, start with page 2. Definition of a company regarding the Companies Act of 1956. (India) and
the following line of "a company formed and registered under previous Company Laws in India."
I am going to go out of my way to say that you have had absolutely zero legal advice and are acting solely based on random google searches
and relying on "Well let him try something." rather than doing things properly.
I truly hope for those who have invested into ActM that you run your business better than this.

Please stop being inconsistent and show people if you actually have an understanding of the things you are talking about.
It's almost like you are purposefully misleading people.

(For anyone curious, feel free to call a US corporate lawyer for a free consultation and ask about shareholder rights and liens.)
Then again, that's US law, not Brazilian.

I response to your unofficial "notice of lien" hereby request that you post the contact information for your corporate Belize lawyers or PM it to me so I can contact them to make arrangements so this can be handled properly and officially. I will make sure that any documents are released to the public so they are fully aware of the situation.

Please keep in mind that your professional manner in handling this situation dictates how you will and ActM will be viewed going forward.
As a ActM shareholder and I am sure many others agree, if ActM is to succeed, it must act properly and not arbitrarily or expose the
company to unnecessary risks.

Stop acting so desperate and do things right.

Thank You,
Ukyo

We are selling Ukyo shares on Crypto-Trade to recover our losses on Bitfunder.

We will start moving Investors shares to Crypto-Trade within the next 7 days.

First of all, congratulations for your work in this venture.

Speaking about the Weexchange issue, I know this is not the right thread but you seems to dodge the specific one, so I'm trying here.
We are still in the dark and you gave your word to work on the issue with all your resources (and Neo&Bee ones). A month passed away and we still have nothing, neither bitcoin neither updates. A lot of people avoided to sue Ukyo and Weexchange because your intervention, I trust you and I hope you'll help us, but to remain without news worns nerves...

When we can expect for an update on what and on how is going on?

Thank you

Helping Ukyo out is something that I am doing in my spare time for the benefit of everyone involved and getting help from others that work here in their spare time (of which no one has available right now). I have so little time at the minute to do anything other than attend meetings for Neo & Bee and travel to meetings which dominates my life due to the fact we are launching a multitude of businesses across the coming weeks. I am still personally committed to helping resolve this issue by helping Ukyo get everyone settled.

All im getting from that, is that you attempted to resolve the infamous bitcoind problem, and you/Jon/Andreas A./others have failed, without any vision of a real resolution.

What do we do, hold you to your commitment indefinitely? Is there really any 'benefit' left, in doing that?

I haven't touched anything from a technical standpoint, I'm not sure who Andreas A is to be honest. If it is Andreas Antonopolous then I would be surprised as he hasn't mentioned anything to me about helping Ukyo. I am trying in my spare time (of which I have very little of) to give Ukyo a helping hand with achieving a workable solution, to ensure he can pay everyone back and once complete he can pay me back.

[minerpart]

That is a very amusing scenario you have dreamed up.
If that was the case though, I would probably have chosen to not close BF knowing all of this and use the hundreds of btc of monthly would be profits to cover any losses. BitFunder was only growing.

Sorry to put a snag in your dreams.

Listen you little punk, this is what you did, this is the only scenario:

1) Bitfunder had to be closed due to the SEC cease and desist letter sent to you. You could not have kept it open.
2) You sold over 5,000 BTC of other peoples money at what you thought was the top of the market in the hope that you could buy them all back plus some for yourself at a much lower level. I'd say you sold everything around 750USD? Amended below. I would also say you have a substantial amount of USD waiting to buy back BTC should it fall below around 700USD. If it does you will be able to pay everyone back, but that fall in price is very very unlikely to happen. In the mean time people have been prevented from speculating or investing with their own money and have lost out.

This is a criminal act involving millions of dollars. You are going to jail. Even if you return all the money you will still go to jail.

[minerpart]

Does anybody know - when did the fact that BTC was missing (delayed payouts from WeEx) first begin. If anyone knows a date I can check the charts to get a better estimate on the value Ukyo sold most of your BTC at.

[fuckukyo]

Started from October last year I think.

[minerpart]

Oh fuck. Well that is much worse than it could have been.

It would make sense, he probably sold in the third week of October when price spiked up to 230USD from 130USD at the beginning of the month. That was a huge move up till that point so not a bad gamble - with your own money.

The spike back down to 455 USD in mid December was obviously not low enough to meet his original sell level - if it was he would have bought all the BTC back and everyone would have been paid back a few days after.

So he sold between 130 and 455. That is not looking good because BTC is very unlikely to visit these levels again.

EDIT - has anyone seen the Wallet Ukyo used for his WeEx transactions? Has he released this address so people can look and investigate?

[Pompobit]

afaik the first reference to this issue was reported by lophie on October 18: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130117.msg3360611#msg3360611

A part of this, please refrain to troll in this discussion, Ken has no rights to sell Ukyo shares and recover his debt before the rest of weexchange users. Ukyo has a lot of guilts, but this don't makes fair to steal resources that could be used for the community (as Ukyo's will).
I'd approve if Ken would sells the shares because doesn't trust Ukyo and distributes the earnings equally among the weexchange users, but he wants to pay his 106 BTC before, and THEN give us the rest. Obviously this is not acceptable, his debt has no priority at all

[minerpart]

lol I haven't mentioned ACtM  have I?

I am investigating the loss, I am not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of the ACtM lien.


EDIT - has anyone seen the Wallet Ukyo used for his WeEx transactions? Has he released this address so people can look and investigate?

[minerpart]

By the way Pompobit you are lieing in the first page of this thread and again on this page about this ACtM shares issue.

Ken has never said the missing WeEx BTC was his personal money. He has categorically stated that it was ACtM funds for the payment of dividends on BF, from the sale of IPO shares and for the pre-arranged (with the shareholders) transfer of shares at no cost from BF to CryptoStocks.

So please stop referring to 'Ken's personal debt' - it does not exist.

The missing BTC have been subtracted from the ACtM balance sheet and when they are returned will be put back into our liquid assets.

[WeexUser]

I'd approve if Ken would sells the shares because doesn't trust Ukyo and distributes the earnings equally among the weexchange users,

I doubt that would be possible (legally) since it would require that Ken got a list from Ukyo so he know who is owed what and a bitcoin address for each user (essentially what the claim portal is supposed to do). I don't think Ukyo would be allowed to disclose the users personal information like that.

has anyone seen the Wallet Ukyo used for his WeEx transactions? Has he released this address so people can look and investigate?

A wallet is not an address.. It is many addresses. If you use Bitcoin "properly" then you should generate a new address for any transaction and never reuse an address.
Ukyo's bitcoind issue apparently appeared due to a huge wallet in the first place:

<Ukyo> hey guys. I got an issues with bitcoind. a. wallet size causes it to take 5~10 miuntes to load. b. as soon as send is issued, it maxes cpu/ram until restarted, and takes about 10~20 minutes until it announces to the network
<Ukyo> and then rpc times out after that
<sipa> how many keys/transactions?
<Ukyo> over ten thousand easily

[Pompobit]

lol I haven't mentioned ACtM  have I?

I am investigating the loss, I am not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of the ACtM lien.


EDIT - has anyone seen the Wallet Ukyo used for his WeEx transactions? Has he released this address so people can look and investigate?

If it is so, you are welcome.
I supposed you are here because I see you are very interested in ActiveMining stuffs, and suddenly to the Weexchange issues.
Although we need the help of the community, we really don't need random accusations without proofs.

By the way Pompobit you are lieing in the first page of this thread and again on this page about this ACtM shares issue.

Ken has never said the missing WeEx BTC was his personal money. He has categorically stated that it was ACtM funds for the payment of dividends on BF, from the sale of IPO shares and for the pre-arranged (with the shareholders) transfer of shares at no cost from BF to CryptoStocks.

So please stop referring to 'Ken's personal debt' - it does not exist.

The missing BTC have been subtracted from the ACtM balance sheet and when they are returned will be put back into our liquid assets.

corrected, thanks.

I'd approve if Ken would sells the shares because doesn't trust Ukyo and distributes the earnings equally among the weexchange users,

I doubt that would be possible (legally) since it would require that Ken got a list from Ukyo so he know who is owed what and a bitcoin address for each user (essentially what the claim portal is supposed to do). I don't think Ukyo would be allowed to disclose the users personal information like that.

I'm not saying he could do that, I'm saying I'd approve his intentions if they were those

[minerpart]

I appreciate that Pompobit thanks.

However 'personal company's debt' is still misleading. This should not say 'personal' atall. It is simply 'ACtM company debt'. Ukyo is making a legal point about this and he is wrong according to Ken and ACtM published company accounts - so your wording should be clear and unambiguous.

Thanks again.

[Pompobit]

I appreciate that Pompobit thanks.

However 'personal company's debt' is still misleading. This should not say 'personal' atall. It is simply 'ACtM company debt'. Ukyo is making a legal point about this and he is wrong according to Ken and ACtM published company accounts - so your wording should be clear and unambiguous.

Thanks again.

The point is that Ken wants to use the shares for his and his investors interests. So "personal company" when he his the CEO and the majority shareholder doesn't seems misleading to me, he is using an advantage he has (the detention of ukyo's shares) to get back his money before all other community members.
By the way, he is the CEO,founder and majority shareholder of AMC, so don't think that personal is inapposite here, plus it is irrelevant to the matter of the question

[minerpart]

No problem Pompobit, you changed it which makes it more clear. So long as people are aware this is not Kens 'personal money' - Ken is simply taking proactive steps to secure crucial company funds.



Also, and this is very important for everyone, the price Ken has listed Ukyo's shares at on CryptoTrade (0.01BTC per share) means only about 5% of them would need to be sold to cover all of ACtM's lost BTC. Ken has said he only intends to cover our losses. So the other 95% would then be either returned to Ukyo or possibly a third party/legal representative (to ensure WeEx users money is safe.)

Having said that lets be clear no-one knows if the shares will sell at that price. I don't think they will until ACtM makes some more progress and/or releases some more detailed news. So if they don't sell at 0.01BTC it's probable that Ken will need to lower their price to sell them and to recover our funds. (The market will decide what price they want to pay for these shares not Ken.) In other words ACtM would need to sell more than 5% of the shares to recover it's losses.

I accept your views on this lien and understand your concern but Ken is doing his best to get the best price for these shares so that all WeEx users do get something from their sale. A successful ACtM means more money made from Ukyo's shares and more refunds for the WeEx users. So please support ACtM because you will be supporting your own funds.

[Bitdust]

[snip]Ken has said he only intends to cover our losses. So the other 95% would then be either returned to Ukyo or possibly a third party/legal representative (to ensure WeEx users money is safe.)

Did Ken mention anything about disbursing coin to WeEx users, or did you make that up with your brain?

[minerpart]

No, it's not Ken's job to distribute the coin.

What he has said is that he is using Company and Corporate law to declare lien upon Ukyo's ACtM shares. Ukyo has accepted all the shares should be sold. Ken has also said he is selling the shares to recover ACtM losses and according to the laws of lien he is entitled to recover only ACtM's losses and costs. Any surplus (shares or BTC) will be handed over to a third party I would assume. Ken does not have the time to organise distribution himself.

Edit - he has taken legal advice on this so is following that advice.

That's all I'm going to say on this on this thread, if you want to keep checking the ACtM thread for updates please do.

[Bitdust]

...Any surplus (shares or BTC) will be handed over to a third party I would assume. ...

Huh.  You assumed that Ken will keep selling the shares and handing the money over to an assumed third party, which can then be assumed to take care of disbursing the funds?  Why not start off by saying "I'll be making shit up as I go along, disregard"?

[zumzero]

minerpart was asking about a public address that may be associated with Ukyo...

I found an old BF asset list and there was an ActM shareholder with 232,175 shares (only 175 shares more than the number of ActM Ukyo shares that Ken has listed on Crypto-Trade) and has this public address associated which had received 4623 btc in it's time.  Here the link to that address.  It's got to be Ukyo.

https://blockchain.info/address/1Mn65Q9Xm6NBoPdF8ppS3AzgRLt92ZKtTq

Here is the link to the cached webpage which has the asset list itself.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vbxit8c0mde7fs6/The-Very-Last-Google%27s-cache-of-Bitfunder-assets-list-1-Dec-2013-18-13-31-GMT.rar


Whose good as Blockchain forensics?