post

[Factory]

CPA is the company that actually paid out on all the pirate contracts.

I admire you for payout out on all contracts. I have never said anything against you being honest in your work. You honor your contracts; good, you should.

What I did speak of, is you either improperly evaluated risk or ignored risk in regards to contracts. Clearly, the total risk from all of your contracts was IMMENSE, because now CPA has lost most of it's working capital.  Clearly, the total risk from all of your investments  was IMMENSE, because 4 out of the 5 largest defaulted and now CPA has lost most of it's working capital.

CPA is the one who didn't fuck things up.

I am not so sure of that. You seem to have made some decisions that have put CPA in a very difficult position.

We lost money by listening to the community's stupid fucking idea

So you blame the community for having an idea rather than acknowledging it was you who listened to their idea?

it's not MY fucking fault that someone else lied about their pirate exposure.

You allowed CPA to rest in the hands of several individuals with no official papers/verification of any sort? That seems like that kind of an approach could lead to serious troubles. If they don't provide proof, then that is an immense risk within itself. If they can't provide proof, then how can you make a smart and informed decision when weighing risk and determining an appropriate return? You couldn't have and you didn't.

Traditional insurance companies invest their float extremely conservatively. You attempted to invest your float into 'respectable' individuals that could be considered conservative (relative to most btc risk/returns.) If the funds that those traditional insurance companies invest in misrepresent their holdings, that is fraud and grounds for legal action. With btc-investing that is likely not an option, and that should have been calculated as a major risk and been worked it into your business model.

Thank you very much for rubbing salt into the wound and pouring lemon juice on it to suggest that losing the money was my fault.

Please, Usagi, understand that I am not trying to hurt your feelings or be offensive; I enjoy trying create a better dialogue between issuers, investors, and potential investors. I honestly hope through this dialogue we all learn a bit and create some new ideas. I hope that some of the lent money is returned so you can continue and operate a leaner and meaner CPA.

*On a side note: salt can help sterilize a wound and lemon juice can help stop bleeding. The more you know......

[Bitcoin Oz]

If you left money with people and they are refusing to pay back that is grounds for scammer labels. It would really help if other people could avoid those who turn out to be untrustworthy.

I suggest posting in the scammer accusations section a list of those who need a kick in the balls.

[puffn]

The point we are making is that even if you were lied to, it was your job to know how the money was invested, and it was your job to diversify investments in order to avoid this very situation.

[memvola]

All I can say is we're working on it, but it's a big laugh to suggest it was somehow my fault or to say (as some have) that CPA will crumble like a castle made of sand. When I said I would close CPA I said because I was pissed, not because we didn't have money to pay out. We have the money to pay out easily. That isn't the issue. Once again, the issue is that other people who said they weren't invested in pirate apparently lied to us. Once again, for the people who need help with this point, that isn't my fault.

Of course, regarding the contract between you and the deposit takers, they are in the wrong, and it's their fault.

From the CPA investors' standpoint, it's purely your fault, because you are the responsible party. It doesn't have to be fair, though you knew the risk and you could have easily stored your backing in cold storage. Deflecting these points put you in a worse position in the eyes of us investors.

Instead of this useless exchange, I would rather hear about how you will make it right. I don't want my shares to go to 0 in value, and I don't want them to stay at this price level either. However eccentric, I'd prefer to hear about a plan, a long term plan, that will take this company back on track.

[LoupGaroux]

So, just to be clear here... you created an asset to provide insurance coverage for investors in a "high risk" investment environment, and then to secure your investors capital, you invested in the EXACT SAME MARKET THAT YOU WERE INSURING??? You were protecting investments by dumping your money into the same investment vehicle?

And now you want to dump the blame off on others who were your "round table" of advisers, or the very same "high reputation" folks that you sent 500 btc sums to, without checking to see what they might do with the funds? Better yet- you carefully selected the dame high reputation folks who were flogging the same investment game that you were insuring against, and you didn't expect them to dump your money into the same scheme?

Either you are nerve dead from the neck up, or the most naive imbecile imaginable. And to start with the whining about how you got done wrong when this is your actions, your poor choices, and your criminally poor decision making? Shameful.

Glad I dumped the hell out of your asset before you showed your true, and grossly incompetent colors.

[LoupGaroux]

Error #1: trusting ANYONE involved in bitcoin who claims to be able to double your money in a year.

Error #2: offering insurance and then recklessly giving that capital away to unknowns offering unrealistic promises.

Error #3: trusting your funds without understanding what was going to be done with them, and thinking that they would not run to the flavor of the month offering 7% per week.

Error #4: bringing your case to the court of public opinion as part of your rationale for failing to honor your commitments.

But take heart... it looks like there are still believing enough souls that want Tinkerbell to succeed with this great insurance ponzi in the sky.

If you have the fortitude to hear a Devil's Advocate you may add me to your round table. I won't lie to you, I won't take your money, I don't offer investments, and I sure as hell will call it a duck when it starts quacking.

[Factory]

CPA has lost about 40% of it's value.

And when I say 40% I mean, at a minimum. There is another problem on the horizon which is extremely troubling.

Well as they say, capital does tend to flow from weak hands to strong hands ;-)

Eloquently put, Usagi.

[Deprived]

I'm only just starting to get involved in investing here - but there's something I just don't understand about the decision to insure Pirate bonds in the first place.

Roughly what CPA did appears to be:

You had X bit coins.
You sold insurance on X amount of pirate investment charging 1.5% per week.
You also invested the X bitcoins elsewhere generating naother 1-2% per week.

Possible outcomes each week:

1.  Everything gos well (no pirate default) - you make 2.5%-3% per week on your capital.
2.  Pirate defaults - you lose 98-99% of your X bitcoins.

For the life of me I can't see how this is better than just investing your X bitcoins directly with Pirate (or in a pass-through).  The extra returns you were making from your (supposedly non-Pirate) investment didn't cover the difference between the 2.5%-3% you stood to make each week and the rate you could have got just investing directly into Pirate (whilst still having full exposure to him defaulting). 

The only way the insurance could do better than investing in Pirate was if you only actually had a small fraction of X in actual bitcoins in the first place.  But you didn't do that (and rightly so).

Am I missing something - or was your pirate insurance always effectively a charity offering that accepted pirate risk whilst not delivering anything like the returns of actually investing in him?

Note also that investing direct in Pirate wouldn't introduce the extra risk your insurance added - of default by your other investment targets when Pirate defaults, where you lose X AND owe X to your policy holders.

[Bitcoin Oz]

All I can say is a lot of people are full of shit and their word is not worth the toilet paper its printed on.

[LoupGaroux]

You'll call anything a duck. You don't know what you're talking about. 1, who do you invest in? Even mining pays 1.5% a week. 2, you casually toss around the word 'recklessly', where were you 2 months ago? 3, I was lied to. Again--> who do you invest with? What due dilligence have YOU done that I had not? 4, you don't know what you're talking about.

The only thing I take heart in is that people such as yourselves realize that putting your foot in your mouth makes you look silly ;-)

I mean really, how many times do I have to say it --> it isn't like we're not paying out. We already paid out over 80% of what we owe with the rest on the way. That isn't and never was the problem.

Nope, only ducklings.

Primarily Canadian oil shale ventures, and Norwegian Seafood farming companies. On GLBSE I pick and choose carefully, and don't pretend I can beat the system.

Reckless - reck·less [rek-lis]
     adjective
     1. utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually followed by of ): to be reckless of danger.
     2. characterized by or proceeding from such carelessness: reckless extravagance.
Covering your risk profile with investments in the same market you are covering would indeed be considered "reckless" in a fiduciary responsibility kind of a way.

Two months ago I was here doing the same sort of bullshit detecting that I am doing with your thread. Coincidentally I was invested in CPA at that time with a relatively small position. Bought in early July, dumped out three weeks later when you missed your first dividend payment. Basically broke even. Had I held to today my investment would be worth about 20% of what it cost me.

You were lied to? How about your customers when you made these interesting claims:

In the event of a full pirate default, NYAN.C will loose out, and CPA holds NYAN which holds NYAN.C. Then we have contracts on the outside as well. All in all CPA will remain very solvent, it may lose 20% of it's value in a full default. But we stands just as ready to gain 20% if pirate doesn't default.

First, the obvious. CPA won't pay dividends this month because of the pirate collapse. CPA has lost about 40% of it's value. And when I say 40% I mean, at a minimum.

Every other deposit-taker has either stalled or has told me that they have lost substantial amounts of CPA's money (25-50% and more, in almost every case).

We still make money, we still have contracts, we just don't have any free assets. How much is CPA worth? I really have no idea.

Another big, big effort I made in order to build trust within the community was to host a round table discussion group which during it's time had some of the biggest names around on it. We discussed operations, I laid out plans, and I basically gave everyone a share of the power CPA had... One man alone can't do this. I needed to trust the people around me but they all pretty much bailed or (essentially) ripped me off one way or another. What a disappointment.

Selecting some of your keys statements since this latest debacle began, so it's not my foot going in my mouth, rather yours going into the community's ass as your hand goes into their pocket.

Which is it- total insolvency or just a few crumbs?

Which is it- 40%, 20%, or 80%?

How, if you invested carefully (and not at all recklessly!) did 80% of your surety holders manage to lose 25-50% of your investment, and you have no idea of what they were doing with the money?

How are you still "making money" but considering folding up your tent and walking away from the market, without even so much as a "Fuck your mother" to the poor bastards that invested in your poor impulse control?

Little dude you are in deep shit here, you blew it. Poking insults at me won't fix YOUR fuck-up in this matter. Quit looking for people to blame and start handling your business. And at least try to get your stories straight.

[556j]

who would have guessed this would happen?

CPA has lost about 40% of it's value.

And when I say 40% I mean, at a minimum. There is another problem on the horizon which is extremely troubling.

Well as they say, capital does tend to flow from weak hands to strong hands ;-)

Eloquently put, Usagi.

Have to laugh. But really, anyone who trusted this asshat deserves what is to come. It was an obvious scam since day one. He's been opening other scam sites like crazy to make up the difference, guess he didn't hit his mark to cash out before shit went south. See online wallet and shitty gambling sites coded in less than 20 minutes as example.

[memvola]

From the CPA investors' standpoint, it's purely your fault, because you are the responsible party. It doesn't have to be fair, though you knew the risk and you could have easily stored your backing in cold storage. Deflecting these points put you in a worse position in the eyes of us investors.

Incorrect. First, you're speaking for all the shareholders, which you can't do unless you are organizing them (which you're not). Secondly and quite importantly, yes it does have to be fair. Oh sure, I agree with you, in an unfair world everything is my fault. You can feel free to blame me in that situation.

Look, I have been in similar situations before, you just need to cry alone and face your lenders with a firm smile. Fairness has nothing to do with it, that's why it doesn't need to be fair. Is it fair to me that you failed to store my money in a proper off-line wallet? I'm a shareholder and I hold you responsible. That is how real world operates. You shouldn't have started this business if you aren't aware of this fact.

Isn't it Bitcoinica's fault that their money was stolen? Can they come to me and tell me it's not their fault? They were robbed for god's sake and we are still suing them. Is it fair? Should we change the system and start accepting everyone's apology? Have you even apologized?

I am speaking for all shareholders. I don't need to prove to you that I am. Do you want signatures? Do you really want us organized?

What we want to hear from you is apologies and promises. Please change your attitude. We trusted you, and we can still trust you if you do so. I believe that this company can be fixed, but you have to accept all these and still be willing to do it despite that.

Have to laugh. But really, anyone who trusted this asshat deserves what is to come. It was an obvious scam since day one.

I for one don't believe it ever was or is a scam. Usagi has always met his/her obligations, so I trust the honesty. It's a lot of inexperience and mismanagement, and this affects only the investors and not the clients. That's why I think there is a chance that this can be fixed.

[bitcoinbear]

who would have guessed this would happen?

CPA has lost about 40% of it's value.

And when I say 40% I mean, at a minimum. There is another problem on the horizon which is extremely troubling.

Well as they say, capital does tend to flow from weak hands to strong hands ;-)

Eloquently put, Usagi.

Have to laugh. But really, anyone who trusted this asshat deserves what is to come. It was an obvious scam since day one. He's been opening other scam sites like crazy to make up the difference, guess he didn't hit his mark to cash out before shit went south. See online wallet and shitty gambling sites coded in less than 20 minutes as example.

I don't think you can call it an "obvious scam". He has some contracts sold, many publicly disclosed by the insured party, so he has some income. That is a more verifiable business model than many of the other investments around here.

[Bitcoin Oz]

who would have guessed this would happen?

CPA has lost about 40% of it's value.

And when I say 40% I mean, at a minimum. There is another problem on the horizon which is extremely troubling.

Well as they say, capital does tend to flow from weak hands to strong hands ;-)

Eloquently put, Usagi.

Have to laugh. But really, anyone who trusted this asshat deserves what is to come. It was an obvious scam since day one. He's been opening other scam sites like crazy to make up the difference, guess he didn't hit his mark to cash out before shit went south. See online wallet and shitty gambling sites coded in less than 20 minutes as example.

You arent helping things nor offering solutions.

I believe Usagi can turn it around but its going to take a lot of work.

[puffn]

I think CPA is bankrupt. I suggest that nobody pay their premiums for insurance that doesn't exist.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I think CPA is bankrupt. I suggest that nobody pay their premiums for insurance that doesn't exist.

I suggest people dont break their signed contracts.

[memvola]

Am I missing something - or was your pirate insurance always effectively a charity offering that accepted pirate risk whilst not delivering anything like the returns of actually investing in him?

No you aren't missing much. I think it was more of a gamble, which should never have took place. Keep in mind that the bonds were sold with 30% to 70% premium. Regardless, not doing it was is a clear-cut better idea from an insurance standpoint for the exact reasons you stated. The numbers don't add up even if BTCS&T weren't a scam, and you don't insure against anonymous Internet borrowers to only deposit your money in anonymous Internet borrowers.

I think CPA is bankrupt. I suggest that nobody pay their premiums for insurance that doesn't exist.

That would be unethical as well. Usagi already said he would cover it with his own money if need be (correct me I misinterpreted).

[Bitcoin Oz]

Am I missing something - or was your pirate insurance always effectively a charity offering that accepted pirate risk whilst not delivering anything like the returns of actually investing in him?

No you aren't missing much. I think it was more of a gamble, which should never have took place. Keep in mind that the bonds were sold with 30% to 70% premium. Regardless, not doing it was is a clear-cut better idea from an insurance standpoint for the exact reasons you stated. The number don't add up even if BTCS&T weren't a scam, and you don't insure against anonymous Internet borrowers to only deposit your money in anonymous Internet borrowers.

I think CPA is bankrupt. I suggest that nobody pay their premiums for insurance that doesn't exist.

That would be unethical as well. Usagi already said he would cover it with his own money if need be (correct me I misinterpreted).

I think a shareholders union is a good idea to at east offer some guidance and protect our interests. To me it seems that the "round table" were only in it to feather their own nests by accepting CPA funds which they basically embezzled.

[Bitcoin Oz]

All I can say is we're working on it, but it's a big laugh to suggest it was somehow my fault or to say (as some have) that CPA will crumble like a castle made of sand. When I said I would close CPA I said because I was pissed, not because we didn't have money to pay out. We have the money to pay out easily. That isn't the issue. Once again, the issue is that other people who said they weren't invested in pirate apparently lied to us. Once again, for the people who need help with this point, that isn't my fault.

Of course, regarding the contract between you and the deposit takers, they are in the wrong, and it's their fault.

From the CPA investors' standpoint, it's purely your fault, because you are the responsible party. It doesn't have to be fair, though you knew the risk and you could have easily stored your backing in cold storage. Deflecting these points put you in a worse position in the eyes of us investors.

Instead of this useless exchange, I would rather hear about how you will make it right. I don't want my shares to go to 0 in value, and I don't want them to stay at this price level either. However eccentric, I'd prefer to hear about a plan, a long term plan, that will take this company back on track.

How much assets does CPA have outside the funds sent to "advisors" ? Is this enough to cover contracts CPA has signed with other companies ?

[Deprived]

Am I missing something - or was your pirate insurance always effectively a charity offering that accepted pirate risk whilst not delivering anything like the returns of actually investing in him?

No you aren't missing much. I think it was more of a gamble, which should never have took place. Keep in mind that the bonds were sold with 30% to 70% premium. Regardless, not doing it was is a clear-cut better idea from an insurance standpoint for the exact reasons you stated. The number don't add up even if BTCS&T weren't a scam, and you don't insure against anonymous Internet borrowers to only deposit your money in anonymous Internet borrowers.

It just baffles me how someone could actually look at two options:

A)  Invest in pirate pass-through and get (say) 6% per week with risk of losing their capital if pirate defaults,
B)  Insure others investing in pirate and invest their capital elsewhere and get (say) 5% per week with exact same risk of losing their capital AND an additional risk of losing DOUBLE their capital if 2nd investment gos south as well

And come to the conclusion that B) was the better option.  What conceivable thought-process could reach that choice?

The only way this would work would be if capital were only a small part of the amount insured - but that couldn't be done when you were only insuring one ponzi (as all policies would come due at the same time).   If CPA had been insuring a lot of ponzis then it could be profitable (as you could run with a lot lower capital:cover ratio) - but you'd need seriously good data about how long on average they operated for before running with the funds.

The only thing more baffling to me than this is how others could think that the person who chose B) was a good choice to invest in (or to stay invested in).