Quote from: usagi on October 04, 2012, 01:46:04 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbear on October 04, 2012, 01:30:26 PM

Quote from: usagi on October 04, 2012, 10:46:00 AM

Do you think I should put this up as a BMF motion? Technically it's BMF that would have to ask for the insurance. I just don't think it's worthwhile to do.

So, what you are saying is that the "insurance" is not worth shit, and it was just a ploy to make yourself look more solvent than you are?

No -- I'm saying your opinion isn't worth shit, because even if you're a shareholder, you're not the only one, and I am asking if you think I should run a motion.

As for the contract, trading 10 bitcoins for 10 bitcoins does not make anyone more or less solvent. Especially not 10 bitcoins when you have a market cap of 2500. So yeah, let me know when you are planning to actually communicate with me cuz I just asked you a question (Do you think I should put this up as a BMF motion?)

usagi trying to shove it back under the carpet with a motion. Of course usagi controls most of the shares and is unlikely to abstain due to its conflict of interest. As usagi doesn't appear to even understand what a conflict of interest is, here's a simple explanation:

CPA owes BMF 500 BTC (make it 100 BTC for the purpsoe of discussion if anyone wants - but it's actually 500).

It's in CPA's interest (obviously) not to actually pay this.
It's in BMF's interest to get as much as it can (up to what it's due).

usagi speaks for both CPA and BMF - so has to bear in mind the interests of both CPA and BMF. But there's a conflict between those interests - as they want opposing things. That's why it's called a conflict of interest - as (in theory at least) usagi has reponsibilities to both and what benefits one is detrimental to the other.

The usual step in this situation is for the conflicted individual to step aside and let others resolve the issue - but that's not so easy here as there's no other management for either BMF or CPA.

There's no need for a motion at this stage - whatever usagi says. If you take out an insurance policy and the situation arises where you can claim on it and there's no down-side to YOU in claiming then you claim. It really IS that simple here. The first stage is for BMF to claim on the policy. That should be for the full 500 for two reasons:

1. There's no specified period between successive claims. So if BMF claims 100 it can then immediately claim the next 100.
2. Even if you assume some reasonable period (like a week) between claims, all 5 claims should have been made by now. The only reason they haven't is usagi's prevarication, lieing and deceit in an attempt to make life easy for CPA at the expense of BMF.

Where it becomes more messy is when the response to the claim is (as it would pretty much have to be) "Well we haven't actually got 500 BTC liquid. Let's negotiate."

And the problem there is that there's absolutely no way usagi can be trusted to negotiate robustly and in the interests of BMF. Because it has a conflict of interest, no moral fibre and has already shown a propensity to lie and deceive to protect CPA even when doing so hurts BMF's investors.

The silly thing is that there's actually a few ways it could be resolved without too much pain to CPA (if we forget about the losses caused to earlier investors who should have received more for selling their shares). But the fair settlement for this will likely not be reached - as usagi won't properly look at each position on its own merit, assess what their bargaining chips are, what their objectives SHOULD be from negotiation and then negotiate. You really CAN'T negotiate for both sides in a situation like that without letting down on side or the other: there's no way to bluff yourself, no way to hide your objectives from yourself and no way to get around any preconceived ideas you may have of how to resolve the situation.

If CPA acknowledge the debt and their inability to pay it in BTC right now it actually becomes EASIER to settle the issue - not harder. As those involved can now focus on finding a solution, agreeing what the situation actually IS. Instead we'll now have usagi trying to weasel-word its way out of it, trying to force through crappy inequitable solutions via motions and the like - ending in a total mess for all involved.