Quote from: makomk on November 19, 2012, 10:29:52 PM

Quote from: usagi on November 19, 2012, 06:55:02 PM

Second, CPA started NYAN with 1500 BTC of it's own assets. What fantasy world do you live in where you think CPA won't maintain a controlling interest in the company? What do you think it means when owners retain 51% ownership? Are you familiar with the basic principle of property ownership? Yes, I was obviously an insider, no, voting with shares I bought fair and square is not a scam, and I really don't see where you get off coming here and saying it is.

What proportion of those assets came from outside CPA shareholders who, in turn, had no say in how it was run because the majority of shares were controlled by other companies run by you? I have an odd feeling that if it were possible to trace the tangled web of corporations, it'd turn out that a substantial majority of the actual seed funds came from outsiders. You're basically confirming btharper's claim.

Quote from: btharper on November 19, 2012, 05:26:48 PM

This is an outright lie. Either you are full of shit, or you are incompetent. The bitcoin address was listed in the contract. Anyone can see that BMF did not pay anywhere near 100 BTC to CPA, let alone 550.

It may be an outright lie, but it's exactly what you claimed happened. Let me refresh your memory. This all started when someone looked at the Bitcoin addresses linked in the contract and noticed that (a) the CPA hadn't paid out under the policy despite BMF being eligible for a payout and (b) BMF hadn't kept up their repayments. You claimed that you'd decided to accelerate BMF's payments to the CPA even though BMF was under no obligation to do so, and even though this was obviously detrimental to BMF shareholders, apparently in order to cancel out the insurance payment CPA owed. Strike one. You then further argued that this was no big deal since the insurance contract you'd entered into - on behalf of BMF shareholders with another company you owned - was basically worthless anyway, since the required premiums over the life of the policy exceeded the maximum possible total payout. Strike two. You then went on a deleting spree and removed all of your posts from the forum. Strike three. (Do I have to dig out archived copies of them?)

Let me clear up what happened (was me who made the first big post about this). Have simplified some details.

1. BMF signs contract for insurance with CPA. BMF to pay 5 BTC/week for 2 years in return to receive insurance cover for up to 500 BTC worth of NAV loss (below NAV of 1/share).
2. BMF pays premiums for 1st month or two.
3. BMF's NAV falls well below 1.0 - entitleing it to claim under the policy.
4. BMF doesn't claim.
5. Usgai refuses to answer questions about it - claiming it's been answered before (when it hadn't). Usagi further claims that a motion was passwed by shareholders in a vote for the insurance. That was just an outright lie.
5. Evenutally usagi claims that it wasn't worht claiming on the insurance - as it would have been paid back in premiums anyway - so both commitments were accelerated (allowed under the contract).
6. No payment of the difference in the two commitments ever showed up on the listed BTC addresses.

Note that usagi also claimed (contradicting its claim detailed in 5.) that the insurance was just a "test". Something clearly given the lei to by usagi posting an announcement bragging about the insurance cover.

What usagi singularly fails to grasp is this:

Yes - BMF WAS entitled to agree to its acceleration of obligations to CPA (the premiums) - but acting on behalf of bMF there's NO reason why it was in BMF's interest to do this. Either:

1. The insurance policy had NO benefit to BMF (paying over 500 ppremiums for 500 cover that would never be claimed) OR
2. It had benefit - which usagi then failed to claim on BMF's benefit.

If it DID have benefit then usagi had no right to give up that benefit. If it did NOT have benefit then usagi had no right to agree to the policy in the first place. As manager of BMF usagi is supposed to act in the itnerest of BMF's shareholders NOT CPA's shareholders. If (as seems the case) incapable of distinguising between the two then it's blatant conflict of interest and usagi should have NOT made decisions on behalf of shareholders.

Here's what really happened. The insurance deal was probably made in good faith - it gave cash-flow to CPA and gave BMF investors security against another price drop as they'd just recovered from. CPA wasn't risking much - as they'd make a profit even if they paid out the full amount they were liale for. BUT then pirate happened - where usagi fucked up royally including insuring against pirate default even when it knew pirate was about to default just to prove it was trustworthy (lol). CPA ended up broke just when BMF needed to claim. And usagi pretended it hadn't happened - probably hoping to sort it out later when things got better. But things didn't get better - as usagi's incompetence contiuned to spew funds away left, right and centre in every business venture it dabbled in. So usagi then started lieing - claiming it had been explained (it hadn't), claiming it had been voted on by shareholders (it hadn't) etc.

This is also when usagi started defrauding nyan investors (which I never got around to posting about) by making interest free loans to CPA (dressed up as holding YARR shares for the books). Including "selling" YARR shares to nyan at 1.5 each when pirate was in default with a buyback of 1.0 (and AFTER usagi had given up on the pretence YARR was going to change to OBSI - always a pretence as CPA didn't have the cash to insure them - it was just a bullshit claim made to try to get some people not to cash in their insurance which there wasn't funds for). Interetsingly, there IS an argument to be made that these interest-free loans WERE in the interest of nyan shareholders - that an interest free loan generates more profit that having the funds be actively managed by usagi.

Question on the BMF insurance is simple:

When the policy was signed, did BMF intend to claim if the conditions to claim were met?
If no - then what possible benefit was BMF getting from the policy?
If yes - then what changed to make it in BMF's interest not to claim?

Expect all manner of bullshit from usagi - but no straight answer to those few very simple questions: as there's no conceivable set of answers which would support the contention that usagi acted (on BMF's behalf) in the best interest of BMF shareholders. Usagi consistently treated its various companies as though they were all one entity - rather than acting for each in its own interest. Unfortunately usagi's grasp of English doesn't extend to "conflict of interest" so it hasn't yet worked out that BMF's interests may not always have been aligned with CPA's (in fact, it would have been in BMF's best interests for CPA to go broke after paying out most of the insurance cover - as then they'd not have to pay the remaining premiums).

And on ths dumb point about "all mining bonds lost 60% and I only lost 50% so I'm a good investment manager". No. Just No. A good investment manager wouldn't invest in something that was going to lose 50% just to "outperform" even worse managers who lost 60%. They'd research the area first - realise it was bad to invest in - and not touch it. That simple. A good manager certainly wouldn't repeat their losses again (nyan.b/c) just to prove they were up there with the best at losing money. And you compare investment companies to other investment companies - not to mining companies.