The evidence is in the verifiable fact that preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.
A observation which is compatible with other plausible state of affair is not evidence for a proposition.
Observation: 'Usagi is unable to provide proper accounting.'
Plausible state of affair: 'Preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime.'
Proposition: 'What you said you were doing was the textbook definition of a crime, namely fraud. It is pretty much the definition, actually. In the real world it is a crime as described above.'
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1236780#msg1236780http://human-brain.org/evidence.htmlWhat is "evidence"
An observation of compatible state of affair
When should an observation be regarded as evidence for a proposition?
(...)
Even though the logic is obvious, there is a strong tendency to ignore the second condition above. It is quite common for people to regard as evidence for some proposition an observation which is compatible with many other plausible states of affairs. In some cases, they justify it by considering only restricted set of the other plausible states of affairs (I call this the "Misanalyzing the 'Null Hypothesis'" error in Reasoning errors). In other cases, they don't bother to justify it at all, and seem to do it simply because they like the proposition, and hence accept automatically the observation as evidence (implicitly doing the "conclusion-validation" error, Reasoning errors).
Learn to read. I didn't say that it proves, but that it is reasonable to assume if usagi doesn't provide proper accounting.
The observation here isn't that usagi didn't provide proper accounting. The observation is that usagi stated it was going to preferentially give itself BTC and other people shares. Nice strawman you made there though.