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.
Wrong.
I am verifying if deeplink's observation is evidence to support kjj's original proposition. Therefore my argument remains.
By the way, nice strawman you made there though.
The observation is that usagi stated it was going to preferentially pay out. Preferential payment in case of a bankrupt company is a fraudulent crime. Where is the argument?