I gave BMF 100 bitcoins of my own personal money back when the mining crash happened, and the BMF-CPA contract has been discussed to death already. So Deprived is arguing from a position of misinformation or non-information.
When asked about it usagi just ignored all questions for a month or two - calling anyone who asked a troll and claiming it had all been answered before (it hadn't). Then finally the explanation came out - that it was somehow a test of a new contract: which is plainly bullshit given BMF investors were told they had insurance cover (NOT "here's what a contract would like like IF we had such cover") and paid some premiums.
It's not hard to understand.
Not hard to understand.. just a lie. For example, does anyone really believe I "ignored all questions for a month or two"? Oh come on, people have accused me of trolling my own threads..... no one who has been following this believes I ignored Deprived for a day, let alone two months.
Usual usagi - "it's been discussed to death already". No - no really. All you ever say when it comes to any detail of it (like what this "test" was supposed to prove, why shareholders weren't told it was a test etc) is "it's already been dsicussed". When it hasn't.
Same for your last claim that you didn't ignore it. Blatant lie. My very first post about your comapnies raised it - it was when I'd started getting back into BTC securities, was looking at various ones, and made the mistake of asking some questions about yours: including why the insurance wasn't claimed on.
Your response - you poitned out an error I'd make then spent rest of post berating me for my low post count etc. Same when I next asked about it - in BMF thread. No answer (though you responded to someone who quoted me). Then an investors asked about it as well - and was ignored. It wasn't until a lot later that you finally came up with the bullshit "it was just a test" explanation: which you were backing away from (as noone found it credible) when GLBSE went down.
If you're going to claim you already explained why you needed to do a "test", why that had to involve BMF sending payments to CPA (to test you could use a bitcoin wallet?) and why you trumpetted it to BMF as "great news - we're insured" rather than "Great news - here's a contract that I wrote as a test but which won't actually be active" then link please.
"no one who has been following this believes I ignored Deprived", Likely true - but totally irrelevant. You don't ignore ME - you reply to nearly every post, but yet always avoid addressing the nasty little questions which you can't answer as any answer would either obviously be a lie and/or contradict a previous statement you've made.