Quote from: augustocroppo on January 01, 2013, 07:52:42 PM

The events in discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1225553#msg1225553

Quote from: Puppet

Quote from: Usagi

The value of the hardware is what we paid for it, which includes shipping. Bitpay invoice numbers are listed. Not a scam.

Shipping costs are an ASSET now?
ROFL.
Maybe you should put your electricity costs in there too to boost your NAV!

Quote from: Usagi

The spreadsheet uses a formula which uses the average of the 24h and 5 day averages* Not a scam.
*=max(fetchTicker(concatenate(A13), "t5davg"), fetchTicker(concatenate(A13), "t24havg"))/100000000

How come it produces some prices that are way higher than even 3 month highs then?
How come it produces results that are 20+% above mine?
I checked my numbers against GLSBE website, and unlike yours, mine seem correct. Do you see anything wrong with them?

Quote from: Usagi

Sorry puppet, you lose. And for god's sake make your own thread.

Maged specifically asked, Im happy to oblige.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1228703#msg1228703

Quote from: vampire on September 28, 2012, 04:55:42 PM

Well I was preparing some documentation, and I didn't have enough time to prepare.. But since puppet posted, I'll release my accusation of usagi's lies:

Exhibit

Quote from: usagi on September 27, 2012, 04:24:25 PM

The spreadsheet uses a formula which uses the average of the 24h and 5 day averages* Not a scam.
*=max(fetchTicker(concatenate(A13), "t5davg"), fetchTicker(concatenate(A13), "t24havg"))/100000000

The above formula isn't average, it returns the largest of two averages.

http://kongzi.ca/BCB/misrepresent1/

Quote

Comment: This was at 10:22. This is where I posted the formula for it to be advertised to all investors. Now please go back up and look at Vampire's quote: Quote from: usagi on September 27, 2012, 04:24:25 PM.

In other words, before I posted that, I had already begun advertising the proper formula on the webage and spreadsheet.

Proofing the events (since I witnessed the events while in Brazil, the conversion is made from BRT to PST):

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=01%3A24%3A25+PM+BRT+27+September+2012+to+PST

1. Usagi publish the formula in a post: 9:24:25 am PDT | Thursday, September 27, 2012

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=01%3A35%3A21+PM+BRT+27+September+2012+to+PST

2. Puppet post accusing Usagi: 9:35:21 am PDT | Thursday, September 27, 2012

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%3A22%3A00+AM+PDT+27+September+2012+to+PST

3. Usagi publish the formula in the spreedsheet: 10:22:00 am PDT | Thursday, September 27, 2012

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=01%3A55%3A42+PM+BRT+28+September+2012+to+PST

4. Vampire post accusing Usagi: 9:55:42 am PDT | Friday, September 28, 2012

Discussing the proven events:

To determine if the above evidence indicates that Usagi was lying (and trying to defraud his potential investors) it is essential to understand what the world "lie" means:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lie--2

Quote

lie
noun
an intentionally false statement

If Usagi was really lying, there must be an intention to produce a 'false statement'. The primary evidence used in the accusation against Usagi is a spreadsheet formula used to inform potential investors of the fund's NAV (Net Asset Value). So, in accordance with the definiton of "lie" and the primary evidence provided, the accusation is based on the premise that Usagi defrauded his investors with the incorrect use of a formula.

Vampire claimed that Usagi was lying because Usagi used the term "average", and not "max of two averages". This implies that Usagi was trying to trick the investors into believing that he was using a formula calculating "average" and not "max of two averages". However, in the event 2 and 4, there is no mention of which correct formula Usagi should use. Usagi did not change the formula in the event 1 and 3. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the formula was at no time manipulated.

Vampire and Puppet had not demonstrated Usagi's intention to produce a 'false statement'. Puppet did not indicate what should be the correct formula. Vampire merely made a question insinuating that the statement was incorrect, not the formula. Neither produced any evidence to determine the correct formula.

So it is obvious that Usagi did not attempt to defraud any potential investors. That would only be possible if Usagi had consecutively advertised the formula as "average" and not "max of two averages" after the event 1. Moreover, if Usagi had the intention to defraud his investors, he would change the formula from "max of two averages" to "average" to fit his supposedly 'false statement' in the evidence 1. That, of course, is NOT what happened. The evidence 1 and 3 indicates that Usagi had already planned to use his formula before Puppet and Vampire accused him of attempting fraud in the event 2 and 4.

Comparing the proven events with other claims:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1425098#msg1425098

Quote from: BCB

Usgai deleted the agreements and all statements.
Vampire claims to prove that the financial statements are fraudulent.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1228703#msg1228703

This is evidence of a "Cover Up"

BCB claimed that the event 4 is 'evidence of a' "cover up" of 'agreements' and 'statements'.

The evidence provided in the event 1 is one of the alleged statements. This is a priori from the fact that Vampire claimed that Usagi was advertising a false formula to defraud potential investors:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1367800#msg1367800

Quote from: vampire on November 30, 2012, 12:00:23 AM

For fraud check the statement #1 which you avoided. AVG and MAX are two different functions. That's fraud.

However, Vampire's claim was never proven to be true. Usagi did not change the planned formula after the supposedly false statement. So whatever posts Usagi deleted, it was not evidence of fraud, but statements which users used to falsely accuse Usagi.

Conclusion

The evidence shows that Usagi committed a mistake when he proposed the NAV formula. Then Puppet attempted to use the mistake to accuse Usagi of falsifying the NAV results to defraud investors. After realizing his mistake, Usagi did not persiste in the error and edited the spreadsheet to demonstrate his honest intentions. Later along came Vampire with another false accusation, claiming that Usagi was intentionally defrauding the potential investors to believing the NAV formula was showing "average", not "max of two averages". After this, Usagi deleted all his posts. However, Puppet and Vampire did not prove what would be the correct formula. They also did not determine how Usagi intentionally defrauded the investors.

Therefore Usagi did not defraud any potential investor with his formula.

Hence, the events prove that Puppet and Vampire were casting aspersions on Usagi.

So puppet didn't accuse usagi right here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.60 ?

Quote

Now personally, I wouldnt give someone a scammer tag over something like this.
However, if you are looking for a better reason, I would suggest you look at this post:

Quote from: usagi

The NAV of BMF is approximately 0.50. We will be placing aggressive bids at .45 to .50.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112734.0

Those are demonstrably lies. First of all, the highest bid is currently 0.4104.

Secondly, if you calculate the NAV using usagi's published asset list here:
http://tsukino.ca/bmf/holdings-nav/
After you correct the prices and you list the fpga and asics at actual list value and not 20% above BFLs listprice, I got to 0.262 BTC per share at the time it was posted:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112734.msg1219660#msg1219660

It's prior to any of your timeline, therefor you can stick your logical conclusions you know where.