Originally by: Ray McCormack

---

Originally by: Captain Pompous

---

This is obviously a scam, if not immediately then at some point in the future. Mark my words people.

---

Quick, post this in every thread so you'll be proven right eventually.

---

Originally by: Vol Jbolaz

---

Is this stock exchange active? I sent an Eve mail over a week ago, but I haven't heard any response.

---

Originally by: Block Ukx

---

Originally by: Dalden V

---

Hi Block, some questions.

I can't seem to find a place on the website where the current value of the Cash Reserve is listed. Where should I click? :)

You also mention that Poison is currently heavily invested in BSAC. If he does decide to run off with the Cash Reserve, will his BSAC investments be liquidated to cover the loss, and are you able to make this total invested value public to assist in assessing the risk of investing in the Cash Reserve fund?

---

The Cash Reserve Balance is displayed in the "Home" page.

If he runs off with the ISK, yes, BSAC will confiscate his assets. I would not make his investment public; he can tell you that himself.

I would like to point out that Poison's BSAC investment will not be used as a collateral to cover any operational loss. So, please don't assume that the ISK is secure in anyways.

---

Originally by: Claire Voyant

---

I find it funny that just as Ray spoke up, I was finding this little blast from the past.

---

Originally by: Claire Voyant

---

In post #67 Block implies that the Cash Reserves has a market risk:

Originally by: Block Ukx

---

I would like to point out that Poison's BSAC investment will not be used as a collateral to cover any operational loss. So, please don't assume that the ISK is secure in anyways.

---

Is it so unreasonable to ask what is that market risk? Or, to put it another way, under what conditions would depositors not get their money back?

I pointed out the old post because I thought it only fair to hold you and Block to the same standards you wanted to hold Ebank to. And I thought it was hilarious that Ray chose that moment to come to your defense. Excuse me if you don't like my sense of humor.

---

Originally by: Block Ukx

---

Originally by: Kalrand

---

Is your operational structure detailed anywhere?

---

Borad of Directors

In addition, Poison is in charge of the Cash Reserve and CSF sales, Annabelle Horiz is in charge of NHIMF, and I do all the mineral trades and website development.


Fund Managers are welcome.

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

Grats on the epic year!

Your slogan still sucks though and I wince every time I read it. With me, at least, it has had the opposite of its desired effect. I was gearing myself up to list all my future offerings on the exchange but I'm afraid I won't support a service that advertises itself by making groundless attacks on other businesses and attempts to use its reputation to make life difficult for anyone pursuing a different approach.

Just to emphasise how nonsensical the slogan is, if any investor were swayed by it they would find themselves restricted to investing in only four businesses other than your various in-house stocks (two of the six listings haven't paid out any dividends in over a year, although I thought EMFI's CEO had reappeared some months ago - do you have any procedure for delisting dead stocks?).

An approach that I'm sure would be much more successful would be to simply remind all new bond issuers of your service by advertising it positively in their thread. It's a great service and deserves to be sold on its real merits.

---

Originally by: Kalrand

---

Originally by: Poison

---

Edited by: Poison on 04/01/2011 21:12:47

We got the point. We are sorry you dont agree with the slogan. If you have any further questions or concerns about the slogan please start your own anti slogan thread.

---

Your dismissive comment really didn't address any of the issues he raised.

And I'll raise another:

Are people able to withdraw shares from your exchange?

---

Originally by: Claire Voyant

---

Originally by: Block Ukx

---

Listing in the Exchange does not guarantees against scams or defaults (nothing in eve does), but it does offer a level of transparency regarding dividend payments, share information, IPO/Bond information, and outstanding debts/payments that is not available anywhere else.

---

I can't find any dividend info for the cash reserve.
Also, I've noticed that the cash reserve has tripled in size since it was started. How does that compare to the size of the secured collateral.

---

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

---

Originally by: Marko box

---

stuff

---

I don't think Kalrand put it up as a troll, it's just there as a kind of mandatory risk warning for a financially unsound product.

It's also factually true - locking in isk through a 40% withdrawl fee is a ponzi no matter what way you look at it.

---

Originally by: PinkFish

---

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

---

Originally by: Marko box

---

stuff

---

I don't think Kalrand put it up as a troll, it's just there as a kind of mandatory risk warning for a financially unsound product.

It's also factually true - locking in isk through a 40% withdrawl fee is a ponzi no matter what way you look at it.

---

The share price is supposed to fluctuate with the value of the business and the overall desire to invest from the public. That "withdraw fee" is a limited buyback offer such that if you are unable to sell your shares to another investor and cannot wait then you have some method of getting out. The design of the system, like in real life, is that when you want to sell you have to do so at the price of the highest buyer.

Once your shares are sold there is no fee to withdraw ISK from the exchange.

This allows Block to operate a business with a fixed capitol investment while allowing the share price to fluctuate accordingly. It is a smart move and to the benefit of all investors. If he offered full immediate buyback then he may have to liquidate investments to cover withdraws; at which point those who are still invested lose out on the value of their return.

---

Originally by: CRNA

---

Edited by: CRNA on 21/01/2011 19:27:52

Originally by: Kalrand

---

Originally by: CRNA

---

I'd like to see more information provided here as well, that much we can agree.

---

Lets just focus on this point and stop fighting.

---

Fair enough, back before there were some things raw brought up, which would be great if a BSAC rep would address...

---

Originally by: Caldariftw123

---

Originally by: Block Ukx

---

Keep up your misinformation propaganda, and continue to lie.


You keep repeating the word ponzi, believing that if you keep saying it would become true.


It would be a current asset audit as it has been mention before.

---

You have said it will show certain parts, not others .. if you are now saying it will be a FULL audit of all your assets, thus proving 700billion isk, then that is fantastic.

---

Originally by: Kalrand

---

Originally by: Block Ukx

---

Let me be very clear as I don't want any more misinterpretations.

It would be a current asset audit, where only total NAV be disclosed, nothing less, nothing more. So it would be his best estimation of the value of the corporation.

---

If this accounting is done at arms length, and shows over 700 billion isk, I will withdraw my claim BSAC is a ponzi scheme.

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

Edited by: RAW23 on 22/01/2011 20:32:15
Edited by: RAW23 on 22/01/2011 20:30:55
Edited by: RAW23 on 22/01/2011 20:29:33

Originally by: Molic Blackbird

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

Really? Cool ...

Let's start with how much public money BSAC holds. That's a biggie! (edit - this figure cannot include the investments of the directors, esp. Poison and Block)

---

From post 31 of the expansion discussion thread:
"I suggest that you use 702.58 B as the largest ISK of total public loss."

From Post 61:
"Investors should base risk on 702 B ISK"

Post 124:
"people should use 700 B ISK for their risk assessment"

Post 187:
"The total public loss in the event of a scam is 702 B. No matter how many times you ask this question the answer is the same; 702 B ISK.


You keep demanding to know how much the BOD has at stake and I already told you BSAC policy is NOT to disclose investorÆs account information."

Quote:

---

Edit - May as well throw a second one in: who has access to how much investor isk within the organisation?

---

From Post 31 of the discussion thread:

"Our current security arrangement is not intended to ôlimitö how much access a member of the Board of Directors (BOD) has, but it is based on a ôneed to have accessö. Depending on the level of involvement, some members have great access while others have less access. Some assets are locked down not with the intention of preventing theft by the BOD, but to allow usage by the BOD if the occasion requires it. The assets can be unlocked by me or Poison if needed."

Post 39:
"They need to trust my management skills. And Poison with 80% of the Cash Reserve."

Post 124:
"As the CEO, I allocate assets as I see fit in accordance to our financial goals. Investors need to trust that I will be making the proper management decisions when it comes to asset allocation. They need to trust that I will manage 700 B ISK properly. They need to trust that I will not disclose information that will be potentially harmful to their investment."

---

That's not an answer - that is a refusal to answer. The answer to the question of how much public money BSAC holds is not found in any of the posts you quote. Including your OWN isk in a figure for how much you could scam is ridiculous and does not, in any way, answer the question of how much isk belonging to OTHER people you could walk off with.

The same is true of the refusals to answer the second question. The question of who has access to the isk remains unanswered. 'I'm not going to tell you' does not constitute an answer to the question, only a reply.

---

Originally by: Caldariftw123

---

Originally by: Block Ukx

---

Go ahead and continue your agenda of labeling BSAC as a ponzi scheme. Somehow you don't find that misleading.

Originally by: Caldariftw123

---

Claiming "the full 700billion is what people should use" is blatantly incorrect because you cannot steal your own isk if you run off with it, so your own investments do NOT count.

---

Statements like that show how ignorant you are.

---

.. so you are trying to tell us that you can steal your own isk? lol

That's laughable. The PUBLIC exposure does not include your own isk, that is pretty simple to comprehend.

Stop making a fool of yourself Block, anyone reading the thread can see the truth of what has happened here, you look either incompetent or worse a liar and continuing is just bad business sense. Answer the fundamental questions, get the audit.

---

Originally by: Molic Blackbird

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

The same is true of the refusals to answer the second question. The question of who has access to the isk remains unanswered. 'I'm not going to tell you' does not constitute an answer to the question, only a reply.

---

Is it really that hard to determine who has access to what based on Block's replies? Seems very clear that Block has access to everything as CEO. Poison has access to 80% of the cash reserve and everything in the BSAC capital ship building project. I doubt Poison has access to the mineral reserve as he wouldn't need access. Nor would he have access to anything related to the stock exchange. No one else has access to anything.

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

Originally by: Molic Blackbird

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

The same is true of the refusals to answer the second question. The question of who has access to the isk remains unanswered. 'I'm not going to tell you' does not constitute an answer to the question, only a reply.

---

Is it really that hard to determine who has access to what based on Block's replies? Seems very clear that Block has access to everything as CEO. Poison has access to 80% of the cash reserve and everything in the BSAC capital ship building project. I doubt Poison has access to the mineral reserve as he wouldn't need access. Nor would he have access to anything related to the stock exchange. No one else has access to anything.

---

If that's the case why doesn't he just say that? I would have been perfectly satisfied with that as an answer (if it was changed from your assumptions to a firm statement from Block) and would have shut up on this particular point a long time ago if he said this.

---

Originally by: Kalrand

---

Originally by: Block Ukx

---

Please, don't forget to turn in your BSAC shares. Contact BSAC MMM for details.

---

Hows that "Super Ultimate Transparency" thing your working on going?

---

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

---

Originally by: Poison

---

Fine, Capital ships almost ready to be audited. You find someone one to do it?

---

Do you know what the word "audit" means?

---

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

---

Originally by: Poison

---

Originally by: Liberty Eternal

---

Originally by: Poison

---

Fine, Capital ships almost ready to be audited. You find someone one to do it?

---

Do you know what the word "audit" means?

---

Do you know what "constructive" Means?

---

Here's a constructive suggestion - don't try to refer to the accounts of a dummy company as an audit. No-one in MD is stupid enough to believe that constitutes an audit when the main business hasn't been checked.

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

Edited by: RAW23 on 21/02/2011 09:25:28

Originally by: Kalrand

---

Originally by: Poison

---

I guess you must of missed the point that block was focusing on capital ships first before The mineral reserve. He is also not going to stop making isk for our current stock holders while getting it ready for an audit. But I am rather tired of this flame.

I was just letting someone know that it is being worked on.

But then most people here flame vs being constructive

---

It's a waste of everyone's time for you to shuffle some of the investor's assets into a dummy corporation and that have that and only that looked at.

---

My understanding was that the initial and then ongoing audit on the capital ship operation would be used as a trial run for the technology and systems that would then be applied to BSAC as a whole.

I would be very interested to hear more about the methods that are being developed and would suggest that a public discussion of the approach being taken would be a good idea before you finalise it. I understand from Block's post elsewhere that the planned system will be software based with two (?) trustees having oversight. Could either Block or Poison elaborate on the role of the Trustees? I assume that they will have no business dealings with or interests in BSAC, that is, will be neutral third parties, but what exactly will be their role? Will they carry out manual audits to verify the automated data and, if so, will they have unfettered access to all of BSAC? Or will their role be to audit the software that is doing the automated auditing? What are you looking for in the Trustees and do you have anyone in mind? Will the same Trustees be responsible for BSAC and the capital ship fund or different ones?

Edit - Btw, Poison: will you follow Block's example and waive your privacy rights so that you can announce what your stake in BSAC is?

---

Originally by: Kalrand

---

Originally by: Poison

---

Ok but you seem to forget.... You need to find an auditer any pay for one. In the mean time feel free to make yourself feel important and keep flaming.

Thank you.

---

I believe there have been several offers to pay people to do this.

---

Originally by: Fulbert

---

I apologize for interrupting your conversation but...
What is the new Cash Reserve limit, please? 150 bil?

---

Originally by: RAW23

---

Originally by: Proton Power

---

All an audit proves is that he has minerals and bpo's, sells some capitals. It does not provide an actual safeguard against scamming.

If you want a confirmation that he has what he claims, I can pretty much tell you he does, since I haul the majority of his minerals for him for the capital construction, and some for the exchcange when block is moving minerals from one hub to another.

An audit on somthign like this is stupid, but I will gladly volunteer to verify how many of Each Mineral type he holds, aprox value based on current market prices, what BPO's they hold, and that they are selling/buying minerals and capital ships.

Don't see why Block would allow an audit but hey what ever.

---

Actually, the thing that really needs the audit is BSAC rather than the cap ship production business. The audit system for this business, is, I understand, to provide the ground work for a more widespread system for BSAC as a whole.

@Poison - Thank you for the figure re: your stake in the business. Investors can now make their decisions based on the figure of c. 480bil in public isk held by BSAC.

As to the auditor, rather than people just throwing names at you, could you outline what your requirements are and what role the trustee(s) will play in the new system? If, for instance, the system will be such as to require that the software be vetted it will be important to know that in suggesting someone for the role. Can you think of anyone that you would be happy to conduct the audit? Equally, is there anyone you think might be suggested who you would not be happy with? the easiest way to find someone acceptable would be to lay out your requirements in advance.

---