EVE Search - BSE . . . +100,000 Hits . & . 236 Billion ISK traded

All Channels

Market Discussions

BSE . . . +100,000 Hits . & . 236 Billion ISK traded

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Poison Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.22 01:59:00 - [271] Edited by: Poison on 22/01/2011 01:59:18 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. ANd I hope you put your money where your mouth is and help other pay for the audit.
Kalrand GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.22 03:57:00 - [272] 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.
Poison Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.22 03:58:00 - [273] 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. So who do you have in mind?
CRNA	Posted - 2011.01.22 05:08:00 - [274] Looks like we're making some progress here, information is forth coming and the wheels are turning. I'm glad that the corp is working on providing the information. If everything checks out, a few apologies would probably be in order to the BSAC staff in general.
Kalrand GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.22 05:17:00 - [275] Originally by: Poison Originally by: Kalrand If this accounting is done at arms length, and shows over 700 billion isk, I will withdraw my claim BSAC is a ponzi scheme. So who do you have in mind? VV, raw, myself, corestwo, chribba, cosmoray. I'm open to ideas.
Amarr Citizen 155 Nordar Innovations.	Posted - 2011.01.22 06:34:00 - [276] Originally by: Kalrand Originally by: Poison Originally by: Kalrand If this accounting is done at arms length, and shows over 700 billion isk, I will withdraw my claim BSAC is a ponzi scheme. So who do you have in mind? VV, raw, myself, corestwo, chribba, cosmoray. I'm open to ideas. Per my original request, I want VV (I might be able to slide with Cosmoray as well). IMO, Kalrand and Raw are too emotionally attached to this issue and Chribba has said before that he doesn't do audits....he does veldspar....in da butt. Also, I just want you all to know that I'm not on some crusade or any of that other nonsense that others seem to be on. I'd really just like to see an audit conducted on a large organization by an external entity.
Ray McCormack Nordar Innovations.	Posted - 2011.01.22 07:22:00 - [277] I can audit, the last audit I did showed just over 700b in assets, so you'll be safe there... Not in the Exchange, don't invest!
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.01.22 08:57:00 - [278] If it's just a NAV statement it does not take a long time, I could do that in about 1.5 weeks. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
RAW23	Posted - 2011.01.22 10:02:00 - [279] External verification of total NAV would be a great thing and will, I think, put your corporation in a stronger position than it was in before. I would suggest VV for the audit. Certainly not myself. Questions of partiality aside, I can't even get EMMA to install and do my own NAVs by going through the assets tab with a paper, pen and calculator.
Kilkara KaaiiNet Holding Executor Corp KAAII-NET	Posted - 2011.01.22 11:17:00 - [280] Id support any audit, just so mouth-o-goon would stfu............
Liberty Eternal	Posted - 2011.01.22 11:28:00 - [281] Well, colour me cynical but I'm not convinced, not in the slightest. And the attempt to make this into a Kalrand thing when multiple people have raised the same questions as him is just cringeworthy. Responding to your critics by trying to isolate and discredit them will only create a Voltaire or a Cicero.
Sigras	Posted - 2011.01.22 12:42:00 - [282] Interesting concept, to say i'm impressed that youve managed to pull off, what looks to be a stable, real time stock exchange in EvE would be an understatement. That being said, Ive always said about a stock exchange in Eve that two questions need to be answered. 1. What prevents the CEOs from simply pocketing the ISK and running away (IRL this is called embezzling money and will get you thrown in jail w/o another toon to log onto and play) - It seems you've answered this question the only way possible, Nothing prevents it from happening and if you invested in a bad company that's your fault. . . understandable. 2. What are the prices of the stock based on? (I realize all price is based on perception, but there are usually market indicators and third party auditors to give potential shareholders an indication as to the company's strength) - As there is no way that I know of to do a third party audit of a corporation, and you (for obvious reasons) dont want to post all of your assets for the world to see, how do you guys get around this? Looks great guys I cant wait for the response
Block Ukx Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.22 12:48:00 - [283] Edited by: Block Ukx on 22/01/2011 12:50:09 LE, IÆm not surprised. So, you support groundless attacks and calling people scammers without a shred of evidence. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
Liberty Eternal	Posted - 2011.01.22 13:06:00 - [284] Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 22/01/2011 13:07:53 Originally by: Block Ukx Edited by: Block Ukx on 22/01/2011 12:50:09 LE, IÆm not surprised. So, you support groundless attacks and calling people scammers without a shred of evidence. You did, in fact, give inconsistent and misleading information out in public. You did this regarding your balance sheet, regarding the role of your directors, and on the issue of an audit. If a person bringing a one-billion-isk offering to MD evaded, ignored and mislead as much as you have done then they would be questioned and called a scammer if they failed to respond properly. And remember - you are the one who coined the slogan "not in the exchange, don't invest". You are the one who claimed to have some mythically high standard of "openness" and "accountability". And also, you have still not answered a single question that was asked of you or resolved any of the [very basic] issues. So there are no groundless attacks or lack of evidence [except the lack of real information that you have chosen to create]. The fact that you consider all the criticism to be groundless just implicates you even more. Edit: typo
RAW23	Posted - 2011.01.22 13:15:00 - [285] Originally by: Block Ukx Edited by: Block Ukx on 22/01/2011 12:50:09 LE, IÆm not surprised. So, you support groundless attacks and calling people scammers without a shred of evidence. It is not really the case that the attacks were groundless and had not a shred of evidence to support them, although the evidence certainly fell short of conclusive. The biggest problem / piece of evidence was that you responded to comments in precisely the way that most people would expect someone who was actually running a scam to respond. This does not make it a scam but, when combined with the historical rate of scams and failures in businesses of this size, such answers meant that it was not entirely unreasonable to think the worst (which is not to say that it was entirely reasonable either). You have to bear in mind the context you are operating in - when the rate of scam and failure is so high people would be fools to give you the benefit of the doubt. Asking you to prove that you are legit and that accusations are not true is not an unreasonable request. Previous scammers and defaulters have created a situation where the raw odds, taken in the absence of other information, are heavily in favour of any large public investment vehicle being a scam. The onus is definitely on you to differentiate yourself from the historical norm, not on the public to assume such a differentiation.
Caldariftw123	Posted - 2011.01.22 13:33:00 - [286] The accusations were neither groundless, made by just kalrand and nor were they the only side of the argument - you called into question the motives and character of people in this thread like RAW which imo is utterly ridiculous at this point. A full NAV assessment, as VV has said he will do, would put to bed a lot of this and, for me at least, close the issue of this being a ponzi. Look forward to the results of it!
Block Ukx Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.22 14:05:00 - [287] Edited by: Block Ukx on 22/01/2011 14:05:49 Well, I disagree. The accusations are groundless and my responses are not misleading and are within the limits of our privacy policy. LE, you are simply lying to the public about our balance sheets, director roles, and the audit. But again, I donÆt expect anything else from you, but groundless attacks. Where is your evidence? All you have done is continue this propaganda, and the little respect I had for you is now gone. And please, stop pretending that you can possibly know if someone is running a scam because IÆm not telling you confidential information. So, go ahead and keep scream ponzi scam. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
Zero Uptick	Posted - 2011.01.22 14:54:00 - [288] bittergoon posts itt
Kalrand GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.01.22 16:38:00 - [289] Originally by: Block Ukx LE, you are simply lying to the public about our balance sheets, director roles, and the audit. But again, I donÆt expect anything else from you, but groundless attacks. Why do you keep picking a random critic to blame for these questions, when you could simply be answering them and shutting everyone up.
Molic Blackbird	Posted - 2011.01.22 18:14:00 - [290] Edited by: Molic Blackbird on 22/01/2011 18:19:10 I keep hearing complaints about unanswered questions. Which questions remain unanswered? Edit-> I have a feeling I can find in these threads where Block has answered any questions that are claimed to be unanswered.
RAW23	Posted - 2011.01.22 18:41:00 - [291] Edited by: RAW23 on 22/01/2011 18:43:36 Edited by: RAW23 on 22/01/2011 18:42:45 Originally by: Molic Blackbird Edited by: Molic Blackbird on 22/01/2011 18:19:10 I keep hearing complaints about unanswered questions. Which questions remain unanswered? Edit-> I have a feeling I can find in these threads where Block has answered any questions that are claimed to be unanswered. 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) Edit - May as well throw a second one in: who has access to how much investor isk within the organisation? Good luck - I think you will need it.
Molic Blackbird	Posted - 2011.01.22 19:39:00 - [292] 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."
RAW23	Posted - 2011.01.22 20:28:00 - [293] 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.
Block Ukx Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.22 21:01:00 - [294] Very funny. You got your answer; you just donÆt want to accept NO for an answer. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
Poison Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.22 21:05:00 - [295] Edited by: Poison on 22/01/2011 21:06:17 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. How about this Raw23... Its not public record who owns how much in bsac. If investers want to come forward to tell you how much they own, thats fine. all you need to worry about is the total amount invested is 700B isk. That does in fact answer your question. Stop flaming. When an auditor comes forward and the corp is set up for an audit i cant wait until you eat your own words... But i am sure you will come up with another "Question" that you will say was not answered.
RAW23	Posted - 2011.01.22 21:29:00 - [296] Originally by: Block Ukx Very funny. You got your answer; you just donÆt want to accept NO for an answer. The person I responded to asked what the unanswered questions are. The public liability in BSAC is still an unanswered question. 'NO' is an answer to 'Will you answer my question?' It is not an answer to the question about the liability. Please don't pretend that saying 'I'm not going to answer your question' counts as answering the question. It looks a bit pathetic. Originally by: Poison How about this Raw23... Its not public record who owns how much in bsac. If investers want to come forward to tell you how much they own, thats fine. all you need to worry about is the total amount invested is 700B isk. That does in fact answer your question. Please, this is getting a little sad. It's ridiculous to claim that giving a figure that includes director stakes answers the question of what the figure is without director stakes. You are just embarrassing yourselves now. I gave a range of reasons why it might be relevant if you are inflating the amount of isk that you have been trusted with but none of these concernes were responded to. Quote: Stop flaming. When an auditor comes forward and the corp is set up for an audit i cant wait until you eat your own words... But i am sure you will come up with another "Question" that you will say was not answered. What words, exactly, will I have to eat? I have made no accusations against you except in the sphere of intellectual dishonesty. Please find a single claim I have made that will be disproved by an audit. I haven't made any such claims and I welcome an audit as it is exactly what I encouraged you to get. I'm very glad you are going along with that suggestion, despite your initial response to the suggestion being that I wanted to steal your ideas and making various other bizarre claims about my motivations. Of course, if the auditor does not answer the question (the fact that you put it in 'scare quotes' really says something about the level of discussion here) of BSAC's public liabilities then I will point out that this very basic question remains unanswered.
Block Ukx Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.22 21:54:00 - [297] You got an answer regarding liabilities in accordance with our privacy policy. You donÆt like the answer and therefore you are simply ignoring it. The information will not be disclosed no matter if you continue with your attempt at forcing your way into the information. I think I have being very clear and consistent as to what information we chose to disclose. You keep asking a question about information that will not be disclosed, and then using this fact to turn things around and argue that IÆm not answering your question. I think you have lost your objectivity. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
RAW23	Posted - 2011.01.22 22:04:00 - [298] Originally by: Block Ukx You keep asking a question about information that will not be disclosed, and then using this fact to turn things around and argue that IÆm not answering your question. I think you have lost your objectivity. Do you even understand what you just wrote? REFUSING TO DISCLOSE THE ANSWER IS NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. Claiming that you have answered the question by refusing to answer it and then posting repeatedly that all questions have been answered so there is nothing for investors to be concerned about is simply and straightforwardly dishonest.
Block Ukx Forge Laboratories	Posted - 2011.01.22 22:27:00 - [299] Do you understand that the information will not be disclosed? Do you understand this was a known fact well before this thread started? Somehow this fact is not getting to you. Now you come here to ask a question you knew well ahead what the answer was going to be. The only numbers I can give you are the ones that have been previously disclosed. You may fool people around but you are not moving this discussion forward. All you are doing is flaming this thread. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
Caldariftw123	Posted - 2011.01.22 22:35:00 - [300] Originally by: Block Ukx Do you understand that the information will not be disclosed? Do you understand this was a known fact well before this thread started? Somehow this fact is not getting to you. Now you come here to ask a question you knew well ahead what the answer was going to be. The only numbers I can give you are the ones that have been previously disclosed. You may fool people around but you are not moving this discussion forward. All you are doing is flaming this thread. It's really quite obvious to anyone that reads this thread that RAW is not hassling you for an answer, you have made it clear you wont be as transparent as you demand other people are about their own IPOs ("not in the exchange, don't invest!" ring a bell? lol) but he is arguing the fact that you are claiming you have answered, when you have NOT. What you have done is RESPOND which is not the same as giving an answer - it is misleading to claim you already answered him because anyone reading the latest posts in this will think "Oh he gave the number already so it's all ok" when what you have done is given the vague FULL amount of 700billion, which INCLUDES director liabilities and does NOT ANSWER the question as to what the PUBLIC exposure is. It is misleading and dishonest to repeatedly claim you have properly answered.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.