RE:I knew that Leos`mouth was this big, but this big? Wow, you really have me shaking over here dinkus. Here's the facts. Yfi engaged a company to do a valuation and hopefully secure some form of credit line or loan. The vendor disseminated information that may or may not be accurate. Yfi claims to have not seen the report. But it is their responsibility to advise the market of such an activity. That you think it isn't shows how dim you are. That you think you're going to get me all rattled is hilarious given that you're nothing but a low IQ troll. I'd say try harder but I know you're going flat out and it's painful to watch someone fail at everything so miserably.
SamDiego wrote: Leo:
"As a public company Yfi has a responsibility to ensure any info disseminated about it is accurate. They clearly didn't bother to do that."
"YFI failed in their fiduciary responaibility to shareholders to clarify details that are put out into the market."
It seems that Leo has graduated from making biased opinions to making delarative accusatory statements inferring judicial conclusions.
Congrats Leo. In context of everything else you have stated under your present username, it will be interesting to see whether you are cited in the future to publicly defend your statements and behavior. I am not in the position to predict the odds of such an occurence happening, but when they do, the recipient least expects it.
I am curious as to whether the role that you have adopted here for yourself would be recognized as fiduciary within the theory of law. If so, duties, conflict of interest, and liability would make for great topics for discussion and remedy.
But then again, on whose behalf are you acting? Definitely not YFI. Definitely not YFI shareholders who you disparage as "baggies." Who else is there? You have never told us that.
TSk,tsk, it is very, very compicated subject, and confusing also, thev type it would take months, and months to decide. Then again, you got nothing but time.