But major aspects of this plan are delusional. Take p. 7, "To reduce liabilities":
"Coins for equity,…"
You can't just improvise a private-offering of shares for Bitcoin in the envisioned timeframe. The other exchanges know this. The kind of people with the deep pockets and credibility to consider a reboot/turnaround would know this.
"…coin donations,…"
Who's going to donate to a distrusted brand with large, poorly-understood multi-jurisdictional legal problems, which also starts out 633K BTC ($280 million, at $450/BTC) and $33 million USD in debt?
"…and cash injections to buy coins at the cheap MtGox price are some options among many."
THERE ARE NO COINS TO SELL AT THE CHEAP MT GOX PRICE, if the rest of the document is to be believed. Even if they launched this plan and kept that fact secret – against the other implied steps of bringing in credible new expert team members – there's no net-improvement in the entities' position if it keeps selling BTC (adding BTC-denominated debt to its balance sheet) at a lower price it would take to acquire BTC elsewhere. That's not even competent as fraud: you'd want to buy at the artificially-low price, not sell.
It's nonsense on its face, even according to its own terms.
I can believe this is a parody of some industry bailout idea that was floated… but recrafted to poke fun at it. (The proposed April 1 relaunch and reasoning evocative of "too big to fail" bailouts are more hints.)
For this to have been a legitimate outline of a believed-possible plan, everyone involved in its authorship would have to be high on their leftover Silk Road stashes.
They could buy bitcoins on gox at gox prices, then unlike anyone else, could arbitrage by transferring those coins out and selling on other exchanges.
Of course there are coins to sell on gox, up until they halted trading, all trading is just shuffling their internal ledger, they didn't need the actual hard currencies underneath. (Which is why they should have been siloed, both the 780k reported missing bitcoins but ALSO the less highlighted 30m deficit on USD. (which is in part critical to show it wasn't just tx mallebility or btc problems, it was general bad accounting))
If the presentation is to be believed, there are only 2000 actual coins at Gox, and Gox already controls them. Gox already can transfer them out and sell at a higher price. (The low round number balance suggests they've already been doing that.)
Meanwhile, there are 624K+ phantom coins listed as being in customers' accounts. So you can't (honestly) attract new "long term, high leverage" investor/trader fiat cash with the idea "there are cheap real coins here for you to buy then transfer out at a profit!" No one gets any new real coins by shuffling phantom coins around, and Gox needs all the real coins for themselves. If any real coins go to others at low prices then Gox becomes relatively more insolvent, not less.
And for as long as the arbitrage opportunity exists – phantom Goxcoins are selling for way less than real coins – who would be foolish enough to transfer new real coins in?
Indeed pages 3-4 suggest that's part of the purported strategy, retiring the BTC debt at the low price (during "Part 1").
But I initially read p. 7 as proposing something that would work to attract needed money (including traders) over time, since it's labelled "Support from Bitcoin big players and core community - long term, high leverage". That would imply they're getting something of value in return, like equity or redeemable coins.
But of course the new money, as investors or traders, can't get real coins cheap, because cheap coins don't exist.
Perhaps I've misread – and p. 7 is only another restatement of the short-term gambit, to extinguish Goxcoins via buybacks while at panic discount prices.
But then the "cash injections" are just a 100% donation to help unwind Gox debts, and the crazy part becomes: who'd want to throw fresh money into that wood-chipper?
I suppose it might make internal sense if the audience was deeply committed to the idea of Gox's resurrection – existing investors, or people entangled facing personal liabilities. Prior recipients of in-retrospect fishy distributions, maybe?
"Coins for equity,…"
You can't just improvise a private-offering of shares for Bitcoin in the envisioned timeframe. The other exchanges know this. The kind of people with the deep pockets and credibility to consider a reboot/turnaround would know this.
"…coin donations,…"
Who's going to donate to a distrusted brand with large, poorly-understood multi-jurisdictional legal problems, which also starts out 633K BTC ($280 million, at $450/BTC) and $33 million USD in debt?
"…and cash injections to buy coins at the cheap MtGox price are some options among many."
THERE ARE NO COINS TO SELL AT THE CHEAP MT GOX PRICE, if the rest of the document is to be believed. Even if they launched this plan and kept that fact secret – against the other implied steps of bringing in credible new expert team members – there's no net-improvement in the entities' position if it keeps selling BTC (adding BTC-denominated debt to its balance sheet) at a lower price it would take to acquire BTC elsewhere. That's not even competent as fraud: you'd want to buy at the artificially-low price, not sell.
It's nonsense on its face, even according to its own terms.
I can believe this is a parody of some industry bailout idea that was floated… but recrafted to poke fun at it. (The proposed April 1 relaunch and reasoning evocative of "too big to fail" bailouts are more hints.)
For this to have been a legitimate outline of a believed-possible plan, everyone involved in its authorship would have to be high on their leftover Silk Road stashes.