This gallery contains 45 photos.
This afternoon I was provided with a link to a file full of documents related to Ryan Kennedy. Some have been seen before, some have not. I make no representations about the accuracy or relevancy of any of these files. … Continue reading
Had two people forward me this Notice to Wind Up [Moopay Ltd] yesterday:
Notice of the Petition was published in The Gazette on November 6, 2014. From the posting, it looks like the Syscoin folks filed their Petition on October 22, 2014 and have hearing about it on December 8, 2014.
Petitions to Wind up a Company can be used to start the insolvency process by a creditor of the Company. In other words, a person can file one of these petitions if a company owes them money and cannot pay their debts. If a Petition is granted, then a Court will order that the assets of a company be sold to pay its debts. The process is managed by a court appointed receiver.
If you’re owed money by MooPay, Ltd., then you need to file creditor’s a claim HERE.
You’ll recall that AG stated that MooPay was bankrupt on October 14, 2014.
To voluntarily enter insolvency proceedings, a company must pass a winding up resolution (Insolvency Act, Sec. 84), publish notice in The Gazette (Insolvency Act, Sec. 85), and appoint a liquidator. However, when a debtor fails to pay a creditor, the creditor can start winding up proceedings against the debtor by filing a Petition to Wind up a Company with the court as Syscoin did. Whether its a voluntary or involuntary petition, notice is published in The Gazette.
Trail of Doges v1.0 charted the historical movement of dogecoin from a known Moolah wallet from April 20, 2014 to the time of posting. Trail of Doges 2.0 will adopt the same basic concept by tracing the historical movement of funds associated with a wallet in Moolah’s control. Unlike v1.0, however, v2.0 will work backwards in time from one wallet in Moolah’s current control to another that is believed to have been in his control at a certain point in time.
The goals of Trail Doges v2.0 will be similar to v1.0: build a baseline information by establishing a starting point on the BTC blockchain and documenting all the transactions between it and the ending point. This post will also build on the method presented last time.
Trail of Doges v1.0 established that the 10M dogecoin given to the prize pool of the e-Sports competition came from a customer wallet affiliated with Moolah’s Prelude Exchange.
Version 2.0 will show that 99.83% of the bitcoin donated to the Remember Carlos mental health fundraiser came from a wallet believed to be a customer wallet on the MintPal Exchange (41.77BTC out of 41.84 BTC donated).
Trail of Doges v1.0 laid out the following method for tracing digital currency transactions of a particular person:
A. Identifying the Trail
1. Identify a wallet; pick a starting point on the block chain.
Identify an M wallet that is identified as an M wallet by AG. Identification must be from a document, post, media or other source widely understood as being drafted, produced or otherwise operated by AG.
2. Identify as the “starting point” (SP) the earliest point at which said wallet was identified by AG as an M wallet (starting point).
3. Identify inputs to the M wallet or converging/merging of multiple wallets with the M wallet.
4. Determine whether there is a remaining/current balance.
B. Analytic foundations
1. Note as a significant wallet (SW) any payee wallets appearing more than once as recipients in a transaction.
2. Mark as a notable wallet (NW) any payee wallets that correspond with or match notable events and individuals in the Dogecoin and digital currency communities.
C. Possible Limitations
1. Lack of identifying information beyond public keys.
2. Use of change addresses.
3. Overly simplistic. Blockchain analysis, computer programming/coding, and the like may be beyond my skill set. This post should be seen as very basic and as quite possibly having errors.
4. Confirmation bias.
In short, the method develops a history for the digital currency holdings of a particular person or entity.
Trail of Doges v1.0 employed a linear chronological analysis. Version 2.0 will employ an reverse chronological analysis.
1. Two technologies for analyzing historical data on the blockchain
Historical reasoning works forward in time from a starting point. It is chronological. Historians construct a story between events, moving forward in time, and explaining events with what he or she believes to be the best or most relevant piece of evidence.
Archaeologies work backwards in time, peeling back layers of information and describing the layered artifacts without judgment about what causes of the different layers. The focus is how data is cultivated and what that data is rather than evaluating or judging it, ideally allowing for observations that may not otherwise have be made.
2. Version 2.0 Adjustments
Even though the chronology, or lack thereof, in v2.0 will be totally different from v1.0, the v1.0 method will be the same except for these three adjustments:
3. Assumptions
For this post I will assume that the largest input into a transaction represents the change wallet from a spend transaction. In order to build a transaction history, we will, in reverse chronological order, trace the running balance of a wallet believed to be under the control of AG and/or M from one change wallet to the preceding change wallet.
1. Wallet – For this post, our SP will be the BTC donation wallet for the Mental Health awareness campaigned started by AG.
The wallet was and is believed to be under M and AG’s control. You will recall that this campaign started in the wake of the alleged suicide of Carlos Rueleas (Carlishio2), who was known for drawing the Dogecoinball cartoons.
AG confirmed that he created the wallet here.
This wallet is interesting for two reasons:
Moolah’s blog on Sept 17, 2014
Moolah’s blog on Sept 23, 2014
2. Starting Point. The SP will be the time of posting and this wallet: 15bBYUto5ucp3jGbvRHMTWkft8QbF5bqD3 (Remember Carlos Campaign BTC Wallet).
3. Ending Point: 1NjBaY8fKg85TfCvP1AoQGUSXjifD5Nw2G (believed to be Mintpal’s BTC wallet).
4. Transaction History. Transactions preceding the SP:
1. Significant Wallets (SW)
17ztgkcaZbs4VFrAswMQGvnNDEtn47rsmu – Received over 1100 BTC, in 11 transactions, between Aug 26 and Sept 15.
1yGe5j4xh7fUHdLBcYtLCUj8Rmor4vJzR – Received 2 payments of 5 BTC, one on Sept 8 and on Sept 13.
2. Notable Wallets (NW)
1NjBaY8fKg85TfCvP1AoQGUSXjifD5Nw2G – the Campaign wallet received a contribution directly form the change wallet of the MintPal Exchange.
1. There is a direct connetion between 99.83% of the Bitcoin donated to the Carlisho2 Mental Health campaign came from MintPal’s BTC wallet (41.77 BTC of 41.84 BTC donated).
2. AG said the 41.77 BTC donation was a personal donation. There is no way to verify that claim at this time. Therefore, Version 2.0 does not state who owned the 41.77 BTC donated to the Remember Carlos donation wallet.
3. The timing of the Remember Carlos mental health campaign announcement corresponds with when MintPal migration deadlines were being missed. The donated bitcoins were not sent to Mind on Oct 1 as represented on remembercarlos.com.
4. The largest donations of dogecoin and litecoin were comparable in relative size to AG’s bitcoin donation vis-à-vis the total amount donated.
Four quick observations.
ONE. This is how Ryan Gentle signed his name in 2006. 
This is how Ryan Kennedy signed his name in 2009: 
Notice any similarities? Elongated shape, structure of the R. How do they compare with the signature represented to be Ryan’s on October 28, 2014?
No. Hmmm.
TWO. How about a conspiracy theory? In the October 28th Order, it is stated that Ryan’s counsel is Francis Hoar.
However, it seems like this information is not supposed to be known. Notice the redactions here: 
Recall that Ryan has previously represented himself as an attorney. Also, recall Ryan Gentle’s middle name was Francis.
Does that signature look more like a “Ryan” or a “Francis”?
THREE. Syscoin’s attorney doesn’t like to publish his name nor sign it.
Syscoin’s counsel is Richard Howlett, a solo attorney, who appears to have trade named his practice Selachii, LLP. SOMEONE, ANYONE, please hook Selachii up with some free letter head, puh-leeze.
FOUR. There seems to be some confusion about which judge signed the October 27th injunction order.
Apparently, there was an emergency injunction on October 24, 2014 granted by Judge Hamblen. This injunction was obtained without notice to Ryan, so there had to be another hearing. That hearing was set for October 27, 2014, which Ryan apparently did not attend. Despite not attending, Ryan was allegedly ordered to return bitcoins belonging to Syscoin the next day. However, the next day, October 28, he purportedly moved the court to vacate the injunction order of October 27, which the Court granted. Here is his statement accompanying the motion:
It is curious that Ryan says the injunction order on the 27th was obtained without notice from Judge Hamblen, given that Judge Williams in his vacation order never references Hamblen. In fact, Judge Williams references his own order from the previous day and not Judge Hamblen.
The Consent Order dated October 29, 2014 also does not reference Judge Hamblen (this order was likely jointly drafted by the parties).
Draft 1.0
Green has misappropriated customer dogecoins held on deposit with Prelude.io, OR Green misled his customers and the dogecoin community when he represented that a certain wallet was Prelude’s and that customer dogecoin balances were stored in a certain manner, in a certain location.
Reliable and meaningful information about Moolah (M), Mintpal (MP), and Alex Green (AG) is sparse. This is unfortunate because M, MP, and AG are alleged to have caused numerous people substantial economic damage and may have committed several crimes in the United States and elsewhere.
This post will attempt to provide reliable and meaningful information about M, MP, and AG by reconstructing, as much as possible, the transaction history of an known dogecoin wallet believed to be used by M. (Prelude Transaction History)
M’s dogecoin holdings are significant given that M had a loyal following within the Dogecoin community. The following was cultivated, in part, because AG and other M personnel were very involved and visible in the community.
Transactions involving known M wallets are worthy of analysis given that such transactions, in addition to being indicative of a monetary relationship generally, are symbolic of legal, moral, and enterprise-level relationships between the owners of said wallets.
It is well known that Alex Green was a controversial character in the Dogecoin community.
Controversy stemmed from a mixture of AG’s personality, business practices, and unusual actions/behavior [collectively, events].
It is also well known that said “events” have been ongoing since at least the time that AG began posting as moolah_ (Reddit & IRC) and @moolah_io (Twitter).
Each “event” has meaning and is a clue to understanding what has happened and what is happening with M, MP, AG. The relationships between events might be especially insightful to those individuals trying to better understand the past, present, and possible future with regards to M, MP, and AG.
Given, the foregoing background, this post will . . .
Begin mapping the inputs and outputs of dogecoins from Dogecoin wallets believed to be AG’s or M’s.
Highlight notable & significant transactions from starting point to present time.
Identify gaps in data and limits in this post’s scope.
A. Identifying the Trail of Doges
1. Identify a wallet; pick a starting point on the block chain.
Identify an M wallet that is identified as an M wallet by AG. Identification must be from a document, post, media or other source widely understood as being drafted, produced or otherwise operated by AG.
2. Identify as the “starting point” (SP) the earliest point at which said wallet was identified by AG as an M wallet (starting point).
3. Identify inputs to the M wallet or converging/merging of multiple wallets with the M wallet.
4. Determine whether there is a remaining/current balance.
2. Mark as a notable wallet (NW) any payee wallets that correspond with or match notable events and individuals in the Dogecoin and digital currency communities.
1. Lack of identifying information beyond public keys.
2. Use of change addresses.
3. Overly simplistic. Blockchain analysis, computer programming/coding, and the like are beyond my skill set. This post should be seen as very basic and as quite possibly having errors.
4. Confirmation bias.
A. Data Points
1. Wallet – For the purposes of this post, I will use a dogecoin wallet represented by AG as being used to operate Prelude (Prelude.io), M’s first digital currency exchange (See, Prelude Transaction History).
Said wallet was identified by AG as being an M wallet on May 1, 2014. The identification happened on M’s blog, which has been deleted. However, the posting was preserved by Follow the Coin, where M is listed as a contributing author.
In his blog post, AG states the following:
On Prelude (which uses an internal ledger), there is currently 158315247.58584696 DOGE listed as the total sum of all balances. Funds are shifted to cold storage once they hit the 200M mark. This tallies with the amount in the main Prelude wallet. I have sent this exact amount of funds from the Prelude account, to a new address within that account.
Note, the funds are represented as being customer funds as a function of them being exchange balances.
The transaction where AG moves 158315247.58584696 DOGE from one Prelude account to another has the following transaction identification number:
It appears that this transaction happened a day before AG’s blog post, on April 30, 2014. I’m unsure of whether this is due to the way time is displayed on my computer or some other reason. Likewise, I’m unsure whether the reason matters to the investigation given that AG represented to the public, in an attempt to earn trust and quell fears, that the wallet identified was under the control of M as a business and that the contents of the same were for the operation of the Prelude exchange specifically (as opposed to merchant accounts, for example). For this post, April 30, 2014 will be considered the day of the transaction.
In said transaction, the sending wallet is identified with the following public key:
In said transaction, the receiving wallet is identified with the following public key:
2. Stating Point – Given the above-identified wallet, the SP for our investigation is April 30, 2014.
3. Transactions subsequent to the SP are view in the Prelude Transaction History. Said transactions were charted manually using the blockchain explorer at Chain.so. The transactions are current as of November 2, 2014.
1. SWs
Outputs
Inputs
2. NWs
1. AG either lied on May 1, 2014 about how he was holding customer funds and what amount of dogecoin he did in fact hold, OR he spent from the Prelude exchange wallet. Hypothesis possibly confirmed.
2. Assuming the wallet studied herein was in fact the Prelude dogecoin wallet, it appears that Prelude lacked volume.
3. Assuming the wallet studied herein was in fact the Prelude dogecoin wallet, it appears that AG still has access to it.
4. Assuming the wallet studied herein was in fact the Prelude dogecoin wallet, the customer dogecoin deposits on Prelude were never transferred to Mintpal.
5. Possible mixing of coins. The timing, frequency, and amount of deposits to two addresses (D5ijLsBRJuyeCC6gdnhR7sgXtT487s43a8 & DPMvTtZwXjLG1jxcZC1Qdye8dBEhZJAcwP) suggest the possibility of mixing.
6. Green is sitting on a current dogecoin balance in excess of 70M dogecoin (remember, these were represented to be customer funds). Said wallet is here: DFuc88sKWtYRsLXW2oK1jVVw5oGS6ptdSG.
1. Analysis of wallets inputing funds into DFkxdX554g8QPhF7c2fNPpVtZK9Mp1RTaq. The goal is to learn anything about the Prelude depositors. There were 53 inputs into said wallet, some addresses inputting more than once.
2. Analysis of each recipient wallet since the SP. The goal is to determine who many payments/withdraws were the result of customers withdrawing vs. expenditures by Green. The results may help clarify the actual purpose of the wallet.
3. Building on numbers 1 and 2 above, studying the expenditures of each payee wallet to determine additional connections to the M, MP, and AG enterprises (i.e., MooFarm 1& 2, Charity Drives, etc.).
4. Comparing each expenditure from the “prelude” wallet with various events, such as the Spring Talladega Race, major tips given out by AG, and other controversies.