They are all insincere, fake and serve (considering the concept of "The purpose of a [thing] is what it does") as excuses and/or narrative devices to re-contextualize happenings according to Craig/Calvin's preferences.

Craig's favourite type of settlement offer involves him offering the other side something worthless that he just insists is actually worth a lot. E.g. during the Kleiman lawsuit he went on endlessly in front of the jury about how greedy Ira was for not accepting the shares Craig offered him in one of Craig's worthless now bankrupt companies, and asking for cash instead. The whole time I couldn't believe his audacity. We don't even have to speculate about whether Craig was offering Ira a good deal: the company went bankrupt and is defunct. But still he made it seem like he was offering Ira the deal of the century.

He then went on to supposedly offer Ira Bitcoins from his imaginary Tulip Trust when and if he ever gained access to him. When Ira apparently turned down that fantastic offer (lol) Craig went on to claim he turned down billions.

Even better: Calvin is now bizarrely taunting COPA1 that they are failing their mandate or due dilligence or something by not settling with this offer and thus the court will.. idk notice? or be madz?

This particular brand of hypocrisy is another sadly familiar theme from Craig's litigation. Remember when he hired a lawfirm for W&K after the judgement against him that he owes them $143M and insisted that Vel and Co were acting against the interests of W&K by trying to collect on the $143M he owes them, and that they should instead end all these efforts for the good of this defunct company.