I completely see what Franz says about Matlack defending GAW, but I'm still inclined to think that at the point the archived post was written, he still believed that Josh was largely innocent. I've said before that I don't think Matlack was an active part of the GAW fraud (by this I mean I don't think he was in cahoots with Garza et al) -- I think he was just another naive investor sucked in by Garza's lies.
I also don't believe he and Garza knew each other from church; I've asked many times when people have posted implying that Garza and Matlack have links that go back to their childhood and I've yet to see any convincing evidence that this was the case, or indeed any evidence at all. I suspect that angle was something that's been perpetuated by people (most likely accidentally) on here and other forums simply guessing and has become a kind of folklore, much like the oft repeated idea that Stuart Fraser was Garza's father in law.
The fact that they've set up the two UK limited companies (not LLCs; there is a distinction there) is interesting, but I'd assume they did it because it offers less liability should things go tits up (I'm certainly not an expert here so if anyone else wants to chip in I'd be interested to hear any other perspective) and may have been favourable in some way for app store registration. Also remember that Matlack is the owner of 3RE, LLC, which appears to be the parent company that is running the ionomy project. I may be wrong here (and you're welcome to correct me if I am -- please!), but I would have imagined that limiting ones liability in a way similar to this is probably fairly common.
Interesting discussion anyway, thanks.
There is also the IBC in Seychelles.
There is nothing wrong with LLCs or Ltds, anybody doing any kind of non-negligible business should care about separating their business liability from their personal one, and it's cheap an easy to do in most jurisdictions. Obviously there is more to it than that, you actually have to keep assets separate etc but that's another story.
However this shitshow of multiple companies claiming ownership of their products and pretending to do business offshore - while that's clearly not the case - doesn't seem to be based on good business practices. Amateurish and could possibly land them in hot water should they ever grow beyond their base of ~50 bagholders. I doubt they've talked to a lawyer about this as I can't imagine that someone with any clue on the subject could have advised them that it's ok to pretend being registered in Seychelles while running a financial business via UK/US companies.
I'd guess that the UK Ltd had an Apple developer account so they saved $100 by using that and not signing up under their real business name, whatever that is. Initially Google Play had a different business name then it was was changed to match. Still different from the one on ionomy.com. Still no text of the TOS you're agreeing to inside the app.
The civil suit has now become a whole lot stronger. Adam could be in for some compensation now just like the multitude of customers that Garza screwed over. Unfortunately that could include characters like you and suchmoon
Still peddling your absurd conjecture that I lost money on hashlets?
Honey, I had serious doubts about Garza's "cloud mining" bullshit before he even concocted the hashlet scheme. Why would I "invest" in something like that?
August 2014, look it up, it's right here on Bitcointalk. No photoshop skills required.