Topic: {ANNOUNCEMENT} WBX Exchange Frozen - page 9. (Read 45343 times)

Apologies dooglus, I think I may have confused you with an earlier suggestion in an older post (which i see now is heavily biased towards option X). Let me re-explain my option z which should take the middleground of X and Y:

(Z): Pay out using an averaged price of the old price and current ($1+$10)/2 = $5.5/BTC, total debt = $1 + $5.5 = $6.5, A gets 0.154 BTC, B gets 0.846 BTC.

Fairer?

p.s. Agreed, paying back using BTC makes sense.

I was in a hurry yesterday when I posted.  There are more options, including the one Seal proposed.  He suggested converting BTC into AUD at the current price, but allocating it to creditors at the old price.  Let's call that option Z.

In Z, we sell the 1 BTC for the new price of $10, but use the old price to calculate the total debt ($1 + $1 = $2).  So we can pay everyone out 500% of what they're owed: A gets $5 and B gets $5.  Actually that seems to be exactly the same as (X) above, except that everyone is paid out in dollars, not bitcoins.

From a practical point of view, I'd rather pay out in bitcoins.  Then I don't have to work out how to make international bank transfers, etc.  Paying Bitcoins is much easier.

I agree with Patrick that (Y) seems to be the fairest option.

I suspect that if put up a claims page, some percentage of accounts will remain unclaimed.  I have no way of contacting account holders; WBX never collected email address (although I expect Andre has a significant number of emails from disgruntled customers in his inbox).  It seems likely that the amounts in unclaimed accounts could offset any new creditors which come to light.  But that's just a guess; I have no way of knowing for sure how many customers made deposits which never got further than Andre's bank account, and never touched the WBX database at all.

Dooglus, to repeat a point that PatrickHarnett made in an earlier post, option Y wouldn't look as fair if the price of BTC dropped. The increase in price makes option Y look fair today however if the price dropped, option X would look equally as fair.

My recommendation combines both of option X and option Y. After the creditor picks a final payout date. We take the price of BTC on that given (agreed) day and:

(Z): We pay out on an averaged price basis. ie. Take the price of BTC when trading stopped. Take the current price and average the two. Use this averaged price to calculate payments using the same method as above.

This will not bias cash OR btc holders and losses will be equal for all parties. (regardless of if the price moves above/below/ends up the same as before). Happy to hear feedback on this one.

Given the time that has passed, my proposal to move things forward are as follows:

1. We appoint a creditor to manage this process
2. We set up a list whereby creditors can submit claims
3. This list is held open for an agreed period eg. 2 months or so
4. Claims are reconciled with the most recent backup Dooglus holds (where reasonably possible - I understand there has been some sale of debt and the backup isn't the very latest, I believe a reasonably accurate job can be made)
5. Payments are made following the claim period.


Acknowledged, some people may miss out however in the real world, some creditors will have already written the loss off given the period that has passed. Other people simply will not care as their loss may be nominal.

Quick update - I contacted an organisation that claimed to debt collection, but really they were more interested in charging for legal letters.  They didn't respond particularly usefully with any real information.  Andre never contacted my lawyers - they were waiting for his call.




Commenting on Dooglus's proposal, I don't see why a dollar-holder should be making a profit, option "Y" (and I'm in the dollar holding category).

As for what to do next, from a legal standpoint, we've had six months pass, and have some information of creditors.  Creditors are entitled to appoint a liquidator, and as Andre refuses to communicate, it is reasonable for as complete a list as possible be compiled and pay on that.  In the real world, requesting creditors to submit claims sometimes results in some missing out and I expect something similar might happen here.

My stance:

* I'd like to get payments made ASAP
* I don't have a full list of creditors, so don't know what percentage I should be paying everyone
* Andre is ignoring (or not getting) my email
* I am not a lawyer, and don't know what I am allowed or required to do with the funds I'm holding.

I don't know how to proceed from there.  I still have the 1800-ish BTC safe and sound.

As for what rate to use when paying out, I have been thinking about that.  Here's a simple example to try to make the picture clearer:

Suppose there are 1 customers.  A has $1 in his accounf and B has 1 BTC.  At the time trading stops the price is $1/BTC.  The $ goes missing but we have the 1 BTC still.  Then the price goes up to $10/BTC before we pay out.  I see two cases, X and Y:

(X): If we pay out using the old $1/BTC price, total debt = $1 + $1 = $2, we pay out 50%.
A gets 0.5 BTC = $5 and B get 0.5 BTC.

(Y): If we pay out using the new$10/BTC price, total debt = $1 + $10 = $11, we pay out 90.9%.
A gets 0.091 BTC = $0.90, B gets 0.909 BTC.

In X, where we use the old price, the dollar holders end up with more than they were owed, while the BTC holders end up with less.
In Y, using the new higher price, everyone gets the same fraction of what they were owed.

Y looks like the fairer case to me.  What does anyone else think?  Can someone make a case for dollar holders to be making a profit on the dollars they were holding when the price of BTC goes up?  Maybe I'm missing something.

Hey Patrick, how are things going on your end? Are you taking the legal route?

Dooglus - any decision as to whats going to happen with the BTC you are holding?

Yes, the opposite would be true - people tend to look at self interest, and if 1700BTC or what ever it is is was worth only $1700, the BTC holders would be pissed off and the $$ holders out of luck.  (hmm, nice asymmetry)

Anyway, I'm still looking at recovery although my progress is slow - but that only addresses one person, and not the actual number of WBX scammed people.  Andre should have some shit land on his doorstep for this mess, but certainly there are many people involved.  It have been six months (or so/or nearly), so some division seems sensible.

either way, it's messy - if I ended up with 1/2 of what I was owed, I'd be content 

I did consider that Patrick, however the opposite would be true if the value of BTC went down since then. Having through about it carefully, repayment amounts for the purpose of paying back customers should be calculated as of the rates at the time WBX was shut down.

Happy to hear recommendations though. I agree that something should be done given the time that has passed.

Has anyone made progress from a legal front?

Dooglus, whats your stance?

I didn't get a useful response from the agency I contacted last month, so checking an alternative.

On the price appreciation, that sounds nice for those out of pocket $$, but those out BTC might be less happy.  I don't think there was ever a comprehensive list of creditors available either.  Given six months has passed, some pro-rating payment might be easiest to put the whole thing to rest.

I have a suggestion. Given the appreciation in value of BTC. If the current holdings are liquidated at current price, can everybody be paid back at the rate/price it was when WBX stopped trading?

Anybody made any more progress on this one?  is it time to call it yet and just divide up the BTC ?

Thanks for pointing that out.  I don't often look at reddit.

I posted the following there, pointing him to this thread:

Does someone with a reddit account want to let this guy know what's going on.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/x4h2o/has_anyone_had_any_dealings_with/

It was sold in August last year.

http://www.onthehouse.com.au/buy/property/50263142?PageNr=1

The mobile number listed for Progressive Security is listed in the white pages as that address and the address is also given as the business address of Progressive Security on one of the websites I found.  Andre is a director of Progressive Security so any legal notices served to that address will be classed as being served, whether or not that is his home.

Wow, what a hovel of a place. If someone wanted to, they might be able to social engineer some info out of the business that has the sign out front in the picture. However the image is from 2010 so it may not be the same owner/renter.

Do you have an email address for him?  He's not replying to any of the ones I have.

I have the address of Andre's new business.

Progressive Security Services Pty Ltd
208 Herses Rd
Eagleby QLD 4207

I think he's running it from his home.

Any progress on the address check? I'm in the process of seeking advice to serve legal papers.