Topic: [CLOSED] GLBSE drama - page 2. (Read 17897 times)

No, I said I was going to sell after goat was kicked off. I was not selling when theymos did and the shares he was talking about did not involve mine. In fact we were still discussing whether I was going to sell when Nefario shut glbse down and we hadnt even had  a chance to add my shares to the ones to be sold yet.

As stated: I can confirm this from personal knowledge. Personal knowledge gained from direct personal experience with the events described. Beyond that clarification I will not offer any further details in order to preserve my own rights and options in any future legal action.

I don't suppose you can explain how you can confirm all that?

Specific to point #3, I can confirm from personal knowledge that there is an SEC investigation underway at the present time, and I can specifically confirm that GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal is a subject of that investigation. I will also confirm that this investigation is more than just a couple of weeks old, that it predates the pirate/BS&T investigation letter that was released to this community, and that there has been specific instances where legal force was used to compel information in the investigation.

I'm happy with this. Far as we're concerned the matter may rest.

Sounds like you just admitted to them all, just with the caveat that you were going to stop the lies and lies of omissions later if you got a sucker on the hook.  Sure you would have.  Sure!

I never said I was selling my own shares. I just said that I was "selling shares".

Buyers would have needed to have been informed about the other sellers before the sale was complete, if only because the share transfer contract would need to indemnify the other sellers as well as myself. In fact, buyers would probably want this info (which looks bad) to not be public if they would finally decide to buy.

All of the buyers in my original 23% were leaving primarily due to the legalization thing, so it's not like investors were jumping from a clearly-sinking ship. My opinion was that Nefario was generally incompetent, and legalization would end up bankrupting GLBSE just because following regulations is so expensive and banning small, "dubious" assets represents a substantial loss in revenue. I'm clearly not going to post such a negative opinion publicly when I'm trying to sell my shares. If anyone would have seriously sought to buy, they would have had all facts and more of my opinions that what I made public. I never imagined that Nefario would be so stupid as to close GLBSE like this.

In any case, I'm not obligated to inform non-buyers of internal info. Keep in mind that my sales thread was only an advertisement for private bids and discussion, not a complete statement about the asset.


1. bitcoin.me was not part of the 23% I was selling.
2. A long time after I posted my thread, and after the TYGRR thing, bitcoin.me also decided to sell. I offered to try and sell his shares after the original 23% I was selling was sold.
3. I doubt he really said that he knew about TYGRR beforehand.
4. bitcoin.me is frequently confused and should generally not be considered reliable.

I did not know about TYGRR beforehand.


I said that I did not know of any SEC investigation, which I didn't and still don't. The whole SEC thing could still be a fake, though the increased number of witnesses nowadays makes that seem less likely. Nefario has not said that the SEC is investigating him, and I doubt it is. (Maybe the FSA is, but I doubt this as well.)


I briefly mentioned it in the sales thread. I didn't say it more explicitly because the fact that I am treasurer was already public (though maybe obscure) knowledge. It was part of the original PGP contract for BitcoinGlobal shares, which was public. Nefario mentioned it in that old forum thread. I've mentioned it on Stack Exchange and Reddit previously.

Acceptance of a buyer was nothing to be worried about because I already solidly had 4 (and later 6) of the 7 votes needed, and the others would be easy. The vote to accept a new shareholder is based on number of shareholders, not number of shares.

I'm not going to keep responding to these ridiculous accusations based on rumors and assumptions.

Loses tension my foot. You think Taaki, Strateman, McCarthy are names that'll ever show up on anything respectable or with even a vague shot at BTC related success? Never.

No. But they'd be worthless if it ceased to be functional.

Maged: you're really making a fool of yourself with the straw man arguments. Drop it, it's embarrassing to watch.

1. Theymos purported to sell his own shares. They were not his own shares he was selling.

2. Theymos said he had no idea about the goat kickoff; his confederate bitcoin.me said that his reason to sell (in a bulk with theymos) was that he knew Nefario was going to kick off goat. One of the two's lying (and from experience with this mess, probably both).

3. Theymos said there's no SEC investigation and tried to downplay the email SEC actually sent. It's unlikely he didn't know this, as it was public knowledge at the time. (In any case would have been trivial to verify by, for instance, calling the SEC guy up, as a number of people did).

4. Theymos failed to disclose his board position. Theymos represented the acceptance of the new buyer as "something not to be concerned about"; turns out the board can't even agree on the most basic of issues.

In short, the guy lied about pretty much every aspect of the sale he was proposing. What do you mean "Potential buyers can decide the shares' value themselves"? Every single thing theymos said was a lie. Not a single thing he said was the actual, complete and honest truth. How are they to "decide for themselves"? And you're fronting for this? What is this, used car salesman camp?!

Actually, this depends on the foundation document.  Quorum requirements often state that a certain number of shareholders or shareholders representing a certain percentage of the enterprise must be present for the meeting to even be valid.  Likewise, whether the passing of a motion requires the majority of people present at the meeting or the majority of all interests is usually also spelled out.  Most ventures with a small number of voters don't leave themselves open to the possibility of a few people with a minority interest being able to pass a motion which binds the majority - which is possible under your scenario.

There are all sorts of procedural issues which are also usually stated in the foundation documents, such as notice of special resolutions (and a meeting to shut down the company would fall under this) and the numbers needed to pass a special resolution (generally higher than what is needed to pass an ordinary motion).

First, the minutes have not been release backing up this fact.  Two, the few lines to back it up have been recorded as "shareholder 1"/ "shareholder2".  People need to be properly identified if you are going to make this assertion.

There is really no evidence proving who voted for what.  So in all actuallity it could be all the shareholders that want to keep nefario as CEO.

Also, if people are not present for the vote, their vote does is counted.  Motions do not pass with 51 or 67% of all shareholders, it only passes with 51 or 67% of shareholders present at the meeting.

If you tell me nefario wrote the bylaws for BitcoinGlobal I would not be surprised.  It is like a constitution from a university club.

I meant with regards to how people might value the shares differently if they knew that more than one person was selling.

GLBSE was a partnership not a registered company.

Finally! This is the kind of stuff I've been looking for! What do people think about this?

We tried voting him out as ceo but some people refused to vote.

Of course not, he's a known scammer. In fact, I doubt that he can even make the release of user's information to asset issuers contingent on AML verification, since there is no longer a contract between issuers and GLBSE. Issuers may need to perform their own AML verifications on their asset holders, but GLBSE is no longer responsible for that. Of course, I don't know if that is what the law actually is, but I would assume that unless told otherwise.

You're absolutely right. However, they have been released, so he's fine. They don't need to be released publicly for us to take any action, though.

The information that BitcoinGlobal is not even a legal company and shareholders do not have no authority is very damning.

Maged, I do think that the knowledge that more than one shareholder was trying to sell their stake in GLBSE would likely have affected people's confidence in the exchange.  When people thought that theymos was the only one selling his stake and that he was doing so for ideological reasons, it was reasonable to assume that there was a unity of purpose among the remaining shareholders.  People may well have made different decisions about doing business with GBLSE if that theymos was not the only shareholder looking to bail out.

While I know that the "private company" line has been trotted out, more information about the shareholders would have been publicly available if GBLSE was in fact a private company.  People could have pulled the Company House documents and confirmed for themselves who the office-holders are, who the office-holders are, the paid up capital, etc - people have done exactly that in respect of Intersango (an actual privately owned company) in the past.

I do think that not informing people that other share-holders were looking to divest their equity in GLBSE may have led to users retaining a level of confidence in GLBSE which was unwarranted and that the loss of confidence which would likely have followed disclosure of full truth would have been reflected in prices of not just GLBSE's stock but also the stock of its asset-issuers.

Nefario is requesting personal information from former GLBSE users to close their accounts and get any bitcoins/assets back.  Are you suggesting I send personal information to someone listed as a scammer by bitcointalk moderators?

Theymos stated that the bylaws of BitcoinGlobal are enforceable on bitcointalk forums, but they can't be enforced unless the shareholders of BitcoinGlobal are released.  Also, the shareholders will not oust Nefario from CEO of BitcoinGlobal unless they are pressured to do so with the threat of ostracization from the bitcoin community.  If the BitcoinGlobal shareholders deserve a scammer tag for not voting to get him to give up the database, by extension Theymos deserves a scammer tag for not releasing the shareholders names as he is aiding their scamming.

I disagree. However, I would agree that the ones that are preventing BitcoinGlobal from relieving Nefario of the database would deserve the tag, assuming they have accounts here. Of course, that would be after giving Nefario a reasonable amount of time to send claim codes, himself.