Topic: [CLOSED] GLBSE drama - page 4. (Read 17857 times)

They knew.  Theymos was intimately involved and was arguing to continue to operate outside the law.  There is no grey area here, as much as you try to lie and spin one up.   

They felt this, but nobody knew. Don't abuse language to try to bolster an opinion.

There is no legal weight to the argument that Bitcoins = Get Out of Jail Free.  The securities themselves are regulated regardless of what they are traded for. 


No, they were not. 


No, folks here do not realize what Theymos did, that the illegality made the shares worthless.  You yourself, in fact, just acknowledged you do not accept that fact.  Theymos does, which is why he dumped the shares on the rubes and knew to get out as soon as the authorities were involved. 

Technically speaking underwriting is what you'd anecdotally call "vetting". Ie, the process of assessing eligibility.

Illegal implies it was against the law, and presently we still do not know if GLBSE was against the law in any jurisdiction. It would appear Nefario was in the process of attempting to make GLBSE a sort of AML-certified legal exchange which he didn't have approval to do by his shareholders. To date, the legality of GLBSE is still under question, even if criminal charges by the SEC are eventually filed against Nefario. An SEC investigation by itself does not make an exchange illegal, indeed they may not even have jurisdiction over GLBSE. MPOE even has a post on here about how he would argue that Bitcoin securities cannot be regulated by the SEC:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-reasons-why-bitcoin-securities-cant-be-regulated-by-the-sec-116835

Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.


Again, you're talking about the legality here, not the morality.

A scammer tag does not seem to be warranted at this time, perhaps later. To wit, and as others have indicated, no one affected by the sale of these shares has come forward asking for one and we have no evidence that these individuals had prior knowledge of what exactly Nefario was doing.


Thank you for the summation Reeses. It sounds like a good summary of the events.

The two parts that seem to be in conflict in it are:
"Nefario goes rogue" and "despite the fact that it was a partnership"

If he was taking steps that were not in agreement, then the partnership was dissolved and the remaining parties aren't likely guilty of anything (in a legal context, anyway). I also agree highly with your assessment that anyone having anything to do with GLBSE would be better served to remain quiet on the issue, anyway.

At this point it seems pre-emptive to argue for a scammer tag when we presently don't know the legalities surrounding the situation or who knew what and when. This forum has never given scammer tags out indiscriminately. Whenever I've argued for one I've always had to provide overwhelming evidence, and I'd be downright upset if circumstantial evidence alone were sufficient enough for one. At least BadBear and Maged would understand my concerns with this.

Of course, this is all aside from the legalities of the situation, which I may actually agree with the detractors on.

This is anecdotical, but I don't think GLBSE ever acted as the underwriter of any security (they would have had to buy [usually at a discount] all the yet-unsold shares after an IPO, which they didn't).

The problem is that with the bits and pieces of mostly lies / not entirely true statements the participants make, it's outright impossible to clarify anything. That's the role of a prosecutor IRL, get each of them into a separate little room, beat the shit out of them (metaphorically, of course, which is like a simile) and then paste the real story together.

Checking back today, I don't yet see anyone who felt victimized by Theymos's sale/brokering of the highly damaged assets.

I also note that the price projected was high enough to suggest that a buyer would be doing due dilligence and taking some time understanding the nature, structure, and personalities involved in the endeavor, and this would take some time.  (...though it's hardly a certainty given that this is Bitcoin related... )  Point is, the sale was unlikely to be successful if GLBSE collapsed as it did suggesting that Theymos didn't see it coming in the rapid form that it took.

Scam?  I still don't know.  Would I be extra cautious buying something from or doing business with Theymos?  Damn straight!

They knew legal involvement was the end of the business, whether Nefario stopped the scamming immediately or waited.  Why should he have waited just so they could harvest new suckers to hold the bag on the forums?  This entire dispute and Nefario's tag is because he didn't give Theymos the time to get away with the scam to dump the shares on the forum.

I think the salient point here is did any of these people know that Nefario was going to shut down GLBSE and hold on to company funds at the time they put the stock up for sale. Personally, I don't think they did know this, and think this whole thread is pointless.

I've never invested in GLBSE nor do I own any assets. Are you seriously accusing me of being a party to this? You're being irrational. If you had any idea of who I actually was you'd know I am not a theymos fan and I regularly provide actual evidence to get scammers thrown off the forum. If you could make a clear and concise explanation or accusation, I'd love to see it. I think you'd be surprised at what I could actually do with it, especially if it has actual criminal implications.

I can't help it if you have decided to ignore what Theymos wrote on the forums.  He knew the business was illegal, and he knew the jig would be up when it was brought to the authorities.  Unless he is a complete moron unable to tie his own shoes or brush his teeth, of course, but he is clearly not so low functioning.


Which was an imminent action insiders were aware of.  It was listed as a reason for the sale.  It cannot be more clear, do not pretend to be looking for evidence when you are simply trying to play some game to obfuscate it.  

You are asking ME to make them more clear? Theymos "booted a previous shareholder"? Dude, seriously. You're a bunch of lying, despicable pricks and you have the gall to ask ME to be clear? You be fucking clear.

Come the fuck clean on all this scammy mess you've made, and make some apologies already.

I think the reason why you guys are getting so many people ignoring you isn't because you're something awful forum goons (yes, I have a very old SA account and contribute there frequently as well), it's because you actually do not have any experience in this matter and regularly change your accusations. I've been watching every single one of you and while I'd like to think your intentions are good, you've failed to draw actual evidence of malfeasance. Your implications are that these users actually had ill intent and actually believe GLBSE shares were worthless prior to selling them. The evidence gained so far indicates they become worthless only because Nefario was taking the exchange legit, which is why he has the scammer tag and everyone else is the victim. Everyone already knew what Nefario's actions were, they saw what was happening to previous asset holders.

I updated the heroin analogy to be more relevant.


bitcoin.me decided to sell after Nefario booted a previous asset holder. Your accusations are changing constantly, can you make them more clear?

Because the imminent criminal implications made the product they were selling worthless as an investment.  Selling worthless investments is scamming.  Anyone who tried to represent heroin as a smart investment rather than a dangerous addictive poison likely to land you in jail is indeed scamming too. 

I like you people. IF you decided to sell after Nefario decided to give people the boot this would prove you knew at the time you were selling, which is the time theymos claimed to be selling, which is before Nefario actually gave people the boot, which is something theymos claimed not knowing anything about.

So which one of you two is the liar?

No, it's merely illegal.

Case in point, I want to sell you shares in my heroin business. You purchase the shares and I give you my profits equal to your shares.

What about that is a scam?

Also, GLBSE is simply, "not legal" as far as anyone knows. No one has any clue who has jurisdiction over it or the investments in it, because they are international in scope and deal with something no government is willing to admit is money.

Just because something is not authorized by the government doesn't mean it is necessarily a scam or has devious intent. It's just illegal. In fact, those selling were selling precisely because Nefario was going to take the exchange legal, and they knew there would be criminal implications in doing so, therefore they washed their hands of it.

I used to think Bitcoiners were smart enough to know that illegal != immoral, but a handful here seem to be proving me wrong. I'm more concerned about the morality of actions rather than the legality of actions when I research scammers, I figured most of you would be too.

MPOE-PR didn't even link to the appropriate links which means he only put in a modicum of effort on this. I wrote a lengthy reply last night trying to be neutral on this, because I do think that if there was proof those implicated knew there was a bonafide SEC investigation prior to the Sept 24th meeting, then a scammer tag may be warranted, but it sounds like they all basically found out at the same time as the rest of us.

MPOE-PR, please clarify exactly what your accusations are and please link to your evidence (taking screenshots if you think there is a high likelihood of edits/modifications). Otherwise this is pointless.

I do not care about the politics of your internal dispute with your partner.  Settle your own disputes, this thread is about settling the actions of your business with the victims here of the meltdown.  

Theymos announced he was selling an investment product for a company that was operating outside the law.  He argued that the company should continue to refuse to comply with the law.


Trying to sell an illegal investment product is a scam.  He did this in your name.  You should be just as upset as anyone. 

 Nefario clearly misrepresented what was a sole owner operator as an actual company the shareholders got a vote in. Because when it came to the crunch it clearly wasnt. If we were actually owners Nefario couldnt do what he wanted. Meaning he lied the entire time since any motions we took in the end were simply ignored.

Normally a ceo cant just do whatever he wants so he wasnt ceo he was the sole owner operator. Its like sending bitcoins to a 401 nigerian scammer and him saying you own his company and get to vote. No, you dont own the company and he will take your money in the end.