Topic: Coinlab v. MtGox update (Read 2343 times)

insolvency just means assets that are not liquid enough to meet operating cash flow(incuding customer withdrawals).... maybe partially insolvent is the better term as 10 million is held illiquid in court...they still hold assets  so are not bankrupt meaning all assets are falling near or below zero net worth and cant meet liabilities...standard function; total assets(a)=  total liabilities(l) + net equity (E) even if equity is zero...they definitely are not bankrupt but its possible insolvency applies even if just at the edge of meeting operational cahflow

even if they win the case but lose the other fed case they may still be insolvent but less likey to fold as loans could be floated since they  are provably a money maker with amount of daily v
olume ( although most of that volume was in april and may only)

No, your numbers are right. The claim to insolvency was what I was questioning. We know how much has been taken, but we don't know how much they had on reserves (in Bitcoins, Dollars, etc...); for this reason I am unsure we can make a claim either way.

TGB did an article about it but then pulled it for that exact reason: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lc3is/pulled_article_from_tgb_5m_seizures_provide/

One might counterclaim the lack of evidence with the delays in withdrawals. While that is a reasonable claim if you look at the legal hysterics surrounding gox it is not unreasonable to think they are having a very difficult time finding a new bank (after having the Wells and Dwolla accounts shut down). Their Japanese bank is clearly not cut out for the withdrawal volume (which is not a far stretch to think, most banks these days still use tech running on assembly language) and as such things are delayed. Given the huge price spike in Bitcoins and their majority (but waning) market share they are most likely in the green, but it's just too hard to tell.

edit: i just read your original post. you said if, i didn't see that. my bad

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/09/mt-gox/

Which exactly claim you have on mind?  That they lost $10 millions?  That is 5 in Dwolla and 5 for Coinalabs - both pretty well documented. Or do you mean the equation?

Insolvency implies they cannot cover the deposits on hand. Given projected earnings and the current price of Bitcoin they are [probably] fine. We don't know all the numbers, so anything is just a guess.

edit: point being, it's not entirely about the math. FUD = an estimate/approximation of something with negative connotations, a claim backed by half evidence but purported as truth. which is what you came to the table with.

How a simple equation is FUD?  This is a simple fact and you are completely missing your facts - because the return of 7 millions is accounted in the equation, and just because you seem to be a bit slow with this math thing here it is: 12 - 7 = 5.  Go read your sources again and come back for a real discussion.

We know that they earn a percentage of the trades and we know the volume of the trades.

If you bothered to read the claim you would also note that they were returned over 7 million. On top of their earnings since april (8 million, as of last month), we know they are fine. Stop spreading FUD. Thanks.

The wired article seems to say that they should probably have more then enough to cover the $10 million.

What we know is that they've lost $10 millions (and BTC 1400) recently, we also know pretty well how much they earn, what we don't know is their costs - but we can do some estimations. If WhatTheyEarn - $10millions - Costs < 0 - then they are insolvent.

Insolvency doesn't imply that they have NO funds. So... not really a trick.

Excellent writeup. Thanks. The answer and counterclaim is well worth reading in it's entirety.

Mt.Gox / Tibanne seem both honest and reasonable.

Having read both claims, I would not hesitate to characterize both the claims and general conduct of Peter Vessenes and Coinlab as,
to start with: exploitative, dishonest, greedy, malicious, ruthless, irresponsible, abusive, not to mention deeply unethical.


The malignant contract at the heart of the conflict is a fine specimen of rotten legal trickery.

Read it here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566.1.1.pdf

Direct link to the answer, counterclaim: "ANSWER to 1 Complaint and, COUNTERCLAIM against plaintiff Coinlab Inc by Mt Gox KK, Tibanne"

i'm not responding to any person in particular...just trying to hash out the situation in my own brain...bcz im bored and talking to myself makes me seem looney tunes...which keeps away the heebie jeebies

why does the first article have pwnz in the url...it makes it look like a malicious link

it would be pertinent to have gox get loans floated to them to stay solvent  until they receive the money back if they are expecting their evidence will win outright ,then payoff the loans w trust account won at trial

hopefully the other 5 mil of customer accounts was not used as startup or operating cash to buy licences shortly after the temporary deadline expired...that would be simple fraud just the same as mf global..customer account cash should stay separate from operating cash

http://thegenesisblock.com/mt-gox-responds-to-coinlab-lawsuit-with-5-5m-in-counterclaims/

relevant article w links to filed docs at bottom

at this point im no fan of gox but in all honesty I think their motive for having the us proxy accounts(mut. sigil. ; wells fargo) was to keep most of the u.s. order book money necessarily off the books and out of the handling of dwolla except for that which was moving in/out as fiat transfers.... imagine 10 mil is on the books of u.s customers  but only 25%  (2.5 mil) was moving as fiat withdraw transfers with 75% or (7,5 mil )staying on the exchange and on the order books..there would be no reason to put the whole 10 mil in control of dwolla...even acting as agent in money transmitting doesn't mean they should not use the proxy accounts to keep effective control of u.s. order book money. ..and moving only whats needed monthly or quarterly for adjustment of the 'withdraw to fiat' percentages over to the acting transmitter agent 'dwolla'... the funny part is the new agreement was  an exclusive u.s contract...were they going to effectively snub dwolla?(an iowa based company) ,,,or is dwolla more involved than first thought?(buyout of dwolla maybe?)owner of dwolla would stand to make a nice profit in a buyout...or was it a pure snub that was happening behind their backs...interesting

anyway I don't think the proxy accounts would need to be registered on the receive side from dwolla as long as the withdraw side of dwolla was the agent of transfer to customers in fiat and the withdraw account maintained correctly by gox...whers the law that says you cant transfer money to the agent of transfer so they can handle customer requests?.............its possible the silent shield was not from from federal prying eyes but merely a shield(firewall) between legitimate order book money and dwollas fiat withdraw account in case people at dwolla decided to run with the money they didn't necessarily need to have on hand.........anywho !!!

I suppose so ,however I was questioning ,does that mean a wind down of gox w full customer payback or is this trust to create a handshake to go forward on the deal...the statement of' not getting the transmitter license points to the previous rather than the latter...would a trust point to the windown of coinlab leaving gox in a position to stay solvent (once the trust is safely remitted back to gox) ? then of course theres still the 5 mil taken by  the fincen treasury fellas ! btc seems like a joke right now and I thought would have potential beyond this amount of fraud but as a percentage of market cap in scale to the whole economy it seems on par and equal to fiat in that regard

When in doubt, avoid businesses that have these types of legal proceedings ongoing.

(ten foot pole thrown away)