Topic: GLBSE 2.0, Is safer now. - page 4. (Read 8809 times)

Seems like half was done.

Looks like ToS to me: https://glbse.com/terms

"We may at our discretion, ask asset creators to provide proof of identity, address, phone number and more, until we are sufficiently satisfied. Said information will be held securely offline and not shared with any third party. We reserve the right to freeze trading of the asset and the asset creators account for failure to provide requested details or in the event of suspected fraud."

"By using GLBSE and any service it provides you agree to these terms and conditions."

I understand freezing someone's account because of a threat of security breech, but that person has contractual obligations to pay bondholders or shareholders.  If those bondholders are not paid they will start to panic.  If you are going to freeze someone's account then you should also freeze any trading of the underlying asset that their account is associated with.

Because of the lack of breakins and paranoid security levels?

I think I will be waiting until GLBSE is out of beta to use it anymore because of this.  I wonder if that person with 7000 TyGrr-Bank bonds is freaking out.  It has dropped 10% today.

Wow this thread has gotten out of hand since I last looked.

I would advise everyone to lay off Goat and relax, chill, this is being blown into a massive drama and it doesn't need to be, just have a little patience and allow us to work through this.

Firstly, I'm working on implementing two factor authentication for a number of things using GoogleAuth. I'm almost done, just adding the finishing touches. Once done then I'll address this in more detail, Goat showed considerable concern for his account security on me implementing recovery by email(pretty standard IMO), others may also have this concern.

One thing GLBSE has prided itself on is that we haven't been compromised or breached. This is something I am personally paranoid about (it's why I went through all the trouble to build GLBSE1.0, uber secure, I lose sleep worrying over this), and is something I want to continue, an unblemished security record.

Secondly, nothing has happened to Goats account, I've locked it. I'm not going to be keeping any of the contents of those accounts if as hashking speculates it were not to be unlocked, everything would be returned to the shareholders.

I do believe a lot of this has been the result of miss-communication.

I locked goats account because there were a considerable number of failed login attempts using his email. I assumed that his email had been compromised, as one of the largest accounts in GLBSE this is a pretty big deal, not something I'm about to let happen.

At the same time I have been wanting to talk to goat about a number of things, verification of his identity (he had asked me about it before, because he has so many assets that are such a high profile, and the breakin attempts), it has also been brought to my attention by a number of forum members of the danger posed by a single person having so many assets of such value, the potential for massive fraud. I also mentioned in the email I sent him about my intentions to introduce a new policy of limiting the number of assets created by any one person to mitigate this risk.

I guess my mistake was putting all these things in the one email, account problems, verification and notification about a policy I'd like to implement. I should have focused on the one thing first and moved on from there. This has caused considerable confusion.

The information for verification that I've asked him is pretty standard (i.e. what I ask other asset issuers), the more they can provide the better. It is not a demand, if he were to provide proof of identity to the extent that I'm satisfied with then great, usually pics of photo ID and a facebook profile(which he has told me he doesn't have) are enough (to check if they're a real person). Keep in mind that he has issued over $10,000USD worth of shares on GLBSE, I think it is prudent that at least someone knows his real life identity, this is your money that I'm trying to protect.

I was put back with goats response to what I deemed a reasonable request, both in email and PM's, this raised some red flags and prompted me to ask some questions, which hasn't resulted in anything concrete.

The steps to get this resolved are clear and simple:
1) let me finish adding two factor auth
2) goat, provide me with enough proof of identity to verify you are who you say you are, doesn't have to be everything I requested, just enough to prove who you are with the minimum of a pic of your passport.

Nefario

+1

According to this Nefario has made it clear that he can ask for any form of ID.

We may at our discretion, ask asset creators to provide proof of identity, address, phone number and more, until we are sufficiently satisfied. Said information will be held securely offline and not shared with any third party. We reserve the right to freeze trading of the asset and the asset creators account for failure to provide requested details or in the event of suspected fraud.
 By using GLBSE and any service it provides you agree to these terms and conditions.
 These terms and conditions are subject to change without notice.

March 9, 2012, BitcoinGlobal

While I've not personally verified an ID, I did press Nefario for more information about his identity, and the ownership of GLBSE, on his thread.

It seems like Nefario is doing his fiduciary duty to protect investors using the GLBSE from unusually high risk scenarios. Regardless of how honest and solvent you may be, the number of outstanding issues plus a lack of identification is an unusual amount of risk for most investors. I can't see how you can disagree with that, regardless of how trusted you may be on these forums.

It sounds also like you've ignored your fiduciary duty to your investors and shareholders by discussing this issues so vehemently in public, and thereby calling your own actions, intentions, and identification into questions. This is why your issues are being sold off quickly now.

I have to wonder if Nefario shouldn't halt trading on your issues to protect their value while this issue is resolved.

That is a little crazy.  If there is not more to the story then this probably could have been handled better and seems to be a problem of miscommunication.  It looks like a few of your assets are dropping in price.

I guess the question is what happens if Nefario doesn't unlock his accounts.  Do the shareholders loose their money. 

I can understand not giving personal information to a stranger, but this is playing chicken with both people's reputations.

What kind of information is needed?

His information is known...

He shouldn't have suddenly closed your account, I agree. What is the issue with you handing over a bit of info though? You don't have a problem posting a picture of yourself publicly. A verified email, name and address isn't so bad.

This is a reasonable argument.

Well, in his defense I think he just wants listers to verify their accounts for fraud purposes. There were a lot of bad contracts of the old GLBSE and with 2.0 I think he is trying to eliminate that best as possible.

Sell off one of your listings?
Excuse me being naive, but wouldn't it be your responsibility as owner (CEO) to buy them back and close the public offering? What does selling it off accomplish?

I agree.  I can understand why GLBSE business owners operating in States would be troubled to verify their identity, but Goat operating in Thailand's main benefit is the removal of legal risks.

Especially saying it after something happens.  Business is one thing, but what gets a person a successful business is their word and reputation.  That is invaluable as no one can purchase that.

I don't know why verifying your ID is an issue goat. You have a picture of yourself and girlfriend as your avatar, told people you live in Thailand, shared your email address. This shouldn't be an issue.

Sounds a lot like this OP
Something doesn't go the way you want so you throw a public hissy fit.

Security of your account is your responsibility, no one else's. Saying 'I take no responsibility', no one in there right mind should do business with you if that's what you think. If something happens, your account gets 'hacked', man up and take responsibility, that's how an honest man operates.

Nefario has taken appropriate steps to change authentication on the GLBSE and I personally think it's sufficient. If you had issues with it, why didn't you bring it up in beta testing? You were involved.

This sounds like you feel entitled here now and things should go your way...sad

Maybe I missed something

Hmm. I see huge huge warning signs w/ a person who won't identify who is so potentially overextended. The Bot issue was a glaring red flag when combined with all the other deals, IMO, and seems no surprise that we're here discussing this right now.

The less that you do to show that everything is on the up and up, the less I trust the whole deal.

The defensiveness that I see when Goat is questioned about his projects, and their details is yet another huge red flag.

Red flags don't mean things are not kosher, but they do tell me that I need to seriously reassess the potential risk.

This will me the last time I purchase shares in a company run by unidentified individuals. It sounds like lots of fun to take on that much risk, but *sigh* I really don't think people can truly be trusted that way. It invites them to be irresponsible.