Topic: [GLBSE] BDT - 3% weekly interest bond, backed by Bitdaytrade (Read 57771 times)

I think the entire securities section places the forum itself in massive liability, knowing what we know about the SEC et al.

 

Alberto, we are now well past "the end of summer", and heading towards the start of winter in fact. At least an update would be in order I would think.

The flaw with your analogy is no one pushed -- people chose to dive into the deep end of the pool without learning how to swim, or even realizing that swimming might come in handy once they hit the water.  What's worse, as soon as they're fished out of the pool, they start climbing the ladder to the highboard, prompting the lifeguards to put up this life-saving sign & ruining the party for the rest of us:

I think of it as similar to being pushed into deep water and learning how to swim on the spot. We're used to rely on these regulations as crutches, and our common sense has atrophied due to lack of use. Over time I hope we'll learn how to operate efficiently in a less-regulated world (with some Darwin awards earned in the process).

Some rules will of course still be needed, though. I'm not a libertarian myself.

You dont have to


This thread is over a year old, there is nothing left to investigate, I think the facts about Alberto are pretty clear.


You dont like the law being quoted? You think its a better idea to pretend laws dont exist or dont apply - until someone ends up in jail? Personally Im getting very tired of people thinking and claiming that because something is related to bitcoin that its all legal and anything goes.

As for creating something better, Im all for better, and bitcoin certainly can make some things better, but Im very unconvinced by the bitcoin experiment showing just how much better a (perceived) regulatory vacuum is. To quote myself from another post:

OT, but I find it fascinating that time after time, this bitcoin experiment shows us the usefulness of so many existing regulations that die hard libertarians love to hate. Things like registering a security, so that potential investors know all the relevant facts about the people and the business they are investing in. Rules against insider trading and stock manipulation as hinted at above,  and disclosure requirements that would force labcoin to come clean about the actual status of their business making this more an investment than a lottery. The need for an organisation that verifies and enforces this, since you cant trust the exchanges, let alone the issuers.  We already learned what happens when you allow ponzi schemes (pirate) or known felons to play 'bank' (mybitcoin). BFL customers are finding out that FTC rules about shipping delays and refunds perhaps arent so daft. Heck, they are even learning that evil old Paypal has its uses too.

Many libertarians were or are convinced bitcoin would show just how good a totally free market can work. Its showing me the exact opposite: t doesnt work without some sensible regulation, it becomes a scammer's and gamblers paradise, not a functional economy.

Im sure many will disagree, and thats fine. But its hard to disagree with the legal realities. You may chose to ignore them, but that doesnt change them. If you are going to ignore them at least do it with your eyes open.

Apparently Puppet's goal was to shed light on some facts, I don't think there's a problem with that.

Everything has a reason, though not always a good reason. I don't have sympathy for the SEC or other legacy rulesystems either, but we'll have a better chance of building something new and better if we understand the rules and the reasons for them - learn from them if the reasons are good, or learn what to avoid if the reasons are bad.

Presumably, the SEC rules were meant to prevent basically exactly what's happening right now, and to that extent we should have some respect for them.

I don't like your attiude.

Instead of attacking those who seemingly got sucked in, you should focus your energy on starting an investigation into the man behind - Alberto Armandi.

And I don't like your attitude quoting SEC texts. This whole gives us the chance to form something new, something better.

If I frame you wrong, I'm very sorry, Puppet. I'm yet at the beginning of looking into this and I will edit/delete this post, if I'm mistaken.

Sure sounded like it. Point taken though.

I don't believe that was the worst part. I may be wrong.


Some did. After some issues started to pop up I organized a buyback of the bonds at their face value, using my own money to facilitate the process (Alberto later reimbursed most of it). I recommended that people take advantage of this offer, and everyone who wanted got to. out of 8950 outstanding bonds (other than those I owned), only 4998 remain.

You are not on trial here, Im not a prosecutor, let alone a judge,  but I do want to respond to this:


That, I am more than willing to believe. Moreover, its not like that standard has gone up since, you are certainly not alone making this mistake. Just about every bitcoin related asset issuer (and their "helpers", PT-operators, exchange operators, "pr managers", "ipo managers" and whatever) now and in the past have serious legal liabilities and most still dont seem to grasp that. I just hope people begin realizing this is no game.


Possibly your worst mistake ?

Every claim I make is true, and I have logs to prove it.

An accountant is responsible for doing your accounting right. I am not responsible for Alberto's actions, and I clarified as much from the start.

They were not "clearly scams" to me. I thought he was a good guy who made some mistakes and deserves another chance. I was foolish to think so as there was little evidence to support it and sufficient evidence against it. You are correct, I did trivialize Alberto's past and it was a big mistake on my part. (BTW the drug thing was unknown to me until much later.)

My due diligence was below the standards of traditional security issuance. It was far, far above the standards of the Bitcoin market at the time, which is what I measured myself against.

I agree completely.

I cant verify your claims, they may or may not be true. Even if true they didnt benefit investors, and  I dont see how arguing that you honestly thought this was a legitimate venture and trying to prove that by claiming you poured even more money in to a bottomless pit, absolves you from your legal responsibilities. If my accountant screws up and it ends up costing me a lot of money, I may or may not believe it to be an honest mistake, but I might still want to claim or sue him for damages. Its up to your investors to decide if they want to act on this, or if they want to believe that you too were duped and thats good enough to give you a free pass. Like I said, I have no opinion either way (though the authorities might have one should it come to that).


First of all, just googling Alberto's name brings up more than just "unsuccessful ventures". They were clearly scams (and even a drug bust). Did you feel a need to mention that?  No;  instead you trivialized it and did vouch for him, and his ability to pay back; I dont see what else you can call statements like " I talked with Alberto about many things and I am confident he is committed to making bitdaytrade work, and even if it fails, to pay back every last satoshi of debt, bringing to the table his personal assets if necessary (of which he has enough to cover his obligations). "

Moreover, you called your self the "IPO manager", but did you ever tell Alberto, let alone anyone else, its illegal in most countries to sell such unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors? Did you even bother to look in to it? If you had taken your responsibility seriously, you would have understood your (and your customer's !) liability when soliciting investments and if you had any sense, you would never have accepted the "job".

I will look into this matter.

You can't.

That lawsuit wouldn't get anywhere if they spell my name wrong.

Seriously though, I doubt anyone would follow your recommendation, which is clearly nothing more than trying to find a scapegoat.

I expressed my personal trust in Alberto and clarified beyond any reasonable doubt that everyone should come up with their own trust. I did not imply anyone should trust him based on my word (which is what "vouching" means).

When things started I personally lent 2000 BTC to Alberto, both because I believed he was legitimate and because noblesse oblige. When things exploded, I lent him 2000 BTC more without any expectation of ROI, merely because I thought it would aid in resolving the process (and still believing I would eventually get them back). I am still spending my money and time for the chance (however slim) for a positive resolution. If that's not taking my responsibility seriously, I don't know what is. (EDIT: Actually, in the beginning I lent 1000 BTC and accepted debt of another 1000 BTC as payment)

As I explained in depth previously, agreeing to help Alberto was the worst mistake I've ever made, which has caused me enormous financial and mental damage. But I would rather be productive than repent and defend myself for the rest of my life. And as my track record clearly indicates, me being productive is for the benefit of the entire Bitcoin economy and community.

Since its clear this is going nowhere and Alberto isnt going to pay, allow me to suggest duped US investors another way. Under the securities act of 1933, you are very likely able to bring civil action against Meni Rosenfeld

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_act_of_1933

Take note especially of sections 11, 12 and 15:

One quote from section 15

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77o

Now you may or may not believe Meni knew or should have known this was a scam, but that may not even be material; Meni knew or should have known he was soliciting or aiding in the solicitation of funds for an unregistered security from (among others) US investors. That is a clear violation of the security act by itself, even if bitdaytrade were a legitimate business, or Meni could reasonably have assumed this was the case.

IANAL, so obviously anyone wanting to go down this road should talk to his lawyer first. I also dont have an opinion on whether it would be "fair" or "moral" to meni to take this approach, thats entirely up to duped investors and possibly courts to decide. Im merely pointing out an option that I suspect is more likely to yield results than waiting for Alberto,  and that if nothing else,  may motivate Meni and future "IPO managers" to take their responsibility in vouching for potential scams a bit more seriously. What you do with it, is up to you.

Where can we purchase this bond?

today I got this pm:

 

Not yet, unfortunately.

Alberto, you promised a final update at the end of summer, which is where we are at. Meni, can you tell us a bit more at this time?

I dont expect any satisfying response but i cannot stop hoping of either a report of a law suit or a payback...