Pages:
Author

Topic: Gox Exit/Entrance Speculation - page 3. (Read 3108 times)

legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
February 25, 2014, 03:09:35 PM
#7
I think it all depends on whether the 750,000 BTC loss is true or false.  As far as I know, the only source for this number was that leaked "Restructuring" document of dubious intent.  

The way I'm leaning now is that the 750,000 BTC loss is pure FUD, leaked so that Gox depositors are more likely to settle for less than the par value of the Gox IOUs.

I think that Gox has lost customer funds and Gox is insolvent, but not nearly to the degree that a 750,000 BTC loss would imply.  GoxBTC's sold as low as 0.07 BTC = 1 GoxBTC on BitcoinBuilder, and right now the price is 0.14.  If a company looking to takeover Gox knows that the solvency situation is not that bad, they could buy up a great deal of GoxBTCs at less than 20% of face value.  In fact, maybe that is what is happening now.  Perhaps this is all it takes to regain solvency, or perhaps they cut a deal with remaining depositors for 500 mBTC on the coin.  With the current FUD in the air, I bet a lot of depositors would jump at a chance to get 50% of their funds back.  


If the 750,000 BTC loss is true, I think it is game over for Gox.  If the 750,000 BTC loss is true, I also think this was an insider job.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 508
February 25, 2014, 03:09:06 PM
#6
I don't know Japanese law. From what I understand, Bitcoin is completely unregulated and they have a 'hands off' approach. I'm not sure it would be illegal. In the U.S, sure. Please correct me on this.

There seems to be a common misconception about what it means to be "unregulated". It doesn't mean that businesses engaged in the exchange of bitcoins are not subject to any laws.

I am confident that operating an insolvent corporation and engaging in securities fraud (front running, insider trading) are illegal under Japanese law.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
February 25, 2014, 03:04:08 PM
#5
I don't know Japanese law. From what I understand, Bitcoin is completely unregulated and they have a 'hands off' approach. I'm not sure it would be illegal. In the U.S, sure. Please correct me on this.

And even if the leak itself was truly an accident, this might still be his best last gasp attempt. Perhaps the document was real, accidentally leaked, but he is trying to partner up with someone somehow. He will find no takers in the reputable BTC community.

It looks to be a third-party consulting/private equity preliminary evaluation using insider information and written with them, obviously. Stating it "certainly deserves to [go bankrupt] as a company" is the kind of contrition that people want to hear, of course.
hero member
Activity: 1302
Merit: 502
February 25, 2014, 03:01:26 PM
#4
Probably not ideal to leak a draft that indicates that you are engaging in blatantly illegal business practices, and planning to continue to do so.

Pretty sure Mark has a dartboard with cool computer phrases on it like "take down site", "lose coins", "make announcements soonish", "purchase similar domain", etc., that he throws darts at. Competency/knowledge isn't the Goxxian strong suit.
hero member
Activity: 1260
Merit: 505
Age Of Mars | GameFI Virtual colonization of Mars
February 25, 2014, 02:59:16 PM
#3
I just wonder who wrote the draft. It's written as an outside opinion of Mt.Gox.

Mark wouldn't write:
Quote
The reality is that MtGox can go bankrupt at any moment, and certainly deserves to as a company

It all seems like a comment on Gox, with some suggestions of what to do next, but it is not obvious how the author would know how many coins (if any) were stolen or lost.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 508
February 25, 2014, 02:56:18 PM
#2
Probably not ideal to leak a draft that indicates that you are engaging in blatantly illegal business practices, and planning to continue to do so.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
February 25, 2014, 02:52:33 PM
#1
What if this draft is some type of ploy that Karpeles released to make it look like a third party is involved for a potential purchase. This explains why it was knowledgeable yet poorly written. Maybe he is actually planning to sell the functional Mt Gox assets to a company that he owns in a different jurisdiction for pennies (so he can back out of the liability and start fresh) then install a figurehead or partner to run the new 'Gox' while he silently owns shares in the background through a nominee shareholder. He can then train the new CEO, etc.

Maybe that's their plan.....and they released the 'leak' draft on purpose. Conspiratorial but very possible.

Please give me a little street cred and humor me before you start dismissing this outright. I've been correct up until this point (see below).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5353565
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5353489

Original crisis draft -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/209050732/MtGox-Situation-Crisis-Strategy-Draft
Pages:
Jump to: