Topic: MPEX/MPOE-PR - page 4. (Read 13491 times)
I would do her.
There's no coins that will ever be received, as far as we can determine.
We seem to know (having been told by gigavps)
This, however is immaterial to whether or not MPEx pays out holders of F.GIGA.ETF - where MPEx gets money to pay out investors in F.GIGA.ETF isn't particularly relevant.
What we do not know is whether or not MPEx will stand by the contract, nor do we know know what MPEx will accept as a "legitimate claim"
Actually, you do know this.
Quote
smickles mircea_popescu: directly, if I had proof that I owned F.GIGA.ETF on Dec 1, would you give me fair value of those shares at any point in the future if I relinquish my ownership of them?
mircea_popescu smickles I will (and always have) satisfy legitimate claims against myself. Now, it'll all come down to whether your claim is legitimate at that point.
smickles There you have it BTC-Mining.
mircea_popescu smickles I will (and always have) satisfy legitimate claims against myself. Now, it'll all come down to whether your claim is legitimate at that point.
smickles There you have it BTC-Mining.
Considering that MPEx seems to use the output of their gpg-signed STAT statement as proof of asset ownership, there seems to be no way for a holder to make a legitimate claim.
This conflicts with basic logic. There wouldn't be a way for a holder that ignored the issue for a month and didn't get a STAT in time, possibly. Certainly the way for that holder who fucked up wouldn't be throwing a shitfest in the forums instead of getting support via email/irc like sane people. Ya know?
You know, it started out asking what's going on. Your lack of anything like a reasonable response has allowed YOU to turn this YOURSELF into the ensuing shitstorm. Blame your own arrogant stubbornness. Your actions could have avoided my simple question turning into a shitfest. What part of "PR" do you not fucking get? It's not "Public Berations" as you seem to suggest with your constant derision of all persons who are not you.
It would be simple for MPEx to clear this up, but Mircea seems to insist on being stubborn and seems to insist there's nothing to return as the assets are "worthless"
Again, I point out that "non-tradeable" and "worthless" are fundamentally different.
If MPEx refuses to do anything to return the assets to the holders, provide some other certificate of ownership of assets, allowing holders to make a "legitimate claim" and/or refuses to pay out holders then I would support a scammer tag
Looks like fluffygrrl (MPOE-PR) and Mircea Popescu's polimedia.us are not new to spamming and scamming
Just search for: spam polimedia.us or fluffygrrl spam etc.
Nice PR fuck up, Mircea.
LOL. You state this like they're actually two separate (real) people. Read "the girl's" posts and compare to mircea_popescu's irc writing.
Given the ambiguity, even though the exchange/issuer took extreme advantage over their unit-holders (apparently I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of the MNW Pirate bet), I don't think this'd merit a scammer tag, and the loss they've caused their customers will probably cause enough punishment on its own.
What would merit a scammer tag, and hopefully Giga'd be bold enough to make it public, would be the exchange/issuer filing claims AFTER having wiped out users' claims.
IIRC, though, MPEX provides a kind of receipt in transactions. It's possible Giga would honor those units in good faith. Maybe worth talking to him about if one held a significant amount...
What would merit a scammer tag, and hopefully Giga'd be bold enough to make it public, would be the exchange/issuer filing claims AFTER having wiped out users' claims.
IIRC, though, MPEX provides a kind of receipt in transactions. It's possible Giga would honor those units in good faith. Maybe worth talking to him about if one held a significant amount...
The contract doesnt mention glbse, it is with gigamining, which still exists and has a claim process.
Given the ambiguity, even though the exchange/issuer took extreme advantage over their unit-holders (apparently I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of the MNW Pirate bet), I don't think this'd merit a scammer tag, and the loss they've caused their customers will probably cause enough punishment on its own.
What would merit a scammer tag, and hopefully Giga'd be bold enough to make it public, would be the exchange/issuer filing claims AFTER having wiped out users' claims.
IIRC, though, MPEX provides a kind of receipt in transactions. It's possible Giga would honor those units in good faith. Maybe worth talking to him about if one held a significant amount...
What would merit a scammer tag, and hopefully Giga'd be bold enough to make it public, would be the exchange/issuer filing claims AFTER having wiped out users' claims.
IIRC, though, MPEX provides a kind of receipt in transactions. It's possible Giga would honor those units in good faith. Maybe worth talking to him about if one held a significant amount...
Gigavps and the scam he is pulling has a separate thread. This is about you 2
Looks like fluffygrrl (MPOE-PR) and Mircea Popescu's polimedia.us are not new to spamming and scamming
Just search for: spam polimedia.us or fluffygrrl spam etc.
Nice PR fuck up, Mircea.
Looks like fluffygrrl (MPOE-PR) and Mircea Popescu's polimedia.us are not new to spamming and scamming
Just search for: spam polimedia.us or fluffygrrl spam etc.
Nice PR fuck up, Mircea.
If any terms that has been put into the standard form of contract has made this happen, the court are likely judge that MPEX/MPOE-PR are intentionally scamming the other party, and the terms are invalid.
That would likely depend on the jurisdiction this supposed court is operating in, would it not?
In many laws, the contract that was given by MPEX/MPOE-PR is so called a "standard form of contract", which means that the customer/investor who sign the contract are in information disadvantaged position. Some of terms will be easily seen as invalid in court compared with a equal/common contract. In this case, if a investor believed that he bought the etf share with an equation in mind that etf=?*gigaming... then the gigaming being untradable could not make the etf worthless. If any terms that has been put into the standard form of contract has made this happen, the court are likely judge that MPEX/MPOE-PR are intentionally scamming the other party, and the terms are invalid.
So, whether the contract is a scamming contract, or MPEX/MPOE-PR is scamming.
So, whether the contract is a scamming contract, or MPEX/MPOE-PR is scamming.
Contracts are for when there is a necessary dispute. Where is the necessity here? If everyone acts in good faith, this thing will end well for all parties. Contracts aren't why we do business. We do it for the reciprocal benefit.
Whaaaaa? Contracts are put in place so we can be clear at the outset regarding the expectations of our commercial interaction. With contracts, we can act in good faith because we know we can change the contract if needed and can commit knowing there is mutual good intent.
I would not engage in a contract with someone I do not trust. Except my banks, but those contracts just make my keister available for probing at their leisure. Oh, and the cable company. And the phone company. And the midgets.
I'm sure there is a misunderstanding here. I'm not suggesting doing business without contracts. I'm suggesting that refraining from doing something beneficial for everyone because the contracts don't explicitly determine the action, is indefensible.
In other words, good faith extends beyond contracts. Otherwise people who abuse the meaning of the contracts would not be called scammers (MNW's bet comes to mind). All contracts are subject to interpretation, especially the ones without exact precedent. Just take a look at the ETF contract in question and you'll realize that what it means is totally dependent on the context, which the contract doesn't even refer to.
So far what we know is that F.GIGA.ETF assets have been deleted as worthless from holder's portfolios.
We seem to know (having been told by gigavps) that Mircea refuses to comply with the GLBSE claims process and/or the gigamining claims process. This, however is immaterial to whether or not MPEx pays out holders of F.GIGA.ETF - where MPEx gets money to pay out investors in F.GIGA.ETF isn't particularly relevant.
What we do not know is whether or not MPEx will stand by the contract, nor do we know know what MPEx will accept as a "legitimate claim"
Considering that MPEx seems to use the output of their gpg-signed STAT statement as proof of asset ownership, there seems to be no way for a holder to make a legitimate claim.
MPEx has made no statements to clarify, nor has MPEx placed any kind of receipt or other token in the hands of holders who have seen their assets deleted as "worthless"
It would be simple for MPEx to clear this up, but Mircea seems to insist on being stubborn and seems to insist there's nothing to return as the assets are "worthless"
Again, I point out that "non-tradeable" and "worthless" are fundamentally different.
If MPEx refuses to do anything to return the assets to the holders, provide some other certificate of ownership of assets, allowing holders to make a "legitimate claim" and/or refuses to pay out holders then I would support a scammer tag
We seem to know (having been told by gigavps) that Mircea refuses to comply with the GLBSE claims process and/or the gigamining claims process. This, however is immaterial to whether or not MPEx pays out holders of F.GIGA.ETF - where MPEx gets money to pay out investors in F.GIGA.ETF isn't particularly relevant.
What we do not know is whether or not MPEx will stand by the contract, nor do we know know what MPEx will accept as a "legitimate claim"
Considering that MPEx seems to use the output of their gpg-signed STAT statement as proof of asset ownership, there seems to be no way for a holder to make a legitimate claim.
MPEx has made no statements to clarify, nor has MPEx placed any kind of receipt or other token in the hands of holders who have seen their assets deleted as "worthless"
It would be simple for MPEx to clear this up, but Mircea seems to insist on being stubborn and seems to insist there's nothing to return as the assets are "worthless"
Again, I point out that "non-tradeable" and "worthless" are fundamentally different.
If MPEx refuses to do anything to return the assets to the holders, provide some other certificate of ownership of assets, allowing holders to make a "legitimate claim" and/or refuses to pay out holders then I would support a scammer tag
MPEX/MPOE-PR:
I have seen the link in the OP. If you don't recognize the value of gigavps' share, and you really discard all the etf, I will say that you are a scammer.
Please help them continue the indirect relationship with gigaming or other glbse shares that have been maintained through your etf. don't forget the trust they put on you at the very beginning.
Looking forward to your answer, so I can express my opinion in several other boards about you.
My question is, if OP are serious, where we can sue MPEX/MPOE-PR. (I don't know what's going on exactly but obviously OP and MPEX/MPOE-PR are disagree with each other)
If you find it is very hard to sue an exchange, then do not put serious money or shares on that exchange.
If you find it is very hard to sue an exchange, then do not put serious money or shares on that exchange.
OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts.
Let me ELI5 for myself...
So you can indeed make claims to GLBSE and giga, and still pass through the profits. But you either didn't make the claim, or you are not telling that you did or even will. And you are not clearly saying that the coins will be passed through to shareholders even if you receive them.
Am I missing something? All I see is that you are letting yourself become a liability in this equation, just like Nefario.
Contracts are for when there is a necessary dispute. Where is the necessity here? If everyone acts in good faith, this thing will end well for all parties. Contracts aren't why we do business. We do it for the reciprocal benefit. What you are doing is not beneficial to anyone, because I believe you won't steal the money either.
You can indeed make the money available to the shareholders. Either you will or you won't. End of story.
OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts.
Here is the old contract:
Code:
BUY QTYPRICESELL QTYDividends :
0.00095000 566`083
1`000`000 0.00000200
11.90608119 BTC on 30-04-12
12.13455878 BTC on 08-05-12
45.29200000 BTC on 08-06-12
84.53204260 BTC on 08-08-12
69.74000000 BTC on 08-09-12
34.58803996 BTC on 08-10-12
F.GIGA.ETF
Website : n/a
Owner : Mircea Popescu
Monthly statements available from underlying issuer (gigavps)
Listed on : April 11, 2012
IPO Details :
The owner of this ETF holds 900 perpetual 5.0Mh/s bonds (details),
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I have received 900 btc from mircea_popescu for 900 5mh/s perpetual bonds
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPgN6rAAoJEPg1VNdq3jo/quAH/3wPex8LqPyEmh2UWtBEy04g
9YugO88saSvsZNSRm9Qhx0Hs6cpMerLoYgJREBpDiG2dGCS1csCS03QyJ1wLV1Ah
GGYqnGyi1h3MT2f2nMFn9+ouMfp3QyumQswH7U7cdVBV6cdGhdA4c+uE2l9WtHkO
Kl54+947QWzDJHRC5SbB0RCvl52k9KZ6Ac0RNfJ6mUhJy3I45/B281qmICUrjPT0
xTi0td8f4CKcTnTtocKw7blKbAEoVRBJNyVNnY8h/hGb2Aipp6uZ8Js8c1DeqY8P
lx0OX6G+KHQIBEuuKt5TpmECUE2Nky2A3Dm9JreF7cqnKhK7RfJfgqoApQ2zou0=
=CBon
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The ETF is composed of 900`000 shares. Should the Owner acquire more shares of the underlying he may issue more shares of this asset. The Owner will never own less shares of the underlying than the total float of this asset implies. Any and all revenue paid by the underlying will be distributed to the shareholders of this asset without remainder.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPhPT+AAoJEIpzbw4vt7RSYpIQAJjTQY8GIbOL34e0MUiee5sQ
+/HAFe26L9abgzyE+UlP63RctWqJtPvNvCRccs26k0PBWleTfMEcm43IcePfe4gz
bMGJqSMNq+B/22oonGhqJl/D8gKey19m5vwLvvwfOs/4wNhd7/idSVIDvF7EUYbT
qTKzrsjfs5faErQu5TKPBRKBT5pqIBdUSvbY2UaIx4mIcxorMxg+m4CgJ2zthYLx
jBVqlF8gNYHJfThNHO5PHrKi3QCyEWZkQZGZDRs3czwiq7SA3WFaxHTjF5MFcDhf
f+v+5om39bg8UuOtgCJ2zUjB5psU0zm9SnQ1nV5fUIDJieZV+B00C2aosoUytrGX
ZLSNU526poOQ1rrlUc+iQvioT2ByVWTCR7GIz9GbAWZCkJBhZhN6l9U3vWX9hlFB
OcVAE7HlO3aK2IgyVGKZptm3ZPoEGJfk3i+UpGB8RjGQZCPCRxkzTdAFsqDjTG0m
5yi0xe0Knx+/GqkhToYnR09FZLEDTi7365IXUqk1LO9Ud2Hx4y5be/vmA2L8Dqky
zxweKsl7b8Iay3e+rXEA4I2pGqaduzIX+FYFpIWz1nmSU7uxzWe9HF1ogJJXGq3f
Cqfm+gv98goIg8mffg1vNbyVexhuz061nnWyUxABwPHeLc0lqwOHk+zt7Zro8xDJ
DWtHdESm8ux7Mswexdpu
=GEPB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fgigaetf-to-be-delisted-on-december-1st-2012-121308
The passthrough operator (Mircea Popescu) is refusing to take action to recover the gigamining shares and has deleted asset information from owners. The shares are not worthless as stated in the op of the thread.
Requesting a scammer tag untill this is remedied and warning people that MPEX will not stand by their contracts.
The passthrough operator (Mircea Popescu) is refusing to take action to recover the gigamining shares and has deleted asset information from owners. The shares are not worthless as stated in the op of the thread.
Requesting a scammer tag untill this is remedied and warning people that MPEX will not stand by their contracts.
Jump to: