I find it very concerning, as I am sure most people do, that he would request 'identifying info' to payback. Why couldn't he just put up the website and allow us to claim our vouchers?
Because he needs to tell the government where he sent coins to.
Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 197. (Read 959607 times)
Because he needs to tell the government where he sent coins to.
do you have a list of shareholders and number of shares?
No.
So am I correct in assuming you at least have the potential to maintain this operation and honor all existing shares; i.e. do you have a list of shareholders and number of shares?
I find it very concerning, as I am sure most people do, that he would request 'identifying info' to payback. Why couldn't he just put up the website and allow us to claim our vouchers?
Didn't you say at one point... like weren't you were privately handling not-held-in-GLBSE shares for someone and directly paying dividends?
No.
I'm assuming you withdrew all the IPO funds already, and as such, any money paid into GLBSE ticker "NASTY" is actually already in-play for hardware?
Let's hold off on making assumptions until more information is released.
I would assume that the dividends would be suspended for now since Ognasty has no way to send them out.
If anyone wants to sell some NASTY share let me know.
lol the timing for that is (I believe) AFTER the "oops GLBSE broke"
... I want to BUY some more actually. Was planning to pick up a couple more shares before dividends tomorrow, but now I'm not sure how to even track my portfolio or how dividends will work.
GLBSE user funds are more or less safe, but I have bad news from the GLBSE shareholder meeting.
Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.
He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.
I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.
Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.
Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.
He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.
I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.
Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.
This is concerning...
Yes, perhaps.
Didn't you say at one point... like weren't you were privately handling not-held-in-GLBSE shares for someone and directly paying dividends?
... Really wish I had some way to prove that my GLBSE stake in nasty is "12 shares" right about now. Ah well, I'm sure it'll get sorted somehow / at some point.
I'm assuming you withdrew all the IPO funds already, and as such, any money paid into GLBSE ticker "NASTY" is actually already in-play for hardware?
somebody accidentally sent me a private message and I responded with this:
Indeed...
All I know for certain is that GLBSE is unavailable, theymos is pissed at nefario as a result (level of communication, etc.)
... and there is probably some degree of "lawyering up" going on.
The only companies I have shares which were traded on GLBSE the owners / operators are pretty cool
some will even allow you to hold your shares outside of GLBSE, still get dividends, etc. so all is not lost.
What is it they say / suggest about never investing more than you can afford to lose?
I'm personally not "dead in the water" as a result of (temporarily?) being unable to manage any assets via GLBSE. I have not been "scammed" as far as I'm aware.
GLBSE user funds are more or less safe, but I have bad news from the GLBSE shareholder meeting.
Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.
He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.
I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.
Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.
Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.
He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.
I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.
Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.
This is concerning...
I don't want to speculate on anything until I've seen the announcement on Saturday.
What's all this now?
Is nefario or GLBSE-related somebody or other is making an announcement? What?
Placeholder for link if I can find more info... potentially (( if I'm not being lazy playing minecraft all weekend ))
Check out glbse.com.
I don't want to speculate on anything until I've seen the announcement on Saturday.
What's all this now?
Is nefario or GLBSE-related somebody or other is making an announcement? What?
Placeholder for link if I can find more info... potentially (( if I'm not being lazy playing minecraft all weekend ))
^ and now I have inserted the "more info":
Edited to add: "more info"
((...snip...))
if security issuers refuse to AMl they wont get access to their shareholder info.
Oh, awesome. Is that all? Do you actually have a reliable non-confidential / public-type source for that statement?
I'll gladly cough up AML-type identification to the security issuers and/or any regulating agencies for my jurisdiction (and that of GLBSE, and of the security issuer) if that's all it takes to un-freze my GLBSE portfolio
If anyone wants to sell some NASTY share let me know.
I don't want to speculate on anything until I've seen the announcement on Saturday.
Hi, I am a minor (12) holder of Nasty shares on GLBSE and I had every intention of increasing my holdings of this security over the next several months.
This GLBSE debacle now has me spooked. I've studied OGNasty's posts and determined that from the professionalism and composure of his posts that he is honest and genuine in his BitCoin endeavors.
I'm interest to know OGNasty's opinion on the whole sordid GLBSE affair and what it might mean for holders of Nasty shares.
Thank you.
This GLBSE debacle now has me spooked. I've studied OGNasty's posts and determined that from the professionalism and composure of his posts that he is honest and genuine in his BitCoin endeavors.
I'm interest to know OGNasty's opinion on the whole sordid GLBSE affair and what it might mean for holders of Nasty shares.
Thank you.
1. I did not do the comparison until now 
(How bad is that lol)
2. I don't like mining bonds as they will decrease in value when difficulty goes up, no matter what (hence I did not compare the 2)
3. I do like the fact that Nasty is backed by hardware
4. I am also invested in ASICMINER, in my mind either ASICMINER or BFL is first to get ASICs hashing, so I needed BFL exposure to offset the ASICMINER risk
1. I did way back in July - and I'm still confident. Up to a price of 0.7 BTC I will hold NASTY shares, though block halving is coming two weeks earlier than I expected then. (How bad is that lol)2. I don't like mining bonds as they will decrease in value when difficulty goes up, no matter what (hence I did not compare the 2)
3. I do like the fact that Nasty is backed by hardware
4. I am also invested in ASICMINER, in my mind either ASICMINER or BFL is first to get ASICs hashing, so I needed BFL exposure to offset the ASICMINER risk
2. It would be nice if there would be real bonds available.
I only know of perpetual bonds, like Gigamining, and worse, they have an unfair call mechanism (not even providing a guarantee on principle). Finally, some have unsettling similarities with ponzi-schemes, when they mix real MHash/s and virtual MHash/s, therefore would probably default, if difficulty would not rise enough.
I saw this proposed offering and believe they are "real" bonds because they hold the principal and have a specified buyback time. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/asicminingb-asic-investments-establishing-my-investment-firm-part-1-112232
Disclaimer: I bought Nasty shares last week below 0.40
Gigamining is paying out 0.0123 per share dividend
Nasty is paying out 0.002027 per share dividend
Adjusting for share price, Giga pays 5.5 - 6 times as much dividend per share as Nasty
Nasty has a 246 week payback time (shareprice / weekly dividend)
Gigamining has a 45 week payback time (shareprice / weekly dividend)
It doesn't really matter how much they state the mining contract is worth... these are the cold hard facts
Why did I buy Nasty and not Gigamining would you ask....
1. I did not do the comparison until now (How bad is that lol)
2. I don't like mining bonds as they will decrease in value when difficulty goes up, no matter what (hence I did not compare the 2)
3. I do like the fact that Nasty is backed by hardware
4. I am also invested in ASICMINER, in my mind either ASICMINER or BFL is first to get ASICs hashing, so I needed BFL exposure to offset the ASICMINER risk
That's my reasoning... I am sure others will have other reasoning for buying or not buying Nasty shares
Gigamining is paying out 0.0123 per share dividend
Nasty is paying out 0.002027 per share dividend
Adjusting for share price, Giga pays 5.5 - 6 times as much dividend per share as Nasty
Nasty has a 246 week payback time (shareprice / weekly dividend)
Gigamining has a 45 week payback time (shareprice / weekly dividend)
It doesn't really matter how much they state the mining contract is worth... these are the cold hard facts
Why did I buy Nasty and not Gigamining would you ask....
1. I did not do the comparison until now
(How bad is that lol)2. I don't like mining bonds as they will decrease in value when difficulty goes up, no matter what (hence I did not compare the 2)
3. I do like the fact that Nasty is backed by hardware
4. I am also invested in ASICMINER, in my mind either ASICMINER or BFL is first to get ASICs hashing, so I needed BFL exposure to offset the ASICMINER risk
That's my reasoning... I am sure others will have other reasoning for buying or not buying Nasty shares
Giga has a proven track record of delivering exactly as promised for 6 months.
What exactly happened with your dividend on September 15th? Why was it so low? Overdelivered?
What exactly happened with your dividend on September 15th? Why was it so low? Overdelivered?
1) I've been delivering regular dividends on GLBSE far longer than Giga.
2) This is a real mining operation. The 9/15 dividend was a result of real world factors.
I underpromise and overdeliver. So while NASTY shares will be backed by more shareholder owned hashing power than claimed, gigamining is backed by less hashing power than is listed in the MH/s per share claim and shareholders don't own it.
So far you haven't delivered anything except a few token dividends. Time will tell if you overdeliver.
Giga has a proven track record of delivering exactly as promised for 6 months.
What exactly happened with your dividend on September 15th? Why was it so low? Overdelivered?
I just thought I'd point out that gigamining shares are not backed by enough hardware to provide the claimed hashing power per bond. Gigamining shareholders are buying debt that is tied to difficulty, nothing more. NASTY is a real mining operation and shareholders own the equipment that backs the dividend.
As far as Bastone's constant digs at why I don't want to put up a motion to alter the contract. I underpromise and overdeliver. So while NASTY shares will be backed by more shareholder owned hashing power than claimed, gigamining is backed by less hashing power than is listed in the MH/s per share claim and shareholders don't own it.
As far as Bastone's constant digs at why I don't want to put up a motion to alter the contract. I underpromise and overdeliver. So while NASTY shares will be backed by more shareholder owned hashing power than claimed, gigamining is backed by less hashing power than is listed in the MH/s per share claim and shareholders don't own it.
Hmm I stand corrected 
Only problem for me personally is this.
So if I buy 100 giga shares I won't be sure I'll have the option to use the paid upgrade. (or did I misunderstood that?)
Only problem for me personally is this.
Quote
The right to the upgrade is proportional to the number of GIGAMINING bonds held. The PAID UPGRADE is not transferrable.
So if I buy 100 giga shares I won't be sure I'll have the option to use the paid upgrade. (or did I misunderstood that?)
I think it means that once you pay for the upgrade you can't transfer it to a different gigamining bond holder, but ask giga, I'm sure he'll clarify.
Jump to: