Nefario - page 31. | Bitcointalksearch.org

senor_coconut

member

Activity: 69

Merit: 10

a big question mark

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:25:30 PM

Just got off the phone with James, he said he's not going to be producing trading history for anyone. As for releasing shareholder data, he said that he's asking for the extra coins his script sent out to be returned, and it looks like he won't be releasing shareholder data to issuers until that happens. He said about 3/4 of the extra coins have been returned.

You won't be suprised if I say I don't believe it unless some proof is released, will you?

Especially when I got the confirmation email but not a single cent of BTC... and still have most of the pie stuck in assets.

Be realistic. There is no fucking way anyone can be positive about this.

And another great point is Nef playing the blackmail card once more...
at first, "no BTC sent till shareholders give back what they owe" blah blah...
now, "no assets till users return the btc sent by occasion of my Nth clusterfuck"

for your and my amusement, what would be a good term in Newspeak to describe Nef?

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: muyuu on October 24, 2012, 03:52:56 AM

Still no information at all on my assets at GLBSE.

The information wants to be freeeeee.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Still no information at all on my assets at GLBSE.

mc_lovin

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

www.bitcointrading.com

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:25:30 PM

Just got off the phone with James, he said he's not going to be producing trading history for anyone. As for releasing shareholder data, he said that he's asking for the extra coins his script sent out to be returned, and it looks like he won't be releasing shareholder data to issuers until that happens. He said about 3/4 of the extra coins have been returned.

Oh man, professionalism at it's best.

caveden

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1004

Quote from: bitfair on October 23, 2012, 02:35:39 PM

3/4 of the extra coins have been returned? That's the first time I've been impressed by the honesty and integrity of this crowd! Wink

Dishonesty and corruption make much more noise and "news" than honesty and integrity, despite being minoritary.

matauc12

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

so if I understand your post correctly garr, he is using the assetholders info has "leverage" to get the money from mis-distrubuted funds? Or I am misinterpreting?

But honestly, who really cares about history though? (If assets info is given of course)

HorseRider

donator

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1001

He's astonishingly naive if he thinks that pissed off users who now believe that they're going to be forced to take a loss aren't going to file complaints with regulatory authoritie

+1

bitfair

sr. member

Activity: 362

Merit: 250

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:25:30 PM

Just got off the phone with James, he said he's not going to be producing trading history for anyone. As for releasing shareholder data, he said that he's asking for the extra coins his script sent out to be returned, and it looks like he won't be releasing shareholder data to issuers until that happens. He said about 3/4 of the extra coins have been returned.

3/4 of the extra coins have been returned? That's the first time I've been impressed by the honesty and integrity of this crowd! Wink

Well done, everyone!

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:25:30 PM

Just got off the phone with James, he said he's not going to be producing trading history for anyone. As for releasing shareholder data, he said that he's asking for the extra coins his script sent out to be returned, and it looks like he won't be releasing shareholder data to issuers until that happens. He said about 3/4 of the extra coins have been returned.

Jesus wept. Clean shut-down my ass. I kind of doubt that his lawyer has approved this particular plan of action. If he doesn't give people their trading histories, he's leaving himself wide open to being reported to the tax authorities. Whether or not people were actually planning on declaring their income from GLBSE activity, they can claim that they were and that they now can't obtain the information to report accurately. He's astonishingly naive if he thinks that pissed off users who now believe that they're going to be forced to take a loss aren't going to file complaints with regulatory authorities.

Garr255

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

What's a GPU?

Quote from: Garr255 on October 23, 2012, 02:25:30 PM

Just got off the phone with James, he said he's not going to be producing trading history for anyone. As for releasing shareholder data, he said that he's asking for the extra coins his script sent out to be returned, and it looks like he won't be releasing shareholder data to issuers until that happens. He said about 3/4 of the extra coins have been returned.

deeplink

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

In cryptography we trust

Quote from: matauc12 on October 23, 2012, 03:15:17 AM

Quote from: deeplink on October 23, 2012, 02:03:27 AM

Quote from: matauc12 on October 22, 2012, 07:50:19 PM

Quote from: hazek on October 22, 2012, 06:11:18 PM

Quote from: matauc12 on October 22, 2012, 05:09:19 PM

He felt the need to close

Except, as it was organized, it wasn't his to close.

If he did the right thing he would have gone to jail and took responsibility for his actions that he alone was responsible for and whould have gotten his legal advance on his own dime before taking anyone's money. But no, he decided to make the "company" legit, not something any of the other owners agreed to, decided to take the company's money to pay for his own personal legal advice and decided to save his own ass at the expense of all the shareholders' stake and their privacy and at the expensive all his users' privacy.

A scammer is to mild of tag for scum like that.

So... nice rational... its not his choice to close, but it would be him to take the full responsibility? Make someone 100% liable but with 10% of the voice?

"No one agreed to make the company legit"... where are you taking this from? Bit coin.me said in another thread he was happy and would have like to see it being legit.

Basically you are saying... everyone were happy to have an enabling platform, shareholders were consciously owners of an illegal company, but nefario is the only one who should be liable.

If you ever plan to go into business with someone, let them know upfront you want all the benefits with no liability, that might change their idea of going in partnership with you.

Basically you have to choose, it was his choice to close or everyone is equally liable, you simply cannot have it both ways.

You can have it both ways in this case. GLBSE was a general partnership and not a company with limited liability.

You have to seperate moral and legal responsibility. I agree that some shareholders hold more moral responsibility than others, but legally they are all in it together. All partners have full responsibility for the actions of the company and none of them have the right to decide on their own to close the company. Nefario did that anyway, which is why he got the scammer tag. But that does not change that all other partners are still fully responsible for their company including debt. Customers are concerned due to shown incompetence, lack of communication and a lack of balls from all partners to publicly accept their legal responsibility. How they handle this internally should not be their customers concern.

The fact that today the general consensus seems to be that GLBSE was illegal is mere speculation and irrelevant.

you start with disagreeing and the rest of your post supports mine.... thanks though

I didn't know. But hey if we agree, great.

matauc12

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on October 23, 2012, 12:56:15 AM

Quote from: matauc12 on October 22, 2012, 10:17:27 PM

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on October 22, 2012, 09:57:44 PM

Quote from: matauc12 on October 22, 2012, 09:49:13 PM

Just to clarify my stance.

What I see is someone who did a project with no illegitimate intentions that grew to a point that made him the vessel of a illegal operation despite his intentions. He decided to pull off to not be part of an illegal scheme. That is a good moral decision in general. It is indeed sad to see it affect others, but he is currently condonned despite him.

It's pretty much like being mad at your drug dealer because he decided to get his life straight and won't be able to supply you anymore. Expect, the drug dealer actually knew what he was getting into.

Sure, some damage is done, and we still don't know to which extent. But anyone condonning a move that someone did to get them self out of a illegal position is just greedy and de facto has a much lower moral compass than him.

You have no understanding of the situation imo.

You mean I don't believe every speculations and stories biased by anger and every other accusations that has less grounds than the other? You are right.

If you mean the actual facts where an illegal entity was shutdown by the CEO regardless of shareholders consent or not and that he showed willingness and steps to settle with affected parties. I think I do. Oh and by the way, those are pretty much the extent of the facts.

He shut it down simply because of paranoia. There is no evidence at all for anything else.

I don't even understand why you quoted my post, I took special care not to be speculative about the reasons he shut down because IT DOESNT MATTER. Fight or flight is one of our primary instincts and no matter the reason, he felt the moral thing to do was to close, and he did.

matauc12

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: deeplink on October 23, 2012, 02:03:27 AM

Quote from: matauc12 on October 22, 2012, 07:50:19 PM

Quote from: hazek on October 22, 2012, 06:11:18 PM

Quote from: matauc12 on October 22, 2012, 05:09:19 PM

He felt the need to close

Except, as it was organized, it wasn't his to close.

If he did the right thing he would have gone to jail and took responsibility for his actions that he alone was responsible for and whould have gotten his legal advance on his own dime before taking anyone's money. But no, he decided to make the "company" legit, not something any of the other owners agreed to, decided to take the company's money to pay for his own personal legal advice and decided to save his own ass at the expense of all the shareholders' stake and their privacy and at the expensive all his users' privacy.

A scammer is to mild of tag for scum like that.

So... nice rational... its not his choice to close, but it would be him to take the full responsibility? Make someone 100% liable but with 10% of the voice?

"No one agreed to make the company legit"... where are you taking this from? Bit coin.me said in another thread he was happy and would have like to see it being legit.

Basically you are saying... everyone were happy to have an enabling platform, shareholders were consciously owners of an illegal company, but nefario is the only one who should be liable.

If you ever plan to go into business with someone, let them know upfront you want all the benefits with no liability, that might change their idea of going in partnership with you.

Basically you have to choose, it was his choice to close or everyone is equally liable, you simply cannot have it both ways.

You can have it both ways in this case. GLBSE was a general partnership and not a company with limited liability.

You have to seperate moral and legal responsibility. I agree that some shareholders hold more moral responsibility than others, but legally they are all in it together. All partners have full responsibility for the actions of the company and none of them have the right to decide on their own to close the company. Nefario did that anyway, which is why he got the scammer tag. But that does not change that all other partners are still fully responsible for their company including debt. Customers are concerned due to shown incompetence, lack of communication and a lack of balls from all partners to publicly accept their legal responsibility. How they handle this internally should not be their customers concern.

The fact that today the general consensus seems to be that GLBSE was illegal is mere speculation and irrelevant.

you start with disagreeing and the rest of your post supports mine.... thanks though

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

The "convenient" thing, from a customer perspective, is that each partner is liable for all shortfalls. If you are in the same jurisdiction as any of the partners, precisely because they are general partners and not limited partners, you can seek to reclaim damages from those partners. So if you live in the republic of theymos or bitcoin.meland, you do in fact have legal recourse. Assuming...bitcoin.

Sort of. One of the "convenient" things about joint and several liability is that it allows you to go after the person with the greatest capacity to pay but that mightn't be the partner who lives in your particular jurisdiction. Additionally, some low cost legal options have quite rigid criteria for small claims and pursuing a claim through the actual court system rather than small claims tribunals can be prohibitively expensive even if you live in the same jurisdiction as the partner with the deepest pockets.

deeplink

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

In cryptography we trust

Quote from: Yolocoin on October 23, 2012, 02:32:20 AM

Quote from: deeplink on October 23, 2012, 02:23:32 AM

Quote from: Yolocoin on October 23, 2012, 02:20:01 AM

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Irrelevant and speculation. First focus on responsibility of the owners towards their customers.

Under what law, enforced by what government?

Responsibility of the owners of a general partnership towards their customers? Under any law in any jurisdiction. As reeses said, most convenient for a customer would be if he were in the same jurisdiction as one of the partners.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: Yolocoin on October 23, 2012, 02:32:20 AM

Quote from: deeplink on October 23, 2012, 02:23:32 AM

Quote from: Yolocoin on October 23, 2012, 02:20:01 AM

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Irrelevant and speculation. First focus on responsibility of the owners towards their customers.

Under what law, enforced by what government?

If you and I were stranded on a desert island, with no laws enforced by no government, I would still have the right to take back my food by force if you stole it from me. If there is no law to enforce and no government to enforce it, then there is no loss of one's natural right to self-defense. It is only when there is a functional justice system that we are willing to give up our right to non-emergency self-defense of our lives and property.

Where do you think a government gets the right to make and enforce laws?

Yolocoin

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: deeplink on October 23, 2012, 02:23:32 AM

Quote from: Yolocoin on October 23, 2012, 02:20:01 AM

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Irrelevant and speculation. First focus on responsibility of the owners towards their customers.

Under what law, enforced by what government?

deeplink

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

In cryptography we trust

Quote from: repentance on October 23, 2012, 01:13:06 AM

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on October 23, 2012, 12:56:15 AM

He shut it down simply because of paranoia. There is no evidence at all for anything else.

He's obviously not communicating with users and asset issuers, but is he communicating with the other shareholders at all? At the very least there should be another shareholders' meeting scheduled to discuss the progress of the shut-down and address the accounting issues involved in winding up GLBSE.

That would be the right thing to do. But I am not holding my breath.

deeplink

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

In cryptography we trust

Quote from: Yolocoin on October 23, 2012, 02:20:01 AM

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Irrelevant and speculation. First focus on responsibility of the owners towards their customers.

Yolocoin

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Topic: Nefario - page 31. (Read 198705 times)