Topic: Nefario - page 35. (Read 198713 times)

The 1st thing came to my mind after reading...


...was - Heh, looks like Nefario wish to launch GLBSE #2 but with 100% shares in his pocket. All that he needs is just to find other names for the exchange and for himself.

PS: I might be wrong, but it would be quite a good idea to get rid of all other shareholders if I earned enough money and decided to register the exchange officially...

what happened with those 2 or so people who said they deposited the 8btc like moments before it all shut down ?
Didnt one person claim the site was shutdown, then reopened so they could send the 8btc then shut down again ?

No, I'm not convinced.  That's why I want to know whether the shareholders checked out his claim to have consulted the lawyer.  If he was consulting the lawyer on behalf of GLBSE, as he claims, then the partners are entitled to the same legal advice Nefario received (they are, after all, as liable as he is for the activities of GLBSE).  There would be a significant ethical problem with a lawyer telling Nefario not to inform the partners of the advice he was given if he was consulting that lawyer on behalf of GLBSE rather than as an individual (in which case GLBSE should not be expected to pay for the lawyer). 

It's absolutely possible for the lawyer to provide a written legal opinion advising the other partners to cease operating GLBSE immediately without revealing whether or not there is an active government investigation of GLBSE.  AML regulations do not restrict attorney/client privilege, so I'm not buying that if GLBSE is the lawyer's client the lawyer cannot inform the other partners of GLBSE of any investigation which is currently active (he may even have a positive obligation to do so).  Either Nefario is lying about having consulted a lawyer or - and I consider this more likely - he's lying about having consulted a lawyer on behalf of GLBSE and has consulted that lawyer as an individual (and should therefore pay the bill himself).

shareholder#3 sounds like a pussy

just saying is all

Did any of the shareholders actually phone the lawyer Nefario claimed is advising him?

pastebin tl;dr: I used to pretend I had balls but the truth is I don't even have one ball, much less two. - Nefario 2012

Compare his talk on the pastebin with this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4iPCpmv678
Remember it was only 1 month ago lol

Are you really surprised, or is that rhetorical?

I read about half way through and all I can say is

"pikers"

Sorry guys... buy my college dorm meetings were were more effective then what ever that chat-fest was....

These are the kinds of guys with whom we entrust our hundreds and thousands of BTC.

Go figure....

That was pathetic, nefario using that single worded "leet talk" and giving the impression someone was watching all the time what he was about to say. I think this will be a mess in a few weeks, if it isn't already with all that has happened.

That's really strange. Especially the arguing in the first third.

[joke]The only conclusion that would made sense to that behaviour would be that Nefario was threaten with violence to close GLBSE.

MPOE I'm looking at you[/joke]

I've decided to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. I've removed IP addresses and the names of the shareholders that haven't been outed yet. Except for da2ce7, because he supported Nefario right from the beginning. With those exceptions, nothing else was changed.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

I've yet to get an email from GLBSE since the closure. I haven't been able to reach James for the last few days either.

Have any asset issuers been in contact with Nefario to get a list of their investors?  I'm much more concerned about the securities I had on GLBSE than the bitcoins in my account (which were near zero and Nefario did not return when closing my account...not a big deal for me).

thou shall not simplify

maybe the majority of trading volume in last months of glbse were pirate pass through contracts it was not always like that.
the perpetual mining bonds and other mining 'companies' were traded most, at least during first half of the year.

It was basically all pirate related income.

greyhawk... even when tax are going away... thats not the thing to decide on a salary. I mean i cant imagine that glbse at least earned so much money each month. And nef should get this money and the rest of it is then spread under the shareholders?
Maybe i underestimate the income of glbse... but this sounds like a bad decision.

Ok theymos... so glbse  really earned enough money for that. i wonder from where. The only income was the fee for opening an security and the tradingfee that is small. I still cant imagine where the money came from.

Hearing that i wonder who would ever be a shareholder in one of nefs projects? I wont.

That's a shareholder motion, not a contract with Nefario.


He has about 25% of shares, so it wasn't too difficult for him to pass crazy motions like that.

He was actually originally asking for many more shares plus a monthly salary. I and a few others convinced him to accept just a slightly larger salary than what he was asking for and no extra shares. GLBSE was running pretty smoothly at the time, so while I thought this was a bad move, I didn't argue too hard against it.

I doubt he paid taxes on it.

Well, this is Europe, so about half of that would have instantly vanished into taxes and rent/health insurance and stuff. So you'd end up with not quite enough to live comfortably. At least I wouldn't be able to live comfortably with that. But then again I'm spoiled.















Hahahahahaha, that was pretty funny, that part were I was talking about coiners paying taxes and stuff.

It seemed to be running OK during normal mode  (goat situation aside).  It's just this shut-down that is fubar.