Topic: Nefario - page 62. (Read 198678 times)

Your sarcasm is misdirected.  Slavery is always immoral, as is ripping people off with a stock market full of scammy products.  Both of these things are currently not legal.  You have no moral necessity to honor a slave contract regardless of the legal status.  What Bad Bear is arguing is upholding the slave contract is the paramount moral concern because an agreement is an agreement.   

Yeah!  The blacks should have stayed enslaved because IT WAS THE LAW!  The Jews should have danced onto those trains because IT WAS THE LAW!  George Washington should have paid his taxes to the crown because IT WAS THE LAW!

There is no morality, there is only THE LAW!

Another thing for sure, this is the fastest anyone has ever seen the GLBSE site load. 

One thing is sure... nefarios public relations are horrible in this case and is hurting him more than necessary. And thats stupid.

That would make it hearsay, and certainly no one has indicated that he has been contacted or pressured by any legal authority.  It also doesn't differ much from the Nefario that thought he was breaking the laws since the very inception of GLBSE and represented to his users that he intended to provide this service in spite of that.

I would like to hear from Nefario rather than speculate about what his rationale was.  To defend his actions based on an assumption that he was compelled when we have no indication that he was is just adding more untruth on top of the uncertainty that already exists.

He had no fiat currency, only bitcoins I believe, so that would make any laws invalid.

I believe some people have already stated here that he was breaking laws.


Perhaps, but then the same verdict should have been applied when MtGox did similar things with their users. Multiple times MtGox clients had their money hold ransom, to only be liberated after the user provided identification. And at the time, their ToS didn't state that such thing could happen.
But anyway, BadBear stated that this was not the reason for the tag.
[/list]

He always spoke of his contingency plans and that there were other people with all the information to take over if he was hit by a bus.

So why is nobody contacting me?

I can't think of any compelling excuse to this kind of course of action.

I can't know for sure, but that's not what he seems to be telling people by phone.
And according to some people more versed in state laws than me posting in this thread, he was violating many of such laws in ways that could result in jail time.
He was likely under threat since the very beginning (these laws themselves are a written threat), he only took too long to actually realize it - not only him, but the other shareholders as well.

Since we have no information nor confirmation that Nefario is being forced by any legal authority or even a law he believes to have applied here, we should not assume this is the case.  I welcome him or anyone with such information to come forward, but lacking that I think we can only rely on what are the few facts we have:

• Nefario engaged in a business he believed to have legal risks, including those cited (though insufficiently verified) as reasons for shutting down GLBSE
• Nefario and the voting members unilaterally decided to end the business (which would be their right)
• Users had no advanced notice of the exchange closing
• Users are unable to access their accounts, funds, and 'securities'
• User funds were to be returned beginning Monday and have not been returned (afaik)

Short of facts surfacing that show Nefario was compelled to act this way, I think most would conclude he has wronged (maybe even scammed) his users.  Pretending those facts exist doesn't really add much to the discussion.

Let's not make excuses for Nefario. He is welcome and able to make them for himself and bring more facts to bear on this topic (and it always bothers me when the key person in these issues remains silent, though it might be in their better legal interest to do so).  Anything we add to that is speculative and will ultimately muddy the truth.

I'm disappointed. You're wrong on your judgment.
You cannot be liable for something you're forced to do.
How is he any more responsible than others who bought GLBSE? If I ask someone "want to buy and share this?", and then the thing is stolen for example, you're claiming that I must reimburse those who accepted to buy it with me?
Unless Nefario shut down GLBSE out of his own spontaneous will, what I find hard to believe, you cannot say he's responsible for it.
 

Are you sure it was entirely due to his voluntary action/inaction?

Honestly, after everything he's done, I believe he deserved the benefit of doubt for at least a couple weeks. There's no need to "quickly tag him", since he's not going to take anyone's money any time soon.

I believe he was feared that the sec will come because his lawyer told him this fear would be appropriate. So he decided to crash glbse and start a new legal project.

But he should have done it way better. I mean who will entrust him money now? It would start slow i presume.

There was no way he was even endanger of going to jail. There is no contact by any of these agencies.

You're not liable for actions you're forced to take. The individual(s) who is(are) threatening you is(are) liable.
So, in this sense, yes, state laws might give you the ethical right to break a valid agreement. It's not really you who's breaking it, it's the state.


How can you be sure that even was an option at that point?
Maybe shutting down GLBSE was his only ticket out of prison. Just resigning might not be enough to the criminals in the SEC/FSA/whatever.

The shareholders knew, Theymos has written on this forum that he wanted to continue the illegal activity.  Nobody is morally required to honor an agreement to break the law.  These laws are in place to protect people from being ripped off, and it is absurd to suggest it is morally necessary to honor an agreement to enable that behavior.  


Theymos advertised shares in the company for sale even as he knew the company was operating outside the law, yet he is being left off the hook.   

Yes.


Sure shareholders should have done their due diligence, but that doesn't let Nefario off the hook. Nefario also has a duty to due diligence since he was the one soliciting investments and selling shares in the company. Nefario harmed others, shareholders only harmed themselves.

I think the point you may be missing is that before closing it down for being "illegal" he should have at least presented share-holders with evidence (e.g. a legal opinion) that it WAS illegal.  It surely can't have been the case that he woke up in the morning, suddenly realised it was illegal and pulled the plug on it.

One person "believing" something is illegal doesn't make it illegal or give them the right to prevent others doing whatever that something is.  If you believe others are doing something illegal and want them to stop them you go to LE - you don't go all vigilante and take things into your own hands.  If you're doing something (with others) and all of a sudden YOU decide it's not legal then YOU stop doing it (and report the others if you're that way inclined).  Do bear in mind this something (running the exchange) is something he's been doing for a while and claiming wasn't going to have problems with the law.

Also remember that even if running it in the UK is illegal, there may be other jurisdictions where it's perfectly fine.  Does he have the right to prevent the other shareholders from moving the business to there?

I'm in no way claiming running GLBSE in the UK was legal.  But if nefario says it wasn't (after ages of saying/acting otherwise) then he owes the other shareholders (not to mention investors) at least a decent explanation of it.  And if his explanation is compelling then I'm sure it's not impossible to remove the tag - all he has to do is explain how his opinion apaprently changed overnight and why there was absolutely no alternative other than an immediate and permanent shut-down.

Laws don't give you the moral right to break an agreement, even if they might give you the legal right.

If Nefario was worried, he should have just resigned.

With major shareholders like Theymos announcing their desire to continue the illegal business, he could not knowingly allow them to continue with that plan.  It would make him a continuing part of the criminal conspiracy.  It doesn't matter that the IRC logs say Theymos was allowed to.   

Did you actually see the contract?

Even regardless of what it says, law always supersedes contractual obligations. If Nefario had to close GLBSE to comply with common law, then tough luck for his shareholders, it was a known business risk, had they done their due diligence and applied common sense, they should have known what they bought would sooner or later become worthless. Maybe they gambled on it being "later" and getting a ROI before then (like, after selling their shares), but it was their risk and at least Theymos can not claim he wasnt aware of it.

So is your argument that Nefario was not legaly obliged to close GLBSE  in its current form, or that he refused to break the law to abide to his shareholder contract?