It is making me a bit uncomfortable that everyone here, supposedly knowledgeable scammer tag-awarding OPs included, are turning assumptions and third party statements into facts without any proof.
Who has proof that Nefario was/is under legal pressure?
Or proof that he is not under real legal pressure but simply chickened out (by chance, with a few thousand BTC in his pocket) when he decided to talk to his lawyer, a looooong time after setting up GLBSE and taking users BTC?
Who can prove or disprove that he knew this all along and found this the right time to shut down?
Topic: Nefario - page 63. (Read 198719 times)
Plus if he unilaterally shut it down without providing a proper reason or considering alternatives (did he he have the option of resigning from the company and returning his shares?) then I'd likely see it as a scam.
That's exactly what he did. He also stated he would refuse to honor a shareholder vote to remove him as CEO. He actively screwed shareholders every way he could.
...
Yeah, well, if you're so smart why did you have your money on GLBSE?
No, really. If you know this much about banking what the hell were you thinking?
1. I had/have a tiny amount on GLBSE.
2. I expected that when problems (inevitably) occurred they'd be more gradual and/or there'd be a chance to withdraw before the shit hit the fan.
3. Risk v reward.
4. I expect to get my funds back anyway.
Theymos has already admitted he would be perusing the argument that the illegal business should continue. Nefario had no obligation to continue to break the law while convincing his compatriots to come clean. In fact he had a responsibility to stop what he was doing when he realized it was not legal.
The scammer choice, the one Theymos chose, was to quickly try and sell out the shares for one last payout before the authorities were involved.
The scammer choice, the one Theymos chose, was to quickly try and sell out the shares for one last payout before the authorities were involved.
It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership
Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.
Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.
I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud
I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.
You are so biased in this matter it is absurd. Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.
I think the argument is that he should have gradually realised there were problems with running the business - and discusssed it with the shareholders, rather than suddenly shutting it down out of the blue. To me THAT looks far more like naivety, denial and ignorance rather than malice - so I'm not seeing the term "scammer" as appropriate (for just that). But if he, at any point, intentionally lied to shareholders then that all changes.
Plus if he unilaterally shut it down without providing a proper reason or considering alternatives (did he he have the option of resigning from the company and returning his shares?) then I'd likely see it as a scam. Just because he got bored/scared of it doesn't mean he gets to take the ball away from everyone else. If he was instructed to close it by LE then that's different - but so far I've seen no claim of that.
It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership
Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.
Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.
I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud
I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.
You are so biased in this matter it is absurd. Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.
Why would Nefario knowingly open an illegal business then take investors money and then say "Oh sorry im scared of regulation and AML" then proceed to close it ?
You are so biased in this matter it is absurd. Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.
He wasn't so worried about his obligation to the law when he opened the business and took investors money.
It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership
Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.
Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.
I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud
I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.
You are so biased in this matter it is absurd. Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.
I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.
Based on that, wouldnt you have to hand out scammer tags to all asset issuers that dont reimburse their investors in full? If Nefario had to do his due diligence before accepting investor money, then why not asset issuers?
Also, I think a point can be made that GLBSE closing down due to legal pressure was a business risk that investors should have been aware off. It might have been different if Nefario knew it was illegal and his investors were somehow misled to believe the opposite, but if anything, it seems the opposite, and Nefario thought it was legal, whereas Theymos wanted and still wants it to be an illegal black market. Before passing judgment, I would like to see what the shareholder agreement said about that.
Have to toally agree with that.
If nefario gets a scammer tag for selling a non-viable business proposition (which seems to be the claim) then any other asset issuer who sold a non-viable business proposition should also get a scammer tag. I find it "interesting" that apparently incompetence/ignorance is sufficent for a tag - without any need for intent to defraud.
I don't actually object to that in theory - I DO believe anyone incompent/ignorant should be banned from running a company here. But there's a heck of a lot of tags that need to be handed out - and it should either be renamed to "Scammer/Idiot" or two seperate tags used to differentiate between the idiots and the thieves (a few people should get both).
I don't think Nefario deserves a scammer tag based on what has happened to GLBSE.
To my mind scammer is a person that had an intention to defraud somebody.
If a person acts "inappropriately" under a threat of jail or violence, s/he is not a scammer, s/he is a victim.
To my mind scammer is a person that had an intention to defraud somebody.
If a person acts "inappropriately" under a threat of jail or violence, s/he is not a scammer, s/he is a victim.
It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership
Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.
Was there a reason he took action without consulting to shareholders? If not, then it equates to withholding information. What if there was an alternative solution? I can imagine several ways this could be handled seamlessly and with less harm to GLBSE shareholders. It really doesn't matter, since the obligation to shareholders wasn't met.
He acted without any consent on multiple occasions. For instance the goat delisting was arbitrary and so was the speaking to a lawyer and ultimately shutting glbse down. So were the Kluge Kronos.io actions.
Or do you really expect that my shares, once (if ever) returned, hold anywhere the original value, and that Nefario didn't know that? If you have to answer No here that should be enough reason for the scammer tag.
Why should the shares have a lower value? They cant be traded anymore so the value is the same as it was as the market closed. The businesses still exist and as long as the dividends arent going down the value of the shares arent going down even for you. Except you want to sell them for cheap now. I would buy asicminershares for 0.088 if you have some. Unfortunately i dont have much btc at the moment and had to pay with sepa. So i dont see why the shares should be worth less now.
And by saying that you can see that i dont see why nefario wouldnt give out the stats. The shares arent of any worth for him. He can give them out for free. And even when he goes scam he could blackmail the owners to give out the stats. So he earns a bit. Otherwise the stats would be worth nothing to him. So i dont fear.
It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership
Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.
Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.
I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud
I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.
It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership
Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.
Was there a reason he took action without consulting to shareholders? If not, then it equates to withholding information. What if there was an alternative solution? I can imagine several ways this could be handled seamlessly and with less harm to GLBSE shareholders. It really doesn't matter, since the obligation to shareholders wasn't met.
It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership
Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.
Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.
I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud
I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.
Based on that, wouldnt you have to hand out scammer tags to all asset issuers that dont reimburse their investors in full? If Nefario had to do his due diligence before accepting investor money, then why not asset issuers?
Also, I think a point can be made that GLBSE closing down due to legal pressure was a business risk that investors should have been aware off. It might have been different if Nefario knew it was illegal and his investors were somehow misled to believe the opposite, but if anything, it seems the opposite, and Nefario thought it was legal, whereas Theymos wanted and still wants it to be an illegal black market. Before passing judgment, I would like to see what the shareholder agreement said about that.
The first version of glbse was called "black market".
...
Yeah, well, if you're so smart why did you have your money on GLBSE?
No, really. If you know this much about banking what the hell were you thinking?
I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.
Based on that, wouldnt you have to hand out scammer tags to all asset issuers that dont reimburse their investors in full? If Nefario had to do his due diligence before accepting investor money, then why not asset issuers?
Of course.
Quote
Also, I think a point can be made that GLBSE closing down due to legal pressure was a business risk that investors should have been aware off. It might have been different if Nefario knew it was illegal and his investors were somehow misled to believe the opposite, but if anything, it seems the opposite, and Nefario thought it was legal, whereas Theymos wanted and still wants it to be an illegal black market. Before passing judgment, I would like to see what the shareholder agreement said about that.
It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership and made promises he couldn't or wouldn't keep. Investors being aware or not doesn't let him off the hook, he's still ultimately responsible. If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.
Okay I'd like to correct some misinformation some people are spreading about the scammer tag.
I did not give Nefario a scammer tag because he shut down the service and hasn't returned the bitcoins yet, it's only been a few days. I don't think he's going to cut and run, I do expect he'll pay everything back. That doesn't have anything to do with it.
I did not give him the tag because of the way he's handling the assets, we don't even know how he's handling it yet. Keep in mind I did not give him a scammer tag for the way he handled Goats assets, so it's highly unlikely I would have given him one for his handling of other assets.
I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.
If he's being forced by other parties to shut down the service because it's illegal, he's still the one who decided to open the service and he's still ultimately responsible for that. He caused financial loss to his investors by not doing his due diligence beforehand to make sure he would be able to keep his agreement.
Investors should have done their due diligence as well, but the buck doesn't stop there, and that doesn't let Nefario off the hook.
He made an agreement, he didn't/couldn't keep it (entirely due to his own action/inaction), he got the tag.
I did not give Nefario a scammer tag because he shut down the service and hasn't returned the bitcoins yet, it's only been a few days. I don't think he's going to cut and run, I do expect he'll pay everything back. That doesn't have anything to do with it.
I did not give him the tag because of the way he's handling the assets, we don't even know how he's handling it yet. Keep in mind I did not give him a scammer tag for the way he handled Goats assets, so it's highly unlikely I would have given him one for his handling of other assets.
I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.
If he's being forced by other parties to shut down the service because it's illegal, he's still the one who decided to open the service and he's still ultimately responsible for that. He caused financial loss to his investors by not doing his due diligence beforehand to make sure he would be able to keep his agreement.
Investors should have done their due diligence as well, but the buck doesn't stop there, and that doesn't let Nefario off the hook.
He made an agreement, he didn't/couldn't keep it (entirely due to his own action/inaction), he got the tag.
OK. But I would say as a GLBSE customer the same applies. If there is no way to provide this market legally, that still is Nefario's problem as the one person starting and running GLBSE, and I see customers defrauded as well by first taking their money, then closing down.
Or do you really expect that my shares, once (if ever) returned, hold anywhere the original value, and that Nefario didn't know that? If you have to answer No here that should be enough reason for the scammer tag.
I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.
Based on that, wouldnt you have to hand out scammer tags to all asset issuers that dont reimburse their investors in full? If Nefario had to do his due diligence before accepting investor money, then why not asset issuers?
Also, I think a point can be made that GLBSE closing down due to legal pressure was a business risk that investors should have been aware off. It might have been different if Nefario knew it was illegal and his investors were somehow misled to believe the opposite, but if anything, it seems the opposite, and Nefario thought it was legal, whereas Theymos wanted and still wants it to be an illegal black market. Before passing judgment, I would like to see what the shareholder agreement said about that.
Jump to: