Topic: Nefario - page 74. (Read 198716 times)

Regarding the 800BTC you hold. When he really still would hold 8000BTC why should he need the 800BTC? Didnt he want them for lawyer cost? And doesnt this imply that he doesnt even has 800BTC to pay the lawyer?
Or you think he only want them to put them into his new project?

Others say you should send it to ColdHardMetal and not to nefario. Whats correct?

So you mean 4-5 shareholders have the password and 2-3 would make a backup? That would be cool if it happens because then it doesnt all depend on nefario. In case he runs crazy we would have still the list of assets owned by what person. Even better 2 shareholders independently downloaded the datebase so that not one shareholder could manipulate it and we could compare.
So if possible i would try this. Just in case.

On the other hand nefario probably had changed password already in his "all turns around me" behaviour lately.


And is that correct then theymos? Or dont you think its the correct address? I mean its not hard to guess who are the shareholder in the thread and i dont see your actions here as if you want to scam. But hearing that usermoney isnt sent while you could do probably could be a bit worrying for persons that hold money at glbse.

He HAS sent you an address. You were sent it not long after announcing you were selling your shares. (1st october) but refused to do so.

I don't think you can draft legally valid by-laws which prohibit an entity being shut down by its operators without creating perpetual trusts (and many jurisdictions don't allow the creation of perpetual trusts).  The foundation documents usually state what is to happen to any assets of an entity in the event it is ceases operating (in for profit enterprises, any excess is usually distributed to the shareholders after all required payments have been made - in non-profits, any excess is usually donated to another non-profit with similar objectives).  By-laws are only valid to the extent that they don't conflict with the actual law, though.

Exactly. Theymos is an anonymous shareholder in an illegal venture. Nefario is fully doxed, the one running the thing and potentially ending up in jail for it. For Theymos to say Nefario should just keep running it to earn cons for him,  while not wanting to expose himself to the legal repercussions  is.. not very fair to put it mildly. Bylaws can never supersede laws and any contract to the contrary is by definition null and void. The whole shareholder contract most likely has no legal value either.

all the drama? 

The issue seems to be that keeping GLBSE operating is breaking the "real world" law. What choice is there if GLBSE cannot continue to operate.

Actually he was asked to send the coins to CHM before the meeting, when he said he was going to sell his shares.

He refused because he wanted to hand them over to the new guy who bought his shares or whoever took over his position.

I believe Theymos said that shutting down GLBSE was against the bylaws.  If so, then it would be ridiculous to claim he was breaking the bylaws by not sending the funds - when he knew that if he sent them they were going to be USED as part of breaking the bylaws.

It would be totally hypocritical for nefario to break the bylaws himself then whine about someone else doing it.

Beginning? What made you think any differently in the first place?

I missed that previously, thanks.

Nefario wont be handling repayment. the company secretary will be. Theymos needs to send all; funds to CHM or hes breaking the bylaws and a voted on and passed motion.

I would be happy to see the funds returned to Nefario. Theymos is a anonymous entity to me. There is no evidence that nefario is doing anything malicious with the funds he holds. Nefario has had plenty of opportunity to cut and run with the funds and he has not. He returned funds to goat which he could have misappropriated. Even Theymos has know confirmed that Nefario is simply tying to follow the spirit of the laws surrounding GLBSE. This is not a bad thing, following the spirit of the law shows honesty not dishonesty.

I also agree with the suggestion above that nefario can begin repayment with the funds he has and Theymos could return the funds he holds when this has happened. This could be tracked on the forum by people willing to disclose this.


Edit:I missed this too.

What puzzles me slightly is the basis on which nefario could request personal information.

In general, UK companies are NOT required by law to obtain information identifying their customers.  We can walk into a shop and buy something without ever telling our name - let alone proving our identity.  And the same is true for many other services.

The largest exception to this is Regulated Financial Service Providers - they DO have a requirement to obtain proof of identity (and also various KYC/AML obligations - though most of those are not statutory in nature).  But GLBSE is NOT regulated.  IF nefario's argument is that GLBSE SHOULD have been regulated then asking for proof of ID now is:

a) Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
b) An admission of guilt.

On the first point, the whole issue is that we AREN'T gonna be his customers.  As he isn't regulated so has no regulatory obligations he would be constrained by the Data Protection Act's requirement not to keep personal data for longer than was needed.

On the second point, not having requested our identities is pretty trivial compared to his other offences IF he is claiming he has been running a Financial service that should have been regulated but wasn't.  It's like robbing a bank and handing out ear-mufflers to everyone in there as you're worried you might otherwise be breaking Health and Safety regulations if you discharge a firearm.

As far as KYC/AML obligations are concerned the primary purpose of these (in the context of AML) is to identify suspicious transactions.  What suspicious transactions could he conceivably expect to uncover when the only ones which will now be carried out are him refunding our outstanding balances?

Here's the summary of what the data protection act says:

"Data protection – looking after the information you hold

If you hold and process information about your clients, employees or suppliers, you are legally obliged to protect that information. Under the Data Protection Act, you must:

    only collect information that you need for a specific purpose;
    keep it secure;
    ensure it is relevant and up to date;
    only hold as much as you need, and only for as long as you need it; and
    allow the subject of the information to see it on request."

So what specific purpose does he need this information for?  If he's claiming a regulatory need than how (and by whom) is he claiming GLBSE is regulated?

How long is he claiming he'd need if for?  

What need does he have for it after our BTC have been returned?  If none, then on what basis does he plan to continue holding that information?  If he doesn't plan to keep holding that information then where is the need?  Or is he planning to issue everyone with personal cheques (where he WOULD need identity information)?

What is he planning to do that causes that need now, when no such need existed for prior withdrawals?

"I'd like it to have something to hand over if I'm investigated" isn't a need - nor is it a valid reason to hold personal information under the DPA, as it isn't necessary to conduct the business we have outstanding (withdrawal of BTC).

If you strip out the ability to buy and sell the shares and simply pay dividends it would be better.

Kickstarter doesnt pay dividends though.

No people are missing an important part.


Neither Theymos OR Nefario are going to control any coins. They will send them to ColdHardMetal who will disperse the coins.

The shareholders passed a motion for CHM to do this and Theymos is refusing. Waiting for Nefario to send CHM the company funds to get the party started.

This was a strange version of a stock exchange anyway. I'd like to see more of a Kickstarter style method to aggregate Bitcoin value. Is there any such project? I think Kickstarter has successfully avoided SEC scrutiny by not exchanging "ownership" or "selling shares."

Guys, make some public noise here if you wanna see Theymos make the motion.

thanks. this makes things a lot clearer.

I see no reason why he should demand that you turn these funds over immediately, as it appears he is doing:


He will begin returning funds when he receives the ~800 BTC that you hold, while he has 4000-8000 BTC on hand?  Riiight.

By all means, please try and make a motion to keep these funds under your control.  Let's see him start actually returning some customer BTC before considering turning them over.

If you read it carefully, it actually does not contradict.  All that is said above about bitcoins on glbse.com is that we will be able to get them back.  Nothing else.