Topic: Nefario GLBSE - page 2. (Read 28552 times)
I think accepting fees for a service he was knowingly going to close down a couple days later makes him no better than any other scammer who simply accepts payment and does not deliver.
I think the part that makes him a scammer is not listening to the board, he said he would not hand over the company. He should still have to listen to them if there is a legal matter or not.
This isnt about money laundering. GLBSE assets are unregistered securities, and a such selling them is illegal - at least in the US. Securities dont have to be nominated in are traded for fiat. They only need to represent value/debt.
The GLBSE deals entirely in bitcoins it is a closed system in that respect. Therefore if the government want to claim money laundering, they can indeed, BUT not until they classify bitcoins as a form of money of which they must then accept as payment of tax.
Is that true? Does the US government take Euro's (or any other fiat currency) for payment of taxes? I was under the assumption that the use of US Dollars was mandatory.
Well it is legislated that you must file tax's whilst earning in foreign countries so yes they do accept euros for payment of tax's, you just file out your 1040's(i think?) slightly differently, this is because it is an international banking cartel, it doesnt care much for any particular country.
The GLBSE is no diffrent from trade within a virtual game it is a closed system, if its money laundering then the government cant have it both ways, bitcoins must be considered money and acceptable as payment for tax's which of course would be immensely positive thing for bitcoins.
The GLBSE deals entirely in bitcoins it is a closed system in that respect. Therefore if the government want to claim money laundering, they can indeed, BUT not until they classify bitcoins as a form of money of which they must then accept as payment of tax.
On a side note does anyone have contact details in order to get our shareholder details so we contact the issuers.
What is the email for contacting glbse.
On a side note does anyone have contact details in order to get our shareholder details so we contact the issuers.
What is the email for contacting glbse.
What makes you think he is burning that list?
As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.
As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.
To clarify my standpoint.
Scamming has to do with ethics.
ethics != law (sometimes it is sometimes it is not)
/GoK
Either way, I dont think you can argue someone would have to break the law to avoid being labeled a scammer. If Nefario does what he (legally) can do to return the assets and bitcoins to their owners, then I fail to see a reason to label him a scammer. Theymos should know better than that, it seems he is just pissed his investment didnt pan out. Tough luck for him, he should have done his own due diligence about the legality of running a security exchange.
Not quite if Thaymos says the thrus here about GLBSE funds the Nefario is indeed a scammer.
GLBSE user funds are more or less safe, but I have bad news from the GLBSE shareholder meeting.
Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.
He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.
I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.
Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.
Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.
- The BitcoinGlobal bylaws state that BitcoinGlobal's purpose is to operate GLBSE. By shutting down GLBSE without amending the bylaws, Nefario has violated the bylaws.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.
- He is knowingly making BitcoinGlobal shares worthless, violating his fiduciary duty.
- He is refusing to release my GLBSE balance without my ID, which I did not agree to.
Since my GLBSE shares are now worthless, it should be obvious that I had no knowledge of this before now.
I urge everyone to never work with Nefario again. A Bitcoin stock exchange is a good idea, though. I hope that someone will create something better than GLBSE and MPEx.
Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.
He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.
I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.
Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.
Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.
- The BitcoinGlobal bylaws state that BitcoinGlobal's purpose is to operate GLBSE. By shutting down GLBSE without amending the bylaws, Nefario has violated the bylaws.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.
- He is knowingly making BitcoinGlobal shares worthless, violating his fiduciary duty.
- He is refusing to release my GLBSE balance without my ID, which I did not agree to.
Since my GLBSE shares are now worthless, it should be obvious that I had no knowledge of this before now.
I urge everyone to never work with Nefario again. A Bitcoin stock exchange is a good idea, though. I hope that someone will create something better than GLBSE and MPEx.
What makes you think he is burning that list?
As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.
As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.
To clarify my standpoint.
Scamming has to do with ethics.
ethics != law (sometimes it is sometimes it is not)
/GoK
Either way, I dont think you can argue someone would have to break the law to avoid being labeled a scammer. If Nefario does what he (legally) can do to return the assets and bitcoins to their owners, then I fail to see a reason to label him a scammer. Theymos should know better than that, it seems he is just pissed his investment didnt pan out. Tough luck for him, he should have done his own due diligence about the legality of running a security exchange.
Labeling him as scammer now, when he is presumably forced to close down by legal authorities or on advice of his legal counsel, is hypocritical, particularly when these cries come from people who would prefer Nefario to continue operating it illegally.
Of course it's hypocritical, but there's no shortage of people around here who are happy to tolerate legal ambiguity or outright illegality as long as it's benefiting them financially. When they lose money in those same schemes (which are always at risk of being shut down suddenly and forcibly even if they're not outright scams), they want to find a scapegoat and portray themselves as victims.
What makes you think he is burning that list?
As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.
As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.
To clarify my standpoint.
Scamming has to do with ethics.
ethics != law (sometimes it is sometimes it is not)
/GoK
If he believed those statements (as I think he did); that would make him wrong (and an idiot) but not a scammer. If he made those statements knowing them to be false, it might be different.
Thing is, what GLBSE was doing is most likely illegal, but it has been from the start. Labeling him as scammer now, when he is presumably forced to close down by legal authorities or on advice of his legal counsel, is hypocritical, particularly when these cries come from people who would prefer Nefario to continue operating it illegally.
Thing is, what GLBSE was doing is most likely illegal, but it has been from the start. Labeling him as scammer now, when he is presumably forced to close down by legal authorities or on advice of his legal counsel, is hypocritical, particularly when these cries come from people who would prefer Nefario to continue operating it illegally.
Its ironic that Nefario would be labeled a scammer here for most likely obliging to the law and while presumably not stealing anything from anyone.
An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.
An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.
If people actually relied on his statements about the legality of GBLSE's activity and there was absolutely no basis for him making those statements (because he'd never obtained any legal opinion in respect of GBLSE's activities), then those people may feel that they were "scammed" in the sense of being misled. Only a week ago Nefario was confidently asserting on here that the SEC could not exert any jurisdiction over GLBSE. An investigating authority may well view such statements as being intentionally deceptive.
What makes you think he is burning that list?
As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.
As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.
Its ironic that Nefario would be labeled a scammer here for most likely obliging to the law and while presumably not stealing anything from anyone.
An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.
An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.
It is fully possible to scam people while following the law.
Websters define scam as: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
1. Let ppl invest money in your venture.
2. Buy stuff for the money or make really bad deals (and know that they were bad)
- Maybe take a 1/100 shot at fame and fortune for OPM (Other Peoples Money)
3. Company turns belly up and doesnt pay its creditors. And does so according to the law.
This would in my book be a scam, although its fully legal.
The same goes for handling a exchance (like GLBSE) telling people that it will be operating for a long time.
Charging ppl for listing assets and for selling/buying shares.
Then one day close down shop and burn the lists of who owned what.
/GoK
Its ironic that Nefario would be labeled a scammer here for most likely obliging to the law and while presumably not stealing anything from anyone.
An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.
That's the paradox here. He practically screwed lot of people by obeying the law An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.
Nefario (James McCarthy?) closed the GLBSE and fucked it up for everyone who had made investments.
He was lying in London meeting, how GLBSE can be moved blaa blaa blaa and keep operating no matter what.
Do we really need more proof that this asshole is a scammer and a liar?
He was lying in London meeting, how GLBSE can be moved blaa blaa blaa and keep operating no matter what.
Do we really need more proof that this asshole is a scammer and a liar?
Not scamming. Asset issuers hold most of the bitcoins.
Its ironic that Nefario would be labeled a scammer here for most likely obliging to the law and while presumably not stealing anything from anyone.
An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.
An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.
Nefario (James McCarthy?) closed the GLBSE and fucked it up for everyone who had made investments.
He was lying in London meeting, how GLBSE can be moved blaa blaa blaa and keep operating no matter what.
Do we really need more proof that this asshole is a scammer and a liar?
He was lying in London meeting, how GLBSE can be moved blaa blaa blaa and keep operating no matter what.
Do we really need more proof that this asshole is a scammer and a liar?
Didn't BitcoinINV say that the SEC guy mentioned that it "might be a good idea" to remove funds from "the exchange" (though it was unclear which exchange they were referring to)?
Yes I remember this being said vaguely.
Didn't BitcoinINV say that the SEC guy mentioned that it "might be a good idea" to remove funds from "the exchange" (though it was unclear which exchange they were referring to)?
Disclosure: I invested $0/0BTC with both pirate and GLBSE.
But you did make that stupid fucking 'bet' about BTCUSD being ≥ $11 in 26 days.
How was it stupid? I'm currently in "profit" and still haven't lost a penny like you my friend. I made that bet in July when Bitcoins were $8.50. Please show me how it was "stupid".
Try harder to troll me.
BTW how much did you have invested with PussyAt30?
Edit: How much also did you have invested with GLBSE (Gigantic Lying Bastards Stealing Eggs?)
Not my eggs!
Jump to: