Topic: Nefario GLBSE - page 6. (Read 28552 times)

Tony Hayward?

Whats the result?
Goat got his account & assets back, which was frozen & locked by Nefario?

Joseph Hazelwood

That's ok, you missed the exchange manager entirely.


In some positions stupidity & ignorant conceit = malice pretty much.

You missed aesthetics, ease-of-use, customer service, and personality of exchange manager.

Security Comparison of Bitcoin-Denominated Instruments Exchanges. That is all.

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but if you separate the shariah finance rules from the goofy justifications you often hear for them based on primitive economic myths, they're actually not bad. The prohibition against earning or paying interest gets the most attention and is pretty silly if applied universally to a modern, industrial economy. But it's better than the way most Americans manage their personal finances (and you can pretty easily get around it).

Example of my experience with them: Hey I want to eat at your restaurant! I pay for lets call it parking, then walk inside the restaurant and sit wherever I feel like since no hostess is present. Then I see the servers standing there looking at me so I figure I will be helped soon.1 hour passes. I call over to a manager and get ignored. 2 hours pass. I call over the manager and say, "Hey, where is my server?" and they respond with, "Oh, well you have only been here 2 hours, they will get to you." And my response is, "Just give me back my parking fee, I don't want to do business with a company who puts me off that long. And besides I saw the way you treated your other customers and I didnt like it." Manager says,"I am sorry you feel that way, even though we didn't provide you with any assistance or services that we do offer and then ignored your service requests, the parking fee is not refundable." So I say "Ok, I guess since I already paid your ridiculous fee and you wont work with the customers, can you tell me how to order?" The manager turns and walks away and ignores me further, then stops by about another 2 hours later to say, "You might want to ask that customer over there, he knows how to order." Then takes off again. And that is where the analogy ends since that is as far as I have gotten so far. Anyone see a problem with this scenario?

It meets the legal requirements to be considered a promise. Nefario intended people to rely on his offer -- his specific intent was to fix the problem that people had paid money for a worthless asset by increasing the asset's value. As for it being retracted, you can't retract a promise after someone does what is required to gain its benefit.

But that's really a secondary issue now. As I understand it, Nefario has offered to compensate Goat for the damages he suffered as a result of Nefario's breach. Goat's not entitled to lost unearned profits. Nefario can't keep his promise as he doesn't have the authority to issue GLBSE shares, so all he can do is compensate for the damage he caused. I don't believe for one second Nefario made this offer maliciously or to try to trick anyone. He was trying to do the right thing and just didn't do it very well. (Goat wants to keep his "GLBSE" shares, but Nefario is under no obligation to give Goat his preferred resolution, and I completely understand why that would be something GLBSE would not want.)

However, what he did after that ...

This is everything that's wrong with the community. "I know X is right, but I did Y, and I made some money that time." (I'm not blaming you specifically at all -- it really is the whole community. Somehow, we all know better but we all do worse. And I don't know how we can fix it.)

Actually Joel, I'm not backpedaling at all. I was clarifying the conditions that I sold them under. My laughter is only now, after they have been identified as Fakes, and Goat has been caught up in his own whirlwind of trying to sell them after the phony nature has been established. My sale happened before the defective nature of the asset was discovered.

If anything, I suspect that Goat was accumulating these shares looking to make a pressure play on the GLBSE Actual folks. That is what I was laughing at... that he bought heavily AFTER they were identified as worthless, thinking he could profit from them by splitting hairs.

I don't agree with the premise that Nefario "promised" anything, I think he "offered", and in lieu of a counter-offer was given scorn and abuse. The offer was retracted.

Although I think pretty much anyone investing in the GLBSE world without due diligence and a little bit of research is indeed exhibiting "stupidity". I was guilty of it myself in my gleeful investment in GLBSE Fake at IPO when I thought I was buying into the real thing without even so much as checking where the damn issue was coming from, or if they had a legitimate signed offering. Fortunately for me, by the way I handle these "investments", I dumped them within a very short period of time, and limited my losses. Or gave up the novelty value of owning digital representations of a scam, whichever is today's version of the truth.

Nice backpedaling. But among other things you said "... then I laugh my ass off at your stupidity in investing in something that was clearly and publicly proclaimed to have no value."

This means you sold something that you knew had no value to someone who you had to know must have believed that they had a value -- that's a pretty scummy thing to do in my opinion. Surely as soon as you were aware that something you were offering for sale was fundamentally defective, you had an obligation to ensure it wasn't sold to someone who wasn't similarly aware.

It also means that you think relying on Nefario to keep his word is "stupidity".

On an unrelated note, I basically agree with coinft's point in the post just above this one. Nefario caused an unjustified breach of GLBSE's obligation to preserve the value of listed assets for GLBSE's customers, robbing them of the value of that listing. I believe he totally failed to consider the impact on those customers and was narrowly focused solely on his disagreement with Goat. His attempts to blame Goat for the harm his actions caused his customers bothers me a lot.

Let me present a totally different angle:

Nefario willfully destroyed the market value of undisputed bonds by the sudden close of Goats account. For example, instead of my TYGRR.BOND-A shares I now have a claim code of dubious value. It has been sufficiently explained how the claim code is a completely different, and insecure instrument to the shares originally offered, and Goat's obligations are at least unclear.

Even if Goat decides to honor the claim code the same way he promised in the original shares contract, there is no guaranteed buy back option in the contract. A large part of the original share value came from its tradeability on the free market on GLBSE, and Nefario destroyed that. Out of spite and to get leverage in a personal fight with Goat. Completely innocent GLBSE customers were taken hostage, and their property greatly reduced in value.

Indirectly Nefario also harmed GLBSE owners, as the angry customer backlash will harm GLBSE. He cannot hide behind GLBSE terms of operation, because:

 1. Clearly he did it out of malice, and not to protect GLBSE.
 2. He did not protect GLBSE, rather the reverse.
 3. The stated terms are laughable and won't stand up in any western court.

I and many other GLBSE customers were harmed. GLBSE owners were harmed. Without cause and reason. Nefario is a scammer, or so stupid it does not make a difference.

-coinft.

PS: this is a sad story. I really liked GLBSE up until now, despite some rough corners and irregularities.

Yes, after I bought my shares in GLBSE Fake, and before they were identified as Fakes, I immediately listed them with a sale price that would make me a quick profit. I do that with all shares that I buy, set a level that makes me a quick flip and on to the next investment. Someone snatched those shares up, including the one that sold for 10 BTC. Never in a million years though any poor sap would buy any asset on GLBSE for that kind of money, but the top end of the range I offered for sale had to be set somewhere. Looks like I found that little fish in the sea.

Goat- you are wasting your time trying to paint me as a scammer. During the very brief window of time that nobody knew what the shares were I bought and then turned my few shares. That's all. I didn't try to make a Federal case out of not being able to transfer them, I didn't start whining like a little bitch because I couldn't control the price they were sold for, I flipped an asset that was completely legal, using the legal marketplace and established procedures for doing so. That they were later found to be fakes, and you got stuck with 'em? Too bad for you, you wanna play with big boys, you gotta take all the rules and live by them. Or be man enough to change them.

I must have missed your retraction in the Goat-scammer thread. Not because Goat isn't shady as all hell (hey, he still hasn't found time to post pics of his supposed mining rigs, 6 months later), just because what you stated there is factually wrong.

I wrongly assumed the same thing. I assumed they were locked and not tradeable but it appears they were.

It should have been dealt with properly after the fake shares were discovered as its now a lot more awkward to do so. It does remind me of the facebook movie a bit. I wonder how a judge would see this in future if theres a lawsuit.

Although you have edited your original post to the version quoted above, you are still adjusting the facts after the decision has been made. You made the thread because you couldn't get the price you wanted, it had nothing to do with a forced sale. This line of reasoning is your next approach now that you have been denied on the 10,000% profit version of your complaint. I leave it to the eminently qualified gentlemen debating above to adjudicate this as true internet lawyers, but it certainly seems that you are verdict shopping and looking to change your story by degrees until you can garner support for an undefensible position. You bought worthless stocks and cannot sell them. Oh bummer.

Sidebar to brendio- I accept your statement that you traded GLBSE Fake after the establishment of 2.0, without asking to see your evidence. Your credibility is certainly strong enough persuasion for me. I was no longer holding any, and thought that they were not able to be traded, along with the other worthless assets that transferred over from 1.0. I stand corrected.

You are quite right, I should have qualified that with "GLBSE Fake", as I have started to do since that time. I was, for a very brief period of time a holder of a few shares of GLBSE Fake. They were all sold under the aegis of 1.0. I have never been, and will not ever be an owner or shareholder of GLBSE Actual or GLBSE Real. (Being the holding company and the eventual public release of shares in the market holding company.)

I'd like to stay out of the rest of the mud slinging, but wish to state that the following point is incorrect:


GLBSE Fake definitely were trading on GLBSE 2.0. I can provide evidence for it trading on May 3 and May 15.

I also can not recall ever seeing a retraction of Nefario's offer to convert fake to real, and my trading was done on that basis (more for novelty value than anything).

I agree with this, though I slightly disagree with some of your reasoning.

I don't really agree with this. But I think it's academic as nobody (so far as I know) has claimed that they suffered actual losses (as opposed to lost profits) as a result of Nefario's representation beyond what he offered in compensation.