Topic: Nefario GLBSE - page 7. (Read 28552 times)

+1

Well, I think I have enough information to make my decision. I hereby vote that Nefario did not commit a scam by not honoring the fake GLBSE shares.

My reasoning, in brief:
1) There was no evidence presented that Nefario's original comment that he would convert the shares to Actual GLBSE was anything more than a possible offer.
2) Even then, no evidence was presented that Nefario mentioned what the conversion rate for these false shares would be. It would not be a safe assumption to say that they would be converted at their IPO value.
3) No consideration was provided. Nefario did not gain anything (other than maybe a very small amount of BTC in exchange fees) by offering to convert the fake shares to real shares. If it had actually happened, it would have only been out of the goodness of his heart.
4) Nefario has reasonably offered to buy back the shares at the IPO value. Trades above this (especially the 10 BTC ones) would have been absolutely ridiculous to any legitimate investor who actually did their research. Even if you go by Theymos's outrageous pricing, they've only gone up 600% in value from IPO. Thus, I consider those large trades to have been made out of stupidity and should not be valid for the purpose of this argument.

My decision is pretty firm at this point, but I will remain open to new ideas and opinions as they come in.

Goat reasonably believed that Nefario was acting on behalf of the seller's agent. GLBSE was the entity handling the sale and Nefario appeared to be acting on GLBSE's authority. He was in fact an agent of the seller.

There is a world of difference between a promise from the agent of an entity selling you something, and from a random dude that happens to be nearby.  Of course my analogy is bad too, but I'd say that in this case, Nefario is a lot closer to the random dude walking by than he is to an agent of the seller.

Every analogy will be different from the thing analogized, that's the point of the analogy. Can you explain why you think those differences make the analogy inapposite?

Seriously?  I totally had that impression too, from one of your previous posts.  Oh, here it is.


I hope you can understand why he, and I, and presumably a bunch of other people, thought that you were a shareholder in the exchange.

No. Categorically no. I am not now, nor have I ever been a GLBSE Actual owner. And when theymos' shares come on the market I have no plans at this time to become an owner, or shareholder in GLBSE Actual. I have no standing whatsoever to speak for GLBSE in any capacity. I was responding to facts of the timeline as I know them from personal experience, and trying to address your mis-characterization of those responses to someone else's question in furtherance of your own agenda.

No. Categorically no. I did not "tell" Nefario anything at all. I had a discussion in regards to the fake asset. A discussion that is not germane to your rant, nor are you welcome to make assumptions about it in support of your agenda.

What exactly am I "telling" you and the cast of imaginary thousands you refer to as "us"? I responded to a courteous question with a courteous answer. You decided to spin it off into something that it wasn't. I have no obligation, legal or otherwise to make sure that you understand the concept of due diligence. You have held yourself out as a competent businessman and offered your services as manager for other people's funds. One can only hope that you understand the very basic requirements to study those investments before you accept others funds in trust to invest in them, although I fear as your history with the pirate situation has shown, you don't. So, sorry, but is not my job to tell you squat about anything. Do your own damn homework, before you go off playing in the grown up world.

As to standards of evidence- go fuck yourself with a barbed wire condom. You are not in a court of law, yet, and until you are I have no obligation to present anything to you anywhere about any topic. You are a lowlife, a scammer, a criminal and wanna-be white slaver. You are the lowest form of contemptible trash is this community, and I have no obligation to produce anything to prove that to you- the whole world can see it from your incessant words.

No. Categorically no. I never listed any asset at all on GLBSE. I briefly considered a couple of concepts, but watching amateurs like you and Peter pretty much convinced me that GLBSE is a playground for the desperate and intellectually challenged. Not a place I want to put much effort at all. Since there was no asset ever listed, your ridiculous comment that I am a scammer is utterly hollow.

GLBSE Fake was never tradeable on version 2.0 of the market. It was imported as a locked asset. Otherwise you could have just listed them and shilled for yourself as you did for pirate. They were not tradeable so you had to make another of your boring threads seeking to trade them through a direct transfer, while seeking an obscene profit level for your poorly thought out investment.

Unless your feet have become blocks of ice, Hell hasn't frozen over yet, so you can keep waiting for your apology. It will be forthcoming on the twelfth of never. Until then, fall back on fucking yourself you miserable cheat.

The only sad thing about GLBSE and Goat is that you ever discovered it, and somehow managed to slip through the review and list assets. That their legal counsel had advised shutting you and your scams down is a strong testimonial for the integrity they are seeking to build around the brand. Oops, too bad for you little scammer boy.

And again, just in case you remain too dim witted to understand- I never was, never have been nor will ever be an owner in any capacity of GLBSE Actual. If the few shares of GLBSE Fake that I bought on the market during 1.0 and sold on that market during the short window that they could be sold, were in fact sold to you- then I laugh my ass off at your stupidity in investing in something that was clearly and publicly proclaimed to have no value.

And you would probably be well served to not second guess theymos' motivation in offering some of his shares- you will probably be as wrong on this subject as you are on most all others.

Terrible analogy.  The salesman is acting as an agent of the dealership that you are buying the car from.  In this case, Goat was not buying the stock from the exchange, and Nefario was not acting as an agent of the seller.

oooh, I'm an internet lawyer too. detrimental reliance.

Goat paid GLBSE for stock.

Same here.

Perhaps, but that wouldn't change the fact that if the car dealer didn't intend to keep the promise, they would be scamming. (Though I think Nefario intended to keep the promise and so long as he makes up for any actual losses suffered as a result, he's not scamming in so far as breaching the promise.)

Come on Joel that is painfully easy (and not a good analogy).  In your example of course there was consideration.  You paid the dealership for the car.

Your $$$  -->  Dealership  = consideration.

You wouldn't have given them money without them giving you the car and neither would have happened without the promise.  Still in real world you would still be SOL because the sales contract would exclude any verbal promises expressed or implied.

"If you buy a car from us and are unsatisfied for any reason, we'll give you back your money." You buy the car, relying on the promise. They refuse to give you back your money for the car. Consideration, or no?

Nefario said "if you hold the fake stock, we'll take it back in exchange for real stock". Goat bought the stock relying on the promise.

Nefario was specifically intending to increase the value of the fake stock. His concern was that people had paid more than it was worth and chose to handle it by increasing the value. Of course, he should have frozen trading prior to doing this. This mistake justifies voiding the promise, and that's why Goat is not entitled to lost profits.

Consideration isn't a synonym for gain or profit.  It requires an exchange, a trade.  The commission paid isn't paid for the promise, it is incidental to it.  It may have happened because of the promise, but not in consideration of it.

A peppercorn doesn't cease to be good consideration should it become known the payee doesn't like pepper and has thrown away the corn.

Sorry Goat, but taking my responses out of context to serve your agenda is not honest.

To address your points:

Nefario said he would convert. He categorically NEVER stated it would become "real" stock, the conversion was undefined.

Yes, I was the GLBSE owner who challenged it, and had a lengthy communication with him through the GLBSE forum and PM's as to the resolution of the matter. Note for the record that I am not the one calling this a scam. And no, I will not link you to quotes or share private communications. If you are not able to do your own research to carry out your hysteria, far be it for me to advance your agenda. And the private communication are just that- private. They are none of your business or any other party who was not a part of that conversation.

GLBSE Fake was never a "tradeable" asset after the conversion to GLBSE 2.0, that's why you, and only you as far as anyone can tell, were originally offering to sell them at grossly inflated prices as a transfer. There was no trading in the interim.

Adding ad hominem insults like "retarded" only diminishes your statements. This entire debate is not about mental capacity. Luckily for you! If it was you lost when you established the thread.

Nefario has only modified one post that I can see, by removing a direct and tasteless insult and replacing it with a sarcastic image.

And finally, no, Nefario did not call a press conference and make a statement. There was clear communication in both this forum, and in the GLBSE forum within two days of the offer to "convert" that it was not acceptable to the majority of GLBSE Actual shareholders, and there was a lively debate amongst them concerning it.

A debte, I would point out, that any owner of GLBSE Actual was welcome to be a part of in the private forum dedicated to the actual ownership of GLBSE Actual. Since you were not a part of that community, at no time were you holding real shares of a real company. You were scammed, but scammed by the parties unknown who created GLBSE Fake, not by anyone involved with GLBSE Actual.

And tangentially- your assets have been locked down because you are acting erratically and dishonestly. Your statements have given the owners of GLBSE Actual, the market, clear and compelling reason to de-list your assets as you are acting in a manner that follows a classic scammer profile, and to date have refused to address the concerns that you yourself might be involved in the creation and sale of fraudulent assets.

That is not scamming by the market, that is considered action, after consultation with counsel, and reflects due diligence and sound business practice. That you did not take due diligence in buying an asset that was utterly without value, and are now seeking to steal further funds from people who did not create the scam says volumes about your business ethics. Personally I think the markets are far better off without your brand of "business".

That's not how I remember it. From what I recall, the offer was made within days and I don't remember seeing any retraction, or anyone else mentioning any retraction, or... In fact, as recently as May this year Nefario was giving the impression that they were still worth shares in GLBSE, it's just that GLBSE shares weren't actually worth a huge amount each:

We know that the asset was called a scam quickly orniginally but that is not what we need to know about. I bought the stock after Nefario claimed he would make it real GLBSE stock.

Can you tell us what GLBSE owner challenged Nefario and can you please link us to his quote? Was it on this forum or some other website? Also even if Nefario was challenged it does not mean that he agreed (or even knew he was challenged). He let the stock trade for months. He even let it move to GLBSE as a tradeable asset. Either Nefario is just retarded and can't read a contract or he was involved in fraud. Either way it is not good for him.

Also why did Nefario delete his posts? What does he not want us to see?

Also you say he was challenged but you did not say Nefario made a statement. So when you say almost immediately you really mean almost a year?

Warning came out within 72 hours of the asset being listed. This all happened over a weekend, and if I remember correctly, it was at the time that Nefario was relocating to the UK from China and had only very spotty access. It was caught and identified. There was immediate reaction in the GLBSE forum.

The offer to convert (and note it was an offer, NOT a promise or contract!) was made weeks later, and the retraction within a day or less as GLBSE Real owners challenged Nefario's ability to convert without approval of the majority of shareholders, which by all indications was not going to be forthcoming.

I'm not a spectator, and I also would like an answer to this.

Perhaps, but no consideration is required because all the elements for promissory estoppel are present. Nefario communicated a promise intending people to rely on it in clearly foreseeable ways. They relied on his promise to their detriment. This renders the promise the equivalent of a contract.

In any event, whether someone's considered a scammer by the community doesn't hinge on the finer points of contract law. It's more about common sense.

However, I think this particular issue may now be completely academic, as it seems Nefario did offer to cover any direct harm Goat suffered from the breach. He's not entitled to lost profits.