Topic: P - page 2. (Read 78397 times)

Nefario avoids manipulating securities due to theft, i.e. trade roll-backs, but delists securities when an issue directly affects him and is in his best interest.


Both of these issues are complicated to deal with, but there is a sense that's it's all quite arbitrary.


I'll just leave this here.
Open Transactions

No he wouldn't.

Not being allowed to sell them to a non-shareholder without a current-shareholder vote of approval, is not the same as _having_ to sell to you if you wanted to buy.

They're his shares... if he wanted to sell them to another shareholder, but specifically did not want to sell them to you, he is under no obligation to sell them to you, just because you wanted them.

-- Smoov

You cant forcibly buy glbse shares I dont want to sell to you, then call me a scammer for that refusal.

Shareholders have right of first refusal for new shares. Shareholders don't have that right over my existing shares.

You mean you would force people to sell their shares to you ? How exactly would you accomplish this without sending men with guns to peoples houses ?

I see you are unwilling to state how many shares you owned.  You believing 1 fake or real share of GLBSE is worth 21,000,001 BTC doesn't make it so.  Your belief on what is is worth is irrelevant.

Not without majority shareholder approval you dont. In fact I know the existing shareholders would rather burn glbse to the ground than let you own any of it. Would you call the shareholders scammers because they would refuse to sell you their shares ?

http://i.qkme.me/3r2sta.jpg

Be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?

"I was tricked to act like a part owner for over a year... The value on that is greater than 30 BTC."
Your subjective value is irreverent.  No court of law would consider that.  If you had 100 shares and they were legit then they would only be 0.13% "part owner".  The idea that you had some massive loss of equity (believed or otherwise) is laughable.

The facts:
you owned X shares.
if real those shares are worth ~0.3 BTC.
you were offered 0.1 BTC per share.
you have already profited ~30 BTC.
At best your "loss" is negligible and most likely you profited from the entire experience.

So be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?

The value of real shares is ~0.3 BTC ea.  You could buy some right now.  It would require approval from other shareholders.  Approval you likely will never get because you are a giant liability to any business you have contact with.   The fake shares can't have value higher than real shares.

So how many fake shares do you own?  My guess is you won't answer because you know you have suffered no loss.  You could be a shareholder of GLBSE right now but YOUR own actions, not Nefario's have closed that door (likely forever).  Any owner would have to be brain dead to bring your tantrums and drama into a business.

Goat has already made  a massive profit off those shares. As for Nefario's actions, well he has to answer to the glbse shareholders. I can assure you - they arent happy  

If that's so, then Goat has no case. He relied on Nefario's promise based on his apparent authority. The promise can't be enforced. He's entitled to compensation for any damages he suffered due to relying on that promise. If there are no damages, then that should be the end of it as far as the GLBSE shares issue goes.

And your losses from that are ... ?

That's a different issue. I think he was referring specifically to the issue with the bogus GLBSE stock. You are entitled to recover your losses from relying on that promise, but you are not entitled to lost profits.

The problem is you cant be both a broker and an exchange platform. GLBSE needs to hire qualified financial brokers and cease selling shares directly to the public, only through brokers.

Goat had no losses (only profit) from the "fake GLBSE" debacle.  You keep talking about losses (multiple times in multiple threads).  Where do you get this silly idea that Goat "lost" anything?  He bought a handful of share he knew were fake for 0.05 BTC ea and sold at least 3 for 31 BTC and was given the option to redeem the rest for 0.1 BTC.  What loss did he incur? 

However I do agree that this has damaged GLBSE.  I will never offer a security on that site under any conditions.  The "we do what we want when we want" is too much of a counterparty risk.    If GLBSE wanted the ability to delist it should have been setup that way from the start.  If they wanted to add it they should have done so in a manner which didn't harm issuers and shareholders.

I hope GLBSE will realize that their petty silliness is going to massively harm their reputation and that they will do the right thing and fix this mess. Yes, Goat's conduct is questionable. But that doesn't even begin to excuse GLBSE's and/or Nefario's conduct. If GLBSE doesn't make Goat and their investors whole (or explain some angle to this story that I'm not aware of), I will consider GLBSE itself a scam.

Nefario made a promise, with the apparent authority to bind GLBSE, that he could not keep. Nefario or GLBSE should cover any losses that resulted from Goat's reasonable reliance on that promise. (He is not entitled to profit from the debacle.)

As for the disabling of Goat's account and delisting of his assets, I hope GLBSE can explain some justification for that action. And GLBSE has to find some way to make their customers whole. Goat is entirely within reason refusing to cooperate with the coerced and broken claim process. People who buy assets through GLBSE have a contract with GLBSE and should be able to rely on them.

I dislike Goat and I like Nefario and GLBSE, and I still can't see this their way. Arbitrary account disabling, especially in retaliation for speaking out against getting shafted, is totally unacceptable in my book. People have gotten scammer tags for "if you sue me you won't get your money back". This is way worse.

Is it even legal to pay dividends to customers you don't know?

Or is the broker, GLBSE, the customer of the issuer and the only one the issuer has to know and to issue any dividends to?

-MarkM-

Your marklars are wise Marklar.

GLBSE's own broken rules that prevent asset issuers from knowing the list of asset holders caused the majority of this problem, GLBSE needs to fix it. If I were Goat, I wouldn't accept this method imposed without any foreknowledge or agreement by Goat.

GLBSE is strong-arming Goat into accepting their terms or making his investors suffer. This means that GLBSE is directly causing investors to suffer. Who invests at a place like that? It's a scummy move for sure.

I have to agree.
Would any of you take the work and risk, if it GLBSE is responsible for removing shares/bonds?

The difference is that gox codes are both issued and redeemed by gox. Ask gox if they would be willing to accept "gox codes" issued by someone else pursuant to an arrangement that other person made without consulting them.

Of course. Nobody disputes that.

Bitinstant could refuse to accept any gox code they want and nobody would call them a scammer. They have no obligation to accept gox codes and they certainly don't have an obligation someone else imposed on them. They are, however, open to an issue where someone claims bitinstant redeemed a mt gox code and bitinstant claims the gox code was already redeemed. Because of this risk and others, they charge a fee for their service in exchange for which they have agreed to accept risk. They're certainly not required to accept gox codes at no charge.

Say someone posts a scam accusation saying his code wasn't accepted. The response is that someone else claimed that same code first. What happens? How do we sort out which of these four things happened:

1) The same code was given to two legitimate owners.

2) The person claiming to have been refused the redemption is scamming and gave the code to someone else.

3) He's just refusing to accept the code even though nobody else claimed it.

4) Someone intercepted the code and redeemed it first.

Or, to put it more simply, if he refuses to go along with this redemption scheme, is he scamming? Honestly, if I were in this position, I would refuse to honor the codes and tell the investors to take it up with GLBSE, the party they contracted with to acquire and manage the shares which has decided to renege on the agreement. I certainly wouldn't let myself be coerced into accepting a broken redemption scheme that bears no resemblance to anything I ever agreed to do.

The argument everyone else will be using is, "Why would he let someone use it at all?"

An unverifiable system is really not workable. What happens if two people present him with the same code at the same time?

Say one person presents him a claim code. Then a few days later, someone else presents the claim code and has a pile of other proof that he held the asset. How can he know if the same claim code was given to two people or the second person is a scammer who gave the claim code to the first?

He is being compelled to accept liability for a scheme whose reliability he has no way to assess.