Topic: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com - page 4. (Read 18273 times)

is true that when the markets are closed on weekends or very boring i am not at the PC and most ppl who know me are aware that on weekend they cant reach me

regarding the accusation ( https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change ) that I was not reachable and I disappeared when the btc market drop like a rock on 10/04/2013 here is a picture of the send emails (emails that have same time are duplicate because of the filtering)

this image dont lie and if i click any of the emails the pgp will verify the time on the email

that referring to the features and modifications that i request to be made on the platform no the the contract itself

Right, but as per your "contract":


- - -raphael has the right to ignore any of these proposals
- - -raphael has the right to change any of these proposals

1) well at the beginning R offer me 50% and i said no to that and i only take 10% and no loses (that was the point i dont take any loss)
2) in late January thing moved to make Bitfinex limited and i got 25% shares in this company
3) there where some loses after that that go paid by R and some got paid by platform earnings
4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in
5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay
6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them

"myself" is the scammer lol

Is the bolded part true? Was that the agreement with Tang and Devasini? Were they in a position to make good on that agreement, in the event that the price did not recover?

that idea was G idea and he proposed that to mr Tang


maybe i should have said more that just "i dont like that", each time you compromise it come back to kick your ass and i got and will get mine kicked


i did not lie to the investors and at least one of them (G) did have 100% knowledge about all this since he was in the team

i post on that later

example;now let talk in small numbers so i can explain it better
1 lets say you get 1BTC forced executed at 10
2 I buy your 1 BTC position at 10 usd but i dont deposit said 10 USD
3 you the trader take the loss and you are done
4 the platform now have 1 BTC instead of 10 usd
5 the market price now is 5 USD
5 now the platform total assets is 5 USD lower that is should because it has 1 BTC instead of 10USD the platform is 5 USD in loss
6 when you get forced liquidated on mtgox at 10 that create a 10 USD reserve at mtgox and now at 5 another trader can borrow 10 USD and buy 2 BTC on a long position
7 if the additional 10USD reserve are not on mtgox the trader can borrow the 10 USD but its buy order dont get executed because of lack of funds

I don't see that point yet. The 1M$ accused event is all new, it's not like the site was dishonest over any longer period and 'myself' ignoring it without coming forward for months? Or am I missing some point?
Right the opposite, as I understand it, 'myself' was shut out partly as a consequence for asking questions about that 1M$ accusation?

Sorry, the OP is awfully long. I read through it some days ago, I'm sure I already am mixing things up.

Ente

My reading of the situation is the same as yours. I understand that Myself is upset, possibly because of the way he was locked out and ignored, but there doesn't seem to be any cause for him to expect a buy-out or additional compensation. The "contract" is clear, and Myself was also very clear in his signature here on the forum that he was "just a consultant for Bitfinex."

Myself's posts are obviously those of someone who is hurt and angry. He was involved from the beginning, and it seems that both he and Raphael shared some kind of anarchic idealism that fueled the project early on. Now that things have grown, and professional investors have come on board, Myself probably feels squeezed out, and disrespected. If his accusations were limited to the running of an unlicensed copy of the forum software, that would be that.

The talk of phantom deposits, however, is extremely serious, and scammer tag or not, could permanently damage trust in the platform. Raphael should voluntarily address this issue head on, because no matter how undignified it might seem, these are not just random accusations from outsiders, but from someone with access to the books. There must be others who, like me, will need to be convinced that things really are on the up and up before returning funds to Bitfinex.

If the Mr Tang loan is real (and I can understand the site operators thinking that they had to take some action while not being able to connect with MtGox and force liquidate at market prices). The question is whether there was any collateral.  If not, then it was an extremely bad idea as there was an good chance that the BTC price was going down for a long bear market like 2011.

There is a lot of people who are talking about different things thinking it's the same thing.

This is what I gather:

1) myself was a consultant.  He was paid a certain percentage of the profits for his work.  If there were no profits, he did not incur any losses.

This is to say that he had no equity in the organization.  He was an employee working solely for compensation based on profit sharing.  Is this part correct?

2) at some point, he was asked to contribute to the losses in exchange for equity.  He refused (as everyone has agreed was his right to).  The equity partners decided at this point to terminate his employment status as a consultant (which is a modification of the contract as per the last line).  As such his access to the site was revoked.

Is this part correct?

I'm not sure what the issue is here.  He had a job, was told he could either be promoted to an equity partner (by paying his share) or else he would be terminated.  Is he contending that his contract stated that he could not be terminated in the manner in which he was terminated?

You're not understanding it at all.

Imagine you go to a poker game.  You pay some cash in and get given your chips to play with.

Well in this game (according to myself) some of your opponents were given chips without having to pay for them.  That means you lose either way:

If you lose to them then your money is gone.
If you win at the poker then there's not enough money to buy your chips back off you.

Replace poker with 'gamble by margin-trading on the BTC/USD currency pair' and that's what is being alleged.  The extent to which it (in practice) harmed investors would depend on the price at which bids were placed to buy forced-executed closes : were they at or above market or well below (with a timely DC from Gox to force the execution onto internal orders).  Remember there's no advantage to the person having a forced-execution for it to be to someone associated with the site rather than to random stranger on MtGox.  And there's no real benefit to the site either - as selling BTC held in trust for a user to someone who hasn't deposited the cash to pay for the BTC isn't better in ANY respect than selling to someone for actual cash.

If true it would sound like the Tang situation was along the lines of Tang saying "Can I borrow $150K?  I think BTC is going to go back up shortly so I'd like to buy up some cheap BTC from all the panic sellers and people forced to sell due to margin calls".  And the site crediting him with it.  Obviously that's horrendous for all other users of the site - as if he gets his trading wrong and then doesn't pay then $150k of THEIR cash has now vanished.

Whether it's true or not is hard to tell.  There's two reasons why -

1. Myself is a self-confessed liar.  If what he's saying now is true then he lied previously when claiming everything was honest on the site - and generally acted in a deceptive manner for months, only blowing the whistle when he got cut out from the take.  So we have to decide whether he lied then, now or both times.  And we can't take his word for it - so we lack evidence to reach any conclusion.
2. Scrooge not responding is consistent with innocence (he doesn't want to waste time on entirely fabricated allegations) or with guilt (he just wants the topic to die so he can get away with it).  So we can't conclude anything from the lack of a detailed rebuttal.

The allegations do have the ring of truth about them to me.  But I'd never actually go so far as to reach a conclusion based just on that.  The problem is that although we now all know for certain that myself is a liar, we don't know how GOOD at lieing he is.  So he could just be a very accomplished liar able to make up a convincing-sounding allegation.

Either way myself should get the scammer tag - either for deceiving investors back then or for trying to besmirch the site now (or, conceivably, both).  His own posts convict on one or the other - no need to decide which to give the tag.

If mods want to move forward with the unclescrooge tag then a good starting point would be asking him to confirm or deny whether the email referring to Tang is legitimate.  It's likely it can be verified that it's genuine (if it IS genuine and if he denies it).  If he admits its genuine then an explanation of why they were loaning site members' cash to 'Mr Tang' would be welcome.

Doubt anyone gives a shit about the falling out over the detail of a contract which had no specified duration.

So Tang and Devasini were just taking on the liabilities incurred by the delays in forced liquidation when the market crashed? As opposed to having lenders take the hit? Am I understanding correctly, and if so, what's wrong with that?

That's okay honey, the idea that you somehow are suddenly any less dumb today than last week or last year was a longshot anyway.

It's not for you.

no is no like that and there was no incident

1) they did not deposit 1 single USD on this accounts
2) they got 150k and 1mil in balance given by R since he got convinced to do this
3) all that money was customer money
4) with that money they get to buy all forced execution positions until all money got used and then sell when the market bounced

Think it was that if you put in a wrong value in the price-field, and clicked the "sell/buy at market price", it would use the price you had specified if a counter offer was in the order-list.

@unclescrooge and myself:


So the first incident was due to a delayed forced liquidation, correct? What was the second incident (Devasini)? Some sort of bug in the platform?

I think my post was clear, and I won't add anything to it. If you want to waste your time on childish posts, please do. If you want to drag other names into it, please understand this will not continue on a forum.

Thanks
Raphael

Have you looked under your avatar lately?

Trust: -9: -2 / +0(0)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!