Topic: Scammer tag: Nefario. - page 2. (Read 17494 times)

What was the total percentage of shares held by all of those who participated in the meeting - not individually, but collectively?

Given that it was basically an exceptional general meeting agenda, I probably would have closed the meeting early on and called a formal exceptional general meeting and basically demanded that the absentees be present and vote or assign their proxies to others.  The attendance/percentage of shareholdings for a quorum to pass special resolutions is generally higher than that required to pass ordinary business, but in some ways it seems like this particular meeting was a bit of an ambush.

Have the entire logs been posted?

How did you reach that conclusion?


That's 5 for the motion, 1 maybe for, and 2 against (including nefario, with 23% of shares). Even with CHM's vote, we didn't have enough support to get rid of Nefario.

Nope. He was and remains CEO, so he has the sole authority on how to run the company unless/until a shareholder vote says otherwise. If he were properly removed as CEO and didn't hand the entire site, it's databases, and any business funds in his possession to his successor, then he'd be a scammer. In fact, you guys have/had the ability to do this on your own, without his cooperation. Thus, you could argue that any shareholder that refuses to vote to remove Nefario is a scammer. So far, this hasn't been requested.

However, those other reasons were rejected/not decided upon. If you are willing to say that Nefario delisting anybody deserves a scammer tag, and theymos agrees, I will drop this whole argument. I want theymos to agree so that I may use this as precedent in future investigations.

Exactly! I could care less about Nefario, I'm just worried about the precedent this will cause. Thus, this really is just academic. That being said, you'll need to clarify those other reasons.

Yes, and as you know, I already answered this. Honestly, the fact that you asked this again in almost the same manner as some of our trolls shows that you're starting to act irrational. Trust me, as a friend, from my own experience with this case: take a break from scammer investigations for a day or two. Totally block out this forum in your preferences during that break to allow you to clear your thoughts. I'm only telling you this because that is exactly what I did.

Yes, I know. I realized that I was acting irresponsibly and did the only proper thing I could: Step down from the case. I'm disappointed that you didn't call me out privately on the matter earlier, though. I would have listened.

And I agreed, which is why I requested that both you and theymos approve my request to reclaim veto power. Just to be clear, because you denied that request (which I explicitly said you could), I am only acting as a regular user in this case. I would appreciate it if I were treated that way.

As for the reason for the request, I later realized (after I had some time to cool down and get ahold of myself) that in my irrational fit, I irresponsibly gave sole authority for the scammer tag to a single person. No one - not me, not you, not even theymos - should have that authority on their own. The point of having one person investigate while the other person has to approve the decision of the investigator that a scammer tag is needed is to both provide another layer of removal from the case so that only the facts are focused on and to prevent one person's irrationality from deciding the case, since if someone is rational most of the time (as a human, it is impossible to always be rational), the chances that at least one person is rational at the time is significantly higher. It's for this reason that I believe that theymos, although he has the ability, should never ban or mark someone as a scammer on his own, unless the case is extremely clear. I'd be interested in what theymos' position on this is, since I don't know whether restricting bans and tags to administrators was done to intentionally create this dynamic, or if he just doesn't trust us. Either way, I'm glad that he set the system up the way he did.

Also, for the record, in neither of these cases did I send a request to theymos to mark someone as a scammer. I may have said that I would, even directly to theymos, but I never did because I always double-check my line of thinking before actually doing that. If I had the ability to do it myself, I also wouldn't have used it at those points.

Regardless of whether identity information is required to formally create a business entity - and, for the most part, it is these days for office-bearers and significant shareholders alike - there's no way I'd even consider entering a business partnership with someone without proof of their real world identity.

For the purposes pf AML you cant just say "this is the person" without showing their documents to prove it. Theymos is known doesnt mean he has ever sent Nefario his DL or electric bill. For all intents and purposes the other "shareholders" are invisible.

Thank you.

I'm a little confused about this bit.


This implies that theymos' RL identity isn't known to the other GLBSE shareholders.  Is that the case, because it's not hard to find apparent RL information regarding theymos. 

FTFY

Yes, I have stated that before. I was one of the ones for which Theymos was selling shares.

After a bit of thought, I'm going to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. The only thing I've done is remove IP addresses and the names of undisclosed shareholders. I'm not outing anyone (other than da2ce7, since he supported the shutdown from the beginning) over this.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

Are you a BitcoinGlobal partner?

Because he has stated that even if he was removed as CEO by a shareholder vote, he would continue with his plan to shut down GLBSE.

Anyway, there are a few reasons why the vote to remove Nefario as CEO failed. First, he has a 24% stake in the company. Second, he had a couple of minor supporters. Third, most of those that opposed him in principle were already resigned to the course of events and didn't care to actually take a stand, as even if he was removed, he stated he would shut it down anyway.

Why don't you organize yourselves and do a new vote right now?

Didn't theymos say that some other people supported Nefario?

This does not make sense:

I'm not sure why you think he controls the company when he only owns ~24% of the shares. That's the whole point, he did this without the consent of the shareholders, the real owners. The fact that he can do it just because he has physical access to the server doesn't mean he has the right to.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You can keep making a thousand hypothetical excuses for him and speculating on this or that, but unfortunately some of us have to deal with fact.

The only one who voted to keep Nefario was Nefario himself.

Nefario lied when he said only 30% voted against him. It was actually 47%

I'm not a "Staff Member" here. And even on the 2 boards where I am a "Staff Member", 99,99% of the time I speak for myself. Deal with it.
But nice try at poisining the discussion with unrelated matters, Donkey.

Nefario told the other shareholders glbse is not coming back.

Most likely the new site would not be called glbse to remove the "stock exchange" reference. Stocks and bonds also wouldnt be called those names.

GLBSE is finished so deal with it.

McGoats, that meets my definition of 'closed'.  The 'exchange' is not operating as an exchange.

If it's operating then please, register an account there and list an asset. It's that easy to prove me wrong, Donkey... errr... Goat.