Topic: Scammer tag: Nefario. - page 4. (Read 17491 times)

BadBear decided to give Nefario the scammer tag for defrauding BitcoinGlobal shareholders, not GLBSE users.

I don't agree with this analysis.

Ahh. 3.3%? HEH LETS GIVE THEYMOS 3.3% OF A SCAMMER TAG, HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Okay, I think thats out of my system now.

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I said Theymos lost the vote. Theymos started the vote because nefario wouldn't listen to the board, the rest of the board decided to keep nefario, Theymos ragequit the board.

I don't see why Theymos should actually get a scammer tag, he did everything possible to remove nefario, nefario refused to either leave or stop fucking up, so Theymos washed his hands of it and waved to the Bitanic as it left dock for its maiden voyage.

I lost a vote to remove Nefario as CEO, even though most shareholders at the meeting supported me in this. This does not imply that Nefario would have won a 50% vote to shut down GLBSE, since BitcoinGlobal strangely has no concept of quorum and not every shareholder was at the meeting. Also, it is against the bylaws to shut down GLBSE without a 66% vote.


3.3%. (I was selling additional shares owned by other people.) I tried to sell shares long before the vote to remove Nefario, over issues unrelated to the GLBSE shutdown.

~23%. Theymos also initiated a vote to remove nefario as CEO, and was outvoted. He then tried to sell his shares in the company because he refused to invest in a company that the CEO refused to listen to the board.

Significant ownership of a private partnership company, where liability is shared amongst the owners.

And at what level exactly was Theymos involved? And involved with what, exactly?

And Theymos?  At the level he was involved, I find it very hard to believe he had no clue what was happening.

Then again, bitcointalk.  You'll defend your scammers even as they're openly robbing you blind.  Only after they split will you start craving blood.

Yep.  Hell, bitcointalk.org is run by MtGox even after both MtGox and Bitcointalk were both "hacked."  For all the users complaining about "regulatory capture" in the fiat world, why isn't anyone raising a flag over the simple fact that "MtGox == Bitcoin."

We didnt want Nefario to get the coins so CHM was chosen as an escrow. Nefario has no excuse now to not return the coins he holds as this was his sole reason for not returning them.

I know this is byzantine and retarded but it would probably take yet another meeting to do what should have been done last week.

Thanks for getting him caught up  .

Its my understanding Theymos has returned the coins to CHM and Nefario has not, thus he has no excuse for not paying out.

You're way behind on your conspiracy theories, do try and keep up.

LOL

@The Bible

Nefario was given a scammer tag days ago.

This is bitcointalk.  You only get a scammer tag weeks after you've already run with the money and are never coming back.

Also, moderators were in on Nefario's scam, so you can bet that he'll never get hit with a scammer tag.  This place is great proof that even in a "Free Market", the corrupt will rise to the top and use their power to benefit themselves at the cost of the health of the community.

I doubt any action can be taken against Nefario if he does nothing. If he gives out the information, people could possible claim losses because of his actions. The shares basically have no trading value now, and issuers can't be expected to pay forever. It makes a real mess for repurchasing shares and the only person to blame is Nefario. He may stay quiet to avoid blow back on that issue.

I apologize for the late reply to this post, and I realize some of these issues are out of date at this point. I just noticed it, and I think it's worth replying to because the relationship GLBSE has with asset owners is not like anything ordinary stock exchanges have, and this difference seems to keep getting forgotten:

That's because they have no continuing agreement with the owner of those assets. GLBSE does.

Again, that can't work with stocks listed on GLBSE because the issuer has no way to tell who owns the stock, no way to pay dividends, and so on. Also, it can't work because there is no alternative to GLBSE and many of these securities simply can't work without an exchange to trade on. Of course, that's not GLBSE's fault or responsibility, but it is something GLBSE is obligated to take into account when it decides to delist an asset -- you can't harm people that reasonably relied on you, and to whom you have a continuing obligation, arbitrarily.

Which he may have done. We don't know. Given that there's no way issuers can redeem the assets through actions we can attribute to Nefario, there is no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt  here. The people who bought stocks through GLBSE relied on GLBSE to protect their ownership of the assets and it is GLBSE's default that has totally cut them off from that interest. Nobody can recover that interest without at least GLBSE's assistance.

Right, but that reasoning is not applicable to GLBSE because asset owners have a continuing relationship with GLBSE to track their ownership interest and facilitate buybacks, handle dividends, and so on. And, so far as we know, this wasn't a delisting for cause. Also, GBLSE could have delisted the asset in a way that protect its customers' ownership interest but chose not to for no reason. Customers had every right to rely on GLBSE to preserve their ownership interest and it appears Nefario didn't even consider this at all. To so totally disregard a contractual obligation is shocking. He had to have known this would seriously harm his customers.

And it harmed GLBSE's customers -- customers who reasonably relied on GLBSE to protect their ownership interest. Due directly to this action, those people have currently 100% lost the value of that ownership interest -- an interest they can only get back if GLBSE acts.

I appreciate the fact this request was in fact granted, even if that crook theymos made a separate thread (with pretty much no substantiation).