Topic: Scammer tag: Nefario. - page 7. (Read 17494 times)

Actual stock exchanges that are regulated can delist stocks for a variety of reasons (inluding no longer meeting listing requirements) and are not obligated to protect it's value. The company behind the stocks are ultimately responsible for managing the security, with or without a stock market to trade on. To defraud would have required Nefario to steal those customers funds and run with them.

Fraud is committed on major stock exchanges and those stock exchange can delist stocks no longer fitting the requirements. They are not normally held responsible for that however, they are simply a medium for company and investors to trade assets. That an asset gets delisted does not prevent it's trade over-the-counter between whoever is willing to trade the assets or the company to pay the shareholders.

I can only agree to the fact that the delisting was rashly and poorly executed, definitely in an attempt to sanction Chaang. I can also agree that the delisting method provided for proof of ownership is poorly adequate.


I've seen much bigger businesses go offline than GLBSE for technical reason. I don't immediately call it a fraud after 1 or 2 days however. I'm aware many people are concerned with the previous events (Bitcoinica, Pirate, etc.), but I would not pronounce myself yet on that matter, especially after such a short time has passed.

Although I wouldn't say I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, it certainly appears (at least to me) more likely than not that Nefario delisted all of Goat's assets just to get back at Goat for an unrelated issue and defrauded GLBSE customers that owned those assets by completely disregarding his obligation to protect the value of their ownership interests in those assets. There is no way he could not have known that the delisting would reduce the value of those assets.

It is actually quite possible to know as I'm one of the GLBSE user who was included in said group. Hence why I claimed this. It is true however Usagi actually wanted to have a group which had voting power on listing new assets, but Nefario never agreed to that. He strictly agreed to receive input and opinions. He kept all decision power.

It is this kind of situation for which you should have full quotes from an official source before claiming things as facts. People spot those false "facts" in your posts constantly, which pass a lot of hearsay as "facts".


Neither would your opinion be more of a fact for III.b., although you present it as a fact. I however can confirm Nefario never appointed Usagi to take any kind of decision.

It has to do with the fact you're the public face of MPEx and it seems you promote MPEx by attacking competing services' credibility. But it hurts your own credibility when you present as facts what is actually hearsay without quoting an official source. I would simply appreciate that better diligence be done when researching information before presenting them as facts. If claims are made by an unofficial source to the concerned party, it would also be good to quote that person so people know who made that claim which is just that, until proven false or true. People have been spotting and complaining multiple times in your reports lines that are without any quotes making affirmations as if they were fact, when you are simply reporting claims made by others.


I would have to say, this seems like negligence. But again, he acted once on DMC because it went to around 1% of IPO price, something unseen before elsewhere, which is why he acted this way. Normally, he does act (suspension of trading) when an asset operator runs away. He never quite moderated the GLBSE market and moderates it more and more strictly under pressure from the public. He never claimed to verify if anything issuing on GLBSE was to be a scam or not, as it is not verifiable. He also chose to allow anyone to issue, regardless of the risk for it to turn out to be a scam.

Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise. The fact he allows most people to issue on the platform and does not investigate who the issuer is does not suddenly make him the cause of the scam occuring, just like you don't blame the forum owner here for scams occurring in the marketplace. Bitcoiners are left to do their own homework before departing themselves of their Bitcoins.

This part is not in contention.


This part is also not in contention, nor is it material.

As to your objection to III.b, I recall seeing somewhere Usagi claiming that (a Goat quote, if memory serves). You may well be correct, it's quite impossible to know the truth of that matter.


Well you'd have to re-read them in that case.


What's this to do with anything? Quoting in full is not practical for the obvious reason that even if I could be bothered to do it nobody'd be bothered to read it, some summarization is unavoidable. Otherwise the facts are pretty much straight, I would say (even if you've offered your own opinion as to what may or may not have been the case with III.b., that opinion is not a fact quite yet.)

This is fair in a criminal court.

However, civil charges and liability involved, declaring a guilty person innocent directly harms other people, so I think you should care and carefully consider the damage of any decision.

I beg to disagree. It is not just bad luck or lack of skill he made these bad decisions. He made them to fight Goat with the maximum effect possible, out of malice, with no care for his customers, causing huge collateral damage. Quite likely he overstepped legal bounds and could be held liable to his customers. To draw a course analogy, you can't use a gun in a bar fight, shoot bystanders, and claim self defense.

I hold some TYGRR.BOND-A shares. Most of their value stems from being able to trade them easily on GLBSE. There is no guaranteed buy back clause in the original contract, even if we find a way to safely use the given "code". Who is refunding share holders of the willful damage done to these shares? Can Nefario prove, or at least argue, why it was necessary to delist BOND-A, instead of lesser actions like only freezing Goat's account? He is silent on this matter, despite repeated questions, because he knows there is no defense.

The asset started from an IPO of 1 BTC and ended up trading at 0.011 BTC each, something unseen before. Diablo-D3 was frequently doing DMC to other assets trade-in under the current NAV to entice trades. Each time pushing value down.


The accounts were unblocked because a motion was accepted, asking shareholders if they wanted to keep Diablo-D3 as the manager.


Yes, we all agree it was a very rash and expeditive process which could have been planned more thoroughly, with proper delays. It would also be good to provide a more secure method of transferring codes to Goat. Preferably directly get a BTC address from holders that they can submit to GLBSE who can then send the list to goat. goat's shareholders could then communicate with him and sign with their BTC address. Or any other proper method which would have given enough prior notice and would have these things sorted out before the actual delisting of said assets.


Yes, Usagi's funds were invested in many assets which loss value, especially mining (the whole mining market crashed overall). There has been a subsequent large drop of value in his funds NAV. Some people requested investigation as to if there was negligence/scam on Usagi's part. Nothing was proven so far, other than the selected assets invested in by Usagi's funds might not have been the best. It was however, unlike in DMC's case, a loss in % which was following the loss made by the mining assets Usagi's funds were supposed to be invested into.

As for the part III.b, Nefario never made Usagi the head of a commission to review GLBSE assets to be included or gave him any decisive power. Usagi simply took the initiative to gather issuers/large investors to include in a group to review assets. Nefario refused to give them any decisive power however. He was simply taking feedback and suggestions from them regarding listings and other things since they were already heavy GLBSE users.


According to your claims it does not seem you are accusing Nefario of scamming or defrauding anyone. It seems you are accusing him of being incompetent.

I really like MPEx, but I do not appreciate how you've been managing PR for it. If you're to propose MPEx as the best choice by attacking the competition's credibility instead of promoting MPEx's superiority, at least get your facts straight and quoted in full.

Let's hope he's not seeking advice from his good friends the Intersango guys.

You may also notice that Nefario's forum posts abruptly cease right around then:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/nefario-3046

Sting operation anyone?

I would like this thread incorporated here by reference, and I would like to update the original indictment with:

IV.a. On October the 1st Nefario, GLBSE or both approved for trading a fund which purports to collect investment with which to buy mining bonds or equipment (unclear which) and then use the proceeds so generated in order to purchase bulk lottery tickets (something which may or may not infringe a patent held by Butterfly Labs or Butterfly Labs principal Sonny "Whatshismobname" Vleisides). This braindamaged plan was announced on the 26th of September.

IV.b. For the entire interval spanning IV.a. above, Nefario failed to accept and failed to communicate with at least two users on the subject of their pending listings, and further refused to refund a third.

This conduct clearly proves that Nefario is running a platform dedicated exclusively to the promotion of scams, of which he likely is taking an undisclosed cut. The theory that he "accidentally" allowed a blatant scam through while refusing some other people's unspecified projects can not fit any other explanation.

Well, there is one upside to not having to make any accusations myself - wouldn't want to get on Nefario's bad side. What if I want to list an asset one day?

You, on the other hand...

What do you mean you assume? This makes no sense.

I can certainly see your point, and indisputably a little knowledge is far, far worse than none at all. This point has sadly been proven even on this forum time and time AND TIME again.

But coherence dictates then that you can't make a decision either way. You can't decide for a scammer tag, you can't decide against one either. You just can't decide. You can't say "o, this is ok". All you can say is "this is problematic and we don't know how to resolve it".

Being realistic, if there's a situation that requires legal advice to make a decision, I'd rather stay out of it. 99% of the people here (definitely including myself here) are unqualified for that, and the other 1% probably have better things to do with their time or are unqualified in other ways.  

"Those with knowledge that does not even scratch the surface of the issue and talk and promote their opinions as if they know it all are the most destructive type. They reject or adopt policies and ideas based on incomplete or trivial knowledge of the issue at hand. But since they think they "know" all there is to know about the issue, they are very confident in their nonsense which they cover with lovely sound-bites that attracts the ears and eyes of those who do not know and are seeking knowledge."
TLDR: A little knowledge is far worse than none.

I don't want to be that guy. A little knowledge of that particular law doesn't make me qualified to make a judgement or ruin someone's reputation over it. I only give/recommend scammer tag in cases where I can be absolutely certain there is guilt. To paraphrase another quote, I'd rather let 10 scammers walk away than one innocent person receive a scammer tag. I don't take it lightly, your reputation and your name is all anyone has here.

Absolutely true.


Once Nefario used his position of authority to act in a certain way, all the people harmed by his failure to act in the same way in the same circumstances had a legitimate claim against him. This isn't me making shit up, this is 500 years of established equitable practice at common law and possibly more than 500 years in the civil system. You might not know about this, even if it's basic and well known in the legal profession; it's obscure from a public PoV, and I guess nobody told you to go to law school first if you want to be a mod on some forum. However, you must know socially someone who actually is a solicitor/barrister/etc. Ask them.

Not speculating, I got that from what Nefario said himself in the emails posted above (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scammer-tag-nefario-114442). It does appear to be valid concerns, but there aren't many more excuses he can use.

That is really not fair. You're making inferences and speculation in favor of Nefario, effectively rewarding him for his silence. It's not fair to expect Goat, or anyone else, to refute every argument Nefario might hypothetically make while Nefario gets to see which arguments Goat can and cannot disprove before he has to take any position. That just makes it too easy to lie. ("What if Nefario says X, can you disprove that?" "Oh, you can, what about Y?" "Oh, you can, what about Z?" "Oh, you can't?" And then five minutes later Nefario says Z.)

Sure, you could perhaps speculate why Nefario might have done what he did. But I can speculate that Goat can disprove each of those speculations, should those be positions Nefario takes. You have to confine yourself to the arguments people are actually making and not expect hypothetical positions they might take to be proactively refuted by opposing parties.

Everyone is biased in some way or another, and to think otherwise is naive and foolish. You can't get rid of bias anymore than you can get rid of emotion or opinion. Best way to deal with bias is recognize your bias so you can adjust your actions to compensate for it. Would you rather him lie and say he isn't? None of us have ever claimed to be unbiased, we do try our best to not let it interfere with our duties.

As for the OP, Nefario isn't responsible for the actions of others. If Usagi/Diablo is a scammer, you don't blame the middleman unless you can prove he knowingly aided and abetted it. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

As for Goats issue, I can see why Nefario wouldn't send him the bitcoins if the address was altered in any way, even if it was "just" a space. And putting his email entirely within quotes was odd and uncharacteristic of usual communications, and would send up red flags for me too.

which makes you unqualified as any sort of "judge"

Theymos, you really need to find someone else for this.

IMO, everony involved in this DMC scandal should have a scammer tag, Diablo, usagi, and nefario


This is pure retailiation for goat's upset over the GLBSE shares issue. This deserves a scammer tag for that reason alone. Further bs over the ridiculous claim code system, and stubborness about returning goat's bitcoin (which, last seen was still MIA) deserves a scammer tag IMO


This, all at the same timeq that nefario is locking other assets for fraud, suspected fraud, and, apparently, just pissing nefario off. This deserves a scammer tag


I'm not sure about "value of original investment" - but I'd go for "value before GLBSE fucked investors over"