Topic: TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted. (Read 33293 times)
Bumping this for the benefit of all the noobs.
recap
I agree. Don't get me wrong, this move is long overdue. I'm worried about the precedent it sets though.
What precedent?
What precedent? 1. How about it is okay to delist assets as you please ... leads to 2. Ignore the board and shut down GLBSE without notice ... talk about foreshadowing.
BINGO
but but but
okay so burn him BUT announce delisting pending ... Goat stocks will be dumped on the market but still 'trade-able' ... plus Goat could have time to state buy back options or other plans for his stock holders. In fact ...
Did the shareholders not buy GLBSE 24/7 trade-able shares, as opposed to private equity.
As they say the writing was now on the wall ...
All TYGRR assets have been moved off GLBSE (delisted)
Goat has been given all the information he needs to be able to continue doing TYGRR's business and continue his relationship with his asset holders without GLBSE.
He has a list of codes which shows what code has how much of the asset.
If you had any TYGRR assets you will see the claim code in your portfolio.
Contact Goat with the claim code, and he will known how many of the asset you have, and you will be able to continue your relationship with him.
Nefario.
Goat has been given all the information he needs to be able to continue doing TYGRR's business and continue his relationship with his asset holders without GLBSE.
He has a list of codes which shows what code has how much of the asset.
If you had any TYGRR assets you will see the claim code in your portfolio.
Contact Goat with the claim code, and he will known how many of the asset you have, and you will be able to continue your relationship with him.
Nefario.
All that random junk is some sort of "code"?
I guess I will have to have a stock exchange made that knows how to understand it. I hope you will be willing to work with them and explain your "system" ?
I guess I will have to have a stock exchange made that knows how to understand it. I hope you will be willing to work with them and explain your "system" ?
My obligation was with GLBSE. What happens if I pay back 50% and then GLBSE relists my assets like nothing happened? Then I'm really screwed as I owe them all again..
What about GLBSE's Nefario's obligation, theyhe acts as the middle man, an asset issuer can't even get any data about who holds the asset. Apparently GLBSENefario gets to fuck the issuers, then fuck the shareholders all while sitting in the middle with no liability, here's your secret code list, everything is all roses now. If GLBSENefario is going to act like this, then theyhe need to get out from the middle of the shareholder-asset issuer relationship. The asset issuer needs to know the usernames, withdraw addresses, number of shares owned of the shareholders. Otherwise GLBSENefario DOES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THE ISSUERS. One that is greater then, oh well weI quit, here's your secret code list.
You're very much mistaken.
Goat has been give a list of accounts with their balance, all an asset holder needs do is go to goat and give him their code.
We nolonger have any obligation to goat.
Goat has been give a list of accounts with their balance, all an asset holder needs do is go to goat and give him their code.
We nolonger have any obligation to goat.
Goat, we refuse to do business with you anymore.
You are a liability.
We've provided you with a way to continue your commitment to TYGRR.* holders that doesn't involve us.
I disagree. Your secret code is not a stock exchange. There is no place for me to send the BTC. You are a liability.
We've provided you with a way to continue your commitment to TYGRR.* holders that doesn't involve us.
Your chickenshit method puts the burden on each and every shareholder to be proactive because the service that you provide has been removed, YOU FAILED IN YOUR OBLIGATION. You should also give the asset issuer contact information for all of the shareholders too, so they can contact them when the exchange just quits in the middle of operations. What a fucking joke.
your beef with Goat is also screwing your users who own any Tyggr's assets without any concern for these people.
Nefario and Goat, please tell us why you won't submit to paid, legally binding mediation through a neutral third party such as http://judge.me?
I would be open to something like this however the asset holders need to take part, even a larger part than I take. What people forget is that they do not have to accept the code from Nefario. They should just tell Nefario it is not valid and ask for something else or perhaps even a refund. Nefario as the broker sold an asset. He then converted it into a unusable code. Nefario is the one here who took action, not the asset holders or myself. This is kind of creepy.
I agree. Don't get me wrong, this move is long overdue. I'm worried about the precedent it sets though.
What precedent?
GLBSE == gameover
you prophet, no?I really think there should be some kind of contract between GLBSE and the asset issuers that is more than a TOS that can be changed at anytime.
BINGO
but but but
Goat, we refuse to do business with you anymore.
You are a liability.
We've provided you with a way to continue your commitment to TYGRR.* holders that doesn't involve us.
Good luck in your future endeavours.
You are a liability.
We've provided you with a way to continue your commitment to TYGRR.* holders that doesn't involve us.
Good luck in your future endeavours.
Goat runs a "mining company" that doesn't mine, bonds that he can't back with BTC income, & an arbitrage company that as far as I can tell doesn't actually trade... He deserved to be delisted. I just worry about the way it happened and how it will effect shareholders.
okay so burn him BUT announce delisting pending ... Goat stocks will be dumped on the market but still 'trade-able' ... plus Goat could have time to state buy back options or other plans for his stock holders. In fact ...
Quote from: GLBSE
But thats not fair to me and other asset holders! We agree,it's not fair to holders of this asset, to other issers [sic], asset holders and GLBSE itself. Delisting is a last measure when trying to deal with problematic asset issuers who are actively trying to damage GLBSE. We have a responsibility to all asset issuers and asset holders on GLBSE, if any one person is doing something that puts everyone else at risk, including GLBSE operators then they have to leave. This is a market we all share, for it to work we must all play nice.
Nefario, I think we're entitled to an explanation of why we weren't given any prior notice. I think you know there is a problem with your action, gathering from the fact that you only respond to trolls here and prefer to answer us users through a notice on GLBSE.why was my balance/info given away to goat ? I hold some shares in tygrr , now i am being forced to contact goat to get my dividends (i dont talk to goat)
maybe give goat 3 months to close and delist his assets
maybe give goat 3 months to close and delist his assets
Did the shareholders not buy GLBSE 24/7 trade-able shares, as opposed to private equity.
As they say the writing was now on the wall ...
I am done with GLBSE.
Am currently selling all shares, will be moving my BTC out, and not trading there ever again.
This is unprofessional and ridiculous.
Am currently selling all shares, will be moving my BTC out, and not trading there ever again.
This is unprofessional and ridiculous.
Wow. Thanks to Nefario's behavior, I'm leaving GLBSE. Thanks to MPOE-PR's behavior, I'm never touching MPEX. And cryptostocks lists nothing worth investing in.
Nefario and Goat, please tell us why you won't submit to paid, legally binding mediation through a neutral third party such as http://judge.me?
Binding mediation is an oxymoron. If you mean binding arbitration, one huge issue is that it wouldn't bind the asset holders, so it wouldn't solve the main problem. It could solve the issue of Goat getting back listing fees or any funds of his that Nefario or GLBSE is holding. But it wouldn't solve the real problem whose victims are the asset holders, not Goat, and not Nefario. Also, since Goat doesn't have anything Nefario/GLBSE is claiming they are entitled to, what benefit what Nefario/GLBSE gain from agreeing to this? 
Nefario and Goat, please tell us why you won't submit to paid, legally binding mediation through a neutral third party such as http://judge.me?
blah
Don't feel bad. It was fun watching you squirm and Maged change positions more than your average porn film. Unless your average porn film is about tetraplegics, you sick fuck.
You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.So you disavow this statement?
Quote
It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam.
The latter is confusing in that it states that the "board" may ignore any documents or agreements binding it to confidentiality. The "clarification" is that you can break NDAs to reveal a scam.
Declaring that it's policy implies that some thought was given to the phrasing and that the intent was clearly expressed by the phrasing.
Also, remember that a scammer tag has a much higher burden of evidence than a civil case.
Certainly does. The main factors are: the blurry role of the staff (moderator or juge d'instruction?), the unpredictable process (judge/chief prosecutor/court scryer suddenly decides to back out of a case, leaving the situation in limbo; mediator person confronted with basic principles of jurisprudence declares that not being informed in such will have to ignore them) and the completely ad-hoc nature of claims, relief available, procedure followed and so forth.
This isn't a dig at you personally, nor is it a dig at any other moderator, the site and so forth. But it is meant to convey that complexity in disputes will only increase in time, and again: if you do it at all you have to do it all the time. At the very least some strategic decision to never do it, or else some guidelines to do it consistently and better would be in order.
Future customers?!
If there was evidence Goat was making a significant effort to work out a redemption scheme with GLBSE, I'd agree with you. But without that, I think a lot of people will give GLBSE the benefit of the doubt. But it's certainly a warning bell, especially since GLBSE doesn't seem to be making any effort to improve the redemption scheme. No matter what happens, the decision to delist caused significant harm to GLBSE's customers, and there's no evidence NEFARIO even considered that. However, if they respond to this by announcing delisting criteria, escalation rules, and a procedure for a sensible redemption after delisting, that would go a long way to recovering.I'm just looking at the fact a couple assets delist/dissolve a day now. Some of them weren't even in distress.
You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.So you disavow this statement?
Quote
It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam.
And the comment about bonds? You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?
No, of course not. I just saying that I wouldn't consider it a scam if actual mining didn't back a bond as long as it never explicitly claims that it does. Also, remember that a scammer tag has a much higher burden of evidence than a civil case.Such as not sending you a bitcoin address?
You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.So you disavow this statement?
Quote
It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam.
The latter is confusing in that it states that the "board" may ignore any documents or agreements binding it to confidentiality. The "clarification" is that you can break NDAs to reveal a scam.
Declaring that it's policy implies that some thought was given to the phrasing and that the intent was clearly expressed by the phrasing.
You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.
You're right.I am officially dropping this investigation and am releasing all parties of any obligations. BadBear will now decide this, if he wants.
Hopefully GLBSE's future customers will take into account the fact that GLBSE reserves the right to totally abandon its obligation to preserve their ownership interest by making a decision to delist the asset and will exercise this right if it feels like it with no obligation to explain or defend that decision.
Absolutely. In fact, they should have taken it into account to start with and DEMANDED that what would happen be listed in the Terms of Service. You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.So you disavow this statement?
Quote
It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam.
Future customers?!
If there was evidence Goat was making a significant effort to work out a redemption scheme with GLBSE, I'd agree with you. But without that, I think a lot of people will give GLBSE the benefit of the doubt. But it's certainly a warning bell, especially since GLBSE doesn't seem to be making any effort to improve the redemption scheme. No matter what happens, the decision to delist caused significant harm to GLBSE's customers, and there's no evidence NEFARIO even considered that. However, if they respond to this by announcing delisting criteria, escalation rules, and a procedure for a sensible redemption after delisting, that would go a long way to recovering. You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.So you disavow this statement?
And the comment about bonds? You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?
No, of course not. I just saying that I wouldn't consider it a scam if actual mining didn't back a bond as long as it never explicitly claims that it does. Also, remember that a scammer tag has a much higher burden of evidence than a civil case.Such as not sending you a bitcoin address?
I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK! 
I think it must be posted here.
Let me quote Maged
I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.
I think it must be posted here.
Let me quote Maged
Quote
.....It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case.
I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.
FUUUUUUUCK indeed. Smart one, Maged. And by smart, I mean, FUUUUUUUCK.
By the way, the mining bonds do not need to backed by actual mining unless the contract specifically requires it.
Mayhap I didn't clarify the cause of my reaction.
You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
And the comment about bonds? You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?
No, there is literally no need to back fixed mh/s bonds with mining equipment if its not written into the contract. They only need to pay the equivalent rewards for a certain amount of mh/s.
People have pointed this loophole out on numerous occasions.
You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.
You're right.I am officially dropping this investigation and am releasing all parties of any obligations. BadBear will now decide this, if he wants.
Hopefully GLBSE's future customers will take into account the fact that GLBSE reserves the right to totally abandon its obligation to preserve their ownership interest by making a decision to delist the asset and will exercise this right if it feels like it with no obligation to explain or defend that decision.
Future customers?!
You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.And the comment about bonds? You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?
No, of course not. I just saying that I wouldn't consider it a scam if actual mining didn't back a bond as long as it never explicitly claims that it does. Also, remember that a scammer tag has a much higher burden of evidence than a civil case. You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.
You're right.I am officially dropping this investigation and am releasing all parties of any obligations. BadBear will now decide this, if he wants.
Hopefully GLBSE's future customers will take into account the fact that GLBSE reserves the right to totally abandon its obligation to preserve their ownership interest by making a decision to delist the asset and will exercise this right if it feels like it with no obligation to explain or defend that decision.
I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK!
I think it must be posted here.
Let me quote Maged
I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.
I think it must be posted here.
Let me quote Maged
Quote
.....It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case.
I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.
FUUUUUUUCK indeed. Smart one, Maged. And by smart, I mean, FUUUUUUUCK.
By the way, the mining bonds do not need to backed by actual mining unless the contract specifically requires it.
Mayhap I didn't clarify the cause of my reaction.
You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
And the comment about bonds? You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?
You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.
You're right.I am officially dropping this investigation and am releasing all parties of any obligations. BadBear will now decide this, if he wants.
If they wouldn't have agreed to that, I guarantee that you could have found an exchange that would.
How can you guarantee this?!
I will always try to assume the best unless the other side has enough evidence to counter anything I can think of.
This may be in your mind the high road, but in practice it's actually quite broken, as someone else has explained above. The legal system works as it works (arbitration of claims actually made, not arbitration of potential claims) for very good practical reasons, it's not just idiosyncratic peculiarity.
Jump to: