Topic: TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted. - page 10. (Read 33293 times)

Just saying, as the business owner, Nefario is 100% in the wrong on this one. It doesn't matter how whiny goat is, if you take his money, and the trade fees his shares have been generating, he is your customer. Nefario, Goat may have been a pain in your ass or whatever, but you really don't have any right to delist his assets assuming they didn't violate your TOS, which I'm assuming they did not, seeing as they have been up for a while now. And to make matters worse, you didn't really stick it to goat, you stuck it to his investors, who could end up losing their asses for your careless mistake. You didn't make a point to goat, you made a point to the community, and I know sure as hell I won't be using GLBSE anymore, because who knows? Someone that I may invest in may rub you the wrong way, and I might lose everything. At the very least, you should have treated this like someone who had a contract with someone else and you are attempting to breach the contract, sort of like a homeowner and someone renting their home. You can evict goat, assuming you return all $ that you owe him, give him a reasonable deadline, and make all necessary arrangements to prevent what is happening now, and if he is not at fault at all under your TOS, you will still have fees to pay. If this became a real legal dispute, which I don't really think it would, I can almost guarantee goat would win.

And to clear everything up, I am was invested in GLBSE, and had no assets in any of Goat's listings. I am acquainted with neither Goat nor Nefario, and I don't believe I hold any bias here besides the fact that I don't like the new potential of getting screwed over by GLBSE.

I'm glad we have such large areas of agreement. But:

You didn't answer my key point. That scheme only works if Goat can rely on Nefario to resolve the discrepancy. That is, this works only if GLBSE accepts the liability and responsibility for managing the claim process, at least if any problems arise. From all appearances, GLBSE's position is that now that they've issued the claim codes, they have no further obligation to operate the claim process. (Indeed, that was your position, wasn't it?)

Suggestion to fix the claim code liability.

When someone makes a claim to goat,  he gives the code, goat forwards the request to nefario. Nefario then puts something on GLBSE that the claimant has to confirm (after logging in of course) that he indeed made that claim. Nefario forwards this confirmation to goat. If no one else has claimed the same code meanwhile, its deemed valid and there can be no discussion.

The only way to make a false claim  would be by hacking the GLSBE account, in which case, the claimants assets would be lost anyway.

Joel, thank you.  

This sounds like speculation, I have read a few bits around this too.  This is why we need an official statement from Nefario of GBLSE.  Then after that is released (because he took these actions that affected his customers), we should have an official response from Goat so we can figure out what is going on here.   Both statements should be locked so they can stay official and they should be concise and not filled with anything that can not be backed up my hard evidence.   No personal attacks.

Until someone can actually demonstrate that a code has been used twice, this is all trolling.

Many people are assuming that Nefario isn't already taking steps to make sure that the codes are unique. I'm not making that assumption.

-- Smoov

Not publicly, anyways...

I'd go along with this, but only if Goat ceased all of his attempts to further damage GLBSE's business, immediately, with that agreement being immediately void, the very next time Goat uttered a word to further fan the flames.

Agreed. Very important to get a much more fleshed out TOS, specifically spelled out procedures in place, separation clauses, statements of liability, etc. The lack of specifics does tend to create more problems.

It seemed to me that the current system was put into place quite quickly. As for nobody being able to figure it out? Well, this is what happens when reasoning and critical thinking is no longer a priority in our school systems anymore. It seems pretty obvious how to handle it in that situation. Granted, there isn't an automated way to do it, you'd have to contact Nefario to help confirm which one was valid, but a system in place where a CEO could get on GLBSE, put in the issue name, the claim code, the claimant's username, and the email address that the claimant is using with their communication with the CEO, and have GLBSE either confirm or deny that the information matches their record.

In the case of 2 people claming they have the same claim code, both using the same address, both supplying the same username, and both supplying the same email address that the code is linked to, then you send an email to that email address, ask them to send you an email from that email address, and whichever one of them, can, is the proper owner.

Or you can try something else. In any event, if more than one person submits the same claim code, then you don't allocate it to either one of them until it gets resolved.

"Nefario... someone is giving me a code that I don't find on my list... can you confirm this code is in use or not?", and if it turns out there is a discrepancy, then it is dealt with, and a revised list gets sent out with the correction, and if it turns out there isn't a discrepancy and the code isn't valid, you tell the scammer to take a hike. This isn't brain surgery.

Yeah... according to an older post by Goat, which I don't have handy at the moment, that's how it is going down.

-- Smoov

This anonymity part is interesting. I had not realised that Nefario did not know who his customers are.

I kind of thought that issuers were relying on the exchange to know the customers so that the issuers could deal solely with the exchange, whom they did know, thus satisfy any requirement that they know their customer by pointing at their sole customer, who happens to find it very useful to maintain numerous separate accounts to which dividends etc are sent.

I am biased I guess though from my ongoing hopes that I might be able to find third parties who will do all buying and selling of my tokens with end users so all I need to know are those third parties and not pry into their business of who exactly their own customers might be.

-MarkM-

I presume he means Goat's attempt to get Nefario a scammer tag and most likely private events associated with that. For example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Goat threatened to pursue getting Nefario a scammer tag before that to try to extort a better settlement on the fake GLBSE stock from Nefario. However, it really does seem to me that Nefario failed to consider the collateral damage to GLBSE customers when he responded by delisting all of Goat's assets immediately and implementing a claim code scheme that appears to have been hastily contrived by a dim third grader.

Smoovious - I can't say zero reasons. When a client/customer initiates actions for the sole purpose of causing harm to your business, you have every right to refuse service from that point on.


Smoovious - Can you elaborate on this?  What are these actions that were initiated with the sole purpose to harm GBLSE?

This is a red herring (one of the many that compose pretty much entirely your above post). Nobody is discussing what you're discussing, you've not touched at all on any issue under discussion etc.

@ MPOE-PR - To be fair, you are another exchange operator so you do have a slight bias in this matter.  You are also bringing up another issue that isn't in this current topic.   We are dealing with GBLSE's responsibilty to its Asset Issuers and Holders and what actions we can expect in the future and in this situation.    We have an action that looks to be personally motivated and not something clearly against any TOS agreement other than the operator has said they can take any unilateral action they want which is quite MATERIAL if you are going to trade or issue through the platform.  

What I am still waiting on is the official statement on why these actions were taken in such a manner without prior notice to the asset holders which have been just as affected if not more so because of the elimination on any real liquidity on such a large issue bond.

Don't confuse distributing child pornography with being a pedophile. Those are two very different things.

Pedophilia is an interest in prepubescent children. Not all nudity is pornography. Not everyone who looks underage is underage. And 18 isn't the age of consent everywhere.

I'm not going to search the site for child pornography, but I will say that a lot of things people think are child pornography are actually not illegal. However, my personal experience has been that people who got their start in the seemier side of the Internet porn industry, even if totally legal, generally are not the kind of people who tend to do the right thing when it matters.

You still should be getting credited for your dividends by Goat. What he'll have to do, is as dividends are ready to go out, he will do the math himself to figure out how much per share, then manually send them out to the people who have identified themselves via their claim code. Any bonds that haven't been linked to the owner yet, would have those dividends held in escrow until those share are identified, at which point, they will receive the generated dividends that the asset-holder held reserved for them.I can't say zero reasons. When a client/customer initiates actions for the sole purpose of causing harm to your business, you have every right to refuse service from that point on, or, in the case of a contract between the two, if it isn't a condition in the separation clause, the business can simply not renew the contract when it expires. No notice is required.
You can't get rid of them on GLBSE, but there is nothing stopping you from arranging a private sale, and doing it through the asset issuer so the issuer can update his records.

I'll grant you, that you've lost the convenience of an automated exchange to do all of this accounting for the asset issuer, but that is something the issuer will have to work out for himself, if he doesn't want to do the accounting.See above answerCertainly it could have been handled better, there is little dispute about that, but that isn't the same as saying that it is unworkable and|or can't be done. GLBSE wasn't the supplier, just the facilitator. Maybe a broker would be willing to chase around the issues he is managing for you as the customer, but GLBSE wasn't necessarily a broker, just an exchange, that handled the accounting for the assets. Plenty of room for argument on that point however, I'll agree.
Personally, I think people choosing to sell the claim codes themselves, would be foolish to do so. Their only purpose is for the asset issuer to match holders to the shares they own off of the issuer's list. At that point, if the holder wishes to sell his shares to someone else, person to person, both parties will have to do it through the asset issuer himself, as he is handling the accounting for it now.We can plenty argue over who initiated what, but it has little relevance to the situation we have now. That ship has sailed. The way I see it, you're going to keep having two camps. One camp who believes that the exchange has to put up with all the BS that is being fanned by the owners of the companies listed on their exchange, even if that BS is detrimental to the exchange itself, and you'll have the other camp who believes that no company has a right to be listed on the exchange, and the exchange can't be forced to keep a company listed, or be forced to continue trading, or handling, any transactions involved with the now-delisted company.

I'm in the latter camp.

Basing it solely on the public information I have seen posted, Goat was in the wrong, and created this situation himself. I can't blame Nefario one bit for evicting him off of the exchange at the point that he did. I probably would have done the same thing more or less.

One change I may have done, was to just halt trading of all of the assets, with a notice of why they were halted, to prepare for delisting it, and accept no more trading at all at that point. Then take a little more time compiling the list of share owners together, to send to Goat.

It wouldn't change the outcome of course, but it would have just dragged it out a little longer. Sometimes it is just best to make a clean quick break and be done with it.

I also wouldn't have run anonymously. The top 10 or 15 shareholders would be shown in the company info page, and the company CEO would have access to the complete current list at any time through whatever CEO menu available to them.

Since GLBSE was running anonymously, however, and that information wasn't normally available, then you have the additional responsibility to preserve the trader's identity and honor that anonymity. In order to do that, you would have to have a method where a share|bond holder can be linked up with the list of holders the CEO has. That's where the claim code comes in.

Your shares aren't gone. That was between you and the asset issuer, regardless of if an exchange was man-in-the-middle or not. To claim that they have been voided, or are now gone, is disingenuous.

This is by far a perfect situation, or outcome, but it is by no means, unworkable. It is just going to require a lot more work between the people involved now, which we have previously taken for granted.

-- Smoov

Here is a thread about it. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/heres-where-i-spew-my-accusations-against-mpoe-all-are-welcome-102333
A lot of the models on his website look very underage, beside cut up babies and other things.
He tries to spin it for a 4chan, but everything there is posted by him trying to attract other degenerates.
He didn't have success in porn, so he is trying here for his next scam.

Your proposition boils down to "arbitrary". Bitcoin is all about providing mathematical solutions in place of arbitrary solutions. As such, your entire line of thought is utterly misplaced. It's not that you haven't offered a good solution. It's that the entire philosophical grounding you try to build a solution upon is completely contrary to Bitcoin's. You're a geocentrist trying to participate in a Copernican dispute.


This is the exact sort of stupidity that has caused the problems the community is trying to solve. You don't act first, think about what you've done later unless your goal is to spend a lot of time in the shade, within concrete. Again, your paradigm is not only slightly broken, it is irretrievably and completely broken.


There's some valid concern that such a move would also acquiesce what is, to that party, an unacceptable arrangement. If someone steals your car then offers to give you back the spare tire you may have very good reason not to take the spare tire without the car.


Quite the contrary: we don't tend to call things we don't understand "bs" simply because we don't understand them. Hint hint.


There is certainly a lot to this. Goat isn't simply an asset holder, Goat is someone who worked in conjunction with GLBSE to, among other things, create fake volume on GLBSE by trading his own shares (a practice GLBSE supported by waiving transaction fees for Goat, but not for others).

In short, neither party is either honest or forthcoming to all of this. Which is why they're being judged on the actions alone, and aren't getting any slack as honest people might have gotten.

Yes, this is my concern as well.  This is the only issue.   The reason we are talking about Goat is because he has been affected by this unilateral decision and we need a official explanation for why this happened.

It's all about what kind of establishment GLBSE is. Some of us have experience in developing and running similar services and can extrapolate from details we notice. Do you suggest I stay with this particular company after they have demonstrated incompetence in such a minor issue? It's of no consequence whether I can figure it out. Why do you think they didn't figure it out, instead of me? What do I pay them for? I was also considering buying a big chunk of GLBSE and now I'm not. These are very practical matters that one may need to figure out. You know, we don't have a mommy around and all that.

Please pay more attention to differentiating the important issues from the trolling, both of which is going on in the same thread.

Can you please provide proof he or she (don't know) is a pedophile?   Do you have their rap-sheet or something?   


I did not know what was the case.  That is a big liability and it should be remedied immediately. 

Thank you for giving me some context.  I have seen this claim a few times but it was always in debates so I did not know the back-story.  Proof would be good to settle the matter or please refrain.

I agree with you, but the fact that Mircea Popescu is a pedophile running a porno website on the same domain as a bitcoin exchange is a big liability.

I agree that Goat did a lot to escalate this situation, but from what is publicly known, it really looks like the real escalation was Nefario's decision to immediately delist all of Goat's assets. Because this had a serious harmful effect on GLBSE's customers, Nefario should not have done this without an extremely good reason, and no such reason is known.

Ideally, Nefario should have just let Goat bloviate in the forums for awhile. He would have prevailed on the scam accusation regarding his offer, as he in fact did. Nefario would have looked like the mature adult and Goat would have looked like he usually does. And that would have been that. GLBSE would have protected its customers' interests in their assets.

If the decision had to be that Goat was such a great risk that GLBSE did not want to list his assets anymore, which is GLBSE's right to decide, that could have been handled *way* better. Suspending trading, removing all pending orders, try to work with Goat on a redemption scheme, possibly allow trading for a limited period of time (with a click-through warning) for those who don't like the terms of the redemption scheme, and so on.

Well, the other purpose is to fix this problem for good. For example, asset contracts should include an explanation of what happens if an asset is delisted. GLBSE should have a policy that reserves immediate delisting for only the very most severe cases. The contours of GLBSE's obligation to protect its customers' ownership interests should be more precisely defined. GLBSE could emerge from this stronger.

The problem is that this is a risk GLBSE unilaterally imposed on Goat and nobody has yet figured it out.

How would this work? Say someone presents a claim code to Goat that isn't on his list. If that person makes a scammer accusation and GLBSE doesn't say anything publicly, what happens? Is GLBSE obligated to help Goat resolve the issue? If not, then you are asking Goat to take a huge risk.

If that really is the issue, then that shouldn't be an issue. I agree.