Topic: TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted. - page 8. (Read 33293 times)

Correct me if I am wrong, but is GLBSE violating every shareholders privacy by requiring that they reveal themselves to the delisted asset issuer to regain control of their shares?  Isn't this illegal?

I wonder how long it will take for asset issuers start requesting to be delisted.  If only 1 percent of the shareholders use the claim codes, the asset issuers can legitimately state that they honored every claim code presented to them and profit handsomely by the delisting.   

That month was September.

Of course. And I have no obligation to do business with a company which doesn't strive to do what's best for their customers. And that's the only point. When I say I'm entitled to an explanation, that doesn't mean I have a written contract with GLBSE saying so. It means I can't reason about their competence in running the business I desire to work with, if they don't provide a reasonable explanation. If Nefario gave the same defense as you did, GLBSE would lose half its customers in a month.

It seems to me that this would let you verify the claims presented to you. In effect, it would be as if GLBSE was still acting as the broker (minus the management effort) but not the exchange. You can then slowly move the security to a different exchange. If you must, ask for a fee from your customers to do this.

You should be able to collect enough data to see if any competing codes show up.

...if you don't honor the agreement/contract between you and your shareholders.

The interpretation that you included afterwards seems to ignore that caveat.

Taken in its entirety, it is reasonable advice to give.

-- Smoov

You have just exhausted my ability to presume you are arguing in good faith. Have a nice day.

Please post a copy of this agreement that you keep referring to?

-- Smoov

I don't recall ever seeing a message telling people to report you to the police. Link plz?

-- Smoov

I believe your position is blatantly unreasonable and I would be shocked if GLBSE took this position. This leaves GLBSE's customers with no recourse whatsoever if Goat says, "Sorry, that code wasn't on the list I got from GLBSE." I cannot believe GLBSE would construe their agreement with their customers as allowing them to do that. But if it surfaces that they share your position, I will begin recommending to everyone who will listen that they refuse to do business with GLBSE since GLBSE seems to be shirking their primary obligation -- to secure their customers' ownership interest in the assets they purchase. I would consider GLBSE taking this position reneging on their agreement with their customers.

No, we didn't.The owners were given contact information of the issuer. That is the minimum needed. If GLBSE wasn't an anonymous-owner site, this wouldn't be an issue, but since it is, GLBSE is still obligated to protect the identity of its userbase. Ties between GLBSE and TYGRR have been terminated. It isn't GLBSE's responsibility to facilitate communication between issuer and shareholder, beyond giving the issuer's contact information.

If it doesn't match the list, it isn't a valid claim. Simple.

I said it could have been done better, sure, but just because it could have been done better, doesn't mean they are obligated to.

I still hold the same position I did before.

We're dealing with different questions.

Could a better system have been implemented? Perhaps a condition to the TOS where if an asset is delisted, then the asset-holder's contact information would be disclosed to the issuer? Sure. There can always be improvement.

Is GLBSE obligated to do more than it has, and continue to facilitate getting shares sold off or traded, or handle any of the delisted company's accounting? No, I don't believe it is.

We all can certainly agree that Goat doesn't like the claim codes and all the work that he is going to have to do to get his shareholder list built up, and to deal with all of the trades and dividends himself, that he would have preferred some kind of encrypted list or other authentication, perhaps even a simple checksum instead of nothing.

That doesn't mean GLBSE was obligated to provide those things. GLBSE supplied the list of codes for when asset-holders contact Goat about their shares and dividends, etc.

I have heard of no reason to believe that list is fraudulent.

I have heard of no complaints that two people ended up having the same code.

As far as I'm concerned, while not ideal, it is definitely workable, and I know the more I antagonize Nefario, the less likely I would be able to expect him to answer queries about a discrepancy that might come up, but yet hasn't, in a timely manner.

I am curious to find out how much of Goat's shareholder list he has assembled so far. Even with his objections, he should still be working on that in the meantime.

-- Smoov

Well obviously the user can prove that GLBSE did give them that specific code, right? By showing that it is signed using GLBSE's private key?

But GLBSE maybe ought to have a signed by Goat list of codes Goat acknowleges having been given by GLBSE.

Each user should maybe have been given the hash of the list that was given to Goat as well as the signed by GLBSE code. Actually the message containing both would be signed in such a case presumably.

Goat is screwed though if the list he was given does not in fact hash to the hash GLBSE told the users it hashed to.

-MarkM-

I thought we had already agreed that this was insufficient. Specifically:

1) It doesn't allow the issuer to contact the owners. This makes a two phase redeem impossible. There is no way other than a two phase redeem to avoid having to honor a claim code twice.

2) It gives the issuer no way to handle earnest claims that don't match the list of codes.

Didn't you agree that this was insufficient? What happens if an asset owner sends a claim code and the issuer says that claim code wasn't on the list? They claim the issuer is scamming. The issuer claims the code wasn't on the list. How can that possibly be resolved if GLBSE doesn't assist?

It seems it has just changed and you are back to the position I thought I had argued you out of.

Think about how slow it would be....

They can barely maintain an exchange site as it is.  You expect a forum as well?

and once again, you try and bring that topic back up to draw me into again, and my response hasn't changed since the last couple of times.

In my opinion, GLBSE has no such obligation to manage your assets for a listing that is no longer on the exchange.

GLBSE's obligation is to supply the 'company' a complete list of who has what shares, and since GLBSE was anonymous to begin with, claim ID's were used to avoid giving out account information that the users had been accustomed to be kept private.

The share-holders have enough information to link themselves up with the shares on the list, and can do so at any time.

In my opinion, users who are expecting GLBSE to continue handling their shares, including but not limited to, assisting them in getting them sold off so they can cash out, are expecting more than they have a right to expect from GLBSE at this point, since those shares are no longer listed on GLBSE.

My opinion on this isn't going to change, so lets retire that topic, ok?

-- Smoov

If Goat is unable to get GLBSE/Nefario to work with him in private, what else should he do? I am not saying that Goat's conduct has been a shining example of reason and patience, far from it. However, GLBSE's complete abandonment of its obligation to protect its customers' interest is, frankly, stunning to me. From where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like Nefario/GLBSE has lifted a finger to help those who held Goat's assets, their customers. This is a much bigger deal. (Although, it's entirely possible that GLBSE is trying hard to work with Goat in private and Goat is stonewalling. I don't know. I'm just trying to provide a fairer balance.)

GLBSE's position seem to be that as soon as they delist a stock, which they can do at any time for any reason, they have no obligation whatsoever to the holders of that stock. That despite the fact that they're the only entity that can communicate with them and there is no known way to redeem the assets without their cooperation. There also seem to be no controls on who can order a delisting and who decides how customers' interest will be protected. There is no evidence GLBSE/Nefario thought for even a second about the collateral damage a delisting would cause, and it appears that nobody did. This is completely unacceptable and goes way beyond the present issue with Goat.

I agree with Smoov - that bitcointalk and particularly the Securities subforum needs less grandstanding. It is counter productive, and happens to be one of the few things that manages to annoy me over the web.

To play "devil's advocate" though - it seems there is a minimum amount of grandstanding required to get a response.

This community should probably learn to be more cooperative.

Very possible. I'm not in a position to know the conversations or actions that have occurred outside the view of this forum or IRC. The actions taking place in private could be very very different, than has been presented here in public for all to see.

What I do see, is grandstanding.

I'm giving my impressions and thoughts based on what has been thrown out in public. Beginning with a dispute, which should never have been made a public spectacle of in the first place, which seems to be the event that brought about the eviction the next wave of grandstanding is about now.

How are parties supposed to work together when pretty much any chance taken is an opportunity to insult and threaten, diminishing whatever position either party has in the first place?

It is the grandstanding that seems to be the show the participants want us focused on and fighting over, not the actual events.

I get enough of this kind of crap in the political forums I participate on, and the same tactics are being employed right now, here.

Until new information comes out from either of the involved parties (and there hasn't been for about a week now), then we'll have more to talk about.

At this point it is all based on assumptions and conjecture. So many "facts" being thrown around that I have yet to see substantiation for, and a whole lot of inaction.

The way it looks to me, Goat gets the blame because he seems to be doing the most to incite a riot rather than actually work the problem. At least, in public, anyways.

-- Smoov

It seems like the lack of transparency / publicity on this issue is just going to exacerbate the communication problems.

Does GLBSE have a forum of its own or a blog? Is bitcointalk really the only announcement vehicle?