Topic: [was on GLBSE] LIF.x - page 5. (Read 22470 times)

I would not advise to agreeing to do deals outside the infrastructure of GLBSE. It leaves no record and no accountability.

This above, exactly. We tried to do go the anonymous route based on reputation, hasn't played out too well as you can see.

All of the above points mentioned by LoupGaroux will be a core part of GLBSE2.0 along with more anti-fraud protections.

Nefario.

Not deleted, frozen. Everyone who has frozen shares will not be able to trade them. What the asset issuer can then do is make dividend payments until restitution is made.

Assets/shares that are not to be bought by new shareholders should not be traded publicly.

This to me is what makes this a scam, not the loss of 90% of the funds. The lack of disclosure and private deals with influential shareholders. The contract states that all shareholders have the same rights, and yet some holders get their funds back in full, and other have to take a 90% haircut.

If Peter comes out with full disclosure and financials showing how 90% of the funds was lost, then it is not a scam. We all invested knowing our capital was at risk, and invested on the basis of Peter's "strategy". It is now apparent that Peter's strategy involved a lot of risk. That Peter's strategy failed does not make him a scammer. If I were to list an asset calling for investors for my strategy, and that strategy was to go to the casino and place it all on red, and I subsequently lose all shareholders funds, I wouldn't be a scammer, if I show how we lost the money and fulfilled the contract with my shareholders. If I post saying we've lost all the money and then disappear, I am a scammer.

Until I see financials, I am not prepared to accept a bid selling my shares at a loss and Peter should have a scammer tag. Alternatively, Peter can send 24 BTC to 1M4nFtisF8LrbyXbur2DHHo997LBnqLQtK and I will transfer him my 48 LIF.CX holding. But I don't think that's how this should be handled.

I think this would have some collateral damage on honest entrepreneurs also. I was thinking of listing the Bitcoin Investment Bank, but not that the fee is 20 BTC, I'm not so sure. That's a huge dint in the profits of a hobby business.

And that, dear friends, is why any market that hopes to be taken seriously around here needs to have serious enough fees to get in that a criminal needs to think twice about doing a loot and scoot. If there was a 50 or 100 btc escrow balance against the asset creator's integrity, there would be value that could be liquidated to make the asset holders whole. And perhaps a piece of work like little Peter Rip-off Tail might think twice about losing hundreds of his own dollars to steal from others.

That and some hardcore proof of identity to open an investment opportunity, rather than just the ability to post a badly mangled script. The owners of the exchange should have proof of who is offering these assets, and should have the ability to turn that proof over to authorities for action if the asset turns out to be a fraud. Honest business owners should not have a problem with this, criminal douche bags would. Who would you prefer to have starting companies on your exchange?

I just went to go check but glbse seems to not be responding properly..  Won't load my portfolio, but from the sounds of it i'd be in the same boat.  I didn't sell any of my shares for that crap, I think i'd rather take a full loss than justify Peter's actions by selling the shares back to him at that price.  Eitherway though, I guess it is a moot point because he flew the coop anyways by the looks of it.  Ugh.

Hmmm. LIF.CX deleted. So now there's no way to get even 0.075 BTC for my 50 shares. :-(

Not anymore, I've removed a lot of the dead and scam shares from trading. They still show up on charts.glbse.com for the moment but should be removed when that site does an update.

I'm going to be removing all but traded and legitimate shares on GLBSE over the next couple of days. Really clear it up before the eventual move to GLBSE 2.0

That's encouraging-

Peter what say you to the other claims here, there and everywhere?

Are you going to be a man and make good on it or are you going to make off with the funds?

Correction, a dead stock still able to be traded for no reason..

Lou said it, thats why I gave up on GLBSE, I pray Ver 2 is better

Seriously, how freakin long was dishwara up there..  idiots were trading that shit months after it declared dead

Gee, the guy took a flyer and has abandoned his Funds, has ripped everyone's money off, and is not communicating at all with anyone publicly or privately.

So placing a sell order is going to help, exactly how? The only thing that might accomplish is suckering some neophyte investor into thinking they have a bargain. They will buy it and find out it is so much bullshit. This is one of the major flaws of the GLBSE, that dead and/or abandoned and/or criminal issues stay up forever and there is no proactive process to remove the rip-offs. Calling Peter Lambert out in the venue that has the most exposure is a far better bet, at least it gets more people noticing that he is a scammer, and while I don't expect to get a bit-dime back from him in this manner, I might keep the awareness happening so that nobody will continue to invest in his crap, as happened for 5 weeks after the LIF.B rip-off.

Is that stupid? You be the judge, apparently you are comfortable with the issue staying open and future potential victims buying this worthless shit. Bully for you market genius boy. Should Peter come back and want proof of investment and loss, it can all be provided.

It's in your own best interest not to make such posts. I have no money in this, therefore nothing to lose. If Peter repays someone in this thread who does not own shares, it'll be you who will be on the losing side.

No, it is not stupid. However, what is stupid is commenting on the actions of other people without bothering to read the previous posts ...

I put a sell order up at the price I am willing to accept, notified Peter via this thread and Peter has not yet filled it.

I noted earlier that requesting payments be sent to an address was less than ideal, however, it appears someone, possibly Peter, sent the requested payment to the address specified by another investor. Given the lack of communication with Peter, I am certainly willing to try the same.

Well, I was assuming these were tongue-in-cheek comments made while waiting whether Lambert will respond or not... For all we know, someone might have captured him and began acting on his behalf. His actions are almost that weird.

Requesting bitcoins in this manner is stupid. You all should make sell orders on glbse, proving you own the appropriate number of shares.

Uh, I pretty much sunk ~150 BTC into this (actually double that amount, but that's my fault), so if you would so kindly send the sum to: 1L8ZDC8LTdfUh3fp9qCP9cxWsrUi8pKJhZ

I'll keep quiet for a third of that though.

Or, more constructively, we need to take a group action to at least find out more about the issue. I'm on the other side of the globe, so again, does anyone have physical access to Peter, or else is able to contact through another channel?

Fair enough.

@Peter - My silence will cost 5 BTCs. Please send to this address 13Wu7W7jmjQot7xnqogHYSmUmR1MzyB3YE

Peter, if for whatever reason you prefer doing this aside from glbse (as it looks because you have send money directly to others), please send 5.4 BTC to this address to keep me quiet, too:

1BgHVQNjs3wxaZYWcJEwVZNM6x6DkftDAB