That's not true.

How does it protect a Gigaminer whose investment is worth less than the cost to notarise/apostille?

It protects you, there's a decent argument that it protects very large investors (especially ones not on the list provided by nefario) but it absolutely does not protect the interests of small investors.  Maybe edit it to "This is to protect myself and SOME gigaminers" - then at least it would be true.

Where did the tide "viciously turn against" me?  Must have missed that.  Or did all the people who "viciously turned" on me delete their posts before I even noticed them?

It doesn't mean the same thing.

The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is.

The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing").

Consider what happens in those two cases if he is unable to mine for a week.  In the new version clearly the "outcome of this processing" is zero - and ANY portion of zero is still zero.  In the original contract the payment would be equivalent to X MH/s worth of mining.  That's obviously just the most extreme example - but same principle applies to any other rise or fall in his actual mining results.

It's an entirely different thing.  It's not just some rewording  - it's an attempt to cover his arse by pretending he offered data processing rather than a bond paying a calculated amount per week irrespective of what the outcome was of his actual operation.  And you're not dumb enough not to have already realised that.

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

If you're willing to send the money to Bitcoin Foundation if they sign the message with their BTC address, then why can't they just do that and then you send THEM the bitcoins?  That's totally and utterly inconsistent.

On what basis did you conclude that it wasn't unreasonable for gigavps to make agreements as a private individual and now attempt to alter history (and limit his own liability) by falsely claiming that those agreements were made with an LLC?  This is about the only issue on which I believe it likely giga deserves a scammer tag right now.

Do you believe it reasonable that someone holding say 1 giga share who doesn't live in the US is now expected to pay probably $50-$100 in fees to satisfy giga's requirements and obtain back their <1 BTC worth of assets?  Or is it reasonable that they should just give up on their claim "because nefario"?

I could partially understand giga's position if the requirements for ID etc were applied only to investors who EITHER:

a) Had large holdings,
OR
b) Didn't have details in the list provided by nefario.

But requesting it from all?  Is that really reasonable?

Next: let's imagine I submit a claim (with all the relevant documents) - I'm either on the list or I'm not.  Now what?  Is my claim approved regardless?  If so - then it's a scammer's charter as there's no likely means by which it could ever be proven that I DIDN'T own the shares.

Or is my some other basis used to determine whether the claim is approved?  If so - what value is the ID actually adding to the process?  There's nothing it can be compared against.  Sure - in theory it allows recourse against me - but that's a theory that could almost certainly never be put into practice (how to prove I didn't believe I owned shares).

This approach WILL totally deter small scammers - and equally totally make it impractical for smaller investors to reclaim their assets.  It's a minor to middling inconvenience for large investors - and a huge bonus for any big scammers, as it adds a negligible amount of risk whilst giving a greatly improved chance of them actually getting something.  

If the argument gos along the lines of "well we won't pay out big claims until nefario's confirmed their details" then what's the point of requesting ID from anyone not on the list?  Surely they should just be told to contact nefario and get themselves on the next updated list - and the ID becomes irrelevant as the list is (essentially) being relied on.

For the record I'm not submitting a claim and am 99.99% sure I didn't hold any giga when GLBSE closed (the .001% is the chance that other assets sold and a buy order for giga filled in the last 10 minutes of trading, but I don't believe I even had a giga buy order up).

WEEKLY REPORT



Another solidly profitable week.  Most of the profit was made in the first half of the week - towards the end of the week activity on LTC-GLOBAL seemed to drop off a bit.

I've delayed creating the bond asset (and updating the spreadsheet etc) until after this report - that way I have a week to iron out any glitches in the spreadsheet and can include this week's report in the new first post so I dont have to redo it later.

LTC seems to have started to rise vc BTC - it dipped pretty lkow during during the week but is now back to (very) slightly over what it was at last report.  So I won't be rushing to get assets into BTC just yet - as obviously if LTC rises we want to be holding as little BTC as possible.

The section of the spreadsheet calculating adjustment to management fee for exchange-rate movement has been removed per the passed motion.  It wouldn't have been used this week anyway - as LTC hasn't dropped.

Management fee this is week is 5 units (rounded down from 5.2) which will be taken after this is posted.  HWM will then be updated.

Bid is at 13.889 (above NAV/U due to my offer to buy back at above NAV/U for a week due to a change being made to the contract).

Well in theory they could have the documents signed as accepted by the two relevant embassies (US one in their country then their coutry's embassy in the US).  Totally out of luck if even that isn't possible.  But of course all of that should be giga's problem - not yours - as he proposed the agreement, wrote the contract and at no point stipulated any requirement for the information or any restriction on who he'd deal with (or who the bonds were assignable to).  Guess you just have to let him cancel the agreement and return the original amount paid less dividends - which luckily he has the BTC address for (if you're in nefario's list).

Right - that post of yours had way more useful/valuable content than any of mine?

Would suggest you use different translation software - whatever you're using now seems to mistranslate something that should come out as "Sorry - I was totally wrong" into "Go away you're a troll [Insert random insult]".

Well vs SOME the argument would be the following:

It's an obvious pump and dump designed to make money for those behind it (from selling their pre-mined coins) at the expense of others.
Attacking it early reduces the profit they make.
Preventing/reducing them making money from gullible users is good - we have some duty to try to protect the naive.

Then there's the more general argument that the effort put into many of the alt-coins would benefit the community more if it was put into developing existing coins.

Not saying I particularly agree with either of those arguments but they do have logic to them (it's the assumptions made to justify the logic - not the logic itself - that are questionable).

You just don't get it.

Your lawyer does not "tell you to stop doing something".  They may, however advise you to stop doing something.

You're using "order" and (this time) "tell" when you should use "advise" or "recommend". As a (professed) English teacher I assumed you understood those words have significantly different meanings - and hence that by choosing the words you used you were demonstarting a lack of understanding of the nature of the lawyer/client relationship.

On your later point about it not being smart to ignore your lawyer's advice, that could be why I said "Which isn't to say that it's a good idea to go against your lawyer's advice of course.".

It may seem like niggly little point by me to argue about semantic detail.  But it's a pretty major point.  Too many people (not just on this forum) claim that they're doing something because their lawyer instructed them to do it or told them to do it - attempting to portray the lawyer as the decision-making person and so shift some (or all) of the blame for the decision away from them.  In reality, lawyers advise that you do X for reason Y - attempting to claim that the lawyer ORDERED you to do X (and not disclosing Y) is factually incorrect as well as being deceptive.

Someone says "My lawyer ordered me to do X" - it gives impression they're helpless and have no option.

Person says "I'm doing because X because my lawuer advised me that if I didn't I'd suffer Y" then it becomes plain that THEY made the choice - and that they did so because they didn't want to suffer Y.  i.e. it becomes obvious they made a conscious decision to act in their own self-interest.

The latter is what actually happens -the former is what the nefarios/gigas of the world want everyone to believe - as it doesn't paint them in such a bad light.

You're missing that he doesn't just require notorization - he also requires an apostille.  The apostille is basically confirmation by a central authority that whoever notarised the document is entitled to do so - without it, someone in a different country would have no way to establish whether the apparent notarization was actually legitimate.  To be fair, if he requires notarised documents from non-US residents then they'd HAVE to be apostilled to be of any value.

I'm in the UK.  Cost of notorization can vary - last time I had one done it cost £25 (~$35-$40) but if you don't have regular dealing with a notary it can cost more.  I've never shopped around - as whenever I have a document notarised it's for business, so the cost isn't coming out of my pocket.

The ONLY place which can issue an apostille in the UK is the Legalisation Office of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  That costs a fixed fee of £30 (~$45) (or did last time I had to get one) - or significantly more if you want the notary to do it on your behalf (no need for that as you can obtain it through the post).

Then add on the cost of travel, recorded delivery (of document to FCO), return postage etc to that and you'll be lucky to see change out of £60-£70 (~$150).  And that's without charging for your own time at all.

No idea at all how easy obtaining an apostille is elsewhere - but the costs of getting a notarised, aspostilled document in the UK are WAY above your estimate of $10 - the FCO fee is non-negotiable even if you had a (notary) friend do the notarisation for free.

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the relationship between someone and their lawyer.

A lawyer does NOT "order" their client to do anything.  A Judge "orders".  Law Enforcement or Regulatory bodies may "order".  A lawyer "advises".

A lawyer only tells you what they advise you to do - explaining the risks and benefits of doing (or not doing) it.  Where you reject that advice (and do otherwise) they may (especially in criminal cases) ask you to sign that statement that you are acting contrary to their advice.  That's to protect them in case you subsequently try to claim you didn't receive proper representation.

Dont know where you got the impression from that the lawyer orders the client - it's actually the other way round.  The client instructs their lawyer what to do, the lawyer advises the client on what they believe the client SHOULD do.  In fact lawyers very much go out of their way to make plain they are NOT ordering a client to do something.

Which isn't to say that it's a good idea to go against your lawyer's advice of course.

Where there's an issue in respect of giga's behaviour is NOT that he may be having to take certain steps to protect himself and comply with laws/regulations.  It's that he appears to be attempting to misrepresent the past - in his own interests and against those of the parties with whom he entered into agreements.  Very specifically (for one thing) it is apparent that when the agreement was offered there was no mention of it being by an LLC - yet now he appears to be claiming (via his lawyer) that all agreements were with the LLC rather than with himself personally.  That has significant impact on the assets again which other parties have claim should he fail to honour the agreement.

There's no basis in law (and certainly no legal requirement to) misrepresent the nature of an agreement you entered into to avoid inconvenience now.  If you were wrong to make the agreement - then that's fine: sort out the mistakes, work to minise damage to both parties etc.  But don't just start lieing about what was actually agreed - whilst that MAY give you a better chance of avoiding SOME problems (by avoiding admitting to things) it's dishonest and deceitful.

At root the complaint against giga would be that by his actions he's putting his own self-interest above honouring his commitment to those he entered into agreements with.  Which is essentially what ALL scammers do - just in most cases that self-interest is "I want the money" rather than "I don't want problems with LE/SEC".

If you intentionally make it impossible (or impractical, or unreasonably costly) for your investors to get what was promised to them for reasons of self-interest then that's scamming just as much as if you vanished with their funds.  That's what seemed to happen with nefario - his lawyer advised him (NOT ordered him) that he should close down GLBSE in HIS interests and he did so, in the process (apparently - I've not seen what was agreed between him/the other GLBSE shareholders) breaking agreements he'd made with others here.

Scammer tag is (or should be) awarded because you choose not to honour agreements you made.  If I enter into agreement with you (by you I mean whoever - not usagi specifically) and you don't keep your end of the deal then whatever loss is caused to me is unchanged whether you were advised by a lawyer to break the agreement or not.  If there's good reasons why it would cost you to keep the deal then, frankly that's your problem and shouldn't be mine.  Giga should have thought about that BEFORE offering to sell unlicensed securities that were designed to make him significant profit and marginal (if any) profit for investors.  This was NEVER a share - but a bond (of sorts).  His obligations were crystal clear - and neither the risks (which he's now apaprently suffering from) or the rewards (which were only ever really going to him) were split with investors.

All that said, I don't believe he deserves a scammer tag (yet).  If he acknowledges that the requests for ID etc are to cover HIS arse (and aren't necessary for him to meet his obligations) and agrees to cover costs incurred by investors in providing such documentation then I don't see any real harm being done.  Though he still has to address the issue of those who are unwilling (or unable in the case of minors) to provide such information.  If his assertion is that the information is necessary for him to fulfil the agreement (and someone won't provide it) then he really only has two options - cancel the agreement and refunds all funds received (less dividends paid) on the basis that the investor won't provide information necessary to activate the agreement OR report it to the relevant LE/regulatory authorities (on suspicion that the refusal is for AML-related reasons).  You (he) can't argue that the information is somehow NECESSARY for the agreement to be transacted - and then in the next breath say that you want to keep YOUR entitlements under the agreement if preconditions for the agreement to be valid aren't met.

He seems to want to have his cake and eat it.  He needs to choose which - as he's not entitled to both.

The only investors who will get accounts made will be ones whose email address is in the list GLBSE sends.  The rest of the bonds would be in your asset-issuing account.  Point 6 of burnside's post explains how you should handle those so as to be able to run the copany normally whilst keeping their share of dividends safe for when they DO provide their details and and can be given their bonds/shares.

I notice in the demand the following:

"All information provided will be held in confidence and used only for the purposes of lawfully fulfilling the obligations of the agreements "

Does anyone have  copy of the agreement (i.e. his contract)?  I notice it's vanished from the OP of the thread (if it was actually ever there).  Would be interesting to compare his lawyer's characterisation of the agreement with what was actually agreed.  Pretty sure it wouldn't have been anything like:

"VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements."

For starters, this was a fixed-rate bond - so the payments were totally unrelated to the outcome of the processing (or am I confusing this with something else?).  

And was the agreement actually made with VPS (i.e. were they identified as the other party)? Or is he now attempting to transfer his obligations under the agreement to an LLC without investors' consent?  I honestly don't know the answer to this (as I can't see the original agreement anywhere)?

Obviously I'd not advocate using fake names.  But I'd expect that anyone who used one would be using a different email address to their GLBSE-associated one to ask questions, then mailing from their "proper" email and signing with their real name if they ever actually claimed.  Not quite sure how signing (with a fake name) an email from a disposable email address just to ask some questions could lead to a mess.  Worst that can happen is the lawyer refuses to reply without receiving ID - and that's really not likely: making a demand and refusing to explain it wouldn't exactly strength giga's case if this ever went to court or a regulatory body.

Reason giga's insisting on you contacting his lawyer rather than answeing himself is entirely straight-forward and standard.  You don't buy a guard-dog and then bark yourself.  

I'm sure his lawyer will happily answer each and every email to him - he gets paid for it, so more emails means more money.  Lawyers LOVE exchanging correspondence endlessly (if being paid by a private client) - it's what makes them money. Dunno what rates his charges but expect every email the lawyer even opens costs a fair few $ before he's even clicked the reply button: a minimum charge per item of correspondence received/read is not uncommon.

No you don't.

"If you have any questions or concerns, please address these to the law offices at the following e-mail or mailing address."

Rather obviously you want your questions and concerns addressed BEFORE you submit the requested information - would be a bit late afterwards.

Most transactions are conducted using Debit/Credit Cards and you prove ownership not by providing ID but by providing knowledge of a secret (the PIN number).

Similarly the exchange with which MPOE-PR is associated (MPEX) allows withdrawals and transaction without providing ID - but by proving knowledge of a secret (a private key).

To an equal extent ownership of an email and/or BTC address can be proven without providing ID.

In this case no ID was provided (or requested) when entering the arrangement - so proving ID NOW doesn't get anywhere nearer proving you controlled that email address/BTC address at the time at which the agreement was entered into.

To be clear: If you believe nefario's list then you don't need the ID to prove ownership.  If the list is treated as unreliable (i.e. the existence of an email/BTC address on there isn't itself accepted as proof of ownership by whoever controls them) then providing ID doesn't prove OR disprove ownership.

That's why I'd conclude the request has nothing to do with proving ownership - and everything to do with trying to cover his arse: the costs of which (to investors as well as to him) are his responsibility as (in short) he's the one who chose not to do it in the first place and the one who had the responsibility to disclose the need for it if it was required of him by regulation/law to obtain it.

Won't address all of what you say - as a lot of it is is pure speculation at this point: particularly until his lawyer clarifies what will happen if information isn't provided and who foots the bill for providing the information.

I'm in the UK - so likely there's some differences.  One thing many people get wrong is over what happens if you refuse to comply with AML/KYC demands (which is likely to be the stated reason for wanting the information).  Companies who have to follow the AML/KYC equirements also have to have a policy on how they handle the situation where a (prospective) client sends funds then is unable (or unwilling) to provide the information.  In brief, the ONLY two options they have are to return the funds to wherever they came from or to file a report with the relevant authority.  There's no "we'll just keep it" option.

On the issue that maybe providing ID is a reasonable prerequisite for forming a contract (bear in mind this ISN'T about ownership of property - these aren't shares but more like bonds) the issue of timeliness arises.  I'd say it's fair to conclude that many (maybe all) of those entering into these agreements were not aware there would be requirement for this ID.  I'd say it's fair to conclude that any competent individual would conclude that Giga was the senior party in this agreement.  Giga's actions in using the funds to purchase the hardware etc BEFORE requesting the ID have made the contract difficult to reverse.  Had he requested the ID before people bought the bonds then likely many would have chosen not to purchase them.  So EITHER:

Giga didn't HIMSELF know the ID was required when the contract was made.  If the senior party didn't know it, then you can't reasonably conclude the junior one did.

OR

Giga DID know the ID was required when the contract was made - but failed to disclose it.  And then acted in such a manner as to make the contract irreversible BEFORE requesting it.

Anyway - next step for everyone is pretty obvious, irrespective.  Find out precisely what his lawyer is claiming his stance is - including the really awkward bits ("Were you aware when you offered to enter into these agreements that you would need this information in order to deliver on your obligations?" , "At what stage - and why - did you change from not needing this information to sell unlicensed securities to needing this information?" etc).

And finally, do bear in mind, that when giga went and asked his lawyer what to do there's one certainty about the reply was going to be.  It would be something which generated more work for the lawyer.

You're being too premature.  Before you can even consider "going to court" (which would be a long time and a lot of expense away) you need to contact his lawyer and find out:

Whether he will pay all reasonable costs associated with fulfilling his demands for information,
If you're unable (or unwilling) to provide that information, what is he intending to do (e.g. keep the funds from you and not deliver any of his part of the agreement).

At the moment the official post doesn't address either of those points - and it's what he proposes to do in respect of those that would provide the basis for any action against him.  The demand itself is just that - a demand - if you choose to comply with it then that's your call.  If you'd prefer not to comply (or to have your costs reimbursed if you do) then you need to find out his stance on that before you can complain about it.

If the response is along the lines of "Either you comply or we'll keep your BTC and not fulfil our half of the agreement" THEN you have something to complain about.  Right now, that hasn't been said - so you need it to be said by his lawyer (of course it won't be worded in quite that way).

You could also ask WHY the information is being requested, how it will be stored, who will have access to it, what it will be used for, how long it will be kept for etc.  And IF it's being requested as part of giga's obligations to a regulatory body, which body that is - so you can check that his request is in accordance with the relevant rules/guidelines.  I only know the relevant UK situation - so it may be a bit different where he is.

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but fundamentally disagree on one major issue.

If gigavps needs that information in order to deliver on his obligations then there's no alternative other than to providing it.  However all costs associated with providing that information should be covered by him.

He wrote the contract.  He chose the site on which the trades were transacted.  At no stage was it made clear that this information would be needed - and it was never previously requested in order to disburse dividends or trade shares.

He's attempting to insert into the contract a requirement (which has costs to satify) on the other party unilaterally.  As such, all costs associating with fulfilling HIS new requirement should be met by him.

On the point about claims arising later - that's essentially no different to what was previously happening.  Previously (when GLBSE ran) giga was sending dividend payments to GLBSE (nefario) who then distributed them out between who he claimed (via his database) had ownership of the shares/bonds.  All that's happening now is that the list for distribution is being given to giga so he can disburse them directly.  Giga had no way previously of ensuring that dividends went to the correct counter-parties - and no means of rectifying any issues that arose over claims disputing ownership of rights.  He had to trust nefario then - same as he does now.  Plus it's pretty unlikely that in 5 years time someone would be able to "prove" they owned shares now - without having even made any comment about it anyway.

Don't think giga's actions have much to do with insurance or risj of fraud - more to do with attempting to (after the fact) make his operation appear to be a private rather than a public offering: which involves knowing the identity of the other parties and no trading of the "securities".

I don't have any Gigamining units.  If I did then my very first email to his lawyer would be asking whether giga was going to cover all reasonable costs associated with providing the required information and, if not, on what basis he was claiming those costs were my responsibility.

You need to find out what his position is before you can decide how to proceed.  I don't think there's ANY way to refuse to provide that information (though see next paragraph) but who has to pay for the costs associated (included YOUR time) is far more open to debate.

To the person saying what to do if you're under 18, don't have the ID etc.  Email his lawayer.  Explain that you're under 18, have no ID etc.  Explain that he never requested such information, stipulated that he wouldn't deal with under 18s or made any effort to establish that parties he dealt with were of legal age to enter such agreements with him.  Ask his lawyer who the local body is to whom you should make a complaint that he entered into a financial arrangement with a minor, with no attempt to ascertain whether or not they were a minor, and is now attempting to get out of his obligations by making requirements that a minor can't fulfil.  You may not get a clear answer - but at least you'll then know that issue is being proper consideration.

For those with small holdings your options may well end up being either walk away or try to cause grief by reporting what happened to as many regulatory bodies as you can.  Your call on which of those options you take.  But first some of you need to contact his lawyer and find out precisely what the situation is - always treat any formal demand as the starting point for negotiation, not as some absolute end point which has to be accepted or rejected.