Not on here they don't.  A few hundred posts is apparently too many to read to become informed.  Given the relatively short life-span of most things Bitcoin, I guess there's no need to develop a long attention span.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112438.msg1218455#msg1218455

Does anyone know which particular threads detail these "disaster plans"?

Chariots of the Gods meets the Age of Aquarius and Jung ITT.  Patchwork philosophy/metaphysics is such fun.

Insider trading isn't simply someone having knowledge not available to the general public.  It doesn't really apply to private companies because the public has no inherent right to information about a private company.  Failure to disclose to a purchaser material information affecting the value of shares in a private company veers more into the territory of obtaining financial advantage by deception and other forms of fraud.  That said, the risk of an entity offering unregistered securities being shut down by a regulator is so obvious that it shouldn't require explicit disclosure.

There is no corporate veil.  The business has no legally separate identity from those who hold equity in it.

This seems to be SOP for Bitcoin ventures.  They start with $5 and a website and hope to hell that they fly under the radar.  If you can't afford to consult lawyers and accountants before launching your venture, then you probably shouldn't be trusted with other people's money.  Styling yourself CEO or holding "shareholder meetings" is just irresponsible wankery if you haven't set up your venture legitimately and you're just hoping that various regulations don't apply to you because...Bitcoin.

In future, when people start claiming that some law or regulation doesn't apply to them because...Bitcoin, it might be prudent to ask them to demonstrate that they've obtained a written legal opinion supporting that claim.  We've got far too many people who "just want to create" running ventures without ensuring that they engage someone with relevant experience to ensure that their vulnerability to legal and regulatory issues is minimised.  Ignoring practical realities in favour of idealism is a recipe for disaster when it's other people's funds you're putting at risk.  It's reckless at best and criminally negligent at worst.


You'd need to see the case law, but these kinds of violations are often dealt with at an administrative level - ie, you're fined and either agree to either shut down or become compliant.  Of course I doubt that the operators of GLBSE have the same kind of reserves to pay fines as large financial institutions.


I doubt anything listed on GBLSE would be classed as a "tradeable security" under the Corporations Act 2001.

Chariots of the Gods meets the Age of Aquarius ITT.

Maybe not as their core business, but Inaba happens to run a mining pool.

GLBSE is going to be damaged by this no matter what the reason for it being taken offline.  That damage will probably be irreparable if Saturday's "update" doesn't include full and frank disclosure of the nature of the problem which took it offline.  Let's hope that the update isn't "more info in a few day" or something similar.

This is why ventures need proper business plans and growth needs to happen in a controlled manner - and why so many ventures fail because of their own initial success.  All of the things you listed should not be happening at one time and one person should not be responsible for managing them all.  Businesses are extremely vulnerable during growth and that vulnerability needs to be planned for.  That applies in the conventional world just as much as in the Bitcoin world.  What is slightly different is that in the Bitcoin world we're often seeing start-ups quickly become responsible for large amounts of other people's funds - because the primary "product" being demanded and offered is financial services.  This means the consequences of failure during expansion often involve the loss of other people's funds and not just those of the principals.

And yes, not just your first but every business you run has a learning curve - that's no excuse for failing to do your homework and due diligence both prior to launch and on an ongoing basis, though. 

You might want to get advice on that.  It sounds like you're functioning as a partnership and that has liability implications whether there's a written agreement or not.

In fact I wish everyone would get legal and accounting advice before they launch or become involved in the operation of Bitcoin ventures instead of just assuming that they know the legal implications of their venture.  It's inexcusable for services which will be responsible for other people's funds to not obtain such advice before launch.

If the shareholders meeting today decides to remove Nefario as CEO, exactly who is familiar enough with the inner workings of GBLSE to step into that role immediately?

Hopefully theymos will post an update after the shareholders' meeting and give people some clue as to what's going on.

It's beginning to sound as though GLBSE does not have any kind of legal existence which is separate from the individuals who hold equity in the business.  If that's the case, then those who hold equity have not only a right but a positive duty to be aware of what is happening with GLBSE as they are jointly and severally liable for its actions.

How have you guys not seen this as a potential major problem?

Having access to the database doesn't necessarily mean you'd be able to migrate stocks if GLBSE becomes legally restrained from doing business, but it's critical that someone other than Nefario be able to access the database in the event of a catastrophe and it's worrying that you guys don't seem to have planned for that possibility.  Have any of you taken legal advice regarding your own liability in respect of GLBSE?  

Perhaps, but it would make no sense not to make an announcement saying that he's taking the exchange offline based on legal advice, let alone to keep the shareholders in the dark about what's happening.  There has to be a reason why updates to users aren't being made before Saturday - my guess is that there's something happening which isn't immediately certain and that he's hoping to have more clarity about the situation by then.

Think laterally and exploit the gap in the market by cobbling together a new exchange for junk securities before Saturday.

I was just re-reading Nefario's posts from last week and it looks like the only immediate registration happening at this point in time is registration as a company.  Presumably not even that will be happening until theymos divests his shares as theymos is unwilling to be named on any company documents.  Whatever longer term plans Nefario has for GLBSE being regulated seem unlikely to move forward while theymos is still holding a significant parcel of shares.

So you're going to organise a music festival for over half a million people by the end of the year?  Bwahahaha.

The 60s are over dank - deal with it.  Hendrix is dead and he has not reincarnated in you. 

While this is true, Nefario should have been well aware of the need to close down GLBSE while approval was pending - such a shutdown should have been planned and advertised well in advance, if only so that user funds weren't inaccessible for however long the approval process takes and so that users weren't at risk of being adversely affected by either acceptance or rejection of GLBSE's application.

Whatever's going on, it seems to be something which Nefario did not anticipate.  Once we know the circumstances behind the shut-down, we'll be better placed to evaluate whether it's something he should have foreseen and prepared for.

You could try contacting them through Mr Bitcoins, which is another one of their ventures.

https://www.mrbitcoins.com/contactus

Did you use the zendesk address?

support@cryptoxchange.zendesk.com

It looks like they still read the forum.  Their profile lists their last activity on here as about 6 hours ago.