Not sure what the fuss is all about in this particular case.
Nefario stated that Alberto had agreed, when he provided the ID documents, that they could be released if he scammed or disappeared with investor's funds. If Alberto agreed to this then it has nothing to do with the TOS of GLBSE: Alberto has every entitlement to waive one of the rights he would otherwise have under his agreement with GLBSE.
If Nefario had released the ID documents of someone WITHOUT them having agreed to it, then that would be an entirely different matter.
Remember that the TOS of GLBSE are a contract that you enter into with them when you use the site. As with an ycontract its terms can be variede with the agreement of both parties to it. In Alberto's case, Nefario has stated that they varied the contract such that (under certain circumstances) the personal details of Alberto could be released. Alberto did NOT have the same agreement with GLBSE after that as everyone else (by default) has.
If you want to look at things like the Data Protection Act and other related legislation in the UK (where GLBSE/nefario are based) then you'll find that they only deal with the handling/distribution of data WITHOUT the consent of the other party to whom the data pertains. In this case Nefario has said he had Alberto's consent to release the information in these circumstances.
Obviously if you believe Nefario is lieing about Alberto having agreed to the release of his ID in the event of his scamming/running with funds then that's slightly different. But I'm not seeing any posts from Alberto claiming that to be the case - have I missed them somewhere? Or do you have some other reason to believe Nefario is lieing about that?
i am not sure if thats enough. if nefario had asked alberto "may i release your information now?" -> all good. but what court has said that alberto has scammed funds? nefario's word and the opinion of this community is not legally binding. In that case Alberto should be complaining that he hasn't scammed (or run off with investors' funds) - and that Nefario broke the (privately arranged) term in their contract specifying the conditions under which his information could be released to the public. The agreement wasn't specifically that ALberto had to scam - it also agreed Alberto disappearing with the investors' funds. The latter is rather easier to establish than scamming - scamming requires intent, whilst vanishing with the funds is just a matter of simple facts: is he still around? Do investors have their funds back? Without knowing the exact wording of what was agreed (and you) can't know for certain whether Nefario releasing the ID was in agreement with their contract or not. But what we DO know (unless you believe Nefario is lieing about such an agreement being made) is that the default contract in the TOS is not relevant - as it was varied with the consent of both parties (Alberto and Nefario). EDIT: Now out of date, as Nefario posted whilst I was typing this. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure what the fuss is all about in this particular case.
Nefario stated that Alberto had agreed, when he provided the ID documents, that they could be released if he scammed or disappeared with investor's funds. If Alberto agreed to this then it has nothing to do with the TOS of GLBSE: Alberto has every entitlement to waive one of the rights he would otherwise have under his agreement with GLBSE.
If Nefario had released the ID documents of someone WITHOUT them having agreed to it, then that would be an entirely different matter.
Remember that the TOS of GLBSE are a contract that you enter into with them when you use the site. As with an ycontract its terms can be variede with the agreement of both parties to it. In Alberto's case, Nefario has stated that they varied the contract such that (under certain circumstances) the personal details of Alberto could be released. Alberto did NOT have the same agreement with GLBSE after that as everyone else (by default) has.
If you want to look at things like the Data Protection Act and other related legislation in the UK (where GLBSE/nefario are based) then you'll find that they only deal with the handling/distribution of data WITHOUT the consent of the other party to whom the data pertains. In this case Nefario has said he had Alberto's consent to release the information in these circumstances.
Obviously if you believe Nefario is lieing about Alberto having agreed to the release of his ID in the event of his scamming/running with funds then that's slightly different. But I'm not seeing any posts from Alberto claiming that to be the case - have I missed them somewhere? Or do you have some other reason to believe Nefario is lieing about that?
|
|
|
|
Usagi. What is the current NAV of CPA? Thanks.
It is impossible to answer that question, because it does not apply to CPA. CPA makes around 140 bitcoins a month. Those are our earnings. NAV, or Net Asset Value is not applicable here because CPA is not an investment fund which holds other investments, but a company which performs a service and makes money selling that service. Therefore "net asset value" is meaningless because we don't make money by holding assets. Technically speaking we could have no assets whatsoever as long as we had a sufficient number of accounts and say a 30 or 60 day payment window. Consider; in order to make as much money as CPA does by having money in Starfish Bank at 1% a week, for example, you would need 3,230 bitcoins. So that amount over 52,000 shares implies that people who like to put money in Starfish Bank will enjoy paying 0.062/share for CPA. What about BTC-BOND? That's popular, there's over 17,441 outstanding shares of that, and it only pays 0.5% a week. That would imply CPA is worth 0.124 per share. So what's the NAV of Starfish bank? What's the NAV of BTC-BOND? You see, NAV is not relevant here. What you are probably thinking of is "book value", which in CPA's case would be the value of everything it actually owns at a moment in time. But this is a poor way of valuing an insurance company which takes in more from premiums than it does from investment income (unless one were thinking of firing all the employees and liquidating the assets). So you see, when I say our NAV or book value is around 0.03 or maybe lower, that is a very poor way of looking at CPA. What matters is that we have enough to back all our current contracts, and enough to sign yet more contracts -- and we're making money. We're growing. For a company like CPA, assets under management means almost nothing, only the ability to pay current contracts and sign new ones. We're not an investment fund! Recent P/E data for 2012 ( here, for example) puts the average P/E ratio for Insurance companies (on the low end) at about 13. This recent Seeking Alpha article gives several bargain Insurance companies with P/E ratios between 7 and 10. Using 7 as a very conservative figure, and assuming CPA signs no contracts for the next year, this puts us at a valuation of 11,760 over 52,000 shares -- about .226/share. In other words, 7 times higher. Right now the bitcoin market is giving us a P/E of 1. I feel that's ridiculous and I refuse to sell my shares that low. I'm sure the market disagrees -- fine, don't buy CPA! If the market wants to sell my shares at 20% of what I think they're worth, I'd be happy to buy them. Don't agree? Fine, sell your shares even lower! Be my guest. I think the real issue here is what P/E we should assign to CPA. I feel 1 is extremely low. I can't possibly see how that is justified. If you look at forward P/E after we sign more and more contracts next year, it's around 0.4 or 0.3. That's insane. Even more smoke and mirrors. What's the P/E ratio for insurance companies that lost 70% of book value in a few months? Oh - there aren't any (except yours). Earnings isn't just your turnover in insurance premiums. You also have to deduct from that (amongst other things) what you paid out on claims. How much did you have to pay out on Yarr? Yes - I know you haven't actually paid it all out yet (though bulk of what's still owed is conveniently owed to your nyan companies who don't seem to want it, unfortunately for their investors). Did you still make 140 BTC per month after deducting that? If so, then that means you actually lost MORE than 'only' 70% of book value but clawed a bit back from operating profit. And do bear in mind 20 of that 140 BTC/month is from BMF - who are paying 550 BTC 'premiums' over 110 weeks for a insurance policy with a maximum payout of 500 BTC and on which it seems to me they should already be claiming. Shuffling funds between your various suffering enterprises isn't making profits. It just allows you to rearrange which set of your shareholders bear which portion of the pain. |
|
|
|
And how does your annualised return of 40% compare to the annualised return of someone who just held bitcoins?
About the same. You can calculate that yourself without much effort; just match the outstanding shares of BMF as "bitcoins bought" with the historical mtgoxusd prices (which are freely available) for any date. Just average out what it would have cost to buy BTC at the time vs BMF. Cut out all the rest of your smoke and mirrors. I don't need to mess around with historical mtgoxusd prices. You IPO'd at 1 BTC per share. Now here's some complicated math for you. If they'd kept that 1 BTC what would they have now? (Hint: it's more than 0.9 BTC and less than 1.1 BTC and you don't have to look at mtgoxusd to figure it out). Rest of your post was based on that rather elementary mistake. Total dividends per share to date come in at under 0.1 per share (0.094994 from a quick copy/paste into Excel). So even at 0.74 per share (which is horribly optimistic - and you've already said even YOU wouldn't buy at that price so don't value them that high) where's their profit? Looks like a 16% loss to me. Value the shares at nav and obviously it's a lot worse. All your waffle about valuing hardware in USD is just that - waffle. If gear was bought in USD back then, then it's now second-hand so very little of it will be worth more in USD now. And with BTC having risen vs USD it's rather obviously dropped even more in value when valued in BTC. |
|
|
|
NYAN.C is currently trading at about 0.3 BTC - significantly above its NAV. You know much more about finances than I, but it seems to me buying at this price would decrease, not increase, shareholder value.
Example with rough numbers:
NYAN.C starts with 1.25kBTC in assets and 5k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.25 BTC.
You buy back 1000 shares of NYAN.C for 0.3 each, totaling 300 BTC.
NYAN.C now has 0.95kBTC in assets and 4k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.2375 BTC.
I understand dividends come into play, but dividends are generally proportional to NAV. I just fail to see how buying above NAV increases shareholder value or dividends. Perhaps you can enlighten me, usagi.
Usagi's first point was that future projected cashflow (and thus dividends) and not NAV should determine value, and I agree. This is the standard by which other companies are held. Apple doesn't have 655.35B worth of assets. If anyone cares, I can go into a deeper explanation of how future cashflow is the primary determination of company market capitalization. It's a pretty important concept if you hope to invest in securities. But cashflow will decrease when assets are used to buy back shares. Usagi may have many admirable qualities, but I don't think she can make capital appear out of thin air or generate cashflow from nothing. You honestly believe she's really going to do an aggressive buy-back of shares? There'll undoubtedly be a small immediate rise in the value of her securities - as people buy to speculate, hoping to be able to sell at a profit when her bid walls appear. When significant bidwalls don't emerge at above nav the price will fall back below to around nav/share - with the usual spikes up when she posts her weekly spin then the falls back down when everyone notices that despite her spin she's still steadily pissing away the funds they invested. BMF, my flagship fund, has a real annualized rate of return of over 40% not including dividends. Do you get it yet? You're wrong. Seriously, are you retarded? Every time I correct your gross misunderstandings, you take it personally -- or at least, you pretended to get upset at being wrong to increase your post count. Go ahead, tell the people who have invested in BMF and my other funds how bad they lost out. You sir, are an idiot, and should probably be banned from these forums. Seriously, stop following me around a shitting in all my threads. You're worse than nimda was when I was running YARR. And how does your annualised return of 40% compare to the annualised return of someone who just held bitcoins? The only reason you can claim to given this return is because you're calculating it in US$. And the entirety of that gain is due to changes in the exchange rate. It's truly pathetic that you claim to be doing well just because BTC rose against the US$ at a rate faster than you managed to lose on investing. If people want to gamble on BTC rising then they can just hold BTC - without having to subject their coins to your (mis)management. I believe EskimoBoB posted the list of outstanding shares as a reference to see whether you were actually performing an aggressive buyback - or just using the 'threat' of doing so to try to drive the market up. That said I DO agree with you that you shouldn't buyback whilst the share prices are above nav - but wasn't that my point anyway? That your shares (not all shares) should only be valued at nav or thereabouts - nice to see you practice that even if you preach otherwise. |
|
|
|
NYAN.C is currently trading at about 0.3 BTC - significantly above its NAV. You know much more about finances than I, but it seems to me buying at this price would decrease, not increase, shareholder value.
Example with rough numbers:
NYAN.C starts with 1.25kBTC in assets and 5k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.25 BTC.
You buy back 1000 shares of NYAN.C for 0.3 each, totaling 300 BTC.
NYAN.C now has 0.95kBTC in assets and 4k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.2375 BTC.
I understand dividends come into play, but dividends are generally proportional to NAV. I just fail to see how buying above NAV increases shareholder value or dividends. Perhaps you can enlighten me, usagi.
Usagi's first point was that future projected cashflow (and thus dividends) and not NAV should determine value, and I agree. This is the standard by which other companies are held. Apple doesn't have 655.35B worth of assets. If anyone cares, I can go into a deeper explanation of how future cashflow is the primary determination of company market capitalization. It's a pretty important concept if you hope to invest in securities. But cashflow will decrease when assets are used to buy back shares. Usagi may have many admirable qualities, but I don't think she can make capital appear out of thin air or generate cashflow from nothing. You honestly believe she's really going to do an aggressive buy-back of shares? There'll undoubtedly be a small immediate rise in the value of her securities - as people buy to speculate, hoping to be able to sell at a profit when her bid walls appear. When significant bidwalls don't emerge at above nav the price will fall back below to around nav/share - with the usual spikes up when she posts her weekly spin then the falls back down when everyone notices that despite her spin she's still steadily pissing away the funds they invested. |
|
|
|
CPA has 52078 shares outstanding, 2012-07-31 you had 46423.
Looks like you sold another 5655 shares.
How many % of CPA are you planning to buy back? Looks like you only had 102.96 BTC
This will get you about 770 shares or so of CPA or about 1.4%
Aggressive buyback?
Figures are a little off. I don't think you can get there from here. CPA makes money over time, as do it's holdings, which is how we are doing this. NYAN.C is currently trading at about 0.3 BTC - significantly above its NAV. You know much more about finances than I, but it seems to me buying at this price would decrease, not increase, shareholder value.
Example with rough numbers:
NYAN.C starts with 1.25kBTC in assets and 5k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.25 BTC.
You buy back 1000 shares of NYAN.C for 0.3 each, totaling 300 BTC.
NYAN.C now has 0.95kBTC in assets and 4k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.2375 BTC.
I understand dividends come into play, but dividends are generally proportional to NAV. I just fail to see how buying above NAV increases shareholder value or dividends. Perhaps you can enlighten me, usagi.
Usagi's first point was that future projected cashflow (and thus dividends) and not NAV should determine value, and I agree. This is the standard by which other companies are held. Apple doesn't have 655.35B worth of assets. If anyone cares, I can go into a deeper explanation of how future cashflow is the primary determination of company market capitalization. It's a pretty important concept if you hope to invest in securities. Apple also hasn't lost 60-70% of its asset value and isn't having to borrow funds at around 2% per week because of a liquidity crisis. Where the value of assets is relatively stable then yes - valuing just based on those assets is horribly naive. When the assets are mainly investments (with unstable prices and low liquidity) then the valuation of the company has to be much nearer to the value of the assets. If CPA ever reaches a point where it generates steady revenue from its core business of insurance, outweighing any fluctuations in its investments then it would make no sense to continue to value it on nav. But right now that just isn't the case - its track record is one of losing asset value far faster than it generates operational profit: which doesnt tend towards a high valuation by ANY method. Wow you love to embarrass yourself don't you. I *just said* we make money, and you even quoted a thread where I said approx. how much money CPA makes in a month. See, investors like you always think they are the wise guy. It's the classic "I have been scammed before so I know how to spot a scam" mentality. It's so blindingly obvious but they can't see past their own nose. Think: "I have been scammed before" and "I can spot a scam". Here's another one; You quote how much money CPA makes and acknowledge they have loads of cash, while on the other hand you claim that valuing CPA by it's revenue over it's nav is "horribly naieve". Hahahaha. You personify why I am doing this. Investors who have conviction but are fantastically wrong about it. CPA makes A% on it's contracts, it makes B% on it's investments and you can take this to the bank, it makes C% on people just like you, who think they know what they are talking about. I mean how hard is it really? All the information is out there, a digger like you who likes to follow me around and increase his post count any way he can (including by setting himself up for some pretty massive bitchslaps, I have to admit) could do a lot better than this you know. Revenue is not the same thing as profit. You consistently fail to realise that and believe you're doing well even when your nav falls by 60-70%. Quoting a thread where YOU said how much money CPA makes in a month is in no way the same thing as ME saying CPA makes that much money in a month. Becasue our definitions of making money are different. If a company has $1000 of assets at the start of a period, pays out $60 in dividends but ends with only $400 of assets then our interpretations would be entirely different. I'd say the company has done horribly and incurred a loss for its shareholders of $540 - 54% of initial capital. I'd also say that the company didn't "make" ANY profit. Accordingly, at most I'd value it at nav. You'd say it should be valued based on the 6% it paid in dividedns during that period. That's no shock - as that company is basically CPA. Every investor who bought 10 shares at 1 BTC has received around 0.06 BTC in dividends and their 1 BTC has ended up being backed by 0.3-0.4 worth of assets. And the value of assets backing CPA is pretty directly relevant to ability to generate profit - as you have to have assets to back up the insurance policies you write. If you really believe investments should be based only on dividend stream then you should be going all-in on OBSI.HRPT - as it's a real snip when measured in those terms at 1.0. But you won't (nor should you). Why? Because there's a high-risk associated with it. News-flash: There's also a high-risk associated with ANY company where the manager erodes NAV faster than paying out dividends. Why? Well do the math of what happens if it continues - as nav falls, to generate the same dividends per share then earnings have to increase progressively faster as a percentage of capital. But capital keeps falling. So either dividends stop/reduce (meaning valuing it on past dividends was wrong) or the company gos bust. You can repeatedly keep claiming those who disagree with you are wrong. But you're now on what? Your 3rd company to lose asset value? It's hardly surprising you don't want asset-based valuation to be used is it? |
|
|
|
NYAN.C is currently trading at about 0.3 BTC - significantly above its NAV. You know much more about finances than I, but it seems to me buying at this price would decrease, not increase, shareholder value.
Example with rough numbers:
NYAN.C starts with 1.25kBTC in assets and 5k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.25 BTC.
You buy back 1000 shares of NYAN.C for 0.3 each, totaling 300 BTC.
NYAN.C now has 0.95kBTC in assets and 4k shares outstanding, giving a NAV of 0.2375 BTC.
I understand dividends come into play, but dividends are generally proportional to NAV. I just fail to see how buying above NAV increases shareholder value or dividends. Perhaps you can enlighten me, usagi.
Usagi's first point was that future projected cashflow (and thus dividends) and not NAV should determine value, and I agree. This is the standard by which other companies are held. Apple doesn't have 655.35B worth of assets. If anyone cares, I can go into a deeper explanation of how future cashflow is the primary determination of company market capitalization. It's a pretty important concept if you hope to invest in securities. Apple also hasn't lost 60-70% of its asset value and isn't having to borrow funds at around 2% per week because of a liquidity crisis. Where the value of assets is relatively stable then yes - valuing just based on those assets is horribly naive. When the assets are mainly investments (with unstable prices and low liquidity) then the valuation of the company has to be much nearer to the value of the assets. If CPA ever reaches a point where it generates steady revenue from its core business of insurance, outweighing any fluctuations in its investments then it would make no sense to continue to value it on nav. But right now that just isn't the case - its track record is one of losing asset value far faster than it generates operational profit: which doesnt tend towards a high valuation by ANY method. |
|
|
|
CPA has 52078 shares outstanding, 2012-07-31 you had 46423.
Looks like you sold another 5655 shares.
How many % of CPA are you planning to buy back? Looks like you only had 102.96 BTC
This will get you about 770 shares or so of CPA or about 1.4%
Aggressive buyback?
They have more cash than that. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110122.0 |
|
|
|
"spot price", and the "bid-ask spread" are real values. I do not understand / why would that be misleading?
I quite agree. "Spot price" is often considered to be the price at which the last trade was executed. Although this can cause trouble in markets with little liquidity and infrequent activity, as you rightly have observed, since that price may no longer be available for anyone to trade at. Using the average of highest bid and lowest ask as the "current price" can be misleading in cases when they are far apart. Imagine if the highest bid is at 5 and the lowest ask at 15, and the current price was quoted as 10 ((5+15)/2) - a price which really isn't available for anyone to trade at anyway. So pick your poison!  (However, confusion could be easily avoided in the first place if OgNasty changed the text in OP from "Price per share" to something like "Latest traded price". That would be unambiguous enough, right?) Yeah - average of bid/ask can be horribly off. It's not unusual to see a share where there's no bids other than at 0.000001 : where some panic seller has sold to every reasonable bid. Spot is guaranteed to be wrong - as it always represents one end or the other of the active trading range: and that range can be pretty wide. Best value to use (if it's available through the API) would be 5-day average in my opinion. |
|
|
|
I just want to wait for the result of both the audit and Nefario's motion.
Thank you for saying what was on my mind for me. As for you being a shareholder, keep in mind this is a democracy, and no one has more shares than I do of DMC going into this motion. Why do you think I was accepted by Diablo-D3 as his representative here? If you acquired your shares in a fair way you may be right. Shareholders should be able to decide that after an audit, because until now we still have no information at all what has happened exactly. An audit will show that either: 1) Diablo has mismanaged the company and/or misled his investors, in that case you should not be allowed to vote on any motions as you are now an accomplice 2) You and Diablo are in the clear and shareholders have to accept your "proposal" because you hold the majority of the shares. To me this is not democracy but more like dictatorship. Shareholders have been played because a single party has taken possession of the company without anyone noticing. No wonder Diablo has turned to you as his representative. You now own him. Either way the market will decide if you and Diablo can be trusted again with other people's money. An audit will show that either: 1) Your IQ is below 100 2) You are the one who is actually responsible for the DMC fiasco, and whether or not you can be trusted with other people's money. Either way, you cannot hide from the truth. And Diablo paid you 5 BTC to say that on his behalf? He's getting really great PR for his money. |
|
|
|
|
One general point about contracts on GLBSE:
A mistake a lot of issuers is making is that they put detailed specifics about their operations into their contract. That is where a lot of the problems are coming from - as that level of detail IS the sort of thing which should be able to be varied through a motion.
Consider two different (extracts from) contracts where the asset intends to initially invest in mining bonds but may well want to diversify later:
BAD CONTRACT:
"This asset will only invest in mining bonds."
GOOD CONTRACT (Well better one anyway)
"This asset will initially invest only in mining bonds. We may expand into other investment types if approved by 65% of shareholders in a vote."
In the first contract there is absolutely no way any other investment than a mining bond can be held - no shareholder motion can change that. In the second one a motion can be raised to invest in any other investment type (unless excluded elsewhere in the contract).
The first one can't be varied for two reasons:
1. Legal : The asset issuer has a contractual obligation to only invest in mining bonds.
2. Practical : Because there's no provision to vary the investment areas, any investor purchasing the share is entitled to be confident that there will be no investment in anything else. So they can totally ignore the thread for that share knowing, for example, that they won't suddenly find that they lost all their equity because of a vote to invest everyhting in Pirate. And they can balance their exposure to different sectors knowing that there's no risk of their investment in this particular share ever being used for anything other than mining bonds.
If you invest in a share with the second contract then on agreeing the contract you are acknowledging acceptance that the areas in which the asset invests may vary, even if you disagree with that change.
|
|
|
|
Banks change contracts all the time.
Indeed - and the means by which this occurs is detailed in the contract in the first place: not the case here. And you are given a period of notice during which you can withdraw all your assets from them rather than agree to the new terms. Well, man, one thing man... You should have brought it up before buying shares because apparently no solution sticks with you. Why would I need to do that? In buying the shares I accepted the associated contract. Provided that contract is adhered to I have no problems. Obviously if the contract is broken and I suffer material loss as a result of those breaches then I may want to pursue recompense for such loss. To clarify that: If I make a contract with someone that they will do X And instead they do Y and Y is in breach of their contract And doing Y rather X makes me suffer a loss Then I have a very strong claim for the loss caused by them doing Y rather than X. It's not my contention (at this stage) that the above scenario is what happened - the audit and whatever explanations Diablo/his mouthpiece provide will be needed to clarify that. And there's no right in the DMC contract to change the contract (any such clause would also need to define what happened if I chose not to agree to the new contract) - so why would I need to bring anything up? |
|
|
|
If it's an asset with voting rights then usually contract changes require a vote, although if a change is proposed that is to the advantage of the asset holder then no vote is needed as the original contract is being met, and with the new terms exceeded (i.e. it's to the asset holders advantage).
You can't change a contract by voting - unless the contract provides for that mechanism. Each share is effectively a contract between the holder of that share and the asset issuer. If you hold 1000 such contracts and I hold one you do not have the right to vote to change MY contract. Motions are to vote on actions allowed within the contract but where either: 1. The contract specifically states that a motion is needed, 2. The asset issuer is entitled to carry out the action but chooses to subject it to a motion, 3. A share-holder or other party has the right to raise a specific motion. I can understand in a less than ideal market simple changes to correct typos or obvious errors are best dealt with through a means other than disbanding a company. But when I pay BTC to purchase the rights/obligations conferred in a contact (a share or bond is a contract) then no majority of shareholders can vary those rights/obligations as they are NOT a party to the contract between myself and the issuer. They just hold a number of identical contracts. |
|
|
|
You can't change the terms of the contract by motion.
Thank you for outing yourself as puppet. You DO realize that you are the only person who thinks this? Here's an explanation you can hopefully understand:
If you have 1000 contracts with someone and I have 1 identical contract with that same party then you can ONLY change your own 1000. Not my 1. Shares ARE a contract - their value is determined by the rights/obligations they confer/impose on the parties to that contract. You can't change the contract of DMC unless you own, control or have the agreement of every single other share-holder.
Nope. If you want a changed contract for DMC you need the agreement of myself, puppet, deeplink etc. You aren't going about things the right way to get that.
*shrug* If you want the company liquidated, then voice your concerns to Nefario. How many times do I have to say it? This isn't a court of public opinion. As Diablo-D3's representative I will be speaking to Nefario on this directly. a) Diablo was reported for breaking his contract. b) The ASICMINER trades were done with the consent of the 50-60% majority shareholder at the time. c) The ASICMINER trades were explained to Nefario and ColdHardMetal in IRC at the time and were cleared. They won't be reversed unless there is a successful shareholder motion. d) We are proposing a change to the contract which solves the ACTUAL COMPLAINTS which caused Nefario to freeze DMC. e) We will propose the current motion be rescinded, the contract changed, and Diablo-D3 reinstated as CEO. f) If you have failed to understand A-E, they will be repeated to you until you give up. Dear Trolls; this is not going to go your way. This is not about the ASICMINER trade and it is not a court of public opinion. Have a nice day... lol This isn't even as serious as you make it out to be. Your only line of argument seems to be: "You're wrong" "You don't understand" "You don't get it" etc etc Just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "No" every time someone says anything is NOT proof of anything other than your own ignorance. I'm getting near the point of requesting you be barred from this thread for trolling - just repeatedly saying "You're wrong" is totally unproductive. To address your listed points: a) agreed b) The agreement of the 60% share-holder is irrelevant. Either Diablo had the authority to do that trade under his contract or he didn't. If he had the right to do the trade then no agreement of anyone was necessary. If the trade breached his contract then no percentage of shareholders less than 100% could agree to vary the contract and make the trade allowable. c) Not hugely relevant. d) You can't vary the contract without the unanimous assent of all shareholders - as there is no mechanism within the contract for such a change. Where contracts DO contain a mechanism for being varied then there is always an associated means by which all parties are given notice and a way to withdraw from the contract without losing any of the value they were entitled to under the original contract. e) You can vote down the current motion. You can't change the contract. Diablo still is CEO - he hasn't been fired, just suspended during investigtion. f) You can repeat things as often as you want. It won't make you any more correct. Saying "I have lots of contracts so I can change yours as well" is wrong. Saying it 100 times doesn't make you any less wrong - it just makes you look progressively more stupid. |
|
|
|
Banks change contracts all the time.
Indeed - and the means by which this occurs is detailed in the contract in the first place: not the case here. And you are given a period of notice during which you can withdraw all your assets from them rather than agree to the new terms. |
|
|
|
Not sure if you get it or not, but no one's listening. You seem to be the only one who is not listening. Are you a shareholder? Yes. And I bought my shares at market value, I didnt fraudulently receive them like you did. *shrug* If you're a shareholder then vote. I have way more shares than you do. And hey, if you want to reverse the trades we can do that, and I will go back to being the 60% majority shareholder, and then I will raise a motion to do the trade again, and you can go to hell. I accepted this trade because it accreted mhash per share. Get it? No? Jesus you're slow. You can't change the terms of the contract by motion. Not you can approve any action which would breach the contract. The contract is between Diablo/DMC and each individual shareholder - with the rights/obligations of the contract transferred each time a share changes hands. Passing motions IS done by voting on motions. Change of a contract can only be done with the agreement of both parties to the contract. Motions can't change the contract unless unanimously accepted. Get it? No? Jesus you're slow. Here's an explanation you can hopefully understand: If you have 1000 contracts with someone and I have 1 identical contract with that same party then you can ONLY change your own 1000. Not my 1. Shares ARE a contract - their value is determined by the rights/obligations they confer/impose on the parties to that contract. You can't change the contract of DMC unless you own, control or have the agreement of every single other share-holder. Whine all you want about it. Be as dismissive to everyone else as you like. On this specific point you are totally, 100%, beyond any shadow of a doubt wrong. If you want a changed contract for DMC you need the agreement of myself, puppet, deeplink etc. You aren't going about things the right way to get that. |
|
|
|
|
I am now a shareholder of DMC (I'm happy for nefario to confirm this if anyone doesn't believe me).
I'm not going to get back into long discussions about this. I am, however, going to assert one right and make one firm request as a sahre-holder.
1. My contract as a share-holder is between myself and DMC. Other share-holders (and Diablo) may raise and and vote on whatever motions they like BUT they have no right to amend the terms of MY contract. There is no provision in the contract for amending it. The contract spells out how funds are divided and the uses to which they may put - those particulars are inviolate. If a majority of shareholders in DMC would like to enter into a new (revised) contract with Diablo then you have two options:
a) Have him form a new company into which you invest.
b) Make an offer to myself and other share-holders who disagree such that we will sell our shares to you.
The ONLY way DMC's contract can be changed (and it remain DMC) is if EVERY shareholder agrees to sign the new contract - there is no provision in the contract, in law or in common business practice for one group of people (e.g. share-holders) to be able to vote away the rights (as defined in a contract) of others.
2. Diablo is being investigated for imcompetence and/or scamming. I don't know who initiated that investigation (made the complaint) nor do I know the specifics of it. As a share-holder I request that the investigation be completed and its results made public before any other action occurs.
|
|
|
|
Unless specified in the original contract a change should void the original contract. If you refuse to sign the new contract I don't see how you are compelled to abide by it.
Indeed - but that's not what seems to happen around here. Any change of contract for shares should be accompanied by an offer to buyback the shares of those who disagree at (at worst) nav/share (if market is higher then those who want market can obviously sell on the market). That doesn't apply to bonds - the contract on those absolutely ca't be amended with first buying back all outstanding ones. |
|
|
|
|
The problem with contracts gos well beyond just whether or not a share-holder vote is needed to change one.
Consider a scenario where one company (or group of companies) holds a majority of shares in another.
How about if they vote to give themselves more shares in the company or some of the assets? Does the fact that they hold a majority of share allow them to pass ANY motion - even where it's blatantly against the interest of other share-holders?
Or what about if the company founder owns a majority of shares: could they then vote to increase their share of profits from (say) 10% to 90%?
Being able to control/command a majority of votes in a company should NOT be a charter allowing someone (be it the founder, one investor or a small cartel of investors) to take action specifically intended to enrich some parties unjustly at the expense of other share-holders.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
