I just received 0.8 BTC I guess they rounded up because I only had 0.77 in my account at the time they shut down.
Yeah they seem to be rounded up to the next 0.1 BTC for everyone that claimed payments so far around the forum/#bitcoin-otc. Guess that makes a few free bitcents for each GLBSE user. |
|
|
|
Some sales/dividends probably have occurred between my last tracking and GLBSE closed.
I dont understand how you got dividends considering the site has been inaccessible. Seems like yet more incompetence than anything else.
Sales/dividends between the last time I checked my balance and the time it went offline. |
|
|
|
So, for anyone reading this who has gotten a double payment, the return address is 1BgPRMk4uaJrohM1T9Cn4Hd9pHaEL6FH5j
It would be better to return the coins without me having to chase you for them.
http://blog.glbse.com/shutdown-updateFor those waiting for balance payments of more than 1-20 BTC being confirmed: I received over 341 BTC in 3 payments for my 3 subaccounts These are all rounded up to the .1 BTC from what I tracked. In the case of the 327.80 BTC, I was actually expecting 313.38 BTC. There was 14 BTC extra. Some sales/dividends probably have occurred between my last tracking and GLBSE closed. Here's a table of claims. Note that all rounding, extra/less than expected claims are based on memory and orders might have been filled before GLBSE closed. Some people seem to have been paid 90% twice. |
|
|
|
Q:I'm a GLBSE user, what about my assets and my bitcoin?
You will be able to get back your bitcoin, and if you want to reveal your username, email, and a bitcoin address to accept payments with, you can continue your relationship with the issuer of any assets you hold.
We will begin retuning bitcoin once we have recieved all coins from the GLBSE treasurer that manages the GLBSE cash reserves. BitcoinGlobal (GLBSE's partent company) shareholders and board voted for them to be returned immediately, we are awaiting compliance with this order. Well we hope that this really happen. Same as everything on GLBSE. |
|
|
|
|
Nefario, theymos has no control on the GLBSE website directly.
|
|
|
|
|
Well with GLBSE closing down, participation is now closed.
I am unsure of what will happen in regard to that. I might turn it into a simple free 20 BTC raffle.
|
|
|
|
DEPOSIT|{sum}, where the sum is an integer, written in BTC (note that you can not deposit less than 10 BTC). You will be quoted an exact sum, which you must send to the exchange address (1Fx3N5iFPDQxUKhhmDJqCMmi3U8Y7gSncx). Don't round anything, the decimals are there to identify you as the beneficiary. You will be credited the full amount. This sounds like nothing could ever go wrong. Identify deposits by their decimals.  Why... on earth? How easy it would be to redirect customer funds and tell them that they sent the wrong amount... The exchange's gpg key sign the statement telling you to send X amount to the address. You end up with a proof signed by the same key everyone else uses. It would be hard to just claim the payment was not sent to the address (There's a single address to deposit for everyone). One gpg key signing it, one deposit address for everyone to check in the blockchain. Signed statement + blockchain shown deposit... seems pretty solid proof for me. |
|
|
|
Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise. Although I wouldn't say I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, it certainly appears (at least to me) more likely than not that Nefario delisted all of Goat's assets just to get back at Goat for an unrelated issue and defrauded GLBSE customers that owned those assets by completely disregarding his obligation to protect the value of their ownership interests in those assets. There is no way he could not have known that the delisting would reduce the value of those assets. Actual stock exchanges that are regulated can delist stocks for a variety of reasons (inluding no longer meeting listing requirements) and are not obligated to protect it's value. The company behind the stocks are ultimately responsible for managing the security, with or without a stock market to trade on. To defraud would have required Nefario to steal those customers funds and run with them. Fraud is committed on major stock exchanges and those stock exchange can delist stocks no longer fitting the requirements. They are not normally held responsible for that however, they are simply a medium for company and investors to trade assets. That an asset gets delisted does not prevent it's trade over-the-counter between whoever is willing to trade the assets or the company to pay the shareholders. I can only agree to the fact that the delisting was rashly and poorly executed, definitely in an attempt to sanction Chaang. I can also agree that the delisting method provided for proof of ownership is poorly adequate. Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise.
I am not attempting to be contentious with this question. Please keep that in mind. :-) Does closing the site, freezing funds 1, and generally refusing to comment or explain the situation, fulfill at least the forum requirements to be marked as a scammer, at least until such time as repair is made? 1 While people should not invest more than they can lose, we know people are retards, morons, and semi-sentient gagslime. Doing this at the beginning of the month means that a number of people are probably in a position of having to go elsewhere for rent, utility, or other money. Never mind the lost opportunity to exit their BTC position with the recent spike and re-enter now that it has dipped. I've seen much bigger businesses go offline than GLBSE for technical reason. I don't immediately call it a fraud after 1 or 2 days however. I'm aware many people are concerned with the previous events (Bitcoinica, Pirate, etc.), but I would not pronounce myself yet on that matter, especially after such a short time has passed. |
|
|
|
Namworld please don't put "Scam accusations: DMC/Usagi" in the title because it sounds bad.
Eh, there's still accusations tho and I'm trying to summarize as much as I can. |
|
|
|
III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.
As to your objection to III.b, I recall seeing somewhere Usagi claiming that (a Goat quote, if memory serves). You may well be correct, it's quite impossible to know the truth of that matter.
It is actually quite possible to know as I'm one of the GLBSE user who was included in said group. Hence why I claimed this. It is true however Usagi actually wanted to have a group which had voting power on listing new assets, but Nefario never agreed to that. He strictly agreed to receive input and opinions. He kept all decision power. It is this kind of situation for which you should have full quotes from an official source before claiming things as facts. People spot those false "facts" in your posts constantly, which pass a lot of hearsay as "facts". I really like MPEx, but I do not appreciate how you've been managing PR for it. If you're to propose MPEx as the best choice by attacking the competition's credibility instead of promoting MPEx's superiority, at least get your facts straight and quoted in full.
What's this to do with anything? Quoting in full is not practical for the obvious reason that even if I could be bothered to do it nobody'd be bothered to read it, some summarization is unavoidable. Otherwise the facts are pretty much straight, I would say (even if you've offered your own opinion as to what may or may not have been the case with III.b., that opinion is not a fact quite yet.) Neither would your opinion be more of a fact for III.b., although you present it as a fact. I however can confirm Nefario never appointed Usagi to take any kind of decision. It has to do with the fact you're the public face of MPEx and it seems you promote MPEx by attacking competing services' credibility. But it hurts your own credibility when you present as facts what is actually hearsay without quoting an official source. I would simply appreciate that better diligence be done when researching information before presenting them as facts. If claims are made by an unofficial source to the concerned party, it would also be good to quote that person so people know who made that claim which is just that, until proven false or true. People have been spotting and complaining multiple times in your reports lines that are without any quotes making affirmations as if they were fact, when you are simply reporting claims made by others. As for the OP, Nefario isn't responsible for the actions of others. If Usagi/Diablo is a scammer, you don't blame the middleman unless you can prove he knowingly aided and abetted it. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Once Nefario used his position of authority to act in a certain way, all the people harmed by his failure to act in the same way in the same circumstances had a legitimate claim against him. This isn't me making shit up, this is 500 years of established equitable practice at common law and possibly more than 500 years in the civil system. You might not know about this, even if it's basic and well known in the legal profession; it's obscure from a public PoV, and I guess nobody told you to go to law school first if you want to be a mod on some forum. However, you must know socially someone who actually is a solicitor/barrister/etc. Ask them. I would have to say, this seems like negligence. But again, he acted once on DMC because it went to around 1% of IPO price, something unseen before elsewhere, which is why he acted this way. Normally, he does act (suspension of trading) when an asset operator runs away. He never quite moderated the GLBSE market and moderates it more and more strictly under pressure from the public. He never claimed to verify if anything issuing on GLBSE was to be a scam or not, as it is not verifiable. He also chose to allow anyone to issue, regardless of the risk for it to turn out to be a scam. Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise. The fact he allows most people to issue on the platform and does not investigate who the issuer is does not suddenly make him the cause of the scam occuring, just like you don't blame the forum owner here for scams occurring in the marketplace. Bitcoiners are left to do their own homework before departing themselves of their Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
You never see real exchanges just randomly go down or get massively hacked, because real money and expertise is put into them.
I guess the NASDAQ isn't a real exchange in your book? No money was stole, and those trading systems themselves weren't even compromised, your point is disproven by the very articles you linked. Perhaps you should have read them first. That is a testament to just how solid those systems were built. None of that even comes close to just how badly Bitcoin systems get compromised and robbed. Bitcoin, on the other hand, allows its systems to be built and audited by teenagers, then believe wild stories about chinese hackers when they inevitably get hacked and everyone loses a ton of money. Except nothing says any hack occurred or any funds have been stolen. Let's at least wait until Saturday and see if anything happens before claiming things as a fact. Hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. I still have the entire history of bitcoin on the side of my argument. Even if this does turn out to be nothing for the first time ever, I still can't believe you people would put up with being given no info at all when your money is at stake like this. I thought in a libertarian society, bad service == no business, but not at the bitcoin forums. Hack an exchange and claim it just went down? Everyone will believe you and defend you to the bitter end. That "Thank you Pirate" thread was the best as well as Zhou Tong's Chinese relic collecting millionaire hacker that only he could talk to. I can't believe they got away with such transparent lies. It doesn't really matter what really happened. By the time anyone figures it out, the money will be long gone. Eh, ideally, yes, bad service == no business and only services close to flawless would survive. Although with the current bitcoin economy being so small and young, I doubt there will be will and interest to make the serious investments required to offer such flawless services, at least for the time being. As for putting up with it, no, I think everyone is pretty annoyed and expect very good reasons to be given or else... However, it is not the first time unforeseen issues has forced a website to close down, sometimes for many days for businesses much larger than GLBSE. Although usually you'd get an explanation right away. It does seem odd that no further information is given. As for the money being gone, only the active balance kept for trading is available for theft. Most asset operators move the funds outside of GLBSE to use it and as such the majority should still be in the hand of asset operators. Hopefully, if anything serious is actually going, we will at least have lists to manage things outside GLBSE. The situation might be as dire as some would think, even if there's reasons to worry. We'll know soon enough. |
|
|
|
You never see real exchanges just randomly go down or get massively hacked, because real money and expertise is put into them.
I guess the NASDAQ isn't a real exchange in your book? No money was stole, and those trading systems themselves weren't even compromised, your point is disproven by the very articles you linked. Perhaps you should have read them first. That is a testament to just how solid those systems were built. None of that even comes close to just how badly Bitcoin systems get compromised and robbed. Bitcoin, on the other hand, allows its systems to be built and audited by teenagers, then believe wild stories about chinese hackers when they inevitably get hacked and everyone loses a ton of money. Except nothing says any hack occurred or any funds have been stolen. Let's at least wait until Saturday and see if anything happens before claiming things as a fact. |
|
|
|
I.a. On September 10 he blocked the accounts of DMC, on the grounds that gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder was being alleged in forum threads.
The asset started from an IPO of 1 BTC and ended up trading at 0.011 BTC each, something unseen before. Diablo-D3 was frequently doing DMC to other assets trade-in under the current NAV to entice trades. Each time pushing value down. I.b. Subsequently he refused to release a list of shareholders on the rationale that it'd be a breach of their privacy rights. I.c. He also declared an audit will be held but later refused to release the name of the auditor. I.d. The accounts were later unblocked without any audit being performed, and without any material changes in the alleged facts. The accounts were unblocked because a motion was accepted, asking shareholders if they wanted to keep Diablo-D3 as the manager. II.a. On September 25 he unlisted all of goat's assets, vaguely alleging some sort of malfeasance which was never either explained or documented --it may or may not have to do with goat's refusal to sell back some illegitimate shares created on GLBSE by an unauthorized entity which nevertheless were legitimized by Nefario's own declaration but which was quashed by the actual legitimate owners of GLBSE.
II.b. In contradiction to the claims made with I.b. above, Nefario claims to have issued the list of shareholders to Goat and that all obligations remaining exclude GLBSE, and should be handled between goat and investors alone.
Yes, we all agree it was a very rash and expeditive process which could have been planned more thoroughly, with proper delays. It would also be good to provide a more secure method of transferring codes to Goat. Preferably directly get a BTC address from holders that they can submit to GLBSE who can then send the list to goat. goat's shareholders could then communicate with him and sign with their BTC address. Or any other proper method which would have given enough prior notice and would have these things sorted out before the actual delisting of said assets. III.a. Starting at least as early as September 10 the assets controlled by Usagi (CPA, NYAN.x, BMF) were being scrutinized publicly on this forum for gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder, in the same manner and to an extent equal or greater to that of I.a. above.
III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.
III.c. In spite of III.a. and contrary to his conduct in I.a. and II above, Nefario failed to lock the assets controlled by Usagi.
Yes, Usagi's funds were invested in many assets which loss value, especially mining (the whole mining market crashed overall). There has been a subsequent large drop of value in his funds NAV. Some people requested investigation as to if there was negligence/scam on Usagi's part. Nothing was proven so far, other than the selected assets invested in by Usagi's funds might not have been the best. It was however, unlike in DMC's case, a loss in % which was following the loss made by the mining assets Usagi's funds were supposed to be invested into. As for the part III.b, Nefario never made Usagi the head of a commission to review GLBSE assets to be included or gave him any decisive power. Usagi simply took the initiative to gather issuers/large investors to include in a group to review assets. Nefario refused to give them any decisive power however. He was simply taking feedback and suggestions from them regarding listings and other things since they were already heavy GLBSE users. For these reasons Nefario should wear the scammer tag unless or until:
A. He personally refunds all investors in any and all Usagi funds to the value of their original investment or
B. He personally refunds all investors in DMC and TYGR-* to the value of their original investment.
tl;dr: You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't run away and hide for a couple weeks until people forget. It worked with LIF.x, it worked with the numerous other scams hosted by GLBSE, but it has to end sometime.
According to your claims it does not seem you are accusing Nefario of scamming or defrauding anyone. It seems you are accusing him of being incompetent. I really like MPEx, but I do not appreciate how you've been managing PR for it. If you're to propose MPEx as the best choice by attacking the competition's credibility instead of promoting MPEx's superiority, at least get your facts straight and quoted in full. |
|
|
|
Random asshole: "Oh, you should have took your money out earlier".
Hey no need to call me names.... j/k  Anyone else expect to get Codes this weekend? Or GLBSE moving shop to China and reopening for business. I expect GLBSE v.3 being rolled out OR current assets to be moved to a black market (GLBSE will turn to regulated market) OR a lengthy wait as the SEC and FSA works on clawing back funds from people who profited from BS&T's passthrough. Because with financial scams like Pirate's ponzi, that's what they tend to do. Clawbacks. |
|
|
|
I think GLBSE are back in business very soon.
Yep, hopefully! To me it feels more like an update screw up requiring fixing or SEC wanting to clawback funds from people who profited from Pirate's scheme. If anyone receives any info, I'm keeping this thread updated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115467.0 |
|
|
|
FledNanders was trolling.
How would you know without being FledNanders? |
|
|
|
Christ that Mpex site looks like the last place I'd send a bitcoin. If you're here slagging the competition it rings even more true.
Keep sending them by looks and soon enough you won't have any left and we won't have to hear from you ever again. Tried and tested by so many before.... I've reviewed your posts, you are definitely not worth doing business with , but carry on. Iggy button on. Although I'm really not fan of the PR person MPEx chose, MPEx is a perfectly OK exchange. The fact it issues such great companies as SatoshiDice or BitVPS and is the only one to offer options is a major plus too. |
|
|
|
GLBSE IS APPARENTLY CLOSING https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nefario taking users deposits... well apparently it's not confirmed and pure speculation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GLBSE user funds are more or less safe, but I have bad news from the GLBSE shareholder meeting.
Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.
He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.
I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.
Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.
Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.
- The BitcoinGlobal bylaws state that BitcoinGlobal's purpose is to operate GLBSE. By shutting down GLBSE without amending the bylaws, Nefario has violated the bylaws.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.
- He is knowingly making BitcoinGlobal shares worthless, violating his fiduciary duty.
- He is refusing to release my GLBSE balance without my ID, which I did not agree to.
Since my GLBSE shares are now worthless, it should be obvious that I had no knowledge of this before now.
I urge everyone to never work with Nefario again. A Bitcoin stock exchange is a good idea, though. I hope that someone will create something better than GLBSE and MPEx.
Could you clarify this a bit please theymos. How did he have access to the user deposits? If he was "borrowing" them without authorisation, that's straight up embezzlement regardless of whether he intended to return them at a later time. When did the shareholders become aware that he was spending user deposits and how did you become aware of his intention to replace them with money from BitcoinGlobal? I'm confused about whether the shareholders effectively authorised him taking a "loan" from the business post hoc by agreeing that he would pay back the misappropriated funds from BG money.
I hate to say it, but if you send Nefario user funds knowing full well that he has already misappropriated funds, you're laying yourself wide open to liability. His access to funds needs to be blocked and a way of returning user deposits worked out which doesn't involve Nefario.
Nefario has always held onto most of the user funds so he could top up the hot wallet when necessary. Exactly what funds I should hold was never clearly-defined. I ended up holding all BitcoinGlobal cash on hand plus some of the user funds for when Nefario was away and the hot wallet needed to be refilled. I assume he's spending user deposits. Maybe he's using his own money, but I don't think he has enough to cover lawyer fees. He said in the meeting that he wants BitcoinGlobal to pay for the lawyer.
TYGGR Delisting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Actual stock exchanges that are regulated can delist stocks for a variety of reasons (inluding no longer meeting listing requirements) and are not obligated to protect it's value. The company behind the stocks are ultimately responsible for managing the security, with or without a stock market to trade on. To defraud would have required Nefario to steal those customers funds and run with them.
Fraud is committed on major stock exchanges and those stock exchange can delist stocks no longer fitting the requirements. They are not normally held responsible for that however, they are simply a medium for company and investors to trade assets. That an asset gets delisted does not prevent it's trade over-the-counter between whoever is willing to trade the assets or the company to pay the shareholders.
I can only agree to the fact that the delisting was rashly and poorly executed, definitely in an attempt to sanction Chaang. I can also agree that the delisting method provided for proof of ownership is poorly adequate. An alternative should probably be worked out between Nefario and Chaang on the delisting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DMC suspension
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DMC was suspended, unlike many other assets who are not suspended until the owner runs away, because it went down to 0.011 BTC/share trading value. That's 1% of IPO price, something unseen before for an asset with the issuer still active. Diablo-D3 was reinstated as manager after a motion by shareholders passed. An audit was planned and said to be in progress but no further news were given on that matter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nefario's scam accusations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Quoted from " Scammer tag: Nefario." thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114442.0I.a. On September 10 he blocked the accounts of DMC, on the grounds that gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder was being alleged in forum threads.
The asset started from an IPO of 1 BTC and ended up trading at 0.011 BTC each, something unseen before. Diablo-D3 was frequently doing DMC to other assets trade-in under the current NAV to entice trades. Each time pushing value down. I.b. Subsequently he refused to release a list of shareholders on the rationale that it'd be a breach of their privacy rights. I.c. He also declared an audit will be held but later refused to release the name of the auditor. I.d. The accounts were later unblocked without any audit being performed, and without any material changes in the alleged facts. The accounts were unblocked because a motion was accepted, asking shareholders if they wanted to keep Diablo-D3 as the manager. II.a. On September 25 he unlisted all of goat's assets, vaguely alleging some sort of malfeasance which was never either explained or documented --it may or may not have to do with goat's refusal to sell back some illegitimate shares created on GLBSE by an unauthorized entity which nevertheless were legitimized by Nefario's own declaration but which was quashed by the actual legitimate owners of GLBSE.
II.b. In contradiction to the claims made with I.b. above, Nefario claims to have issued the list of shareholders to Goat and that all obligations remaining exclude GLBSE, and should be handled between goat and investors alone.
Yes, we all agree it was a very rash and expeditive process which could have been planned more thoroughly, with proper delays. It would also be good to provide a more secure method of transferring codes to Goat. Preferably directly get a BTC address from holders that they can submit to GLBSE who can then send the list to goat. goat's shareholders could then communicate with him and sign with their BTC address. Or any other proper method which would have given enough prior notice and would have these things sorted out before the actual delisting of said assets. III.a. Starting at least as early as September 10 the assets controlled by Usagi (CPA, NYAN.x, BMF) were being scrutinized publicly on this forum for gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder, in the same manner and to an extent equal or greater to that of I.a. above.
III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.
III.c. In spite of III.a. and contrary to his conduct in I.a. and II above, Nefario failed to lock the assets controlled by Usagi.
Yes, Usagi's funds were invested in many assets which loss value, especially mining (the whole mining market crashed overall). There has been a subsequent large drop of value in his funds NAV. Some people requested investigation as to if there was negligence/scam on Usagi's part. Nothing was proven so far, other than the selected assets invested in by Usagi's funds might not have been the best. It was however, unlike in DMC's case, a loss in % which was following the loss made by the mining assets Usagi's funds were supposed to be invested into. As for the part III.b, Nefario never made Usagi the head of a commission to review GLBSE assets to be included or gave him any decisive power. Usagi simply took the initiative to gather issuers/large investors to include in a group to review assets. Nefario refused to give them any decisive power however. He was simply taking feedback and suggestions from them regarding listings and other things since they were already heavy GLBSE users. For these reasons Nefario should wear the scammer tag unless or until:
A. He personally refunds all investors in any and all Usagi funds to the value of their original investment or
B. He personally refunds all investors in DMC and TYGR-* to the value of their original investment.
tl;dr: You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't run away and hide for a couple weeks until people forget. It worked with LIF.x, it worked with the numerous other scams hosted by GLBSE, but it has to end sometime.
According to your claims it does not seem you are accusing Nefario of scamming or defrauding anyone. It seems you are accusing him of being incompetent.
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone up until now added.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
