I was just wondering if you guys could register here at bitcoin and introduce yourselves and tell us why you are here. No need to lurk. We have a strong feeling you are reading these forums.
Moderators, please leave this thread up for a day or two. I just want to see if this thread gets any bites.
I was going to post a witty reply involving pretending to be affiliated with one of those organizations, but then I realized that they probably ARE watching and I'd get v&. Maybe Jimbobway is part of the FBI, CIA, NSA, or SEC, and is trying to get the trolls v& so that the forum will be a better place. I tip my tinfoil hat to you, good sir. |
|
|
|
47% of your shareholders want to remove you as the CEO.
I hadn't ignored anybody in this thread yet because some people have brought up very valid points, but after this it's pretty obvious that deeplink is just trolling. 4775 shares != 47% of DMC. |
|
|
|
|
Is Bitfountain ever going to get a website where people can order / pre-order, or just get general info?
|
|
|
|
stay away from DMC, i would say
Well, why don't you then? Also, Matthew, how far are you down the wait list for BFL? |
|
|
|
The "do not invest" excuse might fly, if this contract was drafted before people bought shares. Guess what.. THEY ALREADY DID. And
And now you and DIablo consipire to alter the contract post factum to rob those investors of what little equity they have left.
If you really want to implement the most stupid contract ever, go ahead, but liquidate the company first or buy the existing investors out for a price they agree to. Anything less is breach of contract and fraud, plain and simple.
I think it would be reasonable for Usagi and Diablo to offer to buy shares back from anybody who does not approve the contract change at the original IPO price. Yes, buy back my shares at IPO price so that I can turn around and buy a hell of a lot more for market price!  On another, more serious note, Factory illustrates a very good point, Usagi. Ignore the obvious troll(s), but please address his point. |
|
|
|
In a suprising turn of events, Diablo-D3 has agreed to hire me, usagi, as his representative in this issue.
I will speak on behalf of Diablo-D3 and represent him in this issue. My fee is 5 btc. Diablo has expressly authorized me to field all questions on behalf of the GLBSE, investors, and the public on this issue.
We are issuing a statement: Things have gotten blown out of proportion. Everyone wants what is best for DMC and for investors. Therefore we are prepared to make an offer. The DMC contract will be modified as follows:
1. Diablo-D3 will modify his contract to state his business plan:
a) Buying shares of mining issues on GLBSE.
b) Buying hardware (when appropriate) for the datacenter.
c) Buying solar power (possibly before mining hardware) and possibly reselling solar power into the grid should surplus exist.
d) Selling dedicated hosting/web hosting if there is spare datacenter capacity
e) Other sources of income, from time to time, to be passed through shareholder approval via binding motion.
2. Seeing as how if the business he runs can't exist if it can't pay him a reasonable amount, the dividend structure will be changed as follows:
a) Out of all the money DMC recieves as income (excluding sale of shares), Diablo will recieve 20%.
b) The remaining 80% will be used to cover operational expenses.
c) Of the money remaining after operating expenses, half will be paid as dividend each month, and
d) the remainder will be used to expand and grow the company.
3. Diablo-D3 will hire smickles of S2 capital management to do accounting for DMC (effective immediately).
This simple 3-step plan shows that Diablo-D3 is competent enough to manage DMC and is the best person for the job.
I will be speaking with Nefario immediately to vet this and see if we can't turn this situation around.
This is great news! A huge thanks to Diablo, Usagi and Smickles for working towards fixing this mess. |
|
|
|
After reading through this thread, I think Diablo deserves a "SCAMMER" tag. Anybody want to start a thread over in scam accusations?
How in the world could you rationally accuse Diablo of scamming? Do you know what the word "scam" means? "Scam: Noun. A confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle." Has he been fraudulent to make a quick profit? No. He's caused DMC to lose value. Nobody wins in that situation, so I can't imagine he'd ever do that on purpose. |
|
|
|
As I said before, if nefario succeeds, then shareholders cannot be paid dividends because I will not send one more BTC to GLBSE and nefario will refuse to release a list of shareholders and their number of shares.
Nefario, could a motion be raised to release a list of shareholders to Diablo? Looking back at TYGRR.BOND.P you didn't seem to want to budge on that issue, but if the shareholders vote in favor of it, I can think of no reason why you wouldn't be able to do it. Let's say you are the type of person who values privacy. You do not want anyone to know anything about you. Now let's say you are a shareholder of DMC/TYGRR.BOND.P. Should 51% of the shareholders of DMC/TYGRR.BOND.P be able to vote to violate your privacy by having your name and holdings placed on a shareholders list? Good point. Perhaps make it opt-in, by having each shareholder message Nefario through GLBSE that they would like to be included on the list? Seems cumbersome, but I'm not sure that there's a better way that respects the privacy of each user. |
|
|
|
As I said before, if nefario succeeds, then shareholders cannot be paid dividends because I will not send one more BTC to GLBSE and nefario will refuse to release a list of shareholders and their number of shares.
Nefario, could a motion be raised to release a list of shareholders to Diablo? Looking back at TYGRR.BOND.P you didn't seem to want to budge on that issue, but if the shareholders vote in favor of it, I can think of no reason why you wouldn't be able to do it. |
|
|
|
|
Diablo, as a shareholder I implore you to cooperate by allowing Nefario to release the CSV. While this is a complete mess, and there have been mistakes made on both yours and Nefario's parts, this will just get messier if you end up getting taken out of DMC. I have confidence that if you can make it through this, DMC can be successful.
DMC is a fantastic idea, combining renting out shelf space and selling cloud services with Bitcoin mining. If you keep being hostile towards Nefario and Usagi, you're not going to win, no matter who's in the right. You're not showing your shareholders why they need to vote to keep you on-board right now.
I voted against the motion. This is under the assumption that you can get your shit together. You've obviously made mistakes, but you need to acknowledge them, and grow from them.
In other words, please don't fuck this up.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on the same boat. I've got 2 fucking BTC stuck in MtGox, because my VPN had more than one person using the site. MtGox flat-out refused to give me my money back.
|
|
|
|
There is a new motion up for vote: Should we add the following text to our GLBSE contract?
"In the event of exceptional circumstances not precisely covered in this contract, latitude and authority rests
with the asset issuer to freely determine and decide the procedure to mitigate the situation at hand. Anything
not explicitly covered in this contract remains in the domain and control of the asset issuer alone."
This will help prevent a situation like the one DMC is currently in the middle of, while maintaining the opportunity for the asset issuer to act freely for the benefit of the asset using his best judgment. Essentially adding the Ninth Amendment to the contract instead of allowing GLBSE to define all acts not explicitly covered in the contract as their domain. Good idea. Please try to add this to your other GLBSE listings as well. Nefario's involvement with the DMC situation, while perhaps warranted, is potentially dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
So... what happens if this motion passes?
|
|
|
|
I cannot simply release the CSV for any account without the account owners permission. There is a motion now up available for voting, it has 5 days to vote on https://glbse.com/vote/view/126IF you have DMC shares please vote. Also, I will need someone to audit the CSV and account to work out a basic profit and loss(balance sheet is easy), and a simple report. There will be a couple of bitcoin for the completion of this task(paid out of GLBSE's pocket). Nefario. DI.BFLSC.SUCCEED != DMC. I see no motions for DMC right now. Let us know when you fix this. |
|
|
|
|
I didn't come to this thread to complain about Matthew's bullshit.
I didn't come to this thread to argue about Matthew's bullshit.
I didn't even come to this thread to discuss Matthew's bullshit.
I came to this thread to say one thing to Matthew:
You are below Atlas.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, people discussing GLBSE's security: GTFO of this thread. I put it on my watchlist for updates on ASICMINER, not GLBSE.
|
|
|
|
...
... From a Legal standpoint, Bitcoin has a far greater chance as a commodity than a currency. ... I agree that it would be more likely for Bitcoin to be treated as a commodity. Should've said "real value" instead of "real money." |
|
|
|
|
Having this as a subscription-based service that the users pay for could be the right way to go. A business asks for a rating, and you rate them for a smallish fee. The fee wouldn't be a lot, just enough to discourage spam, etc. The fee shouldn't be enough to cause a conflict of interest. The real profit would come from charging subscribers per month for your ratings of the companies. Of course, it would need to be worth paying for!
|
|
|
|
|
Who would rate the investments, and upon what criteria?
|
|
|
|
Everyone willingly gave this dude their money.. No way in hell is a forum post a legal binding contract.....
The internet is not some magical place outside of the law, of course an agreement on a forum is a legally binding contract. Any agreement is legally binding, from verbal to written on a napkin to signed in front of witnesses. Actually, a forum post might be better than just a verbal agreement, because you can go back and point to it rather than just relying on people's word as to what was said. It definitely does not hurt your cause. You will almost assuredly have valid cause of action if he fails to pay back your money Let's say the pirate situation continues, and he keeps stalling payment to the point where it is blatantly obvious that he will not be paying back. If a legal case emerges, and a judge rules that pirate has to pay back his investors, it could actually be extremely beneficial for Bitcoin as a whole. People would see that Bitcoin Land isn't just some wild-west place where they will surely lose anything they put into it. Instead, they might come to understand that there is no "Bitcoin Land," and that the people using Bitcoin are using real money value that holds weight in a court of law. It would instill a lot of confidence. Oh, and bonus points if the judge makes pirate pay back in BTC rather than USD. EDIT: For clarity's sake, I'm not siding with one side or another saying that he will or will not pay out. There are crazies on both sides of the fence...  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
