Were there any ASICMINER stocks not purchases (owned by friedcat/the company) before GLBSE went down? If so, how will these be priced upon the exchange being brought back up? Will the value be at the same (0.1000BTC/per) or will it be adjusted based on market value//trade price after X days?
The IPO was finished long before GLBSE went down. Not all 200`000 IPO shares were sold before sufficient funds were raised, and the IPO closed. Initially, hundred percent of the profits will be diverted to dividends until 0.1 btc per share is paid out. From there on, each public share's dividend is worth 1/400`000 of the profits, regardless of how many shares were sold originally. It's all buried somewhere in this thread. The only thing I fail to comprehend is if its 1/400000 of the profit per share, isn't 12% of the profits not gonna be distributed? I'm not sure how you get to 12%. That would require 24% of the ASICMINER shares to be unsold and withdrawn from sale. I imagine ASICMINER"s parent company owns the unsold amount in addition to the other 50% of the profits. There is about 150k share from the 200k IPO sold, so its 350k/400k, if you decide the profit by 1/400k per share, there would be 12% of the profit bit distributed. Shouldn't the profit dived by 1/350k per share? |
|
|
|
Were there any ASICMINER stocks not purchases (owned by friedcat/the company) before GLBSE went down? If so, how will these be priced upon the exchange being brought back up? Will the value be at the same (0.1000BTC/per) or will it be adjusted based on market value//trade price after X days?
The IPO was finished long before GLBSE went down. Not all 200`000 IPO shares were sold before sufficient funds were raised, and the IPO closed. Initially, hundred percent of the profits will be diverted to dividends until 0.1 btc per share is paid out. From there on, each public share's dividend is worth 1/400`000 of the profits, regardless of how many shares were sold originally. It's all buried somewhere in this thread. The only thing I fail to comprehend is if its 1/400000 of the profit per share, isn't 12% of the profits not gonna be distributed? |
|
|
|
He put his tin foil hat glue but forgot his actual tin foil hat. |
|
|
|
Pretty much what I meant. No events that changed that update happened so its still accurate. |
|
|
|
Well, now that Avalon apparently shipped, would you like to give an estimate on when we start hashing and how many TH/s are we looking at?
I don't see the correlation between a competitors shipment and the availability of that information. If I have 3 apples, how many oranges do you have? |
|
|
|
However, the shareholders of ASICMINER are always in a better place
Props for the decency to present it as an equity deal from day one, rather than calling stock subscription "preorders" like everyone else. Yeah, this. It still pisses me off how BFL abused all of their investors by calling them customers and called their investments preorders. Between BFL and bASIC, a lot of bullshit has gone on that ASICMINER and Avalon and the entire Bitcoin community could have done without. But it was pretty clear from the start that you invest as a shareholder in asicminer and that the chips from bfl has to be created first. That wasnt hidden. So everyone who bought there played the game and lost. That happens. But i dont think thats a reason to blame bfl. They are late but that was part of the things that can happen from the start. The thing is, in North America you are not allowed to accept payment for an item that is not ready to ship. You probably noticed that if you order something backordered they will refund the payment and recharge once they receive the item and ship (if payment was cleared at checkout, if not they will just charge later). Or when you preorder something (a PS3 game for example) you merely save your place in queue and they charge on the release date. BFL was not allowed to take the money before building the rigs. And they knew it too, because I initially ordered some and they were saying "no refunds", and I just emailed saying I want a refund because it is not legal and I would pursue ligitigation if they refused. Next day, full refund no questions asked. That people knew or not that the items were not ready does not make taking money first then manufacture legal. So yeah, they are to blame to use illegal practice to run their business. |
|
|
|
bitcoinpromoter
Dont you think? As far as i read he often spoke at trade fairs and other places and promoted bitcoin. Of course in his own interest and in his job as ceo of glbse but it looks like he was one of the more known promoter of the bitcoin-idea. So in my opinion it would be a bit strange if this would be the best scam he could think of. That would only make sense if he is in a strange situation like depression, wife ran, taking drugs or similar. But till now i only know that he gets massive pressure from community, not more. If there is more let me know. Whatever Nefario did in the past does not make up for the damage he has caused. He and the other GLBSE partners have had at least 4 weeks to do something or show good faith. I know of one partner who has at least publicly made his excuses and that's it. None of them have done enough or taken any responsibility upon themselves to solve this. They are silently hiding and hoping this will blow over. Really mature and responsible. Stop defending the perpetrators for their actions. This case is as black and white as it can get. How can take your "black and white" assumption for fact when you dismiss a post you quote with totally out-of-context answer? He never even remotely implied he should get less heat because of his past involvement and that's what you focus on dismissing? You just prove how rational the haters thinking is. |
|
|
|
That also proves he has 3 children 5 cars and 2 wives. And also that 5+2 = 8. Sorry, I meant that proves that he has a unpaid hot check warrant. As the poster above me pointed out. |
|
|
|
Because he already did?
And nefario isnt like pirate. He already paid a good bunch of money back. I never heard that pirate did this or any other scammer. It would hurt their scammearnings. So nefario isnt a scammer of this kind. He only handles this all not very well. If he really would be a scammer the only earning he could have get would be the user money lying on glbse. But he paid back already a good part. The assets are of no worth to him. So no earning from there too.
I think nefario should name the guys that hold the money not theirs but are from other users. Keeping other glbse-users money isnt showing the best character. And they should at least now know that keeping it will in no way put pressure on nefario. Its not his money so...
Sebastian- with all due respect, you are wrong. James has made token payments of less than 10% of the cash value that is owed out there, and has now conceived this convenient "double payment" storyline to cover for why he is not taking further action. He is just trying to find the balls to make off with the rest and deciding if it is enough to live a life on the run. The only name that matters is James McCarthy. Who he may have sent payments to or not is irrelevant and not an excuse for holding anyone's money. Just as it is equally wrong for the other GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal owners to hold the money that they have and not make refunds with it. I wonder why anyone should take your post seriously considering there is nothing with proof and wasn't theorised on the go as you wrote. Tin foil much? |
|
|
|
Friedcat, perhaps it is time to remove "[GLBSE]" from the topic.
+1 You are late and without booze to the party |
|
|
|
Has this turned out to be a scam, or was it shut down for legal reasons?
there's a lot of disagreement on what it actually is right now but, what seems to be clear is that it was not a "planned scam" and that nefario showed willingness and effort to give people their due. A lot of delays and still some missing bitcoins to be distributed, the main culprit ATM is the asset info has not been shared with issuers yet. All in all, a lot of frustration, but so far it looks like nefario will give people the rest of their coins and asset info, question is when. Edit : also, it is not known for fact the reason why it was closed, but the reason is 100% irrelevant anyways no matter what people say. |
|
|
|
There is no legitimate, lawful reason for Nefario to make the provision of user information to asset-issuers contingent upon the return of all over payments. None. According to other shareholders, BG has a small amount of BTC reserves of its own. Those reserves should be used to top-up any short-fall in returned funds and after that if there's still a short-fall then Nefario should be buying the required BTC with his credit card.
It's pretty obvious that Nefario doesn't want GLBSE's own funds used to top-up any short-fall because he still wants to be paid for last month's work from those funds.
At this point, I hope there's a UK asset issuer who's willing to take legal proceedings to compel him to hand over their user list. The onus would be on Nefario to provide a good reason for not doing so and any judge would laugh at him if he pulled the "waiting for overpayments to be returned" bullshit.
in general there is not many laws that dictate how an illegal should be ran.... And no matter where he takes the money from of means less money in his pockets so its all the same. What's more greedy after all, feeding of an error or trying to make so people get they are owed from the funds for that purpose? Dude, wake up and smell the coffee: There are general laws abiding by moral values. Mr. James McCarthy has the moral obligation to return whatever is left after his fucked up decision to close shop - doesn't matter whether the shop is illegal or not. Remember "poor" James was making a buck on this, he's not a philantropic ONG, he's responsible and by not stanidng up to his responsibilities he's been labelled as scum a scammer. Greed is not the question here. I invested on legit mining businesses, not on a fucking 6% a week pyrascam. Everyone has the right to have their share back and Nef has to provide. If someone in the UK takes the step, will be chipping in to make sure he is fucked over legally even if I don't get shit back. Just for the moral principle. my post was saying just that. Stop talking about laws within an illegitimate business. What people refer to "illegal" in most cases are applied to legitimate businesses. At this point we talk about moral values. And if you wanna talk about illegal, talk about the fact of opening that business... which honestly, no one really minded when it was profiting them and they had nefario as their scapegoat |
|
|
|
There is no legitimate, lawful reason for Nefario to make the provision of user information to asset-issuers contingent upon the return of all over payments. None. According to other shareholders, BG has a small amount of BTC reserves of its own. Those reserves should be used to top-up any short-fall in returned funds and after that if there's still a short-fall then Nefario should be buying the required BTC with his credit card.
It's pretty obvious that Nefario doesn't want GLBSE's own funds used to top-up any short-fall because he still wants to be paid for last month's work from those funds.
At this point, I hope there's a UK asset issuer who's willing to take legal proceedings to compel him to hand over their user list. The onus would be on Nefario to provide a good reason for not doing so and any judge would laugh at him if he pulled the "waiting for overpayments to be returned" bullshit.
in general there is not many laws that dictate how an illegal should be ran.... And no matter where he takes the money from of means less money in his pockets so its all the same. What's more greedy after all, feeding of an error or trying to make so people get they are owed from the funds for that purpose? |
|
|
|
Trembles.you people are scary. What ae you gonna do with his info. Loan sharks? Police? FBI? CIA?
Tbh the internets a dark scary place. People get scammed in real life. They often don't get help from police.
And cool it. Its his first offense. So don't expect much in court. Only serial offenders get in deep trouble.
I think people should stop trying to get money back. It might not ever happen. Don't expect it.
He might not even live there. With his money eh could move home.
You lost money. That's your fault. No offense but deal with it and learn a lesson.
Totally on topic, and just to remove more relevance to your irrelevant post, fraud, especially mass frauds like ponzi's is not like violence or stealing gas. It needs premeditation and usually has no situation or social trigger. The more something is premeditated, the less "first offenders grace" is. Plus, since recovering bit coins could prove another difficulty it is far from the only reason to go after a guy that steals from people by the mass... unless of course you are that selfish. |
|
|
|
|
so if I understand your post correctly garr, he is using the assetholders info has "leverage" to get the money from mis-distrubuted funds? Or I am misinterpreting?
But honestly, who really cares about history though? (If assets info is given of course)
|
|
|
|
|
I am not involved but will donate BCB 1btc because I think his efforts overall for being able to provide a ppusd to btc service and also his constant scammers tracking.
If you wanna leave a donation address
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanna say BCB, props to you, you are doing a lot to clear away scammers and not only by greed but to better the place (since you also wouldn't agree to someone lending her money to pay you). You are very thorough and give us more than enough info on every story and person for us to asses ourselves.
Cheers buddy
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify my stance.
What I see is someone who did a project with no illegitimate intentions that grew to a point that made him the vessel of a illegal operation despite his intentions. He decided to pull off to not be part of an illegal scheme. That is a good moral decision in general. It is indeed sad to see it affect others, but he is currently condonned despite him.
It's pretty much like being mad at your drug dealer because he decided to get his life straight and won't be able to supply you anymore. Expect, the drug dealer actually knew what he was getting into.
Sure, some damage is done, and we still don't know to which extent. But anyone condonning a move that someone did to get them self out of a illegal position is just greedy and de facto has a much lower moral compass than him.
You have no understanding of the situation imo. You mean I don't believe every speculations and stories biased by anger and every other accusations that has less grounds than the other? You are right. If you mean the actual facts where an illegal entity was shutdown by the CEO regardless of shareholders consent or not and that he showed willingness and steps to settle with affected parties. I think I do. Oh and by the way, those are pretty much the extent of the facts. He shut it down simply because of paranoia. There is no evidence at all for anything else. I don't even understand why you quoted my post, I took special care not to be speculative about the reasons he shut down because IT DOESNT MATTER. Fight or flight is one of our primary instincts and no matter the reason, he felt the moral thing to do was to close, and he did. |
|
|
|
He felt the need to close
Except, as it was organized, it wasn't his to close. If he did the right thing he would have gone to jail and took responsibility for his actions that he alone was responsible for and whould have gotten his legal advance on his own dime before taking anyone's money. But no, he decided to make the "company" legit, not something any of the other owners agreed to, decided to take the company's money to pay for his own personal legal advice and decided to save his own ass at the expense of all the shareholders' stake and their privacy and at the expensive all his users' privacy. A scammer is to mild of tag for scum like that. So... nice rational... its not his choice to close, but it would be him to take the full responsibility? Make someone 100% liable but with 10% of the voice? "No one agreed to make the company legit"... where are you taking this from? Bit coin.me said in another thread he was happy and would have like to see it being legit. Basically you are saying... everyone were happy to have an enabling platform, shareholders were consciously owners of an illegal company, but nefario is the only one who should be liable. If you ever plan to go into business with someone, let them know upfront you want all the benefits with no liability, that might change their idea of going in partnership with you. Basically you have to choose, it was his choice to close or everyone is equally liable, you simply cannot have it both ways. You can have it both ways in this case. GLBSE was a general partnership and not a company with limited liability. You have to seperate moral and legal responsibility. I agree that some shareholders hold more moral responsibility than others, but legally they are all in it together. All partners have full responsibility for the actions of the company and none of them have the right to decide on their own to close the company. Nefario did that anyway, which is why he got the scammer tag. But that does not change that all other partners are still fully responsible for their company including debt. Customers are concerned due to shown incompetence, lack of communication and a lack of balls from all partners to publicly accept their legal responsibility. How they handle this internally should not be their customers concern. The fact that today the general consensus seems to be that GLBSE was illegal is mere speculation and irrelevant. you start with disagreeing and the rest of your post supports mine.... thanks though |
|
|
|
Just to clarify my stance.
What I see is someone who did a project with no illegitimate intentions that grew to a point that made him the vessel of a illegal operation despite his intentions. He decided to pull off to not be part of an illegal scheme. That is a good moral decision in general. It is indeed sad to see it affect others, but he is currently condonned despite him.
It's pretty much like being mad at your drug dealer because he decided to get his life straight and won't be able to supply you anymore. Expect, the drug dealer actually knew what he was getting into.
Sure, some damage is done, and we still don't know to which extent. But anyone condonning a move that someone did to get them self out of a illegal position is just greedy and de facto has a much lower moral compass than him.
You have no understanding of the situation imo. You mean I don't believe every speculations and stories biased by anger and every other accusations that has less grounds than the other? You are right. If you mean the actual facts where an illegal entity was shutdown by the CEO regardless of shareholders consent or not and that he showed willingness and steps to settle with affected parties. I think I do. Oh and by the way, those are pretty much the extent of the facts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
