Discussion about 10,000BTC Bet (Official)

[Bitcoin Oz]

In all honestty though, I actually feel VIOLATED.

It's as if Matthew reached into my pocket and stole the Bitcoins right out from under me. This couldn't have come at a worse time, as I already spent the Bitcoins that I had planned to win, so in essence, he's not only a Scammer, but also a thief. Matthew stole my bitcoins.

You should slap yourself for spending money you didn't have.

What did you spend the coins on?

He hired some ninjas.

[bitcoiners]

Thank goodness that Bitcoin magazine has officially accepted his resignation from all responsibilities. This is the first step to recovery..

Bitcoin Magazine now has my full support..

They were innocent victims and have responded quickly and forcefully.. I applaud their behavior..

AR

Not from me.  Not until I know he's no longer making any money from the magazine.  I don't care if he lost his fancy title.

[DigitalHermit]

Thank goodness that Bitcoin magazine has officially accepted his resignation from all responsibilities. This is the first step to recovery..

Bitcoin Magazine now has my full support..

They were innocent victims and have responded quickly and forcefully.. I applaud their behavior..

AR

Not from me.  Not until I know he's no longer making any money from the magazine.  I don't care if he lost his fancy title.

That's like saying if Matthew just happened to own Intel stock, you'd stop buying any more computers because he "might" be making money from stock appreciation and dividends. Makes no sense man.

Matthew is out as Editor in Chief; he's not even on the team (http://bitcoinmagazine.net/about-us-2/) anymore. He basically committed career-suicide (hope it was worth it for him). Who knows if there is any equity/stock option arrangement over there, but if there is it's not like the magazine can just break their contracts with current or past employees on a whim. Don't blame Bitcoin Magazine who started distancing themselves from Matthew almost immediately after he made the bet.

[jwzguy]

Thank goodness that Bitcoin magazine has officially accepted his resignation from all responsibilities. This is the first step to recovery..

Bitcoin Magazine now has my full support..

They were innocent victims and have responded quickly and forcefully.. I applaud their behavior..

AR

Not from me.  Not until I know he's no longer making any money from the magazine.  I don't care if he lost his fancy title.

That's like saying if Matthew just happened to own Intel stock, you'd stop buying any more computers because he "might" be making money from stock appreciation and dividends. Makes no sense man.

Matthew is out as Editor in Chief; he's not even on the team (http://bitcoinmagazine.net/about-us-2/) anymore. He basically committed career-suicide (hope it was worth it for him). Who knows if there is any equity/stock option arrangement over there, but if there is it's not like Bitcoin can just break their contracts with current or past employees on a whim. Don't blame Bitcoin Magazine who started distancing themselves from Matthew almost immediately after he made the bet.

Not really. It's like saying if he co-founded Intel and owned 25% of their stock, I'd stop buying Intel machines and use AMD, a perfectly reasonable alternative. Which I would. Hopefully they truly do distance themselves from him and buy his equity out.

[Rassah]

You can't force someone to sell something they own (equity). Not unless it's done at gun point, anyway.

[bitcoiners]

Thank goodness that Bitcoin magazine has officially accepted his resignation from all responsibilities. This is the first step to recovery..

Bitcoin Magazine now has my full support..

They were innocent victims and have responded quickly and forcefully.. I applaud their behavior..

AR

Not from me.  Not until I know he's no longer making any money from the magazine.  I don't care if he lost his fancy title.

That's like saying if Matthew just happened to own Intel stock, you'd stop buying any more computers because he "might" be making money from stock appreciation and dividends. Makes no sense man.

Matthew is out as Editor in Chief; he's not even on the team (http://bitcoinmagazine.net/about-us-2/) anymore. He basically committed career-suicide (hope it was worth it for him). Who knows if there is any equity/stock option arrangement over there, but if there is it's not like Bitcoin can just break their contracts with current or past employees on a whim. Don't blame Bitcoin Magazine who started distancing themselves from Matthew almost immediately after he made the bet.

Not really. It's like saying if he co-founded Intel and owned 25% of their stock, I'd stop buying Intel machines and use AMD, a perfectly reasonable alternative. Which I would. Hopefully they truly do distance themselves from him and buy his equity out.

Thanks for the better analogy.  I wouldn't have seen what that Matt's sock even said.  I ignored him a few days ago when he called me a shill from the future. Just assumed it was Matt.

Cheers.

[jwzguy]

You can't force someone to sell something they own (equity). Not unless it's done at gun point, anyway.

You can't "force" them to resign, either. Hopefully they will work out a deal.

[DeathAndTaxes]

That's like saying if Matthew just happened to own Intel stock, you'd stop buying any more computers because he "might" be making money from stock appreciation and dividends. Makes no sense man.
...

Hardly it would be like if 1970 Gordon Moore stole $500,000 from you then you might not find it acceptable to continue to do business with Intel just because the board asked for his resignation.  Maybe just maybe the fact that Gordon had a significant equity stake and would stand to gain billions over the coming decades if Intel was successful might cause you to do business with a competitor instead.

The reality is depending on the legal structure of BitTalk Ltd they simply may not have an option to divest an owner but comparing a privately held startup (where the company is held by a dozen or so people) to a major publicly traded corporation is kinda silly.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You can't force someone to sell something they own (equity). Not unless it's done at gun point, anyway.

Well depending on the legal structure of the company, and clauses in the owner's equity stakes you potentially could.  However that may not be the case here. 
Still it may be possible for the company to convince him to sell.  Convince him the damage his continued relationship will do to the company undermines the value of his equity and he is better off taking the current value and exploring new opportunities.

[DigitalHermit]

You can't force someone to sell something they own (equity). Not unless it's done at gun point, anyway.

You can't "force" them to resign, either. Hopefully they will work out a deal.

Well it looks like he already resigned or was fired. Who knows which until we hear an official announcement. The about-us page listed his position as vacant for a while today and now it's listed as Mihai Alisie. http://bitcoinmagazine.net/about-us-2/

[DigitalHermit]

That's like saying if Matthew just happened to own Intel stock, you'd stop buying any more computers because he "might" be making money from stock appreciation and dividends. Makes no sense man.
...

The reality is depending on the legal structure of BitTalk Ltd they simply may not have an option to divest an owner but comparing a privately held startup (where the company is held by a dozen or so people) to a major publicly traded corporation is kinda silly.

Point taken. It was a crude analogy admittedly.

[sadpandatech]

You can't force someone to sell something they own (equity). Not unless it's done at gun point, anyway.

You can't "force" them to resign, either. Hopefully they will work out a deal.

Well it looks like he already resigned or was fired. Who knows which until we hear an official announcement. The about-us page listed his position as vacant for a while today and now it's listed as Mihai Alisie. http://bitcoinmagazine.net/about-us-2/

There was an announcement, Bittalk Media Ltd Announcement September 9th, 2012

I thought I recalled this; "Written by: Bitcoin Magazine" reading as 'Written by: Vlad....' earlier though.

[bigasic]

If Matthew does own any equity in Bitcoin magazine, I invite those that are in charge to contact me to see If i could help buy him out. I certainly wouldn't mind being part of it, even if its a silent type investment. It only behooves me to see bitcoin magazine (hence the bitcoin) succeed...

AR

[bitcoiners]

If Matthew does own any equity in Bitcoin magazine, I invite those that are in charge to contact me to see If i could help buy him out. I certainly wouldn't mind being part of it, even if its a silent type investment. It only behooves me to see bitcoin magazine (hence the bitcoin) succeed...

AR

Eh, they need to put his shares up on the GLBSE.  It'll be about the only thing worth investing in on there.

[DeathAndTaxes]

If Matthew does own any equity in Bitcoin magazine, I invite those that are in charge to contact me to see If i could help buy him out. I certainly wouldn't mind being part of it, even if its a silent type investment. It only behooves me to see bitcoin magazine (hence the bitcoin) succeed...

AR

Eh, they need to put his shares up on the GLBSE.  It'll be about the only thing worth investing in on there.

Anything worth investing in will never put "shares" up on GLBSE.  For the obvious reasons.

[bitcoiners]

If Matthew does own any equity in Bitcoin magazine, I invite those that are in charge to contact me to see If i could help buy him out. I certainly wouldn't mind being part of it, even if its a silent type investment. It only behooves me to see bitcoin magazine (hence the bitcoin) succeed...

AR

Eh, they need to put his shares up on the GLBSE.  It'll be about the only thing worth investing in on there.

Anything worth investing in will never put "shares" up on GLBSE.  For the obvious reasons.

You're right of course, but one can dream can't they?  

[jwzguy]

I know someone who wanted to put up something worth investing in on GLBSE...I've never looked into it closely. (I believe they are still in the process of doing so.) Could you briefly touch on the obvious reasons?

[JoelKatz]

I know someone who wanted to put up something worth investing in on GLBSE...I've never looked into it closely. (I believe they are still in the process of doing so.) Could you briefly touch on the obvious reasons?

One would be the uncertain legal ramifications of offering a security denominated in bitcoins on an unlicensed, unregulated, "sort of" stock exchange.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I know someone who wanted to put up something worth investing in on GLBSE...I've never looked into it closely. (I believe they are still in the process of doing so.) Could you briefly touch on the obvious reasons?

Legal and taxation.

Any company (and no I don't mean someone calling a bunch of rigs a mining "company") only exists because the state says it does.  So Tangible Cryptography LLC is only a legal distinct entity from its owners because the Commonwealth of Virginia says that it is.  Doing things contrary to the Articles of Organization and the laws of Virginia governing Limited Liability Companies jeapordizes that standing.  There are rules on LLC and S-Corp which limit who can be an owner and the process that ownership is established.  For example in an LLC an owner (member) can't simply sell ownership to an outsider.  It requires a vote of existing members to include the new investors as a member and then a transfer of ownership between existing members.  An S-Corp in the US can't have foreigners as shareholders.  Neither entity can legally offer public securities or solicit investment (other than to qualified investors).  Failure to follow the "rules" runs the risk of the entity being disallowed and any liability being placed directly on the owners.  Not a good thing.

The taxation is even more of an issue.  The "entity" (LLC, corp, partnership, etc) is legally obligated to report the profits of its owners.  How do you do that when you don't even know who owns your company?

There are other legal issues but those two are a deal killer.  So either you don't form a corporation or other legal entity and simply put a bunch of assets in a "company" online or you willfully break the law and likely suffer massive consequences when the law catches up to you.

For many entities which deal in the "fiat world", non-compliance with the law and taxation is simply impossible.  Tangible Cryptography LLC USD cashflow (not profits but cashflow) is on the order of ~$10M for this year.  If we continue to grow it could be closer to ~$15M.  Do you think the IRS hasn't already been notified by our banks?  We are almost guaranteed to be audited once the company files its return.  Our books have to be air tight.  Having quasi-illegal owners on some unregulated anonymous exchange is pretty much a guarantee the LLC would be dissolved as fraudulent and the known owners charged with tax evasion and other crimes.  

[bigasic]

As for pure logistical purposes, It would make sense to bring only one or two investors to replace him. I could only imagine the headache of trying to keep track of just his portion on the GLBSE, too many things to keep track of, not including the possible legal ramifications for not going thru a licensed/regulated stock exchange. assuming of course that he does of a fiat interest in the company. But, his buyout  might be low enough that the original investors may take care of it..

But, I am still willing to listen...