Letter of concern to the board of BitTalk Media Inc. (MNW 80K Fraud)

[DeathAndTaxes]

Matt never made any link to the company and Vlad did post that this had nothing to do with the magazine.  Shortly after Matt removed any links to the magazine in his sig and avatar (likely at the urging of the company). 

Oh yes he did.  On his spreadsheet he had pics of each one of Bitcoin Magazine's issues and links to subscribe.  They were of course removed but it made it look like the company was involved in the bet while they were up.

Did you honestly believe it was a promotion run by BitTalk Media?  Really?  Did you make a bet specifically based on this fact?  Did you contact the magazine to determine if it was legit?  Did you attempt to even clarify with Matt after the links were removed? 

Even if this went to court (which it wouldn't) a judge would look at the evidence and try to determine what a "reasonable person" would think.  Based on the event I don't see how a reasonable person would believe that this was an official promotion by the magazine.

[thezerg]

Matt never made any link to the company and Vlad did post that this had nothing to do with the magazine.  Shortly after Matt removed any links to the magazine in his sig and avatar (likely at the urging of the company). 

Oh yes he did.  On his spreadsheet he had pics of each one of Bitcoin Magazine's issues and links to subscribe.  They were of course removed but it made it look like the company was involved in the bet while they were up.

Did you honestly believe it was a promotion run by BitTalk Media?  Really?  Did you make a bet specifically based on this fact?  Did you contact the magazine to determine if it was legit?  Did you attempt to even clarify with Matt after the links were removed? 

Even if this went to court (which it wouldn't) a judge would look at the evidence and try to determine what a "reasonable person" would think.  Based on the event I don't see how a reasonable person would believe that this was an official promotion by the magazine.

It does not matter.  He does not hold the position of janitor.  It is well understood that as you rise to high positions in companies, (some of) your external actions do reflect on the company as a whole.  Like if a judge is caught smoking pot.  Like if an editor-in-chief of a magazine -- a construct built solely on words -- cannot be held to his own word.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Reflecting bad on the company is one thing.  Making the company legally liable for the fraud of one of its employees is a whole different thing.  The argument is legally bankrupt.  It weakens the rest of the complaint and honestly just comes off as silly. 

[cbeast]

[thezerg]

Reflecting bad on the company is one thing.  Making the company legally liable for the fraud of one of its employees is a whole different thing.  The argument is legally bankrupt.  It weakens the rest of the complaint and honestly just comes off as silly. 

Hmm... I think you misunderstood (or what I did).  I was not suggesting that the company was legally liable.  The company does not take the part of the defendant with the employee.  I was suggesting that the company can prosecute the employee -- I don't know the terms -- but it comes down to loss of revenue due to defamation of the company's good name (IANAL).  This is true for anyone -- if you run a scam and in execution of it claim to be an IBM employee I think IBM can sue you (not that there's generally $ to get).  When you rise to a certain level in a company, your actions are implicitly connected to that company regardless of whether you explicitly advertise it or not.  Unfortunately MNW did associate (via magazine images, etc)...

[Bitcoin Oz]

Reflecting bad on the company is one thing.  Making the company legally liable for the fraud of one of its employees is a whole different thing.  The argument is legally bankrupt.  It weakens the rest of the complaint and honestly just comes off as silly. 

Hmm... I think you misunderstood (or what I did).  I was not suggesting that the company was legally liable.  The company does not take the part of the defendant with the employee.  I was suggesting that the company can prosecute the employee -- I don't know the terms -- but it comes down to loss of revenue due to defamation of the company's good name (IANAL).  This is true for anyone -- if you run a scam and in execution of it claim to be an IBM employee I think IBM can sue you (not that there's generally $ to get).  When you rise to a certain level in a company, your actions are implicitly connected to that company regardless of whether you explicitly advertise it or not.  Unfortunately MNW did associate (via magazine images, etc)...

Hes been forced to resign from the company.

[cbeast]

They probably cut a deal so he has capital to work on new projects.

[LoupGaroux]

What a load of foolishness this is.

First, that we have an obvious well developed sock-puppet posting this kind of crap. And secondly, that anyone would sign on with this garbage. Bitcoin Magazine without Matthew as the spiritual figurehead, AND THE ONLY STAFF MEMBER DOING FUCK ALL ABOUT PROMOTION is dead. It may hang around to cough up a couple more furballs of issues, but it will be gone before Issue #8. And all the poor saps who paid for a year's subscription will be posting threads calling scammer and meanie and how can we not have a bitcoin advisory oversight board that prevents this kind of heinous crime from happening...

This is bullshit. Checking through the body of work by elux, I am struck how this user only ever chooses to quote one other member. A member whose opinions elux seems to hold in very high regard, one would almost suggest worshipful regard. And coincidentally, that same adored member seems to post with startlingly synchronicity right around the same time elux decides to pen another love letter.

So the Hate Matthew circle jerk is desperately seeking validation by crafting puffery and blowing smoke up everyone's ass in a play to remove Matthew? Gosh, doesn't that just sound like the way we do business around here at the Bitcoin Corral? Always making sure we have somebody to blame when we look stupid, and always believing the fairies that promise us untold wealth. You better hope that the Nigerian 419 scammers never hear about this community, you dumb fucks would start pooling bitcoins to get that $45 billion in gold bullion that is stored in a trunk box out of the Prince's father's office so fast it will our heads spin.

[elux]

Yeah if Matt's contract as either an owner or employee has a morality clause the company may have grounds to sue but that would be for any damages incurred by the magazine (canceled ads, lost subscriptions, PR costs to undo the bad press, etc) not the amount Matt didn't pay.  More commonly it would be used as leverage to divest him of ownership (we are suing you but we can settle out of court if you agree to sell your stake).

Exactly this.

Those damages would be a separate issue from the 79,000 BTC Matt didn't pay so like I said the sentence is confusing and honestly doesn't really make any sense.

Verily.

I think he wants them to sue Matthew.

Which is also kind of silly.

Actually it would be very common.  Employees (especially high level employees) are sued by their employers all the time when their actions and words cause damage to the company (reputation, lost sales, canceled ad revenue, etc).  There is nothing to indicate BitTalk is looking to sue Matt but if they did it wouldn't be over "lost BTC" it would be over damages to the company.

You're both right.

Still the OP seems to be combining that with the bet itself and throwing in a bunch of nonsense legal words so it is hard to tell what he is trying to say.

Yeah, sorry about that. Your interpretation is isomorphic to my intent. Your criticism well warranted.

In a nutshell: When a member of an organization abuses a position of authority granted by the organization to enable fraud, he should:
(1) be fired,
(2) be relieved of any stake or equity he might hold,
(3) be sued, if necessary to achieve (1) and (2).

And that's all I have time for. Sorry for confusing you all. Your criticism is spot on.

(Aside from Loup Garoux, his hate cannon is pointed in the wrong direction and firing blanks today.)

Doesn't matter; Matt got fired.

[LoupGaroux]

Not a hate cannon at all... more like a reality searchlight.

If Matthew was indeed "fired" why not tell the truth and announce it as such? And how is it that someone who is NOT on the Board of Directors has the ability to counter the official announcement and tell us that Matty was fired? Unless that someone is an insider operating under more than one identity.

I'm just sayin'... tell the truth in all that you do, and nobody will every ask the questions, lie just once, and everything you say is questioned.

[bitcoiners]

Doesn't matter; Matt got fired.

It does matter if Matt still has equity in this magazine.  I could give a shit about titles.  If he is still making money, I don't want anything to do with them.  I'm not alone on this.

[repentance]

Hmm... I think you misunderstood (or what I did).  I was not suggesting that the company was legally liable.  The company does not take the part of the defendant with the employee.  I was suggesting that the company can prosecute the employee -- I don't know the terms -- but it comes down to loss of revenue due to defamation of the company's good name (IANAL).  This is true for anyone -- if you run a scam and in execution of it claim to be an IBM employee I think IBM can sue you (not that there's generally $ to get).  When you rise to a certain level in a company, your actions are implicitly connected to that company regardless of whether you explicitly advertise it or not.  Unfortunately MNW did associate (via magazine images, etc)...

No, it was made abundantly clear that the magazine in no way supported Matthew's actions in making the bet.

It's also not very easy to successfully sue for damage to your business reputation when you're a new business - you need to be able to quantify damages and that's difficult to do when you don't have significant historical financials to help support your claims of loss.  The last thing any new company needs is to incur significant legal costs in an action it may lose.

I certainly believe that those calling for Matthew to be divested of his equity in Bittalk Media Ltd should disclose whether they currently hold equity in the company and/or whether they will be actively seeking to acquire Matthew's interest should it become available.

[Gabi]

Anyone who took matthew's bet as serious, even from the first few seconds he posted it, should really
consider looking in the mirror and wonder who was the bigger idiot.

+1

Doesn't change the fact that Matthew is a scammer and a criminal.

Lol

[bulanula]

What a load of foolishness this is.

First, that we have an obvious well developed sock-puppet posting this kind of crap. And secondly, that anyone would sign on with this garbage. Bitcoin Magazine without Matthew as the spiritual figurehead, AND THE ONLY STAFF MEMBER DOING FUCK ALL ABOUT PROMOTION is dead. It may hang around to cough up a couple more furballs of issues, but it will be gone before Issue #8. And all the poor saps who paid for a year's subscription will be posting threads calling scammer and meanie and how can we not have a bitcoin advisory oversight board that prevents this kind of heinous crime from happening...

This is bullshit. Checking through the body of work by elux, I am struck how this user only ever chooses to quote one other member. A member whose opinions elux seems to hold in very high regard, one would almost suggest worshipful regard. And coincidentally, that same adored member seems to post with startlingly synchronicity right around the same time elux decides to pen another love letter.

So the Hate Matthew circle jerk is desperately seeking validation by crafting puffery and blowing smoke up everyone's ass in a play to remove Matthew? Gosh, doesn't that just sound like the way we do business around here at the Bitcoin Corral? Always making sure we have somebody to blame when we look stupid, and always believing the fairies that promise us untold wealth. You better hope that the Nigerian 419 scammers never hear about this community, you dumb fucks would start pooling bitcoins to get that $45 billion in gold bullion that is stored in a trunk box out of the Prince's father's office so fast it will our heads spin.

Nice post. +1

How are you so sure they haven't heard yet ? I hear Nigeria will make BTC its official currency to encourage more productive 419ers

[greyhawk]

How are you so sure they haven't heard yet ? I hear Nigeria will make BTC its official currency to encourage more productive 419ers

Good day, Sirmadam.

MY name is Uku Lele Coqbangpusi of Financial Minstery of Finance Nigeria. As you no dobut know, our govermnt deciding to replace all monei with the BitConis. We have funsd procured of 300.000.000 $ USD (Three Hundred Million) for exchange of miney. We ask you Hon. Sirmadam for hepling in transfer of mooney to the BitsCoin at service fee for you of 5%.

Brightest day,
Hefnot Ihten'tudäi

[thezerg]

Hmm... I think you misunderstood (or what I did).  I was not suggesting that the company was legally liable.  The company does not take the part of the defendant with the employee.  I was suggesting that the company can prosecute the employee -- I don't know the terms -- but it comes down to loss of revenue due to defamation of the company's good name (IANAL).  This is true for anyone -- if you run a scam and in execution of it claim to be an IBM employee I think IBM can sue you (not that there's generally $ to get).  When you rise to a certain level in a company, your actions are implicitly connected to that company regardless of whether you explicitly advertise it or not.  Unfortunately MNW did associate (via magazine images, etc)...

No, it was made abundantly clear that the magazine in no way supported Matthew's actions in making the bet.

Yes, I noticed that it was mentioned by Vladimir a bunch of posts down.  But unfortunately at that time MNW's graphic was photos of the bitcoin mag...

It's also not very easy to successfully sue for damage to your business reputation when you're a new business - you need to be able to quantify damages and that's difficult to do when you don't have significant historical financials to help support your claims of loss.  The last thing any new company needs is to incur significant legal costs in an action it may lose.

Yes its probably not worth it in this case to actually sue... but that does not mean they do not have a case.

I certainly believe that those calling for Matthew to be divested of his equity in Bittalk Media Ltd should disclose whether they currently hold equity in the company and/or whether they will be actively seeking to acquire Matthew's interest should it become available.

I do not have any equity in Bittalk Media Ltd.  I will not be seeking equity.  

I did not put any money in pirate or in MNW's bet.  I have made no bets at all.  Betting is a zero-sum game; there is no economic value added to the system.

I have equity in BITCOINS.  In other words, I'm holding BTC in a cold wallet.  I'm sick and tired of watching these f*ckups destroy my investment and the greatest mechanism for the transfer of value ever invented.

How can I convince a supplier to take Bitcoins if he goes onto Google and these forums and sees Pirate, MNW, exchanges run by web-script-kiddies, and this Romney cr*p?  Given that BST existed, what this supplier should be seeing is all the people who attempted to warn people away from BST, culminating in Vanderoy's (successfully resolved) 5000 btc bet, and postings about subsequent legal action against the perp.

[elux]

Snipped this part:

I also propose that you take the appropriate steps to seek legal recourse in restoring the material or immaterial damages inflicted
on BitTalk Media Inc. and Bitcoin Magazine resulting from the 79000 BTC fraud perpetrated by Matthew N. Wright while acting as
chief editor, as he in no small part relied on the good name of your business and the authority owed from his position in executing the fraud.

Upon sober reflection: It's none of my business, really. I may have been a little inebriated with anger yesterday.

[elux]

I notice the original complaint (which, I realize should have been the sole complaint) has been addressed with all due speed. Yay BitTalk Media!  

Code:

Dear Vladimir,

By this time you are undoubtably aware of the damage caused
to BitTalk Media Ltd, and Bitcoin Magazine in particular, stemming from 
the recent public actions of chief editor Matthew N. Wright, and the liability represented thereby. 

I hereby request that the board of BitTalk Media Ltd. immediately remove Matthew N. Wright from any position he might have
with BitTalk Media Ltd, Bitcoin Magazine, and affiliated organizations, and that this action is made public as soon as possible. 

This in the interest of minimizing the loss of business, advertising revenue and irrecoverable damage to the image of the
business, that will otherwise be incurred from any lack of timely, appropriate action on part of the board of BitTalk Media.

Best regards,
-elux,

[List of signatories.]

The Board of Directors of Bittalk Media Ltd., publisher of Bitcoin Magazine, has accepted resignation of Matthew N. Wright from the position of Director of Bittalk Media Ltd and from the position of Editor In Chief of Bitcoin Magazine effective immediately.

[repentance]

How can I convince a supplier to take Bitcoins if he goes onto Google and these forums and sees Pirate, MNW, exchanges run by web-script-kiddies, and this Romney cr*p?  Given that BST existed, what this supplier should be seeing is all the people who attempted to warn people away from BST, culminating in Vanderoy's (successfully resolved) 5000 btc bet, and postings about subsequent legal action against the perp.

There's a discussion happening in Meta about whether certain things should be moved off this forum.  Bitcoin is attractive to scammers - that's a given .  This forum has become a scammer magnet because it's full of people wanting to make quick returns who don't want to miss out on the next big thing (make no mistake, some would have no ethical problem with being in on the ground floor of a pure ponzi).  We can't stop people using Bitcoin to perpetrate scams, but we don't have to allow their promotion on this forum.

So who is buying Matthew's equity?  I'm sure those who refused to purchase Bitcoin Magazine as long as he held a stake want to make sure that his interest doesn't pass to someone else they find morally objectionable.

[mobodick]

I think he wants them to sue Matthew.

Which is also kind of silly.

LOL yeah that would be interesting. Let me sue you for my bet with you about digital monopoly monies that is created on the internets...

hehe

Actually it would be very common.  Employees (especially high level employees) are sued by their employers all the time when their actions and words cause damage to the company (reputation, lost sales, canceled ad revenue, etc).  There is nothing to indicate BitTalk is looking to sue Matt but if they did it wouldn't be over "lost BTC" it would be over damages to the company.  Still the OP seems to be combining that with the bet itself and throwing in a bunch of nonsense legal words so it is hard to tell what he is trying to say.

To me the message seems clear:
"Mathew, you little turd, i'm still pissed off!"
Looks more like a show than anything else.