Do you Consider a Contract Change without a Share Holder Vote Invalid? [GLBSE]

[Deprived]

If it's an asset with voting rights then usually contract changes require a vote, although if a change is proposed that is to the advantage of the asset holder then no vote is needed as the original contract is  being met, and with the new terms exceeded (i.e. it's to the asset holders advantage).

You can't change a contract by voting - unless the contract provides for that mechanism.

Each share is effectively a contract between the holder of that share and the asset issuer.  If you hold 1000 such contracts and I hold one you do not have the right to vote to change MY contract.  Motions are to vote on actions allowed within the contract but where either:

1.  The contract specifically states that a motion is needed,
2.  The asset issuer is entitled to carry out the action but chooses to subject it to a motion,
3.  A share-holder or other party has the right to raise a specific motion.

I can understand in a less than ideal market simple changes to correct typos or obvious errors are best dealt with through a means other than disbanding a company.

But when I pay BTC to purchase the rights/obligations conferred in a contact (a share or bond is a contract) then no majority of shareholders can vary those rights/obligations as they are NOT a party to the contract between myself and the issuer.  They just hold a number of identical contracts.

[1714737393]

1714737393

[1714737393]

1714737393

[1714737393]

1714737393

[1714737393]

1714737393

[Nefario]

MPEx has the guy's name in the title.  He goes by his name on IRC and elsewhere.  You use a 1337 haxx0r nick that implies you're EEEEEVIL™.  Why do you not lead with your real name and accept accountability?

My pic and real name, I spoke at the conference in front of hundreds as well as helped organise it, nefario is my forum nick. You can ask any of the hundreds there who have met and spoke to me.

Fair enough on your opinions on mircea, I disagree but time will tell.

That said, neither of you is a real exchange operator.  You have too much ability to fuck people out of their money.  You did it with gigavps on his private bond offering.

GigaVPS is a happy GLBSE customer, your conditions for a real exchange operator are odd, by this definition then no exchange has a real operator.

The centralised nature of a market requires the creator and operator of that market to be trusted, thats just the way it is whether it's a one man operation or an empire, you still need to trust the market operator.

Right.  You handle the long tail of smaller trades, offerings, etc.  This is a great place for amateurs with no experience and no knowledge of capital markets.  You admit all of this.  This is why there is risk in having a single person with the ability to "seize" assets or otherwise control informal contracts.

The whole purpose of GLBSE is to allow ordinary people to raise capital for funding their project ideas, starting and expanding businesses, this is what makes it different, we try to keep the overheads and requirements as low as possible, and to a large extent it's worked.

We've never seized anyones assets.

So...who decides that the change benefits the asset holder?  If I list that I will increase my dividends from 1%/week to 100%/week, can I push that through without a vote?  Even if, as of course everyone knows, such returns are "unsustainable"?

These loopholes and arbitrary, informal, procedures are why smart money avoids the exchanges.  It's like a random listing on the forum or -otc, but with a single bottleneck–a person represented by a silly nickname with no real background of trust or accountability.

There is no assurance that the capital exchanges won't be the next bitcoinica or whatever.  You fight attacks to your reputation defensively.  MP fights to keep his reputation clean (other than, well, you know who).  Both groups have "fans".  Either of you could just as easily be setting up a long con.

Remember, Trust No One.

I don't intend to develop my own independent body of law. Small assets currently have me as the person who makes the decision, this is only a stop gap measure until a formal process that is also lightweight (given the asset size) and as unbiased as possible is developed, this takes time to develop and set up.  

The rest being your opinion you are entitled to.




GigaVPS is a happy GLBSE customer

[Deprived]

One general point about contracts on GLBSE:

A mistake a lot of issuers is making is that they put detailed specifics about their operations into their contract.  That is where a lot of the problems are coming from - as that level of detail IS the sort of thing which should be able to be varied through a motion.

Consider two different (extracts from) contracts where the asset intends to initially invest in mining bonds but may well want to diversify later:

BAD CONTRACT:

"This asset will only invest in mining bonds."

GOOD CONTRACT (Well better one anyway)

"This asset will initially invest only in mining bonds.  We may expand into other investment types if approved by 65% of shareholders in a vote."


In the first contract there is absolutely no way any other investment than a mining bond can be held - no shareholder motion can change that.  In the second one a motion can be raised to invest in any other investment type (unless excluded elsewhere in the contract).

The first one can't be varied for two reasons:

1.  Legal : The asset issuer has a contractual obligation to only invest in mining bonds.
2. Practical : Because there's no provision to vary the investment areas, any investor purchasing the share is entitled to be confident that there will be no investment in anything else.  So they can totally ignore the thread for that share knowing, for example, that they won't suddenly find that they lost all their equity because of a vote to invest everyhting in Pirate.  And they can balance their exposure to different sectors knowing that there's no risk of their investment in this particular share ever being used for anything other than mining bonds.

If you invest in a share with the second contract then on agreeing the contract you are acknowledging acceptance that the areas in which the asset invests may vary, even if you disagree with that change.

[RandomQ]

Please keep Flaming to Low Levels, I want to discuss the issue and not what is causing this to come up?

Sorry about that.  By the way, MathematicaWonkQ["RandomQ"]?

I'm sorry are you asking if I have another account? (No, Only one on bitcointalk)

Are you asking me a programming language function? (Function not defined in my brain matter)
But if you asking if my Handle is Programming related? Yes, I've created this handle almost 18 years ago from a qbasic function I coded.
I have had more birthday cakes with my handle on it than my name in my lifetime, so at some point in my life I might legally change it ala dot com lol.

[RandomQ]

If it's an asset with voting rights then usually contract changes require a vote, although if a change is proposed that is to the advantage of the asset holder then no vote is needed as the original contract is  being met, and with the new terms exceeded (i.e. it's to the asset holders advantage).

So...who decides that the change benefits the asset holder?  If I list that I will increase my dividends from 1%/week to 100%/week, can I push that through without a vote?  Even if, as of course everyone knows, such returns are "unsustainable"?

These loopholes and arbitrary, informal, procedures are why smart money avoids the exchanges.  It's like a random listing on the forum or -otc, but with a single bottleneck–a person represented by a silly nickname with no real background of trust or accountability.

There is no assurance that the capital exchanges won't be the next bitcoinica or whatever.  You fight attacks to your reputation defensively.  MP fights to keep his reputation clean (other than, well, you know who).  Both groups have "fans".  Either of you could just as easily be setting up a long con.

Remember, Trust No One.
[/quote]

Even if a change is an advantage to the shareholder it should still require and vote by the entire shareholders. Because what if majority share holders disagree with the change and don't consider it in there best interest. They should be able to reject any contracts changes to the asset.

[reeses]

Please keep Flaming to Low Levels, I want to discuss the issue and not what is causing this to come up?

Sorry about that.  By the way, MathematicaWonkQ["RandomQ"]?

I'm sorry are you asking if I have another account? (No, Only one on bitcointalk)

Are you asking me a programming language function? (Function not defined in my brain matter)
But if you asking if my Handle is Programming related? Yes, I've created this handle almost 18 years ago from a qbasic function I coded.
I have had more birthday cakes with my handle on it than my name in my lifetime, so at some point in my life I might legally change it ala dot com lol.

PredicateQ is a stylistic convention in Mathematica.  It would be kind of like random-p in Lisp or possibly #isRandom in many OO languages.

Sorry for the confusion.  I was asking if you were a Mathematica fan.

[Borzoi]

PredicateQ is a stylistic convention in Mathematica.  It would be kind of like random-p in Lisp or possibly #isRandom in many OO languages.

Sorry for the confusion.  I was asking if you were a Mathematica fan.

Not to be more offtopic, but I also am fan of Mathematica.  You use for bitcoins?  How?

[reeses]

PredicateQ is a stylistic convention in Mathematica.  It would be kind of like random-p in Lisp or possibly #isRandom in many OO languages.

Sorry for the confusion.  I was asking if you were a Mathematica fan.

Not to be more offtopic, but I also am fan of Mathematica.  You use for bitcoins?  How?

I'll PM you because this is waaaay off topic.

[MPOE-PR]

This is completely wrong, you absolutely need to know who a person is if they are selling something of considerable value, holding funds or running an exchange. The result of an anonymous person running an exchange will be depositors and "investors" losing their money when the exchange eventually disappears.

Stop with the bullshit. Have you as much as tried to google Mircea Popescu?

The reason he's not here talking to you is quite simply that you're not quite good enough. Not quite important enough. Not quite rich enough. To matter. So you're stuck with me. That is all.

[reeses]

This is completely wrong, you absolutely need to know who a person is if they are selling something of considerable value, holding funds or running an exchange. The result of an anonymous person running an exchange will be depositors and "investors" losing their money when the exchange eventually disappears.

Stop with the bullshit. Have you as much as tried to google Mircea Popescu?

The reason he's not here talking to you is quite simply that you're not quite good enough. Not quite important enough. Not quite rich enough. To matter. So you're stuck with me. That is all.

Ooh, I'm good, important, and rich...enough.  He takes the time out of his day to insult me personally.

I'd be more concerned with him being a Romanian pervert than anonymous.  There's only so much you can know about someone before you have to put on nitrile gloves before conversing with them.

So, are "GL" Nefario's real initials, or does he have BSE?

[ciuciu]

This is completely wrong, you absolutely need to know who a person is if they are selling something of considerable value, holding funds or running an exchange. The result of an anonymous person running an exchange will be depositors and "investors" losing their money when the exchange eventually disappears.

Stop with the bullshit. Have you as much as tried to google Mircea Popescu?

The reason he's not here talking to you is quite simply that you're not quite good enough. Not quite important enough. Not quite rich enough. To matter. So you're stuck with me. That is all.

To be clear, you are just a piece of shit, porno Mircea.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102333.0

[Bitcoin Oz]

This is completely wrong, you absolutely need to know who a person is if they are selling something of considerable value, holding funds or running an exchange. The result of an anonymous person running an exchange will be depositors and "investors" losing their money when the exchange eventually disappears.

Stop with the bullshit. Have you as much as tried to google Mircea Popescu?

The reason he's not here talking to you is quite simply that you're not quite good enough. Not quite important enough. Not quite rich enough. To matter. So you're stuck with me. That is all.

I googled him and all I could find was some artist with the same name and no real connection to the person running MPEX. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/long_island&id=8659705  and this....

Nefario can be found with a simple whois of glbse.com.

I know who the shady one is and its not Nefario.

[guruvan]

This is completely wrong, you absolutely need to know who a person is if they are selling something of considerable value, holding funds or running an exchange. The result of an anonymous person running an exchange will be depositors and "investors" losing their money when the exchange eventually disappears.

Stop with the bullshit. Have you as much as tried to google Mircea Popescu?

The reason he's not here talking to you is quite simply that you're not quite good enough. Not quite important enough. Not quite rich enough. To matter. So you're stuck with me. That is all.

To be clear, you are just a piece of shit, porno Mircea.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102333.0

WTF is your problem ciuciu? You need a chill pill. Does the porn affect the beauty of the MPEx site for you? Does porn offend your religious views? Does porn make your money worth less? Please do tell us what this bug up your ass is affecting so we can send you a correct surgeon.

Seriously, though, ciuciu, fuck off already. We get that you don't like MP. I'm sure he doesn't like you either. I'm sure at this point, I don't like you. I'm not sure if I like MP, but I do guarantee that MP is way funnier than you, and doesn't repeat stupid shit - so already I like him more than you.

FWIW, ciuciu, smart people don't invest with obsessive freaks who repeat the same negative (and irrelevant) message over and over. I will now ignore you, since this is about the only thing I see you post for the last 2 months.

[guruvan]

ON TOPIC:

IMO, for a "bond" contracts should not be able to change. The bond should be bought back, and then reissued. I suspect that the same should happen for a fund if the fund were to change contract (or direction, focus, and not be funding the original expectation).

A stock doesn't have a "contract" - there are typically Articles of Incorporation, and Corporate By-Laws. Typically these cannot be changed without a meeting and vote of shareholders. I cannot see how bitcoin or GLBSE changes this basic reality.

So - a "contract change" probably shouldn't be possible, necessary, or relevant.

[ciuciu]

This is completely wrong, you absolutely need to know who a person is if they are selling something of considerable value, holding funds or running an exchange. The result of an anonymous person running an exchange will be depositors and "investors" losing their money when the exchange eventually disappears.

Stop with the bullshit. Have you as much as tried to google Mircea Popescu?

The reason he's not here talking to you is quite simply that you're not quite good enough. Not quite important enough. Not quite rich enough. To matter. So you're stuck with me. That is all.

To be clear, you are just a piece of shit, porno Mircea.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102333.0

WTF is your problem ciuciu? You need a chill pill. Does the porn affect the beauty of the MPEx site for you? Does porn offend your religious views? Does porn make your money worth less? Please do tell us what this bug up your ass is affecting so we can send you a correct surgeon.

Seriously, though, ciuciu, fuck off already. We get that you don't like MP. I'm sure he doesn't like you either. I'm sure at this point, I don't like you. I'm not sure if I like MP, but I do guarantee that MP is way funnier than you, and doesn't repeat stupid shit - so already I like him more than you.

FWIW, ciuciu, smart people don't invest with obsessive freaks who repeat the same negative (and irrelevant) message over and over. I will now ignore you, since this is about the only thing I see you post for the last 2 months.

Yes, I do have a problem with people posting gore and child porn and then pretending to have high moral standards. I will repeat this all the time so put me on ignore.

[MPOE-PR]

I googled him and all I could find was some artist with the same name and no real connection to the person running MPEX. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/long_island&id=8659705  and this....

Nefario can be found with a simple whois of glbse.com.

I know who the shady one is and its not Nefario.

First result, dipshit. What's the first result?

[markm]

First result, dipshit. What's the first result?

MirceaPopescu.com, who seems to be an artist.

Remember that anyone who is logged into any google service is going to have google results personalised, maybe google knows which Mercea you visit most or something? Or is that artist site correct?

-MarkM-

[MPOE-PR]

The simplest way to get neutral google results is to put a simple query through a proxy:



I guess the results could be re-arranged in some subset of cases, but then it'd be second place or something like that.

[MPOE-PR]

These loopholes and arbitrary, informal, procedures are why smart money avoids the exchanges.  It's like a random listing on the forum or -otc, but with a single bottleneck-a person represented by a silly nickname with no real background of trust or accountability.

The plural'd seem unwarranted as there's neither loopholes nor arbitrary or informal procedures on MPEx. Otherwise yes, one (of the many) reasons actual money avoids the Global Scam Exchange is the complete lack of...  I'm not even sure. Sanity, maybe. Let's recap this for the slower among us.

I. For the ~year it existed during which GLBSE listed ~50 or so scams the position of management was "we just list them, it's the job of the market to price them". Recently this policy was suddenly reversed. Does this mean that it was wrong and all the naive "investors" that lost money in the litany of GLBSE scams to date have now a claim against GLBSE management? (Tort, breach of duty of care etc?)

II. As part of the ongoing "Global Scam Exchange is where scams are listed" policy, the problem of dead assets (ie, that sticky residue left after a scam explodes) has been resolved through "new versions", "site redesigns" and such. The latest installment of this was the creation of four colored markets. The people who originally paid money to be listed in one environment have had their listings changed to a different environment. This is apparently not a matter of concern to Nefario (mostly because he is literally too stupid to realize unprodded how this would be a problem).

III. While the people that paid money to be listed are relegated to category III or IV, Nefario arbitrarily decides on the 20th of September that some random failed central ecurrency is going to be category I on the strength that some nitwit wandered into the Interscamgro conference talking about it. And this is "due diligence" and all that jazz. Just as arbitrarily (and just as irrationally) the entire thing gets dropped on the 22nd.

IV. While all this is going on people are still asking "what are the rules of these new categories" and are met with stone silence. Why? Because Nefario announced the categories before he actually made the rules that go with them. Why? Because he is stupid. Literally, he starts building a car with the paint, this is what it is.

V. While all this mess is going on, a horribly mismanaged asset (DMC) is suspended from trading, and the owner account locked. There is no mention of this in any TOS, it just "happened". After having taken action, Nefario thinks about the consequences of that action, and declares that there will be "a shareholder vote". The vote happens to reinstate the original owner (albeit he was a horrible manager for the asset), probably on the grounds that the measure of confiscating someone's asset was so stupidly executed and so appallingly planned that it just turned people's stomachs.

VI. In a typical bout of reality-divergent "thinking", Nefario announces a complex auditing process which will include "real auditors", which of course fails to materialize. He then refuses to name the auditors and eschews admitting that he's just... made some shit up on the subject. Much like the imaginary lawyers he's supposedly talking to, which are giving him some of the funniest advice one could imagine.

This list could go on forever, fake offerings of the exchange's own shares which are bought by investors and disputed to this day, on and on it goes but really there's little point. The situation is simply that some intellectually sub-par individual is pretending to be running "an exchange". This is fine for shits and giggles, but nobody sane would put money in there. Taking part in GLBSE could be a sort of participating in an MMO, maybe, drop twenty bucks a month into "investments" that go nowhere. Practically it's a subscription fee for the game.

Thinking that GLBSE it is a market, that it has anything to do with BTC finance and so forth is laughable.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

[ciuciu]

Yes, I do have a problem with people posting gore and child porn and then pretending to have high moral standards. I will repeat this all the time so put me on ignore.

Dig deep enough, and you will find something to offend your moral standards.  For example, your inability to disassociate sexual orthodoxy with pecuniary responsibility is offense to reason, intellectual rigor, and pragmatism.

I'm sure your morals are not affected by child porn. You are against putting money with the pirate, but you are OK with an exchange run by a child pornographer, turned morals teacher on the Internet.
You sure make a lot of sense.