Nefario GLBSE

[kjj]

Consideration isn't a synonym for gain or profit.  It requires an exchange, a trade.  The commission paid isn't paid for the promise, it is incidental to it.  It may have happened because of the promise, but not in consideration of it.

"If you buy a car from us and are unsatisfied for any reason, we'll give you back your money." You buy the car, relying on the promise. They refuse to give you back your money for the car. Consideration, or no?

Nefario said "if you hold the fake stock, we'll take it back in exchange for real stock". Goat bought the stock relying on the promise.

Nefario was specifically intending to increase the value of the fake stock. His concern was that people had paid more than it was worth and chose to handle it by increasing the value.

Terrible analogy.  The salesman is acting as an agent of the dealership that you are buying the car from.  In this case, Goat was not buying the stock from the exchange, and Nefario was not acting as an agent of the seller.

[LoupGaroux]

lalala... a bunch of other stuff from a bunch of other people...

So you are here in this thread as a GLBSE owners speaking for GLBSE. I now understand your personal attacks in the other threads.

So you told Nefario in secret but nefario still said they were worht money and let them trade

Why did you not bother to tell us before now? Why let people buy them at over 10 BTC each? Are you part of the fraud?

Should you also be listed as a scammer? Did you list the fake GLBSE shares?

"fake" GLBSE was tradeable in GLBSE 2. That is a fact. Not only was it moved to GLBSE 2 but it was tradeable. That is a fact.

You have called me a scammer many times all over the forum. Yet the only thing you posted in the "Goat is a scammer thread" was personal insults. As a GLBSE owner I hope you can back up your claim and post what you have in that thread. I look forward to your apology if you do not post evidence.

Sadly I was one of the few honest asset issuers on GLBSE 1 and 2.

I did not know who all the owners where but had I know one of them was you I would have never taken part. You and nefario...   I got in cuz I trusted Theymos and now he is wanting to leave... Smart man...

No. Categorically no. I am not now, nor have I ever been a GLBSE Actual owner. And when theymos' shares come on the market I have no plans at this time to become an owner, or shareholder in GLBSE Actual. I have no standing whatsoever to speak for GLBSE in any capacity. I was responding to facts of the timeline as I know them from personal experience, and trying to address your mis-characterization of those responses to someone else's question in furtherance of your own agenda.

No. Categorically no. I did not "tell" Nefario anything at all. I had a discussion in regards to the fake asset. A discussion that is not germane to your rant, nor are you welcome to make assumptions about it in support of your agenda.

What exactly am I "telling" you and the cast of imaginary thousands you refer to as "us"? I responded to a courteous question with a courteous answer. You decided to spin it off into something that it wasn't. I have no obligation, legal or otherwise to make sure that you understand the concept of due diligence. You have held yourself out as a competent businessman and offered your services as manager for other people's funds. One can only hope that you understand the very basic requirements to study those investments before you accept others funds in trust to invest in them, although I fear as your history with the pirate situation has shown, you don't. So, sorry, but is not my job to tell you squat about anything. Do your own damn homework, before you go off playing in the grown up world.

As to standards of evidence- go fuck yourself with a barbed wire condom. You are not in a court of law, yet, and until you are I have no obligation to present anything to you anywhere about any topic. You are a lowlife, a scammer, a criminal and wanna-be white slaver. You are the lowest form of contemptible trash is this community, and I have no obligation to produce anything to prove that to you- the whole world can see it from your incessant words.

No. Categorically no. I never listed any asset at all on GLBSE. I briefly considered a couple of concepts, but watching amateurs like you and Peter pretty much convinced me that GLBSE is a playground for the desperate and intellectually challenged. Not a place I want to put much effort at all. Since there was no asset ever listed, your ridiculous comment that I am a scammer is utterly hollow.

GLBSE Fake was never tradeable on version 2.0 of the market. It was imported as a locked asset. Otherwise you could have just listed them and shilled for yourself as you did for pirate. They were not tradeable so you had to make another of your boring threads seeking to trade them through a direct transfer, while seeking an obscene profit level for your poorly thought out investment.

Unless your feet have become blocks of ice, Hell hasn't frozen over yet, so you can keep waiting for your apology. It will be forthcoming on the twelfth of never. Until then, fall back on fucking yourself you miserable cheat.

The only sad thing about GLBSE and Goat is that you ever discovered it, and somehow managed to slip through the review and list assets. That their legal counsel had advised shutting you and your scams down is a strong testimonial for the integrity they are seeking to build around the brand. Oops, too bad for you little scammer boy.

And again, just in case you remain too dim witted to understand- I never was, never have been nor will ever be an owner in any capacity of GLBSE Actual. If the few shares of GLBSE Fake that I bought on the market during 1.0 and sold on that market during the short window that they could be sold, were in fact sold to you- then I laugh my ass off at your stupidity in investing in something that was clearly and publicly proclaimed to have no value.

And you would probably be well served to not second guess theymos' motivation in offering some of his shares- you will probably be as wrong on this subject as you are on most all others.

[kjj]

No. Categorically no. I am not now, nor have I ever been a GLBSE Actual owner. And when theymos' shares come on the market I have no plans at this time to become an owner, or shareholder in GLBSE Actual. I have no standing whatsoever to speak for GLBSE in any capacity. I was responding to facts of the timeline as I know them from personal experience, and trying to address your mis-characterization of those responses to someone else's question in furtherance of your own agenda.

Seriously?  I totally had that impression too, from one of your previous posts.  Oh, here it is.

Can you tell us what GLBSE owner challenged Nefario and can you please link us to his quote?

Yes, I was the GLBSE owner who challenged it

I hope you can understand why he, and I, and presumably a bunch of other people, thought that you were a shareholder in the exchange.

[JoelKatz]

Terrible analogy.  The salesman is acting as an agent of the dealership that you are buying the car from.  In this case, Goat was not buying the stock from the exchange, and Nefario was not acting as an agent of the seller.

Every analogy will be different from the thing analogized, that's the point of the analogy. Can you explain why you think those differences make the analogy inapposite?

[kjj]

Terrible analogy.  The salesman is acting as an agent of the dealership that you are buying the car from.  In this case, Goat was not buying the stock from the exchange, and Nefario was not acting as an agent of the seller.

Every analogy will be different from the thing analogized, that's the point of the analogy. Can you explain why you think those differences make the analogy inapposite?

There is a world of difference between a promise from the agent of an entity selling you something, and from a random dude that happens to be nearby.  Of course my analogy is bad too, but I'd say that in this case, Nefario is a lot closer to the random dude walking by than he is to an agent of the seller.

[JoelKatz]

Terrible analogy.  The salesman is acting as an agent of the dealership that you are buying the car from.  In this case, Goat was not buying the stock from the exchange, and Nefario was not acting as an agent of the seller.

Every analogy will be different from the thing analogized, that's the point of the analogy. Can you explain why you think those differences make the analogy inapposite?

There is a world of difference between a promise from the agent of an entity selling you something, and from a random dude that happens to be nearby.  Of course my analogy is bad too, but I'd say that in this case, Nefario is a lot closer to the random dude walking by than he is to an agent of the seller.

Goat reasonably believed that Nefario was acting on behalf of the seller's agent. GLBSE was the entity handling the sale and Nefario appeared to be acting on GLBSE's authority. He was in fact an agent of the seller.

[Maged]

Well, I think I have enough information to make my decision. I hereby vote that Nefario did not commit a scam by not honoring the fake GLBSE shares.

My reasoning, in brief:
1) There was no evidence presented that Nefario's original comment that he would convert the shares to Actual GLBSE was anything more than a possible offer.
2) Even then, no evidence was presented that Nefario mentioned what the conversion rate for these false shares would be. It would not be a safe assumption to say that they would be converted at their IPO value.
3) No consideration was provided. Nefario did not gain anything (other than maybe a very small amount of BTC in exchange fees) by offering to convert the fake shares to real shares. If it had actually happened, it would have only been out of the goodness of his heart.
4) Nefario has reasonably offered to buy back the shares at the IPO value. Trades above this (especially the 10 BTC ones) would have been absolutely ridiculous to any legitimate investor who actually did their research. Even if you go by Theymos's outrageous pricing, they've only gone up 600% in value from IPO. Thus, I consider those large trades to have been made out of stupidity and should not be valid for the purpose of this argument.

My decision is pretty firm at this point, but I will remain open to new ideas and opinions as they come in.

[OgNasty]

I hereby vote that Nefario did not commit a scam by not honoring the fake GLBSE shares.

+1

[JoelKatz]

I hereby vote that Nefario did not commit a scam by not honoring the fake GLBSE shares.

I agree with this, though I slightly disagree with some of your reasoning.

4) Nefario has reasonably offered to buy back the shares at the IPO value. Trades above this (especially the 10 BTC ones) would have been absolutely ridiculous to any legitimate investor who actually did their research. Even if you go by Theymos's outrageous pricing, they've only gone up 600% in value from IPO. Thus, I consider those large trades to have been made out of stupidity and should not be valid for the purpose of this argument.

I don't really agree with this. But I think it's academic as nobody (so far as I know) has claimed that they suffered actual losses (as opposed to lost profits) as a result of Nefario's representation beyond what he offered in compensation.

[brendio]

I'd like to stay out of the rest of the mud slinging, but wish to state that the following point is incorrect:

GLBSE Fake was never tradeable on version 2.0 of the market. It was imported as a locked asset. Otherwise you could have just listed them and shilled for yourself as you did for pirate. They were not tradeable so you had to make another of your boring threads seeking to trade them through a direct transfer, while seeking an obscene profit level for your poorly thought out investment.

GLBSE Fake definitely were trading on GLBSE 2.0. I can provide evidence for it trading on May 3 and May 15.

I also can not recall ever seeing a retraction of Nefario's offer to convert fake to real, and my trading was done on that basis (more for novelty value than anything).

[LoupGaroux]

No. Categorically no. I am not now, nor have I ever been a GLBSE Actual owner. And when theymos' shares come on the market I have no plans at this time to become an owner, or shareholder in GLBSE Actual. I have no standing whatsoever to speak for GLBSE in any capacity. I was responding to facts of the timeline as I know them from personal experience, and trying to address your mis-characterization of those responses to someone else's question in furtherance of your own agenda.

Seriously?  I totally had that impression too, from one of your previous posts.  Oh, here it is.

Can you tell us what GLBSE owner challenged Nefario and can you please link us to his quote?

Yes, I was the GLBSE owner who challenged it

I hope you can understand why he, and I, and presumably a bunch of other people, thought that you were a shareholder in the exchange.

You are quite right, I should have qualified that with "GLBSE Fake", as I have started to do since that time. I was, for a very brief period of time a holder of a few shares of GLBSE Fake. They were all sold under the aegis of 1.0. I have never been, and will not ever be an owner or shareholder of GLBSE Actual or GLBSE Real. (Being the holding company and the eventual public release of shares in the market holding company.)

[LoupGaroux]

Nefario on GLBSE took over an asset called "GLBSE" that he assumed was a scam. He then let this stock trade and said that they would become valid GLBSE stock. He let this stock trade over 10 BTC each. GLBSE profited form the sale of these stocks because of commissions collected.

Nefario has the option to trade his real valid GLBSE stock for the "fake" GLBSE stock he said he would make good but he is now going to do a force by back of the shares for .1 BTC. That is less than 1% for what they were trading for.

I bought and held GLBSE and invested my time in GLBSE because I was told that I was a part owner. I was tricked, cheated and more or less scammed.


Nefario could trade me his real stock but refuses to do so and will just steal my GLBSE assets with out my consent.

Maged. I agree with you on this but what this was about was the FORCED sale. He can offer whatever he wants and he does not have to convert it to real GLBSE stock cuz well he can't. But what he can't do is just fix a price and then take it. He needed to leave the asset in my account even if it was locked.

Asset issuers can not just say it is now worth something and force a buy back. That is just wrong.

Here Nefario was the asset issuer (because he said he would turn it into GLBSE stock), the broker and the exchange.

Although you have edited your original post to the version quoted above, you are still adjusting the facts after the decision has been made. You made the thread because you couldn't get the price you wanted, it had nothing to do with a forced sale. This line of reasoning is your next approach now that you have been denied on the 10,000% profit version of your complaint. I leave it to the eminently qualified gentlemen debating above to adjudicate this as true internet lawyers, but it certainly seems that you are verdict shopping and looking to change your story by degrees until you can garner support for an undefensible position. You bought worthless stocks and cannot sell them. Oh bummer.

Sidebar to brendio- I accept your statement that you traded GLBSE Fake after the establishment of 2.0, without asking to see your evidence. Your credibility is certainly strong enough persuasion for me. I was no longer holding any, and thought that they were not able to be traded, along with the other worthless assets that transferred over from 1.0. I stand corrected.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I'd like to stay out of the rest of the mud slinging, but wish to state that the following point is incorrect:

GLBSE Fake was never tradeable on version 2.0 of the market. It was imported as a locked asset. Otherwise you could have just listed them and shilled for yourself as you did for pirate. They were not tradeable so you had to make another of your boring threads seeking to trade them through a direct transfer, while seeking an obscene profit level for your poorly thought out investment.

GLBSE Fake definitely were trading on GLBSE 2.0. I can provide evidence for it trading on May 3 and May 15.

I also can not recall ever seeing a retraction of Nefario's offer to convert fake to real, and my trading was done on that basis (more for novelty value than anything).

I wrongly assumed the same thing. I assumed they were locked and not tradeable but it appears they were.

It should have been dealt with properly after the fake shares were discovered as its now a lot more awkward to do so. It does remind me of the facebook movie a bit. I wonder how a judge would see this in future if theres a lawsuit.

[MPOE-PR]

I'd like to stay out of the rest of the mud slinging, but wish to state that the following point is incorrect:

GLBSE Fake was never tradeable on version 2.0 of the market. It was imported as a locked asset. Otherwise you could have just listed them and shilled for yourself as you did for pirate. They were not tradeable so you had to make another of your boring threads seeking to trade them through a direct transfer, while seeking an obscene profit level for your poorly thought out investment.

GLBSE Fake definitely were trading on GLBSE 2.0. I can provide evidence for it trading on May 3 and May 15.

I also can not recall ever seeing a retraction of Nefario's offer to convert fake to real, and my trading was done on that basis (more for novelty value than anything).

I wrongly assumed the same thing. I assumed they were locked and not tradeable but it appears they were.

It should have been dealt with properly after the fake shares were discovered as its now a lot more awkward to do so. It does remind me of the facebook movie a bit. I wonder how a judge would see this in future if theres a lawsuit.

I must have missed your retraction in the Goat-scammer thread. Not because Goat isn't shady as all hell (hey, he still hasn't found time to post pics of his supposed mining rigs, 6 months later), just because what you stated there is factually wrong.

[MPOE-PR]

Consideration isn't a synonym for gain or profit.  It requires an exchange, a trade.  The commission paid isn't paid for the promise, it is incidental to it.  It may have happened because of the promise, but not in consideration of it.

I fail to see this distinction you make.

lalala... a bunch of other stuff from a bunch of other people...

So you are here in this thread as a GLBSE owners speaking for GLBSE. I now understand your personal attacks in the other threads.

So you told Nefario in secret but nefario still said they were worht money and let them trade

Why did you not bother to tell us before now? Why let people buy them at over 10 BTC each? Are you part of the fraud?

Should you also be listed as a scammer? Did you list the fake GLBSE shares?

"fake" GLBSE was tradeable in GLBSE 2. That is a fact. Not only was it moved to GLBSE 2 but it was tradeable. That is a fact.

You have called me a scammer many times all over the forum. Yet the only thing you posted in the "Goat is a scammer thread" was personal insults. As a GLBSE owner I hope you can back up your claim and post what you have in that thread. I look forward to your apology if you do not post evidence.

Sadly I was one of the few honest asset issuers on GLBSE 1 and 2.

I did not know who all the owners where but had I know one of them was you I would have never taken part. You and nefario...   I got in cuz I trusted Theymos and now he is wanting to leave... Smart man...

No. Categorically no. I am not now, nor have I ever been a GLBSE Actual owner. And when theymos' shares come on the market I have no plans at this time to become an owner, or shareholder in GLBSE Actual. I have no standing whatsoever to speak for GLBSE in any capacity. I was responding to facts of the timeline as I know them from personal experience, and trying to address your mis-characterization of those responses to someone else's question in furtherance of your own agenda.

No. Categorically no. I did not "tell" Nefario anything at all. I had a discussion in regards to the fake asset. A discussion that is not germane to your rant, nor are you welcome to make assumptions about it in support of your agenda.

What exactly am I "telling" you and the cast of imaginary thousands you refer to as "us"? I responded to a courteous question with a courteous answer. You decided to spin it off into something that it wasn't. I have no obligation, legal or otherwise to make sure that you understand the concept of due diligence. You have held yourself out as a competent businessman and offered your services as manager for other people's funds. One can only hope that you understand the very basic requirements to study those investments before you accept others funds in trust to invest in them, although I fear as your history with the pirate situation has shown, you don't. So, sorry, but is not my job to tell you squat about anything. Do your own damn homework, before you go off playing in the grown up world.

As to standards of evidence- go fuck yourself with a barbed wire condom. You are not in a court of law, yet, and until you are I have no obligation to present anything to you anywhere about any topic. You are a lowlife, a scammer, a criminal and wanna-be white slaver. You are the lowest form of contemptible trash is this community, and I have no obligation to produce anything to prove that to you- the whole world can see it from your incessant words.

No. Categorically no. I never listed any asset at all on GLBSE. I briefly considered a couple of concepts, but watching amateurs like you and Peter pretty much convinced me that GLBSE is a playground for the desperate and intellectually challenged. Not a place I want to put much effort at all. Since there was no asset ever listed, your ridiculous comment that I am a scammer is utterly hollow.

GLBSE Fake was never tradeable on version 2.0 of the market. It was imported as a locked asset. Otherwise you could have just listed them and shilled for yourself as you did for pirate. They were not tradeable so you had to make another of your boring threads seeking to trade them through a direct transfer, while seeking an obscene profit level for your poorly thought out investment.

Unless your feet have become blocks of ice, Hell hasn't frozen over yet, so you can keep waiting for your apology. It will be forthcoming on the twelfth of never. Until then, fall back on fucking yourself you miserable cheat.

The only sad thing about GLBSE and Goat is that you ever discovered it, and somehow managed to slip through the review and list assets. That their legal counsel had advised shutting you and your scams down is a strong testimonial for the integrity they are seeking to build around the brand. Oops, too bad for you little scammer boy.

And again, just in case you remain too dim witted to understand- I never was, never have been nor will ever be an owner in any capacity of GLBSE Actual. If the few shares of GLBSE Fake that I bought on the market during 1.0 and sold on that market during the short window that they could be sold, were in fact sold to you- then I laugh my ass off at your stupidity in investing in something that was clearly and publicly proclaimed to have no value.

And you would probably be well served to not second guess theymos' motivation in offering some of his shares- you will probably be as wrong on this subject as you are on most all others.

Whoa. Wait just a minute there. You did what?

[LoupGaroux]

Yes, after I bought my shares in GLBSE Fake, and before they were identified as Fakes, I immediately listed them with a sale price that would make me a quick profit. I do that with all shares that I buy, set a level that makes me a quick flip and on to the next investment. Someone snatched those shares up, including the one that sold for 10 BTC. Never in a million years though any poor sap would buy any asset on GLBSE for that kind of money, but the top end of the range I offered for sale had to be set somewhere. Looks like I found that little fish in the sea.

Goat- you are wasting your time trying to paint me as a scammer. During the very brief window of time that nobody knew what the shares were I bought and then turned my few shares. That's all. I didn't try to make a Federal case out of not being able to transfer them, I didn't start whining like a little bitch because I couldn't control the price they were sold for, I flipped an asset that was completely legal, using the legal marketplace and established procedures for doing so. That they were later found to be fakes, and you got stuck with 'em? Too bad for you, you wanna play with big boys, you gotta take all the rules and live by them. Or be man enough to change them.

[coinft]

Well, I think I have enough information to make my decision. I hereby vote that Nefario did not commit a scam by not honoring the fake GLBSE shares.

My reasoning, in brief:
1) There was no evidence presented that Nefario's original comment that he would convert the shares to Actual GLBSE was anything more than a possible offer.
2) Even then, no evidence was presented that Nefario mentioned what the conversion rate for these false shares would be. It would not be a safe assumption to say that they would be converted at their IPO value.
3) No consideration was provided. Nefario did not gain anything (other than maybe a very small amount of BTC in exchange fees) by offering to convert the fake shares to real shares. If it had actually happened, it would have only been out of the goodness of his heart.
4) Nefario has reasonably offered to buy back the shares at the IPO value. Trades above this (especially the 10 BTC ones) would have been absolutely ridiculous to any legitimate investor who actually did their research. Even if you go by Theymos's outrageous pricing, they've only gone up 600% in value from IPO. Thus, I consider those large trades to have been made out of stupidity and should not be valid for the purpose of this argument.

My decision is pretty firm at this point, but I will remain open to new ideas and opinions as they come in.

Let me present a totally different angle:

Nefario willfully destroyed the market value of undisputed bonds by the sudden close of Goats account. For example, instead of my TYGRR.BOND-A shares I now have a claim code of dubious value. It has been sufficiently explained how the claim code is a completely different, and insecure instrument to the shares originally offered, and Goat's obligations are at least unclear.

Even if Goat decides to honor the claim code the same way he promised in the original shares contract, there is no guaranteed buy back option in the contract. A large part of the original share value came from its tradeability on the free market on GLBSE, and Nefario destroyed that. Out of spite and to get leverage in a personal fight with Goat. Completely innocent GLBSE customers were taken hostage, and their property greatly reduced in value.

Indirectly Nefario also harmed GLBSE owners, as the angry customer backlash will harm GLBSE. He cannot hide behind GLBSE terms of operation, because:

 1. Clearly he did it out of malice, and not to protect GLBSE.
 2. He did not protect GLBSE, rather the reverse.
 3. The stated terms are laughable and won't stand up in any western court.

I and many other GLBSE customers were harmed. GLBSE owners were harmed. Without cause and reason. Nefario is a scammer, or so stupid it does not make a difference.

-coinft.

PS: this is a sad story. I really liked GLBSE up until now, despite some rough corners and irregularities.

[JoelKatz]

Yes, after I bought my shares in GLBSE Fake, and before they were identified as Fakes, I immediately listed them with a sale price that would make me a quick profit. I do that with all shares that I buy, set a level that makes me a quick flip and on to the next investment. Someone snatched those shares up, including the one that sold for 10 BTC. Never in a million years though any poor sap would buy any asset on GLBSE for that kind of money, but the top end of the range I offered for sale had to be set somewhere. Looks like I found that little fish in the sea.

Goat- you are wasting your time trying to paint me as a scammer. During the very brief window of time that nobody knew what the shares were I bought and then turned my few shares. That's all. I didn't try to make a Federal case out of not being able to transfer them, I didn't start whining like a little bitch because I couldn't control the price they were sold for, I flipped an asset that was completely legal, using the legal marketplace and established procedures for doing so. That they were later found to be fakes, and you got stuck with 'em? Too bad for you, you wanna play with big boys, you gotta take all the rules and live by them. Or be man enough to change them.

Nice backpedaling. But among other things you said "... then I laugh my ass off at your stupidity in investing in something that was clearly and publicly proclaimed to have no value."

This means you sold something that you knew had no value to someone who you had to know must have believed that they had a value -- that's a pretty scummy thing to do in my opinion. Surely as soon as you were aware that something you were offering for sale was fundamentally defective, you had an obligation to ensure it wasn't sold to someone who wasn't similarly aware.

It also means that you think relying on Nefario to keep his word is "stupidity".

On an unrelated note, I basically agree with coinft's point in the post just above this one. Nefario caused an unjustified breach of GLBSE's obligation to preserve the value of listed assets for GLBSE's customers, robbing them of the value of that listing. I believe he totally failed to consider the impact on those customers and was narrowly focused solely on his disagreement with Goat. His attempts to blame Goat for the harm his actions caused his customers bothers me a lot.

[LoupGaroux]

Actually Joel, I'm not backpedaling at all. I was clarifying the conditions that I sold them under. My laughter is only now, after they have been identified as Fakes, and Goat has been caught up in his own whirlwind of trying to sell them after the phony nature has been established. My sale happened before the defective nature of the asset was discovered.

If anything, I suspect that Goat was accumulating these shares looking to make a pressure play on the GLBSE Actual folks. That is what I was laughing at... that he bought heavily AFTER they were identified as worthless, thinking he could profit from them by splitting hairs.

I don't agree with the premise that Nefario "promised" anything, I think he "offered", and in lieu of a counter-offer was given scorn and abuse. The offer was retracted.

Although I think pretty much anyone investing in the GLBSE world without due diligence and a little bit of research is indeed exhibiting "stupidity". I was guilty of it myself in my gleeful investment in GLBSE Fake at IPO when I thought I was buying into the real thing without even so much as checking where the damn issue was coming from, or if they had a legitimate signed offering. Fortunately for me, by the way I handle these "investments", I dumped them within a very short period of time, and limited my losses. Or gave up the novelty value of owning digital representations of a scam, whichever is today's version of the truth.

[JoelKatz]

I don't agree with the premise that Nefario "promised" anything, I think he "offered", and in lieu of a counter-offer was given scorn and abuse. The offer was retracted.

It meets the legal requirements to be considered a promise. Nefario intended people to rely on his offer -- his specific intent was to fix the problem that people had paid money for a worthless asset by increasing the asset's value. As for it being retracted, you can't retract a promise after someone does what is required to gain its benefit.

But that's really a secondary issue now. As I understand it, Nefario has offered to compensate Goat for the damages he suffered as a result of Nefario's breach. Goat's not entitled to lost unearned profits. Nefario can't keep his promise as he doesn't have the authority to issue GLBSE shares, so all he can do is compensate for the damage he caused. I don't believe for one second Nefario made this offer maliciously or to try to trick anyone. He was trying to do the right thing and just didn't do it very well. (Goat wants to keep his "GLBSE" shares, but Nefario is under no obligation to give Goat his preferred resolution, and I completely understand why that would be something GLBSE would not want.)

However, what he did after that ...

Although I think pretty much anyone investing in the GLBSE world without due diligence and a little bit of research is indeed exhibiting "stupidity". I was guilty of it myself in my gleeful investment in GLBSE Fake at IPO when I thought I was buying into the real thing without even so much as checking where the damn issue was coming from, or if they had a legitimate signed offering. Fortunately for me, by the way I handle these "investments", I dumped them within a very short period of time, and limited my losses. Or gave up the novelty value of owning digital representations of a scam, whichever is today's version of the truth.

This is everything that's wrong with the community. "I know X is right, but I did Y, and I made some money that time." (I'm not blaming you specifically at all -- it really is the whole community. Somehow, we all know better but we all do worse. And I don't know how we can fix it.)