Nefario GLBSE

[guruvan]

I wonder, why the shareholders of GLBSE Real should be held liable for the actions of a criminal in creating GLBSE Fake? There operating partner, Nefario, identified the fraud as soon as it was known, and made no indication AT THAT TIME that there would be any compensation to the victims of the fraud. It was only later, after any reasonable person had a chance to know the state of the fake asset that Nefario extended the courtesy of compensation to the holders of GLBSE Fake. That he did so without the contractual ability to do so was identified almost immediately by the balance of the shareholders of GLBSE Real, and he was stopped from going forward with this plan. His courtesy offer to the holders of those fraudulent shares became an issue now, only because of the scammish behavior of Goat in trying to sell these worthless assets for a massive profit, knowing full well that they were Fakes, and had nothing backing them up.

GLBSE, for one, failed to protect its name, and any trademark that might be in the letters GLBSE.

Nefario, for another, allowed the known fake (and promised to be made real) asset, in his companies name, to continue trading on his exchange. I can't, for the life of me, understand why anyone would continue to claim this asset to be "fake" - It's been given some value in the past, and it's traded, and never been removed for having been fake (when all the other GLBSE 1.0 fake assets were removed). IOW, nefario allowed a fraud to continued to be perpetrated by allowing the asset to continue trading.

This shows, at least, gross negligence on nefario's part. We really ought to have a tag for that. I'm sure nefario had no intent to deceive people into losing their money. However, his appalling failure to remove dead and scam assets in the past, which seems to be negligence, has lead directly to this incident.

And, yes, I do believe that the exchange is going to become liable for the criminal actions of their users when those criminal actions become known, and any assets created are left to trade, as if created by legitimate issuers. This is the exchanges job to list and delist assets. Their negligence in their process is going to make them liable for damages to investors.

How is an investor to know this is a dead, or fake asset if it's still trading? Search these forums for clues?!

[Bitcoin Oz]

I wonder, why the shareholders of GLBSE Real should be held liable for the actions of a criminal in creating GLBSE Fake? There operating partner, Nefario, identified the fraud as soon as it was known, and made no indication AT THAT TIME that there would be any compensation to the victims of the fraud. It was only later, after any reasonable person had a chance to know the state of the fake asset that Nefario extended the courtesy of compensation to the holders of GLBSE Fake. That he did so without the contractual ability to do so was identified almost immediately by the balance of the shareholders of GLBSE Real, and he was stopped from going forward with this plan. His courtesy offer to the holders of those fraudulent shares became an issue now, only because of the scammish behavior of Goat in trying to sell these worthless assets for a massive profit, knowing full well that they were Fakes, and had nothing backing them up.

GLBSE, for one, failed to protect its name, and any trademark that might be in the letters GLBSE.

Nefario, for another, allowed the known fake (and promised to be made real) asset, in his companies name, to continue trading on his exchange. I can't, for the life of me, understand why anyone would continue to claim this asset to be "fake" - It's been given some value in the past, and it's traded, and never been removed for having been fake (when all the other GLBSE 1.0 fake assets were removed). IOW, nefario allowed a fraud to continued to be perpetrated by allowing the asset to continue trading.

This shows, at least, gross negligence on nefario's part. We really ought to have a tag for that. I'm sure nefario had no intent to deceive people into losing their money. However, his appalling failure to remove dead and scam assets in the past, which seems to be negligence, has lead directly to this incident.

And, yes, I do believe that the exchange is going to become liable for the criminal actions of their users when those criminal actions become known, and any assets created are left to trade, as if created by legitimate issuers. This is the exchanges job to list and delist assets. Their negligence in their process is going to make them liable for damages to investors.

How is an investor to know this is a dead, or fake asset if it's still trading? Search these forums for clues?!

It wasnt trading, it was simply sitting in peoples accounts and didnt exist as a public asset. It has never been available to buy on GLBSE 2.0 except through p2p transfer.

[puffn]

I think it is pretty clear that there is no consensus that Nefario scammed anyone here.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I think it is pretty clear that there is no consensus that Nefario scammed anyone here.

Scammer,no. Breach of fiduciary duty to existing shareholders? Maybe...by not shutting down the fake shares and instead promising to honor them he damaged the other shareholders of the company and as can be seen this damage along with other recent acts has greatly harmed the company. I dont really know what to say about that as he has placed them in between a  rock and a hard place.

[puffn]

I think it is pretty clear that there is no consensus that Nefario scammed anyone here.

Scammer,no. Breach of fiduciary duty to existing shareholders? Maybe...by not shutting down the fake shares and instead promising to honor them he damaged the other shareholders of the company and as can be seen this damage along with other recent acts has greatly harmed the company. I dont really know what to say about that as he has placed them in between a  rock and a hard place.

I think it was a fairly childish move to kick him off the exchange. I would have halted public trading instead. I haven't made any moves to pull my money off the exchange. The assets Goat ran were pretty worthless to begin with. They were just written off to zero ahead of time.

I think it was a long time coming. A lot of the trash that is on GLBSE needs to be cleaned out. I hope Nefario goes after Obsi next.

[Maged]

I wonder, why the shareholders of GLBSE Real should be held liable for the actions of a criminal in creating GLBSE Fake? There operating partner, Nefario, identified the fraud as soon as it was known, and made no indication AT THAT TIME that there would be any compensation to the victims of the fraud. It was only later, after any reasonable person had a chance to know the state of the fake asset that Nefario extended the courtesy of compensation to the holders of GLBSE Fake. That he did so without the contractual ability to do so was identified almost immediately by the balance of the shareholders of GLBSE Real, and he was stopped from going forward with this plan. His courtesy offer to the holders of those fraudulent shares became an issue now, only because of the scammish behavior of Goat in trying to sell these worthless assets for a massive profit, knowing full well that they were Fakes, and had nothing backing them up.

Thanks for this. This is the kind of context I was looking for.

Goat, do you disagree with any of the statements in the above quoted post?

[kjj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law

There doesn't need to be consideration in this case because there is detrimental reliance sufficient to establish promissory estoppel (see my other post). But there was consideration -- Goat acquired shares on GLBSE, transactions for which GLBSE receives a commission.

You'd need a lawyer with huge balls to argue that this counts as consideration.

[SysRun]

LG what's the timeline for "almost immediately" I'm just a spectator on this one, but I would like to know. How long did it take nefario to retract his statement? And why is it now deleted?

[JoelKatz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law

There doesn't need to be consideration in this case because there is detrimental reliance sufficient to establish promissory estoppel (see my other post). But there was consideration -- Goat acquired shares on GLBSE, transactions for which GLBSE receives a commission.

You'd need a lawyer with huge balls to argue that this counts as consideration.

Perhaps, but no consideration is required because all the elements for promissory estoppel are present. Nefario communicated a promise intending people to rely on it in clearly foreseeable ways. They relied on his promise to their detriment. This renders the promise the equivalent of a contract.

In any event, whether someone's considered a scammer by the community doesn't hinge on the finer points of contract law. It's more about common sense.

However, I think this particular issue may now be completely academic, as it seems Nefario did offer to cover any direct harm Goat suffered from the breach. He's not entitled to lost profits.

[Maged]

LG what's the timeline for "almost immediately" I'm just a spectator on this one, but I would like to know. How long did it take nefario to retract his statement? And why is it now deleted?

I'm not a spectator, and I also would like an answer to this.

[LoupGaroux]

LG what's the timeline for "almost immediately" I'm just a spectator on this one, but I would like to know. How long did it take nefario to retract his statement? And why is it now deleted?

Warning came out within 72 hours of the asset being listed. This all happened over a weekend, and if I remember correctly, it was at the time that Nefario was relocating to the UK from China and had only very spotty access. It was caught and identified. There was immediate reaction in the GLBSE forum.

The offer to convert (and note it was an offer, NOT a promise or contract!) was made weeks later, and the retraction within a day or less as GLBSE Real owners challenged Nefario's ability to convert without approval of the majority of shareholders, which by all indications was not going to be forthcoming.

[El Cabron]

LG what's the timeline for "almost immediately" I'm just a spectator on this one, but I would like to know. How long did it take nefario to retract his statement? And why is it now deleted?

Warning came out within 72 hours of the asset being listed. This all happened over a weekend, and if I remember correctly, it was at the time that Nefario was relocating to the UK from China and had only very spotty access. It was caught and identified. There was immediate reaction in the GLBSE forum.

The offer to convert (and note it was an offer, NOT a promise or contract!) was made weeks later, and the retraction within a day or less as GLBSE Real owners challenged Nefario's ability to convert without approval of the majority of shareholders, which by all indications was not going to be forthcoming.

We know that the asset was called a scam quickly orniginally but that is not what we need to know about. I bought the stock after Nefario claimed he would make it real GLBSE stock.

Can you tell us what GLBSE owner challenged Nefario and can you please link us to his quote? Was it on this forum or some other website? Also even if Nefario was challenged it does not mean that he agreed (or even knew he was challenged). He let the stock trade for months. He even let it move to GLBSE as a tradeable asset. Either Nefario is just retarded and can't read a contract or he was involved in fraud. Either way it is not good for him.

Also why did Nefario delete his posts? What does he not want us to see?

Also you say he was challenged but you did not say Nefario made a statement. So when you say almost immediately you really mean almost a year?

[makomk]

The offer to convert (and note it was an offer, NOT a promise or contract!) was made weeks later, and the retraction within a day or less as GLBSE Real owners challenged Nefario's ability to convert without approval of the majority of shareholders, which by all indications was not going to be forthcoming.

That's not how I remember it. From what I recall, the offer was made within days and I don't remember seeing any retraction, or anyone else mentioning any retraction, or... In fact, as recently as May this year Nefario was giving the impression that they were still worth shares in GLBSE, it's just that GLBSE shares weren't actually worth a huge amount each:

Nefario also said a long time ago that despite the asset being fake, he would honour it with shares in GLBSE. I thought it set a bad precedent at the time, given that I had always wanted to invest in GLBSE, but couldn't because it's not public, and I had taken the time to check the signature on the fake asset and realise that it was fake. Nefario's announcement to honour the fake asset meant he was rewarding those who didn't do their homework.

I don't know if you remember at the time, but there was uproar, and I had partially felt responsible, I thought I should have reserved the ticker for GLBSE use only but did not.

Anyway, GLBSE is not a publicly listed asset, and I would advise anyone trading them to not spend much, they're not worth a lot (i.e. there are a lot of non-fake shares for GLBSE making these a tiny tiny tiny fraction, also GLBSE is not worth over $1Billion USD).

But you did say you would take them over and they would be valid. Are their any plans for them in the near future?

Thanks

No plans.

[LoupGaroux]

LG what's the timeline for "almost immediately" I'm just a spectator on this one, but I would like to know. How long did it take nefario to retract his statement? And why is it now deleted?

Warning came out within 72 hours of the asset being listed. This all happened over a weekend, and if I remember correctly, it was at the time that Nefario was relocating to the UK from China and had only very spotty access. It was caught and identified. There was immediate reaction in the GLBSE forum.

The offer to convert (and note it was an offer, NOT a promise or contract!) was made weeks later, and the retraction within a day or less as GLBSE Real owners challenged Nefario's ability to convert without approval of the majority of shareholders, which by all indications was not going to be forthcoming.

We know that the asset was called a scam quickly orniginally but that is not what we need to know about. I bought the stock after Nefario claimed he would make it real GLBSE stock.

Can you tell us what GLBSE owner challenged Nefario and can you please link us to his quote? Was it on this forum or some other website? Also even if Nefario was challenged it does not mean that he agreed (or even knew he was challenged). He let the stock trade for months. He even let it move to GLBSE as a tradeable asset. Either Nefario is just retarded and can't read a contract or he was involved in fraud. Either way it is not good for him.

Also why did Nefario delete his posts? What does he not want us to see?

Also you say he was challenged but you did not say Nefario made a statement. So when you say almost immediately you really mean almost a year?

Sorry Goat, but taking my responses out of context to serve your agenda is not honest.

To address your points:

Nefario said he would convert. He categorically NEVER stated it would become "real" stock, the conversion was undefined.

Yes, I was the GLBSE owner who challenged it, and had a lengthy communication with him through the GLBSE forum and PM's as to the resolution of the matter. Note for the record that I am not the one calling this a scam. And no, I will not link you to quotes or share private communications. If you are not able to do your own research to carry out your hysteria, far be it for me to advance your agenda. And the private communication are just that- private. They are none of your business or any other party who was not a part of that conversation.

GLBSE Fake was never a "tradeable" asset after the conversion to GLBSE 2.0, that's why you, and only you as far as anyone can tell, were originally offering to sell them at grossly inflated prices as a transfer. There was no trading in the interim.

Adding ad hominem insults like "retarded" only diminishes your statements. This entire debate is not about mental capacity. Luckily for you! If it was you lost when you established the thread.

Nefario has only modified one post that I can see, by removing a direct and tasteless insult and replacing it with a sarcastic image.

And finally, no, Nefario did not call a press conference and make a statement. There was clear communication in both this forum, and in the GLBSE forum within two days of the offer to "convert" that it was not acceptable to the majority of GLBSE Actual shareholders, and there was a lively debate amongst them concerning it.

A debte, I would point out, that any owner of GLBSE Actual was welcome to be a part of in the private forum dedicated to the actual ownership of GLBSE Actual. Since you were not a part of that community, at no time were you holding real shares of a real company. You were scammed, but scammed by the parties unknown who created GLBSE Fake, not by anyone involved with GLBSE Actual.

And tangentially- your assets have been locked down because you are acting erratically and dishonestly. Your statements have given the owners of GLBSE Actual, the market, clear and compelling reason to de-list your assets as you are acting in a manner that follows a classic scammer profile, and to date have refused to address the concerns that you yourself might be involved in the creation and sale of fraudulent assets.

That is not scamming by the market, that is considered action, after consultation with counsel, and reflects due diligence and sound business practice. That you did not take due diligence in buying an asset that was utterly without value, and are now seeking to steal further funds from people who did not create the scam says volumes about your business ethics. Personally I think the markets are far better off without your brand of "business".

[MPOE-PR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law

There doesn't need to be consideration in this case because there is detrimental reliance sufficient to establish promissory estoppel (see my other post). But there was consideration -- Goat acquired shares on GLBSE, transactions for which GLBSE receives a commission.

You'd need a lawyer with huge balls to argue that this counts as consideration.

A peppercorn doesn't cease to be good consideration should it become known the payee doesn't like pepper and has thrown away the corn.

[kjj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law

There doesn't need to be consideration in this case because there is detrimental reliance sufficient to establish promissory estoppel (see my other post). But there was consideration -- Goat acquired shares on GLBSE, transactions for which GLBSE receives a commission.

You'd need a lawyer with huge balls to argue that this counts as consideration.

A peppercorn doesn't cease to be good consideration should it become known the payee doesn't like pepper and has thrown away the corn.

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.

[JoelKatz]

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. Of course, he should have frozen trading prior to doing this. This mistake justifies voiding the promise, and that's why Goat is not entitled to lost profits.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Come on Joel that is painfully easy (and not a good analogy).  In your example of course there was consideration.  You paid the dealership for the car.

Your $$$  -->  Dealership  = consideration.

You wouldn't have given them money without them giving you the car and neither would have happened without the promise.  Still in real world you would still be SOL because the sales contract would exclude any verbal promises expressed or implied.

[JoelKatz]

Come on Joel that is painfully easy (and not a good analogy).  In your example of course there was consideration.  You paid the dealership for the car.

Goat paid GLBSE for stock.

You wouldn't have given them money without them giving you the car and neither would have happened without the promise.

Same here.

Still in real world you would still be SOL because the sales contract would exclude any verbal promises expressed or implied.

Perhaps, but that wouldn't change the fact that if the car dealer didn't intend to keep the promise, they would be scamming. (Though I think Nefario intended to keep the promise and so long as he makes up for any actual losses suffered as a result, he's not scamming in so far as breaching the promise.)

[DannyM]

oooh, I'm an internet lawyer too. detrimental reliance.