TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted.

[Smoovious]

what i dont like about this is:
 - whoever sees that message first (this includes bond issuer) has the opportunity to sell all at a (relative) high price

that's why before publishing such message there usually will be a suspension of trading for half or one day in the traditional exchange.

Just clearing the order book without suspending trading would have been helpful too...

When Vircurex announced they were going to stop I0C trading, I didn't find out for a few hours, and lost a bundle, on pending orders that were set expecting normal trading. I would have preferred a trading halt, or having the order book wiped, as something that significant initiated by the exchange, sparks off a situation which could cause a lot of damage to people who didn't see the notice in the first few minutes after it was posted.

-- Smoov

[memvola]

But thats not fair to me and other asset holders! We agree,it's not fair to holders of this asset, to other issers [sic], asset holders and GLBSE itself. Delisting is a last measure when trying to deal with problematic asset issuers who are actively trying to damage GLBSE. We have a responsibility to all asset issuers and asset holders on GLBSE, if any one person is doing something that puts everyone else at risk, including GLBSE operators then they have to leave. This is a market we all share, for it to work we must all play nice.

Nefario, I think we're entitled to an explanation of why we weren't given any prior notice. I think you know there is a problem with your action, gathering from the fact that you only respond to trolls here and prefer to answer us users through a notice on GLBSE.

A notice on GLBSE. I wondered why I never saw it  

I assume this is directed at me so I will ask, how am I "actively trying to damage GLBSE" ?  

Honestly my fight to keep my assets from forced sale was to protect GLBSE. I was trying to make it clear that GLBSE would not just steal assets. Clearly I was wrong :/

Goat, would you please re-list the assets in a different exchange? Cryptostocks seems like a perfect drop-in replacement. I know it would be hard to match accounts, but claim codes are already anonymous, and this might pave the way to move shares between exchanges, so maybe Cryptostocks would even help with the process?

what i dont like about this is:
 - whoever sees that message first (this includes bond issuer) has the opportunity to sell all at a (relative) high price

that's why before publishing such message there usually will be a suspension of trading for half or one day in the traditional exchange.

Just clearing the order book without suspending trading would have been helpful too...

Well, if there were a clearly laid out exit strategy that was communicated to shareholders, the panic would dampen considerably, since a lot of investors would be looking to buy from the cheap. Other measures you mentioned are also useful.

[JoelKatz]

Goat, would you please re-list the assets in a different exchange? Cryptostocks seems like a perfect drop-in replacement. I know it would be hard to match accounts, but claim codes are already anonymous, and this might pave the way to move shares between exchanges, so maybe Cryptostocks would even help with the process?

I don't see how he can agree to do this until some method to solve competing claims is set up. Agreeing to do this poses huge liability for him as he would essentially be relying on GLBSE to have accurately issued the claim codes.

Again, the problem scenario is this:

1) Goat gets a claim code from an anonymous person, he issues the stock anonymously.

2) Someone else presents the same claim code.

3) Goat says the claim code is used.

4) The guy swears up and down he has not used the claim code, has mountains of documentary evidence saying he held the asset, threatens to make noise on the forums about Goat scamming.

What does Goat do in this scenario? He has no way to know if the guy is scamming or if GLBSE made an error. Outsiders have no way to know if Goat is scamming, the guy is scamming, or GLBSE made a mistake or deliberately issued the same claim code twice.

This would only work if either every single holder of his securities is honest or the community trusts him and GLBSE enough to believe that anyone who claims Goat refused to honor a claim code must be lying. I don't think either of these things are true. Do you?

(He actually could do a two-phase redemption. But considering he has no way to contact all his asset holders to arrange such a thing, the fact that it's technically possible doesn't help much.)

[guruvan]

Where did I say, that the exit strategy will be set in stone because the issuer says so? He still has to stay by his contract (so nobody gets shares stolen, no profit for the issuer by saying shareholder have to do as he says). But he could buyback shares according to contract or make arrangements with another exchange (for example.)

you are right.
even if glbse delist his asset the issuer still has to honor his contract.
its just not easy to see if he really does.

GLBSE issuers cannot honor their contracts without the assistance of GLBSE. They do no know who the asset holders are, and so cannot pay them.

[Smoovious]

Where did I say, that the exit strategy will be set in stone because the issuer says so? He still has to stay by his contract (so nobody gets shares stolen, no profit for the issuer by saying shareholder have to do as he says). But he could buyback shares according to contract or make arrangements with another exchange (for example.)

you are right.
even if glbse delist his asset the issuer still has to honor his contract.
its just not easy to see if he really does.

GLBSE issuers cannot honor their contracts without the assistance of GLBSE. They do no know who the asset holders are, and so cannot pay them.

...which is where the claim codes come in.

GLBSE has already assisted... the rest is up to Goat.

-- Smoov

[memvola]

This would only work if either every single holder of his securities is honest or the community trusts him and GLBSE enough to believe that anyone who claims Goat refused to honor a claim code must be lying. I don't think either of these things are true. Do you?

(He actually could do a two-phase redemption. But considering he has no way to contact all his asset holders to arrange such a thing, the fact that it's technically possible doesn't help much.)

Good points. GLBSE would need to provide a messaging interface for Goat to communicate directly with the holder of the claim code.

[guruvan]

from https://us.glbse.com/delisted/6009

But thats not fair to me and other asset holders! We agree,it's not fair to holders of this asset, to other issers, asset holders and GLBSE itself. Delisting is a last measure when trying to deal with problematic asset issuers who are actively trying to damage GLBSE. We have a responsibility to all asset issuers and asset holders on GLBSE, if any one person is doing something that puts everyone else at risk, including GLBSE operators then they have to leave. This is a market we all share, for it to work we must all play nice.

Oh. puh lease, nefario.

This was a market we all shared. But your behavior is quickly going to make your market a market of one, with no need to share. This definitely made my decision much more solid. There is no fucking way I will do business with GLBSE until you are off the management team. This paragraph is an offense to all current and potential issuers.

Nefario, you have put GLBSE at FAR FAR more risk than Goat could ever dream. You are actively damaging GLBSE. (there is no try, only damage or damage not) At least one of your real shareholders expressed extreme irritation at your actions.

Hopefully GLBSE will make some significant management changes. I fear that the exodus is only going to continue.

[DeathAndTaxes]

what i dont like about this is:
 - whoever sees that message first (this includes bond issuer) has the opportunity to sell all at a (relative) high price

that's why before publishing such message there usually will be a suspension of trading for half or one day in the traditional exchange.

this could work,

but what stops the issuer to simply say "operation closed" (of course: if he has a buyback clause this wouldnt work, but without it seems to be a good way for easy money)?

I think you are confusing asset risk with exchange risk.  If the asset is legit and the issuer still making payments delisting simply means the asset is removed from the exchange.  Shareholders will buy or sell depending on if they consider holding the asset to be worth the complexity of manual (off exchange) reconciliation.

If the asset is worthless scammer garbage and the asset issuer has no intention on repaying then it doesn't really matter if it remains listed or not.  It seems either you didn't think this through or your objection can be boiled down to "if it is delisted I won't be able to pawn this worthless asset on some sucker".  I don't think it is the job of the exchange to ensure you can sell something you own that is worthless for something.

That being said the way in which GLBSE handled the delisting was completely unprofessional.  No clear reason was given.  No timeline.  No notification to stakeholders.  Just "BLAM" we/I decided so it is gone.  Buisiness is all about taking calculated risks and Nefario actions over the last couple weeks have shown there is significant exchange risk, probably higher than many suspected.

For alternate players in the space NOW would be a good time to put policies in writing.  Black and white.  When/why/how are assets suspended.  when/why/how are assets delisted.  If you are a competitor to GLBSE and offer less exchange risk then you have a competitive advantage.  However simply being "not GLBSE" and not having yet suspended/delisted an asset isn't an advantage, it is simply another unknown.

[DeathAndTaxes]

GLBSE issuers cannot honor their contracts without the assistance of GLBSE. They do no know who the asset holders are, and so cannot pay them.

Which is why IMHO the optimal solution is some cryptographic based smart property type system.  Now asset owners and shareholders could CHOOSE to use a smart-property compatible exchange for ease and liquidity but that wouldn't be a requirement.  The shareholder-asset-owner relationship should be able to survive the removal of the exchange.

I mean lets step back.  What happens tomorrow if Nefario is arrested by the UK equivelent of the SEC and the servers seized?  Is the answer "Oops?".

[el_rlee]

UK equivelent of the SEC

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

[Bitcoin Oz]

GLBSE issuers cannot honor their contracts without the assistance of GLBSE. They do no know who the asset holders are, and so cannot pay them.

Which is why IMHO the optimal solution is some cryptographic based smart property type system.  Now asset owners and shareholders could CHOOSE to use a smart-property compatible exchange for ease and liquidity but that wouldn't be a requirement.  The shareholder-asset-owner relationship should be able to survive the removal of the exchange.

I mean lets step back.  What happens tomorrow if Nefario is arrested by the UK equivelent of the SEC and the servers seized?  Is the answer "Oops?".

While he may be arrested the glbse data is backed up in several different places from what I understand. Whether another developer can operate the exchange is a different story though.

[MPOE-PR]

Ahh, if only GLBSE was based on gpg signatures, like the real exchange is. In that case all these problems wouldn't exist, would they.

[ciuciu]

Ahh, if only GLBSE was based on gpg signatures, like the real exchange is. In that case all these problems wouldn't exist, would they.

What other exchange? You mean the pedophile exchange?

[carlos]

Why do you keep opening up GLBSE to such liability and bad publicity?

Not in my eyes. Actually this raises credibility of GLBSE.

Failure to meet obligations of SE can lead to delisting. SE is private held and its private relationship. SE has right to end relationship anytime (when there are justifiable reasons).

Good luck nefario!

[memvola]

Why do you keep opening up GLBSE to such liability and bad publicity?

Not in my eyes. Actually this raises credibility of GLBSE.

How? The problem isn't de-listing of a company, it's how it's done. What is your personal recommendation for people who are holding these shares?

Failure to meet obligations of SE can lead to delisting. SE is private held and its private relationship. SE has right to end relationship anytime (when there are justifiable reasons).

Of course. But what about GLBSE's obligations to me? I and others will definitely lose time AND money merely because of how this decision is carried out.

[Smoovious]

Why do you keep opening up GLBSE to such liability and bad publicity?

Not in my eyes. Actually this raises credibility of GLBSE.

How? The problem isn't de-listing of a company, it's how it's done. What is your personal recommendation for people who are holding these shares?

I would recommend people who hold assets of the delisted company, contact the person who is operating the delisted company, as that person is who controls your shares.

Failure to meet obligations of SE can lead to delisting. SE is private held and its private relationship. SE has right to end relationship anytime (when there are justifiable reasons).

Of course. But what about GLBSE's obligations to me? I and others will definitely lose time AND money merely because of how this decision is carried out.

What obligations to you are you talking about?

-- Smoov

[JoelKatz]

I would recommend people who hold assets of the delisted company, contact the person who is operating the delisted company, as that person is who controls your shares.

Both parties agreed that GLBSE would control who owned the shares. GLBSE gave them to Goat. They're not bearer bonds, they're not "your shares" just because you have a claim code issued by GLBSE. GLBSE has no authority to issue its customers claim codes that Goat must redeem. Goat never agreed to effectively a bearer bond and he certainly never agreed (nor would have under any circumstances) to a scheme where GLBSE issues its customers claim codes that Goat must honor.

What obligations to you are you talking about?

I would assume GLBSE's obligation to secure its customers assets and transfer control of them only as agreed rather than giving them to the issuer without authorization from either party.

[Smoovious]

I would recommend people who hold assets of the delisted company, contact the person who is operating the delisted company, as that person is who controls your shares.

Both parties agreed that GLBSE would control who owned the shares. GLBSE gave them to Goat. They're not bearer bonds, they're not "your shares" just because you have a claim code issued by GLBSE. GLBSE has no authority to issue its customers claim codes that Goat must redeem. Goat never agreed to effectively a bearer bond and he certainly never agreed (nor would have under any circumstances) to a scheme where GLBSE issues its customers claim codes that Goat must honor.

You seriously don't have a clue what you're talking about do you?

What obligations to you are you talking about?

I would assume GLBSE's obligation to secure its customers assets and transfer control of them only as agreed rather than giving them to the issuer without authorization from either party.

You would assume wrong.

GLBSE's obligation to companies listed with his exchange, is to handle the accounting of who has what. TYGRR issues, are no longer listed with his exchange, and his exchange no longer handles that accounting

The claim codes aren't for "redeeming", they are so Goat can match up which shares belong to which asset-holder.

Since GLBSE operates with anonymous asset-holders, the claim codes represent the owner of the asset shares. It is up to the asset-holder, to self-identify themselves to Goat, so Goat knows who owns which shares.

The asset shares, were always associated with Goat's issues. They never belonged to, nor were in the possession of, GLBSE. All GLBSE did, was facilitate the trading of other people's shares, and handle the accounting work for the listed issue. Any obligations towards the shares you owned, are between you and the asset-issuer, via the contract they posted.

All of the companies that trade via the NYSE, don't give their shares to the NYSE, and the NYSE doesn't handle the shares themselves. They just handle the accounting and match buy and sell orders, and facilitate the transaction between the 2 third parties that want to exchange the shares between each other.

At no time, does the NYSE keep the shares in their possession. The listed companies get the lists of transactions, showing which shares were traded, and between who. (although, it is typically brokers in this case)

When a company delists from the NYSE, either voluntary, or through eviction, you may or may not get any warning about it. The company is supplied records showing the last state of trading at the time of the delisting, and the NYSE is no longer involved. The companies would either deal with their shareholders directly, or re-list on another exchange, like the NASDAQ. Companies moving from one exchange to another, or delisting to go private, is not necessarily common, but it isn't unusual either.

Being delisted from the GLBSE, just means that the TYGRR issues, are no longer traded through the GLBSE. That's it. It doesn't mean that you've been robbed of your shares, or that Nefario kept them, which he hasn't. Your shares still exist, as they always have, as that is between you and the company/issuer. The only thing that has changed, is it is not as convenient to trade them now as they used to be, since now, essentially, you're dealing with a private company/issue.

-- Smoov

[Bitcoin Oz]

I would recommend people who hold assets of the delisted company, contact the person who is operating the delisted company, as that person is who controls your shares.

Both parties agreed that GLBSE would control who owned the shares. GLBSE gave them to Goat. They're not bearer bonds, they're not "your shares" just because you have a claim code issued by GLBSE. GLBSE has no authority to issue its customers claim codes that Goat must redeem. Goat never agreed to effectively a bearer bond and he certainly never agreed (nor would have under any circumstances) to a scheme where GLBSE issues its customers claim codes that Goat must honor.

What obligations to you are you talking about?

I would assume GLBSE's obligation to secure its customers assets and transfer control of them only as agreed rather than giving them to the issuer without authorization from either party.

The agreement already is between the issuer and the asset holder and glbse doesnt own anything. The codes simply tell goat which amount of shares belongs to which owner and if he really wanted to he could simply setup a new account at another exchange and issue people shares as they redeem the codes.

[JoelKatz]

GLBSE's obligation to companies listed with his exchange, is to handle the accounting of who has what. TYGRR issues, are no longer listed with his exchange, and his exchange no longer handles that accounting.

So GLBSE's obligation is to handle the sole account of who owns what, and they can simply stop handling that accounting any time they want?

Did GLBSE have an obligation to issue the claim codes at all? If not, then you're essentially arguing that GLBSE can abandon its customers (asset holders) any time it wants. If so, then they surely can't satisfy that obligation with a claim scheme that's fundamentally broken.

The claim codes aren't for "redeeming", they are so Goat can match up which shares belong to which asset-holder.

Since that consumes the code, why is that not accurately described as "redeeming"?

Since GLBSE operates with anonymous asset-holders, the claim codes represent the owner of the asset shares. It is up to the asset-holder, to self-identify themselves to Goat, so Goat knows who owns which shares.

The asset holders are anonymous and have to self-identify to get their assets? Nobody has yet proposed any scheme for using the claim codes that works.

The asset shares, were always associated with Goat's issues. They never belonged to, nor were in the possession of, GLBSE. All GLBSE did, was facilitate the trading of other people's shares, and handle the accounting work for the listed issue. Any obligations towards the shares you owned, are between you and the asset-issuer, via the contract they posted.

I agree that the shares were never in the possession of GLBSE.

When a company delists from the NYSE, either voluntary, or through eviction, you may or may not get any warning about it. The company is supplied records showing the last state of trading at the time of the delisting, and the NYSE is no longer involved. The companies would either deal with their shareholders directly, or re-list on another exchange, like the NASDAQ. Companies moving from one exchange to another, or delisting to go private, is not necessarily common, but it isn't unusual either.

Right, but that's only because the NYSE or the NASDAQ don't have any continuing obligation to maintain an accounting of who owns what shares. GLBSE isn't comparable in this regard. Each transaction of a share on GLBSE obligated GLBSE to maintain that ownership record, an obligation to the buyer that I don't think GLBSE can simply abandon. Anonymous exchanges can't work that way.

Being delisted from the GLBSE, just means that the TYGRR issues, are no longer traded through the GLBSE. That's it. It doesn't mean that you've been robbed of your shares, or that Nefario kept them, which he hasn't. Your shares still exist, as they always have, as that is between you and the company/issuer. The only thing that has changed, is it is not as convenient to trade them now as they used to be, since now, essentially, you're dealing with a private company/issue.

Your shares still exist, you simply have no way to prove they're yours to the issuer. That's cold comfort. The claim codes don't work for reasons I've already explained.

Please, explain the redemption scheme that can be used with these codes. I can't figure out any possible scheme. How long does he wait to make sure he doesn't get two claims with the same code? What does he do if he does get two claims? What does he do if someone accuses him of scamming when they present a code that isn't on his list?

And please explain where GLBSE's agreement with either its buyers or its asset owners permitted it to unilaterally decide how the accounting will be perpetuated when a stock is delisted.

Also, the suddenness of the delisting appears to be a major "screw you" to GLBSE's customers. I don't know of any reason such a drastic measure was needed. Trading could have been suspended, all pending orders deleted, a good faith effort made to work out a plan (buyback, redemption, whatever) with Goat, and perhaps trading resumed for a limited period of time (with a warning click through or some such) for people who didn't want to go through a redemption process and risk their anonymity. GLBSE may have good reason not to work with Goat, but they should have put their other customers' interest ahead of that.