TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted.

[MPOE-PR]

The way I see it, you're going to keep having two camps. One camp who believes that the exchange has to put up with all the BS that is being fanned by the owners of the companies listed on their exchange, even if that BS is detrimental to the exchange itself, and you'll have the other camp who believes that no company has a right to be listed on the exchange, and the exchange can't be forced to keep a company listed, or be forced to continue trading, or handling, any transactions involved with the now-delisted company.

I'm in the latter camp.

This is a red herring (one of the many that compose pretty much entirely your above post). Nobody is discussing what you're discussing, you've not touched at all on any issue under discussion etc.

[Dalkore]

Smoovious - I can't say zero reasons. When a client/customer initiates actions for the sole purpose of causing harm to your business, you have every right to refuse service from that point on.


Smoovious - Can you elaborate on this?  What are these actions that were initiated with the sole purpose to harm GBLSE?

[JoelKatz]

Smoovious - Can you elaborate on this?  What are these actions that were initiated with the sole purpose to harm GBLSE?

I presume he means Goat's attempt to get Nefario a scammer tag and most likely private events associated with that. For example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Goat threatened to pursue getting Nefario a scammer tag before that to try to extort a better settlement on the fake GLBSE stock from Nefario. However, it really does seem to me that Nefario failed to consider the collateral damage to GLBSE customers when he responded by delisting all of Goat's assets immediately and implementing a claim code scheme that appears to have been hastily contrived by a dim third grader.

[markm]

This anonymity part is interesting. I had not realised that Nefario did not know who his customers are.

I kind of thought that issuers were relying on the exchange to know the customers so that the issuers could deal solely with the exchange, whom they did know, thus satisfy any requirement that they know their customer by pointing at their sole customer, who happens to find it very useful to maintain numerous separate accounts to which dividends etc are sent.

I am biased I guess though from my ongoing hopes that I might be able to find third parties who will do all buying and selling of my tokens with end users so all I need to know are those third parties and not pry into their business of who exactly their own customers might be.

-MarkM-

[Smoovious]

This escalation to make a big public spectacle of the whole thing, originated with Goat, from everything I understand, and after seeing his behavior over other issues, like a MtGox one a while back, he just isn't stable.

I agree that Goat did a lot to escalate this situation, but from what is publicly known, it really looks like the real escalation was Nefario's decision to immediately delist all of Goat's assets. Because this had a serious harmful effect on GLBSE's customers, Nefario should not have done this without an extremely good reason, and no such reason is known.

Not publicly, anyways...

Ideally, Nefario should have just let Goat bloviate in the forums for awhile. He would have prevailed on the scam accusation regarding his offer, as he in fact did. Nefario would have looked like the mature adult and Goat would have looked like he usually does. And that would have been that. GLBSE would have protected its customers' interests in their assets.

If the decision had to be that Goat was such a great risk that GLBSE did not want to list his assets anymore, which is GLBSE's right to decide, that could have been handled *way* better. Suspending trading, removing all pending orders, try to work with Goat on a redemption scheme, possibly allow trading for a limited period of time (with a click-through warning) for those who don't like the terms of the redemption scheme, and so on.

I'd go along with this, but only if Goat ceased all of his attempts to further damage GLBSE's business, immediately, with that agreement being immediately void, the very next time Goat uttered a word to further fan the flames.

The only thing to gain by escalating it with this tantrum of his has the only purpose of trying to bring down GLBSE and Nefario. Any honest disagreement they had has been lost a long time ago by now. It just sickens me that supposedly intelligent people keep acting this way without the apparent ability to apply reason and logic.

Well, the other purpose is to fix this problem for good. For example, asset contracts should include an explanation of what happens if an asset is delisted. GLBSE should have a policy that reserves immediate delisting for only the very most severe cases. The contours of GLBSE's obligation to protect its customers' ownership interests should be more precisely defined. GLBSE could emerge from this stronger.

Agreed. Very important to get a much more fleshed out TOS, specifically spelled out procedures in place, separation clauses, statements of liability, etc. The lack of specifics does tend to create more problems.

I mean, seriously... OMFG!!! WHAT DO I DO IF SOMEONE USES A CODE TWICE!!? Figure it out... you don't have mommy around here to save you.

The problem is that this is a risk GLBSE unilaterally imposed on Goat and nobody has yet figured it out.

It seemed to me that the current system was put into place quite quickly. As for nobody being able to figure it out? Well, this is what happens when reasoning and critical thinking is no longer a priority in our school systems anymore. It seems pretty obvious how to handle it in that situation. Granted, there isn't an automated way to do it, you'd have to contact Nefario to help confirm which one was valid, but a system in place where a CEO could get on GLBSE, put in the issue name, the claim code, the claimant's username, and the email address that the claimant is using with their communication with the CEO, and have GLBSE either confirm or deny that the information matches their record.

In the case of 2 people claming they have the same claim code, both using the same address, both supplying the same username, and both supplying the same email address that the code is linked to, then you send an email to that email address, ask them to send you an email from that email address, and whichever one of them, can, is the proper owner.

Or you can try something else. In any event, if more than one person submits the same claim code, then you don't allocate it to either one of them until it gets resolved.

WHAT IF THE LIST ISN'T ACCURATE!!!... well, when you actually have some evidence of it not being accurate, then you have something to discuss, which can be verified by Nefario's last records if there is a dispute, but if yer not even going to bother trying to match the claim ID's to the asset-holders who present them, you don't have a leg to stand on. Any failure is on your shoulders if you can't be bothered to try to make good with your asset-holders.

How would this work? Say someone presents a claim code to Goat that isn't on his list. If that person makes a scammer accusation and GLBSE doesn't say anything publicly, what happens? Is GLBSE obligated to help Goat resolve the issue? If not, then you are asking Goat to take a huge risk.

"Nefario... someone is giving me a code that I don't find on my list... can you confirm this code is in use or not?", and if it turns out there is a discrepancy, then it is dealt with, and a revised list gets sent out with the correction, and if it turns out there isn't a discrepancy and the code isn't valid, you tell the scammer to take a hike. This isn't brain surgery.

BUT NEFARIO IS HOLDING MY BTC SO I CAN'T PAY ANYBODY!!!... the sooner you give him a BTC addy to send your balance to, the sooner you have them. this is a problem of your own making, man up, shut the F up, and give him an address to send your coin to, the only one preventing it is Goat himself.

If that really is the issue, then that shouldn't be an issue. I agree.

Yeah... according to an older post by Goat, which I don't have handy at the moment, that's how it is going down.

-- Smoov

[Smoovious]

I mean, seriously... OMFG!!! WHAT DO I DO IF SOMEONE USES A CODE TWICE!!? Figure it out... you don't have mommy around here to save you.

It's all about what kind of establishment GLBSE is. Some of us have experience in developing and running similar services and can extrapolate from details we notice. Do you suggest I stay with this particular company after they have demonstrated incompetence in such a minor issue? It's of no consequence whether I can figure it out. Why do you think they didn't figure it out, instead of me? What do I pay them for? I was also considering buying a big chunk of GLBSE and now I'm not. These are very practical matters that one may need to figure out. You know, we don't have a mommy around and all that.

Please pay more attention to differentiating the important issues from the trolling, both of which is going on in the same thread.

Until someone can actually demonstrate that a code has been used twice, this is all trolling.

Many people are assuming that Nefario isn't already taking steps to make sure that the codes are unique. I'm not making that assumption.

-- Smoov

[Dalkore]

Smoovious - Can you elaborate on this?  What are these actions that were initiated with the sole purpose to harm GBLSE?

I presume he means Goat's attempt to get Nefario a scammer tag and most likely private events associated with that. For example, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Goat threatened to pursue getting Nefario a scammer tag before that to try to extort a better settlement on the fake GLBSE stock from Nefario. However, it really does seem to me that Nefario failed to consider the collateral damage to GLBSE customers when he responded by delisting all of Goat's assets immediately and implementing a claim code scheme that appears to have been hastily contrived by a dim third grader.

Joel, thank you.  

This sounds like speculation, I have read a few bits around this too.  This is why we need an official statement from Nefario of GBLSE.  Then after that is released (because he took these actions that affected his customers), we should have an official response from Goat so we can figure out what is going on here.   Both statements should be locked so they can stay official and they should be concise and not filled with anything that can not be backed up my hard evidence.   No personal attacks.

[Puppet]

Suggestion to fix the claim code liability.

When someone makes a claim to goat,  he gives the code, goat forwards the request to nefario. Nefario then puts something on GLBSE that the claimant has to confirm (after logging in of course) that he indeed made that claim. Nefario forwards this confirmation to goat. If no one else has claimed the same code meanwhile, its deemed valid and there can be no discussion.

The only way to make a false claim  would be by hacking the GLSBE account, in which case, the claimants assets would be lost anyway.

[JoelKatz]

I'm glad we have such large areas of agreement. But:

How would this work? Say someone presents a claim code to Goat that isn't on his list. If that person makes a scammer accusation and GLBSE doesn't say anything publicly, what happens? Is GLBSE obligated to help Goat resolve the issue? If not, then you are asking Goat to take a huge risk.

"Nefario... someone is giving me a code that I don't find on my list... can you confirm this code is in use or not?", and if it turns out there is a discrepancy, then it is dealt with, and a revised list gets sent out with the correction, and if it turns out there isn't a discrepancy and the code isn't valid, you tell the scammer to take a hike. This isn't brain surgery.

You didn't answer my key point. That scheme only works if Goat can rely on Nefario to resolve the discrepancy. That is, this works only if GLBSE accepts the liability and responsibility for managing the claim process, at least if any problems arise. From all appearances, GLBSE's position is that now that they've issued the claim codes, they have no further obligation to operate the claim process. (Indeed, that was your position, wasn't it?)

[SaltySpitoon]

Just saying, as the business owner, Nefario is 100% in the wrong on this one. It doesn't matter how whiny goat is, if you take his money, and the trade fees his shares have been generating, he is your customer. Nefario, Goat may have been a pain in your ass or whatever, but you really don't have any right to delist his assets assuming they didn't violate your TOS, which I'm assuming they did not, seeing as they have been up for a while now. And to make matters worse, you didn't really stick it to goat, you stuck it to his investors, who could end up losing their asses for your careless mistake. You didn't make a point to goat, you made a point to the community, and I know sure as hell I won't be using GLBSE anymore, because who knows? Someone that I may invest in may rub you the wrong way, and I might lose everything. At the very least, you should have treated this like someone who had a contract with someone else and you are attempting to breach the contract, sort of like a homeowner and someone renting their home. You can evict goat, assuming you return all $ that you owe him, give him a reasonable deadline, and make all necessary arrangements to prevent what is happening now, and if he is not at fault at all under your TOS, you will still have fees to pay. If this became a real legal dispute, which I don't really think it would, I can almost guarantee goat would win.

And to clear everything up, I am was invested in GLBSE, and had no assets in any of Goat's listings. I am acquainted with neither Goat nor Nefario, and I don't believe I hold any bias here besides the fact that I don't like the new potential of getting screwed over by GLBSE.

[Smoovious]

I'm glad we have such large areas of agreement. But:

How would this work? Say someone presents a claim code to Goat that isn't on his list. If that person makes a scammer accusation and GLBSE doesn't say anything publicly, what happens? Is GLBSE obligated to help Goat resolve the issue? If not, then you are asking Goat to take a huge risk.

"Nefario... someone is giving me a code that I don't find on my list... can you confirm this code is in use or not?", and if it turns out there is a discrepancy, then it is dealt with, and a revised list gets sent out with the correction, and if it turns out there isn't a discrepancy and the code isn't valid, you tell the scammer to take a hike. This isn't brain surgery.

You didn't answer my key point. That scheme only works if Goat can rely on Nefario to resolve the discrepancy. That is, this works only if GLBSE accepts the liability and responsibility for managing the claim process, at least if any problems arise. From all appearances, GLBSE's position is that now that they've issued the claim codes, they have no further obligation to operate the claim process. (Indeed, that was your position, wasn't it?)

If Nefario can't be relied upon to resolve the discrepancy, or GLBSE, then that's that, isn't it?

No, my position was that GLBSE no longer has any obligation to manage people's shares. Confirming if a claim code is valid, is a reasonable thing to expect GLBSE to do, should a discrepancy come up, but anything beyond that, I don't see any further obligation here.

"Yes, this claim code indeed associated with my.username for # shares"
"No, this claim code wasn't associated with my.username for # shares"

-- Smoov

[JoelKatz]

If Nefario can't be relied upon to resolve the discrepancy, or GLBSE, then that's that, isn't it?

Yes, that's that. And his position seems to be that once he has given out the claim codes, his responsibility has ended. So that's that.

There's a real liability for duplicate or conflicting claims, a liability Goat never agreed to accept that Nefario unilaterally imposed. Goat has no contact mechanism to set up a claim window (to weed out duplicate claims) and no working relationship with Nefario or GLBSE to work out conflicting claims.

No, my position was that GLBSE no longer has any obligation to manage people's shares. Confirming if a claim code is valid, is a reasonable thing to expect GLBSE to do, should a discrepancy come up, but anything beyond that, I don't see any further obligation here.

We'll see if that's GLBSE's position.

GLBSE: Will you make a public statement that you will run the claim code system, at least to resolve disputes, and assume the liability for duplicate or conflicting claims?

[memvola]

• Second, there were zero number of reasons to abruptly delist this asset. If you really think there is, please list them.

I can't say zero reasons. When a client/customer initiates actions for the sole purpose of causing harm to your business, you have every right to refuse service from that point on, or, in the case of a contract between the two, if it isn't a condition in the separation clause, the business can simply not renew the contract when it expires. No notice is required.

You didn't give any reason for the asset to be delisted immediately. No one is sayin a delisting can't occur, and no one is saying it can't be done without notice. It can happen. But give me the reason why this wasn't handled to my satisfaction. What would be the negative consequences of this being handled smoothly? I'm not saying it's legally required, I'm saying that creating this situation for no reason is an unfortunate move.

• Purely because this asset is delisted without notice, I can't get rid of them. The codes don't have the property of being transferred, so I'm in this nasty situation where I have the incentive to waste my time arguing here.

You can't get rid of them on GLBSE, but there is nothing stopping you from arranging a private sale, and doing it through the asset issuer so the issuer can update his records.

I'll grant you, that you've lost the convenience of an automated exchange to do all of this accounting for the asset issuer, but that is something the issuer will have to work out for himself, if he doesn't want to do the accounting.

So you are Goat, and you received two colliding codes. What do you do now? Which one is the scammer? The issuer can't work it out by himself. GLBSE is still involved, and it's not a superficial involvement.

Do you really not see the qualitative distinction between a contract I digitally sign together with Goat and a claim code I receive from GLBSE?

Certainly it could have been handled better, there is little dispute about that, but that isn't the same as saying that it is unworkable and|or can't be done. GLBSE wasn't the supplier, just the facilitator. Maybe a broker would be willing to chase around the issues he is managing for you as the customer, but GLBSE wasn't necessarily a broker, just an exchange, that handled the accounting for the assets. Plenty of room for argument on that point however, I'll agree.

This isn't too different to what I'm saying. As a customer, I need to know the reasons so that I make a judgement call. I have more than 15,000 EUR worth of assets "left" there. This final blow has reduced the already low liquidity. Why the hell shouldn't I care?

Personally, I think people choosing to sell the claim codes themselves, would be foolish to do so. Their only purpose is for the asset issuer to match holders to the shares they own off of the issuer's list. At that point, if the holder wishes to sell his shares to someone else, person to person, both parties will have to do it through the asset issuer himself, as he is handling the accounting for it now.

It's obviously foolish, but can also be malicious. Imagine for a moment that everything didn't go the way you prescribe, which is what I would expect. What now? If it's not GLBSE's obligation to resolve this issue, and Goat can't technically do it?

We can plenty argue over who initiated what, but it has little relevance to the situation we have now. That ship has sailed.

GLBSE decided to delist, so they initiated the delisting. I'm entitled to an explanation. If it could be done better, it's GLBSE's fault in the context of the relationship between me and GLBSE. I think I've repeated this enough times.

The way I see it, you're going to keep having two camps. One camp who believes that the exchange has to put up with all the BS that is being fanned by the owners of the companies listed on their exchange, even if that BS is detrimental to the exchange itself, and you'll have the other camp who believes that no company has a right to be listed on the exchange, and the exchange can't be forced to keep a company listed, or be forced to continue trading, or handling, any transactions involved with the now-delisted company.

I'm in the latter camp.

I believe you're in the latter camp, but who is in the first camp? It is a complete misrepresentation. I suppose most people here (including me of course) think that the delisting can and maybe should have occured, including this case, but it is mishandled. I can't see where I argued against the delisting. Or who in this thread even said that (other than Goat)?

Basing it solely on the public information I have seen posted, Goat was in the wrong, and created this situation himself. I can't blame Nefario one bit for evicting him off of the exchange at the point that he did. I probably would have done the same thing more or less.

One change I may have done, was to just halt trading of all of the assets, with a notice of why they were halted, to prepare for delisting it, and accept no more trading at all at that point. Then take a little more time compiling the list of share owners together, to send to Goat.

It wouldn't change the outcome of course, but it would have just dragged it out a little longer. Sometimes it is just best to make a clean quick break and be done with it.

You are getting close. If you think about this some more, you will realize that the measures we recommend should definitely have been taken. And it would completely change the outcome for us shareholders.

EDIT: One more thing. Moving shares from one system to another is no easy task. It's not a technology you can put together on a whim.

[Ocean6]

I have sold 90% of my shares and moved all of the BTC off of GLBSE.

I urge the rest of you to do the same.

It is run by a Little Lord Fauntleroy.

[Bitcoin Oz]

This is starting to remind me of bitcoinica and intersango behaviour. The users dont deserve to get screwed over because the owner of a site has a hissy fit.

I hope it works out amicably and soon.

[memvola]

However it is still unclear what will happen to the assets in my account.

I'm sorry if this was answered before, but did the shares (of other companies) owned by your companies get stuck as well? If not, I don't see the problem.

I have also been looking into some of the legal stuff and I don't know if I can accept "codes" or assets from people who I know are Americans.

I know you want to make it harder for Nefario, but this discourse made me feel you are also likely to begin making it harder for us too. We'd appreciate if you made more effort into resolving this mess. Maybe ask GLBSE to implement a channel for you to communicate anonymously with code owners.

Yeah, we are code owners now.

[Bitcoin Oz]

This is starting to remind me of bitcoinica and intersango behaviour. The users dont deserve to get screwed over because the owner of a site has a hissy fit.

I hope it works out amicably and soon.

Nefario used to work for Intersango but got fired when he froze my account the first time.

I don't know if there is much more I can do until Nefario deals with this and explains his actions.

I have also been looking into some of the legal stuff and I don't know if I can accept "codes" or assets from people who I know are Americans. I might even have to check IDs and address. I let GLBSE act as the broker and the exchange before so now that they want me to make more actions than I agreed to I will have to check and see if it is in fact legal and what is the legal way to do it.

This has become a mess and I agree it is the asset holders who will be hurt most.   

Anyway if anyone know more about Americans dealing with securities directly with other Americans please let me know. Thanks.

I assume you can only deal through a registered stock broker but IANAL. You cant go on the NYSE or the "pink sheets" and buy shares directly. GLBSE was supposed to cut out the brokers and the red tape.....

[finkleshnorts]

I have never owned TYGRR shares and I don't believe I have any bitcoins on GLBSE, but I'm going to go double check and sell any shares I might own.

I believe I am unbiased here.

I will never use GLBSE again because of this episode, and Nefario will not win my trust back on this issue. This behavior is extremely uncalled for. What's worse is that there was no warning. If Nefario blindsided everyone with this move and still feels ok about it, he will do it again when he feels like it.

[MPOE-PR]

I am open to helpful ideas. Honestly IMO the best solution would be just to relist on GLBSE and go on as if nothing happened. Anything outside of that will be tricky and will require cooperation and communication from Nefario. He has at this time not responded to my request to have the BTC returned or explained why I was delisted.

Well in fact Nefario claimed DMC will be suspended "until an independent audit will be performed". He then unlocked that without any audit whatsoever being performed. It's pretty clear that what Nefario says doesn't really matter at this point, so indeed the best solution would be to just ignore him completely and return to the statu quo ante.

[pyrkne]

This was sent to GLBSE support.

"I'm not preventing you from repaying me the bitcoins of mine that you hold. Just send them to XXXXXXXXXXXX. Now you have no excuse not to repay me amounts that aren't in dispute. But I refuse to release you from any obligations or liability. Holding the Bitcoins you agree you owe me hostage to obtain concessions on a legitimate dispute is scamming."

When I get the funds I will make a note of it. However it is still unclear what will happen to the assets in my account.

I'm sure he'll give you the coin. It's the right thing to do.

Although judging by Nefario's presence (or lack thereof) on the forum lately... GLBSE might be needing that dead man's switch.