Scammer tag: Nefario.

[MPOE-PR]

I.a. On September 10 he blocked the accounts of DMC, on the grounds that gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder was being alleged in forum threads.

I.b. Subsequently he refused to release a list of shareholders on the rationale that it'd be a breach of their privacy rights.

I.c. He also declared an audit will be held but later refused to release the name of the auditor.

I.d. The accounts were later unblocked without any audit being performed, and without any material changes in the alleged facts.


II.a. On September 25 he unlisted all of goat's assets, vaguely alleging some sort of malfeasance which was never either explained or documented --it may or may not have to do with goat's refusal to sell back some illegitimate shares created on GLBSE by an unauthorized entity which nevertheless were legitimized by Nefario's own declaration but which was quashed by the actual legitimate owners of GLBSE.

II.b. In contradiction to the claims made with I.b. above, Nefario claims to have issued the list of shareholders to Goat and that all obligations remaining exclude GLBSE, and should be handled between goat and investors alone.


III.a. Starting at least as early as September 10 the assets controlled by Usagi (CPA, NYAN.x, BMF) were being scrutinized publicly on this forum for gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder, in the same manner and to an extent equal or greater to that of I.a. above.

III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.

III.c. In spite of III.a. and contrary to his conduct in I.a. and II above, Nefario failed to lock the assets controlled by Usagi.


For these reasons Nefario should wear the scammer tag unless or until:

A. He personally refunds all investors in any and all Usagi funds to the value of their original investment or

B. He personally refunds all investors in DMC and TYGR-* to the value of their original investment.

tl;dr: You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't run away and hide for a couple weeks until people forget. It worked with LIF.x, it worked with the numerous other scams hosted by GLBSE, but it has to end sometime.

[1715680994]

1715680994

[1715680994]

1715680994

[1715680994]

1715680994

[Bitcoin Oz]

I would feel more comfortable if the owner of a rival exchange wasnt making these allegations.

How is Nefario responsible for Usagi and Diablo.D3 ?

[stochastic]

scamming = To defraud; swindle.

scamming != A disagreement

[Bitcoin Oz]

Maybe someone should investigate why MPOE and BITVPS passthroughs have lost so much money for their investors on GLBSE too ?

Dont throw bricks in glass houses.

[flower1024]

scamming = To defraud; swindle.

scamming != A disagreement

atm goat is still waiting for his coins - if he dont get them i vote scammer.
otherwise i just vote "nefario should not run a marketplace"

[Lethos]

Got to admit there is kind of a big conflict of interest here from the accuser.

Wasn't Nefario and pretty much all these scenarios kinda mooted last time they were brought up in an official capacity.

So what is your reason to bring it up again, other than try to further tarnish the name of him and his site?

[JoelKatz]

atm goat is still waiting for his coins - if he dont get them i vote scammer.
otherwise i just vote "nefario should not run a marketplace"

The four issues that seem the most serious to me are:

1) Nefario seems to be holding coins that are indisputably Goat's, which he refuses to return.

2) Nefario seems to have decided for GLBSE that GLBSE has no responsibility to protect the ownership interests of GLBSE's customers. Essentially, Nefario has retroactively decided that when GLBSE delists a stock, there is no obligation whatsoever to protect the interests of asset holders. That is, Nefario decided GLBSE would fail to honor its obligations to its customers and leave them and Goat to pick up the pieces as best they can.

3) Nefario appears to have delisted Goat's assets on a whim, in response to an unrelated dispute, and without any sort of sensible decision-making process or calibrated level of response. (For example, the asset could have just been frozen.) While I don't dispute that an exchange has the right to delist assets for any reason, doing so for very bad reasons and doing so in a sudden manner that screwed over his customers is effectively scamming. Customers should have been able to rely on the exchange to continue to provide them a way to transfer their ownership interest and not to cut off this ability arbitrarily without any justification. When you buy a share on a stock exchange, part of the reason you value it is that the exchange allows you to trade it. No rational reason for this drastic action that caused harm to both Goat and his asset holders has been offered.

4) So far, there has been no explanation from Nefario for any of these actions.

If there is some justification for these actions, it has not been made public. Goat granted Nefario permission to make a public statement, so there's no privacy issue with Goat. (There might be other privacy issues though. I don't know.)

[phantastisch]

atm goat is still waiting for his coins - if he dont get them i vote scammer.
otherwise i just vote "nefario should not run a marketplace"

The four issues that seem the most serious to me are:

1) Nefario seems to be holding coins that are indisputably Goat's, which he refuses to return.

As far as i know Goat is refusing to give Nefario a BTC adress because Goat feels like giving him the adresse would be like accepting his delisting.

In my opinion MPOE-PR should NOT have started this thread. This will backfire on MPOE.

In before only cryptostocks left...

[JoelKatz]

As far as i know Goat is refusing to give Nefario a BTC adress because Goat feels like giving him the adresse would be like accepting his delisting.

Nefario claimed that at first, so Goat gave him an address so he would have no excuse. If you look in the other thread, you can see what Goat claims Nefario's response was -- let's just say he didn't return even the amounts that are not in dispute.

calling Nefario a scammer is borderline mentally insane.

Are you saying it's not true that Nefario is holding onto funds that belong to Goat even though there is no dispute regarding those funds? If so, I'd like to know why you say that.

Also, do you have any response to the allegation that he orchestrated GLBSE's renege on its obligation to Goat's asset-holders, changing their ownership of listed assets into worthless claim codes? (Worthless because there is no known way anyone but GLBSE can redeem them, and GLBSE refuses to redeem them. So there is nothing anyone can do with them.)

What would be insane is if this winds up with Nefario getting a scammer tag and GLBSE losing the community's trust. Someone at GLBSE needs to take charge of this situation and fix it. (Assuming Goat will cooperate. If not, they have to at least try.)

[DiabloD3]

Based on Nefario's actions with both DMC and Goat's assets, I think maybe it it really is time for nefario to get a scammer tag.

[MPOE-PR]

To clarify some points for the typically confused:

I. There can never be a "conflict of interest" in this matter. It makes no difference who makes the accusation. All that matters is whether the accusation is factual and has merit. You're probably thinking based on some personal experience in some domestic dispute, but that's largely irrelevant; the reason Mr. Policeman or whatever adult figure dismissed your accusations at that time was that they were based on your own testimony, not that they were improper by "conflict of interest" (a topic one'd be best advised to read up on, anyway).

II. There exists the doctrine of "duty of care", both in common and civil law systems. Read up on that (preferably in a law manual, not on wikipedia). Somebody with power has a duty to act equally to protect all those that need his protection. He can't pick and choose. The discussion here revolves around exactly that; Nefario has acted in some cases but not in all cases. This means he was either wrong to act at all, in which case he should make whole those harmed by his action, or otherwise that he was wrong to not act in the cases where he did not act, in which case he should make whole those harmed by his inaction. Tertium non datur as they say, there is absolutely no alternative here. Either one or the other must be true.

All the rest of the discussion is absolutely irrelevant, but obviously you're more than welcome to carry on with it.

[rapeghost]

not your fight.

none of your business.

i could understand if Diablo opened this thread but god damn.

[flower1024]

not your fight.

none of your business.

i could understand if Diablo opened this thread but god damn.

everybody has the right to open a scam-accusation thread. and this is good

i dont really like MPEX and his exchange - but this does not mean he is'nt right in this case.

[BitcoinINV]

1 person having complete control of the exchange seems to be a problem. I am sure he is doing the best he can, but you have to understand all this be made up as he goes i'm sure. But returning goats coins is the right thing, I think he should have been given X amount of time to clear his account then be delisted. In the future I hope this is how all of it is take care of. Emotional business is bad business, and I feel this was the case here.

[JoelKatz]

The only thing Nefario has asked of me is a BTC address and I have sent that to him twice. I do not see what more I can do to cooperate. I am however open to productive suggestions.

I meant to resolve the issue of people who hold your delisted assets and the harm Nefario's decision to immediately delist those assets has done to them. To get back amounts that are not in dispute, there's nothing more you should have to do. If Nefario/GLBSE is holding them hostage for a better negotiating position, that warrants a scammer tag.

[MPOE-PR]

What would be insane is if this winds up with Nefario getting a scammer tag and GLBSE losing the community's trust.

It's much too late for the later part. The former would in principle be a formality. Nefario (and to the degree it has been aiding and abetting him, GLBSE too) are the largest liability for Bitcoin right now. Noobs join, get scammed by the Global Scam Exchange, then leave. How many intelligent people and how many affluent people have we lost because this eyesore was irresponsibly allowed to continue for so long?

Ask yourself this. You discover BTC, you put some money into it, you go "invest it" and then... it's gone. And you try again. And then... it's gone. There are people who have been going through this quarterly cycle since early 2011. What fraction are they of the total people trying out this appalling scamfest that is called GLBSE and thinking they "have tried out Bitcoin"?

This association needs to be severed. In fact, it should have been severed long ago. And yes, GLBSE has scammed investors out of more money than pirateat40 did. They just were much better at the long-con.

[Bitcoin Oz]

What would be insane is if this winds up with Nefario getting a scammer tag and GLBSE losing the community's trust.

It's much too late for the later part. The former would in principle be a formality. Nefario (and to the degree it has been aiding and abetting him, GLBSE too) are the largest liability for Bitcoin right now. Noobs join, get scammed by the Global Scam Exchange, then leave. How many intelligent people and how many affluent people have we lost because this eyesore was irresponsibly allowed to continue for so long?

Ask yourself this. You discover BTC, you put some money into it, you go "invest it" and then... it's gone. And you try again. And then... it's gone. There are people who have been going through this quarterly cycle since early 2011. What fraction are they of the total people trying out this appalling scamfest that is called GLBSE and thinking they "have tried out Bitcoin"?

This association needs to be severed. In fact, it should have been severed long ago. And yes, GLBSE has scammed investors out of more money than pirateat40 did. They just were much better at the long-con.

GLBSE itself doesnt hold many bitcoins since asset issuers withdraw them for their business.

[JoelKatz]

I am open to cooperating but I will not accept GLBSE codes. At this time GLBSE is demanding that I do so and is recommending group legal action against me by people who hold the codes if I refuse.

I guess what more can or should I do than just say that this code system is not acceptable and we need to find a different path? I would be okay if the assets were just relisted on GLBSE. I have stated this before.

At this point, largely hearing only your side of the story, it sounds like you are trying to resolve the issue and they are holding undisputed amounts hostage while blaming you for their bad decisions. If I were in your shoes, I would not accept the GLBSE codes either without some plan for how to handle duplicate or invalid codes and some way to communicate a redemption timeframe to code holders. Or some comparable solution -- maybe GLBSE knows some clever way the codes are supposed to work that we can't think of, but they aren't telling.

I don't understand where GLBSE thinks they get the authority to issue these codes without negotiating a delisting procedure with you. And by failing to even try to do that, they've seriously betrayed their customers who now have a worthless code, with no known redemption scheme, instead of an ownership interest in an asset.

[Ghostofkobra]

I hold some (a small amount) of the delisted assets.

I do not accept the GLBSE codes, but i feel that i have nowhere to turn.
How can i be sure that noone else has my code? And how can i know Goat has my code?

I trusted GLBSE - that was my misstake.

I entered into a contract with goat, using GLBSE as a middle man.

I PAYED GLBSE for carrying out my transactions with goat, and i was under the impression that GLBSE would continue to serve as a middle man.
If it would have been a deal with just Goat, we wouldnt have had to pay you.


They important point is just that: I PAYED for a service which GLBSE no longer provides.

So Nefario, when you delisted my bonds you should PAY ME the trade fee, since i have to do it all by myself from now on.



Is GLBSE a Scam, in regards to me?
- A serious venture doesnt drop customers when they stop profiting from them. Is it a scan when GLBSE takes money for trading assets and then withdraws the service? (from a select set of users)

Should Nefario be able to delist assests without being a scammer? YES, but obviously he doesnt

[Puppet]

They important point is just that: I PAYED for a service which GLBSE no longer provides.

So Nefario, when you delisted my bonds you should PAY ME the trade fee, since i have to do it all by myself from now on.

Thats doesnt fly IMO. You paid fees to acquire (or sell) the assets. That service has been delivered. Now you want another service, ie, sell your assets again, and nefario is no longer offering that service, and so wont be charging you for it. I see no reason for nefario to reimburse you.

(btw, not trying to be a spelling nazi, but its spelled "paid")

[kjj]

They important point is just that: I PAYED for a service which GLBSE no longer provides.

So Nefario, when you delisted my bonds you should PAY ME the trade fee, since i have to do it all by myself from now on.

Thats doesnt fly IMO. You paid fees to acquire (or sell) the assets. That service has been delivered. Now you want another service, ie, sell your assets again, and nefario is no longer offering that service, and so wont be charging you for it. I see no reason for nefario to reimburse you.

(btw, not trying to be a spelling nazi, but its spelled "paid")

Ahh, but the problem with all of the current exchanges (including GLBSE) is that they not only provide the service of facilitating the sale, but they also act as the sole recorder of ownership.

[nebulus]

Sounds like someone has nothing better to do.

[DiabloD3]

Ahh, but the problem with all of the current exchanges (including GLBSE) is that they not only provide the service of facilitating the sale, but they also act as the sole recorder of ownership.

I think this is the most important thing here. Asset issuers pay 16BTC up front, and every shareholder pays trading fees, to make this service continue functioning.

GLBSE has no policy to deal with moving assets off the exchange, and it badly needs one. Imagine if NASDAQ decided to just suddenly delist Facebook with no warning: the SEC would be so far up NASDAQ's ass, they could collectively taste shoe leather.

[Dalkore]

They important point is just that: I PAYED for a service which GLBSE no longer provides.

So Nefario, when you delisted my bonds you should PAY ME the trade fee, since i have to do it all by myself from now on.

Thats doesnt fly IMO. You paid fees to acquire (or sell) the assets. That service has been delivered. Now you want another service, ie, sell your assets again, and nefario is no longer offering that service, and so wont be charging you for it. I see no reason for nefario to reimburse you.

(btw, not trying to be a spelling nazi, but its spelled "paid")

Ahh, but the problem with all of the current exchanges (including GLBSE) is that they not only provide the service of facilitating the sale, but they also act as the sole recorder of ownership.

This is an important point on being the only official holder of record.  This makes them more than "just an exchange".   On regular exchanges, you could through your broker request the actual physical certificates.


Side note:   EDITED.   Mod has said his piece and I have said mine below.  I am over it.  Guess public pressure wasn't enough.

[kjj]

This is an important point on being the only official holder of record.  This makes them more than "just an exchange".   On regular exchanges, you could through your broker request the actual physical certificates.

In the real world, exchanges don't hold the shares, ever.  They collect and match orders, and then issue (basically) receipts.  The actual movement of shares (whether physical, or on the books of the entity) is handled by the brokerages themselves*.  At no time does the exchange ever possess the shares.

* In reality, the brokerages have delegated the settlement function to clearing houses, just like banks have delegated check clearing to the ACH system.  That detail isn't important here.

[Maged]

I.a. On September 10 he blocked the accounts of DMC, on the grounds that gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder was being alleged in forum threads.

I.b. Subsequently he refused to release a list of shareholders on the rationale that it'd be a breach of their privacy rights.

I.c. He also declared an audit will be held but later refused to release the name of the auditor.

I.d. The accounts were later unblocked without any audit being performed, and without any material changes in the alleged facts.

You are allowed to make mistakes in life. Nefario undid his action and everything there is good again. I consider this issue solved.

II.a. On September 25 he unlisted all of goat's assets, vaguely alleging some sort of malfeasance which was never either explained or documented --it may or may not have to do with goat's refusal to sell back some illegitimate shares created on GLBSE by an unauthorized entity which nevertheless were legitimized by Nefario's own declaration but which was quashed by the actual legitimate owners of GLBSE.

II.b. In contradiction to the claims made with I.b. above, Nefario claims to have issued the list of shareholders to Goat and that all obligations remaining exclude GLBSE, and should be handled between goat and investors alone.

That's because he was delisted. There's a huge difference in what happened in these situations.

III.a. Starting at least as early as September 10 the assets controlled by Usagi (CPA, NYAN.x, BMF) were being scrutinized publicly on this forum for gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder, in the same manner and to an extent equal or greater to that of I.a. above.

III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.

III.c. In spite of III.a. and contrary to his conduct in I.a. and II above, Nefario failed to lock the assets controlled by Usagi.

That was Nefario's call, unless you can point to a Terms of Service/contract between the parties that says that one option needed to be done.

For these reasons Nefario should wear the scammer tag unless or until:

A. He personally refunds all investors in any and all Usagi funds to the value of their original investment or

Wait, what?

B. He personally refunds all investors in DMC and TYGR-* to the value of their original investment.

Why?

tl;dr: You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't run away and hide for a couple weeks until people forget. It worked with LIF.x, it worked with the numerous other scams hosted by GLBSE, but it has to end sometime.

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

[DiabloD3]

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

Or we can have a public transparent management board that takes over all decision making from Nefario and serves as our equivalent to the SEC, one that smickles has a permanent position on it, and by permanent I mean we're kidnapping him and chaining him up in the basement.

[Dalkore]

Thank You Maged.


Well at this point, it looks like your just need to make up your own mind on who you think is right in both these cases.   Personally I need to re-evaluate who can hold any of my assets and what investing activities I will take in the future.   


Word of advice to Nefario:  Make an official statement on both Goat's and DMC's account actions.   Those were quite severe and it looks like at least Goat's was personally motivated and that there has cost you customers and faith that you would not let your personal issues with specific people interfere with your responsibility as one of our exchange operators.  I really want you to weigh in.

[MPOE-PR]

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

What, if any, is your ownership stake in GLBSE?

[JoelKatz]

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

The question is whether any of those "poor decisions" amount to scamming. Delisting Goat's assets suddenly, with no need to do so, and betraying  the agreement with GLBSE customers to secure their ownership interests, crosses the line, IMO. Converting GLBSE's customers ownership interest into worthless claim codes, with no agreement that allowed that conversion and no attempt to minimize the collateral damage to GLBSE customers and no effort whatsoever to clean up the mess crosses the line for me.

And there is no evidence whatsoever the Nefario believes that he did anything wrong. It appears he maintains he has the right to render any such asset worthless and any ownership interest meaningless for any reason at any time and would actually do so if he felt like it.

Also, holding Goat's coins, even though there is no dispute over the ownership of those coins, for the apparent purpose of gaining leverage in the dispute over the ownership of Goat's issued assets is over the line.

[danieldaniel]

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

What, if any, is your ownership stake in GLBSE?

No offense, but you shouldn't really be saying that he has a conflict of interest here.

Have you ever thought of how you run a competing exchange? 

[reeses]

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

What, if any, is your ownership stake in GLBSE?

No offense, but you shouldn't really be saying that he has a conflict of interest here.

Have you ever thought of how you run a competing exchange? 

No offense, but I am creeped out by midgets.

Anyway, MPOE-PR's conflict of interest is irrelevant.  She can't apply a scammer tag to Nefario, although I'm sure she would like to do so.  Her interest is also very clearly stated, not undisclosed.

Maged, however, has a history of arbitrary decisions that aren't informed by fact.  He's loyal, which is commendable, but biased.

Keep in mind that while this forum derives its value from content created by its users, it does not belong to the users.  The "court" is a handful (?) of admins/mods/whatever that make their decision based on what is presented, what they can mine from PMs and other sources, and their own interests.

While her method of asking Maged to declare his bias is brusque, it's to the point.  The nature of Maged's (obvious) bias is relevant in that it will determine the amount of supporting evidence is necessary to change his mind (or to convince another person or group capable of putting a scammer tag on nefario).

[JoelKatz]

No offense, but you shouldn't really be saying that he has a conflict of interest here.

Have you ever thought of how you run a competing exchange?  

She's advocating *for* a scammer tag. How does her running a competing exchange give her a conflict of interest?

Think of it as the difference between an advocate and a judge. A judge has a conflict of interest if she has any personal stake in the outcome. A lawyer only has a conflict of interest if she gets a benefit if the outcome is adverse to the position she's representing.

I suppose you could argue that making GLBSE look bad there could be some industry spillover that makes her exchange look bad. It seems an odd thing to be concerned about though.

[MPOE-PR]

I suppose you could argue that making GLBSE look bad there could be some industry spillover that makes her exchange look bad. It seems an odd thing to be concerned about though.

The entire point is that the retardedness oozing out of GLBBQ is giving BTC finance a black eye, especially due to the irrational but widely held belief that the two actually have something to do with each other.

[Maged]

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

What, if any, is your ownership stake in GLBSE?

None. In fact, I don't even currently own any asset or hold a balance at GLBSE. I do have an account, but it hasn't been used for at least 2 months except to view some information that I've needed for other investigations.

Also, holding Goat's coins, even though there is no dispute over the ownership of those coins, for the apparent purpose of gaining leverage in the dispute over the ownership of Goat's issued assets is over the line.

Agreed, and I am pursuing that at this very moment.

Maged, however, has a history of arbitrary decisions that aren't informed by fact.

I'm sorry that you think that way. I am always open to hearing people's opinions regarding a case.

[nimda]

Just waiting for Goat's coins to be sent back to him. If that doesn't happen, despite the two emails he sent, then it is a very obvious scam: theft.

[Shadow383]

What would be insane is if this winds up with Nefario getting a scammer tag and GLBSE losing the community's trust.

It's much too late for the later part. The former would in principle be a formality. Nefario (and to the degree it has been aiding and abetting him, GLBSE too) are the largest liability for Bitcoin right now. Noobs join, get scammed by the Global Scam Exchange, then leave. How many intelligent people and how many affluent people have we lost because this eyesore was irresponsibly allowed to continue for so long?

Ask yourself this. You discover BTC, you put some money into it, you go "invest it" and then... it's gone. And you try again. And then... it's gone. There are people who have been going through this quarterly cycle since early 2011. What fraction are they of the total people trying out this appalling scamfest that is called GLBSE and thinking they "have tried out Bitcoin"?

This association needs to be severed. In fact, it should have been severed long ago. And yes, GLBSE has scammed investors out of more money than pirateat40 did. They just were much better at the long-con.

Oh put a sock in it pornexchange.

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

What, if any, is your ownership stake in GLBSE?

No offense, but you shouldn't really be saying that he has a conflict of interest here.

Have you ever thought of how you run a competing exchange? 

Agreed. There are serious questions to be asked, but pornexchange probably isn't the one to be doing it...

[MPOE-PR]

None. In fact, I don't even currently own any asset or hold a balance at GLBSE. I do have an account, but it hasn't been used for at least 2 months except to view some information that I've needed for other investigations.

Fair enough.

[reeses]

Maged, however, has a history of arbitrary decisions that aren't informed by fact.

I'm sorry that you think that way. I am always open to hearing people's opinions regarding a case.

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

"Hearing" doesn't mean acting.  You have a history of bias.  That you can't see it may actually make it prejudice.

[CJGoodings]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114766.0

Put it to the vote :O

[kjj]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114766.0

Put it to the vote :O

Wow!  What an amazingly unbiased poll!  If you don't get the landslide you are looking for, you should crosspost that into all of the foundation threads.

[Maged]

"Hearing" doesn't mean acting.  You have a history of bias.  That you can't see it may actually make it prejudice.

I know that I'm biased, which is why I like to be told when people feel that I am. That being said, I don't care if my bias causes me to declare a guilty person innocent, only the other way around. You could even say that the previous statement is biased, and you'd be correct, except that it is very intentional.

[reeses]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114766.0

Put it to the vote :O

Wow!  What an amazingly unbiased poll!  If you don't get the landslide you are looking for, you should crosspost that into all of the foundation threads.

It doesn't need to be unbiased.  It could be a single radio button.  "Click here if you think the admins show bias."

You miss the point.  It's merely a way to acknowledge, without having to read dumbshittery such as your post, the number of people who find the "scammer" decisions favor certain groups of people.

[guruvan]

I.a. On September 10 he blocked the accounts of DMC, on the grounds that gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder was being alleged in forum threads.

I.b. Subsequently he refused to release a list of shareholders on the rationale that it'd be a breach of their privacy rights.

I.c. He also declared an audit will be held but later refused to release the name of the auditor.

I.d. The accounts were later unblocked without any audit being performed, and without any material changes in the alleged facts.

IMO, everony involved in this DMC scandal should have a scammer tag, Diablo, usagi, and nefario

II.a. On September 25 he unlisted all of goat's assets, vaguely alleging some sort of malfeasance which was never either explained or documented --it may or may not have to do with goat's refusal to sell back some illegitimate shares created on GLBSE by an unauthorized entity which nevertheless were legitimized by Nefario's own declaration but which was quashed by the actual legitimate owners of GLBSE.

II.b. In contradiction to the claims made with I.b. above, Nefario claims to have issued the list of shareholders to Goat and that all obligations remaining exclude GLBSE, and should be handled between goat and investors alone.

This is pure retailiation for goat's upset over the GLBSE shares issue. This deserves a scammer tag for that reason alone. Further bs over the ridiculous claim code system, and stubborness about returning goat's bitcoin (which, last seen was still MIA) deserves a scammer tag IMO

III.a. Starting at least as early as September 10 the assets controlled by Usagi (CPA, NYAN.x, BMF) were being scrutinized publicly on this forum for gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder, in the same manner and to an extent equal or greater to that of I.a. above.

III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.

III.c. In spite of III.a. and contrary to his conduct in I.a. and II above, Nefario failed to lock the assets controlled by Usagi.

This, all at the same timeq that nefario is locking other assets for fraud, suspected fraud, and, apparently, just pissing nefario off. This deserves a scammer tag

For these reasons Nefario should wear the scammer tag unless or until:

A. He personally refunds all investors in any and all Usagi funds to the value of their original investment or

B. He personally refunds all investors in DMC and TYGR-* to the value of their original investment.

tl;dr: You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't run away and hide for a couple weeks until people forget. It worked with LIF.x, it worked with the numerous other scams hosted by GLBSE, but it has to end sometime.

I'm not sure about "value of original investment" - but I'd go for "value before GLBSE fucked investors over"

[guruvan]

"Hearing" doesn't mean acting.  You have a history of bias.  That you can't see it may actually make it prejudice.

I know that I'm biased, which is why I like to be told when people feel that I am. That being said, I don't care if my bias causes me to declare a guilty person innocent, only the other way around. You could even say that the previous statement is biased, and you'd be correct, except that it is very intentional.

which makes you unqualified as any sort of "judge"

Theymos, you really need to find someone else for this.

[BadBear]

I know that I'm biased, which is why I like to be told when people feel that I am. That being said, I don't care if my bias causes me to declare a guilty person innocent, only the other way around. You could even say that the previous statement is biased, and you'd be correct, except that it is very intentional.

which makes you unqualified as any sort of "judge"

Theymos, you really need to find someone else for this.

Everyone is biased in some way or another, and to think otherwise is naive and foolish. You can't get rid of bias anymore than you can get rid of emotion or opinion. Best way to deal with bias is recognize your bias so you can adjust your actions to compensate for it. Would you rather him lie and say he isn't? None of us have ever claimed to be unbiased, we do try our best to not let it interfere with our duties.

As for the OP, Nefario isn't responsible for the actions of others. If Usagi/Diablo is a scammer, you don't blame the middleman unless you can prove he knowingly aided and abetted it. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

As for Goats issue, I can see why Nefario wouldn't send him the bitcoins if the address was altered in any way, even if it was "just" a space. And putting his email entirely within quotes was odd and uncharacteristic of usual communications, and would send up red flags for me too.

[JoelKatz]

As for Goats issue, I can see why Nefario wouldn't send him the bitcoins if the address was altered in any way, even if it was "just" a space. And putting his email entirely within quotes was odd and uncharacteristic of usual communications, and would send up red flags for me too.

That is really not fair. You're making inferences and speculation in favor of Nefario, effectively rewarding him for his silence. It's not fair to expect Goat, or anyone else, to refute every argument Nefario might hypothetically make while Nefario gets to see which arguments Goat can and cannot disprove before he has to take any position. That just makes it too easy to lie. ("What if Nefario says X, can you disprove that?" "Oh, you can, what about Y?" "Oh, you can, what about Z?" "Oh, you can't?" And then five minutes later Nefario says Z.)

Sure, you could perhaps speculate why Nefario might have done what he did. But I can speculate that Goat can disprove each of those speculations, should those be positions Nefario takes. You have to confine yourself to the arguments people are actually making and not expect hypothetical positions they might take to be proactively refuted by opposing parties.

[BadBear]

As for Goats issue, I can see why Nefario wouldn't send him the bitcoins if the address was altered in any way, even if it was "just" a space. And putting his email entirely within quotes was odd and uncharacteristic of usual communications, and would send up red flags for me too.

That is really not fair. You're making inferences and speculation in favor of Nefario, effectively rewarding him for his silence. It's not fair to expect Goat, or anyone else, to refute every argument Nefario might hypothetically make while Nefario gets to see which arguments Goat can and cannot disprove before he has to take any position. That just makes it too easy to lie. ("What if Nefario says X, can you disprove that?" "Oh, you can, what about Y?" "Oh, you can, what about Z?" "Oh, you can't?" And then five minutes later Nefario says Z.)

Sure, you could perhaps speculate why Nefario might have done what he did. But I can speculate that Goat can disprove each of those speculations, should those be positions Nefario takes. You have to confine yourself to the arguments people are actually making and not expect hypothetical positions they might take to be proactively refuted by opposing parties.

Not speculating, I got that from what Nefario said himself in the emails posted above (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114442.msg1238231#msg1238231). It does appear to be valid concerns, but there aren't many more excuses he can use.

[MPOE-PR]

Everyone is biased in some way or another, and to think otherwise is naive and foolish. You can't get rid of bias anymore than you can get rid of emotion or opinion. Best way to deal with bias is recognize your bias so you can adjust your actions to compensate for it. Would you rather him lie and say he isn't? None of us have ever claimed to be unbiased, we do try our best to not let it interfere with our duties.

Absolutely true.

As for the OP, Nefario isn't responsible for the actions of others. If Usagi/Diablo is a scammer, you don't blame the middleman unless you can prove he knowingly aided and abetted it. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Once Nefario used his position of authority to act in a certain way, all the people harmed by his failure to act in the same way in the same circumstances had a legitimate claim against him. This isn't me making shit up, this is 500 years of established equitable practice at common law and possibly more than 500 years in the civil system. You might not know about this, even if it's basic and well known in the legal profession; it's obscure from a public PoV, and I guess nobody told you to go to law school first if you want to be a mod on some forum. However, you must know socially someone who actually is a solicitor/barrister/etc. Ask them.

[BadBear]

Once Nefario used his position of authority to act in a certain way, all the people harmed by his failure to act in the same way in the same circumstances had a legitimate claim against him. This isn't me making shit up, this is 500 years of established equitable practice at common law and possibly more than 500 years in the civil system. You might not know about this, even if it's basic and well known in the legal profession; it's obscure from a public PoV, and I guess nobody told you to go to law school first if you want to be a mod on some forum. However, you must know socially someone who actually is a solicitor/barrister/etc. Ask them.

Being realistic, if there's a situation that requires legal advice to make a decision, I'd rather stay out of it. 99% of the people here (definitely including myself here) are unqualified for that, and the other 1% probably have better things to do with their time or are unqualified in other ways.  

"Those with knowledge that does not even scratch the surface of the issue and talk and promote their opinions as if they know it all are the most destructive type. They reject or adopt policies and ideas based on incomplete or trivial knowledge of the issue at hand. But since they think they "know" all there is to know about the issue, they are very confident in their nonsense which they cover with lovely sound-bites that attracts the ears and eyes of those who do not know and are seeking knowledge."
TLDR: A little knowledge is far worse than none.

I don't want to be that guy. A little knowledge of that particular law doesn't make me qualified to make a judgement or ruin someone's reputation over it. I only give/recommend scammer tag in cases where I can be absolutely certain there is guilt. To paraphrase another quote, I'd rather let 10 scammers walk away than one innocent person receive a scammer tag. I don't take it lightly, your reputation and your name is all anyone has here.

[MPOE-PR]

Once Nefario used his position of authority to act in a certain way, all the people harmed by his failure to act in the same way in the same circumstances had a legitimate claim against him. This isn't me making shit up, this is 500 years of established equitable practice at common law and possibly more than 500 years in the civil system. You might not know about this, even if it's basic and well known in the legal profession; it's obscure from a public PoV, and I guess nobody told you to go to law school first if you want to be a mod on some forum. However, you must know socially someone who actually is a solicitor/barrister/etc. Ask them.

Being realistic, if there's a situation that requires legal advice to make a decision, I'd rather stay out of it. 99% of the people here (definitely including myself here) are unqualified for that, and the other 1% probably have better things to do with their time or are unqualified in other ways.  

"Those with knowledge that does not even scratch the surface of the issue and talk and promote their opinions as if they know it all are the most destructive type. They reject or adopt policies and ideas based on incomplete or trivial knowledge of the issue at hand. But since they think they "know" all there is to know about the issue, they are very confident in their nonsense which they cover with lovely sound-bites that attracts the ears and eyes of those who do not know and are seeking knowledge."
TLDR: A little knowledge is far worse than none.

I don't want to be that guy. A little knowledge of that particular law doesn't make me qualified to make a judgement or ruin someone's reputation over it. I only give/recommend scammer tag in cases where I can be absolutely certain there is guilt. To paraphrase another quote, I'd rather let 10 scammers walk away than one innocent person receive a scammer tag. I don't take it lightly, your reputation and your name is all anyone has here.

I can certainly see your point, and indisputably a little knowledge is far, far worse than none at all. This point has sadly been proven even on this forum time and time AND TIME again.

But coherence dictates then that you can't make a decision either way. You can't decide for a scammer tag, you can't decide against one either. You just can't decide. You can't say "o, this is ok". All you can say is "this is problematic and we don't know how to resolve it".

[MPOE-PR]

I would like to report GLBSE / Nefaro has made a payment. I assume these are for the "non disputed" BTC that I asked for. I guess I will try to get the rest later. (specifically assets and listing fees)

Thanks.

What do you mean you assume? This makes no sense.

[pyrkne]

To clarify some points for the typically confused:

I. There can never be a "conflict of interest" in this matter. It makes no difference who makes the accusation. All that matters is whether the accusation is factual and has merit. [...]

Well, there is one upside to not having to make any accusations myself - wouldn't want to get on Nefario's bad side. What if I want to list an asset one day?

You, on the other hand...

[MPOE-PR]

I would like this thread incorporated here by reference, and I would like to update the original indictment with:

IV.a. On October the 1st Nefario, GLBSE or both approved for trading a fund which purports to collect investment with which to buy mining bonds or equipment (unclear which) and then use the proceeds so generated in order to purchase bulk lottery tickets (something which may or may not infringe a patent held by Butterfly Labs or Butterfly Labs principal Sonny "Whatshismobname" Vleisides). This braindamaged plan was announced on the 26th of September.

IV.b. For the entire interval spanning IV.a. above, Nefario failed to accept and failed to communicate with at least two users on the subject of their pending listings, and further refused to refund a third.

This conduct clearly proves that Nefario is running a platform dedicated exclusively to the promotion of scams, of which he likely is taking an undisclosed cut. The theory that he "accidentally" allowed a blatant scam through while refusing some other people's unspecified projects can not fit any other explanation.

[Bogart]

I would like this thread incorporated here by reference, and I would like to update the original indictment with:

IV.a. On October the 1st Nefario, GLBSE or both approved for trading a fund which purports to collect investment with which to buy mining bonds or equipment (unclear which) and then use the proceeds so generated in order to purchase bulk lottery tickets (something which may or may not infringe a patent held by Butterfly Labs or Butterfly Labs principal Sonny "Whatshismobname" Vleisides). This braindamaged plan was announced on the 26th of September.

IV.b. For the entire interval spanning IV.a. above, Nefario failed to accept and failed to communicate with at least two users on the subject of their pending listings, and further refused to refund a third.

You may also notice that Nefario's forum posts abruptly cease right around then:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3046;sa=showPosts

Sting operation anyone?

[repentance]

I would like this thread incorporated here by reference, and I would like to update the original indictment with:

IV.a. On October the 1st Nefario, GLBSE or both approved for trading a fund which purports to collect investment with which to buy mining bonds or equipment (unclear which) and then use the proceeds so generated in order to purchase bulk lottery tickets (something which may or may not infringe a patent held by Butterfly Labs or Butterfly Labs principal Sonny "Whatshismobname" Vleisides). This braindamaged plan was announced on the 26th of September.

IV.b. For the entire interval spanning IV.a. above, Nefario failed to accept and failed to communicate with at least two users on the subject of their pending listings, and further refused to refund a third.

You may also notice that Nefario's forum posts abruptly cease right around then:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3046;sa=showPosts

Sting operation anyone?

Let's hope he's not seeking advice from his good friends the Intersango guys.

[Namworld]

I.a. On September 10 he blocked the accounts of DMC, on the grounds that gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder was being alleged in forum threads.

The asset started from an IPO of 1 BTC and ended up trading at 0.011 BTC each, something unseen before. Diablo-D3 was frequently doing DMC to other assets trade-in under the current NAV to entice trades. Each time pushing value down.

I.b. Subsequently he refused to release a list of shareholders on the rationale that it'd be a breach of their privacy rights.

I.c. He also declared an audit will be held but later refused to release the name of the auditor.

I.d. The accounts were later unblocked without any audit being performed, and without any material changes in the alleged facts.

The accounts were unblocked because a motion was accepted, asking shareholders if they wanted to keep Diablo-D3 as the manager.

II.a. On September 25 he unlisted all of goat's assets, vaguely alleging some sort of malfeasance which was never either explained or documented --it may or may not have to do with goat's refusal to sell back some illegitimate shares created on GLBSE by an unauthorized entity which nevertheless were legitimized by Nefario's own declaration but which was quashed by the actual legitimate owners of GLBSE.

II.b. In contradiction to the claims made with I.b. above, Nefario claims to have issued the list of shareholders to Goat and that all obligations remaining exclude GLBSE, and should be handled between goat and investors alone.

Yes, we all agree it was a very rash and expeditive process which could have been planned more thoroughly, with proper delays. It would also be good to provide a more secure method of transferring codes to Goat. Preferably directly get a BTC address from holders that they can submit to GLBSE who can then send the list to goat. goat's shareholders could then communicate with him and sign with their BTC address. Or any other proper method which would have given enough prior notice and would have these things sorted out before the actual delisting of said assets.

III.a. Starting at least as early as September 10 the assets controlled by Usagi (CPA, NYAN.x, BMF) were being scrutinized publicly on this forum for gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder, in the same manner and to an extent equal or greater to that of I.a. above.

III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.

III.c. In spite of III.a. and contrary to his conduct in I.a. and II above, Nefario failed to lock the assets controlled by Usagi.

Yes, Usagi's funds were invested in many assets which loss value, especially mining (the whole mining market crashed overall). There has been a subsequent large drop of value in his funds NAV. Some people requested investigation as to if there was negligence/scam on Usagi's part. Nothing was proven so far, other than the selected assets invested in by Usagi's funds might not have been the best. It was however, unlike in DMC's case, a loss in % which was following the loss made by the mining assets Usagi's funds were supposed to be invested into.

As for the part III.b, Nefario never made Usagi the head of a commission to review GLBSE assets to be included or gave him any decisive power. Usagi simply took the initiative to gather issuers/large investors to include in a group to review assets. Nefario refused to give them any decisive power however. He was simply taking feedback and suggestions from them regarding listings and other things since they were already heavy GLBSE users.

For these reasons Nefario should wear the scammer tag unless or until:

A. He personally refunds all investors in any and all Usagi funds to the value of their original investment or

B. He personally refunds all investors in DMC and TYGR-* to the value of their original investment.

tl;dr: You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't run away and hide for a couple weeks until people forget. It worked with LIF.x, it worked with the numerous other scams hosted by GLBSE, but it has to end sometime.

According to your claims it does not seem you are accusing Nefario of scamming or defrauding anyone. It seems you are accusing him of being incompetent.

I really like MPEx, but I do not appreciate how you've been managing PR for it. If you're to propose MPEx as the best choice by attacking the competition's credibility instead of promoting MPEx's superiority, at least get your facts straight and quoted in full.

[coinft]

Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.

I beg to disagree. It is not just bad luck or lack of skill he made these bad decisions. He made them to fight Goat with the maximum effect possible, out of malice, with no care for his customers, causing huge collateral damage. Quite likely he overstepped legal bounds and could be held liable to his customers. To draw a course analogy, you can't use a gun in a bar fight, shoot bystanders, and claim self defense.

I hold some TYGRR.BOND-A shares. Most of their value stems from being able to trade them easily on GLBSE. There is no guaranteed buy back clause in the original contract, even if we find a way to safely use the given "code". Who is refunding share holders of the willful damage done to these shares? Can Nefario prove, or at least argue, why it was necessary to delist BOND-A, instead of lesser actions like only freezing Goat's account? He is silent on this matter, despite repeated questions, because he knows there is no defense.

[coinft]

"Hearing" doesn't mean acting.  You have a history of bias.  That you can't see it may actually make it prejudice.

I know that I'm biased, which is why I like to be told when people feel that I am. That being said, I don't care if my bias causes me to declare a guilty person innocent, only the other way around. You could even say that the previous statement is biased, and you'd be correct, except that it is very intentional.

This is fair in a criminal court.

However, civil charges and liability involved, declaring a guilty person innocent directly harms other people, so I think you should care and carefully consider the damage of any decision.

[MPOE-PR]

The asset started from an IPO of 1 BTC and ended up trading at 0.011 BTC each, something unseen before. Diablo-D3 was frequently doing DMC to other assets trade-in under the current NAV to entice trades. Each time pushing value down.

This part is not in contention.

The accounts were unblocked because a motion was accepted, asking shareholders if they wanted to keep Diablo-D3 as the manager.

This part is also not in contention, nor is it material.

As to your objection to III.b, I recall seeing somewhere Usagi claiming that (a Goat quote, if memory serves). You may well be correct, it's quite impossible to know the truth of that matter.

According to your claims it does not seem you are accusing Nefario of scamming or defrauding anyone. It seems you are accusing him of being incompetent.

Well you'd have to re-read them in that case.

I really like MPEx, but I do not appreciate how you've been managing PR for it. If you're to propose MPEx as the best choice by attacking the competition's credibility instead of promoting MPEx's superiority, at least get your facts straight and quoted in full.

What's this to do with anything? Quoting in full is not practical for the obvious reason that even if I could be bothered to do it nobody'd be bothered to read it, some summarization is unavoidable. Otherwise the facts are pretty much straight, I would say (even if you've offered your own opinion as to what may or may not have been the case with III.b., that opinion is not a fact quite yet.)

[Namworld]

III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.

As to your objection to III.b, I recall seeing somewhere Usagi claiming that (a Goat quote, if memory serves). You may well be correct, it's quite impossible to know the truth of that matter.

It is actually quite possible to know as I'm one of the GLBSE user who was included in said group. Hence why I claimed this. It is true however Usagi actually wanted to have a group which had voting power on listing new assets, but Nefario never agreed to that. He strictly agreed to receive input and opinions. He kept all decision power.

It is this kind of situation for which you should have full quotes from an official source before claiming things as facts. People spot those false "facts" in your posts constantly, which pass a lot of hearsay as "facts".

I really like MPEx, but I do not appreciate how you've been managing PR for it. If you're to propose MPEx as the best choice by attacking the competition's credibility instead of promoting MPEx's superiority, at least get your facts straight and quoted in full.

What's this to do with anything? Quoting in full is not practical for the obvious reason that even if I could be bothered to do it nobody'd be bothered to read it, some summarization is unavoidable. Otherwise the facts are pretty much straight, I would say (even if you've offered your own opinion as to what may or may not have been the case with III.b., that opinion is not a fact quite yet.)

Neither would your opinion be more of a fact for III.b., although you present it as a fact. I however can confirm Nefario never appointed Usagi to take any kind of decision.

It has to do with the fact you're the public face of MPEx and it seems you promote MPEx by attacking competing services' credibility. But it hurts your own credibility when you present as facts what is actually hearsay without quoting an official source. I would simply appreciate that better diligence be done when researching information before presenting them as facts. If claims are made by an unofficial source to the concerned party, it would also be good to quote that person so people know who made that claim which is just that, until proven false or true. People have been spotting and complaining multiple times in your reports lines that are without any quotes making affirmations as if they were fact, when you are simply reporting claims made by others.

As for the OP, Nefario isn't responsible for the actions of others. If Usagi/Diablo is a scammer, you don't blame the middleman unless you can prove he knowingly aided and abetted it. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Once Nefario used his position of authority to act in a certain way, all the people harmed by his failure to act in the same way in the same circumstances had a legitimate claim against him. This isn't me making shit up, this is 500 years of established equitable practice at common law and possibly more than 500 years in the civil system. You might not know about this, even if it's basic and well known in the legal profession; it's obscure from a public PoV, and I guess nobody told you to go to law school first if you want to be a mod on some forum. However, you must know socially someone who actually is a solicitor/barrister/etc. Ask them.

I would have to say, this seems like negligence. But again, he acted once on DMC because it went to around 1% of IPO price, something unseen before elsewhere, which is why he acted this way. Normally, he does act (suspension of trading) when an asset operator runs away. He never quite moderated the GLBSE market and moderates it more and more strictly under pressure from the public. He never claimed to verify if anything issuing on GLBSE was to be a scam or not, as it is not verifiable. He also chose to allow anyone to issue, regardless of the risk for it to turn out to be a scam.

Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise. The fact he allows most people to issue on the platform and does not investigate who the issuer is does not suddenly make him the cause of the scam occuring, just like you don't blame the forum owner here for scams occurring in the marketplace. Bitcoiners are left to do their own homework before departing themselves of their Bitcoins.

[JoelKatz]

Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise.

Although I wouldn't say I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, it certainly appears (at least to me) more likely than not that Nefario delisted all of Goat's assets just to get back at Goat for an unrelated issue and defrauded GLBSE customers that owned those assets by completely disregarding his obligation to protect the value of their ownership interests in those assets. There is no way he could not have known that the delisting would reduce the value of those assets.

[Namworld]

Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise.

Although I wouldn't say I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, it certainly appears (at least to me) more likely than not that Nefario delisted all of Goat's assets just to get back at Goat for an unrelated issue and defrauded GLBSE customers that owned those assets by completely disregarding his obligation to protect the value of their ownership interests in those assets. There is no way he could not have known that the delisting would reduce the value of those assets.

Actual stock exchanges that are regulated can delist stocks for a variety of reasons (inluding no longer meeting listing requirements) and are not obligated to protect it's value. The company behind the stocks are ultimately responsible for managing the security, with or without a stock market to trade on. To defraud would have required Nefario to steal those customers funds and run with them.

Fraud is committed on major stock exchanges and those stock exchange can delist stocks no longer fitting the requirements. They are not normally held responsible for that however, they are simply a medium for company and investors to trade assets. That an asset gets delisted does not prevent it's trade over-the-counter between whoever is willing to trade the assets or the company to pay the shareholders.

I can only agree to the fact that the delisting was rashly and poorly executed, definitely in an attempt to sanction Chaang. I can also agree that the delisting method provided for proof of ownership is poorly adequate.

Albeit I also believe this unregulated market is far from ideal, Nefario did not personally scam/defraud anyone yet, until proven otherwise.

I am not attempting to be contentious with this question.  Please keep that in mind. :-)

Does closing the site, freezing funds¹, and generally refusing to comment or explain the situation, fulfill at least the forum requirements to be marked as a scammer, at least until such time as repair is made?

¹ While people should not invest more than they can lose, we know people are retards, morons, and semi-sentient gagslime.  Doing this at the beginning of the month means that a number of people are probably in a position of having to go elsewhere for rent, utility, or other money.  Never mind the lost opportunity to exit their BTC position with the recent spike and re-enter now that it has dipped.

I've seen much bigger businesses go offline than GLBSE for technical reason. I don't immediately call it a fraud after 1 or 2 days however. I'm aware many people are concerned with the previous events (Bitcoinica, Pirate, etc.), but I would not pronounce myself yet on that matter, especially after such a short time has passed.

[Sant001]

I don't understand where GLBSE thinks they get the authority to issue these codes without negotiating a delisting procedure with you. And by failing to even try to do that, they've seriously betrayed their customers who now have a worthless code, with no known redemption scheme, instead of an ownership interest in an asset.

Perhaps another exchange could accept these codes? Perhaps OP and Goat could work this out together?

[MPOE-PR]

Can we finally get a move on this please?

[Yolocoin]

Well considering that Theymos is part owner GLBSE, and the scams listed were perpetrated by GLBSE in an official capacity, shouldn't Theymos get a scammer tag too?

[smoothie]

Well considering that Theymos is part owner GLBSE, and the scams listed were perpetrated by GLBSE in an official capacity, shouldn't Theymos get a scammer tag too?

I don't see what Theymos did under his own actions/will that was scammer material.

[DiabloD3]

Well considering that Theymos is part owner GLBSE, and the scams listed were perpetrated by GLBSE in an official capacity, shouldn't Theymos get a scammer tag too?

No, simply because nefario clearly was not involving the board. He did not follow their orders, he did not communicate with them, and now no one knows why the site is down.

I don't blame Theymos for selling his share in GLBSE, its a sinking ship.

[Yolocoin]

Ownership is part and parcel to responsibility.

[fcmatt]

Well considering that Theymos is part owner GLBSE, and the scams listed were perpetrated by GLBSE in an official capacity, shouldn't Theymos get a scammer tag too?

No, simply because nefario clearly was not involving the board. He did not follow their orders, he did not communicate with them, and now no one knows why the site is down.

I don't blame Theymos for selling his share in GLBSE, its a sinking ship.

Pfft. We now see the mods defending each other.
Part owner gets ripped off and that excuses the part owner from responsibility for customers getting ripped.
Why am i not surprised?

[Bogart]

Well considering that Theymos is part owner GLBSE, and the scams listed were perpetrated by GLBSE in an official capacity, shouldn't Theymos get a scammer tag too?

No, simply because nefario clearly was not involving the board. He did not follow their orders, he did not communicate with them, and now no one knows why the site is down.

I don't blame Theymos for selling his share in GLBSE, its a sinking ship.

Pfft. We now see the mods defending each other.
Part owner gets ripped off and that excuses the part owner from responsibility for customers getting ripped.
Why am i not surprised?

The company GLBSE took our assets.  The liability belongs to the company.  As for which individuals within the company the blame lies with, that's a matter for the company to sort out internally.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Well considering that Theymos is part owner GLBSE, and the scams listed were perpetrated by GLBSE in an official capacity, shouldn't Theymos get a scammer tag too?

No, simply because nefario clearly was not involving the board. He did not follow their orders, he did not communicate with them, and now no one knows why the site is down.

I don't blame Theymos for selling his share in GLBSE, its a sinking ship.

Pfft. We now see the mods defending each other.
Part owner gets ripped off and that excuses the part owner from responsibility for customers getting ripped.
Why am i not surprised?

The company GLBSE took our assets.  The liability belongs to the company.  As for which individuals within the company the blame lies with, that's a matter for the company to sort out internally.

GLBSE isnt a company. According to the government only Nefario is responsible and anyone else associated with it is invisible. Which is why he wont be able to explain where all the money went.

[fcmatt]

Well considering that Theymos is part owner GLBSE, and the scams listed were perpetrated by GLBSE in an official capacity, shouldn't Theymos get a scammer tag too?

No, simply because nefario clearly was not involving the board. He did not follow their orders, he did not communicate with them, and now no one knows why the site is down.

I don't blame Theymos for selling his share in GLBSE, its a sinking ship.

Pfft. We now see the mods defending each other.
Part owner gets ripped off and that excuses the part owner from responsibility for customers getting ripped.
Why am i not surprised?

The company GLBSE took our assets.  The liability belongs to the company.  As for which individuals within the company the blame lies with, that's a matter for the company to sort out internally.

GLBSE isnt a company. According to the government only Nefario is responsible and anyone else associated with it is invisible. Which is why he wont be able to explain where all the money went.

Theymos has 600-800 btc of gblse assets. How can one say nefario is the only one responsible is hilarious.
Gblse are trying to get off a sinking ship without any crap hitting them as they jump.
Nefario is a perfect scapegoat.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Well considering that Theymos is part owner GLBSE, and the scams listed were perpetrated by GLBSE in an official capacity, shouldn't Theymos get a scammer tag too?

No, simply because nefario clearly was not involving the board. He did not follow their orders, he did not communicate with them, and now no one knows why the site is down.

I don't blame Theymos for selling his share in GLBSE, its a sinking ship.

Pfft. We now see the mods defending each other.
Part owner gets ripped off and that excuses the part owner from responsibility for customers getting ripped.
Why am i not surprised?

The company GLBSE took our assets.  The liability belongs to the company.  As for which individuals within the company the blame lies with, that's a matter for the company to sort out internally.

GLBSE isnt a company. According to the government only Nefario is responsible and anyone else associated with it is invisible. Which is why he wont be able to explain where all the money went.

Theymos has 600-800 btc of gblse assets. How can one say nefario is the only one responsible is hilarious.
Gblse are trying to get off a sinking ship without any crap hitting them as they jump.
Nefario is a perfect scapegoat.

Nefario is the operator and makes the day to day decisions. Theymos is the treasurer.

Anyone who knows anything about  associations or unions or even non profit orgs can tell you how that works.

[repentance]

Nefario is the operator and makes the day to day decisions. Theymos is the treasurer.

Anyone who knows anything about  associations or unions or even non profit orgs can tell you how that works.

It works that way if they're legally incorporated as such.  If they're not, the business has no separate legal status from the individuals who comprise it - all of the individuals.  Even if it was incorporated, the office-holders are legally liable and the treasurer is an office-bearer.

[HorseRider]

I think if nefario return all the bitcoins and the issuer-shareholder relationship database to GLBSE users, there will not be likely anyone suing Nefario and other GLBSE Global partners.. I don't think SEC will sue or after GLBSE persistently. SEC will just force GLBSE shut down by giving a warning. GLBSE is a very small business, SEC has something bigger to deal with its limited budget.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Nefario is the operator and makes the day to day decisions. Theymos is the treasurer.

Anyone who knows anything about  associations or unions or even non profit orgs can tell you how that works.

It works that way if they're legally incorporated as such.  If they're not, the business has no separate legal status from the individuals who comprise it - all of the individuals.  Even if it was incorporated, the office-holders are legally liable and the treasurer is an office-bearer.

You cant sue people for obeying the law. Which is basically what Nefario is doing, and you cant force the shareholders to do something illegal. If it goes well people will get their coins back, it sucks that AMl is involved but you gotta do what you gotta do.

[repentance]

I think if nefario return all the bitcoins and the issuer-shareholder relationship database to GLBSE users, there will not be likely anyone suing Nefario and other GLBSE Global partners.. I don't think SEC will sue or after GLBSE persistently. SEC will just force GLBSE shut down by giving a warning. GLBSE is a very small business, SEC has something bigger to deal with its limited budget.

Nobody knows at this point what legal issue has brought about the sudden closure of GLBSE because Nefario has so far refused to reveal that information.  While the catalyst may well have been the SEC's investigation into pirate, it could be the UK's FSA which has delivered the smack down.  While it's true that regulators rarely pursue criminal charges against small operators, that doesn't mean that they don't issue administrative penalties against small operators.  Regulators also decide to blitz specific types of illegal activity from time to time and they generally throw the book at anyone who gets caught during such blitzes.

That GLBSE was offering unregistered securities to the public is only one legal issue.  It also played a role in facilitating pirate's scam and that may create a bigger legal problem for the owners than simply operating an unregulated exchange.

[stochastic]

I thought bitcoin was just a very expensive version of Second Life.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I thought bitcoin was just a very expensive version of Second Life.

lol so did I. Theres a stock market in second life 

[stochastic]

I thought bitcoin was just a very expensive version of Second Life.

lol so did I. Theres a stock market in second life 

Every bitcoin venture should use a TOS similar to Second Life.

[coinft]

I think if nefario return all the bitcoins and the issuer-shareholder relationship database to GLBSE users, there will not be likely anyone suing Nefario and other GLBSE Global partners.. I don't think SEC will sue or after GLBSE persistently. SEC will just force GLBSE shut down by giving a warning. GLBSE is a very small business, SEC has something bigger to deal with its limited budget.

SEC will want to identify everyone involved to follow all the money flows to get to the big fish. For cooperation they might waive criminal charges, but I doubt they will let off GLBSE easily.

Any way I want

 - my money back
 - compensation for loss of value while I couldn't dispose of my assets as I wished to.

[smickles]

Well, competition in scammertag requests in an interesting application of the free market.

Also, as if nefario was ever going to come to 'merica after the refused him entry before, I'm sure he's not coming here after this.

[JoelKatz]

You cant sue people for obeying the law. Which is basically what Nefario is doing,

That is absolutely not true. Otherwise, an unlicensed contractor could make a contract to do some work for you, take your money, and then say, "Sorry, I'm unlicensed. I can't legally do the work."

and you cant force the shareholders to do something illegal.

Of course, but it's always legal to pay damages. You're certainly right that you couldn't force the contractor in my example to do the work. But you can certainly get your money back alone with any other damages, including punitive damages.

If it goes well people will get their coins back, it sucks that AMl is involved but you gotta do what you gotta do.

That's pure speculation at this point, at least so far as I know. If the contractor in my example says, "Sorry, the contracting board says I'm not licensed to do the work. Bye.", do you just take his word for it and let him off the hook for any damages you suffered? Asset owners have suffered damages because they relied on GLBSE.

[matthewh3]

I think if nefario return all the bitcoins and the issuer-shareholder relationship database to GLBSE users, there will not be likely anyone suing Nefario and other GLBSE Global partners.. I don't think SEC will sue or after GLBSE persistently. SEC will just force GLBSE shut down by giving a warning. GLBSE is a very small business, SEC has something bigger to deal with its limited budget.

Nobody knows at this point what legal issue has brought about the sudden closure of GLBSE because Nefario has so far refused to reveal that information.  While the catalyst may well have been the SEC's investigation into pirate, it could be the UK's FSA which has delivered the smack down.  While it's true that regulators rarely pursue criminal charges against small operators, that doesn't mean that they don't issue administrative penalties against small operators.  Regulators also decide to blitz specific types of illegal activity from time to time and they generally throw the book at anyone who gets caught during such blitzes.

That GLBSE was offering unregistered securities to the public is only one legal issue.  It also played a role in facilitating pirate's scam and that may create a bigger legal problem for the owners than simply operating an unregulated exchange.

Well I do I spoke to him on the phone.  He risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering and that's without any tax issues.  Nafario's get out of jail card is that everyone who wants to withdraw coins or shares will have to comply with AML regulations.  He also said he will soon have a way for assets to pay dividends but not trade shares.

[repentance]

Well I do I spoke to him on the phone.  He risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering and that's without any tax issues.  Nafario's get out of jail card is that everyone who wants to withdraw coins or shares will have to comply with AML regulations.  He also said he will soon have a way for assets to pay dividends but not trade shares.

Can you, or one of the shareholders, clarify something for the rest of us?

"Risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering, etc" could mean that in the process of looking to legitimise GBLSE (and the fact that Nefario has openly posted that intention here implies that he knew GBLSE was not operating legitimately), his lawyer has become aware of how GBLSE was operating and said "holy fuck, close that shit down right now because you're violating AML/CTF laws all over the place and if the authorities find out what you've been doing you could go to jail - and make sure you get user information so that if this blows up at a later date you've covered your ass a bit".

Another option is that the authorities have become aware of GBLSE's activities and directed him to shut down GBLSE or face prosecution.

It's not clear from what's been posted by those who've had contact with Nefario whether the authorities have anything to do with this decision or whether it's a pre-emptive move which came about because when he finally consulted a lawyer about GBLSE, the reality of what he was doing and the risks he was taking finally sunk in for Nefario.  Can you shed any light at all on this?

[chrisrico]

Well I do I spoke to him on the phone.  He risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering and that's without any tax issues.  Nafario's get out of jail card is that everyone who wants to withdraw coins or shares will have to comply with AML regulations.  He also said he will soon have a way for assets to pay dividends but not trade shares.

He told you this? That's funny, because he refused to tell the shareholders anything. He would not even confirm (never mind provide evidence) that he was under legal duress.

[matthewh3]

Well I do I spoke to him on the phone.  He risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering and that's without any tax issues.  Nafario's get out of jail card is that everyone who wants to withdraw coins or shares will have to comply with AML regulations.  He also said he will soon have a way for assets to pay dividends but not trade shares.

He told you this? That's funny, because he refused to tell the shareholders anything. He would not even confirm (never mind provide evidence) that he was under legal duress.

Well believe me or not but I also have Nafario on my personal Facebook as well as having his phone number.  You think I'm making this up then why would I do that.  I think Nafario has been directly in touch with the majority of shareholders and what he told me is nothing he hasn't already repeated on the phone at least several times today already.  

[matthewh3]

Well I do I spoke to him on the phone.  He risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering and that's without any tax issues.  Nafario's get out of jail card is that everyone who wants to withdraw coins or shares will have to comply with AML regulations.  He also said he will soon have a way for assets to pay dividends but not trade shares.

He told you this? That's funny, because he refused to tell the shareholders anything. He would not even confirm (never mind provide evidence) that he was under legal duress.

Nefario is widely known to be a dumbshit.  I could see him trying to justify himself if someone called him on the phone.

I suspect he has been specifically banned from this forum by anyone giving him any advice, though.

Yes and so he should.  I've had an asset on the exchange since version 1.0 and need to pay dividends.  We are also friends and I was digging information not just for myself but on the request of some others.

[repentance]

We are also friends and I was digging information not just for myself but on the request of some others.

Then you should be able to tell us whether or not he's shut down GBLSE in response to an immediate threat of prosecution by a regulatory authority or whether it's simply a pre-emptive move because consulting a lawyer about "legitimising" GBLSE made him aware of the enormity of the risks he was taking by facilitating anonymous trading of unregistered securities.

There is simply no excuse for him not providing this information to shareholders, even if you believe that issuers and users aren't entitled to that information.  If he's not providing that information because he's been advised not to by his lawyer, then he needs to state that.  If he says nothing, people are going to assume that GBSLE is under active investigation and that Nefario is co-operating with the authorities by helping them to obtain evidence which may be used to prosecute the issuers of unregistered securities (and possibly their users).  If GBLSE is under active investigation,  issuers can be expected to throw Nefario under a bus and claim that they relied on his assurances that their assets were legal because the exchange was operated outside of the US and ...Bitcoin.

At this point, it does matter whether the closure of GBLSE was pre-emptive or not.  People are going to assume the worst if it's not clarified and it's reasonable for them to do so. 

[matthewh3]

We are also friends and I was digging information not just for myself but on the request of some others.

Then you should be able to tell us whether or not he's shut down GBLSE in response to an immediate threat of prosecution by a regulatory authority or whether it's simply a pre-emptive move because consulting a lawyer about "legitimising" GBLSE made him aware of the enormity of the risks he was taking by facilitating anonymous trading of unregistered securities.

There is simply no excuse for him not providing this information to shareholders, even if you believe that issuers and users aren't entitled to that information.  If he's not providing that information because he's been advised not to by his lawyer, then he needs to state that.  If he says nothing, people are going to assume that GBSLE is under active investigation and that Nefario is co-operating with the authorities by helping them to obtain evidence which may be used to prosecute the issuers of unregistered securities (and possibly their users).  If GBLSE is under active investigation,  issuers can be expected to throw Nefario under a bus and claim that they relied on his assurances that their assets were legal because the exchange was operated outside of the US and ...Bitcoin.

At this point, it does matter whether the closure of GBLSE was pre-emptive or not.  People are going to assume the worst if it's not clarified and it's reasonable for them to do so.  

I think Nafario has contacted all major shareholders and won a motion to stay CEO as well.  I run RSM and in no way did he hint I'm under investegation.  I even offered to proxy ID for someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) assets and coins and he only warned me of potential problem arising from future investigations into his accounts and didn't tell me not to do it just only advised me on any future potential pitfalls.

[repentance]

I run RSM and in no way did he hint I'm under investegation.  I even offered to proxy ID for the IBB (who wishes to remain anonymous) assets and coins and he only warned me of potential problem arising from future investigations into his accounts and didn't tell me not to do it just only advised me on any future potential pitfalls.

That's kind of what I suspected - that when he consulted an actual lawyer he found out that "because...Bitcoin" and being outside of the US did not insulate him from possible prosecution for AML/CTF and taxation/securities violations, despite what he'd so confidently claimed on here previously.

In future, when people offering financial services on this forum make such claims users should demand to see written legal opinions supporting those claims.  If the offerer can't provide them, it's reasonable to assume that they haven't sought any legal advice whatsoever and are just dribbling bullshit.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Well I do I spoke to him on the phone.  He risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering and that's without any tax issues.  Nafario's get out of jail card is that everyone who wants to withdraw coins or shares will have to comply with AML regulations.  He also said he will soon have a way for assets to pay dividends but not trade shares.

He told you this? That's funny, because he refused to tell the shareholders anything. He would not even confirm (never mind provide evidence) that he was under legal duress.

Nefario is widely known to be a dumbshit.  I could see him trying to justify himself if someone called him on the phone.

I suspect he has been specifically banned from this forum by anyone giving him any advice, though.

Correct. Hes not going to be posting here. And he isnt telling the shareholders anything either, even though they are supposedly footing the bill for his lawyer.

[repentance]

This is all "risk profile" stuff.  If you have the stones, by all means, feel free to "invest" with these "people".

The more legitimate information an asset seller provides, the higher the premium they should be able to command.  If it's SLKRD.ETF with nothing behind it but a nom de guerre of "FUCKDAPOLICE", well, good luck on that one.

This is grown up land and you have the right to make choices that I might call completely fucking stupid. (I will, watch me.)

I think that many people on here are actively seeking illegal investments rather than believing that the schemes offered here are in any way legitimate.  Perhaps they believe that there's less risk of being caught if their illegal activity takes place online or perhaps they don't have the real world connections to participate in high return illegal activity, but people were perfectly happy to keep throwing BTC at pirate when it was believed he was using them to launder money for unsavoury clients.  I have no doubt that if someone offered shares in a child porn distribution ring or a cocaine cartel on here there'd be users scrambling to get in on the action.

[repentance]

Holy shit.  I need to run a Turing test sometime to see if you are a bot or if there is truly someone who has a lower opinion of most of the bitcoin forum participants than I do.

Nope, just a lot of experience with how incredibly stupid human beings become in pursuit of money (419 scams, anyone).  While there are a fair number of ideological purists here and people trying to build legitimate, fully legal Bitcoin enterprises, just as surely as the nature of Bitcoin makes it a magnet for scammers it's also going to attract its fair share of bottom-feeders.

It's a mistake to assume that everyone who participates in Bitcoin actually cares about Bitcoin in and of itself.  For many, it's either just another way to make money scamming people or just another tool to facilitate already criminal activity.  SR prohibits the advertising of certain products/services precisely because they're realistic enough to know that people would use SR (and by extension BTC) to purchase them if they were advertised there.

[MPOE-PR]

Well I do I spoke to him on the phone.  He risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering and that's without any tax issues.  Nafario's get out of jail card is that everyone who wants to withdraw coins or shares will have to comply with AML regulations.  He also said he will soon have a way for assets to pay dividends but not trade shares.

Can you, or one of the shareholders, clarify something for the rest of us?

"Risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering, etc" could mean that in the process of looking to legitimise GBLSE (and the fact that Nefario has openly posted that intention here implies that he knew GBLSE was not operating legitimately), his lawyer has become aware of how GBLSE was operating and said "holy fuck, close that shit down right now because you're violating AML/CTF laws all over the place and if the authorities find out what you've been doing you could go to jail - and make sure you get user information so that if this blows up at a later date you've covered your ass a bit".

Another option is that the authorities have become aware of GBLSE's activities and directed him to shut down GBLSE or face prosecution.

It's not clear from what's been posted by those who've had contact with Nefario whether the authorities have anything to do with this decision or whether it's a pre-emptive move which came about because when he finally consulted a lawyer about GBLSE, the reality of what he was doing and the risks he was taking finally sunk in for Nefario.  Can you shed any light at all on this?

A third alternative would be that the voices have been asking him to sacrifice a goat (and also close down glbse and spend theymos' unholy money on collectible first edition pet rocks).

This is all "risk profile" stuff.  If you have the stones, by all means, feel free to "invest" with these "people".

The more legitimate information an asset seller provides, the higher the premium they should be able to command.  If it's SLKRD.ETF with nothing behind it but a nom de guerre of "FUCKDAPOLICE", well, good luck on that one.

This is grown up land and you have the right to make choices that I might call completely fucking stupid. (I will, watch me.)

I think that many people on here are actively seeking illegal investments rather than believing that the schemes offered here are in any way legitimate.  Perhaps they believe that there's less risk of being caught if their illegal activity takes place online or perhaps they don't have the real world connections to participate in high return illegal activity, but people were perfectly happy to keep throwing BTC at pirate when it was believed he was using them to launder money for unsavoury clients.  I have no doubt that if someone offered shares in a child porn distribution ring or a cocaine cartel on here there'd be users scrambling to get in on the action.

This theory of yours would probably hold a lot more water if it weren't that the armory (that thing designed by SR to sell weapons, explosives and such) weren't closed for...economic reasons. That's right: nobody wanted to buy them, nobody had them for sale, it wasn't a political problem at all.

You'd think weapons would be the thing to interest these imaginary "terrorists" the US gov't keeps yakking about to distract everyone from the fact they're eating food their parents wouldn't have fed to stray dogs.

Just a thought.

[repentance]

You'd think weapons would be the thing to interest these imaginary "terrorists" the US gov't keeps yakking about to distract everyone from the fact they're eating food their parents wouldn't have fed to stray dogs.

Just a thought.

Few people used The Armory because the majority of users could obtain weapons cheaper, more conveniently and legally elsewhere.  Delivery is the weak point for illegal goods which are physical - it's where the illegal activity is most vulnerable.  Bitcoin is obviously attractive for laundering the proceeds of those illegal activities, though.

With child porn, you have a product which can be delivered digitally - the weak link in the chain is payment.  When you can anonymise both payment and delivery, you lessen the risk of detection.

[Dalkore]

We are also friends and I was digging information not just for myself but on the request of some others.

Then you should be able to tell us whether or not he's shut down GBLSE in response to an immediate threat of prosecution by a regulatory authority or whether it's simply a pre-emptive move because consulting a lawyer about "legitimising" GBLSE made him aware of the enormity of the risks he was taking by facilitating anonymous trading of unregistered securities.

There is simply no excuse for him not providing this information to shareholders, even if you believe that issuers and users aren't entitled to that information.  If he's not providing that information because he's been advised not to by his lawyer, then he needs to state that.  If he says nothing, people are going to assume that GBSLE is under active investigation and that Nefario is co-operating with the authorities by helping them to obtain evidence which may be used to prosecute the issuers of unregistered securities (and possibly their users).  If GBLSE is under active investigation,  issuers can be expected to throw Nefario under a bus and claim that they relied on his assurances that their assets were legal because the exchange was operated outside of the US and ...Bitcoin.

At this point, it does matter whether the closure of GBLSE was pre-emptive or not.  People are going to assume the worst if it's not clarified and it's reasonable for them to do so.  

I think Nafario has contacted all major shareholders and won a motion to stay CEO as well.  I run RSM and in no way did he hint I'm under investegation.  I even offered to proxy ID for the IBB (who wishes to remain anonymous) assets and coins and he only warned me of potential problem arising from future investigations into his accounts and didn't tell me not to do it just only advised me on any future potential pitfalls.

MatthewH3 - Again here you are giving us the inside scoop???   Also his usename is Nefario.    Also what do you mean by "I think Nafario has contacted all major shareholders and won a motion to stay CEO as well".  It is so interesting you have all this info but the person whole should be making official statements is no where to be found?  

[repentance]

MatthewH3 - Again here you are giving us the inside scoop???   Also his usename is Nefario.    Also what do you mean by "I think Nafario has contacted all major shareholders and won a motion to stay CEO as well".  It is so interesting you have all this info but the person whole should be making official statements is no where to be found?  

I have to agree.  If Nefario's not willing to come here and make an official statement himself then he needs to write an official statement for posting by someone else.  It's really just adding to the confusion having people who've spoken to Nefario posting stuff which is in conflict with what's been posted on the website.  Either Nefario or the shareholders need to clarify which version of the truth is the factual truth as it's going to affect the willingness of users to submit claims.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Well I do I spoke to him on the phone.  He risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering and that's without any tax issues.  Nafario's get out of jail card is that everyone who wants to withdraw coins or shares will have to comply with AML regulations.  He also said he will soon have a way for assets to pay dividends but not trade shares.

Can you, or one of the shareholders, clarify something for the rest of us?

"Risks jail time for funding terrorism, money laundering, etc" could mean that in the process of looking to legitimise GBLSE (and the fact that Nefario has openly posted that intention here implies that he knew GBLSE was not operating legitimately), his lawyer has become aware of how GBLSE was operating and said "holy fuck, close that shit down right now because you're violating AML/CTF laws all over the place and if the authorities find out what you've been doing you could go to jail - and make sure you get user information so that if this blows up at a later date you've covered your ass a bit".

Another option is that the authorities have become aware of GBLSE's activities and directed him to shut down GBLSE or face prosecution.

It's not clear from what's been posted by those who've had contact with Nefario whether the authorities have anything to do with this decision or whether it's a pre-emptive move which came about because when he finally consulted a lawyer about GBLSE, the reality of what he was doing and the risks he was taking finally sunk in for Nefario.  Can you shed any light at all on this?

A third alternative would be that the voices have been asking him to sacrifice a goat (and also close down glbse and spend theymos' unholy money on collectible first edition pet rocks).

This is all "risk profile" stuff.  If you have the stones, by all means, feel free to "invest" with these "people".

The more legitimate information an asset seller provides, the higher the premium they should be able to command.  If it's SLKRD.ETF with nothing behind it but a nom de guerre of "FUCKDAPOLICE", well, good luck on that one.

This is grown up land and you have the right to make choices that I might call completely fucking stupid. (I will, watch me.)

I think that many people on here are actively seeking illegal investments rather than believing that the schemes offered here are in any way legitimate.  Perhaps they believe that there's less risk of being caught if their illegal activity takes place online or perhaps they don't have the real world connections to participate in high return illegal activity, but people were perfectly happy to keep throwing BTC at pirate when it was believed he was using them to launder money for unsavoury clients.  I have no doubt that if someone offered shares in a child porn distribution ring or a cocaine cartel on here there'd be users scrambling to get in on the action.

This theory of yours would probably hold a lot more water if it weren't that the armory (that thing designed by SR to sell weapons, explosives and such) weren't closed for...economic reasons. That's right: nobody wanted to buy them, nobody had them for sale, it wasn't a political problem at all.

You'd think weapons would be the thing to interest these imaginary "terrorists" the US gov't keeps yakking about to distract everyone from the fact they're eating food their parents wouldn't have fed to stray dogs.

Just a thought.

I would have never thought people would be less likely to shoot each other when they can trade instead

[MPOE-PR]

You'd think weapons would be the thing to interest these imaginary "terrorists" the US gov't keeps yakking about to distract everyone from the fact they're eating food their parents wouldn't have fed to stray dogs.

Just a thought.

Few people used The Armory because the majority of users could obtain weapons cheaper, more conveniently and legally elsewhere.  Delivery is the weak point for illegal goods which are physical - it's where the illegal activity is most vulnerable.  Bitcoin is obviously attractive for laundering the proceeds of those illegal activities, though.

With child porn, you have a product which can be delivered digitally - the weak link in the chain is payment.  When you can anonymise both payment and delivery, you lessen the risk of detection.

So basically the fearsome terrorists are mostly shut-in wankers of great danger. Oh how the worldview changes by the minute.

Seriously now. What terrorists?

[MPOE-PR]

MatthewH3 - Again here you are giving us the inside scoop???   Also his usename is Nefario.    Also what do you mean by "I think Nafario has contacted all major shareholders and won a motion to stay CEO as well".  It is so interesting you have all this info but the person whole should be making official statements is no where to be found?  

The guy is mostly famous for

from his red star mining thread.

[Dalkore]

@ MPOE-PR -   Here is a handy post with all of Matthewh3's updates about GBLSE.  Someone said they can't PM Nefario at this point.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117009.0

[MPOE-PR]

I appreciate the fact this request was in fact granted, even if that crook theymos made a separate thread (with pretty much no substantiation).

[JoelKatz]

I apologize for the late reply to this post, and I realize some of these issues are out of date at this point. I just noticed it, and I think it's worth replying to because the relationship GLBSE has with asset owners is not like anything ordinary stock exchanges have, and this difference seems to keep getting forgotten:

Actual stock exchanges that are regulated can delist stocks for a variety of reasons (inluding no longer meeting listing requirements) and are not obligated to protect it's value.

That's because they have no continuing agreement with the owner of those assets. GLBSE does.

The company behind the stocks are ultimately responsible for managing the security, with or without a stock market to trade on.

Again, that can't work with stocks listed on GLBSE because the issuer has no way to tell who owns the stock, no way to pay dividends, and so on. Also, it can't work because there is no alternative to GLBSE and many of these securities simply can't work without an exchange to trade on. Of course, that's not GLBSE's fault or responsibility, but it is something GLBSE is obligated to take into account when it decides to delist an asset -- you can't harm people that reasonably relied on you, and to whom you have a continuing obligation, arbitrarily.

To defraud would have required Nefario to steal those customers funds and run with them.

Which he may have done. We don't know. Given that there's no way issuers can redeem the assets through actions we can attribute to Nefario, there is no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt  here. The people who bought stocks through GLBSE relied on GLBSE to protect their ownership of the assets and it is GLBSE's default that has totally cut them off from that interest. Nobody can recover that interest without at least GLBSE's assistance.

Fraud is committed on major stock exchanges and those stock exchange can delist stocks no longer fitting the requirements. They are not normally held responsible for that however, they are simply a medium for company and investors to trade assets. That an asset gets delisted does not prevent it's trade over-the-counter between whoever is willing to trade the assets or the company to pay the shareholders.

Right, but that reasoning is not applicable to GLBSE because asset owners have a continuing relationship with GLBSE to track their ownership interest and facilitate buybacks, handle dividends, and so on. And, so far as we know, this wasn't a delisting for cause. Also, GBLSE could have delisted the asset in a way that protect its customers' ownership interest but chose not to for no reason. Customers had every right to rely on GLBSE to preserve their ownership interest and it appears Nefario didn't even consider this at all. To so totally disregard a contractual obligation is shocking. He had to have known this would seriously harm his customers.

I can only agree to the fact that the delisting was rashly and poorly executed, definitely in an attempt to sanction Chaang. I can also agree that the delisting method provided for proof of ownership is poorly adequate.

And it harmed GLBSE's customers -- customers who reasonably relied on GLBSE to protect their ownership interest. Due directly to this action, those people have currently 100% lost the value of that ownership interest -- an interest they can only get back if GLBSE acts.

[Beans]

I doubt any action can be taken against Nefario if he does nothing. If he gives out the information, people could possible claim losses because of his actions. The shares basically have no trading value now, and issuers can't be expected to pay forever. It makes a real mess for repurchasing shares and the only person to blame is Nefario. He may stay quiet to avoid blow back on that issue.

[TheBible]

This is bitcointalk.  You only get a scammer tag weeks after you've already run with the money and are never coming back.

Also, moderators were in on Nefario's scam, so you can bet that he'll never get hit with a scammer tag.  This place is great proof that even in a "Free Market", the corrupt will rise to the top and use their power to benefit themselves at the cost of the health of the community.

[strello]

@The Bible

Nefario was given a scammer tag days ago.

[chrisrico]

@The Bible

Nefario was given a scammer tag days ago.

LOL

[BadBear]

This is bitcointalk.  You only get a scammer tag weeks after you've already run with the money and are never coming back.

Also, moderators were in on Nefario's scam, so you can bet that he'll never get hit with a scammer tag.  This place is great proof that even in a "Free Market", the corrupt will rise to the top and use their power to benefit themselves at the cost of the health of the community.

You're way behind on your conspiracy theories, do try and keep up.

[Bitcoin Oz]

This is bitcointalk.  You only get a scammer tag weeks after you've already run with the money and are never coming back.

Also, moderators were in on Nefario's scam, so you can bet that he'll never get hit with a scammer tag.  This place is great proof that even in a "Free Market", the corrupt will rise to the top and use their power to benefit themselves at the cost of the health of the community.

You're way behind on your conspiracy theories, do try and keep up.

Theymos and badbear gave Nefario the scammers tag because Nefario hurt the share price of GLBSE despite Theymos losing the vote to remove Nefario as CEO.

Theymos lost the vote, and while the shareholders meeting was still going on Theymos called Nefario a scammer to get leverage. Neferio did not back down and so far Theymos has not either.

In this case the scammers tag is just being used as leverage but has caused significant damage to the forum and to all involved.

What is kinda funny is that now by giving the tag to Nefario Theymos opened it up to himself getting the tag as he is now claiming no responsibility for the actions of his company despite the contract Theymos agreed to says that he will.

Either Theymos is ignorant or a scammer. He holds a large amount of GLBSE coin and some of the coin is owed to me. I do wonder how this will get resolved.

Its my understanding Theymos has returned the coins to CHM and Nefario has not, thus he has no excuse for not paying out.

[BadBear]

This is bitcointalk.  You only get a scammer tag weeks after you've already run with the money and are never coming back.

Also, moderators were in on Nefario's scam, so you can bet that he'll never get hit with a scammer tag.  This place is great proof that even in a "Free Market", the corrupt will rise to the top and use their power to benefit themselves at the cost of the health of the community.

You're way behind on your conspiracy theories, do try and keep up.

Theymos and badbear gave Nefario the scammers tag because Nefario hurt the share price of GLBSE despite Theymos losing the vote to remove Nefario as CEO.

Theymos lost the vote, and while the shareholders meeting was still going on Theymos called Nefario a scammer to get leverage. Neferio did not back down and so far Theymos has not either.

In this case the scammers tag is just being used as leverage but has caused significant damage to the forum and to all involved.

What is kinda funny is that now by giving the tag to Nefario Theymos opened it up to himself getting the tag as he is now claiming no responsibility for the actions of his company despite the contract Theymos agreed to says that he will.

Either Theymos is ignorant or a scammer. He holds a large amount of GLBSE coin and some of the coin is owed to me. I do wonder how this will get resolved.

Thanks for getting him caught up  .

[Bitcoin Oz]

This is bitcointalk.  You only get a scammer tag weeks after you've already run with the money and are never coming back.

Also, moderators were in on Nefario's scam, so you can bet that he'll never get hit with a scammer tag.  This place is great proof that even in a "Free Market", the corrupt will rise to the top and use their power to benefit themselves at the cost of the health of the community.

You're way behind on your conspiracy theories, do try and keep up.

Theymos and badbear gave Nefario the scammers tag because Nefario hurt the share price of GLBSE despite Theymos losing the vote to remove Nefario as CEO.

Theymos lost the vote, and while the shareholders meeting was still going on Theymos called Nefario a scammer to get leverage. Neferio did not back down and so far Theymos has not either.

In this case the scammers tag is just being used as leverage but has caused significant damage to the forum and to all involved.

What is kinda funny is that now by giving the tag to Nefario Theymos opened it up to himself getting the tag as he is now claiming no responsibility for the actions of his company despite the contract Theymos agreed to says that he will.

Either Theymos is ignorant or a scammer. He holds a large amount of GLBSE coin and some of the coin is owed to me. I do wonder how this will get resolved.

Its my understanding Theymos has returned the coins to CHM and Nefario has not, thus he has no excuse for not paying out.

I would like to understand why CHM now has the GLBSE coins from Theymos? Why is Theymos not doing his job watching the coins? Now I have to go after CHM to get my coin back? This just silly...

Theymos knew Nefario was not communicating with me and was not giving me back all of my coin. Why did he pass this mess on to CHM?

We didnt want Nefario to get the coins so CHM was chosen as an escrow. Nefario has no excuse now to not return the coins he holds as this was his sole reason for not returning them.

I know this is byzantine and retarded but it would probably take yet another meeting to do what should have been done last week.

[Yolocoin]

This is bitcointalk.  You only get a scammer tag weeks after you've already run with the money and are never coming back.

Also, moderators were in on Nefario's scam, so you can bet that he'll never get hit with a scammer tag.  This place is great proof that even in a "Free Market", the corrupt will rise to the top and use their power to benefit themselves at the cost of the health of the community.

Yep.  Hell, bitcointalk.org is run by MtGox even after both MtGox and Bitcointalk were both "hacked."  For all the users complaining about "regulatory capture" in the fiat world, why isn't anyone raising a flag over the simple fact that "MtGox == Bitcoin."

[TheBible]

@The Bible

Nefario was given a scammer tag days ago.

And Theymos?  At the level he was involved, I find it very hard to believe he had no clue what was happening.

Then again, bitcointalk.  You'll defend your scammers even as they're openly robbing you blind.  Only after they split will you start craving blood.

[chrisrico]

And Theymos?  At the level he was involved

And at what level exactly was Theymos involved? And involved with what, exactly?

[Yolocoin]

And Theymos?  At the level he was involved

And at what level exactly was Theymos involved? And involved with what, exactly?

Significant ownership of a private partnership company, where liability is shared amongst the owners.

[DiabloD3]

And Theymos?  At the level he was involved

And at what level exactly was Theymos involved? And involved with what, exactly?

Significant ownership of a private partnership company, where liability is shared amongst the owners.

~23%. Theymos also initiated a vote to remove nefario as CEO, and was outvoted. He then tried to sell his shares in the company because he refused to invest in a company that the CEO refused to listen to the board.

[theymos]

Is that true? I heard Nefario won the vote. It seems to me the majority of the GLBSE shareholders voted to keep Nefario as CEO and that he was doing the right thing.

If Nefario did lose that vote then he should have the tag for that... Would be simple, black and white... But I don't think that is what happened.

I lost a vote to remove Nefario as CEO, even though most shareholders at the meeting supported me in this. This does not imply that Nefario would have won a 50% vote to shut down GLBSE, since BitcoinGlobal strangely has no concept of quorum and not every shareholder was at the meeting. Also, it is against the bylaws to shut down GLBSE without a 66% vote.

~23%. Theymos also initiated a vote to remove nefario as CEO, and was outvoted. He then tried to sell his shares in the company because he refused to invest in a company that the CEO refused to listen to the board.

3.3%. (I was selling additional shares owned by other people.) I tried to sell shares long before the vote to remove Nefario, over issues unrelated to the GLBSE shutdown.

[DiabloD3]

And Theymos?  At the level he was involved

And at what level exactly was Theymos involved? And involved with what, exactly?

Significant ownership of a private partnership company, where liability is shared amongst the owners.

~23%. Theymos also initiated a vote to remove nefario as CEO, and was outvoted. He then tried to sell his shares in the company because he refused to invest in a company that the CEO refused to listen to the board.

Is that true? I heard Nefario won the vote. It seems to me the majority of the GLBSE shareholders voted to keep Nefario as CEO and that he was doing the right thing.

If Nefario did lose that vote then he should have the tag for that... Would be simple, black and white... But I don't think that is what happened.

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I said Theymos lost the vote. Theymos started the vote because nefario wouldn't listen to the board, the rest of the board decided to keep nefario, Theymos ragequit the board.

I don't see why Theymos should actually get a scammer tag, he did everything possible to remove nefario, nefario refused to either leave or stop fucking up, so Theymos washed his hands of it and waved to the Bitanic as it left dock for its maiden voyage.

[DiabloD3]

Is that true? I heard Nefario won the vote. It seems to me the majority of the GLBSE shareholders voted to keep Nefario as CEO and that he was doing the right thing.

If Nefario did lose that vote then he should have the tag for that... Would be simple, black and white... But I don't think that is what happened.

I lost a vote to remove Nefario as CEO, even though most shareholders at the meeting supported me in this. This does not imply that Nefario would have won a 50% vote to shut down GLBSE, since BitcoinGlobal strangely has no concept of quorum and not every shareholder was at the meeting. Also, it is against the bylaws to shut down GLBSE without a 66% vote.

~23%. Theymos also initiated a vote to remove nefario as CEO, and was outvoted. He then tried to sell his shares in the company because he refused to invest in a company that the CEO refused to listen to the board.

3.3%. (I was selling additional shares owned by other people.) I tried to sell shares long before the vote to remove Nefario, over issues unrelated to the GLBSE shutdown.

Ahh. 3.3%? HEH LETS GIVE THEYMOS 3.3% OF A SCAMMER TAG, HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Okay, I think thats out of my system now.

[DiabloD3]

Is that true? I heard Nefario won the vote. It seems to me the majority of the GLBSE shareholders voted to keep Nefario as CEO and that he was doing the right thing.

If Nefario did lose that vote then he should have the tag for that... Would be simple, black and white... But I don't think that is what happened.

I lost a vote to remove Nefario as CEO, even though most shareholders at the meeting supported me in this. This does not imply that Nefario would have won a 50% vote to shut down GLBSE, since BitcoinGlobal strangely has no concept of quorum and not every shareholder was at the meeting. Also, it is against the bylaws to shut down GLBSE without a 66% vote.

~23%. Theymos also initiated a vote to remove nefario as CEO, and was outvoted. He then tried to sell his shares in the company because he refused to invest in a company that the CEO refused to listen to the board.

3.3%. (I was selling additional shares owned by other people.) I tried to sell shares long before the vote to remove Nefario, over issues unrelated to the GLBSE shutdown.

Hmm, if Nefario did shut it down without having a vote that does seem to violate the contract. However, is GLBSE really "shut down" as it is still operating? 

It seems to me that GLBSE has not been shut down but is now operating in a different way. GLBSE clearly has not been shut down so giving the tag for that is not just. You would have to show that in operating in this current way then Nefario is a scammer. However I don't think the by laws will support this. The whole point of a CEO is to take action when it is needed.  Since Nefario won the vote clearly he is supported and his actions are supported (why I have no idea).

The scammer tag for this was rushed and not well thought out. It more or less hurt the value of the scammer tag and the trust in the "judges" on the forum.

I strongly think Nefario is a scammer and maybe even a criminal but he has been given the tag in a way that is not just and done so for reasons that were not just.

The tag should be removed and reapplied in a just way.

I don't agree with this analysis.

[chrisrico]

BadBear decided to give Nefario the scammer tag for defrauding BitcoinGlobal shareholders, not GLBSE users.

[chrisrico]

He did not have the right, as CEO appointed by shareholders, to shut down GLBSE without shareholder consent. In doing so, he defrauded shareholders.

No, GLBSE is not operating. It is not collecting money from users for the service of listing and exchanging assets.

[stochastic]

BadBear decided to give Nefario the scammer tag for defrauding BitcoinGlobal shareholders, not GLBSE users.

Yeah, That is my point.

But he "defrauded" you by delisting all assets. Something that badbear said he had the right to do.

I just do not see what the issue here is...

GLBSE is clearly still operating and doing so in a way badbear said he could...

Seems highly hypocritical.

It is funny that bitcoin.me told them to give him a scammer tag yet they won't.  This is because if they do then all the partners of BitcoinGlobal deserve a scammer tag.

[Yolocoin]

Keep in mind everyone was like oh yeah Nefario can delist any asset at anytime when he delsited mine... Now he just did the other 90% and people are like scammer, oh lol why?

Its okay to delist me but no one else? Lulz...

Seems to me like the scammer tag does nothing other than placate the masses into doing nothing about the scam.

[Maged]

Hmm, if Nefario did shut it down without having a vote that does seem to violate the contract. However, is GLBSE really "shut down" as it is still operating? 

It seems to me that GLBSE has not been shut down but is now operating in a different way. GLBSE clearly has not been shut down so giving the tag for that is not just. You would have to show that in operating in this current way then Nefario is a scammer. However I don't think the by laws will support this. The whole point of a CEO is to take action when it is needed.  Since Nefario won the vote clearly he is supported and his actions are supported (why I have no idea).

The scammer tag for this was rushed and not well thought out. It more or less hurt the value of the scammer tag and the trust in the "judges" on the forum.

I strongly think Nefario is a scammer and maybe even a criminal but he has been given the tag in a way that is not just and done so for reasons that were not just.

The tag should be removed and reapplied in a just way.

Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.

[CharlesPonzi]

If the securities on glbse are illegal it follows that glbse itself is illegal because Nefario issued securities for bitcoinglobal.

[chrisrico]

Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.

So you don't think that Nefario's actions toward BitcoinGlobal shareholders were worthy of the scam tag?

[repentance]

What's the position of the shareholders posting here regarding the overpayment fuck up?  If Nefario can't recover all of the overpayments, will BG's own remaining funds be used to top up the short-fall in preference to being used to pay Nefario's salary?

[Bitcoin Oz]

What's the position of the shareholders posting here regarding the overpayment fuck up?  If Nefario can't recover all of the overpayments, will BG's own remaining funds be used to top up the short-fall in preference to being used to pay Nefario's salary?

Customers should come before any wages/salary imo. It would be highly unethical to pay Nefario out of users funds.

[stochastic]

What's the position of the shareholders posting here regarding the overpayment fuck up?  If Nefario can't recover all of the overpayments, will BG's own remaining funds be used to top up the short-fall in preference to being used to pay Nefario's salary?

Customers should come before any wages/salary imo. It would be highly unethical to pay Nefario out of users funds.

Are you going to fire him now as CEO and let someone more qualified to handle the claims?

[Bitcoin Oz]

What's the position of the shareholders posting here regarding the overpayment fuck up?  If Nefario can't recover all of the overpayments, will BG's own remaining funds be used to top up the short-fall in preference to being used to pay Nefario's salary?

Customers should come before any wages/salary imo. It would be highly unethical to pay Nefario out of users funds.

Are you going to fire him now as CEO and let someone more qualified to handle the claims?

He should have been fired months ago.

[stochastic]

What's the position of the shareholders posting here regarding the overpayment fuck up?  If Nefario can't recover all of the overpayments, will BG's own remaining funds be used to top up the short-fall in preference to being used to pay Nefario's salary?

Customers should come before any wages/salary imo. It would be highly unethical to pay Nefario out of users funds.

Are you going to fire him now as CEO and let someone more qualified to handle the claims?

He should have been fired months ago.

I hope this gets the other partners to vote him out at least.

[Yolocoin]

If the securities on glbse are illegal it follows that glbse itself is illegal because Nefario issued securities for bitcoinglobal.

You are right!

[BadBear]

Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.

Are you sure you agree with Goat? As far as you've said you think Nefario doesn't deserve a scammer tag at all. Goat thinks he does, just not for the same reasons I do, which is fine. There may be other reasons for Nefario to have a scammer tag but since he already has one it's largely academic at this point.

Also, are you sure you have no conflict of interest here? I'm beginning to wish I hadn't been so quick to dismiss claims of you conspiring with Nefario earlier. Given things I have found out about others, I'm beginning to wonder if there's things about you we don't know. I do get the feeling that you're trying to protect something by trying to pressure me into removing the tag, but I don't think it's your reputation. You ruined your own reputation when you tried to force goat to take illegal actions in order to avoid getting a scammer tag (so Nefario wouldn't get it). Coercing someone to take illegal actions in order to protect Nefario is pretty scummy, and I'm glad others called you out on it before I had to step in, and also threatening to ban Goat for lying (when you didn't even know if he was). Then after you bowed out, you tried to secretly insert yourself back into the process for the sole and only purpose of denying the tag. Not even to give it out, just to deny it. And I turned you down saying it would look fishy, and it looks fishy that you even tried.  

Protecting your reputation as a "scammer investigator" . You once tried to threaten someone with a scammer tag for saying he slept with Pirate's sister as a joke. I'm glad theymos doesn't trust you enough to apply tags yourself, that looks to have been a good call on his part.  

[BadBear]

Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.

Are you sure you agree with Goat? As far as you've said you think Nefario doesn't deserve a scammer tag at all. Goat thinks he does, just not for the same reasons I do, which is fine. There may be other reasons for Nefario to have a scammer tag but since he already has one it's largely academic at this point.

Also, are you sure you have no conflict of interest here? I'm beginning to wish I hadn't been so quick to dismiss claims of you conspiring with Nefario earlier. Given things I have found out about others, I'm beginning to wonder if there's things about you we don't know. I do get the feeling that you're trying to protect something, but I don't think it's your reputation. You ruined your own reputation when you tried to force goat to take illegal actions in order to avoid getting a scammer tag (so Nefario wouldn't get it). Coercing someone to take illegal actions in order to protect Nefario is pretty scummy, and I'm glad others called you out on it before I had to step in, and also threatening to ban Goat for lying (when you didn't even know if he was). Then after you bowed out, you tried to secretly insert yourself back into the process for the sole and only purpose of denying the tag. Not even to give it out, just to deny it. And I turned you down saying it would look fishy, and it looks fishy that you even tried.   

Protecting your reputation as a "scammer investigator" . You once tried to threaten someone with a scammer tag for saying he slept with Pirate's sister as a joke. I'm glad theymos doesn't trust you enough to apply tags yourself, that looks to have been a good call on his part. 

Honestly I think you and Theymos are up for a scammers investigation for the misuse of the scammer tag.... Doing what is right for the wrong reasons is BS... You said Nefario had the right to delist any asset he wanted to and all he did was exactly what you said he could (delist all assets)! Why did he get the tag again?? What a fucking joke...

That's fine, I have nothing to hide. I said I was undecided on that particular issue, and I need to be sure before applying the tag. I know you aren't really interested in facts or what I actually said though, so I won't bother  . For the readers, I would advise you to take Goat's posts with a pinch pound of salt.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Protip: Its really hard to tell massive incompetence from scamming.

[BadBear]

If I am wrong then you will have no problem explaining why you gave Nefario a scammers tag. If you will not explain then we will have to assume I am right or you can not defend your actions because you did wrong.

GLBSE is still operating, all Nefario has done is delist even more assets. You did not give him a scammers tag for delisting my assets, why did you do it for delisting the other 90%?

I would like to understand this if I am wrong cuz many people have lost a lot of trust in you, theymos and the forum over this...

That's fine, I have nothing to hide. I said I was undecided on that particular issue, and I need to be sure before applying the tag. I know you aren't really interested in facts or what I actually said though, so I won't bother  . For the readers, I would advise you to take Goat's posts with a pinch pound of salt.

[SaltySpitoon]

You know its going to be a good day when Goat, and two Moderators are arguing amongst themselves, making them look like jackasses. Moderator calling out other Moderators, and Goat being involved? (Well I guess the Goat thing is normal) but Badbear, you should really be ashamed of yourself...

Protecting your reputation as a "scammer investigator" . You once tried to threaten someone with a scammer tag for saying he slept with Pirate's sister as a joke. I'm glad theymos doesn't trust you enough to apply tags yourself, that looks to have been a good call on his part.  

Yeah that sure is the attitude that makes someone want to use the forums, mods bashing other mods... Feel free to have different opinions, but I believe you two should probably have some sort of professional relationship? You are representing BTC-Talk, and its looking more and more like a shit hole every day because of these long drawn out drama threads.

WHEN THERE IS A SCAM INVESTIGATION, AND THE PERSON GETS THE TAG, LOCK THE THREAD! Do we really need to discuss it for the upcoming few years?

[SaltySpitoon]

You know its going to be a good day when Goat, and two Moderators are arguing amongst themselves, making them look like jackasses. Moderator calling out other Moderators, and Goat being involved? (Well I guess the Goat thing is normal) but Badbear, you should really be ashamed of yourself...

Protecting your reputation as a "scammer investigator" . You once tried to threaten someone with a scammer tag for saying he slept with Pirate's sister as a joke. I'm glad theymos doesn't trust you enough to apply tags yourself, that looks to have been a good call on his part.  

Yeah that sure is the attitude that makes someone want to use the forums, mods bashing other mods... Feel free to have different opinions, but I believe you two should probably have some sort of professional relationship? You are representing BTC-Talk, and its looking more and more like a shit hole every day because of these long drawn out drama threads.

WHEN THERE IS A SCAM INVESTIGATION, AND THE PERSON GETS THE TAG, LOCK THE THREAD! Do we really need to discuss it for the upcoming few years?

It would be nice to know why some one got a tag...

aren't you just upset that he didn't get the tag for delisting your assets, but instead for shutting down a major exchange with no warning, leaving investors in the black, with asset holders and listers scrambling for a way to fix this, but instead of providing any info at all, or any form of solution, just not responding at all?

If you are genuinely interested in Nefario's scammer tag for reasons other than what I said, then I apologize.


*Edit*  ^ Apologize to Goat, not Badbear for looking like an ass.

[BadBear]

I also do not understand why when I ask them to explain why I only get insulted

Because I did explain, almost two weeks ago. Like I said, I'm not going to explain myself over and over just because you don't like the answer, and not doing so doesn't make me wrong, just means I find repeating myself annoying. At some point we just have to agree to disagree. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1258773#msg1258773

[Raoul Duke]

Nefario did not shut down GLBSE...

https://glbse.com/

GLBSE is closed
Please login to get your bitcoin and assets.

You are dense as fuck. Ever thought of changing your username from Goat to Donkey?

[Raoul Duke]

Nefario did not shut down GLBSE...

https://glbse.com/

GLBSE is closed
Please login to get your bitcoin and assets.

You are dense as fuck. Ever thought of changing your username from Goat to Donkey?

Please log in?? You clearly see it is operating only with all of the assets delisted...

If you really think that GLBSE has been shut down I lol!   It is with out a doubt in operation.

If it's operating then please, register an account there and list an asset. It's that easy to prove me wrong, Donkey... errr... Goat.

[fbastage]

McGoats, that meets my definition of 'closed'.  The 'exchange' is not operating as an exchange.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Nefario did not shut down GLBSE...

https://glbse.com/

GLBSE is closed
Please login to get your bitcoin and assets.

You are dense as fuck. Ever thought of changing your username from Goat to Donkey?

Please log in?? You clearly see it is operating only with all of the assets delisted...

If you really think that GLBSE has been shut down I lol!   It is with out a doubt in operation.

If it's operating then please, register an account there and list an asset. It's that easy to prove me wrong, Donkey... errr... Goat.

I edited/added to my above post you might want to reread it as I answered you. And yeah a staff member calling me names cuz I point out truths, class act...

Nefario told the other shareholders glbse is not coming back.

Most likely the new site would not be called glbse to remove the "stock exchange" reference. Stocks and bonds also wouldnt be called those names.

GLBSE is finished so deal with it.

[Raoul Duke]

And yeah a staff member calling me names cuz I point out truths, class act...

I'm not a "Staff Member" here. And even on the 2 boards where I am a "Staff Member", 99,99% of the time I speak for myself. Deal with it.
But nice try at poisining the discussion with unrelated matters, Donkey.

[Bitcoin Oz]

McGoats, that meets my definition of 'closed'.  The 'exchange' is not operating as an exchange.

Even if you think GLBSE right now is closed there is no where in the by-laws that says GLBSE can not be closed. Also 70% of the owners think GLBSE should be operating in this way...

The by-laws were set up to manage GLBSE and that is what is going on. GLBSE is trying to take a legal path.  Theymos lost a vote to remove Nefario and then was unable to sell his shares. Theymos did not even want his shares anyway, he wanted to pass them on to some sucker...

The exchange is operating with all of the assets delisted. It was made more than clear Nefario had the right to delist all of my assets. If he can do me, why not everyone else? Hypocritical much?

Nefario lied when he said only 30% voted against him. It was actually 47%

[Bitcoin Oz]

McGoats, that meets my definition of 'closed'.  The 'exchange' is not operating as an exchange.

Even if you think GLBSE right now is closed there is no where in the by-laws that says GLBSE can not be closed. Also 70% of the owners think GLBSE should be operating in this way...

The by-laws were set up to manage GLBSE and that is what is going on. GLBSE is trying to take a legal path.  Theymos lost a vote to remove Nefario and then was unable to sell his shares. Theymos did not even want his shares anyway, he wanted to pass them on to some sucker...

The exchange is operating with all of the assets delisted. It was made more than clear Nefario had the right to delist all of my assets. If he can do me, why not everyone else? Hypocritical much?

Nefario lied when he said only 30% voted against him. It was actually 47%

Fine, What was needed to remove him? 50% 66% ?

I bet it was more than 47% so he did not scam anyone...

The only one who voted to keep Nefario was Nefario himself.

[BadBear]

Lol! So you guys went into this knowing he had control of the company and then you all (well theymos) got upset when he wanted to move in a different direction?

I'm not sure why you think he controls the company when he only owns ~24% of the shares. That's the whole point, he did this without the consent of the shareholders, the real owners. The fact that he can do it just because he has physical access to the server doesn't mean he has the right to.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You can keep making a thousand hypothetical excuses for him and speculating on this or that, but unfortunately some of us have to deal with fact.

[stochastic]

Fine, What was needed to remove him? 50% 66% ?

I bet it was more than 47% so he did not scam anyone...

The only one who voted to keep Nefario was Nefario himself.

Didn't theymos say that some other people supported Nefario?

This does not make sense:

He has about 25% of shares, so it wasn't too difficult for him to pass crazy motions like that.

[deeplink]

Nefario lied when he said only 30% voted against him. It was actually 47%

Fine, What was needed to remove him? 50% 66% ?

I bet it was more than 47% so he did not scam anyone...

The only one who voted to keep Nefario was Nefario himself.

Why don't you organize yourselves and do a new vote right now?

[chrisrico]

Why don't you organize yourselves and do a new vote right now?

Because he has stated that even if he was removed as CEO by a shareholder vote, he would continue with his plan to shut down GLBSE.

Anyway, there are a few reasons why the vote to remove Nefario as CEO failed. First, he has a 24% stake in the company. Second, he had a couple of minor supporters. Third, most of those that opposed him in principle were already resigned to the course of events and didn't care to actually take a stand, as even if he was removed, he stated he would shut it down anyway.

[stochastic]

Why don't you organize yourselves and do a new vote right now?

Because he has stated that even if he was removed as CEO by a shareholder vote, he would continue with his plan to shut down GLBSE.

Anyway, there are a few reasons why the vote to remove Nefario as CEO failed. First, he has a 24% stake in the company. Second, he had a couple of minor supporters. Third, most of those that opposed him in principle were already resigned to the course of events and didn't care to actually take a stand, as even if he was removed, he stated he would shut it down anyway.

Are you a BitcoinGlobal partner?

[chrisrico]

Are you a BitcoinGlobal partner?

Yes, I have stated that before. I was one of the ones for which Theymos was selling shares.

After a bit of thought, I'm going to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. The only thing I've done is remove IP addresses and the names of undisclosed shareholders. I'm not outing anyone (other than da2ce7, since he supported the shutdown from the beginning) over this.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

[Bitcoin Oz]

McGoats, that meets my definition of 'closed'.  The 'exchange' is not operating as an exchange.

Even if you think GLBSE right now is closed there is no where in the by-laws that says GLBSE can not be closed. Also 70% of the owners think GLBSE should be operating in this way...

The by-laws were set up to manage GLBSE and that is what is going on. GLBSE is trying to take a legal path.  Theymos lost a vote to remove Nefario and then was unable to sell his shares. Theymos did not even want his shares anyway, he wanted to pass them on to some sucker...

The exchange is operating with all of the assets delisted. It was made more than clear Nefario had the right to delist all of my assets. If he can do me, why not everyone else? Hypocritical much?

Nefario lied when he said only 30% voted against him. It was actually 47%

Fine, What was needed to remove him? 50% 66% ?

I bet it was more than 47% so he did not scam anyone...

The only one who voted to keep Nefario was Nefario himself.

Lol! So you guys went into this knowing he had stolen the company and then you all (well theymos) got upset when he wanted to move in a different direction? A legal direction? Where he is going to rename the site and adjust a few things?

Why does he have a scammers tag again? Honestly knowing this makes me think that the shares of bitcoin global are wortha whole lot more than they were when he was running an illegal site. So NadBear saying Nefario closed down operations is a lie. Also saying he destroyed the value of the shares is a lie...

Theymos and BadBear still in my mind should have the scammers tag if anyone will (assuming delisting assets is cool and all)... seems like abuse of power... They used the scammers tag to try to make Nefario do what they wanted him to do even thought they knew he had total control. Oh man, what abuse.

FTFY

[repentance]

After a bit of thought, I'm going to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. The only thing I've done is remove IP addresses and the names of undisclosed shareholders. I'm not outing anyone (other than da2ce7, since he supported the shutdown from the beginning) over this.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

Thank you.

I'm a little confused about this bit.

the idea that I've given 15K USD worth of something to an anonymous person "to hold" looks really fucking bad for me

This implies that theymos' RL identity isn't known to the other GLBSE shareholders.  Is that the case, because it's not hard to find apparent RL information regarding theymos. 

[Bitcoin Oz]

After a bit of thought, I'm going to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. The only thing I've done is remove IP addresses and the names of undisclosed shareholders. I'm not outing anyone (other than da2ce7, since he supported the shutdown from the beginning) over this.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

Thank you.

I'm a little confused about this bit.

the idea that I've given 15K USD worth of something to an anonymous person "to hold" looks really fucking bad for me

This implies that theymos' RL identity isn't known to the other GLBSE shareholders.  Is that the case, because it's not hard to find apparent RL information regarding theymos. 

For the purposes pf AML you cant just say "this is the person" without showing their documents to prove it. Theymos is known doesnt mean he has ever sent Nefario his DL or electric bill. For all intents and purposes the other "shareholders" are invisible.

[repentance]

For the purposes pf AML you cant just say "this is the person" without showing their documents to prove it. Theymos is known doesnt mean he has ever sent Nefario his DL or electric bill. For all intents and purposes the other "shareholders" are invisible.

Regardless of whether identity information is required to formally create a business entity - and, for the most part, it is these days for office-bearers and significant shareholders alike - there's no way I'd even consider entering a business partnership with someone without proof of their real world identity.

[Maged]

Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.

So you don't think that Nefario's actions toward BitcoinGlobal shareholders were worthy of the scam tag?

Nope. He was and remains CEO, so he has the sole authority on how to run the company unless/until a shareholder vote says otherwise. If he were properly removed as CEO and didn't hand the entire site, it's databases, and any business funds in his possession to his successor, then he'd be a scammer. In fact, you guys have/had the ability to do this on your own, without his cooperation. Thus, you could argue that any shareholder that refuses to vote to remove Nefario is a scammer. So far, this hasn't been requested.

Goat, I agree completely. You guys haven't seen this, but I've been very vocal about this behind-the-scenes ever since the tag was applied, with almost the same arguments. I was hoping that BadBear would listen, but at this point I need to start protecting my reputation by letting you guys know my position.

Are you sure you agree with Goat? As far as you've said you think Nefario doesn't deserve a scammer tag at all. Goat thinks he does, just not for the same reasons I do, which is fine.

However, those other reasons were rejected/not decided upon. If you are willing to say that Nefario delisting anybody deserves a scammer tag, and theymos agrees, I will drop this whole argument. I want theymos to agree so that I may use this as precedent in future investigations.

There may be other reasons for Nefario to have a scammer tag but since he already has one it's largely academic at this point.

Exactly! I could care less about Nefario, I'm just worried about the precedent this will cause. Thus, this really is just academic. That being said, you'll need to clarify those other reasons.

Also, are you sure you have no conflict of interest here? I'm beginning to wish I hadn't been so quick to dismiss claims of you conspiring with Nefario earlier. Given things I have found out about others, I'm beginning to wonder if there's things about you we don't know. I do get the feeling that you're trying to protect something by trying to pressure me into removing the tag, but I don't think it's your reputation.

Yes, and as you know, I already answered this. Honestly, the fact that you asked this again in almost the same manner as some of our trolls shows that you're starting to act irrational. Trust me, as a friend, from my own experience with this case: take a break from scammer investigations for a day or two. Totally block out this forum in your preferences during that break to allow you to clear your thoughts. I'm only telling you this because that is exactly what I did.

You ruined your own reputation when you tried to force goat to take illegal actions in order to avoid getting a scammer tag (so Nefario wouldn't get it). Coercing someone to take illegal actions in order to protect Nefario is pretty scummy, and I'm glad others called you out on it before I had to step in, and also threatening to ban Goat for lying (when you didn't even know if he was).

Yes, I know. I realized that I was acting irresponsibly and did the only proper thing I could: Step down from the case. I'm disappointed that you didn't call me out privately on the matter earlier, though. I would have listened.

Then after you bowed out, you tried to secretly insert yourself back into the process for the sole and only purpose of denying the tag. Not even to give it out, just to deny it. And I turned you down saying it would look fishy, and it looks fishy that you even tried. Protecting your reputation as a "scammer investigator" .

And I agreed, which is why I requested that both you and theymos approve my request to reclaim veto power. Just to be clear, because you denied that request (which I explicitly said you could), I am only acting as a regular user in this case. I would appreciate it if I were treated that way.

You once tried to threaten someone with a scammer tag for saying he slept with Pirate's sister as a joke. I'm glad theymos doesn't trust you enough to apply tags yourself, that looks to have been a good call on his part. 

As for the reason for the request, I later realized (after I had some time to cool down and get ahold of myself) that in my irrational fit, I irresponsibly gave sole authority for the scammer tag to a single person. No one - not me, not you, not even theymos - should have that authority on their own. The point of having one person investigate while the other person has to approve the decision of the investigator that a scammer tag is needed is to both provide another layer of removal from the case so that only the facts are focused on and to prevent one person's irrationality from deciding the case, since if someone is rational most of the time (as a human, it is impossible to always be rational), the chances that at least one person is rational at the time is significantly higher. It's for this reason that I believe that theymos, although he has the ability, should never ban or mark someone as a scammer on his own, unless the case is extremely clear. I'd be interested in what theymos' position on this is, since I don't know whether restricting bans and tags to administrators was done to intentionally create this dynamic, or if he just doesn't trust us. Either way, I'm glad that he set the system up the way he did.

Also, for the record, in neither of these cases did I send a request to theymos to mark someone as a scammer. I may have said that I would, even directly to theymos, but I never did because I always double-check my line of thinking before actually doing that. If I had the ability to do it myself, I also wouldn't have used it at those points.

[chrisrico]

After reading this very long log it is clear that Neferio has the support of the majority of the shareholders of Bitcoin Global and that they want it "closed" and turned into a legal operation.  Theymos was in the minority and failed on his vote to remove Nefario as CEO.

How did you reach that conclusion?

[05/10/2012 16:56:18] <theymos> Aye.
[05/10/2012 16:56:18] <chrisrico> aye
[05/10/2012 16:56:21] <shareholder2> yes
[05/10/2012 16:56:22] <shareholder1> aye
[05/10/2012 16:56:24] <da2ce796> -
[05/10/2012 16:56:27] <shareholder4> aye
[05/10/2012 16:56:42] <nefario> I vote against
[05/10/2012 16:56:57] <shareholder3_> aye, as long as this leads to a solution that avoids that I get into any sort of legal trouble (yes, thats selfish, but that is my p.o.v)

That's 5 for the motion, 1 maybe for, and 2 against (including nefario, with 23% of shares). Even with CHM's vote, we didn't have enough support to get rid of Nefario.

[stochastic]

After reading this very long log it is clear that Neferio has the support of the majority of the shareholders of Bitcoin Global and that they want it "closed" and turned into a legal operation.  Theymos was in the minority and failed on his vote to remove Nefario as CEO.

How did you reach that conclusion?

[05/10/2012 16:56:18] <theymos> Aye.
[05/10/2012 16:56:18] <chrisrico> aye
[05/10/2012 16:56:21] <shareholder2> yes
[05/10/2012 16:56:22] <shareholder1> aye
[05/10/2012 16:56:24] <da2ce796> -
[05/10/2012 16:56:27] <shareholder4> aye
[05/10/2012 16:56:42] <nefario> I vote against
[05/10/2012 16:56:57] <shareholder3_> aye, as long as this leads to a solution that avoids that I get into any sort of legal trouble (yes, thats selfish, but that is my p.o.v)

That's 5 for the motion, 1 maybe for, and 2 against (including nefario, with 23% of shares). Even with CHM's vote, we didn't have enough support to get rid of Nefario.

Have the entire logs been posted?

[repentance]

That's 5 for the motion, 1 maybe for, and 2 against (including nefario, with 23% of shares). Even with CHM's vote, we didn't have enough support to get rid of Nefario.

What was the total percentage of shares held by all of those who participated in the meeting - not individually, but collectively?

Given that it was basically an exceptional general meeting agenda, I probably would have closed the meeting early on and called a formal exceptional general meeting and basically demanded that the absentees be present and vote or assign their proxies to others.  The attendance/percentage of shareholdings for a quorum to pass special resolutions is generally higher than that required to pass ordinary business, but in some ways it seems like this particular meeting was a bit of an ambush.

[repentance]

Theymos holds 3% others hold much more. You cant have a 5 person vs 4 person vote here... Does not work like that lol!

Nobody said it worked like that.  I'm trying to get an idea of what percentage of shares are held by people who weren't at the meeting and didn't vote.  It is absolutely stock standard in legitimate companies that you can't even hold a vote unless the required number of people and/or percentage of shareholdings are present.  That's what a quorum is - the number of people/percentage of shareholdings required for the business of the meeting to be legally valid and it's generally higher for exceptional matters such as closing down a company, removing a CEO, sacking a board of directors, than it is for general business.  There's often a requirement that the quorum be present for the whole of the meeting, too.  In a legitimate company, Nefario wouldn't have even been able to vote on a motion to remove him as CEO because it would have been a clear conflict of interest and he would have been required to abstain from voting (although he would have been allowed to speak against the motion, as any member can in respect of any motion).

[repentance]

I don't think there was a quorum needed in the by-laws. Anyway a significant amount of shareholders where there and would odds are have meet a quorum requirement if there was one.

And because it's a "toy company", as Nefario described it, there was also apparently no prohibition on a partner voting on a matter where they have a conflict of interest.

[DiabloD3]

So when does goat get a scammer tag for defending nefario?

[DiabloD3]

So when does goat get a scammer tag for defending nefario?

Oh no... Nefario is a scammer, but cuz he took my assets I bought on GLBSE!   theft is scamming~

I want Nefario to have the tag for the right reason...

Jesus Christ.

Fine. He gets it for your reason and Theymos's reason both.

Someone lock this thread already.

[repentance]

So when does goat get a scammer tag for defending nefario?

Much as it pains me to agree with goat, I have reservations about the reasons why Nefario was given the scammer tag too.  It seems like he was given the tag primarily for personal reasons, just as theymos has said that he will not give the scammer tag to the Intersango guys because they're "good people".  If the scammer tag is to have any meaning whatsoever - and frankly, I think it's useless for anything except warning people against doing business with minor scammers like thebitbabe - then it can't be given or with-held based on whether the mods/admins like someone as a person.

[deeplink]

Why don't you organize yourselves and do a new vote right now?

Because he has stated that even if he was removed as CEO by a shareholder vote, he would continue with his plan to shut down GLBSE.

Anyway, there are a few reasons why the vote to remove Nefario as CEO failed. First, he has a 24% stake in the company. Second, he had a couple of minor supporters. Third, most of those that opposed him in principle were already resigned to the course of events and didn't care to actually take a stand, as even if he was removed, he stated he would shut it down anyway.

The fact that he stated to shut down GLBSE anyway is irrelevant. Other partners should still take an official stand by passing a motion to remove him as CEO. He has a large stake in the company, but it is not even close to 50% After his last fuck-up it should be possible to get a majority to vote him out.

On the other hand, maybe you don't want the company anymore. Nefario now being the scapegoat is a very easy way out for all other partners. So nobody has to take responsibility for the mess that has been created. It is all Nefario's fault.

[Yolocoin]

And because it's a "toy company", as Nefario described it, there was also apparently no prohibition on a partner voting on a matter where they have a conflict of interest.

(sic) It's a "toy currency", and they were "playing stock exchange."

On the other hand, maybe you don't want the company anymore. Nefario now being the scapegoat is a very easy way out for all other partners. So nobody has to take responsibility for the mess that has been created. It is all Nefario's fault.

And yes, since it wasn't a registered corporation, all of the share holders are personally liable.

[chrisrico]

And yes, since it wasn't a registered corporation, all of the share holders are personally liable.

Source?

[chrisrico]

If it's criminal, RICO in the US?

I thought he meant financially liable to the users, not criminally liable.

[chrisrico]

Because you did not take measures to protect yourselves as "limited" partners or even to incorporate, your joint and several liabilities are in effect unlimited.

That's what I was asking for, a source for this legal opinion.

[matauc12]

So when does goat get a scammer tag for defending nefario?

Oh no... Nefario is a scammer, but cuz he took my assets I bought on GLBSE!   theft is scamming~

I want Nefario to have the tag for the right reason...

Jesus Christ.

Fine. He gets it for your reason and Theymos's reason both.

Someone lock this thread already.

Someone seems to have better morals than another. Goat is able to make good judgement about someone even though he has a personal beef against that person. Other people cry and invent stories about a justified action. If you wanna cry, cry for the right reasons.

Bottomline, does nefario's action of closing glbse affect some people, yeah. Does it make it illegal or perhaps worth his risk? Most likely not. You do realize he that to save his butt when he saw the imminence of legal actions taken against that that would have also resulted in WORSE outcome for issuers and holders, right?.. oh yeah, probably not.

[deeplink]

On the other hand, maybe you don't want the company anymore. Nefario now being the scapegoat is a very easy way out for all other partners. So nobody has to take responsibility for the mess that has been created. It is all Nefario's fault.

And yes, since it wasn't a registered corporation, all of the share holders are personally liable.

I agree, and that point has been discussed right from the start. All partners of GLBSE are liable for everything including all losses. There is no limited liability. Unfortunately the partners of Nefario do not admit this and by blaming everything on Nefario they have an easy way out. And it looks like they will get away with it.

[Yolocoin]

And yes, since it wasn't a registered corporation, all of the share holders are personally liable.

Source?

US: Partnerships that are not registered as a LLP or Corp share the liability among all the owners. If one partner in a company owes money, all partners owe it.  If one is found criminally negligent in civil court, all partners are on the hook for damages.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/partnership-term.html

    Refers to a legal structure for a business of two or more individuals; called a general partnership when used without a qualifier such as "limited" or "limited liability." Each owner (partner) is personally liable for all debts of the business, and each partner claims a share of the the business's income or losses on the partner's individual tax return. To form a partnership, each partner normally contributes money, property, or labor in exchange for an ownership interest in the partnership. Most partnerships are created by a formal written partnership agreement, although they may be based on an oral agreement or just a handshake. See also: limited partnership, limited liability partnership (LLP)

UK: Pretty much the same: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/53-54/39

Liability of partners.Every partner in a firm is liable jointly with the other partners, and in Scotland severally also, for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while he is a partner; and after his death his estate is also severally liable in a due course of administration for such debts and obligations, so far as they remain unsatisfied, but subject in England or Ireland to the prior payment of his separate debts.

AUS: yep, same thing where all partner is the same as owner and all liability is shared: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/pa1963154/s13.html

Liability of partner

    (1)     Each partner in a firm other than an incorporated limited partnership is liable jointly with the other partners in the firm for the debts and obligations of the firm incurred while the partner is a partner.

[DiabloD3]

And yes, since it wasn't a registered corporation, all of the share holders are personally liable.

Source?

US: Partnerships that are not registered as a LLP or Corp share the liability among all the owners. If one partner in a company owes money, all partners owe it.  If one is found criminally negligent in civil court, all partners are on the hook for damages.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/partnership-term.html

    Refers to a legal structure for a business of two or more individuals; called a general partnership when used without a qualifier such as "limited" or "limited liability." Each owner (partner) is personally liable for all debts of the business, and each partner claims a share of the the business's income or losses on the partner's individual tax return. To form a partnership, each partner normally contributes money, property, or labor in exchange for an ownership interest in the partnership. Most partnerships are created by a formal written partnership agreement, although they may be based on an oral agreement or just a handshake. See also: limited partnership, limited liability partnership (LLP)

UK: Pretty much the same: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/53-54/39

Liability of partners.Every partner in a firm is liable jointly with the other partners, and in Scotland severally also, for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while he is a partner; and after his death his estate is also severally liable in a due course of administration for such debts and obligations, so far as they remain unsatisfied, but subject in England or Ireland to the prior payment of his separate debts.

AUS: yep, same thing where all partner is the same as owner and all liability is shared: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/pa1963154/s13.html

Liability of partner

    (1)     Each partner in a firm other than an incorporated limited partnership is liable jointly with the other partners in the firm for the debts and obligations of the firm incurred while the partner is a partner.

Heh, then if GLBSE pays DMC, oh, 10k BTC, that should cover the damages and we wouldn't need to go to court.

[repentance]

And yes, since it wasn't a registered corporation, all of the share holders are personally liable.

Source?

If it's criminal, RICO in the US?

I seriously doubt they'd meet the bar for being "racketeer influenced"  or a "corrupt organisation" as defined by RICO, although pirate might if he was providing large amounts of BTC to "shady" characters as he so often implied.  Then again, "organised crime" laws can be quite bizarre.  In my state, car "rebirthing" offences are regarded as "organised" crime even if they involve only one person and one car.  I personally know someone who was charged with car "rebirthing" offences for taking the compliance plates off a classic car they were restoring.  The charges were dismissed in court, but it cost them tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

[Yolocoin]

Operating an illegal securities exchange and then laundering money through it would easily meet the bar for racketeering.

[matauc12]

Operating an illegal securities exchange and then laundering money through it would easily meet the bar for racketeering.

that is not even remotely related to racketeering, even less Rico...

[Danijel Habek]

Partnership

Refers to a legal structure for a business of two or more individuals; called a general partnership when used without a qualifier such as "limited" or "limited liability." Each owner (partner) is personally liable for all debts of the business, and each partner claims a share of the the business's income or losses on the partner's individual tax return. To form a partnership, each partner normally contributes money, property, or labor in exchange for an ownership interest in the partnership. Most partnerships are created by a formal written partnership agreement, although they may be based on an oral agreement or just a handshake. See also: limited partnership, limited liability partnership (LLP)

[DiabloD3]

Partnership

Refers to a legal structure for a business of two or more individuals; called a general partnership when used without a qualifier such as "limited" or "limited liability." Each owner (partner) is personally liable for all debts of the business, and each partner claims a share of the the business's income or losses on the partner's individual tax return. To form a partnership, each partner normally contributes money, property, or labor in exchange for an ownership interest in the partnership. Most partnerships are created by a formal written partnership agreement, although they may be based on an oral agreement or just a handshake. See also: limited partnership, limited liability partnership (LLP)

Yolocoin said that, not me, he was quoting out of a legal dictionary.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114442.msg1286663#msg1286663

[Danijel Habek]

It was a mistake.

I'm sorry DiabloD3, I was copying that quote for a later use, and somehow pasted it as a reply to a very old thread.
Sure didn't want to necro the thread, or to put someone else words in your mouth.

Guess I haven't had enough caffeine.