Scammer tag: Nefario.

[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.)