Bitcoin Forum
January 18, 2020, 12:33:03 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 ... 94 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Nefario  (Read 198245 times)
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 12:32:29 PM
 #621

It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership

Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.

Was there a reason he took action without consulting to shareholders? If not, then it equates to withholding information. What if there was an alternative solution? I can imagine several ways this could be handled seamlessly and with less harm to GLBSE shareholders. It really doesn't matter, since the obligation to shareholders wasn't met.
1579350783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1579350783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1579350783
Reply with quote  #2

1579350783
Report to moderator
No registration neededFixed RatesUnlimited transaction volumes
Try Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1579350783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1579350783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1579350783
Reply with quote  #2

1579350783
Report to moderator
1579350783
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1579350783

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1579350783
Reply with quote  #2

1579350783
Report to moderator
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 12:41:17 PM
 #622

It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership

Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.

Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud


I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 1043


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 12:45:49 PM
 #623

Or do you really expect that my shares, once (if ever) returned, hold anywhere the original value, and that Nefario didn't know that? If you have to answer No here that should be enough reason for the scammer tag.

Why should the shares have a lower value? They cant be traded anymore so the value is the same as it was as the market closed. The businesses still exist and as long as the dividends arent going down the value of the shares arent going down even for you. Except you want to sell them for cheap now. I would buy asicminershares for 0.088 if you have some. Unfortunately i dont have much btc at the moment and had to pay with sepa. So i dont see why the shares should be worth less now.

And by saying that you can see that i dont see why nefario wouldnt give out the stats. The shares arent of any worth for him. He can give them out for free. And even when he goes scam he could blackmail the owners to give out the stats. So he earns a bit. Otherwise the stats would be worth nothing to him. So i dont fear.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 12:46:20 PM
 #624

It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership

Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.

Was there a reason he took action without consulting to shareholders? If not, then it equates to withholding information. What if there was an alternative solution? I can imagine several ways this could be handled seamlessly and with less harm to GLBSE shareholders. It really doesn't matter, since the obligation to shareholders wasn't met.


He acted without any consent on multiple occasions. For instance the goat delisting was arbitrary and so was the speaking to a lawyer and ultimately shutting glbse down. So were the Kluge Kronos.io actions.

arsenische
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1184
Merit: 1010


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 12:52:07 PM
 #625

I don't think Nefario deserves a scammer tag based on what has happened to GLBSE.

To my mind scammer is a person that had an intention to defraud somebody.

If a person acts "inappropriately" under a threat of jail or violence, s/he is not a scammer, s/he is a victim.

Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 12:54:45 PM
 #626

I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.

Based on that, wouldnt you have to hand out scammer tags to all asset issuers that dont reimburse their investors in full? If Nefario had to do his due diligence before accepting investor money, then why not asset issuers?

Also, I think a point can be made that GLBSE closing down due to legal pressure was a business risk that investors should have been aware off. It might have been different if Nefario knew it was illegal and his investors were somehow misled to believe the opposite, but if anything, it seems the opposite, and Nefario thought it was legal, whereas Theymos wanted and still wants it to be an illegal black market. Before passing judgment, I would like to see what the shareholder agreement said about that.

Have to toally agree with that.

If nefario gets a scammer tag for selling a non-viable business proposition (which seems to be the claim) then any other asset issuer who sold a non-viable business proposition should also get a scammer tag.  I find it "interesting" that apparently incompetence/ignorance is sufficent for a tag - without any need for intent to defraud.

I don't actually object to that in theory - I DO believe anyone incompent/ignorant should be banned from running a company here.  But there's a heck of a lot of tags that need to be handed out - and it should either be renamed to "Scammer/Idiot" or two seperate tags used to differentiate between the idiots and the thieves (a few people should get both).
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 12:55:04 PM
 #627

It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership

Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.

Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud


I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.

You are so biased in this matter it is absurd.  Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.  

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 12:58:53 PM
 #628

You are so biased in this matter it is absurd.  Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.  

He wasn't so worried about his obligation to the law when he opened the business and took investors money.


1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 01:03:51 PM
 #629

It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership

Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.

Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud


I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.

You are so biased in this matter it is absurd.  Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.  

Why would Nefario knowingly open an illegal business then take investors money and then say "Oh sorry im scared of regulation and AML" then proceed to close it ?



Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:07:27 PM
 #630

It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership

Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.

Quote
If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud


I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.

You are so biased in this matter it is absurd.  Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.  

I think the argument is that he should have gradually realised there were problems with running the business - and discusssed it with the shareholders, rather than suddenly shutting it down out of the blue.  To me THAT looks far more like naivety, denial and ignorance rather than malice - so I'm not seeing the term "scammer" as appropriate (for just that).  But if he, at any point, intentionally lied to shareholders then that all changes.

Plus if he unilaterally shut it down without providing a proper reason or considering alternatives (did he he have the option of resigning from the company and returning his shares?) then I'd likely see it as a scam.  Just because he got bored/scared of it doesn't mean he gets to take the ball away from everyone else.  If he was instructed to close it by LE then that's different - but so far I've seen no claim of that.
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:12:31 PM
 #631

Theymos has already admitted he would be perusing the argument that the illegal business should continue.  Nefario had no obligation to continue to break the law while convincing his compatriots to come clean.   In fact he had a responsibility to stop what he was doing when he realized it was not legal.  

The scammer choice, the one Theymos chose, was to quickly try and sell out the shares for one last payout before the authorities were involved.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:12:57 PM
 #632

...

Yeah, well, if you're so smart why did you have your money on GLBSE?

No, really. If you know this much about banking what the hell were you thinking?

1.  I had/have a tiny amount on GLBSE.
2.  I expected that when problems (inevitably) occurred they'd be more gradual and/or there'd be a chance to withdraw before the shit hit the fan.
3.  Risk v reward.
4.  I expect to get my funds back anyway.
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 01:14:20 PM
 #633


Plus if he unilaterally shut it down without providing a proper reason or considering alternatives (did he he have the option of resigning from the company and returning his shares?) then I'd likely see it as a scam.  

That's exactly what he did. He also stated he would refuse to honor a shareholder vote to remove him as CEO. He actively screwed shareholders every way he could.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
senor_coconut
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 69
Merit: 10


a big question mark


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
 #634

It is making me a bit uncomfortable that everyone here, supposedly knowledgeable scammer tag-awarding OPs included, are turning assumptions and third party statements into facts without any proof.

Who has proof that Nefario was/is under legal pressure?

Or proof that he is not under real legal pressure but simply chickened out (by chance, with a few thousand BTC in his pocket) when he decided to talk to his lawyer, a looooong time after setting up GLBSE and taking users BTC?

Who can prove or disprove that he knew this all along and found this the right time to shut down?
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:20:19 PM
 #635

I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.

Did you actually see the contract?

Even regardless of what it says, law always supersedes contractual obligations. If Nefario had to close GLBSE to comply with common law, then tough luck for his shareholders, it was a known business risk, had they done their due diligence and applied common sense, they should have known what they bought would sooner or later become worthless. Maybe they gambled on it being "later" and getting a ROI before then (like, after selling their shares), but it was their risk and at least Theymos can not claim he wasnt aware of it.

So is your argument that Nefario was not legaly obliged to close GLBSE  in its current form, or that he refused to break the law to abide to his shareholder contract?
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:28:55 PM
 #636


Plus if he unilaterally shut it down without providing a proper reason or considering alternatives (did he he have the option of resigning from the company and returning his shares?) then I'd likely see it as a scam.  

That's exactly what he did. He also stated he would refuse to honor a shareholder vote to remove him as CEO. He actively screwed shareholders every way he could.


With major shareholders like Theymos announcing their desire to continue the illegal business, he could not knowingly allow them to continue with that plan.  It would make him a continuing part of the criminal conspiracy.  It doesn't matter that the IRC logs say Theymos was allowed to.   

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3626
Merit: 7415


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:32:03 PM
 #637

Theymos has already admitted he would be perusing the argument that the illegal business should continue.  Nefario had no obligation to continue to break the law while convincing his compatriots to come clean.   In fact he had a responsibility to stop what he was doing when he realized it was not legal.

Laws don't give you the moral right to break an agreement, even if they might give you the legal right.

If Nefario was worried, he should have just resigned.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:38:51 PM
 #638


Plus if he unilaterally shut it down without providing a proper reason or considering alternatives (did he he have the option of resigning from the company and returning his shares?) then I'd likely see it as a scam.  

That's exactly what he did. He also stated he would refuse to honor a shareholder vote to remove him as CEO. He actively screwed shareholders every way he could.


With major shareholders like Theymos announcing their desire to continue the illegal business, he could not knowingly allow them to continue with that plan.  It would make him a continuing part of the criminal conspiracy.  It doesn't matter that the IRC logs say Theymos was allowed to.   

I think the point you may be missing is that before closing it down for being "illegal" he should have at least presented share-holders with evidence (e.g. a legal opinion) that it WAS illegal.  It surely can't have been the case that he woke up in the morning, suddenly realised it was illegal and pulled the plug on it.

One person "believing" something is illegal doesn't make it illegal or give them the right to prevent others doing whatever that something is.  If you believe others are doing something illegal and want them to stop them you go to LE - you don't go all vigilante and take things into your own hands.  If you're doing something (with others) and all of a sudden YOU decide it's not legal then YOU stop doing it (and report the others if you're that way inclined).  Do bear in mind this something (running the exchange) is something he's been doing for a while and claiming wasn't going to have problems with the law.

Also remember that even if running it in the UK is illegal, there may be other jurisdictions where it's perfectly fine.  Does he have the right to prevent the other shareholders from moving the business to there?

I'm in no way claiming running GLBSE in the UK was legal.  But if nefario says it wasn't (after ages of saying/acting otherwise) then he owes the other shareholders (not to mention investors) at least a decent explanation of it.  And if his explanation is compelling then I'm sure it's not impossible to remove the tag - all he has to do is explain how his opinion apaprently changed overnight and why there was absolutely no alternative other than an immediate and permanent shut-down.
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 01:44:23 PM
 #639

I'm not calling him a scammer because he sold shares. I'm calling him a scammer because he sold shares, then after getting their money, said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!", and just shut the business down in breach of contract and hasn't returned their investment. That's fraud, plain and simple.

Did you actually see the contract?

Yes.

Quote
Even regardless of what it says, law always supersedes contractual obligations. If Nefario had to close GLBSE to comply with common law, then tough luck for his shareholders, it was a known business risk, had they done their due diligence and applied common sense, they should have known what they bought would sooner or later become worthless. Maybe they gambled on it being "later" and getting a ROI before then (like, after selling their shares), but it was their risk and at least Theymos can not claim he wasnt aware of it.

Sure shareholders should have done their due diligence, but that doesn't let Nefario off the hook. Nefario also has a duty to due diligence since he was the one soliciting investments and selling shares in the company. Nefario harmed others, shareholders only harmed themselves.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 01:45:00 PM
 #640

The shareholders knew, Theymos has written on this forum that he wanted to continue the illegal activity.  Nobody is morally required to honor an agreement to break the law.  These laws are in place to protect people from being ripped off, and it is absurd to suggest it is morally necessary to honor an agreement to enable that behavior.  

Quote
Sure shareholders should have done their due diligence, but that doesn't let Nefario off the hook. Nefario also has a duty to due diligence since he was the one soliciting investments and selling shares in the company. Nefario harmed others, shareholders only harmed themselves.

Theymos advertised shares in the company for sale even as he knew the company was operating outside the law, yet he is being left off the hook.   

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 ... 94 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!