Nefario

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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

You're not liable for actions you're forced to take. The individual(s) who is(are) threatening you is(are) liable.
So, in this sense, yes, state laws might give you the ethical right to break a valid agreement. It's not really you who's breaking it, it's the state.

If Nefario was worried, he should have just resigned.

How can you be sure that even was an option at that point?
Maybe shutting down GLBSE was his only ticket out of prison. Just resigning might not be enough to the criminals in the SEC/FSA/whatever.

[gweedo]

If Nefario was worried, he should have just resigned.

How can you be sure that even was an option at that point?
Maybe shutting down GLBSE was his only ticket out of prison. Just resigning might not be enough to the criminals in the SEC/FSA/whatever.

There was no way he was even endanger of going to jail. There is no contact by any of these agencies.

[SebastianJu]

I believe he was feared that the sec will come because his lawyer told him this fear would be appropriate. So he decided to crash glbse and start a new legal project.

But he should have done it way better. I mean who will entrust him money now? It would start slow i presume.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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.

If he's being forced by other parties to shut down the service because it's illegal, he's still the one who decided to open the service and he's still ultimately responsible for that. He caused financial loss to his investors by not doing his due diligence beforehand to make sure he would be able to keep his agreement.

I'm disappointed. You're wrong on your judgment.
You cannot be liable for something you're forced to do.
How is he any more responsible than others who bought GLBSE? If I ask someone "want to buy and share this?", and then the thing is stolen for example, you're claiming that I must reimburse those who accepted to buy it with me?
Unless Nefario shut down GLBSE out of his own spontaneous will, what I find hard to believe, you cannot say he's responsible for it.
 

He made an agreement, he didn't/couldn't keep it (entirely due to his own action/inaction), he got the tag.

Are you sure it was entirely due to his voluntary action/inaction?

Honestly, after everything he's done, I believe he deserved the benefit of doubt for at least a couple weeks. There's no need to "quickly tag him", since he's not going to take anyone's money any time soon.

[fbastage]

You're not liable for actions you're forced to take. The individual(s) who is(are) threatening you is(are) liable.
So, in this sense, yes, state laws might give you the ethical right to break a valid agreement. It's not really you who's breaking it, it's the state.

Since we have no information nor confirmation that Nefario is being forced by any legal authority or even a law he believes to have applied here, we should not assume this is the case.  I welcome him or anyone with such information to come forward, but lacking that I think we can only rely on what are the few facts we have:

• Nefario engaged in a business he believed to have legal risks, including those cited (though insufficiently verified) as reasons for shutting down GLBSE
• Nefario and the voting members unilaterally decided to end the business (which would be their right)
• Users had no advanced notice of the exchange closing
• Users are unable to access their accounts, funds, and 'securities'
• User funds were to be returned beginning Monday and have not been returned (afaik)

Short of facts surfacing that show Nefario was compelled to act this way, I think most would conclude he has wronged (maybe even scammed) his users.  Pretending those facts exist doesn't really add much to the discussion.

Let's not make excuses for Nefario. He is welcome and able to make them for himself and bring more facts to bear on this topic (and it always bothers me when the key person in these issues remains silent, though it might be in their better legal interest to do so).  Anything we add to that is speculative and will ultimately muddy the truth.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

There was no way he was even endanger of going to jail. There is no contact by any of these agencies.

I can't know for sure, but that's not what he seems to be telling people by phone.
And according to some people more versed in state laws than me posting in this thread, he was violating many of such laws in ways that could result in jail time.
He was likely under threat since the very beginning (these laws themselves are a written threat), he only took too long to actually realize it - not only him, but the other shareholders as well.

[muyuu]

He always spoke of his contingency plans and that there were other people with all the information to take over if he was hit by a bus.

So why is nobody contacting me?

I can't think of any compelling excuse to this kind of course of action.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Since we have no information nor confirmation that Nefario is being forced by any legal authority or even a law

I believe some people have already stated here that he was breaking laws.

• Users had no advanced notice of the exchange closing
• Users are unable to access their accounts, funds, and 'securities'
• User funds were to be returned beginning Monday and have not been returned (afaik)

Short of facts surfacing that show Nefario was compelled to act this way, I think most would conclude he has wronged (maybe even scammed) his users.

Perhaps, but then the same verdict should have been applied when MtGox did similar things with their users. Multiple times MtGox clients had their money hold ransom, to only be liberated after the user provided identification. And at the time, their ToS didn't state that such thing could happen.
But anyway, BadBear stated that this was not the reason for the tag.
[/list]

[gweedo]

There was no way he was even endanger of going to jail. There is no contact by any of these agencies.

I can't know for sure, but that's not what he seems to be telling people by phone.
And according to some people more versed in state laws than me posting in this thread, he was violating many of such laws in ways that could result in jail time.
He was likely under threat since the very beginning (these laws themselves are a written threat), he only took too long to actually realize it - not only him, but the other shareholders as well.

He had no fiat currency, only bitcoins I believe, so that would make any laws invalid.

[fbastage]

I believe some people have already stated here that he was breaking laws.

That would make it hearsay, and certainly no one has indicated that he has been contacted or pressured by any legal authority.  It also doesn't differ much from the Nefario that thought he was breaking the laws since the very inception of GLBSE and represented to his users that he intended to provide this service in spite of that.

I would like to hear from Nefario rather than speculate about what his rationale was.  To defend his actions based on an assumption that he was compelled when we have no indication that he was is just adding more untruth on top of the uncertainty that already exists.

[SebastianJu]

One thing is sure... nefarios public relations are horrible in this case and is hurting him more than necessary. And thats stupid.

[mark_logan]

One thing is sure... nefarios public relations are horrible in this case and is hurting him more than necessary. And thats stupid.

Another thing for sure, this is the fastest anyone has ever seen the GLBSE site load. 

[Aahz]

Nobody is morally required to honor an agreement to break the law.

Yeah!  The blacks should have stayed enslaved because IT WAS THE LAW!  The Jews should have danced onto those trains because IT WAS THE LAW!  George Washington should have paid his taxes to the crown because IT WAS THE LAW!

There is no morality, there is only THE LAW!

[Rarity]

Nobody is morally required to honor an agreement to break the law.

Yeah!  The blacks should have stayed enslaved because IT WAS THE LAW!  The Jews should have danced onto those trains because IT WAS THE LAW!  George Washington should have paid his taxes to the crown because IT WAS THE LAW!

There is no morality, there is only THE LAW!

Your sarcasm is misdirected.  Slavery is always immoral, as is ripping people off with a stock market full of scammy products.  Both of these things are currently not legal.  You have no moral necessity to honor a slave contract regardless of the legal status.  What Bad Bear is arguing is upholding the slave contract is the paramount moral concern because an agreement is an agreement.   

[memvola]

Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.  

You are assuming that the obligation to the law wouldn't be reasonably averted if Nefario had consulted with the shareholders. How do you know this? Isn't it possible that Nefario did know what the shareholders would recommend as a solution and therefore avoided a confrontation? We don't know because the obligation wasn't met.

Second, he can still prove that the threat was imminent and there is nothing he could have done, which would allow the tag to be reconsidered. The scammer tag is more of a warning label than a punishment.

[Aahz]

Nobody is morally required to honor an agreement to break the law.

Yeah!  The blacks should have stayed enslaved because IT WAS THE LAW!  The Jews should have danced onto those trains because IT WAS THE LAW!  George Washington should have paid his taxes to the crown because IT WAS THE LAW!

There is no morality, there is only THE LAW!

Your sarcasm is misdirected.  Slavery is always immoral, as is ripping people off with a stock market full of scammy products.  Both of these things are currently not legal.  You have no moral necessity to honor a slave contract regardless of the legal status.  What Bad Bear is arguing is upholding the slave contract is the paramount moral concern because an agreement is an agreement.   

Really?  You think the slaves signed contracts to become slaves?  You think the people that ran the Underground Railroad signed some contract stating they would return slaves?

[SebastianJu]

I come to think that you should make a short video or at least screenshot of every transaction or thing you do at any bitcoin related business website. Otherwise you wouldnt have any proof at all. And when i see the number of businesses going down... that looks necessary...

[Rarity]

Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.  

You are assuming that the obligation to the law wouldn't be reasonably averted if Nefario had consulted with the shareholders. How do you know this? Isn't it possible that Nefario did know what the shareholders would recommend as a solution and therefore avoided a confrontation? We don't know because the obligation wasn't met.

GLBSE itself was a criminal organization.  This is like arguing that a mafia don has an obligation to talk it over with his consigliare and his Lieutenants before going to the police to turn them in.   Nobody cares that you all signed a blood oath together, those private rules are entirely irrelevant. 

[Rarity]

Nobody is morally required to honor an agreement to break the law.

Yeah!  The blacks should have stayed enslaved because IT WAS THE LAW!  The Jews should have danced onto those trains because IT WAS THE LAW!  George Washington should have paid his taxes to the crown because IT WAS THE LAW!

There is no morality, there is only THE LAW!

Your sarcasm is misdirected.  Slavery is always immoral, as is ripping people off with a stock market full of scammy products.  Both of these things are currently not legal.  You have no moral necessity to honor a slave contract regardless of the legal status.  What Bad Bear is arguing is upholding the slave contract is the paramount moral concern because an agreement is an agreement.  

Really?  You think the slaves signed contracts to become slaves?

No, nothing I have posted suggests I believe that.  I am stating the opposite to folks arguing that if such contracts existed under emancipation they should be honored.

[Aahz]

GLBSE itself was a criminal organization.  This is like arguing that a mafia don has an obligation to talk it over with his consigliare and his Lieutenants before going to the police to turn them in.   Nobody cares that you all signed a blood oath together, those private rules are entirely irrelevant. 

They aren't irrelevant to the mafia itself.  There have been numerous cases of mafiosos being sanctioned for violating the organizations "rules".

We're talking about the bitcoin community (the mafia in your example) sanctioning one of their own (by giving him a Scammer tag), so the "rules" or standards of this comunity are the only things that ARE relevant.

Were Bad Bear proposing to jail Nefario, THEN the law would be relevant.