Nefario

[stochastic]

Honest GLBSE officers and shareholders, please intervene and give us a reasonable means to reclaim our funds and assets.  One that does not require us to place additional trust where it clearly should not be placed.

We would, but we have no way of bypassing Nefario. I don't believe our bylaws would be legally recognized, so legal action probably wouldn't be effective. And we don't have enough operating funds to pursue legal action anyway.

Actually, they probably would hold up in court if you have the minutes of meetings and personal communications between the owners of BitcoinGlobal.  It would be more cut and dry if you had a registered agreement, but partnerships don't have to be registered with a governmental body in some jurisdictions.

[1714079388]

1714079388

[1714079388]

1714079388

[Beans]

The BitcoinGlobal shareholders can't keep their CEO from stealing the GLBSE database so why not release their names?

Theymos should consult a lawyer and come clean with whatever information he has to the authorities.  This vigilantism is just an extension of lawless unregulated situation that allowed this scam to thrive. 

How many times are you going to post this crap. Give it a rest, that's not the solution for everything.

[Bogart]

I only hope we all have the good sense to stay away from GLBSE 3.0 if Nefario is in any way involved.

[repentance]

Actually, they probably would hold up in court if you have the minutes of meetings and personal communications between the owners of BitcoinGlobal.  It would be more cut and dry if you had a registered agreement, but partnerships don't have to be registered with a governmental body in some jurisdictions.

From what theymos has posted, BG has fuck all funds which are not user/asset issuer funds.  If the shareholders (who are really just partners) were willing to front the cost of legal action themselves, they could pursue legal recourse, but there's no guarantee they'd recover their out-lay or that any action would be rapid.  This is the kind of situation where it's great if you have a lawyer on stand-by ready to file an emergency motion the moment the shareholders' meeting ends but no-one had that foresight.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Actually, they probably would hold up in court if you have the minutes of meetings and personal communications between the owners of BitcoinGlobal.  It would be more cut and dry if you had a registered agreement, but partnerships don't have to be registered with a governmental body in some jurisdictions.

From what theymos has posted, BG has fuck all funds which are not user/asset issuer funds.  If the shareholders (who are really just partners) were willing to front the cost of legal action themselves, they could pursue legal recourse, but there's no guarantee they'd recover their out-lay or that any action would be rapid.  This is the kind of situation where it's great if you have a lawyer on stand-by ready to file an emergency motion the moment the shareholders' meeting ends but no-one had that foresight.

The only income Nefario had was getting paid from GLBSE. It would be pretty pointless.

The funny part is bitcoinglobal paid for the lawyer he went to see so in effect it paid for its own destruction.

[repentance]

The only income Nefario had was getting paid from GLBSE. It would be pretty pointless.

I think people were suggesting emergency legal action to wrest control of GLBSE away from Nefario rather than to seek compensation.  People feel like he's holding their funds hostage and that no mechanism has been put in place to allow them to deal with asset-issuers directly.  

They don't trust him - and to be fair, I'd be worried that he'll use information ostensibly gathered to wind down GLBSE in his new venture, just like Zhou spammed Bitcoinica users when he started NameTerrific - and they want the process in the hands of someone else.  That's only going to happen if either Nefario agrees to delegate the process to someone else or if he's legally forced to do so.  Users feel powerless and abandoned by the other partners - they feel like nobody who is in a position to take action against Nefario is willing to do so, and I can't blame them for that.

[memvola]

Honest GLBSE officers and shareholders, please intervene and give us a reasonable means to reclaim our funds and assets.  One that does not require us to place additional trust where it clearly should not be placed.

We would, but we have no way of bypassing Nefario. I don't believe our bylaws would be legally recognized, so legal action probably wouldn't be effective. And we don't have enough operating funds to pursue legal action anyway.

At this point, even if you don't have the duplicate, a broken, incomplete or old database would do.

[mc_lovin]

page now reads:

Update:we are currently unable to process account closures, and will inform our users when this service resumes.

[stochastic]

Actually, they probably would hold up in court if you have the minutes of meetings and personal communications between the owners of BitcoinGlobal.  It would be more cut and dry if you had a registered agreement, but partnerships don't have to be registered with a governmental body in some jurisdictions.

From what theymos has posted, BG has fuck all funds which are not user/asset issuer funds.  If the shareholders (who are really just partners) were willing to front the cost of legal action themselves, they could pursue legal recourse, but there's no guarantee they'd recover their out-lay or that any action would be rapid.  This is the kind of situation where it's great if you have a lawyer on stand-by ready to file an emergency motion the moment the shareholders' meeting ends but no-one had that foresight.

The only income Nefario had was getting paid from GLBSE. It would be pretty pointless.

You seem to still trust what Nefario says.

The funny part is bitcoinglobal paid for the lawyer he went to see so in effect it paid for its own destruction.

Hilarious. 

[repentance]

page now reads:

Update:we are currently unable to process account closures, and will inform our users when this service resumes.

Maybe he should ask Amir, Donald and Patrick to help him process claims.  ::d&r::

[Bitcoin Oz]

page now reads:

Update:we are currently unable to process account closures, and will inform our users when this service resumes.

Maybe he should ask Amir, Donald and Patrick to help him process claims.  ::d&r::

Maybe they can 

[mc_lovin]

page now reads:

Update:we are currently unable to process account closures, and will inform our users when this service resumes.

Maybe he should ask Amir, Donald and Patrick to help him process claims.  ::d&r::

he even tweeted it, lmao:



except he forgot to mention in the tweet that users will need to photograph themself with their username.

i think confirming our email addresses much like a password reset procedure would be sufficient verification, since that's all we were required to do for signing up and purchasing/listing assets.

[mc_lovin]

I suggest that users block this profile if you are facebook users:

en-gb.facebook.com/GLBSEbot

[repentance]

Why do I have visions of Amir and Nefario sitting around trying to fix this while high?

[coinft]

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.

First, I cannot dispose of the shares at the moment, I cannot sell them, so I suffer damages already directly due to his actions if (a given for mining bonds!) the price moves down.

Second, without an easily accessible and decently safe market you just cannot trade them for their original worth, as risk lowers the price.

Third, at the moment I cannot even prove ownership, more risk which lowers the price.

But I am willing to sell 109 TYGGR.BOND-A at 0.08 and 225 YAMC at 0.07 BTC/share. This includes accrued dividends which have not been payed out yet.

SEPA is no option, because in that case you can likely reverse the trade if shares are never delivered (risky market, see?). Go buy BTC, then buy my shares to put money in your mouth. But I guess you'll chicken  out.

[niko]

Why do I have visions of Amir and Nefario sitting around trying to fix this while high?

Not sure why, but at least I'll go to bed laughing after reading this.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Why do I have visions of Amir and Nefario sitting around trying to fix this while high?

Not sure why, but at least I'll go to bed laughing after reading this.

What makes you think thats not how glbse usually operates ?

[Rarity]

Second, without an easily accessible and decently safe market you just cannot trade them for their original worth, as risk lowers the price.

Such a market never existed, the price was artificially higher before because people were buying into the scam that an unregulated securities market could be safe. 

[Bitcoin Oz]

Second, without an easily accessible and decently safe market you just cannot trade them for their original worth, as risk lowers the price.

Such a market never existed, the price was artificially higher before because people were buying into the scam that an unregulated securities market could be safe. 

Regulations dont make things "safe" they just give a false sense of security. Thats without regulatory capture.

[Rarity]

Second, without an easily accessible and decently safe market you just cannot trade them for their original worth, as risk lowers the price.

Such a market never existed, the price was artificially higher before because people were buying into the scam that an unregulated securities market could be safe. 

Regulations dont make things "safe" they just give a false sense of security. Thats without regulatory capture.

Every investment carries risk.  Regulation and enforcement of regulation significantly reduces it.