Nefario

[mc_lovin]

Got the email:

"Your GLBSE account has been processed for bitcoin. The next step will be to send you information about your assets, and to provide this information to issuers (if you agreed) allowing you to continue your relationship with your issuers."

Lookin' forward to it!

[1713417718]

1713417718

[1713417718]

1713417718

[1713417718]

1713417718

[1713417718]

1713417718

[1713417718]

1713417718

[gweedo]

Got the email:

"Your GLBSE account has been processed for bitcoin. The next step will be to send you information about your assets, and to provide this information to issuers (if you agreed) allowing you to continue your relationship with your issuers."

Lookin' forward to it!

I got the email but still no coins

[SebastianJu]

Maybe they are rounding. But i dont like that because then i get less than i should. Others will be happy of course.

You know what comes to mind thinking about this? They use a simple excelsheet and dont check that the shown digits after the dot are rounded and that there are more digits than that.

By the way... i didnt get an email from glbse. Not even in spamfolder. Maybe they changed the script later to do so?

[EuroTrash]

We can put our pickaxes down. 

the shares are still worthless since they can't be sold, and that loss of value is still Nefario's fault. His actions gave issuers an easy excuse to walk away with no responsibilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. Obsi and Usagi will simply do so.

(make me happy, prove me wrong)

[SebastianJu]

We can put our pickaxes down. 

the shares are still worthless since they can't be sold, and that loss of value is still Nefario's fault. His actions gave issuers an easy excuse to walk away with no responsibilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. Obsi and Usagi will simply do so.

(make me happy, prove me wrong)

Again... why should they be worthless? You bought them because of their dividend didnt you? So when the dividend isnt dropping significantly why should the shares be worth less now? Only when you think they are worth less and you trow them away they drop in price.

Of course, if you bought worthless scampapers or something that might be another thing. But only because its not traded doesnt say anything about the worth.

[JoelKatz]

Again... why should they be worthless?

Because they can't be traded and there is no anonymous way to own them. These were the major factors that created their value.

You bought them because of their dividend didnt you? So when the dividend isnt dropping significantly why should the shares be worth less now? Only when you think they are worth less and you trow them away they drop in price.

You can make all kinds of logical arguments about what the value of something should be, but the market doesn't care.

Of course, if you bought worthless scampapers or something that might be another thing. But only because its not traded doesnt say anything about the worth.

The only way to distinguish assets with real value from scampapers is with a functioning market. A market not only provides an efficient way to trade assets, but it also provides a realistic way to measure the value of assets.

An item that you can sell for $100 on an exchange any time you decide you don't want to hold the asset is worth at least $100. Not only can you actually exchange it for $100, but you know that people value it at that level because you know people are willing to buy it at that price. Take that very same asset and eliminate the ability to sell it for $100 and the certain knowledge that others are willing to buy it for $100 and it's not worth $100 any more. Liquidity is part of what makes it valuable.

[SebastianJu]

Again... why should they be worthless?

Because they can't be traded and there is no anonymous way to own them. These were the major factors that created their value.

So you say that, when the issuer afterwards know how many shares are owned by what shareholder and the issuer is paying dividends like before the shares will be significantly less worth only because they werent traded some time? What makes you think so? The value is what others would pay for it and what you would it sell for. But when the dividend didnt change significantly down... where do you see that the share is worth less automatically?

You know that there are stocks that arent traded in public? They are sold only privately from person to person. Following your logic these papers cant be worth much only because they dont have an official trading platform.

Its not the trading platform that lets the security live... its the issuer. And even when the issuer wouldnt be able to help trading them for a while. The worth of a share is backed by the worth of the company behind. In most cases the mininghardware. And this mininghardware is creating dividends. While miningcompanies are special and because of their nature are paying less dividend each time the shareprice is dropping. But thats the same like it was when glbse was still open.

You bought them because of their dividend didnt you? So when the dividend isnt dropping significantly why should the shares be worth less now? Only when you think they are worth less and you trow them away they drop in price.

You can make all kinds of logical arguments about what the value of something should be, but the market doesn't care.

The market doesnt care? You are the market! I think you dont get this. You think when glbse is down automatically everything doesnt have value. I dont know how to explain any more. I mean if you really would have shares that bring in their ROI after 12 months and you think now they aren worth a tenth of the price you bought it for you will make someone happy. So why should i stop this?
But in fact i think you wouldnt sell it for that price once your issuer starts paying again. Even though you say other things now.

Of course, if you bought worthless scampapers or something that might be another thing. But only because its not traded doesnt say anything about the worth.

The only way to distinguish assets with real value from scampapers is with a functioning market. A market not only provides an efficient way to trade assets, but it also provides a realistic way to measure the value of assets.

*lol* Thats one funny sentence. Maybe you werent at the scene when pirate pass throughs were live. Or you werent online when dmc started with their ipo-price.

The only way to find scampapers is getting infos. And not following the sheeps investing in all kind of scams because the high roi is setting the lockbit to their brain.

An item that you can sell for $100 on an exchange any time you decide you don't want to hold the asset is worth at least $100. Not only can you actually exchange it for $100, but you know that people value it at that level because you know people are willing to buy it at that price. Take that very same asset and eliminate the ability to sell it for $100 and the certain knowledge that others are willing to buy it for $100 and it's not worth $100 any more. Liquidity is part of what makes it valuable.

So you say that the fridge in antarctica isnt worth much because its not in europe or africa? Ok, thats a point... for a fridge. But you have non-hardware here. And you have the internet. And now tell me again that you wouldnt be able to find a buyer for a security thats pays stable and has a return of investment of 12 months. You really think so? Or is part of your calculation the amount of work involved to sell them? Then maybe you have to keep them and eat the dividends. I dont see why this is a bad choice. Maybe even in some time their will be a new market where you can sell it even easier.

But this... i have to throw away shares with value and so i can sell them only for less doesnt count for me. When you want to sell something hasty then its the same in the normal world. It will sell probably for less than its value. But its only your decision if you want to do this. And i didnt say that it will be easier without glbse. So when you want to sell if fast, for whatever reason, then you take in account to sell it for less. But dont claim that every share is worthless now only because its not anymore as easy as entering 2 numbers and click enter. You can say that they are worthless when nefario isnt giving out the share details, but not now.

[JoelKatz]

So you say that, when the issuer afterwards know how many shares are owned by what shareholder and the issuer is paying dividends like before the shares will be significantly less worth only because they werent traded some time? What makes you think so? The value is what others would pay for it and what you would it sell for. But when the dividend didnt change significantly down... where do you see that the share is worth less automatically?

Because liquidity is a significant factor in their value.

You know that there are stocks that arent traded in public? They are sold only privately from person to person. Following your logic these papers cant be worth much only because they dont have an official trading platform.

My logic was about a decrease in value when an asset is suddenly less liquid than it was before. You can't apply it to situations where there isn't a sudden decrease in liquidity.

Its not the trading platform that lets the security live... its the issuer. And even when the issuer wouldnt be able to help trading them for a while. The worth of a share is backed by the worth of the company behind. In most cases the mininghardware. And this mininghardware is creating dividends. While miningcompanies are special and because of their nature are paying less dividend each time the shareprice is dropping. But thats the same like it was when glbse was still open.

All true, but all irrelevant. The sudden loss of liquidity has a catastrophic effect on value. That the shares are backed doesn't really change this.

You bought them because of their dividend didnt you? So when the dividend isnt dropping significantly why should the shares be worth less now? Only when you think they are worth less and you trow them away they drop in price.

You can make all kinds of logical arguments about what the value of something should be, but the market doesn't care.

The market doesnt care? You are the market! I think you dont get this. You think when glbse is down automatically everything doesnt have value. I dont know how to explain any more. I mean if you really would have shares that bring in their ROI after 12 months and you think now they aren worth a tenth of the price you bought it for you will make someone happy. So why should i stop this?
But in fact i think you wouldnt sell it for that price once your issuer starts paying again. Even though you say other things now.

I'm not saying the value can't go back up if liquidity or a dividend channel is restored. I'm saying value is severely reduced now.

Of course, if you bought worthless scampapers or something that might be another thing. But only because its not traded doesnt say anything about the worth.

The only way to distinguish assets with real value from scampapers is with a functioning market. A market not only provides an efficient way to trade assets, but it also provides a realistic way to measure the value of assets.

*lol* Thats one funny sentence. Maybe you werent at the scene when pirate pass throughs were live. Or you werent online when dmc started with their ipo-price.

The only way to find scampapers is getting infos. And not following the sheeps investing in all kind of scams because the high roi is setting the lockbit to their brain.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Right now, the market says Apple stock is worth $630/share. Please tell me how you could possibly have figured that out without a functioning market. The market also tells me that an average SUV is worth $25,000. Please tell me how you could possibly have calculated this without a functioning market.

Your example of the PPTs actually makes my point -- we didn't have a functioning market and so their value was grossly overestimated.

An item that you can sell for $100 on an exchange any time you decide you don't want to hold the asset is worth at least $100. Not only can you actually exchange it for $100, but you know that people value it at that level because you know people are willing to buy it at that price. Take that very same asset and eliminate the ability to sell it for $100 and the certain knowledge that others are willing to buy it for $100 and it's not worth $100 any more. Liquidity is part of what makes it valuable.

So you say that the fridge in antarctica isnt worth much because its not in europe or africa? Ok, thats a point... for a fridge. But you have non-hardware here. And you have the internet. And now tell me again that you wouldnt be able to find a buyer for a security thats pays stable and has a return of investment of 12 months. You really think so? Or is part of your calculation the amount of work involved to sell them? Then maybe you have to keep them and eat the dividends. I dont see why this is a bad choice. Maybe even in some time their will be a new market where you can sell it even easier.

Again, arguments about how the value might go up in the future don't translate into rebuttals to the claims that the value has gone down now.

But this... i have to throw away shares with value and so i can sell them only for less doesnt count for me. When you want to sell something hasty then its the same in the normal world. It will sell probably for less than its value. But its only your decision if you want to do this. And i didnt say that it will be easier without glbse. So when you want to sell if fast, for whatever reason, then you take in account to sell it for less. But dont claim that every share is worthless now only because its not anymore as easy as entering 2 numbers and click enter. You can say that they are worthless when nefario isnt giving out the share details, but not now.

I agree. But the point is that liquidity is a major factor in value. Something you can sell any time at low cost for $100 is worth more than something you could sell for $100 in a week or so with significant effort.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I have only got 0.067104 not 0.1 BTC.. I would be happy if he rounded it up and I got a bit more.

[juggalodarkclow]

BTC magazine interviews Nefario concerning GLBSE closing
 http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

[SebastianJu]

Liquidity means only that you can sell or buy shares fast. Of course, when you want to sell or buy shares with the same speed like before that means you will get way less or have to pay way more than before. But thats a principle working the same when you want to sell your SUV. If you want to sell it today because you move the next day then you probably will only find a buyer in the next bar that is paying one tenth of it. But if you take your time and search for a good offer you will find a better offer than this guy would give.

So what you now say is, only because you cant sell it in a second for the best price its devalued. Right? But nobody is forcing you to sell it in a minute even though that would mean you dont find an appropriate offer that is more than one percent of original value or so.

I'm not saying the value can't go back up if liquidity or a dividend channel is restored. I'm saying value is severely reduced now.

So when the issuer is paying dividend again you say the original value will be back? I mean ok, its a hit that glbse died. So maybe there will less people invest. But i can imagine that there are persons that wanted to buy asicminer before and cant now. But they believe in asicminer and want to pay even more than before. Because they would have a harder time than before to get shares. The same would apply to you. You would have a harder time to find buyers, which could drop the price you are being offered. But of course its buyer and seller. And the bad price for the one side is the good price for the other. So the only effect missing liquidity would have, taking aside the trustloss from closing glbse, would be a more wide spread in bid and ask. And more time to establish trades. Thats the effect of missing liquidity in my opinion.

Right now, the market says Apple stock is worth $630/share. Please tell me how you could possibly have figured that out without a functioning market. The market also tells me that an average SUV is worth $25,000. Please tell me how you could possibly have calculated this without a functioning market.

I wouldnt buy apple stock out of principle. So its worth less for me. But the only thing needed to find a price is to have 2 persons. One interested in selling, one in buying. At the end a price is found. And if the price is too low or too high only comes from if the buyer or the seller is more interested in buying or selling. A functioning market only has the effect that more people can put in their image of the price. That means the price shown at the end is more accurate. An average of all offers.

Your example of the PPTs actually makes my point -- we didn't have a functioning market and so their value was grossly overestimated.

What do you mean? You know what the price shows? What sellers are willing to sell for and what buyers are willing to buy for. When people dont think its a scam then it will be worth more. When more people think its a scam and dont want to buy then of course the price will go lower. And why shouldnt glbse be a functioning market for ppt? There were many parties involved that at the end resulted in an average price for a share. And obviously many believed its not a scam so the price was relatively high.

Again, arguments about how the value might go up in the future don't translate into rebuttals to the claims that the value has gone down now.

I didnt speak about price going up in future, i spoke about roi. Return of investment. When you buy a share for 1BTC and after one year you have 1BTC back in dividends and still have the share then its a ROI of 12 months. That has nothing to do with future value of the share. But it is an indicator how much worth such a share is. And so one can determine how much he want to pay for such a share.

I agree. But the point is that liquidity is a major factor in value. Something you can sell any time at low cost for $100 is worth more than something you could sell for $100 in a week or so with significant effort.

Even when time is a costfactor you only come to this from a shareholder side willing to sell. You dont keep in account that there can be buyers that are interested to buy. Once the dividends flow again. And only when both interests met a price can be established. You simply only see one side of the game.
But ok, when you want to calculate in the effort done to sell a share now then you have to pay some time. But that doesnt automatically mean that you have to sell your shares for a lower price.

[Bitinvestor]

BTC magazine interviews Nefario concerning GLBSE closing
 http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

Vitalik: So, to start off, the main question that we’re all wondering about is: what happened? Why was the glbse shut down?

James: Well, after getting involved with Pirate, I lost nearly all the bitcoin that GLBSE users had left with us.

You should have seen my jaw drop!

[JoelKatz]

Liquidity means only that you can sell or buy shares fast. Of course, when you want to sell or buy shares with the same speed like before that means you will get way less or have to pay way more than before. But thats a principle working the same when you want to sell your SUV. If you want to sell it today because you move the next day then you probably will only find a buyer in the next bar that is paying one tenth of it. But if you take your time and search for a good offer you will find a better offer than this guy would give.

Exactly. That's why a house may have a fair market value of, say, $150,000 but in many contexts, it will be valued at $120,000 or so (for example, the IRS will value it at this amount for collection purposes). While its value is well-established at $150,000, people would rather have $150,000 than the house because it costs money and takes time to sell it. It gets even worse if the value is not well-established.

So what you now say is, only because you cant sell it in a second for the best price its devalued. Right? But nobody is forcing you to sell it in a minute even though that would mean you dont find an appropriate offer that is more than one percent of original value or so.

It doesn't matter whether anyone is forcing you to do anything or not. A $150,000 home is not worth as much as $150,000 because you have to put in effort and time to convert the home to $150,000. It gets much worse when the value is difficult to establish. For example, if you have the only house on a block with waterfront and your house hasn't sold in a decade or more, you may have a very hard time getting significant value for that waterfront. You have no good way to establish how much value it adds to the house. It takes a healthy, functioning market to reliably establish value in a way you can expect others to be willing to rely on. There is no substitute.

I'm not saying the value can't go back up if liquidity or a dividend channel is restored. I'm saying value is severely reduced now.

So when the issuer is paying dividend again you say the original value will be back?

No. But that will likely cause to it to recover some of its lost value.

I mean ok, its a hit that glbse died. So maybe there will less people invest. But i can imagine that there are persons that wanted to buy asicminer before and cant now. But they believe in asicminer and want to pay even more than before. Because they would have a harder time than before to get shares. The same would apply to you. You would have a harder time to find buyers, which could drop the price you are being offered. But of course its buyer and seller. And the bad price for the one side is the good price for the other. So the only effect missing liquidity would have, taking aside the trustloss from closing glbse, would be a more wide spread in bid and ask. And more time to establish trades. Thats the effect of missing liquidity in my opinion.

Sure, it may be great for a buyer that prices are lower. My point is that it screws over those that hold the asset now.

Right now, the market says Apple stock is worth $630/share. Please tell me how you could possibly have figured that out without a functioning market. The market also tells me that an average SUV is worth $25,000. Please tell me how you could possibly have calculated this without a functioning market.

I wouldnt buy apple stock out of principle. So its worth less for me. But the only thing needed to find a price is to have 2 persons. One interested in selling, one in buying. At the end a price is found. And if the price is too low or too high only comes from if the buyer or the seller is more interested in buying or selling. A functioning market only has the effect that more people can put in their image of the price. That means the price shown at the end is more accurate. An average of all offers.

We know, thanks to a functional market, that Apple stock is worth $630 right now. You can have confidence paying $630 for a share because you at least know that right now you can find other buyers who will pay that price. Such confidence will be impossible in a two-person sale with no functional market. This difficulty in selling the asset and difficulty in a potential buyer having confidence will reduce the amount people are willing to pay. In practice, almost nobody is going to pay $630 for a share of Apple stock if they aren't reasonably assured that the stock is generally valued around that level.

[JoelKatz]

BTC magazine interviews Nefario concerning GLBSE closing
 http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

This is a great interview. Frankly, I still consider Nefario a scammer for delisting Goat's assets and suddenly shutting down GLBSE. His delisting of Goat's assets harmed GLBSE customers significantly and no justification for that action has yet been offered nor is there any evidence he even considered the harm it would do to his customers. His sudden shut down of GLBSE also harmed his customers and I don't see any good reason he couldn't have performed that shutdown in a more organized and gradual way. I don't see how shutting it down suddenly and chaotically reduces his legal risk over shutting it down gradually and in an organized way. And, even if so, I firmly believe that he owed it to his customers to take that risk.

[greyhawk]

I have only got 0.067104 not 0.1 BTC.. I would be happy if he rounded it up and I got a bit more.

Sounds like you two should swap

Seems like he is rounding?
I had a very tiny amount 0.06 or so and received 0.1 (but could be that there was a divident payment inbetween I have no idea)

[paraipan]

BTC magazine interviews Nefario concerning GLBSE closing
 http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

I feel sorry for him, he's confused and missing allot of information.

After the pirate joke I was about to close the page, then I continued to leave it for good at "They were now unsure as to what they would consider bitcoin..."

He has allot to learn about life and other fellow humans, but I would leave him with his new agenda for now.

[SebastianJu]

theymos... you didnt reveal the data about a thieve that stole nearly 25,000BTC? Why is that?

And does nefario speak about you that is holding the last user-money that nef cant pay back until he got it?

Regarding nefarios plans... he destroyed this future plans successfully the way he handled the shutdown. I mean he seriously lost trust now. And then he speaks about crowdfunding in million $ height? Thats not even near the reality.
I think that proves that he didnt think this through.

[dishwara]

The user had gotten away with about 2500BTC. This was a big hit to GLBSE’s profits, but we had enough to handle this. After investigation I’d learned the user had a bitcointalk account, naturally with Theymos being the admin (and a BitcoinGlobal shareholder, as well as treasurer) I went to Theymos, provided him with the proof both in the block chain and from our records, to get the guy’s personal details. He flat out refused, under no circumstances would he release that information.

I’m not sure exactly how much Theymos holds, but it’s not what he publicly stated In July/September I had sent Theymos 3K BTC to be able to top up the hot wallet when I was on the road (I was going to be traveling for a few days). Last I remember he had about 1500BTC. Those were users’ deposits.

[mila]

BTC magazine interviews Nefario concerning GLBSE closing
 http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

pity he does not offer all users "claim codes" so that they can present them with asset holders without the need to pass on the email to them.
some asset issuers might not be comfortable with holding lists of email addresses. list of codes with asset counts would be enough.

[tvbcof]

BTC magazine interviews Nefario concerning GLBSE closing
 http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

I feel sorry for him, he's confused and missing allot of information.

After the pirate joke I was about to close the page, then I continued to leave it for good at "They were now unsure as to what they would consider bitcoin..."

He has allot to learn about life and other fellow humans, but I would leave him with his new agenda for now.

I thought the pirate joke was pretty funny.  His descriptions of things aligned generally with how I had guessed that things likely went down in many ways.