Nefario

[mila]

It was basically all pirate related income.

thou shall not simplify

maybe the majority of trading volume in last months of glbse were pirate pass through contracts it was not always like that.
the perpetual mining bonds and other mining 'companies' were traded most, at least during first half of the year.

[1714886559]

1714886559

[1714886559]

1714886559

[1714886559]

1714886559

[freeAgent]

Have any asset issuers been in contact with Nefario to get a list of their investors?  I'm much more concerned about the securities I had on GLBSE than the bitcoins in my account (which were near zero and Nefario did not return when closing my account...not a big deal for me).

[Garr255]

Have any asset issuers been in contact with Nefario to get a list of their investors?  I'm much more concerned about the securities I had on GLBSE than the bitcoins in my account (which were near zero and Nefario did not return when closing my account...not a big deal for me).

I'd like to know the same thing. As an asset issuer I have not received any information on that yet.

I've yet to get an email from GLBSE since the closure. I haven't been able to reach James for the last few days either.

[chrisrico]

I've decided to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. I've removed IP addresses and the names of the shareholders that haven't been outed yet. Except for da2ce7, because he supported Nefario right from the beginning. With those exceptions, nothing else was changed.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

[Akka]

I've decided to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. I've removed IP addresses and the names of the shareholders that haven't been outed yet. Except for da2ce7, because he supported Nefario right from the beginning. With those exceptions, nothing else was changed.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

That's really strange. Especially the arguing in the first third.

[joke]The only conclusion that would made sense to that behaviour would be that Nefario was threaten with violence to close GLBSE.

MPOE I'm looking at you[/joke]

[paraipan]

I've decided to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. I've removed IP addresses and the names of the shareholders that haven't been outed yet. Except for da2ce7, because he supported Nefario right from the beginning. With those exceptions, nothing else was changed.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

That's really strange. Especially the arguing in the first third.

[joke]The only conclusion that would made sense to that behaviour would be that Nefario was threaten with violence to close GLBSE.

MPOE I'm looking at you[/joke]

That was pathetic, nefario using that single worded "leet talk" and giving the impression someone was watching all the time what he was about to say. I think this will be a mess in a few weeks, if it isn't already with all that has happened.

[BCB]

I read about half way through and all I can say is

"pikers"

Sorry guys... buy my college dorm meetings were were more effective then what ever that chat-fest was....

These are the kinds of guys with whom we entrust our hundreds and thousands of BTC.

Go figure....

[Yolocoin]

I read about half way through and all I can say is

"pikers"

Sorry guys... buy my college dorm meetings were were more effective then what ever that chat-fest was....

These are the kinds of guys with whom we entrust our hundreds and thousands of BTC.

Go figure....

Are you really surprised, or is that rhetorical?

[Raoul Duke]

I've decided to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. I've removed IP addresses and the names of the shareholders that haven't been outed yet. Except for da2ce7, because he supported Nefario right from the beginning. With those exceptions, nothing else was changed.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne

pastebin tl;dr: I used to pretend I had balls but the truth is I don't even have one ball, much less two. - Nefario 2012

Compare his talk on the pastebin with this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4iPCpmv678
Remember it was only 1 month ago lol

[repentance]

Did any of the shareholders actually phone the lawyer Nefario claimed is advising him?

[Justin00]

shareholder#3 sounds like a pussy

just saying is all

[repentance]

Did any of the shareholders actually phone the lawyer Nefario claimed is advising him?

So, you’re still under the impression that there was a solicitor involved. I'm not convinced that he ever contacted anyone. Another possibility for funneling funds away would be to claim that he used it to pay for counsel.

No, I'm not convinced.  That's why I want to know whether the shareholders checked out his claim to have consulted the lawyer.  If he was consulting the lawyer on behalf of GLBSE, as he claims, then the partners are entitled to the same legal advice Nefario received (they are, after all, as liable as he is for the activities of GLBSE).  There would be a significant ethical problem with a lawyer telling Nefario not to inform the partners of the advice he was given if he was consulting that lawyer on behalf of GLBSE rather than as an individual (in which case GLBSE should not be expected to pay for the lawyer). 

It's absolutely possible for the lawyer to provide a written legal opinion advising the other partners to cease operating GLBSE immediately without revealing whether or not there is an active government investigation of GLBSE.  AML regulations do not restrict attorney/client privilege, so I'm not buying that if GLBSE is the lawyer's client the lawyer cannot inform the other partners of GLBSE of any investigation which is currently active (he may even have a positive obligation to do so).  Either Nefario is lying about having consulted a lawyer or - and I consider this more likely - he's lying about having consulted a lawyer on behalf of GLBSE and has consulted that lawyer as an individual (and should therefore pay the bill himself).

[Justin00]

what happened with those 2 or so people who said they deposited the 8btc like moments before it all shut down ?
Didnt one person claim the site was shutdown, then reopened so they could send the 8btc then shut down again ?

[Come-from-Beyond]

The 1st thing came to my mind after reading...

[05/10/2012 16:22:59] <nefario> present, GLBSE is down
[05/10/2012 16:23:01] <nefario> the future
[05/10/2012 16:23:06] <nefario> GLBSE is staying down
[05/10/2012 16:23:11] <nefario> closing it's doors
[05/10/2012 16:23:24] <nefario> and returning bitcoin to our users
[05/10/2012 16:23:52] <nefario> and providing where possible issers and asset holders the ability to continue their relationships without us
[05/10/2012 16:24:08] <nefario> clear enough?

...was - Heh, looks like Nefario wish to launch GLBSE #2 but with 100% shares in his pocket. All that he needs is just to find other names for the exchange and for himself.

PS: I might be wrong, but it would be quite a good idea to get rid of all other shareholders if I earned enough money and decided to register the exchange officially...

[repentance]

Actually, the attorney's responsibility is to the law, the court, and his client.  Not some foreign dudes who were stupid enough to get into bed with the client with no written contract.

And no lawyer in a Commonwealth country is going to maintain that the absence of a written contract means that a partnership didn't exist.  There is clear evidence that the "shareholders" were not angel investors who had no role in the operations of GLBSE - some of them even performed the roles of office-bearers and it's apparent that they held regular meetings to discuss GLBSE issues.  

If a lawyer told Nefario to with-hold information from the co-owners (because that's what they are) of GLBSE, it's not because no written partnership agreement exists (the absence of written partnership agreements is common enough that legal systems have default ways of dissolving partnerships, and this particular one did have by-laws - signed or not), it's because Nefario consulted that lawyer as an individual rather than on behalf of GLBSE.

It's more than clear that the partners did regard it as a toy company and didn't seek legal advice before deciding to throw it together - nobody who's obtained competent legal advice is going to set up an enterprise in a manner which exposes them to unlimited personal liability - but that doesn't mean that no laws apply to it.

It's never in your best interests to talk, especially to a group and especially on record.

There are circumstances where you have a positive obligation to disclose material information and it's utter bullshit to pretend that an investigation into the operations of GLBSE - a business for which all of the partners are legally responsible - is not material information.  If Nefario was seeking legal advice on behalf of GLBSE rather than as an individual, you bet he had an obligation to disclose that material information to his co-owners - the business, and not Nefario personally, would be the client in that instance.  Likewise, a CEO of a real company seeking legal advice on behalf of the company could not with-hold that advice from the board of directors.

He has produced zero evidence of having consulted a lawyer and zero evidence of being advised to close down the business - which I've already pointed out that the lawyer could have given without disclosing the existence of any active investigation.  There is no way that if I'm seeking legal advice on behalf of a business - something I've done on many occasions - I am not going to get my lawyer to confirm that advice in writing 1) so there is no confusion about the advice when I relay it to others and 2) so that if it turns out to be unsound advice, I have evidence that we were badly advised.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I just assume Nefario is acting in bad faith untill I see something official from the lawyer.

[repentance]

I just assume Nefario is acting in bad faith untill I see something official from the lawyer.

I would make that same assumption.  When lawyers "gag" their clients, they tend to tell those clients to refer people who want to know what's going on to them - then the lawyer gets to stonewall people, eliminating the risk of the client saying something stupid which will dig them into a deeper hole.

It's not that I don't believe a lawyer would tell Nefario to shut GLBSE down - there are a lot of Bitcoin services operating that are skating on very thin ice when it comes to compliance with financial laws and regulations, and judging by some of the comments in those minutes some of them have probably been reported to regulators by their competition - I don't, however, believe that he has received legal advice in anything other than a personal capacity and I'd be worried that he'll throw everyone else under a bus if that's what it takes to save his own ass.

[Herodes]

...probably been reported to regulators by their competition...

If I ran a bitcoin service, and I was not compliant with current laws, and I suddenly got attention from regulators. The first thing I would think would be: "Who is to gain from this?"

Naturally, competitors would be an answer. So would this not be the same as shooting yourself in the foot if you report your competitor to the regulators? What is there to protect you from your competitor reporting you too ? Would it not be in the best interest of all services to keep quiet?

[repentance]

If there are criminal charges, they'll have to extradite, and I doubt they'll pull a Sonny K over BTC.

Nefario said he was most concerned about AML stuff, not about the legalities of selling unregulated securities to Americans.  If there's an investigation going on, it seems far more likely that it's a domestic one (which could have been precipitated by information shared by US investigators looking into pirate's ponzi).

If I ran a bitcoin service, and I was not compliant with current laws, and I suddenly got attention from regulators. The first thing I would think would be: "Who is to gain from this?"

At this point in time, so many Bitcoin services are complete clusterfucks that you'd never be sure whether it was a competitor or an angry user who reported you.  Every time a Bitcoin service fucks up spectacularly these days, I pretty much assume that a few of their users will report them to the authorities - and services themselves should probably work on that assumption too.

[Bitcoin Oz]

If there are criminal charges, they'll have to extradite, and I doubt they'll pull a Sonny K over BTC.

Nefario said he was most concerned about AML stuff, not about the legalities of selling unregulated securities to Americans.  If there's an investigation going on, it seems far more likely that it's a domestic one (which could have been precipitated by information shared by US investigators looking into pirate's ponzi).

Right.  Nefario's in the UK or Ireland.  I do not believe Theymos & co. are in the same country as Nefario.  Hence the stronger motivation to protect himself at the cost of people who have the option of never visiting two of the most miserable places on Earth. :-)

Sucks about not being able to visit Scotland, though.  Maybe they'll secede soon.

Some are in Australia and Canada, which are part of the commonwealth.