Nefario

[MiloSmith]

As it was organized, it was an illegal securities trading market.

Oh and even if we cared what some gang of thugs thought about his company, I fail to see how his company could have possibly fit the definition of a securities trading market when there was no money ever involved in what this company did.

I mean unless bitcoins somehow recently became money legally speaking, I don't know what the fuck you are taking about.

The securities themselves are regulated, you could trade them for pogs and pinecones and it wouldn't matter.

bwhahahahaha you can't be serious cause man, someone should tell this every MMORPG out there, esoecually games like Second life or EVE Online..

If you tried to set up a securities market for real world companies that took payment in WoW gold, yes that would be illegal.  The games are not doing that.  

I don't presume Nefario gives a rats ass about his scammer tag, but you better believe he is done for life when it comes to doing business in the Bitcoin world because no one will ever trust this scum ever again.

Do you happen to know what my name is?

[1713552631]

1713552631

[1713552631]

1713552631

[1713552631]

1713552631

[1713552631]

1713552631

[1713552631]

1713552631

[matauc12]

He felt the need to close

Except, as it was organized, it wasn't his to close.

If he did the right thing he would have gone to jail and took responsibility for his actions that he alone was responsible for and whould have gotten his legal advance on his own dime before taking anyone's money. But no, he decided to make the "company" legit, not something any of the other owners agreed to, decided to take the company's money to pay for his own personal legal advice and decided to save his own ass at the expense of all the shareholders' stake and their privacy and at the expensive all his users' privacy.

A scammer is to mild of tag for scum like that.

So... nice rational... its not his choice to close, but it would be him to take the full responsibility? Make someone 100% liable but with 10% of the voice?

"No one agreed to make the company legit"... where are you taking this from? Bit coin.me said in another thread he was happy and would have like to see it being legit.

Basically you are saying... everyone were happy to have an enabling platform, shareholders were consciously owners of an illegal company, but nefario is the only one who should be liable.

If you ever plan to go into business with someone, let them know upfront you want all the benefits with no liability, that might change their idea of going in partnership with you.

Basically you have to choose, it was his choice to close or everyone is equally liable, you simply cannot have it both ways.

[hazek]

He felt the need to close

Except, as it was organized, it wasn't his to close.

If he did the right thing he would have gone to jail and took responsibility for his actions that he alone was responsible for and whould have gotten his legal advance on his own dime before taking anyone's money. But no, he decided to make the "company" legit, not something any of the other owners agreed to, decided to take the company's money to pay for his own personal legal advice and decided to save his own ass at the expense of all the shareholders' stake and their privacy and at the expensive all his users' privacy.

A scammer is to mild of tag for scum like that.

So... nice rational... its not his choice to close, but it would be him to take the full responsibility? Make someone 100% liable but with 10% of the voice?

"No one agreed to make the company legit"... where are you taking this from? Bit coin.me said in another thread he was happy and would have like to see it being legit.

Basically you are saying... everyone were happy to have an enabling platform, shareholders were consciously owners of an illegal company, but nefario is the only one who should be liable.

If you ever plan to go into business with someone, let them know upfront you want all the benefits with no liability, that might change their idea of going in partnership with you.

Basically you have to choose, it was his choice to close or everyone is equally liable, you simply cannot have it both ways.

Everyone was and is equally liable, that's what a shared ownership means. But some shareholders were smart enough to remain pseudononymous and didn't care for this liability and were perfectly willing to continue to run this company in another "jurisdiction" "illegally" as it were risking getting "persecuted" by the state mafia. Nefario had the option to step down, take responsibility for his "crime" and let others do what they may, but he decided to save his own ass without any regard for the wishes of the other owners.

And when I say "No one agreed to make the company legit" I of course mean there was no such motion passed by the shareholders. That a few of them might have been for it, or even the majority is completely irrelevant in such an organization.

[matauc12]

He felt the need to close

Except, as it was organized, it wasn't his to close.

If he did the right thing he would have gone to jail and took responsibility for his actions that he alone was responsible for and whould have gotten his legal advance on his own dime before taking anyone's money. But no, he decided to make the "company" legit, not something any of the other owners agreed to, decided to take the company's money to pay for his own personal legal advice and decided to save his own ass at the expense of all the shareholders' stake and their privacy and at the expensive all his users' privacy.

A scammer is to mild of tag for scum like that.

So... nice rational... its not his choice to close, but it would be him to take the full responsibility? Make someone 100% liable but with 10% of the voice?

"No one agreed to make the company legit"... where are you taking this from? Bit coin.me said in another thread he was happy and would have like to see it being legit.

Basically you are saying... everyone were happy to have an enabling platform, shareholders were consciously owners of an illegal company, but nefario is the only one who should be liable.

If you ever plan to go into business with someone, let them know upfront you want all the benefits with no liability, that might change their idea of going in partnership with you.

Basically you have to choose, it was his choice to close or everyone is equally liable, you simply cannot have it both ways.

Everyone was and is equally liable, that's what a shared ownership means. But some shareholders were smart enough to remain pseudononymous and didn't care for this liability and were perfectly willing to continue to run this company in another "jurisdiction" "illegally" as it were risking getting "persecuted" by the state mafia. Nefario had the option to step down, take responsibility for his "crime" and let others do what they may, but he decided to save his own ass without any regard for the wishes of the other owners.

And when I say "No one agreed to make the company legit" I of course mean there was no such motion passed by the shareholders. That a few of them might have been for it, or even the majority is completely irrelevant in such an organization.

Saving his own ass also saves the others asses. Options that you stated, leave and be accountable, stay and be accountable or close and save his (and others asses)... and apparently that's the wrong choice.

I must be a very bad person too to be tempted towards the legally moral choice too... Granted I would have tried to make a smoother closing, but besides the delay (which only really starts now to be an actual delay, the next day was not a delay...), most things indicates he is at least trying not ninja quit. (Why would he refund only some btc, less personal gain, same liability ; no personal gain from not releasing asset info except lots of work, plus he actually put a system in place to collect info, so no point in setting it up with no intention to finish).

[matauc12]

Just to clarify my stance.

What I see is someone who did a project with no illegitimate intentions that grew to a point that made him the vessel of a illegal operation despite his intentions. He decided to pull off to not be part of an illegal scheme. That is a good moral decision in general. It is indeed sad to see it affect others, but he is currently condonned despite him.

It's pretty much like being mad at your drug dealer because he decided to get his life straight and won't be able to supply you anymore. Expect, the drug dealer actually knew what he was getting into.

Sure, some damage is done, and we still don't know to which extent. But anyone condonning a move that someone did to get them self out of a illegal position is just greedy and de facto has a much lower moral compass than him.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Just to clarify my stance.

What I see is someone who did a project with no illegitimate intentions that grew to a point that made him the vessel of a illegal operation despite his intentions. He decided to pull off to not be part of an illegal scheme. That is a good moral decision in general. It is indeed sad to see it affect others, but he is currently condonned despite him.

It's pretty much like being mad at your drug dealer because he decided to get his life straight and won't be able to supply you anymore. Expect, the drug dealer actually knew what he was getting into.

Sure, some damage is done, and we still don't know to which extent. But anyone condonning a move that someone did to get them self out of a illegal position is just greedy and de facto has a much lower moral compass than him.

You have no understanding of the situation imo.

[tvbcof]

Just to clarify my stance.

What I see is someone who did a project with no illegitimate intentions that grew to a point that made him the vessel of a illegal operation despite his intentions. He decided to pull off to not be part of an illegal scheme. That is a good moral decision in general. It is indeed sad to see it affect others, but he is currently condonned despite him.

It's pretty much like being mad at your drug dealer because he decided to get his life straight and won't be able to supply you anymore. Expect, the drug dealer actually knew what he was getting into.

Sure, some damage is done, and we still don't know to which extent. But anyone condonning a move that someone did to get them self out of a illegal position is just greedy and de facto has a much lower moral compass than him.

You have no understanding of the situation imo.

And your comment has done nothing to help the situation.  imo.

In my admittedly limited understanding of the situation matauc12's layout seems more right than wrong.  I would be a little less charitable to Nefarious, however, and derive lulz over his bluster about screwing 'the man' then his bowing his head when the rubber actually met the road.  OTOH, I would bet money that about 99% of everyone else who thinks they are so tough would fold just as easily...and most of them would not have gone as far as Nef in terms of trying to make some segment of his user-base whole.

[matauc12]

Just to clarify my stance.

What I see is someone who did a project with no illegitimate intentions that grew to a point that made him the vessel of a illegal operation despite his intentions. He decided to pull off to not be part of an illegal scheme. That is a good moral decision in general. It is indeed sad to see it affect others, but he is currently condonned despite him.

It's pretty much like being mad at your drug dealer because he decided to get his life straight and won't be able to supply you anymore. Expect, the drug dealer actually knew what he was getting into.

Sure, some damage is done, and we still don't know to which extent. But anyone condonning a move that someone did to get them self out of a illegal position is just greedy and de facto has a much lower moral compass than him.

You have no understanding of the situation imo.

You mean I don't believe every speculations and stories biased by anger and every other accusations that has less grounds than the other? You are right.

If you mean the actual facts where an illegal entity was shutdown by the CEO regardless of shareholders consent or not and that he showed willingness and steps to settle with affected parties. I think I do. Oh and by the way, those are pretty much the extent of the facts.

[bitlane]

Did anyone at least get a free steak dinner ?

[BadBear]

He didn't care about laws, when he made it, didn't care about laws when he sold it, but now he their money he cares. Not buying it, sorry.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Just to clarify my stance.

What I see is someone who did a project with no illegitimate intentions that grew to a point that made him the vessel of a illegal operation despite his intentions. He decided to pull off to not be part of an illegal scheme. That is a good moral decision in general. It is indeed sad to see it affect others, but he is currently condonned despite him.

It's pretty much like being mad at your drug dealer because he decided to get his life straight and won't be able to supply you anymore. Expect, the drug dealer actually knew what he was getting into.

Sure, some damage is done, and we still don't know to which extent. But anyone condonning a move that someone did to get them self out of a illegal position is just greedy and de facto has a much lower moral compass than him.

You have no understanding of the situation imo.

You mean I don't believe every speculations and stories biased by anger and every other accusations that has less grounds than the other? You are right.

If you mean the actual facts where an illegal entity was shutdown by the CEO regardless of shareholders consent or not and that he showed willingness and steps to settle with affected parties. I think I do. Oh and by the way, those are pretty much the extent of the facts.

He shut it down simply because of paranoia. There is no evidence at all for anything else.

[repentance]

He shut it down simply because of paranoia. There is no evidence at all for anything else.

He's obviously not communicating with users and asset issuers, but is he communicating with the other shareholders at all?  At the very least there should be another shareholders' meeting scheduled to discuss the progress of the shut-down and address the accounting issues involved in winding up GLBSE.

It was not just him, there was a vote and he got over 50% support.

He participated in a vote on a motion in which he had a conflict of interest.  It's clear that he would have refused to resign as CEO anyway, but let's not pretend that it was a legitimate vote.

[deeplink]

He felt the need to close

Except, as it was organized, it wasn't his to close.

If he did the right thing he would have gone to jail and took responsibility for his actions that he alone was responsible for and whould have gotten his legal advance on his own dime before taking anyone's money. But no, he decided to make the "company" legit, not something any of the other owners agreed to, decided to take the company's money to pay for his own personal legal advice and decided to save his own ass at the expense of all the shareholders' stake and their privacy and at the expensive all his users' privacy.

A scammer is to mild of tag for scum like that.

So... nice rational... its not his choice to close, but it would be him to take the full responsibility? Make someone 100% liable but with 10% of the voice?

"No one agreed to make the company legit"... where are you taking this from? Bit coin.me said in another thread he was happy and would have like to see it being legit.

Basically you are saying... everyone were happy to have an enabling platform, shareholders were consciously owners of an illegal company, but nefario is the only one who should be liable.

If you ever plan to go into business with someone, let them know upfront you want all the benefits with no liability, that might change their idea of going in partnership with you.

Basically you have to choose, it was his choice to close or everyone is equally liable, you simply cannot have it both ways.

You can have it both ways in this case. GLBSE was a general partnership and not a company with limited liability.

You have to seperate moral and legal responsibility. I agree that some shareholders hold more moral responsibility than others, but legally they are all in it together. All partners have full responsibility for the actions of the company and none of them have the right to decide on their own to close the company. Nefario did that anyway, which is why he got the scammer tag. But that does not change that all other partners are still fully responsible for their company including debt. Customers are concerned due to shown incompetence, lack of communication and a lack of balls from all partners to publicly accept their legal responsibility. How they handle this internally should not be their customers concern.

The fact that today the general consensus seems to be that GLBSE was illegal is mere speculation and irrelevant.

[repentance]

All partners have full responsibility for the actions of the company and none of them have the right to decide on their own to close the company. Nefario did that anyway, which is why he got the scammer tag. But that does not change that all other partners are still fully responsible for their company including debt. How they handle this internally is not their customers concern, at least it shouldn't be.

The fact that today the general consensus seems to be that GLBSE was illegal is mere speculation and irrelevant.

And of course we now have the situation where a wind down process which was designed and implemented by Nefario alone may leave GLBSE unable to meet all of its financial obligations and the partners will be personally liable for any shortfall. As GLBSE doesn't exist as a legal entity, trying to recover any shortfall is going to require taking legal action against each of the partners for the whole amount owing.  That's very unlikely to happen given that the partners live in a few different jurisdictions, so users and asset issuers are realistically most likely to just end up eating a loss.

[Yolocoin]

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

[deeplink]

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Irrelevant and speculation. First focus on responsibility of the owners towards their customers.

[deeplink]

He shut it down simply because of paranoia. There is no evidence at all for anything else.

He's obviously not communicating with users and asset issuers, but is he communicating with the other shareholders at all?  At the very least there should be another shareholders' meeting scheduled to discuss the progress of the shut-down and address the accounting issues involved in winding up GLBSE.

That would be the right thing to do. But I am not holding my breath.

[Yolocoin]

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Irrelevant and speculation. First focus on responsibility of the owners towards their customers.

Under what law, enforced by what government?

[JoelKatz]

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Irrelevant and speculation. First focus on responsibility of the owners towards their customers.

Under what law, enforced by what government?

If you and I were stranded on a desert island, with no laws enforced by no government, I would still have the right to take back my food by force if you stole it from me. If there is no law to enforce and no government to enforce it, then there is no loss of one's natural right to self-defense. It is only when there is a functional justice system that we are willing to give up our right to non-emergency self-defense of our lives and property.

Where do you think a government gets the right to make and enforce laws?

[deeplink]

Well then maybe they shouldn't have been gambling with illegal unregulated securities?

Irrelevant and speculation. First focus on responsibility of the owners towards their customers.

Under what law, enforced by what government?

Responsibility of the owners of a general partnership towards their customers? Under any law in any jurisdiction. As reeses said, most convenient for a customer would be if he were in the same jurisdiction as one of the partners.