[CLOSED] GLBSE drama

[Bogart]

They could also insure the vetted companies' clients and shareholders against this kind of failure.

The premiums would be out of reach of most small businesses, members.  Just think of how much such an organisation would have had to pay out from the failures which have happened this year alone.  Its in the millions.  

The idea being that the vetting process itself would protect the insurer against having to pay out, and more importantly, keep the company on the up-and-up so that it does not fail in this way.

[Severian]

Not to mention that they are both on US ICE-vulnerable GTLDs.

Time to start using Retroshare.

[Rarity]

1.  Theymos wants to sell
2.  Theymos states that GLBSE wants to be legitimate

So what do you call it when someone is trying to sell shares of an illegitimate business?

[Bitcoin Oz]

1.  Theymos wants to sell
2.  Theymos states that GLBSE wants to be legitimate

So what do you call it when someone is trying to sell shares of an illegitimate business?

Enron.

[fcmatt]

1.  Theymos wants to sell
2.  Theymos states that GLBSE wants to be legitimate

So what do you call it when someone is trying to sell shares of an illegitimate business?

A love business up for auction.

[Bitcoin Oz]

They could also insure the vetted companies' clients and shareholders against this kind of failure.

The premiums would be out of reach of most small businesses, members.  Just think of how much such an organisation would have had to pay out from the failures which have happened this year alone.  Its in the millions. 

The last time I did consulting in the area (2005ish), Sarbanes-Oxley cost the average company $5m/year.

Someone selling shares in their BFL single is surely going to pay 5 million a year to submit the correct paperwork. 

[LoupGaroux]

What a delightful collection of deep orange ignore brothers and sisters I find here! Far from being the mark of shame that anyone is embarrassed about, or a guide for the discerning reader to know who had the respect of the community or not, I personally find the brighter the orange, the most interesting a person's post will be. All the orange means is that the fragile little porcelain egos that hide behind a desire to have someone else do their thinking for them have gotten frightened or offended by what they have seen, and rather than engaging in healthy conversation, they have a lovely automatic function do their thinking for them.

Cowardly and weak in the extreme.

But, I digress, let's consider theymos as scammer, shall we?

He tried to bail out of the sinking ship as he saw it headed towards the regulatory rocks.
An interesting ethical choice at best.

He used insider knowledge to assemble a 25% stake, and offered a significant ownership block for a healthy price.
Shrewd business move, and without the benefit of hindsight, a smart investment move for somebody who believes in bitcoin and markets.

He washed his hands of all responsibility the moment that nefario (I spit and use hand gestures to ward off evil when I type that name!) decided to move unilaterally in a new direction with the company.
Weak, very weak, and not absolving of responsibility in the slightest.

Scammer tag? In the real world- absolutely yes. In the extremely warped world of bitcoin ethics? Probably not.

Still has significant legal and financial responsibility to the people who have suffered severe losses due to the mismanagement of the company of which he controls a 25% interest? Without question. Although the criminal bastards behind bitcoinica have tried to create a precedent that clicking your heels three times and saying out loud "I am no longer responsible" somehow magically releases you from all obligation, it doesn't. Every asset creator and every shareholder has complete grounds to bring claims against theymos, nefario and all other "owners" of GLBSE jointly and severally for all the on-going damage and losses they are causing by their refusal to take action, for their irresponsible communications that lead to near-failure of the market before the no-notice shutdown, and for the criminal retention of all sums sent to be used in the market where the exchange THEY OWN took those funds in trust for the trading activities of the various entities involved. It is not their money to hold, nor is it their money to invest in lawyers for the benefit of nefario alone, or to pay for regulatory games being played by anyone.

But the call has been made- let's let the authorities who review these things do their work.

Maged- what say you? Does he get a scammer tag for his involvement in this? Do the other owners of GBLSE get the scammer tag for the exact same reasons as nefario?

[Rarity]

1.  Theymos wants to sell
2.  Theymos states that GLBSE wants to be legitimate

So what do you call it when someone is trying to sell shares of an illegitimate business?

Enron.

Sounds worthy of a scammer tag to me.  Bitcoin will never get anywhere as long as the chief reason prominent members of the community want to exit a business is because it won't be illegal anymore.

[Maged]

MtGox *does* the hosting, in other words, they can read your PMs.

So if MtGox gets shutdown, the Bitcoin community will lose its main exchange as well its main source of communication?

Yes, but for at most a few hours of downtime and with up to 24 hours of posts lost. We have a backup system that is completely independent of MtGox's backup system. The system mirrors backups globally within an hour of the backup, which is done daily.

[Bitcoin Oz]

What a delightful collection of deep orange ignore brothers and sisters I find here! Far from being the mark of shame that anyone is embarrassed about, or a guide for the discerning reader to know who had the respect of the community or not, I personally find the brighter the orange, the most interesting a person's post will be. All the orange means is that the fragile little porcelain egos that hide behind a desire to have someone else do their thinking for them have gotten frightened or offended by what they have seen, and rather than engaging in healthy conversation, they have a lovely automatic function do their thinking for them.

Cowardly and weak in the extreme.

But, I digress, let's consider theymos as scammer, shall we?

He tried to bail out of the sinking ship as he saw it headed towards the regulatory rocks.
An interesting ethical choice at best.

He used insider knowledge to assemble a 25% stake, and offered a significant ownership block for a healthy price.
Shrewd business move, and without the benefit of hindsight, a smart investment move for somebody who believes in bitcoin and markets.

He washed his hands of all responsibility the moment that nefario (I spit and use hand gestures to ward off evil when I type that name!) decided to move unilaterally in a new direction with the company.
Weak, very weak, and not absolving of responsibility in the slightest.

Scammer tag? In the real world- absolutely yes. In the extremely warped world of bitcoin ethics? Probably not.

Still has significant legal and financial responsibility to the people who have suffered severe losses due to the mismanagement of the company of which he controls a 25% interest? Without question. Although the criminal bastards behind bitcoinica have tried to create a precedent that clicking your heels three times and saying out loud "I am no longer responsible" somehow magically releases you from all obligation, it doesn't. Every asset creator and every shareholder has complete grounds to bring claims against theymos, nefario and all other "owners" of GLBSE jointly and severally for all the on-going damage and losses they are causing by their refusal to take action, for their irresponsible communications that lead to near-failure of the market before the no-notice shutdown, and for the criminal retention of all sums sent to be used in the market where the exchange THEY OWN took those funds in trust for the trading activities of the various entities involved. It is not their money to hold, nor is it their money to invest in lawyers for the benefit of nefario alone, or to pay for regulatory games being played by anyone.

But the call has been made- let's let the authorities who review these things do their work.

Maged- what say you? Does he get a scammer tag for his involvement in this? Do the other owners of GBLSE get the scammer tag for the exact same reasons as nefario?

Just a small correction - GLBSE didnt issue any securities the asset owners did. GLBSE was similar to a ledger.

It does seem incongruous that the other owners of glbse dont have tags just as it does that the passthrough operators dont have them either.

Nefario registered the glbse domain and servers using his credit card so in the eyes of the legal system no other "owners" exist and how would you work out "damages" in either case ?

[reeses]

Every asset creator and every shareholder has complete grounds to bring claims against theymos, nefario and all other "owners" of GLBSE jointly and severally for all the on-going damage and losses they are causing by their refusal to take action, for their irresponsible communications that lead to near-failure of the market before the no-notice shutdown, and for the criminal retention of all sums sent to be used in the market where the exchange THEY OWN took those funds in trust for the trading activities of the various entities involved

Nefario registered the glbse domain and servers using his credit card so in the eyes of the legal system no other "owners" exist and how would you work out "damages" in either case ?

I highlighted the magic phrase for you.  Each of you is responsible for full recompense.  You can either pay it all yourself and rest easy, or hope that people pay according to their share.  At the end of the day, n things must be distributed, and if  < n have actually been distributed, everyone gets their asses handed to them.

Since it's multi jurisdictional, the weight falls heaviest on those local to the plaintiff.

[Bitcoin Oz]

1.  Theymos wants to sell
2.  Theymos states that GLBSE wants to be legitimate

So what do you call it when someone is trying to sell shares of an illegitimate business?

Enron.

Sounds worthy of a scammer tag to me.  Bitcoin will never get anywhere as long as the chief reason prominent members of the community want to exit a business is because it won't be illegal anymore.

Thats not the only reason people were selling. Personally I decided to sell after nefario unilaterally deciding to screw asset issuers by booting them off glbse.

Before he did that I was quite willing to become a legal registered shareholder and I believe the IRC logs of bitcoinglobal bear this out.

I think the better option would have been to keep the current glbse site but run it underground and start a new, legal company to begin the process of setting up a compliant entity and I said this numerous times to people involved.

Im not responsible for the actions of anyone else in the partnership. Just as Im not responsible for paying their tax  

[Bitcoin Oz]

Every asset creator and every shareholder has complete grounds to bring claims against theymos, nefario and all other "owners" of GLBSE jointly and severally for all the on-going damage and losses they are causing by their refusal to take action, for their irresponsible communications that lead to near-failure of the market before the no-notice shutdown, and for the criminal retention of all sums sent to be used in the market where the exchange THEY OWN took those funds in trust for the trading activities of the various entities involved

Nefario registered the glbse domain and servers using his credit card so in the eyes of the legal system no other "owners" exist and how would you work out "damages" in either case ?

I highlighted the magic phrase for you.  Each of you is responsible for full recompense.  You can either pay it all yourself and rest easy, or hope that people pay according to their share.  At the end of the day, n things must be distributed, and if  < n have actually been distributed, everyone gets their asses handed to them.

Since it's multi jurisdictional, the weight falls heaviest on those local to the plaintiff.

It still doesn't answer how you come to a damages figure in the first place.

But even so its a case of getting blood from a stone 

[Severian]

We have a backup system that is completely independent of MtGox's backup system. The system mirrors backups globally within an hour of the backup, which is done daily.

Good to hear. Thanks for the info. What's the contingency plan in case of domain interference by regulatory entities, as mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread?

[LoupGaroux]

1.  Theymos wants to sell
2.  Theymos states that GLBSE wants to be legitimate

So what do you call it when someone is trying to sell shares of an illegitimate business?

Enron.

Sounds worthy of a scammer tag to me.  Bitcoin will never get anywhere as long as the chief reason prominent members of the community want to exit a business is because it won't be illegal anymore.

Thats not the only reason people were selling. Personally I decided to sell after nefario unilaterally deciding to screw asset issuers by booting them off glbse.

Before he did that I was quite willing to become a legal registered shareholder and I believe the IRC logs of bitcoinglobal bear this out.

I think the better option would have been to keep the current glbse site but run it underground and start a new, legal company to begin the process of setting up a compliant entity and I said this numerous times to people involved.

Im not responsible for the actions of anyone else in the partnership. Just as Im not responsible for paying their tax  

Luckily it is not a tax. It is about receiving value in trust and then destroying the value of it. If I take fiat wealth to a bank and deposit it to my account and the bank manager burns up all the records and says "tough shit, no money for you!" the ownership of that bank, all of the ownership of that bank remains liable for my deposit.

You are exactly responsible for all actions taken by your business partners in connection with the business that you own with them. That's why they have different forms of business operation. If you wanted to operate as a limited liability organization, then you should have organized as such. If you wanted to have a managing partner who controls all actions of the partnership, you should have formed the partnership with that understanding.

You didn't. In either of those cases.

Anyone reading the shareholder rules for GLBSE will see that this was a closely held entity, with very specific and stated shared responsibilities. You were enjoined from selling share without majority agreement, you were prevented from taking action without majority agreement, you had set schedules and rules for everything, and now lalala it magic, none of the rules apply? You even had formal partnership meetings- where the owners, all of the owners, considered such business as came before them.

If nefario fucked all of you owners by his actions, the correct action is not to say "I'm out, I didn't do it." The correct thing to do is to take action against the partner who is fucking you, and your shared partnership. There is no jurisdiction in the world that will accept your statement of not being responsible because you didn't agree. You are responsible. Just as responsible as nefario if you are an owner. And when claims are made, and prevail in court, you will not be liable in proportion to the ratio of your shares, each of you will be responsible in full until all claims are satisfied. That's the other side of business ownership, its a little thing called responsibility. Pretty much a missing concept around here, but a reality none the less.

[Bitcoin Oz]

1.  Theymos wants to sell
2.  Theymos states that GLBSE wants to be legitimate

So what do you call it when someone is trying to sell shares of an illegitimate business?

Enron.

Sounds worthy of a scammer tag to me.  Bitcoin will never get anywhere as long as the chief reason prominent members of the community want to exit a business is because it won't be illegal anymore.

Thats not the only reason people were selling. Personally I decided to sell after nefario unilaterally deciding to screw asset issuers by booting them off glbse.

Before he did that I was quite willing to become a legal registered shareholder and I believe the IRC logs of bitcoinglobal bear this out.

I think the better option would have been to keep the current glbse site but run it underground and start a new, legal company to begin the process of setting up a compliant entity and I said this numerous times to people involved.

Im not responsible for the actions of anyone else in the partnership. Just as Im not responsible for paying their tax  

Luckily it is not a tax. It is about receiving value in trust and then destroying the value of it. If I take fiat wealth to a bank and deposit it to my account and the bank manager burns up all the records and says "tough shit, no money for you!" the ownership of that bank, all of the ownership of that bank remains liable for my deposit.

You are exactly responsible for all actions taken by your business partners in connection with the business that you own with them. That's why they have different forms of business operation. If you wanted to operate as a limited liability organization, then you should have organized as such. If you wanted to have a managing partner who controls all actions of the partnership, you should have formed the partnership with that understanding.

You didn't. In either of those cases.

Anyone reading the shareholder rules for GLBSE will see that this was a closely held entity, with very specific and stated shared responsibilities. You were enjoined from selling share without majority agreement, you were prevented from taking action without majority agreement, you had set schedules and rules for everything, and now lalala it magic, none of the rules apply? You even had formal partnership meetings- where the owners, all of the owners, considered such business as came before them.

If nefario fucked all of you owners by his actions, the correct action is not to say "I'm out, I didn't do it." The correct thing to do is to take action against the partner who is fucking you, and your shared partnership. There is no jurisdiction in the world that will accept your statement of not being responsible because you didn't agree. You are responsible. Just as responsible as nefario if you are an owner. And when claims are made, and prevail in court, you will not be liable in proportion to the ratio of your shares, each of you will be responsible in full until all claims are satisfied. That's the other side of business ownership, its a little thing called responsibility. Pretty much a missing concept around here, but a reality none the less.

In that case you'll have to wait till the partners sue nefario for destroying all the value of glbse. Because for damn sure it wasn't us who shut it down and confiscated everyones bitcoins.

[Bogart]

In that case you'll have to wait till the partners sue nefario for destroying all the value of glbse. Because for damn sure it wasn't us who shut it down and confiscated everyones bitcoins.

First you say to calm down and that all our coins are safe and to be returned imminently.  Now you say we'll have to wait on a lawsuit.  Which is it then?

[capn noe]

First you say to calm down and that all our coins are safe and to be returned imminently.  Now you say we'll have to wait on a lawsuit.  Which is it then?

The answer is, "Only Nefario has a say in the matter, at this point".

[Bitcoin Oz]

In that case you'll have to wait till the partners sue nefario for destroying all the value of glbse. Because for damn sure it wasn't us who shut it down and confiscated everyones bitcoins.

First you say to calm down and that all our coins are safe and to be returned imminently.  Now you say we'll have to wait on a lawsuit.  Which is it then?

I was replying to Loup bringing up further damages.

The customers coins have got nothing to do with it.

[SysRun]

What a delightful collection of deep orange ignore brothers and sisters I find here! Far from being the mark of shame that anyone is embarrassed about, or a guide for the discerning reader to know who had the respect of the community or not, I personally find the brighter the orange, the most interesting a person's post will be. All the orange means is that the fragile little porcelain egos that hide behind a desire to have someone else do their thinking for them have gotten frightened or offended by what they have seen, and rather than engaging in healthy conversation, they have a lovely automatic function do their thinking for them.

Cowardly and weak in the extreme.

But, I digress, let's consider theymos as scammer, shall we?

He tried to bail out of the sinking ship as he saw it headed towards the regulatory rocks.
An interesting ethical choice at best.

He used insider knowledge to assemble a 25% stake, and offered a significant ownership block for a healthy price.
Shrewd business move, and without the benefit of hindsight, a smart investment move for somebody who believes in bitcoin and markets.

He washed his hands of all responsibility the moment that nefario (I spit and use hand gestures to ward off evil when I type that name!) decided to move unilaterally in a new direction with the company.
Weak, very weak, and not absolving of responsibility in the slightest.

Scammer tag? In the real world- absolutely yes. In the extremely warped world of bitcoin ethics? Probably not.

Still has significant legal and financial responsibility to the people who have suffered severe losses due to the mismanagement of the company of which he controls a 25% interest? Without question. Although the criminal bastards behind bitcoinica have tried to create a precedent that clicking your heels three times and saying out loud "I am no longer responsible" somehow magically releases you from all obligation, it doesn't. Every asset creator and every shareholder has complete grounds to bring claims against theymos, nefario and all other "owners" of GLBSE jointly and severally for all the on-going damage and losses they are causing by their refusal to take action, for their irresponsible communications that lead to near-failure of the market before the no-notice shutdown, and for the criminal retention of all sums sent to be used in the market where the exchange THEY OWN took those funds in trust for the trading activities of the various entities involved. It is not their money to hold, nor is it their money to invest in lawyers for the benefit of nefario alone, or to pay for regulatory games being played by anyone.

But the call has been made- let's let the authorities who review these things do their work.

Maged- what say you? Does he get a scammer tag for his involvement in this? Do the other owners of GBLSE get the scammer tag for the exact same reasons as nefario?

Well fuck me, I agree with LG... for once! Hats off to you sir. This whole thing is compromised. Where do we congregate the next BTC community?