Why I should get a scammer tag.

[Bitcoin Oz]

As one of the GLBSE shareholders I apologize on my own behalf for any loss people have suffered as a result of the actions of the CEO Nefario who all the shareholders placed in charge of GLBSE.

As with everything else on glbse we have lost a large percentage of the investment we made and if Nefario never pays people back I am unable to cover anyone's losses. The only thing of value I have are a couple of bitcoin domains which should go to a victim restitution fund if they can be sold at all-bitcoin.me and bitcoin.com.au together should be worth considerable amounts. I am pretty much broke otherwise and have no coins as I am unable to go through the AMl process Nefario is requesting. Selling my glbse shares through theymos was a bad decision also and would have likely led to a loss for the buyer. We were as much in  the dark as everyone else. 

 Maged can contact me for a list of the other GLBSE shareholders and if Nefario fails to come through with the bitcoins he owes to customers I think they should be tagged as well untill bitcoinglobal has paid back the coins it has in trust. If there are coins left over I believe they should be given to all the users of glbse as compensation and I release my share at least for such purposes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112298.0 I hereby retract the scammer allegation I made against Goat and believe GLBSE owes him the shares Nefario promised were legitimate. I  give an undertaking to transfer him 5% of the legitimate  shares I own in GLBSE as restitution for the fake shares if bitcoinglobal ever comes back in future. This being the percentage of GLBSE that I own. These are for the fake shares he owned at the time glbse shutdown.

Believe me when I say there are a lot of good people involved in GLBSE who had the best intentions while it was running. In conclusion I ask the community to forgive my poor decision making and urge Nefario to do the right thing. Hopefully he comes good and everyone gets their coins back.

[BitcoinINV]

Commendable

[Mushoz]

Commendable

Agreed. Let's hope this shitstorm gets solved in the best possible way by Nefario, so that the tags won't be necessary and so that the users are ultimately happy. It sounds like the OP made some bad decisions, but I don't believe it was his intend to defraud or harm anyone.

[repentance]

Kudos.   Are any of the other partners willing to offer the same?

[Rarity]

Why I should get a scammer tag.

I agree, bitcoin.me deserves the scammer tag.

[Francesco]

That's a commendable post, but... it turns out buying assets without realizing how unreliable the issuer is wasn't only common in the exchange: it was also common about the exchange. How ironic.

Well, it seems a bit of sanity ha come back. Let's hope the reason for those tags (otherwise earned) is removed quickly!

[Bitcoin Oz]

Kudos.   Are any of the other partners willing to offer the same?

I don't know and I dont speak for anyone else or on behalf of the partnership. In fact its probably breaking some of the partnership bylaws to even post this thread and I think at this point it should be dissolved anyway. For a number of reasons including that the existing structure is clearly insufficient to deal with the situation.

I dont intend to hide from responsibility because I clearly would benefit if Nefario pulled off a miracle and somehow made glbse a regulated company. With that responsibility comes fiduciary duties you need to uphold.

[Bitcoin Oz]

That's a commendable post, but... it turns out buying assets without realizing how unreliable the issuer is wasn't only common in the exchange: it was also common about the exchange. How ironic.

Well, it seems a bit of sanity ha come back. Let's hope the reason for those tags (otherwise earned) is removed quickly!

The irony is noted.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

[stochastic]

Kudos.   Are any of the other partners willing to offer the same?

I don't know and I dont speak for anyone else or on behalf of the partnership. In fact its probably breaking some of the partnership bylaws to even post this thread and I think at this point it should be dissolved anyway. For a number of reasons including that the existing structure is clearly insufficient to deal with the situation.

I dont intend to hide from responsibility because I clearly would benefit if Nefario pulled off a miracle and somehow made glbse a regulated company. With that responsibility comes fiduciary duties you need to uphold.

You seem fine by the bylaws.

[Rarity]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

Shareholders, no, but what about partners and officers like Theymos?

[stochastic]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations.  It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

But what about partners?

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a general partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  If it was a limited partnership then the non-active (passive) partners would have limited liability while the general partner (Nefaro?) would have unlimited liability. Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken-company (and yes I use that term loosely).  

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real legal entity is trivial these days and cost a nominal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  Everyone getting involved knows exactly what they are getting involved in.  I mean how many of these "partner-shareholders" made up nonsense realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets)?  All the limitations of a shareholder with all the liability of a general partner.  Yeah that is a match made in heaven.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations.  It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces.

What partnership has shareholders?
Answer - none. 

See the bigger answer above.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations.  It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces.

This is correct as I recently discovered. One of the reasons to start a new registered company is this.

I started this thread because I dont have the resources to cover that liability and Im coming forward now to admit it.

[stochastic]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

But what about partners?

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken company. 

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real discrete (i.e. seperate from the owners) legal entity is trivial these days and cost a norminal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  I mean how many "shareholders" realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets).   

I assumed that those that form these amateurish general partnerships were doing so in the libertarian/anarchistic ethos of looking at limited liability with suspicion.  Of course they want limited liability when shit hits the fan.

I already requested scammer tags for all partners of BitcoinGlobal if all the funds and coins were not returned to GLBSE users but I was denied.  This is even though theymos said that the BitcoinGlobal bylaws are enforceable on these forums, hence nefario receiving a scammer tag for breaking the bylaws.  If BitcoinGlobal is a partnership, then they are liable for any and all debts that BitcoinGlobal has.  If they can't pay those debts then they are scammers.

[stochastic]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations.  It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces.

What partnership has shareholders?
Answer - none. 

See the bigger answer above.

Corporations or companies with limited liability for their members, partners, or shareholders has not nothing to do with BitcoinGlobal.  There is no limited liability for any owner, partner, or member of BitcoinGlobal.  So I don't understand your argument that members of BitcoinGlobal are not liable for its debt.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

But what about partners?

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken company. 

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real discrete (i.e. seperate from the owners) legal entity is trivial these days and cost a norminal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  I mean how many "shareholders" realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets).   

I assumed that those that form these amateurish general partnerships were doing so in the libertarian/anarchistic ethos of looking at limited liability with suspicion.  Of course they want limited liability when shit hits the fan.

I already requested scammer tags for all partners of BitcoinGlobal if all the funds and coins were not returned to GLBSE users but I was denied.  This is even though theymos said that the BitcoinGlobal bylaws are enforceable on these forums, hence nefario receiving a scammer tag for breaking the bylaws.  If BitcoinGlobal is a partnership, then they are liable for any and all debts that BitcoinGlobal has.  If they can't pay those debts then they are scammers.

I think Nefario getting the tag was used as a "lever" for certain people to get what they want, more than anything else. The funny thing is I actually have a pty ltd  business setup in Australia called "noagendamarket" which is the name I used as the partner for bitcoinglobal. In effect "noagendamarket" is a company not my actual name.

https://www.trisearch.com.au/trisearchASICcc.nsf/ASICOrder?OpenForm&acn=147919239&hdr=ACN&type=APTY&class=LMSH&stat=REGD&namec=NOAGENDAMARKET+PTY+LTD

My real name has no ties to bitcoinglobal and Ive never sent fiat money to anyone else involved in it.

[Rarity]

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real legal entity is trivial these days and cost a nominal amount of money.

Right, I wonder why they didn't do that?

(Their business is illegal)

[Bitcoin Oz]

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real legal entity is trivial these days and cost a nominal amount of money.

Right, I wonder why they didn't do that?

(Their business maybe illegal)

ftfy