GLBSE asset issuers feeling comfy?

[server]

Now Nefario gives you an excuse to keep the coins in your own pocket...

Nefario helped you and you help Nefario ...

This feels like the pirate-scam all over again

[repentance]

Now Nefario gives you an excuse to keep the coins in your own pocket...

Nefario helped you and you help Nefario ...

This feels like the pirate-scam all over again

It was predicted from day 1 that some asset-issuers would use the shut-down of GLBSE to avoid their obligations to their asset-holders.  Nefario's actions have made that a certainty and he should be held personally liable for that.

[MPOE-PR]

Now Nefario gives you an excuse to keep the coins in your own pocket...

Nefario helped you and you help Nefario ...

This feels like the pirate-scam all over again

Practically tho, what would you have them do? Something like

Well we have to prepare for the worst happening that the now defunct GLBSE never return the asset holders list.  I only know of five people who definitely bought into RSM

*HorseRider
*senbonzakura
*Evolvex
*jEli_bAby
*(+1 not on the forum)

So I can only really negotiate with these fives.  All I can offer to do is offer to reinvest all of dividends from unclaimed shares into RSM growth. If you are not on the list but can convince me plus all the people on the list that you did invest.  Then I'm open to possible negotiations over your claimed investment.

[superfastkyle]

There is no good reason for the asset lists to not have materialized yet. asset holders will pay back their "friends" who they trust and that will be the end of that, just like bitcoinica

even if nefario actually did provide all the asset information, there WILL be asset holders who say they didn't receive it. and then who will you believe

[punningclan]

At least release the data you have, you have my fu@king email?

[smoothie]

Now Nefario gives you an excuse to keep the coins in your own pocket...

Nefario helped you and you help Nefario ...

This feels like the pirate-scam all over again

Aww well boo hoo....lol 

[server]

It was predicted from day 1 that some all asset-issuers would use the shut-down of GLBSE to avoid their obligations to their asset-holders. 
Nefario's actions have made that a certainty and he should be held personally liable for that.

FTFY

Practically tho, what would you have them do? Something like

Something official, like pressing charges or use a lawyer to explain to James etc... anything substantial.
Doing nothing feels like a big fuck you to the shareholders.

There is no good reason for the asset lists to not have materialized yet. asset holders will pay back their "friends" who they trust and that will be the end of that, just like bitcoinica

If this situation continues I think you're right and 99% of the GLBSE users will lose
The only person that can change this is James.
I mailed him several times with possible options to solve this for everyone including himself.
He never responded to this. I think he doesn't want this be solved.
The only time he did respond was when I asked him something about returning his double 90% payment.


@smoothie:

[Meni Rosenfeld]

It was predicted from day 1 that some all asset-issuers would use the shut-down of GLBSE to avoid their obligations to their asset-holders. 
Nefario's actions have made that a certainty and he should be held personally liable for that.

FTFY

Indeed, it has been said that all asset issuers will avoid their obligations, except all those other asset issuers who make a great effort to try to reconstruct asset holder data, and will donate the difference to charity.

My contract said that I pay X to bondholders. The "pay X" part doesn't need GLBSE and will happen without it. The "to bondholders" part relies on data from GLBSE, and in its absence a "least bad" solution needs to be found. Importantly, a solution cannot be chosen objectively if keeping some amount by the asset issuer is even on the table.

[server]

Indeed, it has been said that all asset issuers will avoid their obligations, except all those other asset issuers who make a great effort to try to reconstruct asset holder data, and will donate the difference to charity.

Thanks Meni for your reply but who are "all those asset issuers who make great effort to try reconstruct asset holder data" ?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

Indeed, it has been said that all asset issuers will avoid their obligations, except all those other asset issuers who make a great effort to try to reconstruct asset holder data, and will donate the difference to charity.

Thanks Meni for your reply but who are "all those asset issuers who make great effort to try reconstruct asset holder data" ?

Well, me for example. I know that friedcat has been accepting claims, maybe others. I don't know who else mentioned charity specifically, but it's the natural thing to do. Others aren't taking claims yet but are working towards resolution in their own ways (e.g., gigavps has lawyers involved).

[GeoRW]

I, as an issuer, have around the same amount of coins (maybe more) in GLBSE assets I don't have access to (my asset IPOed just 270 BTC). So it's no gain for me, if Nefario will not release asset holders information. Nefario is the one responsible for this mess and I don't understand why he refuses to release the info. It's easy to get it from his databases, but he's intentionally harming all GLBSE investors. Why he's doing it, I don't know.

[MPOE-PR]

Something official, like pressing charges or use a lawyer to explain to James etc... anything substantial.

I can certainly see your point there, but it's not exactly clear how well pressing charges would go, lawyers are expensive (and I do mean expensive, as in, probably cost more than the whole capital raised by the issuer) and possibly some of the issuers are also concerned about their own legal position (with or without cause). There's also the philosophical point that "oh, you want to play in BTC to avoid fiat world constraints except if a deal goes sour you quickly run to the fiat world mechanisms, how hypocritical". This may figure as a consideration to some.

Doing nothing feels like a big fuck you to the shareholders.

Yeah...what are the shareholders doing (other than holding someone else responsible for their welfare)? Mind you, I'm not saying either side is wrong, they (shareholders and issuers alike) made the mistake of involving themselves with the easy "solution" without bothering to investigate whether it would actually work or how exactly. So they're all stuck now.

He never responded to this. I think he doesn't want this be solved.

Alternatively, he's had hundreds of emails all saying about the same thing and has given up trying to answer or even read them.