Should Giga be tagged as a scammer?

[camolist]

Question:    What do you say?
Yes    - 89 (70.6%)
No    - 37 (29.4%)
   
Total Voters: 126



how is this not done yet?  isn't Nefario labeled a scammer? i got my btc back and my asset info sent to all security creators that i held - yet this assets rules get thrown out the window and restarted and it goes on like no big deal?

[1713895087]

1713895087

[DiabloD3]

I'm not going to read this entire thread.

In short: giga is suing nefario, nefario is trying to "punish" giga for being sued by not having the data or the money over.

Can nefario get double scammer tagged?

[SAC]

I'm not going to read this entire thread.

In short: giga is suing nefario, nefario is trying to "punish" giga for being sued by not having the data or the money over.

Can nefario get double scammer tagged?

In short: giga has people committing perjury to claim funds, how about single tag..

[fcmatt]

I'm not going to read this entire thread.

In short: giga is suing nefario, nefario is trying to "punish" giga for being sued by not having the data or the money over.

Can nefario get double scammer tagged?

and how do you know nefario is actually being sued and was not simply
sent a very heated letter or maybe even nothing at all?

one has to look at the results. people do not have their money and a lot of
time has gone by. giga changed the rules on them and broke the contract.
he is not paying people which broke the contract.

seems pretty clear to me what his end goal is. eventually pay, maybe, and
keep all the gear, free and clear, to trade in for asics. bitcoin users lose
again.

[DonChate]

Unless a buy back is offered for smaller bondholders, especially non-US, under 18, non-apostille countries and people who would have to commit perjury on the claim forms in order to get their monies back, I say scammer. Seriously? Why deal with the blowback of all the small bondholders who would have to pay more to file the paperwork than their holdings are worth, he is just assuming they will not proceed with the claim and he gets to keep their investment for himself.

[usagi]

I find this case interesting. It is my speculation GigaVPS will not get a scammer tag because he has an active court case against nefario (according to Diablo) and therefore has plausable deniability that Nefario has not turned over data or money. Therefore, it is not his fault, and it looks like Giga really is merely doing the best he can in a bad, bad situation.

I change my earlier call -- I don't think he should get a scammer tag anymore. Didn't know he was suing nef.

[SAC]

I find this case interesting. It is my speculation GigaVPS will not get a scammer tag because he has an active court case against nefario (according to Diablo) and therefore has plausable deniability that Nefario has not turned over data or money. Therefore, it is not his fault, and it looks like Giga really is merely doing the best he can in a bad, bad situation.

I change my earlier call -- I don't think he should get a scammer tag anymore. Didn't know he was suing nef.

Ah the old two wrongs make a right theory and no one knows if he is even suing Nefario if he is where are the case references that is all public information so should be disclosed.

[PsychoticBoy]

I have taken on more risks that anyone can imagine and things have not always gone my way, yet, you do not see me complaining.
I would not have suggested these changes unless I felt it absolutely necessary.

Best,
gigavps

This was the plan from the beginning!
He is the man of changes
He was planning to screw shareholders over from day 1, now he comes with his lawyer crap.

Lots of ppl need a guide dog, why? ARE YOU BLIND!?!

PS: He has not sued James McCarthy.

[DeaDTerra]

I don't think GigaVPS deserves a scammer tag.
He has done the best out of a bad situation, instead of shutting down his business or backing away from his contract he has tried to keep following it while not taking any more risks. He has done this by going the legal way in his country and you can't blame him for trying to make the best out off this situation.
I also don't understand what giving him a scammer tag will help?
He's no longer selling any shares and considering all the drama he never will never try to issue and asset again, the people who could get hurt have gotten hurt.
Giga is trust able and hasn't actively stolen, he's still here and he's still helping his share holders out.
A scammer tag will probably hurt more then it will help at the moment.
//DeaDTerra

[dishwara]

Some where i read that gigavps issued shares BEFORE releasing in glbse & he didn't asked/took any legal papers for it.

Please, if some one quote it, will help.

[SAC]

I don't think GigaVPS deserves a scammer tag.
He has done the best out of a bad situation, instead of shutting down his business or backing away from his contract he has tried to keep following it while not taking any more risks. He has done this by going the legal way in his country and you can't blame him for trying to make the best out off this situation.
I also don't understand what giving him a scammer tag will help?
He's no longer selling any shares and considering all the drama he never will never try to issue and asset again, the people who could get hurt have gotten hurt.
Giga is trust able and hasn't actively stolen, he's still here and he's still helping his share holders out.
A scammer tag will probably hurt more then it will help at the moment.
//DeaDTerra

He took no risk all machines were paid in advance by a margin of at least twice  if not three times the costs of the equipment being bought, his profit was locked in at the start. If you don't consider a free to him upgrade to the ASICs that he has attempted to charge people for scamming them then I guess you are right. Giving scamming pieces of shit the scammer tag allows people to see just what they are all about that is the entire point of the tag.

Some where i read that gigavps issued shares BEFORE releasing in glbse & he didn't asked/took any legal papers for it.

Please, if some one quote it, will help.

He was attempting to do a bypass of the GLBSE issuing process to not pay the fees Nefario got  a little pissed and was not going to list the shares, that is until everybody's favorite starfish patrick among others started complaining how this oh so promising venture was being not listed. Yeah worked out well you would think after that rocky start with people going on about how unreliable the GLBSE was there would have been backup plan in place for $100-200k+ in assets but when your not risking your money what is it to you if you have no way to give back. With this deal he already had his in the pocket anything not given back is extra bonus scam..

[BitcoinMint.US]

Confused as to why this scammer tag hasn't been handed out yet.  Are people waiting to recover some funds before tagging him?

[conspirosphere.tk]

Confused as to why this scammer tag hasn't been handed out yet.  Are people waiting to recover some funds before tagging him?

It's Theymos who decides ultimately:

I've decided that gigavps will not get a scammer tag for this. Nefario has proven himself to be untrustworthy, so it would be unreasonable for gigavps to pay out large sums of money based entirely on Nefario's list. Requiring affidavits and proofs of identity are reasonable precautions. It's impossible to strictly follow the contract in a safe way.

A bit of democracy would be appreciated here.

[PsychoticBoy]

The shareholders list provided by Nefario is CORRECT!

There should be NO reason not to pay shareholders.

[Kluge]

The shareholders list provided by Nefario is CORRECT!

There should be NO reason not to pay shareholders.

I don't think it's unreasonable for an issuer to be very skeptical of a payout list provided by someone who shut down an exchange without warning, in violation of company by-laws (or "by-morals" if you wanna gripe about it not being legal) with the blatant-"fuck you" intent to start a new "legal" company immediately after, removed users' ability to download their trade history, refused to include people who upset him on a payout list, has financial troubles, took an unreasonable amount of time to release asset info, and has been pretty unresponsive to emails.

At least one BTC address (for a fairly large-quantity unit-holder) in the list Nefario sent me for BDK.BND was wrong (the claimant said he emailed Nef to change it, but it wasn't). By acting skeptically and individually telling everyone the relevant info Nef sent me, that person didn't lose a bunch of BTC to an unknown address.

Taking it a step further, Giga gets to take out plenty of birds with one stone. Users will have plenty of time to review information before Giga starts payments, the new entity's legal status will allow new opportunities (and less risk), and having a more secure claims process would prevent possible unsavory doings by the list provider. For how large Gigamining became and how worried we were about the SEC watching us like hawks (though I now personally have zero faith in their ability to do anything), it would've been insane to have Gigamining on one of the recent pop-up exchanges, while just keeping Gigamining unlisted and paying manual dividends (ignoring the giant pain in the ass that'd be) probably would've pissed people off just as much as what he's doing.

[BitcoinMint.US]

Kluge, it is obvious that Giga is using this whole "legal" stance to invalidate as many shares as possible so that he doesn't have to repay shareholders. Now he's even stated the shares are non-transferable so users unable to jump through his hoops can't get anything for them.

How is that not a scam?

This whole, "I broke the law issuing the bonds, but I'm abiding by the law repaying them" stance is a scam.

[conspirosphere.tk]

This whole, "I broke the law issuing the bonds, but I'm abiding by the law repaying them" stance is a scam.

Of course. If I were way more bastard than I am I would pull the same trick here (not IRL or someone would shoot me in the knees).

[usagi]

This whole, "I broke the law issuing the bonds, but I'm abiding by the law repaying them" stance is a scam.

Of course. If I were way more bastard than I am I would pull the same trick here (not IRL or someone would shoot me in the knees).

I could just walk away from my own obligations too, like this. But this isn't my point. My point here is new evidence.

Giga now seems to be prohibiting transfers between parties despite KYC ("know your customer") guidelines which state that a customer is merely a beneficial owner of whatever it is he's selling, and further state that a customer/beneficial owner can also be the beneficiary of a transfer of ownership.

I'm sorry to say my stance on this is no longer theoretical -- if GigaVPS does not allow me to transfer my GIGAMINING bonds he appears to be breaking the law by removing my right to transfer beneficial ownership.

I could be wrong (IANAL) but my issue has become I have no intention of dragging a lawyer into this, so I feel that GigaVPS is pretending it's against the law when it's really not.

[jamesg]

Giga now seems to be prohibiting transfers between parties despite KYC ("know your customer") guidelines which state that a customer is merely a beneficial owner of whatever it is he's selling, and further state that a customer/beneficial owner can also be the beneficiary of a transfer of ownership.

If I allowed transfer of ownership, I would need to file and register with all sorts of three letter agencies. Before, it was GLBSE's responsibility to do this. Now, it is mine. It is cost prohibitive to allow this due to both legal and federal fees incurred to do so.

I'm sorry to say my stance on this is no longer theoretical -- if GigaVPS does not allow me to transfer my GIGAMINING bonds he appears to be breaking the law by removing my right to transfer beneficial ownership.

Please start reading whats been written on the issue. The most important parts are provided at the link below.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127437.0

I could be wrong

On this point, you are 100% correct.

[usagi]

Giga now seems to be prohibiting transfers between parties despite KYC ("know your customer") guidelines which state that a customer is merely a beneficial owner of whatever it is he's selling, and further state that a customer/beneficial owner can also be the beneficiary of a transfer of ownership.

If I allowed transfer of ownership, I would need to file and register with all sorts of three letter agencies. Before, it was GLBSE's responsibility to do this. Now, it is mine. It is cost prohibitive to allow this due to both legal and federal fees incurred to do so.

I'm sorry to say my stance on this is no longer theoretical -- if GigaVPS does not allow me to transfer my GIGAMINING bonds he appears to be breaking the law by removing my right to transfer beneficial ownership.

Please start reading whats been written on the issue. The most important parts are provided at the link below.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127437.0

I could be wrong

On this point, you are 100% correct.

It just seems like a very convenient excuse. You apply the law when it suits you, and not in the best interests of your bondholders. You said it yourself above; When GLBSE had the responsibility everything was easy peasy. Fine then, go list on BTCT-CO. I suppose there is some legal reason that you cannot do this of course, akin to not allowing anyone to transfer beneficial ownership despite KYC guidelines. I'm not going to hire a solicitor to write a transfer letter so I suppose you just got 10 GIGAMINING bonds richer. That feels like a scam. The technical term is "bait and switch" I believe.

Wow, can you imagine what would happen if I pulled a stunt like demanding KYC for my own shareholders? That wouldn't go over so well.