OP's statements are factually incorrect. MPEx is quite exactly standing by its contracts.
Here is the old contract:
BUY QTYPRICESELL QTYDividends :
0.00095000 566`083
1`000`000 0.00000200
11.90608119 BTC on 30-04-12
12.13455878 BTC on 08-05-12
45.29200000 BTC on 08-06-12
84.53204260 BTC on 08-08-12
69.74000000 BTC on 08-09-12
34.58803996 BTC on 08-10-12
F.GIGA.ETF
Website : n/a
Owner : Mircea Popescu
Monthly statements available from underlying issuer (gigavps)
Listed on : April 11, 2012
IPO Details :
The owner of this ETF holds 900 perpetual 5.0Mh/s bonds (details),
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I have received 900 btc from mircea_popescu for 900 5mh/s perpetual bonds
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPgN6rAAoJEPg1VNdq3jo/quAH/3wPex8LqPyEmh2UWtBEy04g
9YugO88saSvsZNSRm9Qhx0Hs6cpMerLoYgJREBpDiG2dGCS1csCS03QyJ1wLV1Ah
GGYqnGyi1h3MT2f2nMFn9+ouMfp3QyumQswH7U7cdVBV6cdGhdA4c+uE2l9WtHkO
Kl54+947QWzDJHRC5SbB0RCvl52k9KZ6Ac0RNfJ6mUhJy3I45/B281qmICUrjPT0
xTi0td8f4CKcTnTtocKw7blKbAEoVRBJNyVNnY8h/hGb2Aipp6uZ8Js8c1DeqY8P
lx0OX6G+KHQIBEuuKt5TpmECUE2Nky2A3Dm9JreF7cqnKhK7RfJfgqoApQ2zou0=
=CBon
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The ETF is composed of 900`000 shares. Should the Owner acquire more shares of the underlying he may issue more shares of this asset. The Owner will never own less shares of the underlying than the total float of this asset implies. Any and all revenue paid by the underlying will be distributed to the shareholders of this asset without remainder.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPhPT+AAoJEIpzbw4vt7RSYpIQAJjTQY8GIbOL34e0MUiee5sQ
+/HAFe26L9abgzyE+UlP63RctWqJtPvNvCRccs26k0PBWleTfMEcm43IcePfe4gz
bMGJqSMNq+B/22oonGhqJl/D8gKey19m5vwLvvwfOs/4wNhd7/idSVIDvF7EUYbT
qTKzrsjfs5faErQu5TKPBRKBT5pqIBdUSvbY2UaIx4mIcxorMxg+m4CgJ2zthYLx
jBVqlF8gNYHJfThNHO5PHrKi3QCyEWZkQZGZDRs3czwiq7SA3WFaxHTjF5MFcDhf
f+v+5om39bg8UuOtgCJ2zUjB5psU0zm9SnQ1nV5fUIDJieZV+B00C2aosoUytrGX
ZLSNU526poOQ1rrlUc+iQvioT2ByVWTCR7GIz9GbAWZCkJBhZhN6l9U3vWX9hlFB
OcVAE7HlO3aK2IgyVGKZptm3ZPoEGJfk3i+UpGB8RjGQZCPCRxkzTdAFsqDjTG0m
5yi0xe0Knx+/GqkhToYnR09FZLEDTi7365IXUqk1LO9Ud2Hx4y5be/vmA2L8Dqky
zxweKsl7b8Iay3e+rXEA4I2pGqaduzIX+FYFpIWz1nmSU7uxzWe9HF1ogJJXGq3f
Cqfm+gv98goIg8mffg1vNbyVexhuz061nnWyUxABwPHeLc0lqwOHk+zt7Zro8xDJ
DWtHdESm8ux7Mswexdpu
=GEPB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
That's correct.
So you can indeed make claims to GLBSE and giga
Only if satisfying some conditions.
But you either didn't make the claim, or you are not telling that you did or even will.
It was stated repeatedly that we didn't, and never will.
And you are not clearly saying that the coins will be passed through to shareholders even if you receive them.
There's no coins that will ever be received, as far as we can determine.
Contracts are for when there is a necessary dispute. Where is the necessity here? If everyone acts in good faith, this thing will end well for all parties.
Exactly so. Expecting someone to go through giga's hoops for you is not acting in good faith, especially when that someone clearly pointed out that they wouldn't, ever. Some select quotes:
Sep 10 23:37:03 <Bugpowder> So.... what is the upgrade path for F.GIGA.ETF?
Sep 10 23:37:25 <mircea_popescu> upgrade path ?
Sep 10 23:37:32 <Diablo-D3> you mean to tera?
Sep 10 23:37:33 <Diablo-D3> probably isnt one
Sep 10 23:37:48 <Bugpowder> yes to tera
Sep 10 23:38:05 <mircea_popescu> Bugpowder explain what you mean.
Sep 10 23:38:32 <Bugpowder> when tera comes out, 2 upgrade paths
Sep 10 23:38:41 <Bugpowder> 1:1 exchange for terabonds (25GH/s)
Sep 10 23:38:56 <Diablo-D3> Bugpowder: its probably going to just go the 1:1 exchange
Sep 10 23:38:59 <Bugpowder> 1:4 exchane for terabonds with a .30-.40BTC fee
Sep 10 23:39:08 <Bugpowder> I assume free exchange route
Sep 10 23:42:59 <Bugpowder> so.. 1:1 tradein is planned?
Sep 10 23:43:26 <mircea_popescu> what's that mean ?
Sep 10 23:44:02 <Bugpowder>
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92090.0Sep 10 23:44:39 <Bugpowder> free upgrade to 25GH/s from 5GH/s
Sep 10 23:45:47 <Bugpowder> err.... MH/s
Sep 10 23:46:08 * nefario1 (~james@149.241.220.17) has joined #bitcoin-assets
Sep 10 23:46:18 <mircea_popescu> yeah, i guess so. whatever happens to gigamining bonds.
[...]
Sep 18 00:48:01 <gigavps> are you going to upgrade your fund bonds to teramining?
Sep 18 00:48:08 <mircea_popescu> [\\\] well the btc finances are bizzare
Sep 18 00:48:18 <mircea_popescu> gigavps my contract says i will distribute whatever you give out
Sep 18 00:48:20 <Bugpowder>
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dividend_implications.aspSep 18 00:48:25 <mircea_popescu> so, im'a distribute whatever you give out.
Sep 18 00:49:05 <gigavps> well, your bonds have value for the upgrade, it might be why the fund is trading lower than gigamining on glbse
Sep 18 00:49:11 <mircea_popescu> possibly, yea.
[...]
Oct 06 02:14:04 <BTC-Mining> Mircea said it would not upgrade to TERAMINING in any case.
[...]
Oct 31 06:17:56 <mircea_popescu> people were asking me, oh, what about upgrade to tera
Oct 31 06:18:08 <mircea_popescu> and i had to stick to "all i'll do is pass along all that's passed to me"
[...]
Nov 28 20:15:38 <smickles> that actually relates to his position, f.giga.etf would never move to teramining
Nov 28 20:15:56 <smickles> so why would it move to the new gigamining
My question is, if OP are serious, where we can sue MPEX/MPOE-PR.
Here, though it would probably not make much sense to sue me personally.
If you don't recognize the value of gigavps' share, and you really discard all the etf, I will say that you are a scammer.
Your if is misplaced: the measure was announced in October for the 1st of December, implemented on the 3rd. That's three days ago. Also, you have a question left unanswered from
a different recent outburst. So, how old are you?
We seem to know (having been told by gigavps)
No, you were actually told by MP and me.
This, however is immaterial to whether or not MPEx pays out holders of F.GIGA.ETF - where MPEx gets money to pay out investors in F.GIGA.ETF isn't particularly relevant.
This is true.
What we do not know is whether or not MPEx will stand by the contract, nor do we know know what MPEx will accept as a "legitimate claim"
Actually, you do know this.
smickles mircea_popescu: directly, if I had proof that I owned F.GIGA.ETF on Dec 1, would you give me fair value of those shares at any point in the future if I relinquish my ownership of them?
mircea_popescu smickles I will (and always have) satisfy legitimate claims against myself. Now, it'll all come down to whether your claim is legitimate at that point.
smickles There you have it BTC-Mining.
Considering that MPEx seems to use the output of their gpg-signed STAT statement as proof of asset ownership, there seems to be no way for a holder to make a legitimate claim.
This conflicts with basic logic. There wouldn't be a way for a holder that ignored the issue for a month and didn't get a STAT in time, possibly. Certainly the way for that holder who
fucked up wouldn't be throwing a shitfest in the forums instead of getting support via email/irc like sane people. Ya know?
MPEx has made no statements to clarify, nor has MPEx placed any kind of receipt or other token in the hands of holders who have seen their assets deleted as "worthless"
This is untrue, see above.
It would be simple for MPEx to clear this up, but Mircea seems to insist on being stubborn and seems to insist there's nothing to return as the assets are "worthless"
I dunno, dood. So far what I see is you being too agitated to sit down and read, flailing your arms and calling people names. What school of negotiation/conflict resolution is this?
Again, I point out that "non-tradeable" and "worthless" are fundamentally different.
And again you are reminded that the something which you're talking about failed to trade for weeks on end. Something that nobody wants to buy or sell and something that is worthless are fundamentally the same.
If MPEx refuses to do anything to return the assets to the holders, provide some other certificate of ownership of assets, allowing holders to make a "legitimate claim" and/or refuses to pay out holders then I would support a scammer tag
Then you don't in fact support the scammer tag if you're consistent, seeing how MPEx has done something to provide certificates of ownership, known as STATs.
In other words, good faith extends beyond contracts. Otherwise people who abuse the meaning of the contracts would not be called scammers (MNW's bet comes to mind). All contracts are subject to interpretation, especially the ones without exact precedent. Just take a look at the ETF contract in question and you'll realize that what it means is totally dependent on the context, which the contract doesn't even refer to.
In this case the written contract, such as it is, is kind of terse anyway.
But the important point is that people who had doubts about how the contract works or what it means could, and plenty have, discussed the matter with the issuer. Those who haven't and preferred to just assume are perfectly entitled to their assumption for themselves, but aren't to be allowed to impose it on everyone else. If anyone had bothered to ask at any point prior "Hey, in the event Giga asks for X Y Z in order to issue you further dividends, will you do X Y Z?" the answer would have certainly been no (this is supported by the answer being no above for the tera upgrade). Not having bothered to ask does not give one license to claim whatever they imagined as fact, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
