[scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com
<< < (5/19) > >>
WuLabsWuTecH:
There is a lot of people who are talking about different things thinking it's the same thing.

This is what I gather:

1) myself was a consultant.  He was paid a certain percentage of the profits for his work.  If there were no profits, he did not incur any losses.

This is to say that he had no equity in the organization.  He was an employee working solely for compensation based on profit sharing.  Is this part correct?

2) at some point, he was asked to contribute to the losses in exchange for equity.  He refused (as everyone has agreed was his right to).  The equity partners decided at this point to terminate his employment status as a consultant (which is a modification of the contract as per the last line).  As such his access to the site was revoked.

Is this part correct?

I'm not sure what the issue is here.  He had a job, was told he could either be promoted to an equity partner (by paying his share) or else he would be terminated.  Is he contending that his contract stated that he could not be terminated in the manner in which he was terminated?
nrd525:
If the Mr Tang loan is real (and I can understand the site operators thinking that they had to take some action while not being able to connect with MtGox and force liquidate at market prices). The question is whether there was any collateral.  If not, then it was an extremely bad idea as there was an good chance that the BTC price was going down for a long bear market like 2011.
Pale Phoenix:
Quote from: WuLabsWuTecH on June 06, 2013, 12:25:10 AM

There is a lot of people who are talking about different things thinking it's the same thing.

This is what I gather:

1) myself was a consultant.  He was paid a certain percentage of the profits for his work.  If there were no profits, he did not incur any losses.

This is to say that he had no equity in the organization.  He was an employee working solely for compensation based on profit sharing.  Is this part correct?

2) at some point, he was asked to contribute to the losses in exchange for equity.  He refused (as everyone has agreed was his right to).  The equity partners decided at this point to terminate his employment status as a consultant (which is a modification of the contract as per the last line).  As such his access to the site was revoked.

Is this part correct?

I'm not sure what the issue is here.  He had a job, was told he could either be promoted to an equity partner (by paying his share) or else he would be terminated.  Is he contending that his contract stated that he could not be terminated in the manner in which he was terminated?



My reading of the situation is the same as yours. I understand that Myself is upset, possibly because of the way he was locked out and ignored, but there doesn't seem to be any cause for him to expect a buy-out or additional compensation. The "contract" is clear, and Myself was also very clear in his signature here on the forum that he was "just a consultant for Bitfinex."

Myself's posts are obviously those of someone who is hurt and angry. He was involved from the beginning, and it seems that both he and Raphael shared some kind of anarchic idealism that fueled the project early on. Now that things have grown, and professional investors have come on board, Myself probably feels squeezed out, and disrespected. If his accusations were limited to the running of an unlicensed copy of the forum software, that would be that.

The talk of phantom deposits, however, is extremely serious, and scammer tag or not, could permanently damage trust in the platform. Raphael should voluntarily address this issue head on, because no matter how undignified it might seem, these are not just random accusations from outsiders, but from someone with access to the books. There must be others who, like me, will need to be convinced that things really are on the up and up before returning funds to Bitfinex.
Ente:
Quote from: Deprived on June 05, 2013, 11:20:21 PM


1. Myself is a self-confessed liar.  If what he's saying now is true then he lied previously when claiming everything was honest on the site - and generally acted in a deceptive manner for months, only blowing the whistle when he got cut out from the take.  So we have to decide whether he lied then, now or both times.  And we can't take his word for it - so we lack evidence to reach any conclusion.


I don't see that point yet. The 1M$ accused event is all new, it's not like the site was dishonest over any longer period and 'myself' ignoring it without coming forward for months? Or am I missing some point?
Right the opposite, as I understand it, 'myself' was shut out partly as a consequence for asking questions about that 1M$ accusation?

Sorry, the OP is awfully long. I read through it some days ago, I'm sure I already am mixing things up.

Ente
myself:
Quote from: 2586 on June 05, 2013, 04:11:02 PM

So Tang and Devasini were just taking on the liabilities incurred by the delays in forced liquidation when the market crashed? As opposed to having lenders take the hit? Am I understanding correctly, and if so, what's wrong with that?

example;now let talk in small numbers so i can explain it better
1 lets say you get 1BTC forced executed at 10
2 I buy your 1 BTC position at 10 usd but i dont deposit said 10 USD
3 you the trader take the loss and you are done
4 the platform now have 1 BTC instead of 10 usd
5 the market price now is 5 USD
5 now the platform total assets is 5 USD lower that is should because it has 1 BTC instead of 10USD the platform is 5 USD in loss
6 when you get forced liquidated on mtgox at 10 that create a 10 USD reserve at mtgox and now at 5 another trader can borrow 10 USD and buy 2 BTC on a long position
7 if the additional 10USD reserve are not on mtgox the trader can borrow the 10 USD but its buy order dont get executed because of lack of funds
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page