[scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com

[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  As such his access to the site was revoked.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]

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  As such his access to the site was revoked.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]

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]

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

[myself]

......

If true it would sound like the Tang situation was along the lines of Tang saying "Can I borrow $150K?  I think BTC is going to go back up shortly so I'd like to buy up some cheap BTC from all the panic sellers and people forced to sell due to margin calls".  And the site crediting him with it.  Obviously that's horrendous for all other users of the site - as if he gets his trading wrong and then doesn't pay then $150k of THEIR cash has now vanished.

that idea was G idea and he proposed that to mr Tang

only blowing the whistle when he got cut out from the take.

maybe i should have said more that just "i dont like that", each time you compromise it come back to kick your ass and i got and will get mine kicked

Either way myself should get the scammer tag - either for deceiving investors back then or for trying to besmirch the site now (or, conceivably, both).

i did not lie to the investors and at least one of them (G) did have 100% knowledge about all this since he was in the team

Doubt anyone gives a shit about the falling out over the detail of a contract which had no specified duration.

i post on that later

[2586]

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

On 03.04.2013 15:04, Raphael Nicolle wrote:
> Just a confirmation to answer your question "Myself": we lend MrTang
> the money to buy the forced executed. He will have a negative balance
> until he sells the bitcoins he has and/or repay the difference should
> the price go even lower.

Is the bolded part true? Was that the agreement with Tang and Devasini? Were they in a position to make good on that agreement, in the event that the price did not recover?

[wonkytonky]

"myself" is the scammer lol

[myself]

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?

1) well at the beginning R offer me 50% and i said no to that and i only take 10% and no loses (that was the point i dont take any loss)
2) in late January thing moved to make Bitfinex limited and i got 25% shares in this company
3) there where some loses after that that go paid by R and some got paid by platform earnings
4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in
5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay
6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them

[simonk83]

4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in
5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay
6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them

Right, but as per your "contract":


- - -raphael has the right to ignore any of these proposals
- - -raphael has the right to change any of these proposals

[myself]

4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in
5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay
6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them

Right, but as per your "contract":


- - -raphael has the right to ignore any of these proposals
- - -raphael has the right to change any of these proposals

that referring to the features and modifications that i request to be made on the platform no the the contract itself

[myself]

is true that when the markets are closed on weekends or very boring i am not at the PC and most ppl who know me are aware that on weekend they cant reach me

regarding the accusation ( https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change ) that I was not reachable and I disappeared when the btc market drop like a rock on 10/04/2013 here is a picture of the send emails (emails that have same time are duplicate because of the filtering)

this image dont lie and if i click any of the emails the pgp will verify the time on the email

[myself]

regarding that i am weird ( also posted here https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change )
for example being gay for some is weird for others is normal, what is normal for me can be weird for you, what is weird for me can be normal for you, I think the proper term for this in English is subjective opinion

[MPOE-PR]

Ianov FARSACIU,
<lies and misrepresentations>

Thank you.

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.

The correct construction on the events isn't that we lack evidence to reach any conclusion, it's that we have sufficient and concrete evidence to support the worst possible conclusion for all the people involved.

Not only is this the logically correct approach but it also disincentivizes scammer behavior such as displayed by ALL the people involved with this site, starting with Devasini and van der Velde (yes, it IS wrong to bankroll scams, and no you will never get away with it) while providing no actual detriment to serious, honest entrepreneurs, making it also the ethically correct approach.

2. Scrooge not responding is

He did, above.

Doubt anyone gives a shit about the falling out over the detail of a contract which had no specified duration.

Well, we did have some lolz over reading the purported "contract".

And now to address Raphael Nicolle's retarded bullshit:

They came in April, a month during which we lost quite some money with the Big Crash. So at the end of the month, we agreed to cover all losses, if we were to be associates. You refused it, and stated that you only want to share profit and will never take any losses.

there was never money put in that was not going to be paid. If our associates which you met, and you now how wealthy they are, weren't there, there would be no more Bitfinex. They allow us to pass a hard time of 5 figures losses, and now be strong as we are.

MPOE-R you still don't get how Bitfinex matches user position with real funds of lenders and doesn't act as a bucket shop, and it's a shame from you.

Problem solved. They're both liars, they're both very bad at it.

They're both idiots, the sort that pretend to be "entrepreneurs" on rich people's money. They're both very bad at it.

Attention Bitcoin wanna-be investors: You are not losing your shirt "because Bitcoin". You are losing your shirt because of your own stupidity, dealing with chumps such as these two. The longer you keep at it, the lower your chances overall. Business, that means war.

[nrd525]

MPOE-PR's posts are a mixture of outrageous trolling and insight.   This is trolling.

I'm guessing that the trolling is based on fundamental opposition to being able to buy or sell on the margin and a preference for an options system.  Now it is fine if you want that - however there are risks with people not being able to cover their options as well.

MPOE's options system is directly in competition with BFX.  So slandering the competition makes sense.

[MPOE-PR]

MPOE-PR's posts are a mixture of outrageous trolling and insight.

True.

This is trolling.

False.

That's how politics works, especially where low information voters are concerned. Well done, a loser is you.

I'm guessing that the trolling is based on fundamental opposition to being able to buy or sell on the margin and a preference for an options system.

MPEx has margin. What now?

MPOE's options system is directly in competition with BFX.

Bitfinex is a bucket shop. As such it may be construed to be in competition with bad radio programs (the sort that promote the various conspiracy theories) and perhaps Max Keiser. Even such a claim would be a significant (and unwarranted) leap.

Now it is fine if you want that - however there are risks with people not being able to cover their options as well.

Not on MPEx. Read up on things before you discuss said things.

So slandering the competition makes sense.

Calling out the various scams and idiocies (the two are often hard to distinguish) has been misrepresented as slander by scammers and idiots since about forever. It never worked, it's never going to work, it's just a waste of breath.

[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?

1) well at the beginning R offer me 50% and i said no to that and i only take 10% and no loses (that was the point i dont take any loss)
2) in late January thing moved to make Bitfinex limited and i got 25% shares in this company
3) there where some loses after that that go paid by R and some got paid by platform earnings
4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in
5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay
6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them

i think you are mixing up profit sharing shares and equity shares.

it sounds like you were offered 50% equity shares at the beginning.  But since you wanted to be shielded from loss, you turned that down and agreed to 10% of profit shares (dividends if you will).

At some point, you were upgraded to 25%, still profit sharing shares, since you had no risk.  Then that was diluted to 20%

The rules of the game did in fact change, but you were given the option to play under the new rules or leave the game.  That is perfectly fair.  They did not force you to pay for the losses because that's not what the contract said.  But they essentially gave you the option of converting your profit sharing shares to equity shares (had you chose to do so, since they were equity shares, you would have been responsible for a part of the losses).

You didn't accept to renegotiate the terms and I don't think anyone disputes that.  That's why you were fired.  You were given the option of renegotiating, and you chose not to.  As such, your employment with the company in question was terminated.  As in all terminations, you kept your pay from before the termination and they owe you nothing more.

[myself]

i think you are mixing up profit sharing shares and equity shares.

it sounds like you were offered 50% equity shares at the beginning.  But since you wanted to be shielded from loss, you turned that down and agreed to 10% of profit shares (dividends if you will).

At some point, you were upgraded to 25%, still profit sharing shares, since you had no risk.  Then that was diluted to 20%

The rules of the game did in fact change, but you were given the option to play under the new rules or leave the game.  That is perfectly fair.  They did not force you to pay for the losses because that's not what the contract said.  But they essentially gave you the option of converting your profit sharing shares to equity shares (had you chose to do so, since they were equity shares, you would have been responsible for a part of the losses).

You didn't accept to renegotiate the terms and I don't think anyone disputes that.  That's why you were fired.  You were given the option of renegotiating, and you chose not to.  As such, your employment with the company in question was terminated.  As in all terminations, you kept your pay from before the termination and they owe you nothing more.

profit sharing shares dont exist what does exist are called preferred shares and the conditions for preferred shares vary from company to company based on contract conditions, for example Zuckerberg shares on Facebook have more voting power so he keeps the voting majority even if the percentage is lower that 50%, my preferred shares do not take loses simple like that

[simonk83]

MPOE-PR's posts are a mixture of outrageous trolling and insight.   This is trolling.

I'm guessing that the trolling is based on fundamental opposition to being able to buy or sell on the margin and a preference for an options system.  Now it is fine if you want that - however there are risks with people not being able to cover their options as well.

MPOE's options system is directly in competition with BFX.  So slandering the competition makes sense.

Of course, they're incredibly transparent.  But then what would you expect from someone like this:  http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/the-nigger-homeowners-and-other-niggers/

[MPOE-PR]

But they essentially gave you the option of converting your profit sharing shares to equity shares (had you chose to do so, since they were equity shares, you would have been responsible for a part of the losses).

From what retarded planet do you bring these tidings of shareholders "responsible for part of the losses"?

That's why you were fired.

From what alternate universe do you bring these tidings of "firing" shareholders?

This is the funniest thread of the week for seriously.