|
WuLabsWuTecH
|
 |
June 07, 2013, 10:57:51 PM |
|
From what retarded planet do you bring these tidings of shareholders "responsible for part of the losses"?
Earth??? If you were were in a partnership with a me and we were 50/50 partners selling widgets when our widget plant burns down. Would we not both be responsible for the losses? Or if you buy stock in Apple at $100 and next week they are slammed with a fine of 2 billion dollars, and the stock value dropped to $10, would you still claim that Apple owes you the full $100 for your stock? Even "myself" himself acknowledges that sharholders are "responsible for part of the losses." He just is now claiming that his preferred shares were shielded from the losses (implying that the common shares were not). I will address this in a minute.
From what alternate universe do you bring these tidings of "firing" shareholders?
Man, what's up with all the insults? Like I said before, and as others said before, we are under the impression he was an employee and not a shareholder. He was paid based on profit sharing, but not in a fixed salary. No one is claiming anyone fired a shareholder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you see garbage posts (off-topic, trolling, spam, no point, etc.), use the "report to moderator" links. All reports are investigated, though you will rarely be contacted about your reports.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WuLabsWuTecH
|
|
June 07, 2013, 11:11:56 PM |
|
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 Actually, they both exist. Preferred stock traditionally actually has no voting power. There are of course exceptions (I an not familiar with FB stock), but while preferred stock has preference of dividends over common stock, common stock actually has more voting power (once again with some exceptions like the issuance of new preferred stock). Profit sharing shares is traditionally given to employees of a company as part of their compensation package. For example, I work for Tech Machines Inc. in the Widget Sales department. My salary is $100,000 a year. However. as part of my compensation package, I also get profit sharing from the profits that my department makes. Let's say that the company determines that 10% of our net profits will be distributed to employees. There are 100 shares of profit sharing total, and since I am the supervisor, I get 20 profit sharing shares. The other 8 guys who work for me get 10 shares a piece. So if our Net profit for the year is $1,000,000 then the company pays out $100,000 in profit sharing. Of that, since I have 20 shares (out of 100), I get $20,000 bringing my annual compensation to $ 120,000 (plus other benefits). The other 8 guys on my team get $10,000 a piece. Going back and reading the contract, "myself will receive a financial compensation of 10% of the profits of the previously mentionned website, every month" [sic, emphasis mine]. No where in the contract does it say anything about issuing you preferred shares. It specifically uses the word profits. That being said, we are getting a bit off track. Usually, companies, before they fire workers, if the workers are of significant value, have a severance agreement with their employees. Do you think some sort of severance pay would be to your satisfaction? And if not, what do you think a satisfactory result should be? Once again, in case anyone is unclear on the matter, I am completely neutral in this case. I actually have no idea who BFX is or what they do, and have met none of the parties here, but I am just trying to help make the community a bit better by facilitating a dialogue and "arbitrating" if you will. (Which is also why I don't understand the insults being thrown my way). Clearly, you're not just here to bitch and moan--there is something that you, "myself" wants from this. What resolution would be to your satisfaction? |
|
|
|
|
myself (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
June 08, 2013, 04:57:31 AM |
|
Regarding this part of R post https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-changePlease notice that the fact that he was an advisor for Bitfinex and not a shareholder was always clear and never in doubt. well the email about share dilution from 16/03/2013  this begs the questions if i am not a share holder why i get diluted ? why i get to share with other people that are considered share holders ? |
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
June 08, 2013, 09:51:13 AM |
|
That being said, we are getting a bit off track. Usually, companies, before they fire workers, if the workers are of significant value, have a severance agreement with their employees. Do you think some sort of severance pay would be to your satisfaction?
And if not, what do you think a satisfactory result should be?
Once again, in case anyone is unclear on the matter, I am completely neutral in this case. I actually have no idea who BFX is or what they do, and have met none of the parties here, but I am just trying to help make the community a bit better by facilitating a dialogue and "arbitrating" if you will.
So basically you're just an uppity clueless noob. The veheheeeery uppity but extreeeheheeemely clueless and therefore extremely lulzy variety. |
|
|
|
wilfried
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 288
Merit: 250
ManualMiner
|
|
June 08, 2013, 09:55:28 AM |
|
you mentioned "first agreement" - is there a second agreement concerning the shares? i have the impression that
-first agreement grants you 10% of the profits as payment for consulting (of course no participation for losses with that, it might be kind of a service contract). no consulting, no profit for you. agreement lacks completely the minimum amount of consulting that triggers your right to receive 10%. also it lacks the question if you get a service-fee for times of null-consulting. maybe this fact might lead you to the conclusion that you get 10% even if there is no consulting. very questionable. imho the agreement can be terminated any time.
-second agreement might be the shareholder agreement (shares of the ltd). you state holding 20-25% percent of the ltd but dont participate losses. maybe. imho such an agreement requires you to buy yourself in first (deposit cash in return for the share). but this questions imho cant be answered by the first agreement. if there is no "second" agreement, well, then you would have to check back the legislation under which the ltd was installed - what is the content of a null-content-contract for shares of a ltd under this legislation? are you a dormant partner? if this legislation grants you a participation for profits, good for you, if it only grants you profits with share of losses, bad - or good too, if they just let you out without payment..
?
|
|
|
|
|
myself (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
June 08, 2013, 03:45:24 PM
Last edit: June 09, 2013, 04:36:20 PM by myself |
|
imho such an agreement requires you to buy yourself in first
and i did note: that was the case for BITFINEX LIMITED CR number:1872039 with date of Incorporation: 08-MAR-2013 and not for Bitfinex Technology Limited CR number:1912844 with date of Incorporation: 24-MAY-2013 u can check this here http://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/ |
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
myself (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
June 08, 2013, 04:02:08 PM |
|
regarding this In the following days he then withdrew the vast majority of his funds, showing very little trust in what we had done (I don't blame him for that, it's his money and he can do whatever he wants with it, but still...). i took my money out on and i did not made a secret from it myself: i got my bfx money Apr 17
xxxxxx: myself, I understand you have moved funds from Gox? Just wondering how long that have taken? Apr 17
myself: i moved funds via BFX I took my money out because mr tang did not deposit the 150k and no money was deposited until I lost my read only access this june if the money was deposited I was not notified and the deposited money did not show up on his market maker account this account did have a total usd in negative if the money was deposited via other account or other way I have no idea |
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
|
WuLabsWuTecH
|
|
June 08, 2013, 05:56:55 PM |
|
Regarding this part of R post https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-changePlease notice that the fact that he was an advisor for Bitfinex and not a shareholder was always clear and never in doubt. well the email about share dilution from 16/03/2013 this begs the questions if i am not a share holder why i get diluted ? why i get to share with other people that are considered share holders ? Because the profits are a fixed size pie and the pieces have to be moved around. In my example above, It's me and 8 employees. If a 9th employee comes in, then the shares of profit sharing will get diluted. None of us are shareholders in the company, but we do get profit sharing as part of our compensation package. But regardless of this, and whether or not you think you are a shareholder or not, what is the resolution you are looking for? (And is the other party even still responding to this thread? If not, then anything we talk about is irrelevant at this point.) |
|
|
|
|
nrd525
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1867
Merit: 1023
|
|
June 09, 2013, 03:46:51 AM |
|
Based on his "contract" Myself should have been sharing in the losses - in that the losses should have been reducing the profits. All you need to do is to set a reporting period to be a quarter or a year (instead of monthly) so that you have enough profits to cover your losses. So long as the company is profitable over that time period it will work.
So that part about not taking losses seems full of holes.
--
BFX executes trades on MtGox, Bitstamp, or its own exchange based on short/long positions. People aren't betting against the house. There was an exception to this for a couple days in April when the MtGox connection was lost -- are you referring to that?
If not, then how is this bucket shop activity? And if this is bucket shop activity what is logistically wrong with it?
|
Digital Gold for Gamblers and True Believers
|
|
|
myself (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
June 09, 2013, 04:55:29 AM |
|
Because the profits are a fixed size pie and the pieces have to be moved around.
In my example above, It's me and 8 employees. If a 9th employee comes in, then the shares of profit sharing will get diluted. None of us are shareholders in the company, but we do get profit sharing as part of our compensation package.
But regardless of this, and whether or not you think you are a shareholder or not, what is the resolution you are looking for?
(And is the other party even still responding to this thread? If not, then anything we talk about is irrelevant at this point.)
man i understand that, i posted that because R said i was never a share holder |
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
myself (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
June 09, 2013, 04:58:51 AM |
|
Based on his "contract" Myself should have been sharing in the losses - in that the losses should have been reducing the profits. All you need to do is to set a reporting period to be a quarter or a year (instead of monthly) so that you have enough profits to cover your losses. So long as the company is profitable over that time period it will work.
So that part about not taking losses seems full of holes.
u can read my email here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224745.msg2363350#msg2363350no one take loses because the operator say so with no audit with nothing even more after allowing other to be on the market if they did not deposit the money before hand |
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
bitcoins5411
Member
Offline
Activity: 63
Merit: 10
|
|
June 09, 2013, 10:17:13 AM |
|
I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam.
As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WuLabsWuTecH
|
|
June 09, 2013, 02:46:02 PM |
|
I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam.
As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam.
I concur, based on the limited information provided here, I'm of the same opinion that no one was scammed and it seems like an internal dispute between owners and/or employees. |
|
|
|
|
myself (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
June 09, 2013, 03:24:39 PM |
|
I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam.
As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam.
I concur, based on the limited information provided here, I'm of the same opinion that no one was scammed and it seems like an internal dispute between owners and/or employees. last time i did check taking customer money with out their permission to be on the market was not legal (you can google search MF global) no matter what excuse you put |
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
June 09, 2013, 06:20:10 PM |
|
I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam.
As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam.
On the contrary: scammers outing each other makes for a great service to the community. |
|
|
|
vokain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1019
|
|
June 09, 2013, 06:39:40 PM |
|
6) After a few days we joined forces (end of March) the price started to raise a lot and it accelerated further to hit 266 on the 9th of April. With the price grew our concern as we started to fear a crash. At the beginning of April we therefore put in place an account, under the name of mr Tang ( the Hong Kong insurer mentioned above) in order to start providing insurance for the loans. This account would have the ability to have a liability toward Bitfinex for up to a previously and formally agreed amount. But we were not quick enough to implement this. We all recall what happened, make a long story short the price started to collapse and MtGox suspended trading. As MtGox was our main (and only third party platform at that time, as Bitstamp didn't join in yet) liquidity provider, we were left with a bunch of leveraged positions that needed to be liquidated but couldn't as MtGox was down. Me and Giancarlo spent long hours on the phone during that night (I will never forget it) and he was really helpful in the situation. He said he and the investors team were going to cover for any losses that this crash would have caused. He said we should not make lenders lose any money and that this move (taking this loss) would have paid back several times in the future. But there was no time to physically transfer the funds required before Gox resumed operations, so I allowed mr. Tang ( the insurance shareholder I mentioned before whose real name is not mr. Tang by the way, we care about the privacy of our customers) to go 150k in red for a few hours. All the losses originated that night went into his account and were promptly covered by the shareholders after that. To put things straight this wasn't representing a risk for the company as Giancarlo gave me his personal word that these 150k would have been transferred the day after AND he personally had liquidity on his personal account in Bitfinex for way more than the above mentioned 150k and this was the collateral of Mr. Tang liabilities. And so we did, after Gox resumed operations we liquidated the leveraged positions and ended up making a loss of "only" 50,000 usd. None of our lenders lost one cent, and this was possible only because we had a strong financial backup. I can't think of a lot of people that would have done the same in our shoes. For clarity Mr. Tang later provided the funds that are now used to give insurance on the loans of our lenders. Please notice that we have always been very clear and transparent about what happened during these days, as this announcement published the day after the big crash shows: https://community.bitfinex.com/conte...-night-Tsunami |
|
|
|
|
wilfried
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 288
Merit: 250
ManualMiner
|
|
June 09, 2013, 07:01:10 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WuLabsWuTecH
|
|
June 10, 2013, 12:31:45 AM |
|
I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam.
As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam.
I concur, based on the limited information provided here, I'm of the same opinion that no one was scammed and it seems like an internal dispute between owners and/or employees. last time i did check taking customer money with out their permission to be on the market was not legal (you can google search MF global) no matter what excuse you put Bitcoins5411 I think has a good point. I guess I'm not exactly sure what's going on with this taking customer money thing, but it seems like no one was out anything by deception which is an integral part of a scam. Having an unsecured loan may be bad business practice, but unless the company was actually maliciously trying to make money by cheating it's customers, it's not really a scam. As I have said before, the "scam" accusation with regards to the customer account handling is marginal at best. There is definitely no scam with regards to myself and the ownership's dispute--it appears to be an internal shareholder and/or employer dispute. If you put your investor's money in a bank with no FDIC insurance, it's a bad business practice, but it's not a scam. If you did the same but told your investors the money was protected, it's lying to them, but still not really a scam. If you tell investors their money is in an FDIC insured bank, but it's actually gone to buy you a corvette, now it's a scam. |
|
|
|
|
Eisenhower34
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 906
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 10, 2013, 07:32:31 AM |
|
I see that a bit different because we are still mixing up two things here.
1) According to all things posted here "myself" was an employee. The agreement via email / contract dont back his demand for being a real partner and not only an employee payed by a percentage of the profit. Im sorry for you "myself" but emplyees can be fired. Check your emails, maybe you find something he said which imply that you are a real partner.
2) The second point is the more concerning one according to my opinion. We already cleared the 150k covered by the funds of a personal account, but what about "Devasini [who] was credited one million dollars, money that he didn't have deposited in his account"? Giving out funds of this amount are a huge liability and are possible fraud (as long as you have no real good explanation).
|
|
|
|
|
myself (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
June 10, 2013, 08:31:28 AM |
|
I see that a bit different because we are still mixing up two things here.
1) According to all things posted here "myself" was an employee. The agreement via email / contract dont back his demand for being a real partner and not only an employee payed by a percentage of the profit. Im sorry for you "myself" but emplyees can be fired. Check your emails, maybe you find something he said which imply that you are a real partner.
then why was bitfinex technology limited funded ? ofc on documents I have 25% of bitfinex limited and R have 75% and ofc i am not going to sing any papers regarding bitfinex limited numbers and stuff posted here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224745.msg2412313#msg2412313 |
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
|
