GBTC exists for only one reason: to provide an investment vehicle for exposure to Bitcoin.
Thus, Grayscale's fiduciary duty requires they preserve and maximize their investors' exposure to Bitcoin.
Grayscale should have sold their Trust's Bcash as soon as possible and returned the profit to investors in the form of Bitcoin (like a dividend reinvestment).
A single unit of GBTC represents <0.1
BTC and that number inexorably dwindles as management fees are collected.
Bcash offerd GBTC an opportunity to restore all accumulated management fees plus a healthy bonus, meaning 1 unit of GBTC could have been worth >0.1
BTC.
I was
shocked to discover Barry Silbert instead chose to use his investors' money to play political games and sacrificed the free airdrop money for the sake of his
notably unprofessional personal crusade against Core and their socioeconomic majority of users.
I'm 99% sure that's a regulatory violation if not also criminal embezzlement; I never gave Barry permission to use my share of GBTC's Bcash to create an entirely new Bcash Trust.
Going by the Wiki definition of embezzlement, Barry is going to fry for pulling this stunt.
Embezzlement is the act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion (theft) of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, either to be held or to be used for specific purposes.[1] Embezzlement is a type of financial fraud, e.g. a lawyer might embezzle funds from the trust accounts of their clients; a financial advisor might embezzle the funds of investors; and a husband or a wife might embezzle funds from a bank account jointly held with the spouse.
Imagine some whale had 1000
BTC worth of GBTC and thanks to Barry's scheming malfeasance lost the chance to gain 100
BTC from his free, airdropped Bcash.
In what universe does that whale not call up his legal dept. and release the hounds?
The second paragraph is especially damning of Barry's
notably perfidious intrigues in support of controversial hard forks:
Directors of corporations, in fulfilling their managerial responsibilities, are charged with certain fiduciary duties. The primary duties are the duty of care and the duty of loyalty.
Duty of Care: This duty requires that directors inform themselves “prior to making a business decision, of all material information reasonably available to them.” Whether the directors were informed of all material information depends on the quality of the information, the advice available, and whether the directors had “sufficient opportunity to acquire knowledge concerning the problem before action.” Moreover, a director may not simply accept the information presented. Rather, the director must assess the information with a “critical eye,” so as to protect the interests of the corporations and its stockholders.
Duty of Loyalty: As the Delaware Supreme Court explained in Guth v. Loft, 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939): “Corporate officers and directors are not permitted to use their position of trust and confidence to further their private interests. . . . A public policy, existing through the years, and derived from a profound knowledge of human characteristics and motives, has established a rule that demands of a corporate officer or director, peremptorily and inexorably, the most scrupulous observance of his duty, not only affirmatively to protect the interests of the corporation committed to his charge, but to refrain from doing anything that would work injury to the corporation, or to deprive it of profit or advantage which his skill and ability might properly bring to it, or to enable it to make in the reasonable and lawful exercise of its power.”
IIRC, Grayscale initially announced they were doing the obviously right thing (liquidate Bcash ASAP, then return Bitcoin to Bitcoin Investment Trust investors).
But then Barry saw another way to profit from his DCG's war on Core, and we've all
noted how much that guy loves marketing toxic assets like Bcash.