Diablo Mining Company

[greyhawk]

Read the next line too.  "In the event of liquidation, 100% of the revenue from sales of the assets and 100% of the growth fund, minus any expenses incurred from the operation or liquidation of the company will be paid to shareholders."

Yeah, but that only applies in case of liquidation, which Diablo obviously has no intention of doing.

[1713308359]

1713308359

[Nefario]

Sorry about the motion mess up earlier guys, I'm tired, it's late, I wasn't paying attention.

Anyway here is the link to the motion, as I said it's 5 days before it closes so you can vote and then change your vote anytime before it's closed.

https://glbse.com/vote/view/127

Regarding the auditing, yes it's a good idea to get two people to sign off on it and the report (or maybe do 2 reports and compare). For those interested in doing so the task won't pay a huge amount (a couple of bitcoin) but it will be a great opportunity for us (GLBSE and the whole community) to try this out and set a precedent on how to handle these things.

Please PM me if you're interested.

Nefario.

[puffn]

The CSV for my assets, and my company's assets are separate. I would assume that Diablo's are the same.

[Nefario]

The CSV for my assets, and my company's assets are separate. I would assume that Diablo's are the same.

Thats true but it still can't be released, for the same reason that a companies internal books and accounts can't just be released to the public. There is also the issue of data protection which is something I'm very concerned about. Diablo doesn't want to release the records, I can't.

However, this is what auditors are for, the can look at the records and say whether they are legit or not.

I'm thinking that one person does the profit and loss, writes the report, and the second auditor reviews both, compares to account information, and accepts or rejects both the report and the profit & loss summary.

[novusordo]

So... what happens if this motion passes?

[Nefario]

So... what happens if this motion passes?

Obviously, if it doesn't pass Diablo will be given full control back to his account.

In the event it passes the asset will be removed from Diablos account completely, and he will get his personal account back. We will then attempt to find an alternative....director for the DMC asset.

How do we decide who is to do that I don't know, suggestions welcome.

If we can't find anyone to take over as director, then DMC will be wound down and all it's assets liquidated either for bitcoin or the assets divided as best as possible and given to shareholders as fairly as possible.

[greyhawk]

So... what happens if this motion passes?

According to the contract, nothing at all, i would guess.

[DiabloD3]

Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered non-binding advisory votes.

He can do as he pleases.

This now invalid, because it seems that DiabloD3 has breached the contract several times.

How have I breached the contract? Just saying "because I said so" or "because nefario said so" doesn't make it true.

I did not said you breached the contract, but it seems so.
And Nefario has the right to disable your access, unless you proof otherwise.

Guilty until proven innocent. I wasn't aware GLBSE was hosted in Soviet Russia.

[puffn]

Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered non-binding advisory votes.

He can do as he pleases.

This now invalid, because it seems that DiabloD3 has breached the contract several times.

How have I breached the contract? Just saying "because I said so" or "because nefario said so" doesn't make it true.

I did not said you breached the contract, but it seems so.
And Nefario has the right to disable your access, unless you proof otherwise.

Guilty until proven innocent. I wasn't aware GLBSE was hosted in Soviet Russia.

Seriously dude, we use red china now. You can do better than that.

This assumes you weren't going for the meme with your statement.

[DiabloD3]

Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered non-binding advisory votes.

He can do as he pleases.

This now invalid, because it seems that DiabloD3 has breached the contract several times.

How have I breached the contract? Just saying "because I said so" or "because nefario said so" doesn't make it true.

I did not said you breached the contract, but it seems so.
And Nefario has the right to disable your access, unless you proof otherwise.

Guilty until proven innocent. I wasn't aware GLBSE was hosted in Soviet Russia.

Don't be silly. He has the right to disable your access, because there is suspected fraud.
Untill the fraud is proven, you cannot be held responsible.
On the other hand your account will never get unblocked, if you don't assist in the investigation.

So whats the Fifth Amendment for?

[DiabloD3]

Having a look over the DMC contract and this is interesting.

Looks like you shareholders are pretty much fucked.

First, there's this

Percent of majority   
to change contract:   66
for general motion:   66
to issue shares:   0

Seems Diablo can pump out shares pretty much as he wants.

Then there's this

Each share represents 0% of the ownership in the company assets.

You ain't got nothin.

And last but not least

Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered non-binding advisory votes.

He can do as he pleases.

You forgot the part where nefario signed off on this contract when I opened the IPO to begin with, and every investor agreed to this contract when they invested.

[Deprived]

Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered non-binding advisory votes.

He can do as he pleases.

This now invalid, because it seems that DiabloD3 has breached the contract several times.

How have I breached the contract? Just saying "because I said so" or "because nefario said so" doesn't make it true.

For one thing you breached this:

"Given that, I am asking for 200k shares at 1 BTC each."

You clearly identifed that the shares were to be sold "at 1 BTC each".  Not exchanged for other shares worth way less than that.

That's the easiest breach to demonstrate.

Aside from specifics of contract breaching you also, as any director of a company does, have an obligation to act in the interest of your share-holders.  Spunking away 95% of nav without any proper accounting for it is clearly not fulfilling your resposibilities to those who entrusted you with their funds.

[greyhawk]

You forgot the part where nefario signed off on this contract when I opened the IPO to begin with, and every investor agreed to this contract when they invested.

Nah, that's sorta to be expected.

As it stands, they've got pretty much nothing on you.

[Deprived]

Any motions raised by shareholders will be considered non-binding advisory votes.

He can do as he pleases.

If you're gonna try to argue technicalities then try this one:

Nefario raised this motion.

Nefario isn't a share-holder.

Hence this isn't a motion raised by a share-holder.  No rights were reserved in respect of motions raised by the exchange operator

[Nefario]

Nearly all the contracts on GLBSE are horribly short and have almost no provisions for exceptional events, the reason TOS on most websites or products are so long and boring is because they cover all that is needed to be covered.

Real world contracts are really really long, ever look at a mortgage contract? It's like 30 pages.

Now it's been the assumption of many on the forum here that if a provision for a specific event is not in a contract, then that event changes nothing.

"Nothing in the contract on what to do if shareholders are unhappy so they can't do anything"

If this is the case then it provides no incentive for the issuer to write any provisions into his contract, as the less there is in there then the more protection the issuer has. This is clearly not working and cannot work, it would be self defeating, as we have seen from the plethora of short but sweet contracts on GLBSE, the record being held by Goat with "test".

I have developed the opinion that if there is not a provision in the contract that covers an event, then the contract writer is leaving it up to the exchanges discretion to decide on what to do as a result of said event(since we have no default contract to go to). This provides a strong incentive to write accurate, detailed and clear contracts as then the asset holder gets more protection from the lack of a clear contract.

In this case there are a number of events that have coincided, 1) Diablo may have been destroying the assets value, 2) Diablo may have broken what little there was of a contract there.

Both of these events will be proven true or false after the investigation and audit. But the audit has been triggered by considerable protests of DMC shareholders which is the trigger event for this whole process.

There is no provision in the contract for what happens if a large percentage of shares (when we pool all the people who own them) are unhappy, and want "something" to be done.

Since there is no provision for this event it is up to my discretion to decide how to handle it, as per the TOS of GLBSE I have the power to freeze access to an issuers account, Diablo you agreed to those terms.

I have done just this, frozen his account and initiated an audit and a vote, the audit should be complete and public before the vote happens.

Diablo, in your lack of provision for such an event (shareholder protest) in your contract, you have given me the power to act.

OK I'd prefer to have a set of rules to which I could go to for such an event, i.e. a default assumed contract to go to with all possible provisions, when such provisions are missing from the contract. I guess you could call this default contract "law", and it is vast and complicated but I/we don't.

So I guess we're setting a precedent here and making GLBSE law as we do so, meaning that in the future if a similar event occurs then we do things in the same way.

Opinions on this are welcome on the above train of thought.

Regarding whether a vote would be binding or not, I'm not a shareholder, I'm the admin of the exchange, the regulator (but not a government one), and believe me, the vote is binding.

As I said if it's not in the contract you're then leaving it up to me. I as the GLBSE operator am launching the vote and audit, to which I have the powers to do.

[DiabloD3]

To make sure everyone sees nefario's motion

https://glbse.com/vote/view/127

Click NO if you believe that I should remain CEO of Diablo Mining Company.

[DiabloD3]

Having a look over the DMC contract and this is interesting.

Looks like you shareholders are pretty much fucked.

First, there's this

Percent of majority   
to change contract:   66
for general motion:   66
to issue shares:   0

Seems Diablo can pump out shares pretty much as he wants.

Also, I believe the zero is a result of a GLSBE bug, I remember reading that Diablo never planned on issuing extra shares.

Not a bug. I put 0 in that field, and nefario agreed to that, as did every shareholder.

[DiabloD3]

I try to keep my contracts short and free of legalese. Real world contracts are really long because many people are greedy and sue-happy and willing to sell out their own mother for a nickel. I prefer to do business on a handshake and a smile.


What's it going to take to add a few lines to all of my contracts?

"In the event of exceptional circumstances not precisely covered in this contract, latitude and authority rests with the asset issuer to freely determine and decide the procedure to mitigate the situation at hand. Anything not explicitly covered in this contract remains in the domain and control of the asset issuer alone."

I also want that text added to DMC's contract to prevent future interference from non-shareholders.

[Nefario]

I try to keep my contracts short and free of legalese. Real world contracts are really long because many people are greedy and sue-happy and willing to sell out their own mother for a nickel. I prefer to do business on a handshake and a smile.

What's it going to take to add a few lines to all of my contracts?

"In the event of exceptional circumstances not precisely covered in this contract, latitude and authority rests with the asset issuer to freely determine and decide the procedure to mitigate the situation at hand. Anything not explicitly covered in this contract remains in the domain and control of the asset issuer alone."

The approval of your asset holders through a vote to make such a change would be required.

Although I can't see why they would approve that as it essentially gives all power to the issuer and removes any protections or recourse they may have.

This is essentially a "do what I like and get away with it" clause and would mean that any asset with it is worthless.

[DiabloD3]

For one thing you breached this:

"Given that, I am asking for 200k shares at 1 BTC each."

You clearly identifed that the shares were to be sold "at 1 BTC each".  Not exchanged for other shares worth way less than that.

That's the easiest breach to demonstrate.

Aside from specifics of contract breaching you also, as any director of a company does, have an obligation to act in the interest of your share-holders.  Spunking away 95% of nav without any proper accounting for it is clearly not fulfilling your resposibilities to those who entrusted you with their funds.

The text you quoted is NOT in the contract. I have not violated the contract as stated on GLBSE.

I do have a responsibility to my shareholders to act in their interest: investing in assets that I believe will massively appreciate in value over the coming months is acting in their interest. Just because asicminer and abmo are both worth around 0.10 BTC now doesn't that their combined value and dividends paid cannot be ten times that or more over the next year.

This is how investing works: you buy at the bottom, you sell at the top.