GLBSE offered a service to those issuing bonds/stocks listed on their exchange, for as long as they were listed on the exchange, and when they are no longer listed on the exchange, they are under no obligation to continue offering said service.
I understand this is their position. I consider it a scam. Until a transfer of ownership records to some other scheme is completed (or reasonable efforts to accomplish it fail), GLBSE cannot abandon its obligation to protect its customers' ownership interest.
Now, if the new exchange is willing to put in code, where the issuer lists their asset, where they can input the ownership list, using the codes themselves, and then the trader, has a method where they can go into a menu for that asset where they can claim ownership of their shares/bonds using the code, preserving the anonymity from the asset issuer, that is up to the new exchange.
That can't work without GLBSE's cooperation, as I've explained. Your are saying GLBSE has no obligation to cooperate. If so, then the scheme can't work.
You can't redeem the codes with GLBSE, because there is simply nothing to redeem those codes for, that GLBSE has, to give you. If you still believe you have to redeem them with GLBSE to get your shares/bonds, just what is it do you think they are able to give you?
Proof of ownership that the issuer can use to continue your ability to receive dividends from the assets or sell them. The codes alone don't work with GLBSE's cooperation.
If I generate a MTGOX code today and tomorrow to reimburse they tell me that is already paid, I'm screwed, go mtgox reclaim something, you are responsible for that nobody steals it and assume the risk involved in using them.
Right, that's why you cannot redeem a Mt. Gox code without Mt Gox's participation. You need the issuer of the code to say whether the code is genuine and whether it was already paid. A scheme where Mt. Gox issues codes and then some other entity redeems them with no cooperation from Gox is not going to work.
Where this comparison falls apart, is that with an MtGox code, MtGox has something of value that needs to trade hands with the person who redeems the code. In this case, Bitcoin (or is it paper, I haven't needed to use one).
Same thing -- GLBSE has something of value that needs to trade hands -- the record of ownership of the asset.
When you give someone the code, you are doing so as payment for something, and the recipient expects to be able to take that code to MtGox, and turn it in, to get the funds that code represented. This is something that MtGox actually does have in its possession.
Same here. GLBSE has in its possession the only usable record of who owns how much of the asset. The value inherent in being the recorded owner of the asset is what needs to be retrieved from GLBSE.
The codes from GLBSE, do not represent funds, or a transaction, or even shares/bonds.
The GLBSE codes represent identity. Nothing more.
They represent ownership of the asset, which is exactly what needs to be transferred.
If you honestly believe that GLBSE has no further obligation, please explain what happens in this case:
1) Someone posts to the forum claiming Goat refused to honor a code.
2) Goat responds that the code was already redeemed by someone else.
3) The person complaining swears they got the one and only code from GLBSE.
4) Goat says he doesn't know if GLBSE gave the same code to two people or if the person complaining shared their code with someone and is trying to scam him.
What happens? Remember, your position is that GLBSE has no further obligation at all, so don't tell me GLBSE will or must do something. How do Goat, the community, and the purported owner resolve this?
If you think this scenario is unrealistic, I would remind you that all the evidence we have suggests that Nefario invented this code scheme in the span of a few minutes as part of a plan specifically to harm Goat and in the absence of any known legitimate business reason while apparently totally disregarding any obligation to preserve the value of the asset or the ownership interests for its customers. Nefario either didn't stop for a second to think about what this would do to the value of the asset, harm to his customers, or he didn't care.
