[GLBSE] Request for input re: asset holder complaints about issuers.

[Sukrim]

There's a problem with issuers being (or controlling) share holders of large portions of an asset.

I agree with 0 outstanding shares (and NO sell orders of shares!) == contract editable
I'm unsure about voting on changing contracts.

[1715206238]

1715206238

[1715206238]

1715206238

[1715206238]

1715206238

[brendio]

The second most traded asset on GLBSE has a contract that is clearly in error and has never been followed.

The eighth most traded asset on GLBSE has a contract that says "test".

Most people do not take the contract part seriously especially since GLBSE will not enforce it.

Because GLBSE will not enforce the contract it is a bit silly that they make it so they can not be changed. It would be better to have no contracts than wrong contracts....

again just on a boat...

So what you're saying is noone should trust Goat to honour his contracts and that he will change them on a whim? Just because someone speeds and is not caught by police does not mean that the speed limit does not exist or is not enforceable. Similarly, just because you don't follow your contracts does not mean they are meaningless or non-enforceable.

I agree that it is not GLBSE's role to adjudicate disputes. I don't think the NYSE gets involved in disputes between listed companies and shareholders either. These are legal matters. I take considerable time in drafting my contracts in the knowledge that I am bound by what I promise. Even though the market currently places little value in on a well-written contract, I think it is still worth in the long run to avoid the hassle of disputes with asset holders.

Many have brought up judge.me as a possible solution for adjudication. I haven't seen any test cases of it, but on the surface it looks promising as a last resort. I will consider it for future asset issuances. I think the forum is as good a place as any for grievances to be discussed, assuming that the parties have first tried to settle the dispute in private. Of course, any discussion on the forum does not preclude parties pursuing other avenues of recourse, such as through the legal system, although in most cases this would likely prove uneconomic.

In summary, GLBSE should not take the role of contract enforcement, other than cooperating with other agencies where necessary (e.g. providing information to judge.me or following a court order). People buying an asset with a contract that reads "test" really have little recourse against an issuer in the case of disputes. Hopefully, investors will take more time doing due diligence of what they are investing in.

[brendio]

Assuming the GLBSE contract will help you in court is absurd. I have no idea what Judge.me is but I highly doubt they have any ability to enforce their rulings.

Judge.me do not claim to have the ability to enforce their rulings, but they do adjudicate disputes and both parties agree beforehand to be bound by Judge.me's ruling. Judge.me's ruling can then be used as evidence in court or to pursue legal claims should the other party fail to abide by the ruling. With respect to GLBSE and Judge.me, GLBSE could state that if a Judge.me clause is inserted in a contract they will abide by any rulings Judge.me makes, including, for example, releasing the verification info to other parties to pursue legal redress.

I think it is wrong for an issuer of high-value GLBSE assets to think they can't be held accountable to a GLBSE contract in court is absurd. I'm not saying legal action to enforce a GLBSE contract would not be costly, but if large sums are involved, someone might give it a go.

[Namworld]

In which countries is judge.me binding?

Judge.me is binding is the 146 countries countries that signed the 1958 Convention of New York. Almost every country involved in international trade is on the list. Countries not party to the convention (i.e. where judge.me is not binding) include many African countries, Taiwan and a few of the small tax paradises around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Recognition_and_Enforcement_of_Foreign_Arbitral_Awards#Parties_to_the_New_York_Convention

While they may not be able to enforce the judgement themselves, you can go to court with that arbitration and it is recognized as valid in all such countries, apparently.

[brendio]

Assuming the GLBSE contract will help you in court is absurd. I have no idea what Judge.me is but I highly doubt they have any ability to enforce their rulings.

Judge.me do not claim to have the ability to enforce their rulings, but they do adjudicate disputes and both parties agree beforehand to be bound by Judge.me's ruling. Judge.me's ruling can then be used as evidence in court or to pursue legal claims should the other party fail to abide by the ruling. With respect to GLBSE and Judge.me, GLBSE could state that if a Judge.me clause is inserted in a contract they will abide by any rulings Judge.me makes, including, for example, releasing the verification info to other parties to pursue legal redress.

I think it is wrong for an issuer of high-value GLBSE assets to think they can't be held accountable to a GLBSE contract in court is absurd. I'm not saying legal action to enforce a GLBSE contract would not be costly, but if large sums are involved, someone might give it a go.

Assuming the contract is only in BTC I highly doubt you will find a court that will assist you anywhere. Also if someone did break a contract, like I am breaking my Bond-P by paying more, there is no way I would agree to go to judge.me. I am clearly over paying and thus would lose.

Nefario can not give away my documents for over paying my bond holders because he does not have them.

My contracts on GLBSE are more or less meaningless. That should be clear to you. The word the investors follow is on the forum where we can update and adapt.

It is a free market and the market has picked who they trust.

I am just being realistic. Going to a court anywhere in the world and saying that someone stole your internet play money (cuz that is all it is legally at this point) is not going to get you very far. Also trying to sue GLBSE for anything will get you about as far. GLBSE is not a company or registered anywhere. If you try to mix the legal system and BTC at this point in time you will not get far. You should know better.

GLBSE and I did not get as far as we have cuz we played within the rules of the legal system. This is our world and we will make the rules and live or die by them. If the rest of the world can impose its will on us we will adapt. Right now we operate by honor and respect alone.

Fuck the courts, fuck the police, fuck the financial system. We will not invite them here. Unregulated free market for the win.

You are true it is a free market. That is why I exercise my freedom to have a sum total of 0 BTC invested in your (or any other) assets with meaningless contracts. The deal I made with you for BIB.GOAT had a doubly GPG-signed contract clearly detailing the terms, plus I had enough info on you to pursue legal action if I needed too. Of course, it wouldn't have been worth it, but I knew I was planning to stop by near Thailand soon and so could pop in and visit to collect my GPU cards if needed. Evidently, not all investors are as cautious as I am.

[Btc4Domains]

In my experience the 'law' or so called 'legal system' is little more than a system based on previous injustices that prostitutes itself to the highest bidder. The whole 'legal' issue as it relates to Bitcoin needs to be kept in perspective. Part of the reason Bitcoin is a reality is because the 'financial system' is rigged, and someone came up with a better one. The legal system is not so different, only it has no Satoshi.

A beautiful feature of bitcoin is it exists in a semi unknown, or not yet fully defined space. It is not labouring under the same 'laws' and red tape that honest businesses around the world are. I understand the need for better transparency and a mechanism to be decisive when it comes to new Assets, Assets that have gone bad etc - but it shouldn't need to become some cumbersome apparatus sitting around everyone's neck. judge.me seems like it could be useful for individuals fighting out their claims against one and other - but it's not free. Personally I'd be comfortable with a small group of trusted forum members (like suggested by usagi) looking over new proposed assets, contract violations etc, and what should be done about it (if anything). It would be helpful if we could at least submit a contract update for approval - currently this issuer can't make any changes at all, not even admin related like updating the Forum thread address or email.

Speaking of contracts - what is the status of the GLBSE Asset? One day I would really like to start earning back some of the fees I'm paying. I bought 6 of those puppies and paid up to 10.00 BTC each - the shares are sitting in my account, but I don't remember seeing or receiving any form of notice that the shares were no longer going to be traded - they're not in some sort of contractual breach I should know about are they 

[Nefario]

For a large part the legal system(as it currently stands) is complex and cumbersome because it has evolved to deal with and cover near enough every possibility. All our modern legal systems (U.S., U.K. and French based) seem to be partly based on a lot of Roman law, hows that for historical baggage.

I would favor something simple and cheap to implement that doesn't take an army of people with 10 year degrees to interpret it.

Really we're asking because this is pretty much new to us, having to deal with this. We could go the traditional, standing legal route but as you all know this simply doesn't suit bitcoin related business. We're noobs at this to an extent, but at the same time we're in an advantageous position to be able to look back at all of history and instead of adding patch after patch, we can design a simple, efficient and just system.

Btc4Domains, regarding contract updates on GLBSE, if you need votes to get approval then run a motion(if not, skip to step 2), just send me the updated contract and Ill update it(support@glbse.com).

Regarding GLBSE shares, they are valid as shares but it's not a publicly traded asset, at least not yet.

Thanks for the input so far, it's been really helpful.

Nefario.

[Nefario]

Assuming the contract is only in BTC I highly doubt you will find a court that will assist you anywhere. Also if someone did break a contract, like I am breaking my Bond-P by paying more, there is no way I would agree to go to judge.me. I am clearly over paying and thus would lose.

Overpaying is not breaking a contract, the contract is being met, when overpaying the contract is being exceeded. Nothing has been broken.

Also, with a single exception, contracts have been updated after the change in behavior (i.e. the amounts paid), but only to the advantage of the weaker party, the shareholder. And usually a little later the contract has been changed. Once again in these cases the contract terms have not been broken, they have been met, often exceeded.

Currently the method of changing a contract is sending the new version to support@glbse.com and a link to the motion approving it if needed.

[Btc4Domains]

For a large part the legal system(as it currently stands) is complex and cumbersome because it has evolved to deal with and cover near enough every possibility. All our modern legal systems (U.S., U.K. and French based) seem to be partly based on a lot of Roman law, hows that for historical baggage.

I would favor something simple and cheap to implement that doesn't take an army of people with 10 year degrees to interpret it.

Really we're asking because this is pretty much new to us, having to deal with this. We could go the traditional, standing legal route but as you all know this simply doesn't suit bitcoin related business. We're noobs at this to an extent, but at the same time we're in an advantageous position to be able to look back at all of history and instead of adding patch after patch, we can design a simple, efficient and just system.

Before long the various ratings systems could be incorporated by someone into a bitcoin version of judiciary. Something bitcoin businesses like GLBSE could tap into. Willing persons whom no body knows the real identity of - but everyone trusts - could effectively act as judges here. A new set financial vocabulary free of old connotations and loaded double meanings is entirely possible too. It's all kind of exciting!  

[Nefario]

Assuming the contract is only in BTC I highly doubt you will find a court that will assist you anywhere. Also if someone did break a contract, like I am breaking my Bond-P by paying more, there is no way I would agree to go to judge.me. I am clearly over paying and thus would lose.

Overpaying is not breaking a contract, the contract is being met, when overpaying the contract is being exceeded. Nothing has been broken.

Also, with a single exception, contracts have been updated after the change in behavior (i.e. the amounts paid), but only to the advantage of the weaker party, the shareholder. And usually a little later the contract has been changed. Once again in these cases the contract terms have not been broken, they have been met, often exceeded.

Currently the method of changing a contract is sending the new version to support@glbse.com and a link to the motion approving it if needed.

That is productive new. The last time I tried to update a contract you demanded the bond holder pick it. And then when I refused you demanded that I have a vote of 100% approval.

Still, where can we finds these rules in print? You keep making up rules as we go and reporting them in random threads on this forum will not help much.

Thanks.

You know ways of doing things tend to evolve, from first ideas which may or may not have been good, to whatever the current system in place is.

I'm not a prophet who gets everything right first time, I'm just a guy trying my best.

[OgNasty]

I'm not a prophet who gets everything right first time, I'm just a guy trying my best.

It is appreciated.