[GLBSE] BDT - 3% weekly interest bond, backed by Bitdaytrade

[Bjork]

 

[1713984421]

1713984421

[1713984421]

1713984421

[1713984421]

1713984421

[Eisenhower34]

today I got this pm:

Hi there,

there is somewhat soft evidence that Alberto Armandi is still in the game and behind Labcoin - a mining stock traded on BTCT.

I stumbled upon your thread in which you were looking for this guy. So I'd like to ask: how did the story end?

Thanks!


Reference:
https://btct.co/security/LABCOIN
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinStocks/comments/1ncdf1/labcoin_outed_as_a_scam/

[Labcoin_PR]

Where can we purchase this bond?

[Puppet]

Nothing will happen. Unfortunately this is the truth.

Since its clear this is going nowhere and Alberto isnt going to pay, allow me to suggest duped US investors another way. Under the securities act of 1933, you are very likely able to bring civil action against Meni Rosenfeld

The SEC may not bring actions on behalf of individual investors, but the Securities Act allows individual investors to bring civil actions under several provisions:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_act_of_1933

Take note especially of sections 11, 12 and 15:

One quote from section 15

(b) Prosecution of persons who aid and abet violations
For purposes of any action brought by the Commission under subparagraph (b) or (d) of section 77t of this title, any person that knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person in violation of a provision of this subchapter, or of any rule or regulation issued under this subchapter, shall be deemed to be in violation of such provision to the same extent as the person to whom such assistance is provided.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77o

Now you may or may not believe Meni knew or should have known this was a scam, but that may not even be material; Meni knew or should have known he was soliciting or aiding in the solicitation of funds for an unregistered security from (among others) US investors. That is a clear violation of the security act by itself, even if bitdaytrade were a legitimate business, or Meni could reasonably have assumed this was the case.

IANAL, so obviously anyone wanting to go down this road should talk to his lawyer first. I also dont have an opinion on whether it would be "fair" or "moral" to meni to take this approach, thats entirely up to duped investors and possibly courts to decide. Im merely pointing out an option that I suspect is more likely to yield results than waiting for Alberto,  and that if nothing else,  may motivate Meni and future "IPO managers" to take their responsibility in vouching for potential scams a bit more seriously. What you do with it, is up to you.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

today I got this pm:

Hi there,

there is somewhat soft evidence that Alberto Armandi is still in the game and behind Labcoin - a mining stock traded on BTCT.

I stumbled upon your thread in which you were looking for this guy. So I'd like to ask: how did the story end?

Thanks!


Reference:
https://btct.co/security/LABCOIN
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinStocks/comments/1ncdf1/labcoin_outed_as_a_scam/

I will look into this matter.

Where can we purchase this bond?

You can't.

Nothing will happen. Unfortunately this is the truth.

Since its clear this is going nowhere and Alberto isnt going to pay, allow me to suggest duped US investors another way. Under the securities act of 1933, you are very likely able to bring civil action against Meni Rosentahl

The SEC may not bring actions on behalf of individual investors, but the Securities Act allows individual investors to bring civil actions under several provisions:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_act_of_1933

Take note especially of sections 11, 12 and 15:

One quote from section 15

(b) Prosecution of persons who aid and abet violations
For purposes of any action brought by the Commission under subparagraph (b) or (d) of section 77t of this title, any person that knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person in violation of a provision of this subchapter, or of any rule or regulation issued under this subchapter, shall be deemed to be in violation of such provision to the same extent as the person to whom such assistance is provided.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77o

Now you may or may not believe Meni knew or should have known this was a scam, but that may not even be material; Meni knew or should have known he was soliciting or aiding in the solicitation of funds for an unregistered security from (among others) US investors. That is a clear violation of the security act by itself, even if bitdaytrade were a legitimate business, or Meni could reasonably have assumed this was the case.

That lawsuit wouldn't get anywhere if they spell my name wrong.

Seriously though, I doubt anyone would follow your recommendation, which is clearly nothing more than trying to find a scapegoat.

IANAL, so obviously anyone wanting to go down this road should talk to his lawyer first. I also dont have an opinion on whether it would be "fair" or "moral" to meni to take this approach, thats entirely up to duped investors and possibly courts to decide. Im merely pointing out an option that I suspect is more likely to yield results than waiting for Alberto,  and that if nothing else,  may motivate Meni and future "IPO managers" to take their responsibility in vouching for potential scams a bit more seriously. What you do with it, is up to you.

I expressed my personal trust in Alberto and clarified beyond any reasonable doubt that everyone should come up with their own trust. I did not imply anyone should trust him based on my word (which is what "vouching" means).

When things started I personally lent 2000 BTC to Alberto, both because I believed he was legitimate and because noblesse oblige. When things exploded, I lent him 2000 BTC more without any expectation of ROI, merely because I thought it would aid in resolving the process (and still believing I would eventually get them back). I am still spending my money and time for the chance (however slim) for a positive resolution. If that's not taking my responsibility seriously, I don't know what is. (EDIT: Actually, in the beginning I lent 1000 BTC and accepted debt of another 1000 BTC as payment)

As I explained in depth previously, agreeing to help Alberto was the worst mistake I've ever made, which has caused me enormous financial and mental damage. But I would rather be productive than repent and defend myself for the rest of my life. And as my track record clearly indicates, me being productive is for the benefit of the entire Bitcoin economy and community.

[Puppet]

When things started I personally lent 2000 BTC to Alberto, both because I believed he was legitimate and because noblesse oblige. When things exploded, I lent him 2000 BTC more without any expectation of ROI, merely because I thought it would aid in resolving the process (and still believing I would eventually get them back). I am still spending my money and time for the chance (however slim) for a positive resolution.

I cant verify your claims, they may or may not be true. Even if true they didnt benefit investors, and  I dont see how arguing that you honestly thought this was a legitimate venture and trying to prove that by claiming you poured even more money in to a bottomless pit, absolves you from your legal responsibilities. If my accountant screws up and it ends up costing me a lot of money, I may or may not believe it to be an honest mistake, but I might still want to claim or sue him for damages. Its up to your investors to decide if they want to act on this, or if they want to believe that you too were duped and thats good enough to give you a free pass. Like I said, I have no opinion either way (though the authorities might have one should it come to that).

If that's not taking my responsibility seriously, I don't know what is.

First of all, just googling Alberto's name brings up more than just "unsuccessful ventures". They were clearly scams (and even a drug bust). Did you feel a need to mention that?  No;  instead you trivialized it and did vouch for him, and his ability to pay back; I dont see what else you can call statements like " I talked with Alberto about many things and I am confident he is committed to making bitdaytrade work, and even if it fails, to pay back every last satoshi of debt, bringing to the table his personal assets if necessary (of which he has enough to cover his obligations). "

Moreover, you called your self the "IPO manager", but did you ever tell Alberto, let alone anyone else, its illegal in most countries to sell such unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors? Did you even bother to look in to it? If you had taken your responsibility seriously, you would have understood your (and your customer's !) liability when soliciting investments and if you had any sense, you would never have accepted the "job".

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I cant verify your claims, they may or may not be true. Even if true

Every claim I make is true, and I have logs to prove it.

If my accountant screws up and it ends up costing me a lot of money, I may or may not believe it to be an honest mistake, but I might still want to claim or sue him for damages.

An accountant is responsible for doing your accounting right. I am not responsible for Alberto's actions, and I clarified as much from the start.

If that's not taking my responsibility seriously, I don't know what is.

First of all, just googling Alberto's name brings up more than just "unsuccessful ventures". They were clearly scams (and even a drug bust). Did you feel a need to mention that?  No;  instead you trivialized it

They were not "clearly scams" to me. I thought he was a good guy who made some mistakes and deserves another chance. I was foolish to think so as there was little evidence to support it and sufficient evidence against it. You are correct, I did trivialize Alberto's past and it was a big mistake on my part. (BTW the drug thing was unknown to me until much later.)

Moreover, you called your self the "IPO manager", but did you ever tell Alberto, let alone anyone else, its illegal in most countries to sell such unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors? Did you even bother to look in to it? If you had taken your responsibility seriously, you would have understood your (and your customer's !) liability when soliciting investments

My due diligence was below the standards of traditional security issuance. It was far, far above the standards of the Bitcoin market at the time, which is what I measured myself against.

and if you had any sense, you would never have accepted the "job".

I agree completely.

[Puppet]

You are not on trial here, Im not a prosecutor, let alone a judge,  but I do want to respond to this:

My due diligence was below the standards of traditional security issuance. It was far, far above the standards of the Bitcoin market at the time,

That, I am more than willing to believe. Moreover, its not like that standard has gone up since, you are certainly not alone making this mistake. Just about every bitcoin related asset issuer (and their "helpers", PT-operators, exchange operators, "pr managers", "ipo managers" and whatever) now and in the past have serious legal liabilities and most still dont seem to grasp that. I just hope people begin realizing this is no game.

which is what I measured myself against.

Possibly your worst mistake ?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

You are not on trial here, Im not a prosecutor, let alone a judge

Sure sounded like it. Point taken though.

which is what I measured myself against.

Possibly your worst mistake ?

I don't believe that was the worst part. I may be wrong.

Even if true they didnt benefit investors

Some did. After some issues started to pop up I organized a buyback of the bonds at their face value, using my own money to facilitate the process (Alberto later reimbursed most of it). I recommended that people take advantage of this offer, and everyone who wanted got to. out of 8950 outstanding bonds (other than those I owned), only 4998 remain.

[dexX7]

You are not on trial here, Im not a prosecutor, let alone a judge,  but I do want to respond to this

I don't like your attiude.

Instead of attacking those who seemingly got sucked in, you should focus your energy on starting an investigation into the man behind - Alberto Armandi.

And I don't like your attitude quoting SEC texts. This whole gives us the chance to form something new, something better.

If I frame you wrong, I'm very sorry, Puppet. I'm yet at the beginning of looking into this and I will edit/delete this post, if I'm mistaken.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I don't like your attiude.

Apparently Puppet's goal was to shed light on some facts, I don't think there's a problem with that.

And I don't like your attitude quoting SEC texts. This whole gives us the chance to form something new, something better.

Everything has a reason, though not always a good reason. I don't have sympathy for the SEC or other legacy rulesystems either, but we'll have a better chance of building something new and better if we understand the rules and the reasons for them - learn from them if the reasons are good, or learn what to avoid if the reasons are bad.

Presumably, the SEC rules were meant to prevent basically exactly what's happening right now, and to that extent we should have some respect for them.

[Puppet]

I don't like your attiude.

You dont have to

Instead of attacking those who seemingly got sucked in, you should focus your energy on starting an investigation into the man behind - Alberto Armandi.

This thread is over a year old, there is nothing left to investigate, I think the facts about Alberto are pretty clear.

And I don't like your attitude quoting SEC texts. This whole gives us the chance to form something new, something better.

You dont like the law being quoted? You think its a better idea to pretend laws dont exist or dont apply - until someone ends up in jail? Personally Im getting very tired of people thinking and claiming that because something is related to bitcoin that its all legal and anything goes.

As for creating something better, Im all for better, and bitcoin certainly can make some things better, but Im very unconvinced by the bitcoin experiment showing just how much better a (perceived) regulatory vacuum is. To quote myself from another post:

OT, but I find it fascinating that time after time, this bitcoin experiment shows us the usefulness of so many existing regulations that die hard libertarians love to hate. Things like registering a security, so that potential investors know all the relevant facts about the people and the business they are investing in. Rules against insider trading and stock manipulation as hinted at above,  and disclosure requirements that would force labcoin to come clean about the actual status of their business making this more an investment than a lottery. The need for an organisation that verifies and enforces this, since you cant trust the exchanges, let alone the issuers.  We already learned what happens when you allow ponzi schemes (pirate) or known felons to play 'bank' (mybitcoin). BFL customers are finding out that FTC rules about shipping delays and refunds perhaps arent so daft. Heck, they are even learning that evil old Paypal has its uses too.

Many libertarians were or are convinced bitcoin would show just how good a totally free market can work. Its showing me the exact opposite: t doesnt work without some sensible regulation, it becomes a scammer's and gamblers paradise, not a functional economy.

Im sure many will disagree, and thats fine. But its hard to disagree with the legal realities. You may chose to ignore them, but that doesnt change them. If you are going to ignore them at least do it with your eyes open.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

OT, but I find it fascinating that time after time, this bitcoin experiment shows us the usefulness of so many existing regulations that die hard libertarians love to hate. Things like registering a security, so that potential investors know all the relevant facts about the people and the business they are investing in. Rules against insider trading and stock manipulation as hinted at above,  and disclosure requirements that would force labcoin to come clean about the actual status of their business making this more an investment than a lottery. The need for an organisation that verifies and enforces this, since you cant trust the exchanges, let alone the issuers.  We already learned what happens when you allow ponzi schemes (pirate) or known felons to play 'bank' (mybitcoin). BFL customers are finding out that FTC rules about shipping delays and refunds perhaps arent so daft. Heck, they are even learning that evil old Paypal has its uses too.

Many libertarians were or are convinced bitcoin would show just how good a totally free market can work. Its showing me the exact opposite: t doesnt work without some sensible regulation, it becomes a scammer's and gamblers paradise, not a functional economy.

I think of it as similar to being pushed into deep water and learning how to swim on the spot. We're used to rely on these regulations as crutches, and our common sense has atrophied due to lack of use. Over time I hope we'll learn how to operate efficiently in a less-regulated world (with some Darwin awards earned in the process).

Some rules will of course still be needed, though. I'm not a libertarian myself.

[crumbs]

...
I think of it as similar to being pushed into deep water and learning how to swim on the spot. We're used to rely on these regulations as crutches, and our common sense has atrophied due to lack of use. Over time I hope we'll learn how to operate efficiently in a less-regulated world (with some Darwin awards earned in the process).
...

The flaw with your analogy is no one pushed -- people chose to dive into the deep end of the pool without learning how to swim, or even realizing that swimming might come in handy once they hit the water.  What's worse, as soon as they're fished out of the pool, they start climbing the ladder to the highboard, prompting the lifeguards to put up this life-saving sign & ruining the party for the rest of us:

[Equilux]

Alberto, we are now well past "the end of summer", and heading towards the start of winter in fact. At least an update would be in order I would think.

[Bjork]

 

[Bitcoin Oz]

I think the entire securities section places the forum itself in massive liability, knowing what we know about the SEC et al.