Then you should be able to tell us whether or not he's shut down GBLSE in response to an immediate threat of prosecution by a regulatory authority or whether it's simply a pre-emptive move because consulting a lawyer about "legitimising" GBLSE made him aware of the enormity of the risks he was taking by facilitating anonymous trading of unregistered securities.

There is simply no excuse for him not providing this information to shareholders, even if you believe that issuers and users aren't entitled to that information.  If he's not providing that information because he's been advised not to by his lawyer, then he needs to state that.  If he says nothing, people are going to assume that GBSLE is under active investigation and that Nefario is co-operating with the authorities by helping them to obtain evidence which may be used to prosecute the issuers of unregistered securities (and possibly their users).  If GBLSE is under active investigation,  issuers can be expected to throw Nefario under a bus and claim that they relied on his assurances that their assets were legal because the exchange was operated outside of the US and ...Bitcoin.

At this point, it does matter whether the closure of GBLSE was pre-emptive or not.  People are going to assume the worst if it's not clarified and it's reasonable for them to do so.