Quote from: LoupGaroux on October 09, 2012, 01:46:42 AM

What a delightful collection of deep orange ignore brothers and sisters I find here! Far from being the mark of shame that anyone is embarrassed about, or a guide for the discerning reader to know who had the respect of the community or not, I personally find the brighter the orange, the most interesting a person's post will be. All the orange means is that the fragile little porcelain egos that hide behind a desire to have someone else do their thinking for them have gotten frightened or offended by what they have seen, and rather than engaging in healthy conversation, they have a lovely automatic function do their thinking for them.

Cowardly and weak in the extreme.

But, I digress, let's consider theymos as scammer, shall we?

He tried to bail out of the sinking ship as he saw it headed towards the regulatory rocks.
An interesting ethical choice at best.

He used insider knowledge to assemble a 25% stake, and offered a significant ownership block for a healthy price.
Shrewd business move, and without the benefit of hindsight, a smart investment move for somebody who believes in bitcoin and markets.

He washed his hands of all responsibility the moment that nefario (I spit and use hand gestures to ward off evil when I type that name!) decided to move unilaterally in a new direction with the company.
Weak, very weak, and not absolving of responsibility in the slightest.

Scammer tag? In the real world- absolutely yes. In the extremely warped world of bitcoin ethics? Probably not.

Still has significant legal and financial responsibility to the people who have suffered severe losses due to the mismanagement of the company of which he controls a 25% interest? Without question. Although the criminal bastards behind bitcoinica have tried to create a precedent that clicking your heels three times and saying out loud "I am no longer responsible" somehow magically releases you from all obligation, it doesn't. Every asset creator and every shareholder has complete grounds to bring claims against theymos, nefario and all other "owners" of GLBSE jointly and severally for all the on-going damage and losses they are causing by their refusal to take action, for their irresponsible communications that lead to near-failure of the market before the no-notice shutdown, and for the criminal retention of all sums sent to be used in the market where the exchange THEY OWN took those funds in trust for the trading activities of the various entities involved. It is not their money to hold, nor is it their money to invest in lawyers for the benefit of nefario alone, or to pay for regulatory games being played by anyone.

But the call has been made- let's let the authorities who review these things do their work.

Maged- what say you? Does he get a scammer tag for his involvement in this? Do the other owners of GBLSE get the scammer tag for the exact same reasons as nefario?

Just a small correction - GLBSE didnt issue any securities the asset owners did. GLBSE was similar to a ledger.

It does seem incongruous that the other owners of glbse dont have tags just as it does that the passthrough operators dont have them either.

Nefario registered the glbse domain and servers using his credit card so in the eyes of the legal system no other "owners" exist and how would you work out "damages" in either case ?