A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.
This doesn't make any sense to me. A bond "instrument"
is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale. One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies. From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:
"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."
...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:
"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).
I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.
The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides. They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity. That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.