Quote from: Deprived on December 08, 2012, 11:13:35 PM

Quote from: MoPac on December 08, 2012, 10:59:09 PM

Quote from: Deprived on December 08, 2012, 10:42:59 PM

Not sure this is at all relevant. My understanding is that Giga initially issued the bonds/contracts OFF of GLBSE - only moving to GLBSE some time later. He didn't require the information now requested initially - so GLBSE is, in that respect, totally a red herring.

This isn't something I was aware of. The original post on this thread was on April 7th, and the second post is on the same day and is talking about GLBSE, so I was under the strong impression that all of these contracts were originally sold through GLBSE, with GLBSE set up to process the dividend payments.

If instead it is the case that these contracts were originally issued by Giga directly, with Giga as the actual payment processor of the dividends, and Giga failed (as GLBSE later did) to request the right information, then I am more sympathetic to what you are saying -- at least insofar as it affects those people who bought bonds before dividend the payment processing was moved to GLBSE.

Well I could be wrong on it - but I had the impression that there was some issue with listing on GLBSE and at least some contracts were issued directly. Even after it was listed on GLBSE some contracts were entered into directly with other parties rather than through the market (e.g. the one for the MP pass-through).

It's still not particularly relevant anyway - Giga chose the payment processor and so had the responsibility to ensure they met whatever requirements HE had for them to be legal in his jurisdiction. If he's now saying he needs that information to take on the role of payment processor himself then he needs to be offering an equitable choice for those who don't want to meet the associated costs. Or if he's saying he's obliged to obtain that information (by law or regulation) to even recognise a contract with the other party then he needs to be cancelling and refunding on contracts where it isn't provided. If provision of the information is a pre-condition for the contract to be legally binding then in the absence of such information the contract has to be annulled and all payments already made in respect of it reversed.

Or do you seriously believe there's a case to be made that Giga wasn't the senior party in the contract?

EDIT: Just scanned first pages of thread. Seems like vast majority of first batch were sold by private arrangement rather then through the market. Those were done by transfer - where GLBSE were not an intermediary between two unknown parties and were just acting as record-keepers. Clearly Giga had the ability to request whatever information he needed from those purchasers - and ensure they met any limitations he faced on who he could enter an arrangement with. Plus any requirement (legal/regulatory) on him to obtain such information would also compel him to ensure that any third-party he chose to act on his behalf met the same requirements anyway - as irrespective of who processed payments his obligations were still to (and in respect of) the beneficiary owners of the contracts.

I think you make a very valid point. In terms of the cost burden, I wonder, though. The cost of trying to do refunds, given the depreciation of the mining hardware, is probably quite substantial (it's not like Giga was just holding the money).

For U.S. residents, an apostille is of course not necessary, and most people can get notarizing done for free or a very nominal fee. For foreign residents, where I think the concerns are less about tax and more about OFAC issues, I wonder if a transaction designed as an attempt to undo the whole payment history of the contract can be done without itself having OFAC issues. I don't know exactly how the sanctions regulations are set up, but of course we are all aware that plenty of sanctions regimes involve freezing assets that are owned by the other party, not settling all the accounts and then freezing them out. So I'm not sure whether Giga is in a position where he could do a buyback for those people who are looking at a big expense for apostille, since those are the people for whom OFAC regulations become an issue.

A good way to make progress here might be for the lawyer to look at ways in which identity could potentially be verified without the expense of apostille -- maybe there is a solution involving a combination of verifying photo ID in conjunction with a withdrawal-address-signed message? This could be brought up with Quentin if the apostille expense is the real issue. It has been my impression that, for most people in the thread, the bigger issue wasn't the burden of apostille but indignation at having to comply with regulations at all.

Quote from: Deprived on December 08, 2012, 11:13:35 PM

Giga chose the payment processor and so had the responsibility to ensure they met whatever requirements...

I'm a bit torn on this one. If Merrill Lynch screws up on information collection when they set up your brokerage account or when they issue you your 1099 that has a municipal bond on it, would you really consider the city that issued the bond to be on the hook?