445100+ entries in 0.197s
mircea_popescu: no, what i'm saying is, this detail is not important, i could actually make the claim as well as they could.
mircea_popescu: you can try, but gigamining would i imagine point out that it was assigned glbse shares, which is true.
mircea_popescu: Namjies you mean the contract as displayed on the etf ?
mircea_popescu: didn;t you hold a bunch of giga on glbse too ? or am i confused
mircea_popescu: the SPVs can go bankrupt without touching A or B, and also their assets are off-balancesheet
mircea_popescu: A makes SPV A1, B makes SPV B1, then B1 and A1 enter the contract
mircea_popescu: spvs are these vehicles created in derivative trades rto insulate the parties
mircea_popescu: kinda the reason index funds outperform managed funds, that fee.
mircea_popescu: i still think this is the correct way to make such a passthrough thing
mircea_popescu: that was the original idea, and for the very reason that anything else is too difficult to spell out in a contract.
mircea_popescu: it charged nothing and it did nothing other than split up all payments received.
mircea_popescu: it's true the etf holders can't be held for those fees.
mircea_popescu: now if you imagine that i will out of my own time and money a) go through whatever hoops Y comes up with and b) pay counsel to advise as to whether those hoops are safe
mircea_popescu: basically, the way this worked out is this : i had X owned by Y on exchange Z. exchange Z dissapeared, destroying the records of X. there's some indication of the ownership on the basis of which Y wants to create unspecified something which you assume is X'.
mircea_popescu: they are, insamuch as they arise from the actual issuer.
mircea_popescu: the logical thing would be for him to offer a dollar settlement to all applicants.
mircea_popescu: and for the record, i'd be rather surprised if what giga offers actually is a weekly btc payout.
mircea_popescu: so in short : i'm glad you see a duty of care for the btc thing. i don't see why you imagine it can be extended into this "free anything forever" construction.
mircea_popescu: do you understand why i'd want a lawyer to research and report as to whether i'd better claim as a real person or as a legal person ?
mircea_popescu: then a month or so down the road they run you into a wall
mircea_popescu: i'd have to research as what i'm accepting them. i'd have to research how can i handle them once accepted. i'd prolly have to take them off mpex. on it goes.
mircea_popescu: the very reason people are stuck with messes such as giga's is exactly that : they find themselves in a situation where they have to assign other people's propetyu
mircea_popescu: and i don't dispute the released lists are some indication of ownership
mircea_popescu: a "proof of ownership" that fails to disprove contrary claim is no such proof.
mircea_popescu: something doesn't become acceptable just because it's the only straw you have Namjies
mircea_popescu: smickles sadly the "do not further assign thing" fucks this.
mircea_popescu: how do you on the basis of this proof of yours disprove his claim ?
mircea_popescu: i don't see why you think it's good enough for claims. what weigh does it have ?
mircea_popescu: since glbse is not solvent this is a moot point however.
mircea_popescu: the correct civil avenue is : all shareholders sue glbse.
mircea_popescu: the fact that people still expect to be paid... well... of course they do, people always do. but they have pretty much no claim to it.
mircea_popescu: this is what you'd like it to be. whether it actually is ... well...
mircea_popescu: they weren't. they were just destroyed, practically speaking.
mircea_popescu: and no, when shares go off the exchanges into the pink sheets the funds do not keep them.
mircea_popescu: the case of exchanges dropping assets is irrelevant. glbse had not the ability to do that.
mircea_popescu: in general it would depend on the particulars. in the particulars of all glbse securities, this is true, any reconstruction either private or on a new exchange is a new security.
mircea_popescu: so if it has not changed then i don't need to do anything.
mircea_popescu: that was about the upgrade i think, back in august or w/e
mircea_popescu: i specifically said, even here iirc to you, that i'm not doing anything actively
mircea_popescu: smickles i imagine towards the end of the year someone's finally going to make a proper asic run.
mircea_popescu: <Namjies> So keeping ownership of the bonds and keeping payments going should be dropped because it involves administrative/legal fees? <<< should any admin/legal fees be expended whatsoever to guarantee someone's shares ?
mircea_popescu: blowing the current hacked-together stuff out of water.
mircea_popescu: smickles i suspect there's going to be a "real" asic run