995400+ entries in 0.757s
mircea_popescu: it charged nothing and it did nothing other
than split up all payments received.
Namjies: Although
this ETF charged nothing at all.
Namjies: Usually an ETF issuer should have management fees charged
to
the fund and be responsible for incurred fees related
to it's management.
Namjies: Or is
the ETF issuer responsible for such fees, would be
the question.
Namjies: Hmm... is fees incured by an ETF supposed
to be shared among
the holders.
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'.
Namjies: Those fees would be extra
to protect yourself
through consultation regarding
the claim process.
mircea_popescu: they are, insamuch as
they arise from
the actual issuer.
Namjies: But being listed as
the owner and manager of
the ETF, dropping
the bonds altogether because it involves legal fees doesn't seem
to be
the best way
to do
that.
The ETF's manager legal liability and related costs are not ETF holders concerns.
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 ?
Namjies: The ETF's owner listed is Mircea Popescu, not MPEx, according
to
the ETF page.
mircea_popescu: then a month or so down
the road
they run you into a wall
Namjies: I am uncertain why. It seems you only want
to avoid any procedure/work/costs at any price.He simply requires you identify yourself along with a notarized claim
that you own X shares.
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
Namjies: So what do you require
to act at all on anything? Personal benefit or not interested?
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
smickles: aw, i was going
to bid 0.001btc
Namjies: In both case, ownership is
the records
tho.
mircea_popescu: smickles sadly
the "do not further assign
thing" fucks
this.
pigeons: glbse records were provided by someone with an official scarlett letter of
the forums
though
smickles: 01:08 < Namjies> Well
then, you should sell your claim
to
them. << offer him any amount
Namjies: Same for official stock exchanges... ownership is what
the records say.
mircea_popescu: how do you on
the basis of
this proof of yours disprove his claim ?
Namjies: It's basically
the premise of GLBSE as
the very poor ownership proof system it had.
That GLBSE's records is
the ownership proof.
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.
Namjies: As far as I'm concerned,
that's good enough for claims.
Namjies: Because any holder would be hard pressed
to prove ownership?
The official data is being released.
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.
Namjies: So all GLBSE asset issuers are entitled
to not pay any shareholders anymore, is
that what you claim?
mircea_popescu: this is what you'd like it
to be. whether it actually is ... well...
Namjies: Forcing all assets on it out. Not voiding
them.
Namjies: technically,
the exchange didn't drop
them.
The exchange was closed definitly.
mircea_popescu: they weren't.
they were just destroyed, practically speaking.
Namjies: Well
then, you should sell your claim
to
them.
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.
Namjies: Well I disagree on
that point. When an exchange drops an asset, it usually remains
the same asset. An ETF holding it would have
to keep
the shares even if it implies more administrative costs in managing
their ownership off an exchange.
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.
Namjies: That it would somehow be a "new" security, with an identical contract but
that doesn't relate at all
to
the previous one on
the exchange.
Namjies: Which is not
the same, just identical?
Namjies: Moving off an exchange creates a new identical security, according
to you?
Namjies: So it's not a new security. It's
the same, except it moved off an exchange.
Namjies: Those
two scenarios are different. It's not wordplay.
Namjies: The other is identifiying yourself
through a claim for
the same existing bond (Gigamining).
Namjies: Yes, administrative
tasks.
mircea_popescu: so if it has not changed
then i don't need
to do anything.
Namjies: In
this case
the bond has not changed.
Namjies: You have no obligation
to convert a bond into a new bond.
Namjies: It was
to exchange
the bonds for another asset, in exchange of a fee.
Namjies: Ah, but
the upgrade is a different matter.
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
Namjies: There was no clause discharging you of any responsibility
to
that matter in case fees would be involved.
Namjies: Yes, considering managing
the ETF is your responsibility.
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 ?
smickles: ah, one not offered
to
the public?
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
Namjies: So keeping ownership of
the bonds and keeping payments going should be dropped because it involves administrative/legal fees?
mircea_popescu: i'm not pulling anything. you expect something
to happen. i ask why,. you say cause you expect it. i say ok.
smickles: do
they seem worthwhile
to purchase
to you?
Namjies: So you're pulling a Joel Katz argument on me? Since it would cause a loss
to you
to manage
the ETF, I should eat
the loss
too?
smickles: mircea_popescu: do you have an opinion on
these asic
thingies?
mircea_popescu: it didn't work out.
that's business. no point in raising nonsensical arguments out of it.
mircea_popescu: looky. had you gotten lucky and
things went smooth with giga, you'd have made some money, i imagine.
Namjies: Well
the financial vehicle and
the place
they are
traded are 2 different entities.
mircea_popescu: on
the
theory
that
then you can claim vague should be construed in your favour ?
Namjies: [19:45] <Namjies> I don't recall
the date. Over a month ago I believe.