995500+ entries in 0.756s
Namjies: That
the deposits are lost didn't matter as per
the contract.
Namjies: Because Patrick simply stated
that deposits could be withdrawn anytime.
Namjies: That's basically
the same argument I had against Patrick Harnett when I was defending you Mircea against Joel Katz.
mircea_popescu: <mircea_popescu> but
to
the point : when did you actually buy
these shares ? <<<
Namjies: Regardless if it's his fault or not, Mircea should honor
the contract as stated, regardless of requirements.
There's no exception/discharge of responsibility in various situations for
the ETF manager.
Namjies: smickles: It's not his fault, it's GLBSE's. GigaVPS has
to identify
the claimers as GLBSE data cannot be fully
trusted.
Namjies: I don't recall
the date. Over a month ago I believe.
smickles: ok
then, mircea_popescu still owns
the bonds, giga has an address
to send cupons
to, why is it mircea's fault
the dividends arn't being sent?
Namjies: As such, all stocks/stocks/etc. require an exchange
to exist?
mircea_popescu: but
to
the point : when did you actually buy
these shares ?
Namjies: The GLBSE is gone. I'm pretty sure we went over
the fact
the bonds do not require GLBSE
to exist.
smickles: I mean in Namjies argument, if
they still exist,
then mircea_popescu never stopped owning
them
mircea_popescu: anyway,
the fiduciary duty is mostly :
to not have conflicting duties,
to not profit by fiduciary position
Namjies: I
think he's grossly exaggerating
the fee
to make an affidavit... but yes. He states he will never own less shares
than
the float.
That should be done regardless of requirements if
the shares remain valid.
smickles: it should be easy enough
to explain
tho
smickles: Namjies: maybe just show your STAT
to
the lawyer guy and you can get
the gigamining shares directly
mircea_popescu: Namjies when did you buy
these ? (i presume you actually have some ?)
smickles: Namjies: so you expect him
to pay
the expenses out of pocket?
mircea_popescu: heh. i don't
think you can get
that much mileage out of
this.
Namjies: I'd consider it a breach of contract. Being on
the receiving end of
that contract, any undefined situation should be
treated in my favor unless a conditional clause goes against
that.
smickles: Namjies:
that would be
the fiduciary responsibility
Namjies: "where in
the contract does it say
that "even if more fees, costs or proceedures will be imposed,
the issuer will complete
these""
mircea_popescu: eventually someone brings asics
to
the
table. maybe not
this month, maybe not
the next.
mircea_popescu: by
the
time
the stuff is actually processed and alll... heh.
mircea_popescu: i'd be much surprised if
the entire series is actually worth 300 btc right now.
smickles: hmm, good point, it would be weighed against
the cost
mircea_popescu: which, because of it's nature, imposes a cost on my part, which isn't
trivial, cause i have
to put lawyers at work.
smickles: i dunno, mircea_popescu it is a little shocking
that you arn't
trying
to recover
the value
there
mircea_popescu: well, he's asking
to identify myself in a particular way
smickles: that sounds like payment
to me :/
Namjies: He's not asking any payment either, simply
to identify yourself officially.
smickles: c'mon, one little bj for
the shareholders?
mircea_popescu: and if
tomorrow gigavps comes up with a 10x dividend payment if i sleep with him, irrespective of what you may
think my duty is, i ain't sleeping with him either.
Namjies: You
technically have but you're not claiming
them.
Namjies: "Any and all revenue paid by
the underlying will be distributed
to
the shareholders of
this asset without remainder."
mircea_popescu: where in
the contract does it say
that "even if more fees, costs or proceedures will be imposed,
the issuer will complete
these"
Namjies: You
technically have
the duty
to collect
those coupons and dispense
them.
Namjies: You still own
the bonds and GigaVPS intends
to pay on
them.
Namjies: You're
the owner who owns
the shares.
Namjies: >>The Owner<< will never own less shares of
the underlying
than
the
total float of
this asset implies.
Namjies: I'm not imagining it, it's what
the ETF claims.
mircea_popescu: srsly, just because you imagine
things a certain way doesn't mean
they are a certain way.
Namjies: For anyone? You're
the ETF owner who owns
the shares. You're not proxying.
mircea_popescu: the practical options are either i spend something which on a rough estimate is about 8k
to get
the
thing
thoroughly looked into,
smickles: it's 'waiting
to be examined' received on
the 13th
Namjies: Technically, your ETF doesn't contractually require
the shares
to be on GLBSE or any exchange. It says "The Owner will never own less shares of
the underlying
than
the
total float of
this asset implies." No conditional statement. As such if bonds remain valid and your property, you have
to claim
them.
mircea_popescu: i guess i could do
that, but
then i'd have
to make shareholders pay
the difference somehow.
mircea_popescu: really,
the cost
to me
to get
to
the legal bottom of
this would easily eat up
the value of
the etf
smickles: the way
that lawyer letter looked, 'gigamining' was a glbse only
thing of another company
mircea_popescu: other, of course,
the fact
that he's not so far sending money.
Namjies: Well you should ask Gigavps
then
to verify
that.
mircea_popescu: you've made some presupositions which aren't borne by
the facts, but would prefer
to present
these as fact.
Namjies: What do you
think he is doing? He's attributing bonds
to each holder
to continue honoring
their coupons as usual.
mircea_popescu: or
that in
the event
that glbse goes away, issuer will do "anything" or "do X"
to obtain private registration
mircea_popescu: that in
the event glbse goes away
the
thing still carries as if nothing happened.
mircea_popescu: no,
the question is, do you have a statement from
the issuer of
the
thing you're discussing saying
that
the
thing you're discussing is going
to behave in
the manner you're proposing.
Namjies: Would you like
to confirm with GigaVPS
that
the bonds remain valid?
Namjies: The issuer is still honoring
them. Do you have any statement
to
the effect Gigavps will not honor
them or claimed he won't pay
them?
Namjies: They were on an exchange, yes. Now
they got dropped off of it.
mircea_popescu: well,
they in principle don't have
to, all
things are in principle possible.
these, however, were.
Namjies: The bonds are off an exchange now. Securities don't have
to be on an exchange.
Namjies: It never stated
that
to be honored,
those bonds required GLBSE either.
Namjies: Aye... you mean
the gigavps
thread?
mircea_popescu: The owner of
this ETF holds 900 perpetual 5.0Mh/s bonds (details),
mircea_popescu: well, it had a (details) clause
that included all
that.
Namjies: The ETF contract has no conditional clause
that it's execution requires GLBSE
to be
the platform where
the bonds are exchanged or
that
the bonds must be issued on an exchange for
the ETF
to be honored.
Namjies: Gigavps simply requires people
to identify
themselves when claiming
their shares.
Namjies: The fact GLBSE doesn't deserve
the appelation of an exchange because it was so bad doesn't change
the fact it worked as such.
mircea_popescu: Namjies suppose for
the sake of argument gigavps simply asked for 1 penny per share registration fee.
Namjies: You still own
the stocks and can claim
them. It's just not on
the usual exchange anymore.
Namjies: There's a difference between
the financial vehicle and it's exchange... an exchange can close or expel a specific stock.
mircea_popescu: depends how contracts are made out, but i'd expect mpex-share derivatives
to die
there yes
Namjies: So if someone assaults you and MPEx servers rendering it incapable
to continue operations, all "financial vehicles implodes" and have no value whatsoever?
mircea_popescu: i don't
think you get
to randomly create an imaginary vehicle just because
the actual vehicle imploded.
Namjies: GLBSE was discontinued.
The contract does not state
the shares ahve
to be on GLBSE.
smickles: well, mircea_popescu never stopped owning
the shares
then
Namjies: The etf states "The Owner will never own less shares of
the underlying
than
the
total float of
this asset implies."
Namjies: Gigavps never discontinued
the shares.
Namjies: "The Owner will never own less shares of
the underlying
than
the
total float of
this asset implies."
mircea_popescu: it wasn't an instrument
to jump
through random hoops and
then pass along
the value
thus obtained.
mircea_popescu: the problem here is
this :
the etf was an instrument
to pass along value as conveyed
smickles: Why would it be made?
To recover value which was previously deemed lost
Namjies: I am unsure why
the claim would not be made.
Namjies: Glad
to know I'm not
the only one which doesn't bother.