Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yendor Widdershins
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 11:40:00 -
[2101]
I can now understand how the trustees did not notice that their trial accounts had their roles dropped. But their duties to block rogue unlocks includes the responsibility to ensure that no one including the CEO gets the majority of shares.
Blame the investors at large for continually voting for and funding cash expansions. It's debatable whether to blame the investors at large for allowing dead trustees -- it would not be a problem as long as the majority of active shares are not owned by one person. But do not blame the investors for the creation and seizure of 600 shares in a corporation they do not have voting rights for and that they trusted the trustees to monitor.
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 11:49:00 -
[2102]
Originally by: Yendor Widdershins that they trusted the trustees to monitor.
This is the key element.
Of course they trusted the trustees to monitor this, but was that expectation truely justified? I can see both sides of the argument of course, but from a contractual point of view you would really have to say:
Where is it written that the trustees were responsible for this task and where did the trustees state that they accepted that responsibility?
If you can find a legitimate quote in the 100+ pages of discussion in the IPO thread and the prior discussion thread that covers this statement of responsibility and it's acceptance then you are on firm ground. I don't believe such a quote exists.
It might be something to consider for future ventures: a firm contract. However, if we go down that route then you know where it will lead:
Lawyers? In my eve?
|
flakeys
DRAMA Inc Blood Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 12:14:00 -
[2103]
Originally by: Cista2
Originally by: Ramingo Especially those that didn't invest and can now continue to laugh at the investors in the same fashion everybody laughs at regular pvp victims.
I didn't invest, and I am not laughing at the investors. I feel bad for them. And I feel bad for myself, I have people around me panicking left right and centre atm because of this enormous pile of sh** that is Bad Bobby.
I didn't invest , am not laughing and not panicking if that comforts you abit cista .
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 12:27:00 -
[2104]
I bought 3 shares just to be a part of EVE history. Boy did I get my money's worth
Free jumpclone service|1092 stations! |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 12:29:00 -
[2105]
Edited by: RAW23 on 04/09/2010 12:30:02
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: Yendor Widdershins that they trusted the trustees to monitor.
This is the key element.
Of course they trusted the trustees to monitor this, but was that expectation truely justified? I can see both sides of the argument of course, but from a contractual point of view you would really have to say:
Where is it written that the trustees were responsible for this task and where did the trustees state that they accepted that responsibility?
If you can find a legitimate quote in the 100+ pages of discussion in the IPO thread and the prior discussion thread that covers this statement of responsibility and it's acceptance then you are on firm ground. I don't believe such a quote exists.
It might be something to consider for future ventures: a firm contract. However, if we go down that route then you know where it will lead:
Lawyers? In my eve?
Well, I would take the statement of corporate governance from the first post to cover this pretty clearly:
Quote:
Chapter 3 - Corporate Governance
I am CEO and sole member of Titans For You.
I will be CEO of an additional corp whose identity will remain a secret for security reasons. This additional corp will be monitored by four trustees:
Shar Tegral (AKA Hawkblade) Proton Power (AKA Evalf) Amarr Citizen 155 Kazzac Elentria
These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp.
This statement seems to make the trustees responsible for general monitoring. Of course, it doesn't explicitly say "for the prevention of scams" as opposed to "for their amusement" or something else but that is pretty clearly implied.
I'm not interested in 'blaming' the trustees. I'm pretty sure I would have been taken in in exactly the same way if I had been in their position but I don't think this means they are not responsible (as I also would have been). The blame obviously falls on you as the thief and the investors as well for trusting the trustees. But the trustees were in a position to prevent the scam (or at least delay it somewhat) and failed to do so. The choices by the shareholders to agree to more directors or a new public share issue did not lead inexorably to this position, as Shar and AC have suggested. The thing that allowed it was the trustees allowing you to create the additional shares in one block (and again, I have to admit that I probably wouldn't have seen the danger, especially without knowledge that you also held Kazzac's shares).
On the issue of Kazzac being MIA, this is obviously the responsibilty of all investors for proceeding happily despite knowing of this issue. I would be interested to know, though, if any of the trustees knew whether you were holding his shares?
|
Lillith Starfire
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 12:29:00 -
[2106]
This topic doesn't impact me in any meaningful way either but I found this quote interesting in another thread not far away
Originally by: Bad Bobby
I do want to see the EVE financial markets develop into something more mature. That said, I do believe it is important that security remain a player generated product rather than something 100% controlled by game mechanics and policies. I want EVE to grow but I do not want to see it dumbed down by game mechanics or official policies that give 100% security at the cost of the sandbox, the risk and the fun that comes from it all. As a PvPer, a pirate and a scammer my entire playstyle depends upon risk for my entertainment.
I still can't believe people trusted in him not to scam. He openly admits being a scammer and the only line being not to scam charities. Not that that line can be trusted either.
So anyway, what will you do with all the ISK Bobby?
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 12:32:00 -
[2107]
Originally by: RAW23
Quote:
These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp.
This statement seems to make the trustees responsible for general monitoring. Of course, it doesn't explicitly say "for the prevention of scams" as opposed to "for their amusement" or something else but that is pretty clearly implied.
If I remember correctly it was explicitly stated that the alts would be for liquidation after a hit-by-a-bus incident only, and would not be able to prevent a scam. The fact that the proposal mentions "un-subbed trial account alts" should leave no ambiguity as to the amount of monitoring going on.
Free jumpclone service|1092 stations! |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 12:46:00 -
[2108]
Originally by: Estel Arador
Originally by: RAW23
Quote:
These trustees will hold shares in the secret corp and will have un-subbed trial account alts with director roles within the corp.
This statement seems to make the trustees responsible for general monitoring. Of course, it doesn't explicitly say "for the prevention of scams" as opposed to "for their amusement" or something else but that is pretty clearly implied.
If I remember correctly it was explicitly stated that the alts would be for liquidation after a hit-by-a-bus incident only, and would not be able to prevent a scam. The fact that the proposal mentions "un-subbed trial account alts" should leave no ambiguity as to the amount of monitoring going on.
That was also my understanding of the in-corp alts and their role. But the responsibility for monitoring was not connected to the unsubbed corp alts specifically but, rather, to the actual people who would own those alts and would also have shares on their mains. Regardless of the corp alts, the mains were in a position to "monitor" the arrangements for new share creation and provide oversight to prevent exactly this type of scam.
|
Quadrantid
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 13:16:00 -
[2109]
Heh -- well, I got scammed good and proper :)
Fortunately, I'm a fairly poor char (just back after a series of lengthy breaks), so I only had 650 shares at the end (all my wealth, but easily recoupable!).
That said...
WTS 650 shares in this clearly solvent and still relevent concern, 1M ISK each ;)
Not gonna work, is it? :S Still, 'tis only time and virtual money!
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 13:51:00 -
[2110]
Originally by: RAW23 you also held Kazzac's shares
Why do you think I hold Kazzac's shares? I've not said that and I'm sure when Kazzac reads this he'll point out that they are still safely in his wallet.
|
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:03:00 -
[2111]
Originally by: Amarr Citizen 155 I'd sell some t4u shares if anyone was interested. Shoot me an evemail or convo.
I find that most interesting as it was done @ 2:48 on 3/9/10 and then 200 director shares get sent to Bobby and he tells everyone to stop trading shares @ 23:11 3/9/10.
Which would indicate that AC had some knowledge this might happen and was putting out a warning.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:19:00 -
[2112]
Edited by: RAW23 on 04/09/2010 14:26:03
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: RAW23 you also held Kazzac's shares
Why do you think I hold Kazzac's shares? I've not said that and I'm sure when Kazzac reads this he'll point out that they are still safely in his wallet.
Humblest apologies to Kazzac! I misread a previous post: p. 1 of the other thread - PP talks about the four active directors needing to sign in and you then replied that there was a fifth and you had his shares - I took this to mean you had the shares of the inactive director but I see it doesn't need to be read that way.
So who did give you their shares, if you don't mind sharing?
And who will be the first trustee to blow the corp name and location so people can start camping that system? |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:35:00 -
[2113]
Originally by: RAW23 So who did give you their shares, if you don't mind sharing?
Ok. Time to let that bit of drama die, I suppose.
I didn't take anyone's shares from them, rather I did not give them their shares in the first place. The shares in question were created for Cosmoray and were never sent to him. They just sat in the corp wallet. He actually mentioned this at least once in this thread a long time back.
Originally by: RAW23 And who will be the first trustee to blow the corp name and location so people can start camping that system?
Corp: Aurum Labs
Location: Madirmilire
You can camp it all you like. The POS was taken down before the unlock votes were started. The BPOs have already been unlocked and shipped to Jita.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:41:00 -
[2114]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: RAW23 So who did give you their shares, if you don't mind sharing?
Ok. Time to let that bit of drama die, I suppose.
I didn't take anyone's shares from them, rather I did not give them their shares in the first place. The shares in question were created for Cosmoray and were never sent to him. They just sat in the corp wallet. He actually mentioned this at least once in this thread a long time back.
None of the other directors noticed this or said anything about it. They did have director access after all, even if on disposable alts, they had to have noticed it before the 14 day trial expired.
That makes them just as guilty
|
Arous Drephius
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:43:00 -
[2115]
My only question is what are you going to do with all that ISK?
|
Amarr Citizen 155
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:48:00 -
[2116]
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: RAW23 So who did give you their shares, if you don't mind sharing?
Ok. Time to let that bit of drama die, I suppose.
I didn't take anyone's shares from them, rather I did not give them their shares in the first place. The shares in question were created for Cosmoray and were never sent to him. They just sat in the corp wallet. He actually mentioned this at least once in this thread a long time back.
None of the other directors noticed this or said anything about it. They did have director access after all, even if on disposable alts, they had to have noticed it before the 14 day trial expired.
That makes them just as guilty
Cosmoray was not a trustee from e start, he was added sometime later, FYI.
-----------------/finger I only post on MD when I'm too drunk too give a ****. |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:50:00 -
[2117]
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Originally by: RAW23 So who did give you their shares, if you don't mind sharing?
Ok. Time to let that bit of drama die, I suppose.
I didn't take anyone's shares from them, rather I did not give them their shares in the first place. The shares in question were created for Cosmoray and were never sent to him. They just sat in the corp wallet. He actually mentioned this at least once in this thread a long time back.
None of the other directors noticed this or said anything about it. They did have director access after all, even if on disposable alts, they had to have noticed it before the 14 day trial expired.
That makes them just as guilty
Cosmo was not one of the original directors. He was added later.
AC155 and any other director that kept his account subbed could have spotted it if they had looked at the shareholder section of the corp wallet and realised what they saw. If they had then I would have been all "whoops I forgot", but since nobody did except Cosmoray and nobody paid any attention to him I just happily sat on those shares knowing that all I needed was another 401 for an overall majority.
Cosmo could have taken the shares from the corp wallet himself since he had a director alt.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:55:00 -
[2118]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
AC155 and any other director that kept his account subbed could have spotted it if they had looked at the shareholder section of the corp wallet and realised what they saw. If they had then I would have been all "whoops I forgot", but since nobody did except Cosmoray and nobody paid any attention to him I just happily sat on those shares knowing that all I needed was another 401 for an overall majority.
Cosmo could have taken the shares from the corp wallet himself since he had a director alt.
So then that makes them just as guilty.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 14:59:00 -
[2119]
Originally by: Breaker77 So then that makes them just as guilty.
Hang them all!
Never mind accepting responsibility for your own stupidity for investing in something that was never secure to begin with and was labelled as such ad nauseum by all concerned.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 15:00:00 -
[2120]
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Bad Bobby
AC155 and any other director that kept his account subbed could have spotted it if they had looked at the shareholder section of the corp wallet and realised what they saw. If they had then I would have been all "whoops I forgot", but since nobody did except Cosmoray and nobody paid any attention to him I just happily sat on those shares knowing that all I needed was another 401 for an overall majority.
Cosmo could have taken the shares from the corp wallet himself since he had a director alt.
So then that makes them just as guilty.
This proves my stance about BoDs, big boureaucracy structures, flatulent organizations with 1000 heads, each turned where the sun does not shine. Once again, RL is the example, I wonder why people fail to see the consistent connections. - Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 15:01:00 -
[2121]
You should walk a mile in the trustee's shoes before you blame them really. I probably would have done a better job in their position, but then I would have probably maneuvered it so I could scam as a trustee instead. For most spectators and critics you would have been duped just the same. If not by this exact scenario then by one of my various backup plans.
These people are just playing a game. Roleplaying financial types with internet spaceships and forum fu. If things get missed easily in real life then you can expect the same here.
The system was stacked against them from the outset anyway.
|
Janya Rykayn
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 15:04:00 -
[2122]
Things get missed in real life by tens of thousands of financial professionals, with copious audits, for hundreds of billions of real life dollars, with real penalties for the guilty, and real, extremely rigorous auditing processes.
Look at Madoff. Everyone knew he was a scam artist. They just didn't care because it was making them money for a while.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 15:08:00 -
[2123]
Edited by: Breaker77 on 04/09/2010 15:08:03
Originally by: Bad Bobby If not by this exact scenario then by one of my various backup plans.
Well, while you are telling it all, go ahead and tell us your great plans
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 15:30:00 -
[2124]
So Cosmo served his entire tenure as a "trustee" without ever picking up the tools he needed to do that job? That is pretty staggering.
Any of the trustees care to share why they didn't blow the system location once they knew the unlock was in process? |
Proton Power
Amarr Luck Yourself Into Isk
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 16:08:00 -
[2125]
You can blame the trustee's if you wish but I will point out a few things:
1. I did not like the idea of more trustee's or shares, you can verify this yourself earlier in this thread. Actually I think I specifically said somthing like this could happen if not careful with so many trustee's and shares out there.
2. The investors voted for the shares, the trustee's went with what the share holders wanted.
3. Even if we controlled more of the shares, BB could still take away our Director roles, and put in a vote every day to unlock the BPO's. Sooner or later a trustee would miss that vote and BB woudl still walk away with the BPO's.
4. This was a flawed system from the start, it was pointed out by many, argued by many, but CCP created the system flawed.
5. Flame On!!!
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 16:15:00 -
[2126]
well PP. As Estel mentioned earlier which I didn't know, and others probably didn't as well. Is that is someone in a corp has 5% of the shares they can't be kicked.
That would have left someone in the corp to start a CEO takeover vote and gain control.
Hindsight is 20/20 meh
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 16:29:00 -
[2127]
Originally by: Proton Power You can blame the trustee's if you wish but I will point out a few things:
It's clearly not entirely the trustees fault but they were in a position to prevent this particular attempt (sounds like BB had others brewing though). I find it a bit disappointing that none have yet held their hands up and accepted some responsibility though. Cosmo is certainly culpable for taking on the positions but never actually taking possession of the shares he needed to do the job
Quote:
1. I did not like the idea of more trustee's or shares, you can verify this yourself earlier in this thread. Actually I think I specifically said somthing like this could happen if not careful with so many trustee's and shares out there. 2. The investors voted for the shares, the trustee's went with what the share holders wanted.
The investors voted on more directors, not on extra holding corp shares. I canÆt find any discussion about increasing the total quantity although there is talk about spreading shares around which might have been understood in this way. Extra directors could have been added by having each current director transfer a portion of their shares. The share creation could also have been managed in a way that removed this scenario by creating the shares in blocks.
Quote:
3. Even if we controlled more of the shares, BB could still take away our Director roles, and put in a vote every day to unlock the BPO's. Sooner or later a trustee would miss that vote and BB woudl still walk away with the BPO's.
ThatÆs true but this was an understood feature in the original discussion. When the trustees signed up to it they did so on the basis of this creating a stalemate situation, not on the inevitability of Bobby getting away with the prints. The trusteesÆ agreement on this point (stalemate as the worst case) was one of the things that helped to sell the shares in the first place. None of you said that you accepted this scenario would inevitably mean BB would end up with the prints when you took on the positions.
Quote:
4. This was a flawed system from the start, it was pointed out by many, argued by many, but CCP created the system flawed.
If you thought the system was fatally flawed from the start, why did you lend your name as in some way securing the IPO?
Quote:
5. Flame On!!!
IÆm not interested in flaming or starting a witch hunt but I donÆt buy that all the responsibility devolves to the investors for trusting the trustees and that none accrues to the trustees for putting themselves in a position to help sell the bond by claiming to provide some degree of security for it (what Ray called æenablingÆ the scam, if I understood his post in the other thread correctly).
|
Berikath
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 16:34:00 -
[2128]
Far as I can tell, the directors could only really guarantee that if BB were hit by a bus, the assets wouldn't just stay in limbo forever.
Expecting any more than this of them is unrealistic and unfair to them. Unless they are given some kind of irrevocable power in corp (so, lead), they cannot be expected to guarantee anything other than a HBAB scenario.
The security of this venture was flawed (apparently by design) from the start. Anybody who invested has no one to blame but themselves (and obviously BB); sack up and accept it.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 16:39:00 -
[2129]
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Proton Power 4. This was a flawed system from the start, it was pointed out by many, argued by many, but CCP created the system flawed.
If you thought the system was fatally flawed from the start, why did you lend your name as in some way securing the IPO?
I questioned this several times during the lifetime of this offer. I was either trolled out of town because of my lolbank ties or dismissed out of hand by said trustees (Shar specifically). Ultimately all they ended up doing was enabling this whole mess. Why they agreed to be the name behind securing an infallible offering is beyond me.
All I care is that they learn from this and don't make the same mistake again. They're all basically good people and shouldn't bear the brunt of people's misdirected anger for their own stupidity.
|
Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 16:44:00 -
[2130]
Originally by: Berikath Expecting any more than this of them is unrealistic and unfair to them.
This is not the issue. The issue is that their involvement validated the investment to many of the investors, this should not have happened. The argument was raised again and again that BB was using their combined trustworthiness to gain investment, no notice was taken and here we stand yet again, hands on hips wondering what the **** just happened.
Stop using your name to represent security if you cannot with all certainty secure it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 75 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |