4 ms·
This statement at least seems like he stopped trying to bullshit people. He openly said that staff was instructed to not give out any info, which probably means
by snitko 13y ago
This statement at least seems like he stopped trying to bullshit people. He openly said that staff was instructed to not give out any info, which probably means they can't talk. I do not think this is the choice they or their lawyers made, but rather it is more likely to be an external factor, like a gag order or an acquisition deal.
Having said that, chances of getting our money back are still extremely slim, but the update strikes me as containing less bullshit and as an attempt to reach out. My hope is that the truth will be revealed sooner than later and we can all move on. I'm saying it basically having lost all of my money with Gox. I think the time we've lost following this drama is probably more valuable.
- sentenza 13y agoYou assume that there is any staff.
- snitko 13y agoThere are two people on the IRC channel answering questions. When the official #mtgox channel on freenode was muted (reason support gave: until we get answers from mtgox management) they kept talking to people on the unofficial channel ##mtgox-chat.
- kyro 13y agoThe possibility of them being acquired is discussed quite a bit, but of what value is Gox to a potential acquirer at this point, considering they've indeed hemorrhaged money? What remaining assets or loyal customer base would make it worth millions of new capital?
- snitko 13y agoIf indeed they lost 770k BTC then, in my view, there can only be two reasons someone would buy them: 1. A buyer truly believes that Gox death would mean Bitcoin death or stagnation for 5-10 years and, thus, his own coins would be worthless anyway. 2. A buyer believes he can make more than 770k BTC he'd have to pay back customers. However, I don't really think they've lost that much. It is simply insane. I don't believe anyone can be that incompetent, especially after reading Mark's 2012 message about security here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23938.msg1177353#msg1177353 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23938.msg1177353#msg... Update. Rumor on twitter about the acquisition: https://twitter.com/paulbuitink/status/438428157948219392 https://twitter.com/paulbuitink/status/438428157948219392
- rjzzleep 13y agoit's a little like the story of the gold reserves of the federal reserve isn't it ? :D
- dangrossman 13y ago3. The buyers are only interested in acquiring the domain/brand, not the company's obligations and debt. They would get sold off in bankruptcy anyway.
- snitko 13y agoAnd what would be the point of that? No one would ever trust anything to Gox, unless it returns the money.
- dangrossman 13y agoThousands of links, including mentions in every major news publication. They aren't going to disappear or be retroactively rewritten. Nor would the previous owner's past be reason for someone not to trust the current owner of the brand. You wouldn't stop trusting Bitstamp or BTC-e if they happened to buy the MtGox domain. Nor would someone reading an old NY Times article stop to research the past owner's history. The grand vision of Coinbase isn't to capture as much of the Bitcoin speculation market as possible, it's to capture as much of the e-commerce payment market as possible by offering lower transaction fees and eliminating chargeback risk for merchants. If, for example, they took over the MtGox domain, and that helped stabilize Bitcoin and continue its push towards the mainstream, then "snitko's and 0.02% of our target market's image of us is tained by Gox's past" is probably a good tradeoff.
- snitko 13y agoI think no one would be willing to buy MtGox knowing they wouldn't be paying the debt. Imagine MtGox customers going to mtgox.com, then being redirected to Coinbase: it's like saying "Hi, we bought MtGox. We know you've lost your money there, not gonna return it. Come do business with us instead!". That's nuts and is going to hurt buyer's image a lot.
- JonSkeptic 13y agoEven if Gox didn't lose the money, or at least not as much as we're hearing, who's going to 'bank' with them now? Who would leave their money with someone who will, at any time, cut off access and actively refuse to provide information? Their value has been totally demolished in the eyes of their current customers and in the eyes of all potential customers. It's so bad that it has set back Bitcoin's adoption by months, if not years. The freaking Wall Street Journal published articles about it! If this is not a case of fraud, then it is one of the worst and most poorly managed acquisitions in history.
- dustcoin 13y agoThey claim to have 1.1 customers, 550,000 which have submitted extensive identification documents for verification. The large number of AML/KYC verified accounts could be valuable to other exchanges.
- impendia 13y agoI am curious, how would it make sense for them to get acquired? Surely their liabilities exceed their assets, their brand is now worthless, and their reputation is shot. Why would anyone acquire them?
- snitko 13y agoSee my reply below.
- altoz 13y agoThey have a lot of verified users. Depending on how much you're willing to pay for a user, it' may not be that terrible a proposition and a lot of the reputation problems go away when you bring in new management. Basically, their assets might be worth more than you think.
- scottcanoni 13y agoPlease stop saying things like this: "chances of getting our money back are still extremely slim"