His preference would be for the bankruptcy trustee to directly distribute the bitcoins to claimants, which would actually be a much faster and easier way to distribute the money than the traditional banking system, and has the added advantage that the bitcoins wouldn't need to be sold. However, the Japanese bankruptcy process is extremely unlikely to allow this. Also the effect of 200k bitcoins suddenly being distributed to thousands of people around the world might be to crash the bitcoin price, as some will sell immediately and more will probably sell when the price declines.
He realizes that if he receives any money after the bankruptcy he will immediately be tied up in even more lawsuits which will drag on for years if not decades. He has said that in this scenario he would try to distribute the money to claimants rather than keeping it in an attempt to avoid these lawsuits, but it seems unlikely to work. He may be cursed to receive hundreds of millions and have it tied up in lawsuits for the next decade, ultimately ending up in personal bankruptcy again.
Also, he never went as far as claiming that he'd distribute anything he gets to creditors. He's always been quite vague about it and never answered directly when asked about it.
edit: Thanks for the asnwers. So, Karpeles will have assets and he'll have to answer for his negligence or failure to manage his corp properly. Maybe he'll file for personal bankruptcy before getting any money :)
I...and perhaps I'm being to glib...find it highly amusing that the same people making the argument of rejecting states and fiat currency and regulation and structure are frustrated that their attempts to use those structures requires them to adopt all the parts of it, not just the parts they need to recoup their losses from a con man.
This holds true for so many Bitcoin related disputes. I also find it highly amusing when bitcoin using champions of rejecting regulation and structure mysteriously seem to need a great deal of it when heaven forbid things don't go as they hoped.
Also explain to me how this is similar to 2008.
The current regulatory system reflects the belief that government ought to preempt crime by creating centralized gatekeepers that impose blanket bans on entire categories of voluntary exchange (e.g. securities issuance), that are only lifted on a case-by-case basis if one is approved/registered by/with that gatekeeper.
But also they don't care about usability, which sucks in that case. Being your own bank sucks, pretty much.
That's exactly why I love bitcoin threads like this. Because of the sour grapes who stood by the sidelines over the past 8 years.
Btw, applying "plain" justice or bankruptcy to insolvent financial institutions was exactly what they didn't do in 2008. Listen to the recordings of Irish bankers how they would approach regulators. "If they say, if they saw the enormity of it up front, they might decide, they might decide they have a choice."
Instead of putting skin in the game of people like this, they socialized the losses, suspended mark-to-market and papered it over with ridiculous amounts of legislation that was written with the help of the same people who were bailed out. Almost nobody went to jail. That's probably why we have blockchain to begin with and why 10 years later we'll have to go through something similar or worse.
Sure they can, but they should also not be surprised when a lack of controls on currency transfers result in their shit getting stolen, when part of the 'appeal' of Bitcoin to so many people is that there's no controls on it.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Bitcoin is fucking stupid, a huge waste of electricity and CPU power, and its ultimate destiny is to crash and burn. Some people might make money off of that, good for them if they do I guess, but I don't really care either way.
>'the banking system is corrupt and bad'
Agreed. People didn't go to jail that should have, and society suffered for it. I don't agree that Bitcoin is the solution to those problems, though.
I'll pocket this phrase for future use.
So the shareholders of an incompletely run company should have dibs on the capital gains of assets they failed to secure properly? To me, this seems neither fair nor societally beneficial.
If someone lends a company their property, after which the company loses it, and the price of this property goes up, it just implies that the creditors need more money to get back the property that belongs to them - regardless of whether we’re talking about bitcoins, gold or lambs wool. Surely, the goal of bankruptcy must be to make creditors whole, not enrich shareholders of the company that failed to live up to its promises.
Surely they don't get to keep the extra. It wasn't even theirs in the first place!
Let's say I owned 1000 shares of Google five years ago, and my broker went bankrupt. At the time, Google was trading at $333 per share.
Today the court liquidates the broker's assets to distribute to creditors, and Google is trading at $1050 a share now.
The court wouldn't use Google's five-year-old share price and let the broker keep the rest. Instead, the court would distribute the actual proceeds of the liquidation.
Why is it any different with Mt. Gox? Why wouldn't the court sell the bitcoin at current market prices and distribute the proceeds among the creditors?
More importantly (note: IANAL), the bitcoins converted, by law, to a specific valuation on a set date when the assets are frozen. Per the court, years ago, the amount owed to each creditor was set in the court's working currency (i.e., the Yen) and the court doesn't deal in Bitcoins.
In your example, during the bankruptcy process, they would set a date of valuation and you would be entitled to the value of the shares on the date when the bankruptcy was set. Future lost profits are not the purview of the bankruptcy court.
Do you have a citation? I'm not an expert on Japanese bankruptcy law so it's not obvious to me.
I've got to imagine that he wants the Mt Gox situation handled ASAP so he can get any funds from it to solve his own bankruptcy issues.
I'd imagine that this provides a pressure point for the Mt Gox stakeholders where they might be willing to play ball and let the bankruptcy proceedings work at a much faster pace in return for a much larger portion of the remaining Mt Gox assets.
Having said that, according to the WSJ...
> "The customary period in which creditors may dispute the trustee’s decisions on claims has ended."
...so perhaps Mark Karples may decide to play hard ball and hope that the creditors just want the coins sold and money disbursed before bitcoin has another chance to collapse?
Lots of fun game theory to think about here.
A small number of MtGox ex-customers cottoned on quickly to the possibility that any excess surplus might accrue to the shareholders and filed claims directly against Tibanne. The rest of the claimants have been left to organize amongst themselves. One such effort recently organized is MtGoxLegal.
The current sentiment is to try to convince the Japense court trustee that the principle of unjust enrichment should apply, but nobody knows if this will hold under Japanese bankruptcy law in this situation.
Fun times abound.
Really. Is there any other reason to open a bitcoin exchange other than to have fools give you eTuplips that you can abscond with at a whim?
I mean you might think that running an exchange helps further dreams of a bankless future, but in the real world, most cryptocurrency exchanges went poof, either to steal bitcoins or because they couldn't convince fools to part with enough bitcoins to steal.
But the heady days of an exchange being hacked or closed by fraud every weeks are over. If you want your bitcoins stolen, I recommend investing in ICOs.
Fast forward now several years, perhaps this is another option on the table for another creditor willing to try again.
Users, who are bankruptcy creditors, were eligible to make bankruptcy claims against MTGOX regarding Bitcoin or cash through this system until at 12 noon July 29, 2015 (Japan time).
After 12 noon on July 29, 2015 (Japan time), the only things that a User will be able to do using the Online Method will be to (i) view bankruptcy claims that he or she has filed himself or herself and (ii) transfer his or her bankruptcy claims to another person. However, nearer the time of distribution, the bankruptcy trustee is planning to give Users an opportunity to use this system again to make changes to the details of their bankruptcy claims, other than increasing the amount of the bankruptcy claims that Users have filed (for example, changes in their addresses or company names). Users will not be able to file new bankruptcy claims or increase the amount of the bankruptcy claims that they have filed.
Wow. This is an embarrassing demonstration of the authors ignorance of the current state of the cryptocurrency market.
It is appalling that former CEO Mark Karpeles may benefit from the exchange collapse he caused through either incompetence or thievery. But it's hardly different from the rewards paid out to those who caused the US economic melt down in 2008.
> The other reason not to trade bitcoin is that, as far as I can tell, the fate of any bitcoin exchange/wallet/bank/custodian is to be hacked. That is just how bitcoin works: You buy bitcoins on an exchange, and you store them at the exchange because it's a pain to keep your private key yourself, and then the exchange gets hacked and your bitcoins get stolen. ("There have been at least three dozen heists of cryptocurrency exchanges since 2011," Reuters noted last week.)
In general, his Money Stuff commentary tends to have a sort of sarcastic reductionist vibe to it. Whether the ignorance is true or feigned for effect really depends on the reader's perspective, I guess.
Here's a talk that discusses the financial situation at MtGox and the raging dumpster fire that its security system was when Mark Karpeles bought it.
It's hard to say if the poor security was due to a staggering level of inexperience and thoughtlessness, or if the previous owners had left it open so they could pilfer money as easily as possible before the whole house of cards collapsed. It's hard to imagine a financial services administrator leaving an unsecured Windows file share open to the Internet with all of the private keys on it, but somehow this was considered to be not a problem at MtGox.