[e-gold-list] Re: Costagold,

[Ian Green]

I subscribed briefly and skimmed through the January ruling. Maybe the gold 
was converted to dollars in order to preserve the dollar value at that time 
for recovery in the near future by claimants (when the identity issue of 
claimants is settled). Also maybe OmniPay wanted to make their own 
(educated) bet on the subsequent movement of exchange rate (eg. $350 per 
ounce then, $370 later).

Anyway, this doesn't really effect me, as I never would have had anything 
to do with either OSgold or OSopps!

It was just a matter of general interest whatever ever became of the 
CostaGold escrow balance, and the corresponding drop in the number of 
e-gold bars.

At 10:10 PM 26/01/2003 -0600, Craig wrote:
I may have to stand corrected on Costa Gold. From reading some of the emails
in this user group,

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Global-Recovery-Group-how-to-join/

it looks like the money held by e-gold was recovered by the victims of the
Costa Gold operation. If true, that would be welcome news.



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Costagold,

[SnowDog]

I may have to stand corrected on Costa Gold. From reading some of the emails
in this user group,

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Global-Recovery-Group-how-to-join/

it looks like the money held by e-gold was recovered by the victims of the
Costa Gold operation. If true, that would be welcome news.

Craig




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Costagold,

[SnowDog]

> Yes, that could very well be !
> However, who would that have been paid out to ?
>
> According to information I just got following verification, the people
> who were defrauded by Costagold have not received anything...

This is one of those questionable operations. Didn't Costagold advertised
itself as a gambling game? If so, how could anyone have been defrauded?
Don't get me wrong; I can't stand those people who lie and defraud people,
but I have no problem with those who are honest and operate in jurisdictions
where this type of activity is legal. I don't know where the e-gold went,
but I think Omnipay was simply holding the gold for identification, before
completing the wire. I could be wrong.

Craig



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Costagold,

[AnyGoldNow \(SSL\)]

Yes, that could very well be !
However, who would that have been paid out to ?

According to information I just got following verification, the people 
who were defrauded by Costagold have not received anything...


Patrick,
AnyGoldNow


> Would not that approximately 100,000 grams be the (paid out?) CostaGold 
> escrow balance?
> 
> At 03:59 PM 26/01/2003 +0100, AnyGoldNow wrote:
> >about 6,000+ a week, and the overall e-gold "reserves" don't go up
> >(and indeed went down about 100,000 grams lately, to 1,541,409)


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Costagold, was Re: [dgc.chat] Stats

[Ian Green]

Would not that approximately 100,000 grams be the (paid out?) CostaGold 
escrow balance?

At 03:59 PM 26/01/2003 +0100, AnyGoldNow wrote:
about 6,000+ a week, and the overall e-gold "reserves" don't go up
(and indeed went down about 100,000 grams lately, to 1,541,409)




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Costagold, was Re: [dgc.chat] Stats

[AnyGoldNow \(SSL\)]

I'm afraid we won't
(The "Privacy policy" blah blah blah...)

Just like we are still waiting for a resonable explanation to the fact
that the number of accounts keeps increasing by
about 6,000+ a week, and the overall e-gold "reserves" don't go up
(and indeed went down about 100,000 grams lately, to 1,541,409)

So, there is indeed something VERY wrong GOING ON with the e-gold
system, and more than ever, do we all need an independent, irrefutable
audit of the gold in reserves - for one - , but also, and most importantly,
of
the total actual outstanding e-gold in circulation, supposedly "100% + Gold
backed"


Patrick,
AnyGoldNow

At 08:08 AM 26/01/2003 -0500, Craig Spencer wrote:
>Also note: the CostaGold escrow balance has dissappeared!  Hmmm...
>I wonder who go that pot of gold.

> Hmmm, yes we definitely want to know about that. 


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) 
via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common 
viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Costagold, was Re: [dgc.chat] Stats

[Ian Green]

At 08:08 AM 26/01/2003 -0500, Craig Spencer wrote:

Also note: the CostaGold escrow balance has dissappeared!  Hmmm...
I wonder who go that pot of gold.


Hmmm, yes we definitely want to know about that.




---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[James H. Cloos Jr.]

> "SnowDog" == SnowDog  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

SnowDog> Yes, we know they only accept bailment from G&SR, but the
SnowDog> question is "Why?"  It is my understanding that this policy
SnowDog> is from the Bank of Nova Scotia.

Wasn't it Central Escrow's due diligence demands that was behind this
(current) policy?  Ie, they wanted to do dd on not just the gold
itself but on the entity doing the bailment?

-JimC
-- 
James H. Cloos, Jr.   1024D/ED7DAEA6 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B  63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[CCS]

> > > It is very likely that the restriction on bailment has nothing to do
> > > with G&SR. Has anyone asked them?
> Yes, we know they only accept bailment from G&SR, but the question 
> is "Why?" It is my understanding that this policy is from 
> the Bank of Nova Scotia.

Well, that would seem unlikely to me.  It would make such an
easy excuse I would have expected them to use it.  Also the
Bank is their agent (not the other way around).  And if true
e-gold is being more disingenuous than I thought since e-gold
tries to give the impression (ref: the correspondence I 
mentioned) they determine the policy.

But perhaps.  Where did you get that idea?

CCS

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

Please do, I would like to read this, sounds like a
very entertaining piece of work.

> > It is very likely that the restriction on bailment
> has nothing to do 
> > with G&SR. Has anyone asked them?
> 
> Yes.  I have.  It was like pulling teeth to get them
> to give a straight
> answer.  But they finally did admit that they
> (e-gold) would only accept
> bailment from themselves (G&SR).  Their answer (such
> as it was) via Jim
> Ray has been posted on this list and the FM list
> several times.  If you
> wish I can send you a copy of the entire
> correspondence.
> 
> Best,
> 
> CCS


=
Dagny Taggart

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[SnowDog]

> > It is very likely that the restriction on bailment has nothing to do
> > with G&SR. Has anyone asked them?
>
> Yes.  I have.  It was like pulling teeth to get them to give a straight
> answer.  But they finally did admit that they (e-gold) would only accept
> bailment from themselves (G&SR).  Their answer (such as it was) via Jim
> Ray has been posted on this list and the FM list several times.  If you
> wish I can send you a copy of the entire correspondence.

Yes, we know they only accept bailment from G&SR, but the question is "Why?"
It is my understanding that this policy is from the Bank of Nova Scotia.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[CCS]

> > > e-gold ltd. is trying to maintain the purity of their metal 
> > > backing. The reason Omnipay can bail in bars when nobody else 
> > > can is that they have an account with Bank of Nova Scotia. If 
> > > an entity, corporate or human, seriously wants to bail in bars 
> > > they should create an account with Bank of Nova Scotia. Otherwise, 
> > > every bar that is bailed in would have to melted, tested, and 
> > > reformed to ensure neccesary purity
> >
> > This is utter nonsense.
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> ... from what I gather, the large physical bullion 
> trade only occurs between known entities, in a sort of 'gold-ole-boy' 
> type of network, for a similar reason outlined above; that certified 
> 'good' delivery bars can only be trusted when their whereabouts has 
> been documented. If a bullion bar is taken 'out' of one of the bullion 
> banks, then it would have to be re-assayed before it would be accepted 
> from another bullion bank.

That's right.  Thats's why no one would do what you describe and there
is no issue about "purity of their metal": it would come from one of
the bullion banks.
 
> It is very likely that the restriction on bailment has nothing to do 
> with G&SR. Has anyone asked them?

Yes.  I have.  It was like pulling teeth to get them to give a straight
answer.  But they finally did admit that they (e-gold) would only accept
bailment from themselves (G&SR).  Their answer (such as it was) via Jim
Ray has been posted on this list and the FM list several times.  If you
wish I can send you a copy of the entire correspondence.

Best,

CCS

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Jeff Fitzmyers]

> It seems clear, to ME (excuse my presumptuousness) that "gamers" give
> egold.com the BULK of their income.

They also probably make up the bulk of customer service issues, which
can cost
a lot of money.

> Why does ANYone, *here*, feel that something needs defining?

> Some seem to have some kind of feeling that *WE MUST* correct the ills of

The purpose of definitions, in this case, is to PROCESS (not limit)
information with computers and calculate interesting stuff like return on
investment and JPM's newest challenge -- woohooo!

Socially, I do not advocate limiting others in any way except to enforce
contracts and maybe stop immanent local physical danger especially if young
children are involved.

Business wise, I like customers that don't cause headaches --> less money,
more stress. Have you ever worked retail? One customer can take hours to deal
with. This is fine if they are pleasant or I helped create the problem
due to
my poor design or my mistake. We work it out. It is NO fun if they
caused the
problem and are trying to blame others or are a jerk about it.

Someone has a million $ worth of angry customers. How would you deal with
that? The situation is being handled very well, as far as I can tell.

jf

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[SnowDog]

> > e-gold ltd. is trying to maintain the purity of their metal backing. The
> > reason Omnipay can bail in bars when nobody else can is that they have
> > an account with Bank of Nova Scotia. If an entity, corporate or human,
> > seriously wants to bail in bars they should create an account with
> > Bank of Nova Scotia. Otherwise, every bar that is bailed in would have
> > to melted, tested, and reformed to ensure neccesary purity
>
> This is utter nonsense.

How do you know?

I've been reading about the gold market on various platforms, especially
www.gold-eagle.com and from what I gather, the large physical bullion trade
only occurs between known entities, in a sort of 'gold-ole-boy' type of
network, for a similar reason outlined above; that certified 'good' delivery
bars can only be trusted when their whereabouts has been documented. If a
bullion bar is taken 'out' of one of the bullion banks, then it would have
to be re-assayed before it would be accepted from another bullion bank.

It is very likely that the restriction on bailment has nothing to do with
G&SR. Has anyone asked them?

Craig



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[LaMarr Dell]

quote-
I am not trying to be a wise acre. Since you are unhappy with things, I am
asking how YOU would set them up differently. How do you separate
customers that make you money form the ones that cost you money? Is this
separation fair, ethical, legal, profitable?? How do you deal with each
type and everything in-between?  These need to be defined.
end quote.

EVERYONE who has an egold account is a CUSTOMER of egold.com.  Egold.com
makes money CONTINUALLY on ALL accounts, that have a positive balance.

Egold.com makes MORE money EVERY time an account holder MOVES some of
their balance. NO ONE GROUP of egold account holders moves MORE egold than
the folks who "play the games".  If I am wrong in this statement then,
please, show me the proof.

A good example is CostaGold.  This is considered a "game" to a lot of
folks.  The "legality" of the "game" is a moot point.  The FACT is that
"players" moved 1.1 MILLION in egold in a TWO WEEK period to the CostaGold
account.  Figure out, for yourself, how much money that made egold.com.
Costa is only ONE of the "games" available at ANY given time of day or
night.

It seems clear, to ME (excuse my presumptuousness) that "gamers" give
egold.com the BULK of their income.

When it comes to telling some sort of person or site that they can NOT use
egold (as a transactional currency) because *YOU* DON'T like their product
(or service) then "YOU" had better be wearing a badge .. or YOU are in the
wrong.

In this world "MONEY" is used for a lot of things, some of those things
are "illegal" products and/or services .. BUT ... this world has APPOINTED
persons to correct, or stop, those activities.  VIGILANTE correctional
activities are frowned on, in most parts of this world.

IF ANY activity (using egold)is "illegal" in THEIR region of the world
then there IS a LEGAL method for correcting that problem ... and egold.com
is NOT the agent appointed.

Nor should egold.com be elected to be the REPORTING agent for some,
presumed "illegal", activity (which uses it's service). There are ALREADY
those appointed to LOOK FOR "illegal" activities.  Do we want to make
THEIR J.O.B.s obsolete ?

We cannot even look at the power weilded by a BANK and say that the
banking industry has set the pace, in enforcement, because egold.com is
NOT a bank.

Why don't we QUIT slurring other folks business sectors and just let
enforcement "do IT'S thing"?  MUST we get involved? IS there anything that
compells us to "get involved"? How many other "crimes" do you report every
week of the year ?

Why does ANYone, *here*, feel that something needs defining?  Have you
checked ALL the law books of ALL the countries that use egold.com?  Are
you SURE that you have a "new" thing here, that NEEDS addressing .. in
THIS forum ?  Is THIS a law enforcement forum, or an appointed committee ?

Some seem to have some kind of feeling that *WE MUST* correct the ills of
the world .. so, let's discuss this worldwide "food shortage" topic and
see if *we* can come up with a solution.  Also there is the "sickness"
issue  and th .

LaMarr M. Dell Sr. 







---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[CCS]

> > OmniPay is NOT like any other exchange provider.  Not only is there
> > a past history of unity with e-gold and an incestuous relation amoung
> > the principals of the "two" companies but OmniPay has the exclusive
> > privilege of bailment.
> > 
> > CCS
> 
> e-gold ltd. is trying to maintain the purity of their metal backing. The
> reason Omnipay can bail in bars when nobody else can is that they have 
> an account with Bank of Nova Scotia. If an entity, corporate or human,
> seriously wants to bail in bars they should create an account with 
> Bank of Nova Scotia. Otherwise, every bar that is bailed in would have 
> to melted, tested, and reformed to ensure neccesary purity

This is utter nonsense.  

Concerning the gold market, you are only fantasizing how you imagine 
it works.  Read a book on the subject or talk to a commodities broker.

Concerning bailment, E-gold has disingenuously established the policy 
that they simply will not accept bailment from anyone but 
themselves (ie G&SR).  [Otherwise, Goldfinger (which does really know 
about how the gold market functions) would probably have started bailing 
in their own gold before now and driven down the premium.]  

CCS

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Jeff Fitzmyers]

I am not trying to be a wise acre. Since you are unhappy with things, I
am asking how YOU would set them up differently. How do you separate
customers that make you money form the ones that cost you money? Is this
separation fair, ethical, legal, profitable?? How do you deal with each
type and everything in-between?  These need to be defined.

> > > > What questionable activities? Define
> > questionable
> > >
> > > Costagold and others that are even allowed to
> > > advertise on this list.
> >
> > I don't understand this definition?
> >
> > > Are you saying that this is the justification to
> > break
> > > the law, just because other people do it?
> >
> > Of course not, I just want the definition -->
>
> So you smoked , but you did not inhale?


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Viking Coder]

> So are you saying that there has been a court order?
> 
> That would make sense then, I must have missed this in
> Mr.Reid Jacksons announcement.
>
> =
> Dagny Taggart
> 

You missed several points in his announcement. I suggest you go back and
read it again.

http://www.mail-archive.com/e-gold-list@talk.e-gold.com/msg01814.html

This isn't a dispute involving e-gold ltd. e-gold ltd., the issuer of
e-gold, has stayed out of it per the user agreement. This is a dispute
between two users; Omnipay & Costa Gold. Once Omnipay didn't receive
verification of identity they were about to spend the $1.1 million back to
Costa Gold, except they received conflicting instructions including
reports of a security breach from Costa Gold.

If you had $1.1 million in your account, wouldn't you want to be notified
and go through due-diligence before it was removed from the e-gold system?

Viking Coder

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Sidd]

>> Always assuming that the powers that be at e-gold
>> were REALLY STUPID
>> people!

>How do we know that they aren't?

Well for one thing, they worked out how to make e-gold & G&SR work...
You're still trying to work it out!

>>They have control of the spot price of
>> e-gold.

>If you look at their exchange rates and compare them
>with Kitco for instance, they are very close.
>They do not have control of the spot price when
>needing cash for an outexchange.

Yes they do. They can drop or raise the e-gold spot price above or
below the "kitco" price at their whim. The only thing is that it is
probably in their best interests to stay "close" as you say.

>Bank of Nova Scotia will probably treat them as small
>potatoes in comparison with the real world.
>So they can not just name their price, because this is
>stepping out of their Universe into the real world,
>the only interface between the two.

They don't need to name their price at BNS, all they need do is name
their price to the e-gold customer.

>>Why would they
>> be so foolish as to buy gold when it was expensive
>> and then sit on it
>> for weeks till the price dropped before bailing it
>> in?

>Because they do not want to sell gold and they are
>trying to hold on to as much gold as they can, even if
>it means jeopardizing their trading balance?

Here your confusion is showing. The only thing they are in business
for is to bail the gold to e-gold then sell e-gold. G&SR don't want to
own and hold on to gold as you suggest. You need to draw the
distinction between e-gold and G&SR/OMNIPAY... Different functions
entirely, don't confuse the two.


>
>> If I was G&SR, I would do the deal all on one day,
>> order the gold,
>> prepare the payment at a certain price, then pay for
>> the gold and bail
>> it in all within a short period, while holding the
>> e-gold spot price
>> fixed at a certain level till all was completed.


>How do you predict the future?
>You would want to sell the same bar of gold as many
>times over and over again, by doing inexchanges and
>outexchanges.

Exactly, and note that outexchanges do NOT necessarily require the
sale of gold.

>You do not know though how many ounces you are going
>to get today so you can sell them again, that means
>that you have to have some in reserve to fulfill your
>inexchanges. If you have an account creation of almost
>7000 in one week, you have to buy as your customers
>demand it.
>If the accountholder deceides they want to get out of
>e-gold for whatever reason, you have to come up with
>the cash. I am sure every exchange provider knows what
>I am talking about?

So wheres the problem, if it is moving that fast then the rates of
exchange will be very similar, and taking into account the bid/ask
spread and a bit of fancy footwork with the e-gold rates, a LOT of
profit could be made. So I say again, NO problem with fluctuating
values at all.

You seem to have missed the whole point of this discussion anyway...
the Costa Gold was put in escrow because there were CONFLICTING
statements from the account owners who ADMITTED the account passwords
had been compromised.

Are you suggesting that OmniPay should just take a guess and HOPE they
pay out on the correct instruction? I am personally quite glad they
are taking a bit of care over the issue... How would you feel if it
was your account and they paid the other guy who claimed your gold
because they guessed wrong? :)

Cheers,

Sidd.


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Viking Coder]

> > that OmniPay is like any exchange provider
> 
> Note the use of the term "exchange provider" where market maker is mistakenly
> used. As JP May pointed out, market makers are legally obligated to offer a bid
> and ask price when open for business. Exchange providers can set their own bid
> and ask prices whenever and however they want.
> 
> jf

Could you please explain how those definitions are different. Does this
mean that exchange providers can set their bid and ask prices when they
aren't open for business? I must be missing some subtle point here.

Viking Coder

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Viking Coder]

> > (Note how I elided the repeated text, so the signal
> > to noise gets
> > back to bearable, and instead inserted "..." -- some
> > here might
> > consider emulating this behavior for the benefit of
> > unfortunates
> > on the digest, since it _IS_ in the welcome message
> > I'm sure you
> > all read when you got on the list -- the same one
> > that tells folks
> > not to post HTML...)
> 
> Can someone here please explain what the essence of
> the previous paragraph is?
> 
> Dagny Taggart
> 

Don't quote the entire multi-page message when you are replying to a
single statement. Don't send messages that are obfuscated with HTML tags.

Is that clear enough for you?

Viking Coder

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Viking Coder]

> > >I wish G&SR/OmniPay had a publicly viewable balance
> > >for their e-gold accounts, why don't they?
...
> I am talking about the OmniPay e-gold account 109243
> 
> Why is that not viewable?
>
> Dagny Taggart

Because they are a privately owned company. They are under no legal
obligations whatsoever to display their financial records. If they go
public, than it is a whole other issue.

Viking Coder

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Viking Coder]

> > I'd note that OmniPay is like any exchange provider, ...
> 
> OmniPay is NOT like any other exchange provider.  Not only is there
> a past history of unity with e-gold and an incestuous relation amoung 
> the principals of the "two" companies but OmniPay has the exclusive
> privilege of bailment.
> 
> CCS

e-gold ltd. is trying to maintain the purity of their metal backing. The
reason Omnipay can bail in bars when nobody else can is that they have an
account with Bank of Nova Scotia. If an entity, corporate or human,
seriously wants to bail in bars they should create an account with Bank of
Nova Scotia. Otherwise, every bar that is bailed in would have to melted,
tested, and reformed to ensure neccesary purity. This is a very expensive
and time consuming process.

The reason purity is such a high concern is that tungsten has the same
density as gold. Once a tungsten bar has been covered with a 15 micron
layer of gold, it is undetectable by any other means than the one
described above. Gold costs ~$8500/kg and tungsten costs ~$100/kg.

When Omnipay does a bailment, they don't purchase gold bars from the local
Gold Bars 'R Us and ship them up to Canada. They deposit money into their
Bank of Nova Scotia account and tell the Bank of Nova Scotia to transfer
this money into gold bars and to transfer these gold bars into the e-gold
repository vault. e-gold ltd. does NOT have an account with Bank of Nova
Scotia, they have an agreement to utilize their ultra-secure vault space
for storage of their metal. It is somewhat similar to having a safety
deposit box at the local bank without actually having an account with
them.

Viking Coder

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

--- Jeff Fitzmyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What questionable activities? Define
> questionable
> >
> > Costagold and others that are even allowed to
> > advertise on this list.
> 
> I don't understand this definition?
> 
> > Are you saying that this is the justification to
> break
> > the law, just because other people do it?
> 
> Of course not, I just want the definition --> 

So you smoked , but you did not inhale?


my
> point is, it is hard to
> really define in a simple way. Artificial
> jurisdictions, kazillions of
> contradictory laws, ethical questions... If I were a
> business, I would tend to
> define questionable activities as something that
> might cost me a lot of money
> and lower my reputation capital.

So you did not have sexual relations with that woman,
Miss Lewinsky.
What is "is"?

So are you saying that there has been a court order?

That would make sense then, I must have missed this in
Mr.Reid Jacksons announcement.





=
Dagny Taggart

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

--- Jeff Fitzmyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What questionable activities? Define
> questionable
> >
> > Costagold and others that are even allowed to
> > advertise on this list.
> 
> I don't understand this definition?
> 
> > Are you saying that this is the justification to
> break
> > the law, just because other people do it?
> 
> Of course not, I just want the definition --> 

So you smoked , but you did not inhale?


my
> point is, it is hard to
> really define in a simple way. Artificial
> jurisdictions, kazillions of
> contradictory laws, ethical questions... If I were a
> business, I would tend to
> define questionable activities as something that
> might cost me a lot of money
> and lower my reputation capital.

So you did not have sexual relations with that woman,
Miss Lewinsky.
What is "is"?

So are you saying that there has been a court order?

That would make sense then, I must have missed this in
Mr.Reid Jacksons announcement.





=
Dagny Taggart

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

--- SnowDog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kuram, my friend, it isn't that way!
> 
> When G&SR bails in gold at $272/ounce, they
> immediately sell it.

How, when outexchange demand is bigger than inexchange
demand?

 Now, if
> someone wants to exchange their e-gold for US
> dollars, it doesn't matter
> what the price was it was originally sold for; the
> relevant price is the
> current price and OmniPay could certainly bail-out
> 10 bars of gold to cover
> their OutExchange price. 

They would have to take whatever the market and I
think they only deal with Bank of Nova Scotia? offers
them

Otherwise they would lower
> their OutExchange price.

Why would you go under spot?

> Craig
> GoldDirectory.com
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Khurram Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "SnowDog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "e-gold
> Discussion"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [e-gold-list] re: Costagold
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > --- "SnowDog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> 272 divided by 262= 1.038 which means that the
> price
> > >> of gold has dropped 4%.
> > >> G&SR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing  head I win
> tails you
> > >> loose, no matter what they claim.
> > >
> >
> > Exchange providors make money on selling gold at a
> higher price then they
> bought it at.
> >
> > Since the price of gold has been recently
> dropping, G&SR bought bars at a
> higher price then what they would be redeaming it
> at.  Lets conside the
> above.
> >
> > G&SR buys 10 bars at spot price of 272 which is
> highly unlikely but
> anyway.
> > $272 x 400 x 10 = $1088000
> >
> > Now G&SR bails in 10 bars at the spot price now of
> 262 and pays e-gold the
> 1% premium that it charges.
> > $262 x 400 x 10 x .99 = $1037520
> >
> > The difference is $50480.  Have fund with that.
> > Khurram Khan
> >
> >
>
_
> > Get email for your site --->
> http://www.everyone.net
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


=
Dagny Taggart

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

--- Sidd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Khurram wrote:
> 
> >Exchange providers make money on selling gold at a
> higher price then
> they bought it at.
> >Since the price of gold has been recently dropping,
> G&SR bought bars
> at a higher price then what >they would be redeeming
> it at.  Lets
> consider the above.
> >G&SR buys 10 bars at spot price of 272 which is
> highly unlikely but
> anyway.
> >$272 x 400 x 10 = $1088000
> >Now G&SR bails in 10 bars at the spot price now of
> 262 and pays
> e-gold the 1% premium that it >charges.
> 
> Always assuming that the powers that be at e-gold
> were REALLY STUPID
> people! 
How do we know that they aren't?

They have control of the spot price of
> e-gold. 

If you look at their exchange rates and compare them
with Kitco for instance, they are very close.
They do not have control of the spot price when
needing cash for an outexchange.
Bank of Nova Scotia will probably treat them as small
potatoes in comparison with the real world.
So they can not just name their price, because this is
stepping out of their Universe into the real world,
the only interface between the two.

Why would they
> be so foolish as to buy gold when it was expensive
> and then sit on it
> for weeks till the price dropped before bailing it
> in?

Because they do not want to sell gold and they are
trying to hold on to as much gold as they can, even if
it means jeopardizing their trading balance?
> 
> If I was G&SR, I would do the deal all on one day,
> order the gold,
> prepare the payment at a certain price, then pay for
> the gold and bail
> it in all within a short period, while holding the
> e-gold spot price
> fixed at a certain level till all was completed.

G&SR does not set exchange rates any different for the
outexchange part as e-gold, for whatever clever
reason...
It is impossible to keep the market fixed in a fast
changing environment.
If G&SR kept their exchange rates fixed and the price
of gold would go up, they would also risk a loss,
because they would buy from the dealer at the higher
price and still sell at a same spread, derived from a
lower spot?

How do you predict the future?
You would want to sell the same bar of gold as many
times over and over again, by doing inexchanges and
outexchanges. 
You do not know though how many ounces you are going
to get today so you can sell them again, that means
that you have to have some in reserve to fulfill your
inexchanges. If you have an account creation of almost
7000 in one week, you have to buy as your customers
demand it.
If the accountholder deceides they want to get out of
e-gold for whatever reason, you have to come up with
the cash. I am sure every exchange provider knows what
I am talking about?


 No
> problem with
> fluctuating values at all.

big ones, if you look at both sides.
> 
> Of course the e-gold that G&SR owned after the deal
> may take a while
> to sell, during which time they may be selling at a
> loss in a falling
> market, but I guess that is why they don't seem to
> buy huge amounts at
> any one time
>
Did you not watch the statistics page?

4-6 bars a day, that is a pretty big quantity, you are
talking about half a million dollar deals and more

> This is my take, have I missed something??

Just the real world.



=
Dagny Taggart

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Sidd]

Khurram wrote:

>Exchange providors make money on selling gold at a higher price then
they bought it at.
>Since the price of gold has been recently dropping, G&SR bought bars
at a higher price then what >they would be redeaming it at.  Lets
conside the above.
>G&SR buys 10 bars at spot price of 272 which is highly unlikely but
anyway.
>$272 x 400 x 10 = $1088000
>Now G&SR bails in 10 bars at the spot price now of 262 and pays
e-gold the 1% premium that it >charges.

Always assuming that the powers that be at e-gold were REALLY STUPID
people! They have control of the spot price of e-gold. Why would they
be so foolish as to buy gold when it was expensive and then sit on it
for weeks till the price dropped before bailing it in?

If I was G&SR, I would do the deal all on one day, order the gold,
prepare the payment at a certain price, then pay for the gold and bail
it in all within a short period, while holding the e-gold spot price
fixed at a certain level till all was completed. No problem with
fluctuating values at all.

Of course the e-gold that G&SR owned after the deal may take a while
to sell, during which time they may be selling at a loss in a falling
market, but I guess that is why they don't seem to buy huge amounts at
any one time

This is my take, have I missed something??


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[SnowDog]

Kuram, my friend, it isn't that way!

When G&SR bails in gold at $272/ounce, they immediately sell it. Now, if
someone wants to exchange their e-gold for US dollars, it doesn't matter
what the price was it was originally sold for; the relevant price is the
current price and OmniPay could certainly bail-out 10 bars of gold to cover
their OutExchange price. Otherwise they would lower their OutExchange price.

Craig
GoldDirectory.com

- Original Message -
From: "Khurram Khan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "SnowDog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "e-gold Discussion"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [e-gold-list] re: Costagold


>
>
> --- "SnowDog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> 272 divided by 262= 1.038 which means that the price
> >> of gold has dropped 4%.
> >> G&SR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing  head I win tails you
> >> loose, no matter what they claim.
> >
>
> Exchange providors make money on selling gold at a higher price then they
bought it at.
>
> Since the price of gold has been recently dropping, G&SR bought bars at a
higher price then what they would be redeaming it at.  Lets conside the
above.
>
> G&SR buys 10 bars at spot price of 272 which is highly unlikely but
anyway.
> $272 x 400 x 10 = $1088000
>
> Now G&SR bails in 10 bars at the spot price now of 262 and pays e-gold the
1% premium that it charges.
> $262 x 400 x 10 x .99 = $1037520
>
> The difference is $50480.  Have fund with that.
> Khurram Khan
>
> _
> Get email for your site ---> http://www.everyone.net


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Khurram Khan]

--- "SnowDog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> wrote:

>> 272 divided by 262= 1.038 which means that the price

>> of gold has dropped 4%.

>> G&SR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing  head I win tails you

>> loose, no matter what they claim.

>



Exchange providors make money on selling gold at a higher price then they bought it at.



Since the price of gold has been recently dropping, G&SR bought bars at a higher price 
then what they would be redeaming it at.  Lets conside the above.



G&SR buys 10 bars at spot price of 272 which is highly unlikely but anyway.

$272 x 400 x 10 = $1088000



Now G&SR bails in 10 bars at the spot price now of 262 and pays e-gold the 1% premium 
that it charges.

$262 x 400 x 10 x .99 = $1037520



The difference is $50480.  Have fund with that.

Khurram Khan

_
Get email for your site ---> http://www.everyone.net

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[SnowDog]

> 272 divided by 262= 1.038 which means that the price
> of gold has dropped 4%.
> G&SR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing  head I win tails you
> loose, no matter what they claim.

It seems that you may be assuming that if they were to sell 10 bars of gold
that they purchased back in early December, that they would be taking a
loss, but this isn't the case. When bars are bailed in, they are bailed in
for e-gold purchases. Those people who purchased e-gold, which necessitated
the bailment of gold in early December, bought those bars of gold. The gold
that Costa gold wants to sell is already in the system, and Omnipay could
certainly bail out 10 bars of gold and honor the OutExchanges without losing
a dime, since the e-gold would be removed from the system at the CURRENT
market price.

>
> > > Aren't  e-gold and OmniPay servers in the same
> > > location? Same management and run from the same
> > > offices?
> >
> > Lots of companies share the same roof, or are
> > closely tied or spread all over.
> > How would location matter in this case?
>
> Just do not claim otherwise. How often was the issue
> that they do not control e-gold?

G&SR consistently operates within its OWN parameters, as defined in their
user agreements. There's nothing new here, and nothing arbitrary. They made
their case clear to the readers of this list back in the autumn of 1999 and
they've followed through with their plans religiously. Accounts CAN be
FROZEN under certain circumstances, and they CAN be limited in value under
certain circumstances, and OutExchanges through OmniPay CAN be denied under
certain circumstances. All of this is outlined, and nothing they've done
with Costa Gold is an exception to any of the rules laid out by G&SR last
year.

There are two key issues regarding their exceptions to their normal
procedures:

1) Accounts must be identified, else account values can be limited and
outexchanges denied.

2) Accounts can be frozen if allegations come up that an account's security
has been breeched.

Would you want it any other way?

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Jeff Fitzmyers]

> > What questionable activities? Define questionable
>
> Costagold and others that are even allowed to
> advertise on this list.

I don't understand this definition?

> Are you saying that this is the justification to break
> the law, just because other people do it?

Of course not, I just want the definition --> my point is, it is hard to
really define in a simple way. Artificial jurisdictions, kazillions of
contradictory laws, ethical questions... If I were a business, I would tend to
define questionable activities as something that might cost me a lot of money
and lower my reputation capital. I could be legally irresponsible to NOT do
that.

> Non-repudiation when it suits us? - What is the
> difference to credit card companies, paypal, etc.?

Like in the contract, repudiation when a court says so, otherwise none. It is
pretty black and white. You obviously have not dealt with PayPal. The
difference is also black and white.

> The price of gold will offset the spread, since there
> is an almost ten dollar difference per ounce
> G&SR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing  head I win tails you
> loose, no matter what they claim.

One of us does not understand how it works - it could be me :) Exchange
providers and market makers make money when the goods /stocks / bonds are
bought or sold. It should not really matter the direction of the underlying
asset if properly run and hedged etc.

Again, What would you do??


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

--- Jeff Fitzmyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 
> > No one is talking about taking the fall for
> anyone.
> > You guys live off some questionable activities on
> the
> > Internet.  It just  looks like you are behaving
> just
> > like them: Take the e-gold and not pay out.
> 
> What questionable activities? Define questionable

Costagold and others that are even allowed to
advertise on this list.


> --> the world is full of
> questionable things that everyone uses and generally
> endorses, i.e.
> politicians, advertising, drugs, fiat money,
> tailgaters :)

Does that make it right?
Are you saying that this is the justification to break
the law, just because other people do it?
Non-repudiation when it suits us? - What is the
difference to credit card companies, paypal, etc.?


> 
> > No.  It requires that Omnipay have enough money in
> its
> > bank account to handle the transaction. If Costa
> were
> > running off with $50K it would have gone
> unnoticed?
> > The only difference here is that it looks like you
> are
> > undefunded.
> 
> Under funded? They can just sell the 4,000 ounces
> and send a check. They
> 'should' make money on the spread, not on the price
> of gold.

The price of gold will offset the spread, since there
is an almost ten dollar difference per ounce.

This would be the spot price best case scenario:
4000 oz back in December at 272 USD per oz  was USD
1,088,000.

4000 oz now in January at 262.30 USD per oz is
1,048,000.

This assumes that the metal dealer buys and sells gold
to G&SR at exactly spot.
Now living in the real world we all know that this
will not happen.

272 divided by 262= 1.038 which means that the price
of gold has dropped 4%.
G&SR/OMNIPAY/e-gold is playing  head I win tails you
loose, no matter what they claim.

> > Aren't  e-gold and OmniPay servers in the same
> > location? Same management and run from the same
> > offices?
> 
> Lots of companies share the same roof, or are
> closely tied or spread all over.
> How would location matter in this case?

Just do not claim otherwise. How often was the issue
that they do not control e-gold?




=
Dagny Taggart

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Jeff Fitzmyers]

> Can someone here please explain what the essence of
> the previous paragraph is?

Only post what is essential.

> So it is going to continue to be OmniPay's policy to
> keep secret its liquidity and solvency.

What's wrong with that?

> Some have. Look at the publicly viewable balances.

I see just one. If you like this, support them by doing your exchanges through
them.
http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp

> No one is talking about taking the fall for anyone.
> You guys live off some questionable activities on the
> Internet.  It just  looks like you are behaving just
> like them: Take the e-gold and not pay out.

What questionable activities? Define questionable --> the world is full of
questionable things that everyone uses and generally endorses, i.e.
politicians, advertising, drugs, fiat money, tailgaters :)

> No.  It requires that Omnipay have enough money in its
> bank account to handle the transaction. If Costa were
> running off with $50K it would have gone unnoticed?
> The only difference here is that it looks like you are
> undefunded.

Under funded? They can just sell the 4,000 ounces and send a check. They
'should' make money on the spread, not on the price of gold.

> Aren't  e-gold and OmniPay servers in the same
> location? Same management and run from the same
> offices?

Lots of companies share the same roof, or are closely tied or spread all over.
How would location matter in this case?

> We won't escrow. We will escrow. We won't get into
> customer disputes. We will get into customer disputes.

I might guess that the people who got burned in the last scam are yelling at
and threatening to sue e-gold / Omnipay / Florida / anyone and everyone while
the scamsters are trying to figure out how to make off with the gold. **What
would you do in this position?** If you do nothing you will be sued, if you
break the no charge back part of the contract you will go out of business and
be sued. The best / only thing is to preempt everyone and let a court decide.



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Jeff Fitzmyers]

> that OmniPay is like any exchange provider

Note the use of the term "exchange provider" where market maker is mistakenly
used. As JP May pointed out, market makers are legally obligated to offer a bid
and ask price when open for business. Exchange providers can set their own bid
and ask prices whenever and however they want.

jf


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Claude Cormier]

On 26 Jan 2001, at 21:31, Dagny Taggart wrote:

> This is from the e-gold agreement. The Costa Affair is
> an OmniPay matter.
> 
> Last I heard you wanted us to believe that e-gold and
> Omnipay are two different companies.

Well the G&SR/Omnipay User agreement has the same 
provisions. See 9.0 and 3.0 and 11.0




Claude Cormier
Editor


"The Ormetal Report" http://www.ormetal.com

Learn about mining and profit from investing in gold
and mining stocks.

Claude Cormier, Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Open an e-gold account now:
https://www.e-gold.com/newacct/newaccount.asp?cid=104173

PGPKeys: http://www.ormetal.com/PGPkey.html


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

--- "James M. Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 7:21 PM -0800 1/26/01, Dagny Taggart wrote:
> >My point exactly Craig!
> >
> ...
> 
> (Note how I elided the repeated text, so the signal
> to noise gets
> back to bearable, and instead inserted "..." -- some
> here might
> consider emulating this behavior for the benefit of
> unfortunates
> on the digest, since it _IS_ in the welcome message
> I'm sure you
> all read when you got on the list -- the same one
> that tells folks
> not to post HTML...)

Can someone here please explain what the essence of
the previous paragraph is?

> Anyway, please re-read (carefully) the following
> words. I'd note
> that OmniPay is like any exchange provider, and
> there is not a
> rule that exchange providers (or anyone else) must
> have public
> balances.

So it is going to continue to be OmniPay's policy to
keep secret its liquidity and solvency.  That was all
I wanted to know.

> All of them are free to do so tomorrow,
> none have.

Some have. Look at the publicly viewable balances.

> If
> you want a market maker with a publicly viewable
> balance soon,
> I suggest that you start it yourself.

OmniPay has a very special position in this whole
e-gold universe, I don't think it is asking to much,
especially in light of the recent statement regarding
Costagold.
Are they trying to hide something?

> If you did, and you also wished to "take the fall"
> for others' fraud
> or criminality, that's your choice, but clearly
> that's not the choice
> most market makers make, including OmniPay.

No one is talking about taking the fall for anyone.
You guys live off some questionable activities on the
Internet.  It just  looks like you are behaving just
like them: Take the e-gold and not pay out.

> "G&SR
> may set
> value limits on individual and aggregate Exchange
> transactions
> based on the sufficiency of the identifying
> information provided
> by User or based on the need for making an orderly
> market" is
> right out of the user agreement. Seems to require
> due diligence
> from the way I read it...

No.  It requires that Omnipay have enough money in its
bank account to handle the transaction. If Costa were
running off with $50K it would have gone unnoticed?
The only difference here is that it looks like you are
underfunded.

> The following words are from Reid Jackson to a
> customer today.
> JMR
> 
> --- begin quote
> 
> 2.5. Disputes Between Users
> 
> 2.5.1. Any disputes that arise between Users are not
> the responsibility of
> Issuer.

???

This is from the e-gold agreement. The Costa Affair is
an OmniPay matter.

Last I heard you wanted us to believe that e-gold and
Omnipay are two different companies.

Get your story straight.

> 2.5.2. User acknowledges that e-gold is not an
> escrow service, and that
> Issuer does not make any guarantees regarding
> purchases made when using the
> e-gold service. User acknowledges that Issuer does
> not ensure the quality,
> safety, or legality of any merchandise received, nor
> that the seller will
> even ship the merchandise.

This looks like it is from the PayPal user agreement.
It says that you won't do what you have done by
seizing the Costa money and handing it over to your
lawyer.

> 2.6. Indemnification
> 
> User agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Issuer,
> its agents, affiliates
> officers, directors and employees from any claim or
> demand whatsoever
> relating to or arising out of User's use of the
> e-gold system, except for
> any loss caused by negligence or willful misconduct
> of Issuer.
> 
> --- end quote
23.Indemnification. You agree to indemnify and hold
PayPal, its affiliates, officers, directors and
   employees harmless
from any claim, action, demand, loss, or damages
(including attorneys' fees)
   made or incurred by
any third party arising out of or relating to your use
of the Service. 

Right.  The Costa Affair is not your problem. Why did
you get involved?

> OmniPay, the currency exchange service of Gold &
> Silver Reserve, Inc. and an
> e-gold User just like you and Costa Gold...

Aren't  e-gold and OmniPay servers in the same
location? Same management and run from the same
offices?

>, has placed
> the funds in an escrow
> account rather than fulfill the exchange or refund
> the e-gold for the
> reasons stated in the public notice...

We won't escrow. We will escrow. We won't get into
customer disputes. We will get into customer disputes.


Sorry to have gone on like this but the truth to noise
level is sinking to all time lows.

> OmniPay will not take responsibility for refunding
> customers of Costa Gold,
> nor will the escrow agent.  Refund of the escrowed
> funds [to Costa Gold] is
> contingent on provision of information from the
> principals or authorized
> agents of Costa Gold confirming that they are
> authorized to make disposition
> of the disputed value.
> 
> Whether Costa Gold then refunds its custome

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

--- "James M. Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 7:21 PM -0800 1/26/01, Dagny Taggart wrote:
> >My point exactly Craig!
> >
> ...
> 
> (Note how I elided the repeated text, so the signal
> to noise gets
> back to bearable, and instead inserted "..." -- some
> here might
> consider emulating this behavior for the benefit of
> unfortunates
> on the digest, since it _IS_ in the welcome message
> I'm sure you
> all read when you got on the list -- the same one
> that tells folks
> not to post HTML...)

Can someone here please explain what the essence of
the previous paragraph is?

> Anyway, please re-read (carefully) the following
> words. I'd note
> that OmniPay is like any exchange provider, and
> there is not a
> rule that exchange providers (or anyone else) must
> have public
> balances.

So it is going to continue to be OmniPay's policy to
keep secret its liquidity and solvency.  That was all
I wanted to know.

> All of them are free to do so tomorrow,
> none have.

Some have. Look at the publicly viewable balances.

> If
> you want a market maker with a publicly viewable
> balance soon,
> I suggest that you start it yourself.

OmniPay has a very special position in this whole
e-gold universe, I don't think it is asking to much,
especially in light of the recent statement regarding
Costagold.
Are they trying to hide something?

> If you did, and you also wished to "take the fall"
> for others' fraud
> or criminality, that's your choice, but clearly
> that's not the choice
> most market makers make, including OmniPay.

No one is talking about taking the fall for anyone.
You guys live off some questionable activities on the
Internet.  It just  looks like you are behaving just
like them: Take the e-gold and not pay out.

> "G&SR
> may set
> value limits on individual and aggregate Exchange
> transactions
> based on the sufficiency of the identifying
> information provided
> by User or based on the need for making an orderly
> market" is
> right out of the user agreement. Seems to require
> due diligence
> from the way I read it...

No.  It requires that Omnipay have enough money in its
bank account to handle the transaction. If Costa were
running off with $50K it would have gone unnoticed?
The only difference here is that it looks like you are
underfunded.

> The following words are from Reid Jackson to a
> customer today.
> JMR
> 
> --- begin quote
> 
> 2.5. Disputes Between Users
> 
> 2.5.1. Any disputes that arise between Users are not
> the responsibility of
> Issuer.

???

This is from the e-gold agreement. The Costa Affair is
an OmniPay matter.

Last I heard you wanted us to believe that e-gold and
Omnipay are two different companies.

Get your story straight.

> 2.5.2. User acknowledges that e-gold is not an
> escrow service, and that
> Issuer does not make any guarantees regarding
> purchases made when using the
> e-gold service. User acknowledges that Issuer does
> not ensure the quality,
> safety, or legality of any merchandise received, nor
> that the seller will
> even ship the merchandise.

This looks like it is from the PayPal user agreement.
It says that you won't do what you have done by
seizing the Costa money and handing it over to your
lawyer.

> 2.6. Indemnification
> 
> User agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Issuer,
> its agents, affiliates
> officers, directors and employees from any claim or
> demand whatsoever
> relating to or arising out of User's use of the
> e-gold system, except for
> any loss caused by negligence or willful misconduct
> of Issuer.
> 
> --- end quote
23.Indemnification. You agree to indemnify and hold
PayPal, its affiliates, officers, directors and
   employees harmless
from any claim, action, demand, loss, or damages
(including attorneys' fees)
   made or incurred by
any third party arising out of or relating to your use
of the Service. 

Right.  The Costa Affair is not your problem. Why did
you get involved?

> OmniPay, the currency exchange service of Gold &
> Silver Reserve, Inc. and an
> e-gold User just like you and Costa Gold...

Aren't  e-gold and OmniPay servers in the same
location? Same management and run from the same
offices?

>, has placed
> the funds in an escrow
> account rather than fulfill the exchange or refund
> the e-gold for the
> reasons stated in the public notice...

We won't escrow. We will escrow. We won't get into
customer disputes. We will get into customer disputes.


Sorry to have gone on like this but the truth to noise
level is sinking to all time lows.

> OmniPay will not take responsibility for refunding
> customers of Costa Gold,
> nor will the escrow agent.  Refund of the escrowed
> funds [to Costa Gold] is
> contingent on provision of information from the
> principals or authorized
> agents of Costa Gold confirming that they are
> authorized to make disposition
> of the disputed value.
> 
> Whether Costa Gold then refunds its custome

[e-gold-list] Re: Costagold

[Michael Moore]

On this occasion I must say that Reid Jackson is quite right.

In laymans terms  the authenticity of a transaction, particularly when it is
as large as this one, requires confirmation for the protection of all.  If
you read the original public announcement it is the authenticity of the
conflicting orders from Costagold which are in question.

quote:

Specifically, we have received communications indicating that the
password(s) for Costa Gold have been compromised due to inadequate security
at Costa Gold, and have also received these conflicting instructions:

2.  Instructions to fulfill the orders immediately.

3.  Instructions to stabilize the value.

4.  Instructions to cancel the orders and refund the e-gold.

end quote.

Note that Reid Jackson DID make a public announcement.

Also note there has been no public response from Costagold

And on the subject of transparent accounts,  Market Makers are not obliged
to open their books anymore than any other private company. If a Market
Maker, Omnipay or any other, choses to open their books that is their
perogative. Of course if they chose to go public and list on a stock
exchange then the question does becomes relevant.


Kind regards,

Michael Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gold-today.com
Sign up with e-gold today and get grams of e-gold here.
https://www.e-gold.com/newacct/newaccount.asp?cid=129542
subscribe to the gold-today discussion group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goldtoday



---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[CCS]

> I'd note that OmniPay is like any exchange provider, ...

OmniPay is NOT like any other exchange provider.  Not only is there
a past history of unity with e-gold and an incestuous relation amoung 
the principals of the "two" companies but OmniPay has the exclusive
privilege of bailment.

CCS 

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[James M. Ray]

At 7:21 PM -0800 1/26/01, Dagny Taggart wrote:
>My point exactly Craig!
>
...

(Note how I elided the repeated text, so the signal to noise gets
back to bearable, and instead inserted "..." -- some here might
consider emulating this behavior for the benefit of unfortunates
on the digest, since it _IS_ in the welcome message I'm sure you
all read when you got on the list -- the same one that tells folks
not to post HTML...)

Anyway, please re-read (carefully) the following words. I'd note
that OmniPay is like any exchange provider, and there is not a
rule that exchange providers (or anyone else) must have public
balances. All of them are free to do so tomorrow, none have. If
you want a market maker with a publicly viewable balance soon,
I suggest that you start it yourself.

If you did, and you also wished to "take the fall" for others' fraud
or criminality, that's your choice, but clearly that's not the choice
most market makers make, including OmniPay. "G&SR may set
value limits on individual and aggregate Exchange transactions
based on the sufficiency of the identifying information provided
by User or based on the need for making an orderly market" is
right out of the user agreement. Seems to require due diligence
from the way I read it...

The following words are from Reid Jackson to a customer today.
JMR

--- begin quote

2.5. Disputes Between Users

2.5.1. Any disputes that arise between Users are not the responsibility of
Issuer.

2.5.2. User acknowledges that e-gold is not an escrow service, and that
Issuer does not make any guarantees regarding purchases made when using the
e-gold service. User acknowledges that Issuer does not ensure the quality,
safety, or legality of any merchandise received, nor that the seller will
even ship the merchandise.

2.6. Indemnification

User agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Issuer, its agents, affiliates
officers, directors and employees from any claim or demand whatsoever
relating to or arising out of User's use of the e-gold system, except for
any loss caused by negligence or willful misconduct of Issuer.

--- end quote

OmniPay, the currency exchange service of Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. and an
e-gold User just like you and Costa Gold, has placed the funds in an escrow
account rather than fulfill the exchange or refund the e-gold for the
reasons stated in the public notice...

OmniPay will not take responsibility for refunding customers of Costa Gold,
nor will the escrow agent.  Refund of the escrowed funds [to Costa Gold] is
contingent on provision of information from the principals or authorized
agents of Costa Gold confirming that they are authorized to make disposition
of the disputed value.

Whether Costa Gold then refunds its customers or not is between them and
their customers.

Regards,

Reid Jackson
Managing Director
Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc.


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

My point exactly Craig!


>HEY! You guys should follow the same rules as
everyone else. If I 
>fulfill an
>order due to a bad exchange rate, then I'll have to
live with it. Is 
>this
>part of the Golden Rule, "He who has the gold makes
the rules?" :)

>Craig




--- SnowDog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have been looking for the part of the user
> agreement
> > where it says, that you require due diligence for
> > OutExchanges, withdrawals, or whatever you are
> calling
> > them these days.
> > Somebody other than  Snowdog, please help me out
> here!
> 
> Couldn't help it...
> 
> "20. Value Limits
> 
> G&SR may set value limits on individual and
> aggregate Exchange transactions
> based on the sufficiency of the identifying
> information provided by User or
> based on the need for making an orderly market."
> 
> Arf,
> 
> SnowDog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


=
Dagny Taggart

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

You gave me the link for the e-gold examiner, since
when have these two companies merged?

I am talking about the OmniPay e-gold account 109243

Why is that not viewable?


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >I wish G&SR/OmniPay had a publicly viewable balance
> >for their e-gold accounts, why don't they?
> >
> >Dagny Taggart
> 
> ?
> 
> of course they do
> 
> http://www.e-gold.com/examiner.html
> 
> 
> 
> (its not as cool as this thought
> http://use.e-gold.com !  :)  )
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


=
Dagny Taggart

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[jpm]

>I wish G&SR/OmniPay had a publicly viewable balance
>for their e-gold accounts, why don't they?
>
>Dagny Taggart

?

of course they do

http://www.e-gold.com/examiner.html



(its not as cool as this thought http://use.e-gold.com !  :)  )


---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[SnowDog]

> I have been looking for the part of the user agreement
> where it says, that you require due diligence for
> OutExchanges, withdrawals, or whatever you are calling
> them these days.
> Somebody other than  Snowdog, please help me out here!

Couldn't help it...

"20. Value Limits

G&SR may set value limits on individual and aggregate Exchange transactions
based on the sufficiency of the identifying information provided by User or
based on the need for making an orderly market."

Arf,

SnowDog





---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[e-gold-list] re: Costagold

[Dagny Taggart]

--- Reid Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> It is our practice to perform additional due
> diligence prior to fulfilling
> high value exchange orders to verify that we have
> adequate knowledge of the
> identity of our customer.

I have been looking for the part of the user agreement
where it says, that you require due diligence for
OutExchanges, withdrawals, or whatever you are calling
them these days.
Somebody other than  Snowdog, please help me out here!

If I were running a business such as G&SR/OmniPay, it
would be pretty difficult to maintain large enough
trading balances to be able to fulfill payment
requests such as this.
If I am not mistaken, the e-gold was in OmniPay's
e-gold account.
Why don't they just sell some to come up with the
money if they do not have enough on hand?
How would this work?
Would OmniPay redeem 10 x 400oz. bars and then sell it
to cover the USD 1.1 million?

Of course, if you look at the gold prices right now
versus December, when OmniPay had to buy and the most
recent growth occurred, according to the statistics
page, OmniPay would take a hefty loss and look for any
excuse not to pay...

I wish G&SR/OmniPay had a publicly viewable balance
for their e-gold accounts, why don't they?

Dagny Taggart


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]