Member Info for Chaebol

Its triggered BFD again though, so thanks Ian x;)

Yeh I didnt take it as that Ian, many people did reach out and thank me for Argo in the end, but tta the time it was alsmost as deranged as here, I agree with most of what you said anyway, we have always got on wihtout losing it I think x;). FWIW reckon MARA is a punt at this price x;) Bit of a degen for it tbh x;) GL here you longs are gonna need it !

BFD......

Using stuff from on what happened July 2024, is moronic, made a mistake with easy send, where is easy send now........

you on the other hand have told me multiple inaccuracies in the last 4 months, bol mica lol accounting lol sp direction.....but you focus on easysend .io in New York from July 2024, is that your best hit against me ! ??

Let's flip the mirror for a second.

Imagine if the share price was flying at 5p and I was the one posting doom at 0.2p, screaming negativity about the company. You'd have to think I was an idiot—and honestly, I'd regard myself as one too. Yet here we are: the price is down ~consistently and I've been calling lower for months while the ramping crew kept pumping 5p, 10p, moonshots. Now it's 0.4p and falling, but somehow I'm the loopy non balanced one?

The threads would be questioning my mental health if the script was reversed (and correctly so).The narcissism isn't in the bears who've been proven directionally right—it's in the relentless pumpers who can't admit reality when it's staring them in the face.

This company is in a doom loop its been in it since July and as long as they carry on like this it will continue......

A storm is coming?

But on MARA, he got it totally wrong, he said it would fly, and it fell like a stone.

That's a bit harsh, Ian, tbh. When ARB was heading to pennies in December 2022, I was telling people to buy MARA at $4–6, and within a year it was hitting intraday highs of $28–29. What I did get wrong with MARA was calling it the numero uno North American miner. That was way off, even though it remains the largest BTC holder and has the biggest market cap. It's just a dilutive machine, at last check, it was mining BTC at around $166k each.

Mayhem, definitely wrong, but still showing a tidy profit over the 6 years I've traded it.

You're right—not everyone can call it perfectly all the time. The real loser everyone can rub one out to here is my involvement in WCAP.PL!!! It's been brutal, but it is what it is.

When it comes to GST, though, I think I have considerable knowledge of the company, so it only makes sense to take advantage of that when the timing is right. I'm not a fool. If the tide was truly turning and this mob could actually hit milestones with ease, I'd switch sides—but basically, you've got a mess in most places here, and it's all self-inflicted.

Angra is the only winner, and I've been saying that for ages, but revs are so low from it, but the rest is a mess… GS Money stablecoins: 5 years in, with the site still not finished, waiting on an app with no real license after all this time… It's crazy the extension of goodwill the forum gives this silent BOD!

Big posters and holders from the past have already sold and don't seem keen to jump back in, more relief at selling then anything else.. Sentiment is smashed, the BOD is considered not credible, and buyers have gone.

A lot of continued problems in front of it, Ill die on the no MiCA hill in Lithuania they're not getting MiCA in that jurisdiction. EMI and the minded to refuse has to have some sort of validation and who knows if they reapplied but the lords gone radio silence on it since December, and it doesn't take that amount of time for EMI app, no podcasts no pr campaign lol wonder why ! and now the semnet debacle that everyone thought was concluding is now something else.

Much more pain to come wiht the clarity of no mica, and lots of mess can start coming out about the court case that adds woes here, with all this uncertainty this goes much lower. AIMHO

GLA

You choose which posts I read, remarkable.

Had a nice meal thanks BFD x;)

Signs of Forum Overload & How User 1 Can Stay Grounded

Posting ~12 times a day for over two years (10k+ posts) is objectively elite-level dedication—borderline legendary in LSE thread terms. But yeah, it's also a classic red flag for potential "forum delirium" (echo chambers, ramping addiction, sleep deprivation from midnight RNS watches).

Here's a no-BS checklist to self-audit and prevent full descent into delusion/insanity:

Force a Detox Week

Go cold turkey: no logging in, no lurking, no "just checking the share price." Delete the app/bookmark for 7 days. If withdrawal feels like quitting smoking (irritability, FOMO nightmares about Tone Goh announcements), that's your sign it's too deep.

Reality-Check Audit Print your last 100 posts (or scroll back). Read them aloud to a neutral friend/family member. Ask: "Do I sound rational, or like a cult member defending a dying penny stock?"

Track time spent: Use phone screen-time tools. If forum time > work/social life combined, red alert.

Diversify Your Brain Inputs Mandatory offline hobbies: Gym, books (non-finance), walks, actual human interaction.

Follow non-GST topics: Switch to other boards, news, or (gasp) real investments with fundamentals.

Touch grass literally—step outside and remember the share price doesn't control oxygen.

Set Hard Limits Rule: Max 3 posts per day. Or only post if adding genuine value (not just "rocket" emojis).

Schedule: No posting after 10pm or before coffee. Protect sleep—forum rage thrives on tiredness.

Seek External Validation Talk to non-forum people about your views on GST/Semnet/MiCA dreams. If they glaze over or laugh, recalibrate.

If it's affecting mood/money/relationships seriously, chat with a therapist (no shame—retail trading forums are psychological warfare).

Bottom line: That volume isn't automatically insane (some people are just hyper-engaged), but it's a volume knob turned to 11. Dial it back proactively before the thread owns you. You've got the stamina of a ramping god—channel it elsewhere and you'll be fine. X;)

Posting Rate Breakdown (as of 20 Feb 2026)

Both users last posted today, so calculations include activity up to now. Averages assume steady posting over the full membership period (inclusive of join date and today).

Metric User 1 (Joined 30 Oct 2023) User 2 (Joined 20 Dec 2017)

Total Posts 10,190 11,141

Time Active 845 days ~2.31 years 2,985 days (~8.17 years)

Posts per Year ~4,411 ~1,364

Posts per Month ~367 ~114

Posts per Day ~12.1 ~3.7

Posts per Hour (24h) ~0.50 ~0.16

Key takeaways:

* User 1 is an absolute machine—averaging over 12 posts a day in just over 2 years. That's forum warrior elite level or other issues.

* User 2 is the steady veteran: consistent ~3–4 posts/day over 8+ years, edging ahead in total volume through sheer longevity.

Impressive dedication from user 1—classic LSE board addict! He should get out more x;)

The only people that sdeem to get mentally gymnastic are the rampers here.

Gs fintech lol Ive heard it all now.

Anyway fun to be had im out laters !

Enjoy your weekend !

Good grief......rns says gst you say gs fintech lol whos in the SPA agreement ? GST and Semnet. but youre arguing the toss anyway international or domestic the rules would be the same, if GST have left arbitration with no signed agreement from the sellers, or the arbitrer it will be stayed back to arb if the sellers pursue that.

Never said they cant get out of it but they need the written consent of the other party to leave it.

Or judge will agree to stay.

Lol Chef !

I do admire the MM's this week they did an amazing job keeping this above .4 so little buying that bully yum yums couldn't even jump on some buys x;) He threatened x;)

Thats all folks enjoy your weekend.

Peace................x;)

Monday GLA

Going from the RNS on July 18th, which you always tell me to do x;) GST issued notice of arb and not semnet. Happy to help.

GSTechnologies Limited (LSE: GST), the fintech company, has issued a notice of arbitration to Choo Seet EE and Zheng Kang Wen Mervyn (the "Sellers"), the sellers of Semnet Pte. Ltd. ("Semnet") as set out in the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 5 December 2023, pursuant to which the Company acquired 66.67% of the issued share capital of Semnet (as announced on 6 December 2023) (the "SPA").

Wait until they find out im a bot x;)

Ive cited specific laws under arbitration. YOu have specified chaebol derangement syndrome again.

This writ was only issued on the 13th Feb wait for the blowback from zheng and choo.

Lol youre talking nonsense.

Yes, the statement is incorrect and overly simplistic—bordering on misguided.Here's why, based on the actual details of the GSTechnologies/Semnet dispute (drawn from public announcements and Singapore arbitration law):

The arbitration is international, not domestic.

GSTechnologies Limited (the buyer and initiator of the arbitration) is a company listed on the London Stock Exchange with its primary operations and place of business outside Singapore (incorporated in the BVI with international focus). The respondents are the former sellers of Semnet Pte Ltd (Singapore residents/directors).

Under Article 1(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law (incorporated into Singapore's International Arbitration Act), an arbitration is international if the parties have their places of business in different states at the time the agreement was concluded. This clearly applies here—one party foreign, one Singapore-based.

The fact that Semnet itself is a Singapore-registered company and the former directors/sellers are based there does not make the overall dispute "domestic." The relevant parties to the arbitration agreement (in the share purchase agreement) include the international buyer. SIAC arbitrations with such cross-border elements are routinely governed by the IAA (international regime).

Consequences: Mandatory stay under IAA, not discretionary.

Because it's international, Section 6 of the IAA applies: the High Court must stay any parallel court proceedings (like the recent writ issued by Semnet) in favor of arbitration, unless the agreement is invalid (which isn't suggested here).

Even if it were somehow domestic (which it's not), Section 6 of the Arbitration Act gives the court discretion—but Singapore courts strongly favor enforcing arbitration agreements in either case.

The "ends up in High Court when ruling is broken" part is misleading.

Non-compliance with an arbitral award ("broken") leads to enforcement proceedings in the High Court under both regimes (IAA for international awards, AA for domestic). That's standard—nothing unique to "domestic disputes."

But the substantive dispute doesn't "end up" in court just because parties are local or an award isn't followed. The arbitration agreement binds the parties to resolve the merits in arbitration first. Court involvement is limited (enforcement, setting aside, or rare interim measures).

In short, assuming "all Singapore = domestic = easier court access" ignores the clear international element from GSTechnologies' involvement. It's a classic case of overlooking the cross-border party, which flips the entire legal framework. The reply calling it ridiculous and false was accurate—the statement doesn't hold up under Singapore law or the facts of this dispute.

That’s a fascinating creative take on the Singapore legal system. It’s almost entirely wrong, but points for imagination. Here’s the reality check:

1. The 'Domestic' Delusion

Being 'domestic' doesn't mean you can just wander into the High Court whenever you feel like it. Whether it’s the Arbitration Act (domestic) or the International Arbitration Act, an arbitration clause is a legal padlock. You don’t get to pick the High Court just because the parties are in Singapore; you go where the contract told you to go. If GST tries to bypass that, the sellers will just slap them with a 'Stay of Proceedings' and the Judge will kick GST out of court faster than a bad habit.

2. Arbitration isn't a 'Practice Round'

His idea that you go to the High Court when a ruling is 'broken' is hilarious. Arbitration awards are final and binding. It’s not a 'best of three' series. If a party 'breaks' (doesn't follow) a ruling, you don't start a brand new S$4.2M lawsuit. You file for Enforcement. You bring in the Bailiffs to seize their cars and freeze their bank accounts. You don't spend S$200k on a new Writ to 're-try' a case you already agreed to in arb.

The Bottom Line:

Claiming you go to the High Court because an arbitration ruling was 'broken' is like saying if you don't like the score of a football match, you can just go to a different stadium and start the game over with a different referee. It’s a legal fantasy.

If GST is in the High Court, it’s either because they’re suing 'insiders' who weren't in the arbitration deal, or they’re making a massive tactical gamble that is going to cost them indemnity legal fees when it inevitably gets stayed."

The "Insider Buy" Context

If your suspicion is that this is a "sad delusion" or a waste of funds, you're pointing to a common corporate tactic: litigation as a placeholder. Sometimes companies issue a Writ even if they know they might be forced back to arbitration, simply to:

Make a public "statement" to shareholders.

Try to "scare" the other side into a different settlement.

Address "insiders" who weren't part of the original SIAC contract.

The Bottom Line: You are right—the law does not let you just quit arbitration because a meeting went poorly. If they moved to court, it either means the sellers consented to end the SIAC, the SIAC had no jurisdiction over the specific new claims........

Yes, the opinion is largely correct under the Singapore International Arbitration Act (IAA) and SIAC Rules (including the 2025 edition in effect as of early 2025, with similar principles in prior editions like 2016)

.Here's a breakdown of the key points, based on the IAA (which incorporates the UNCITRAL

Model Law for international arbitrations) and SIAC Rules:Agreement to discontinue ("walk away")

The opinion accurately states that unilateral discontinuation is not straightforward. Under Article 32 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (applied via the IAA), the tribunal terminates proceedings if the claimant withdraws its claim—unless the respondent objects and the tribunal recognizes a legitimate interest (e.g., counterclaims, costs recovery, or a declaratory award). SIAC Rules align with this. In practice, if the opposing party (here, the former sellers) refuses consent and has a legitimate interest, the tribunal retains jurisdiction and the arbitration continues. Pure unilateral withdrawal by the claimant is possible only if no objection or no legitimate interest exists—so the opinion's practical effect is correct.

High Court stay of proceedings (Section 6 IAA)

This is precisely correct. Section 6 of the IAA mandates a stay of court proceedings if a party applies and there is a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute. The court must grant the stay unless the agreement is "null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed." Singapore courts apply this pro-arbitration provision strictly, routinely sending parties back to arbitration. Filing parallel court proceedings (e.g., a Writ) would almost certainly result in a stay in favor of the ongoing SIAC arbitration.

Unilateral "walking away" via non-payment or non-participation Non-payment of deposits: Correct.

SIAC Rules (e.g., provisions on advances on costs) allow the Registrar to deem claims withdrawn or terminate proceedings (in whole or part) if deposits are unpaid. If the claimant fails to pay, this often leads to dismissal for want of prosecution (or equivalent termination order). The other party may substitute payment to keep it going.

Procedural abandonment (not showing up): Correct. SIAC Rules permit the tribunal to proceed in default (ex parte) if a party fails to participate, submit statements, or appear. The tribunal can still render a binding final award based on available evidence.

In summary, the opinion accurately reflects the pro-arbitration stance of Singapore law: parties are generally bound to the agreed process, and unilateral exit strategies are limited, risky, or ineffective without agreement or specific consequences. Minor nuance exists around claim withdrawal (respondent objection can block it if legitimate interest exists), but the overall analysis holds up well in the described scenario.

Cheers Chef x;)

Can't stop Won't stop......in the words of NH 0.2p some day soon.

GLA

Have you seen the original arbitration filing and what GST were applying for in damages on that original arbitration ?

I dont think none of us know right so in arb they could have been pushing for 4.2 mill we dont know.

Well whatever sad delsuion is going on.

The fact is when you go into arbitration you cant just walk away without the agreement of the other party. Its why you go to arbtration.

Under the Singapore International Arbitration Act and SIAC Rules, a party cannot simply "cancel" the process unilaterally to avoid a bad outcome.

Here is the reality of how that "pulling out" actually works in the legal system:

1. The "Agreement to Walk Away"

You hit the nail on the head—you need the other party's consent. If GST wanted to stop the SIAC proceedings to move to the High Court, the former sellers would have to agree to discontinue the arbitration. If the sellers refused, the SIAC tribunal would maintain jurisdiction.

2. The High Court "Stay of Proceedings"

If GST tried to bypass the SIAC by filing a Writ in the High Court, the former sellers have a powerful weapon: Section 6 of the International Arbitration Act.

The sellers can apply for a "Stay of Proceedings."

The High Court is generally obligated to freeze the court case and send the parties back to SIAC because a valid arbitration agreement exists.

Walking away without consent usually results in the court telling the claimant: "Go back to the arbitrator you agreed to use."

3. When "Walking Away" is actually "Terminating"

The only way a party truly "walks away" unilaterally is if:

Non-Payment: They refuse to pay the SIAC deposits. If the claimant doesn't pay, the case is eventually dismissed for want of prosecution.

Procedural Abandonment: They stop showing up. The arbitrator can still issue a Final Award in their absence, which is binding.