Topic: [ANN] [BCAP] THE FIRST DIGITAL LIQUID VENTURE FUND - BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL FUND - page 16. (Read 48390 times)
April 12, 2017, 04:08:05 AM
I invested my BTC 5 minutes after the beginning of BCAP ICO. why do I see 0 balance in my account? where are the devs?
April 12, 2017, 04:02:48 AM
Can you give us examples of good companies in the blockchain technology sector that BCAP would hypothetically be investing in today if for instance you started operating 3 years ago? Im interested in knowing what youre looking for in terms of potential in a blockchain company and what kinds of technology youre interested in.
Blockchain Capital actually started operating over 3 years ago, in 2013. This is their third fund. You can view the information about their existing portfolio at blockchaincapital.tokenhub.com or on their website blockchain.capital
I did not realize that you have such a wide list of invesments in your portfolio. Among them I see only 1 that is based on Ethereum. Ethcore. What is it with Ethcore that attracted the team? Does the censored blockchain of Ethereum not bother you?
April 12, 2017, 03:23:40 AM
off topic
Anyone knows what is happening with poloniex?
In poloniex ,i never passed the limit of 2000$ par day (( tier 1 ))
Now they locked my account and they force me to enter to tier 2 verivication level for to be able to withdrawal my holdings!
Be careful.....
Anyone knows what is happening with poloniex?
In poloniex ,i never passed the limit of 2000$ par day (( tier 1 ))
Now they locked my account and they force me to enter to tier 2 verivication level for to be able to withdrawal my holdings!
Be careful.....
April 12, 2017, 01:06:48 AM
The description of how exact / actual number of BCAP tokens will be calculated is in the offering memorandum and has been disclosed ahead of the offering.
April 12, 2017, 12:48:00 AM
Hello everyone, we are close to being able to release the update with your estimated BCAP balances. Please be patient.
That's odd! If $10 buys you 10 BCAPs, what is there to estimate? The last time I cracked open a math book, I don't recall a one-to-one correspondence being rocket science.
Bob: I paid $100 for BCAP. How many do I own?
Argon: Since it's one-to-one, we estimate that you own 98 BCAP.
Bob: Wait, shouldn't that be 100 BCAP?
Argon: Please open a ticket so that we can look into this matter.
April 11, 2017, 10:53:19 PM
Hello everyone, we are close to being able to release the update with your estimated BCAP balances. Please be patient.
April 11, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
All - we have a solution that we anticipate we will start rolling out shortly. Just to reconfirm - we have everyone's transaction records and you will have your accounts updated soon.
Hello there Marina,
My Balance/Token is not yet updated.. I have sent BTC before the cap.. which is at probably 8million$ yet..
Kindly update it..
April 11, 2017, 04:37:09 PM
I planned to invest in bcap. But I couldnt get the answers to these questions after reading OM and they didnt respond my email. 
I found out that Blockchain Capital’s pervious two funds’ average gross return is so low, at around %14 annually. When adjusting for %2,5 management fee and %25 carried interest, net return is hardly %10! Traditional venture capital, as far as I know, should offer around %500 total return in a 5-year-period, given the risk that the investor bears.
How can you use %50 of realized gains to make further investments and the rest for token repurchase while the BC manager is entitled to %25 of realized capital gains? (the total is above %100) If VC is under no obligation to make realization buy backs, then how can I as an investor realize capital gains in the value of the token? How can investors force the VC to make realization buy backs so that they can earn on their investments?
Another issue that bothers me is that both the VC and the manager of the VC as separate entities, are operating in Cayman Islands and in this way these companies are independent from parent companies, Blockchain Capital LLC and Argon Group. Altough people behind Blockchain Capital LLC have good reputations, there is no certainity that these people will support the VC for as long as the VC operates. In addition, there is no distribution and liquidation rights of investors. I understand that these type of token offerings are not regulated, so they are not under control of SEC or any other legal entity in another country. But doesn’t it mean that there is an unconditional trust to VC founders, because there is nothing prevent them from going away with what they raised with the ICO offering (may be except from their reputation). Even I remember reading that VC does not have to invest in blockchain related start-ups under certain circumstances. So as an investor how can I make sure that VC will be constantly investing in Blockchain start ups under scrunity and at best effort of the Blockchain Capital’s original team?
Additionaly, why do investors have to invest in tokens that BCTH issues and then why does BCTH become the single partner of BC III DLVF? Instead why don’t we invest directly in the tokens that BC III DLVF issues?
What will happen if some day US or Cayman Islands authorities or any other jurisdiriction in which Argon group operates, regulates token offerings as publicly registered offerings and hence force international investors out of the VC?
What do you include in contingent liabilities when calculating NAV? Who will audit the expense reimbursements and NAV calculations? I understand that VC didn’t plan any independent authority in such roles. But Isnt it a fundamental issue to build continious trust?
I found out that Blockchain Capital’s pervious two funds’ average gross return is so low, at around %14 annually. When adjusting for %2,5 management fee and %25 carried interest, net return is hardly %10! Traditional venture capital, as far as I know, should offer around %500 total return in a 5-year-period, given the risk that the investor bears.
How can you use %50 of realized gains to make further investments and the rest for token repurchase while the BC manager is entitled to %25 of realized capital gains? (the total is above %100) If VC is under no obligation to make realization buy backs, then how can I as an investor realize capital gains in the value of the token? How can investors force the VC to make realization buy backs so that they can earn on their investments?
Another issue that bothers me is that both the VC and the manager of the VC as separate entities, are operating in Cayman Islands and in this way these companies are independent from parent companies, Blockchain Capital LLC and Argon Group. Altough people behind Blockchain Capital LLC have good reputations, there is no certainity that these people will support the VC for as long as the VC operates. In addition, there is no distribution and liquidation rights of investors. I understand that these type of token offerings are not regulated, so they are not under control of SEC or any other legal entity in another country. But doesn’t it mean that there is an unconditional trust to VC founders, because there is nothing prevent them from going away with what they raised with the ICO offering (may be except from their reputation). Even I remember reading that VC does not have to invest in blockchain related start-ups under certain circumstances. So as an investor how can I make sure that VC will be constantly investing in Blockchain start ups under scrunity and at best effort of the Blockchain Capital’s original team?
Additionaly, why do investors have to invest in tokens that BCTH issues and then why does BCTH become the single partner of BC III DLVF? Instead why don’t we invest directly in the tokens that BC III DLVF issues?
What will happen if some day US or Cayman Islands authorities or any other jurisdiriction in which Argon group operates, regulates token offerings as publicly registered offerings and hence force international investors out of the VC?
What do you include in contingent liabilities when calculating NAV? Who will audit the expense reimbursements and NAV calculations? I understand that VC didn’t plan any independent authority in such roles. But Isnt it a fundamental issue to build continious trust?
April 11, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Inspired by Gleb's commitment to in-depth due diligence, I also did some detective work of my own before I invested in this.
KATHRYN HAUN U.S. DOJ
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/kathryn-haun/
If this is a scam, then why would a federal prosecutor, whose job involves investigating/prosecuting internet scammers, put her name on it?
That's just one out of the dozens of highly credible people who have risked putting their names on this project.
KATHRYN HAUN U.S. DOJ
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/kathryn-haun/
If this is a scam, then why would a federal prosecutor, whose job involves investigating/prosecuting internet scammers, put her name on it?
That's just one out of the dozens of highly credible people who have risked putting their names on this project.
Nice research, Bruno. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Are you the big bad troll on the block?
Yeah, Bruno has a way of exposing situations.
He has this gift of bringing things to the surface.
I would never want to be on his scope, though I have never done anything wrong
Here's a question that not a single Investard asked: Why is Argon Group even needed for this ICO acting as a third-party thingy when ALL the actors involved in BCAP are renown in this space? They could've easily conducted an ICO on their accord oppose to going through a Russian-based third party taking their cut. Think about it! Nobody in their right mind would pay a toll so to enter a toll road, not to mention that such wouldn't even be considered [till now].
Here's Kathryn talking about them rogue agents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=507wn9VcSAE&feature=youtu.be&t=115 Guess how the FBI found out who Curtis Green was on this forum. I'll give you a hint: He's a fuckin pest!
April 11, 2017, 03:39:25 PM
http://www.evanvanness.com/post/159314693901/some-thoughts-on-blockchain-capitals-token-sale
evan van ness
FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2017
Some thoughts on Blockchain Capital’s token sale
In the future, all assets will be tokenized on a blockchain. I absolutely believe that can be the future, but…
The Groucho Marx problem
“I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” - Groucho Marx
I don’t want to put money into any private equity fund that will take my money.
Much of the excess returns that accrue to private equity come from the top funds. Those top funds don’t need to raise money from little guys. Why bother with a token sale when you can go get $100 million from CalPERS and TRS?
There’s absolutely a chicken and egg problem here. It’s likely that securities become tokens, but for now it’s unlikely that the funds likely to produce excess returns want to do a token sale.
[Financegeek note: part of the excess return in private equity is due to the lack of liquidity. If tokens improve liquidity, then we should expect the liquidity premium to go away and thus expected PE returns should be lower than historical averages. This depends on how much of the liquidity premium accrues from the illiquidity of the underlying assets vs the illiquidity of the VC fund.]
With that in mind, I had a chance to read the Blockchain Capital document today and wanted to offer some thoughts.
Bear case:
1. Didn’t crush it in the first two funds.
This is especially true when you realize that in this space they would have had magnitudes higher return from just buying Ether or Bitcoin.
Even a relatively naive spray and pray in crypto – buy a fixed amount of every project that passes basic due diligence – would’ve produced better results.
In general, I would not invest in a VC fund with such low visibility into their previous funds. I was very disappointed in the lack of transparency about performance. You have to trust their NAV. They don’t even break out the difference between realized gains and unrealized gains. For example, I’d like to know how much of their return is due to Coinbase’s valuation.
Also, they don’t mention the size of the previous funds, nor the fee structure for those funds. Those are relevant when comparing their returns to funds from the same year. [UPDATE: A Blockchain representative says that they have said that the fee structure is the same as the first two funds, and also that AuM was disclosed in the doc. That’s true ($30m under management) - but I’d like to know the size of each fund, as well as whether all investors paid 2.5% management fee plus 25% of the gains. I will update this post accordingly when I hear.]
Furthermore, the rates of return indicated are gross, not net. So investors in the previous funds actually receive a significantly smaller return than what is indicated, once Blockchain’s fees are deducted. It’s disappointing to me that they only listed the gross returns, because the only thing that matters is the net returns.
2. They aren’t believers in tokens.
I’m not excited about their thesis - they wrote their terms to allow token sales but the document makes clear that it is not a focus.
Part of the reason for their relatively low returns is that they didn’t invest in tokens or crypto. I get it - it’s very hard to raise money to do that. But at the same time, it didn’t happen, so it’s hard for me to give them credit for seeing just how much they should’ve pushed to get into tokens.
If they didn’t see the last big trend in this space, how can I feel confident they’ll see the next one?
3. High fees.
The trend on fees has probably been downward, except for the top tier. These are relatively high fees for (so far) non-top tier returns.
In general, my take on the terms was that it seemed like terms that a fund would start LP negotiations, but eventually the terms would become more investor friendly. Perhaps Blockchain will prove me wrong by raising the rest of the fund with exactly these terms. I’m skeptical, however.
Plus, at the risk of being repetitive, they gave gross returns for previous returns, but still haven’t told us what the actual returns for investors have been.
Bull case:
1. Followon rights in Coinbase, String, and Parity/Ethcore, as well as a few others.
VC is a hits business. It’s the seed rounds that produce the absurd IRR, but since you get to put more money in later rounds, so the dollar-weighted rate of return can actually be bigger.
If you think that Brian Armstrong is a great recruiter of talent and is well positioned to make Coinbase magnitudes bigger (I think he might!), then you might buy just to get some exposure to Coinbase. Likewise for String/Parity – though presumably much of those returns will come from tokens, and you could just buy those tokens yourself in the next few months.
It’s worth noting that follow on rights are only useful if Coinbase, String, Parity, etc actually raise more rounds. You don’t get a piece of Blockchain’s existing investments by investing in this fund.
2. SEC regulation/lawsuits eliminate token sales for US, thus more US based companies use VC
You can imagine a future where the SEC cracks down on token sales at the behest of the rich and politically connected. Thus, some US projects might choose VC rounds over token sales. In practice, SEC action would probably lead to even more companies fleeing the US and would just serve to further disadvantage Americans.
Even so, if this happens, this would likely boost the returns to this fund.
3. Token market never takes off.
I put this one last, because in my view it is already taking off, though that momentum could end and the future is hard to predict.
Blockchain Capital is one of the preeminent VC firms in the space. Therefore if blockchains takes off but token sales don’t, then this token should do well. In general, I tend to believe that if blockchains take off then token sales will also take off, particularly because token sales are taking off already before blockchain apps.
However, you could also imagine scenarios (such as SEC action) where token sales fizzle out, but blockchains remain strong.
Concluding thought
This is only a token sale for non-US markets. As the sale is limited to under 100 US accredited investors, I don’t think I’d have any chance to buy their tokens even if I wanted to. So I have no skin in the game here. As always, caveat emptor.
Disclaimer: None of this is financial advice, I’m not recommending that you do anything. If you want investment advice you should do more than just read a blog. I know nothing of your portfolio needs, etc.
Thanks to Alex Felix from Coinfund for some critical comments on a draft on this post.
evan van ness
FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2017
Some thoughts on Blockchain Capital’s token sale
In the future, all assets will be tokenized on a blockchain. I absolutely believe that can be the future, but…
The Groucho Marx problem
“I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” - Groucho Marx
I don’t want to put money into any private equity fund that will take my money.
Much of the excess returns that accrue to private equity come from the top funds. Those top funds don’t need to raise money from little guys. Why bother with a token sale when you can go get $100 million from CalPERS and TRS?
There’s absolutely a chicken and egg problem here. It’s likely that securities become tokens, but for now it’s unlikely that the funds likely to produce excess returns want to do a token sale.
[Financegeek note: part of the excess return in private equity is due to the lack of liquidity. If tokens improve liquidity, then we should expect the liquidity premium to go away and thus expected PE returns should be lower than historical averages. This depends on how much of the liquidity premium accrues from the illiquidity of the underlying assets vs the illiquidity of the VC fund.]
With that in mind, I had a chance to read the Blockchain Capital document today and wanted to offer some thoughts.
Bear case:
1. Didn’t crush it in the first two funds.
This is especially true when you realize that in this space they would have had magnitudes higher return from just buying Ether or Bitcoin.
Even a relatively naive spray and pray in crypto – buy a fixed amount of every project that passes basic due diligence – would’ve produced better results.
In general, I would not invest in a VC fund with such low visibility into their previous funds. I was very disappointed in the lack of transparency about performance. You have to trust their NAV. They don’t even break out the difference between realized gains and unrealized gains. For example, I’d like to know how much of their return is due to Coinbase’s valuation.
Also, they don’t mention the size of the previous funds, nor the fee structure for those funds. Those are relevant when comparing their returns to funds from the same year. [UPDATE: A Blockchain representative says that they have said that the fee structure is the same as the first two funds, and also that AuM was disclosed in the doc. That’s true ($30m under management) - but I’d like to know the size of each fund, as well as whether all investors paid 2.5% management fee plus 25% of the gains. I will update this post accordingly when I hear.]
Furthermore, the rates of return indicated are gross, not net. So investors in the previous funds actually receive a significantly smaller return than what is indicated, once Blockchain’s fees are deducted. It’s disappointing to me that they only listed the gross returns, because the only thing that matters is the net returns.
2. They aren’t believers in tokens.
I’m not excited about their thesis - they wrote their terms to allow token sales but the document makes clear that it is not a focus.
Part of the reason for their relatively low returns is that they didn’t invest in tokens or crypto. I get it - it’s very hard to raise money to do that. But at the same time, it didn’t happen, so it’s hard for me to give them credit for seeing just how much they should’ve pushed to get into tokens.
If they didn’t see the last big trend in this space, how can I feel confident they’ll see the next one?
3. High fees.
The trend on fees has probably been downward, except for the top tier. These are relatively high fees for (so far) non-top tier returns.
In general, my take on the terms was that it seemed like terms that a fund would start LP negotiations, but eventually the terms would become more investor friendly. Perhaps Blockchain will prove me wrong by raising the rest of the fund with exactly these terms. I’m skeptical, however.
Plus, at the risk of being repetitive, they gave gross returns for previous returns, but still haven’t told us what the actual returns for investors have been.
Bull case:
1. Followon rights in Coinbase, String, and Parity/Ethcore, as well as a few others.
VC is a hits business. It’s the seed rounds that produce the absurd IRR, but since you get to put more money in later rounds, so the dollar-weighted rate of return can actually be bigger.
If you think that Brian Armstrong is a great recruiter of talent and is well positioned to make Coinbase magnitudes bigger (I think he might!), then you might buy just to get some exposure to Coinbase. Likewise for String/Parity – though presumably much of those returns will come from tokens, and you could just buy those tokens yourself in the next few months.
It’s worth noting that follow on rights are only useful if Coinbase, String, Parity, etc actually raise more rounds. You don’t get a piece of Blockchain’s existing investments by investing in this fund.
2. SEC regulation/lawsuits eliminate token sales for US, thus more US based companies use VC
You can imagine a future where the SEC cracks down on token sales at the behest of the rich and politically connected. Thus, some US projects might choose VC rounds over token sales. In practice, SEC action would probably lead to even more companies fleeing the US and would just serve to further disadvantage Americans.
Even so, if this happens, this would likely boost the returns to this fund.
3. Token market never takes off.
I put this one last, because in my view it is already taking off, though that momentum could end and the future is hard to predict.
Blockchain Capital is one of the preeminent VC firms in the space. Therefore if blockchains takes off but token sales don’t, then this token should do well. In general, I tend to believe that if blockchains take off then token sales will also take off, particularly because token sales are taking off already before blockchain apps.
However, you could also imagine scenarios (such as SEC action) where token sales fizzle out, but blockchains remain strong.
Concluding thought
This is only a token sale for non-US markets. As the sale is limited to under 100 US accredited investors, I don’t think I’d have any chance to buy their tokens even if I wanted to. So I have no skin in the game here. As always, caveat emptor.
Disclaimer: None of this is financial advice, I’m not recommending that you do anything. If you want investment advice you should do more than just read a blog. I know nothing of your portfolio needs, etc.
Thanks to Alex Felix from Coinfund for some critical comments on a draft on this post.
April 11, 2017, 01:16:46 PM
I invested in this also mostly because of the ppl putting their names into it. They have a lot more to lose than me in this. And why would they, its a investment fund, win win for both sides if it works out. They get their 25%, and i dont put my BTC in the sand trading myself 
But one thing is for sure, if there isnt a good explaination for the ICO mess this was the last time i used tokenhub.
But one thing is for sure, if there isnt a good explaination for the ICO mess this was the last time i used tokenhub.
Same here, they got their funds already (well I hope so) so they should fire whoever caused this mess and delays, these are not amateurs or young unknown people trying to get some fund running (I'm not taking a shot at Taas lol). Hopefully it'll all clear very soon and we can start moving forward, well at least the lucky ones that got in...
April 11, 2017, 01:04:44 PM
I invested in this also mostly because of the ppl putting their names into it. They have a lot more to lose than me in this. And why would they, its a investment fund, win win for both sides if it works out. They get their 25%, and i dont put my BTC in the sand trading myself
But one thing is for sure, if there isnt a good explaination for the ICO mess this was the last time i used tokenhub.
But one thing is for sure, if there isnt a good explaination for the ICO mess this was the last time i used tokenhub.
April 11, 2017, 12:46:33 PM
Inspired by Gleb's commitment to in-depth due diligence, I also did some detective work of my own
KATHRYN HAUN U.S. DOJ
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/kathryn-haun/
If this is a scam, then why would a federal prosecutor, whose job involves investigating/prosecuting internet scammers, put her name on it?
That's just one out of the dozens of highly credible people who have risked putting their names on this project.
KATHRYN HAUN U.S. DOJ
https://law.stanford.edu/directory/kathryn-haun/
If this is a scam, then why would a federal prosecutor, whose job involves investigating/prosecuting internet scammers, put her name on it?
That's just one out of the dozens of highly credible people who have risked putting their names on this project.
April 11, 2017, 12:34:47 PM
Why is it impossibile to download the offering memorendum?
Here you are:
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-1.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-2.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-3.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-4.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-5.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-6.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-7.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-8.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-9.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-10.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-11.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-12.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-13.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-14.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-15.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-16.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-17.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-18.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-19.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-20.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-21.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-22.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-23.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-24.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-25.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-26.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-27.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-28.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-29.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-30.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-31.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-32.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-33.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-34.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-35.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-36.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-37.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-38.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-39.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-40.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-41.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-42.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-43.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-44.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-45.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-46.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-47.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-48.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-49.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-50.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-51.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-52.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-53.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-54.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-55.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-56.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-57.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-58.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-59.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-60.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-61.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-62.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-63.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-64.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-65.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-66.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-67.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-68.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-69.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-70.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-71.png
https://tokenhub.com/static/images/memorandum/memorandum-vf3-72.png
April 11, 2017, 11:18:10 AM
Well ain't that special! My PM inbox is littered with deleted posts - all from this thread. Don't worry though, Investards, what was deleted ONLY consisted of vital information that Team Argon doesn't want you to know, penned by a pest who has no use in this community according to the latest Newbie on this forum who thinks his shit doesn't stink like rotten tacos.
yep, thanks Gleb, much appriciated
Thanks, bits4books.
Reaper3, you're in luck! Some of the red flags have been deleted thanks to Team Argon et al. crying to the mods.
This is bitcointalk....
Half the people here are either crazy or pushing some hidden agenda. For example:
What does it matter if someone followed David Carlson on Facebook? This is not evidence of anything. If you had actual scam accusations, you would compile all your "evidence" into 1 clear, easy-to-follow report.
Instead of 20 posts which find loose connections between website registrations and social media accounts that reads like a troll Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
Please point to the post where my findings were based on one person following David Carlson's Facebook page. I'll wait for an eternity while you hunt it down. Hint: It doesn't exist. Why? Because I never penned it, and I'm pretty sure such a follow doesn't exist, and if it did, a wise man once said that such wouldn't be evidence of anything.
I did show that the dude behind Argon Group is directly connected to Carlson and even provided proof of such via a municipal meeting minutes in a county in Washington state after Marina denied that there was no connection, but kindly thanked me for my contribution to this thread.
too many red flags on this
yep, thanks Gleb, much appriciated
Thanks, bits4books.
Reaper3, you're in luck! Some of the red flags have been deleted thanks to Team Argon et al. crying to the mods.
A lot ppl here seem to smoke crack....
This is bitcointalk....
Half the people here are either crazy or pushing some hidden agenda. For example:
Marina, you wanna try again and say that there's no connection between The Argon Group and David Carlson?
What does it matter if someone followed David Carlson on Facebook? This is not evidence of anything. If you had actual scam accusations, you would compile all your "evidence" into 1 clear, easy-to-follow report.
Instead of 20 posts which find loose connections between website registrations and social media accounts that reads like a troll Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
Please point to the post where my findings were based on one person following David Carlson's Facebook page. I'll wait for an eternity while you hunt it down. Hint: It doesn't exist. Why? Because I never penned it, and I'm pretty sure such a follow doesn't exist, and if it did, a wise man once said that such wouldn't be evidence of anything.
I did show that the dude behind Argon Group is directly connected to Carlson and even provided proof of such via a municipal meeting minutes in a county in Washington state after Marina denied that there was no connection, but kindly thanked me for my contribution to this thread.
April 11, 2017, 11:12:41 AM
A lot ppl here seem to smoke crack....
This is bitcointalk....
Half the people here are either crazy or pushing some hidden agenda. For example:
Marina, you wanna try again and say that there's no connection between The Argon Group and David Carlson?
What does it matter if someone followed David Carlson on Facebook? This is not evidence of anything. If you had actual scam accusations, you would compile all your "evidence" into 1 clear, easy-to-follow report.
Instead of 20 posts which find loose connections between website registrations and social media accounts that reads like a troll Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
I suggest you hit the ignore button since there are plenty of unstable people in this forum, I couldn't even read a single post because of so much spam, trolling and nonsense. It teaches you about what's the purpose of trust too, that green number under some users.
April 11, 2017, 10:57:45 AM
A lot ppl here seem to smoke crack....
This is bitcointalk....
Half the people here are either crazy or pushing some hidden agenda. For example:
Marina, you wanna try again and say that there's no connection between The Argon Group and David Carlson?
What does it matter if someone followed David Carlson on Facebook? This is not evidence of anything. If you had actual scam accusations, you would compile all your "evidence" into 1 clear, easy-to-follow report.
Instead of 20 posts which find loose connections between website registrations and social media accounts that reads like a troll Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
April 11, 2017, 10:51:41 AM
Would be nice if you would explain also what actually went wrong. would calm things.
April 11, 2017, 10:45:39 AM
All - we have a solution that we anticipate we will start rolling out shortly. Just to reconfirm - we have everyone's transaction records and you will have your accounts updated soon.
April 11, 2017, 10:45:12 AM
A lot ppl here seem to smoke crack....
Jump to: