have any of the AM board members spoken out?
As far as I can tell they have not.
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 57. (Read 3917058 times)
March 09, 2015, 10:29:41 PM
As far as I can tell they have not.
March 09, 2015, 10:27:23 PM
...
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works.
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works.
Havelock also makes it crystal clear in its TOS that it doe not deal with US citizens. Both of the offerings which have not tanked (Matt's and Benny's) have been issued by US nationals from US soil. So yeah...
Re. "fail rates well within range for 1st year startups": Well no, they're not, but even if startups had such abysmal rates, how many IRL start-ups simply OKTHXBAI from their creditors?
What do you mean "not tanked"? There are several listings that are alive and well (Crypto financial, Casino Bitcoin etc) ...
CryptoFinancial (ticker:CFI)
Price @IPO: .15
Price now: .04
Dividends paid: ZERO.
Casino Bitcoin (ticker:CBTC)
price @IPO .00012 to .00018
price now: .00005025
Now I'm not talking about an occasional scam on a field of virgin win, I'm talking about wall-to-wall scam, as in NeoBee and Basic Mining level shit.
And the thing is, I'm just saddened by the childlike artlessness of it all (The Panama Fund, Imagine?
), not the fact that he took your lunch money.CBTC Bitcoin price at IPO $90 current $300. I'm USD its unchanged and the operation is growing same goes for Cryptofinancial. Not sure how that's anywhere near fail or scam.
March 09, 2015, 10:25:58 PM
have any of the AM board members spoken out?
March 09, 2015, 10:01:11 PM
^
Lol, okay. I'm pretty sure they're starting to get it all on their own, but an extra reminder can't hurt.
If you think you can add to the fun, you go right ahead
Lol, okay. I'm pretty sure they're starting to get it all on their own, but an extra reminder can't hurt.
If you think you can add to the fun, you go right ahead
March 09, 2015, 09:56:47 PM
...The point is that even if it was a bonafide scam, which I don't know for sure, then Havelock would just take zero ownership and responsibility of that fact.
You're basically on your own and have no more guarantee than the word of whoever offers their "virtual stock" to you.
You're basically on your own and have no more guarantee than the word of whoever offers their "virtual stock" to you.
I'm not on my own, I have exactly 0 money at stake, because smarter than a fruit fly. It's you who is on your own.
I won't even raise a finger to feed lightbox to the lions, I'm enjoying this too much
Huh? who's addressing you? and BTW I have 0 BTC at Havelock. I'm just stating the problem there to those involved.
March 09, 2015, 09:36:57 PM
...The point is that even if it was a bonafide scam, which I don't know for sure, then Havelock would just take zero ownership and responsibility of that fact.
You're basically on your own and have no more guarantee than the word of whoever offers their "virtual stock" to you.
You're basically on your own and have no more guarantee than the word of whoever offers their "virtual stock" to you.
I'm not on my own, I have exactly 0 money at stake, because smarter than a fruit fly. It's you who is on your own.
I won't even raise a finger to feed lightbox to the lions, I'm enjoying this too much
March 09, 2015, 09:30:07 PM
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works. Also, your rant regarding concentration of failures: fail rates well within range for 1st year startups.
Well, that's the deal.
Havelock is de facto a mere broker, whereas it may appear to be a stock market with some guarantees - an image reinforced by their statement that only certified/qualified companies are listed.
In reality it's a broker, and the underlying market is a no-rules, no-guarantees bucket shop fest.
People should re-adjust their perceptions accordingly.
Agree 100%. Its the "Hashfast scam" all over again. People wildly invest $100,000s into DEVELOPING a product and then have a heart attack when its late and under spec. Hashfast wasn't a scam, they were a company that failed to product a product on time and was bankrupted by refunds (and diff increase) it happens and it will keep happening. Adjust your expectations and manage your risk people!!
The point is that even if it was a bonafide scam, which I don't know for sure, then Havelock would just take zero ownership and responsibility of that fact.
You're basically on your own and have no more guarantee than the word of whoever offers their "virtual stock" to you.
March 09, 2015, 09:24:35 PM
...
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works.
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works.
Havelock also makes it crystal clear in its TOS that it doe not deal with US citizens. Both of the offerings which have not tanked (Matt's and Benny's) have been issued by US nationals from US soil. So yeah...
Re. "fail rates well within range for 1st year startups": Well no, they're not, but even if startups had such abysmal rates, how many IRL start-ups simply OKTHXBAI from their creditors?
What do you mean "not tanked"? There are several listings that are alive and well (Crypto financial, Casino Bitcoin etc) ...
CryptoFinancial (ticker:CFI)
Price @IPO: .15
Price now: .04
Dividends paid: ZERO.
Casino Bitcoin (ticker:CBTC)
price @IPO .00012 to .00018
price now: .00005025
Now I'm not talking about an occasional scam on a field of virgin win, I'm talking about wall-to-wall scam, as in NeoBee and Basic Mining level shit.
And the thing is, I'm just saddened by the childlike artlessness of it all (The Panama Fund, Imagine?
), not the fact that he took your lunch money. March 09, 2015, 09:18:30 PM
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works. Also, your rant regarding concentration of failures: fail rates well within range for 1st year startups.
Well, that's the deal.
Havelock is de facto a mere broker, whereas it may appear to be a stock market with some guarantees - an image reinforced by their statement that only certified/qualified companies are listed.
In reality it's a broker, and the underlying market is a no-rules, no-guarantees bucket shop fest.
People should re-adjust their perceptions accordingly.
Agree 100%. Its the "Hashfast scam" all over again. People wildly invest $100,000s into DEVELOPING a product and then have a heart attack when its late and under spec. Hashfast wasn't a scam, they were a company that failed to product a product on time and was bankrupted by refunds (and diff increase) it happens and it will keep happening. Adjust your expectations and manage your risk people!!
March 09, 2015, 09:15:43 PM
...
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works.
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works.
Havelock also makes it crystal clear in its TOS that it doe not deal with US citizens. Both of the offerings which have not tanked (Matt's and Benny's) have been issued by US nationals from US soil. So yeah...
Re. "fail rates well within range for 1st year startups": Well no, they're not, but even if startups had such abysmal rates, how many IRL start-ups simply OKTHXBAI from their creditors?
What do you mean "not tanked"? There are several listings that are alive and well (Crypto financial, Casino Bitcoin etc) and since when can an exchange protect itself from outright criminal activity? (Enron ring a bell?). You should probably also read up a little on success rates on seed financing investments. There is a reason you shouldn't invest more than you can lose in start ups.
March 09, 2015, 09:02:11 PM
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works. Also, your rant regarding concentration of failures: fail rates well within range for 1st year startups.
Well, that's the deal.
Havelock is de facto a mere broker, whereas it may appear to be a stock market with some guarantees - an image reinforced by their statement that only certified/qualified companies are listed.
In reality it's a broker, and the underlying market is a no-rules, no-guarantees bucket shop fest.
People should re-adjust their perceptions accordingly.
March 09, 2015, 09:01:34 PM
...
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works.
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works.
Havelock also makes it crystal clear in its TOS that it doe not deal with US citizens. Both of the offerings which have not tanked (Matt's and Benny's) have been issued by US nationals from US soil. So yeah...
Re. "fail rates well within range for 1st year startups": Well no, they're not, but even if startups had such abysmal rates, how many IRL start-ups simply OKTHXBAI from their creditors?
March 09, 2015, 08:55:50 PM
...
You can't protect investors from scams 100%.
You can't protect investors from scams 100%.
Not 100%?
The selection on Havelock is 100% scam or, at best, simple fail. Only two exceptions: Matt's betting operation, (B.EXCH; B.MINE; B.SELL), and Branny's RENT (which is above IPO, most likely another pre-NthPO pump). The rest selling way below IPO and/or ran.
For instance, Havelock swore up and down that it's holding 100 BTC in escrow for MintSpare (ticker:MS). The issuer hasn't been heard from for half a year or more (longer than friedcat), the price tanked (much like here), and Havelock is ...doing what Havelock does best, ignoring & denying.
MS market cap, BTW, is vacillating between 6 and 12 BTC, substantially short of the alleged 100 held in in escrow by Havelock.
Not that Havelock's own ...offering, Havelock Investment Fund (ticker:HIF) is doing much better. Nope, tanked hard and never paid divs
So yeah, somewhat less than 100% scam protection. Especially considering recent past like Basic Mining & NeoBee. Such concentration of fail being purely due to chance is nearly impossible. Not unless Bitcoine4rs are an order of magnitude dumber & suckier @ business than regular people.
~Happy Investing!
I disagree. Havelock has cristal clear rules and they take no responsibility for anything but listing, trades and dividend distribution. In the mintspare case, what do you suggest they do? Just give shareholders escrowed funds? That's not how it works. Also, your rant regarding concentration of failures: fail rates well within range for 1st year startups.
March 09, 2015, 08:49:39 PM
...
You can't protect investors from scams 100%.
You can't protect investors from scams 100%.
Not 100%?
The selection on Havelock is 100% scam or, at best, simple fail. Only two exceptions: Matt's betting operation, (B.EXCH; B.MINE; B.SELL), and Branny's RENT (which is above IPO, most likely another pre-NthPO pump). The rest selling way below IPO and/or ran.
For instance, Havelock swore up and down that it's holding 100 BTC in escrow for MintSpare (ticker:MS). The issuer hasn't been heard from for half a year or more (longer than friedcat), the price tanked (much like here), and Havelock is ...doing what Havelock does best, ignoring & denying.
MS market cap, BTW, is vacillating between 6 and 12 BTC, substantially short of the alleged 100 held in in escrow by Havelock.
Not that Havelock's own ...offering, Havelock Investment Fund (ticker:HIF) is doing much better. Nope, tanked hard and never paid divs
So yeah, somewhat less than 100% scam protection. Especially considering recent past like Basic Mining & NeoBee. Such concentration of fail being purely due to chance is nearly impossible. Not unless Bitcoine4rs are an order of magnitude dumber & suckier @ business than regular people.
~Happy Investing!
March 09, 2015, 08:18:18 PM
It's not just that they could possibly survive as a company if they tried their very best, it's also that it makes no sense from their PoV given the alternative exit strategies. Coming back would just NOT undo the damage, it would be a substantial risk for those involved. Going incognito elsewhere or selling their IP (keeping a big kitty in form of unpaid BTC) looks a lot better than coming back right into a shitstorm.
I'm afraid you have been karpeled your BTC. Even Karpeles will likely keep some of the BTC kitty he ratted out of MtGox and get to enjoy it. In this case it's not nearly as prosecutable. FC is missing. The other guy also ran a ponzi by not informing the public that he was paying dividends out of pocket with no underlying revenue, and this guy apparently is well known, but what can he actually be held accountable for under which jurisdiction.
I don't know guys, this looks a bit helpless. And the lesson here is that Havelock cannot offer much guarantee at all of the stocks they host, and provenly so.
I'm afraid you have been karpeled your BTC. Even Karpeles will likely keep some of the BTC kitty he ratted out of MtGox and get to enjoy it. In this case it's not nearly as prosecutable. FC is missing. The other guy also ran a ponzi by not informing the public that he was paying dividends out of pocket with no underlying revenue, and this guy apparently is well known, but what can he actually be held accountable for under which jurisdiction.
I don't know guys, this looks a bit helpless. And the lesson here is that Havelock cannot offer much guarantee at all of the stocks they host, and provenly so.
Blaming Havelock here I dont think makes any sense. People were happily trading ASICMINER outside of any exchange, and later on the now defunct BTCT. You can't protect investors from scams 100%.
Not blaming Havelock, but stating the obvious. They don't offer protection from this sort of scams. If this happened in a regular market they would be prosecuted, but Havelock doesn't seem to have the legal muscle to do anything about it, might not even have the knowledge about the underlying operations to execute any sort of reasonable protection.
If that's not the case I'll be happy to be proven wrong but that's what it's looking like to me right now.
March 09, 2015, 08:02:27 PM
I don't see why would anyone buy now. It's not like friedcat can come back now and pretend nothing happened.
Would it be possible to sell the IP and distribute to shareholders? It seems a shame to let the BE300 go un-produced.
This probably happened already. To a different company so that they get to reclaim full ownership of the product and 0% to previous shareholders.
At this point it would make no sense to just reappear. Lots of people would be able to claim damages.
I guess it is "possible" but I don't think there's a minimum plausible chance.
>10% that ASICminer can survive already. The PR damage alone is huge, not even taking tech/financial into consideration.
It's not just that they could possibly survive as a company if they tried their very best, it's also that it makes no sense from their PoV given the alternative exit strategies. Coming back would just NOT undo the damage, it would be a substantial risk for those involved. Going incognito elsewhere or selling their IP (keeping a big kitty in form of unpaid BTC) looks a lot better than coming back right into a shitstorm.
I'm afraid you have been karpeled your BTC. Even Karpeles will likely keep some of the BTC kitty he ratted out of MtGox and get to enjoy it. In this case it's not nearly as prosecutable. FC is missing. The other guy also ran a ponzi by not informing the public that he was paying dividends out of pocket with no underlying revenue, and this guy apparently is well known, but what can he actually be held accountable for under which jurisdiction.
I don't know guys, this looks a bit helpless. And the lesson here is that Havelock cannot offer much guarantee at all of the stocks they host, and provenly so.
Blaming Havelock here I dont think makes any sense. People were happily trading ASICMINER outside of any exchange, and later on the now defunct BTCT. You can't protect investors from scams 100%.
March 09, 2015, 07:41:17 PM
I don't see why would anyone buy now. It's not like friedcat can come back now and pretend nothing happened.
Would it be possible to sell the IP and distribute to shareholders? It seems a shame to let the BE300 go un-produced.
This probably happened already. To a different company so that they get to reclaim full ownership of the product and 0% to previous shareholders.
At this point it would make no sense to just reappear. Lots of people would be able to claim damages.
I guess it is "possible" but I don't think there's a minimum plausible chance.
>10% that ASICminer can survive already. The PR damage alone is huge, not even taking tech/financial into consideration.
It's not just that they could possibly survive as a company if they tried their very best, it's also that it makes no sense from their PoV given the alternative exit strategies. Coming back would just NOT undo the damage, it would be a substantial risk for those involved. Going incognito elsewhere or selling their IP (keeping a big kitty in form of unpaid BTC) looks a lot better than coming back right into a shitstorm.
I'm afraid you have been karpeled your BTC. Even Karpeles will likely keep some of the BTC kitty he ratted out of MtGox and get to enjoy it. In this case it's not nearly as prosecutable. FC is missing. The other guy also ran a ponzi by not informing the public that he was paying dividends out of pocket with no underlying revenue, and this guy apparently is well known, but what can he actually be held accountable for under which jurisdiction.
I don't know guys, this looks a bit helpless. And the lesson here is that Havelock cannot offer much guarantee at all of the stocks they host, and provenly so.
March 09, 2015, 07:24:07 PM
I don't see why would anyone buy now. It's not like friedcat can come back now and pretend nothing happened.
Would it be possible to sell the IP and distribute to shareholders? It seems a shame to let the BE300 go un-produced.
This probably happened already. To a different company so that they get to reclaim full ownership of the product and 0% to previous shareholders.
At this point it would make no sense to just reappear. Lots of people would be able to claim damages.
I guess it is "possible" but I don't think there's a minimum plausible chance.
It did seem like a suspicion but unless I missed it we don't have enough going evidence to prove that
Although the point about damages is an interesting one
For now I guess we will just need to keep watching to see the final outcome, a Phoenix's birth rise and fall guess we may see it all.
March 09, 2015, 07:13:12 PM
I don't see why would anyone buy now. It's not like friedcat can come back now and pretend nothing happened.
Would it be possible to sell the IP and distribute to shareholders? It seems a shame to let the BE300 go un-produced.
This probably happened already. To a different company so that they get to reclaim full ownership of the product and 0% to previous shareholders.
At this point it would make no sense to just reappear. Lots of people would be able to claim damages.
I guess it is "possible" but I don't think there's a minimum plausible chance.
>10% that ASICminer can survive already. The PR damage alone is huge, not even taking tech/financial into consideration.
March 09, 2015, 07:06:28 PM
I don't see why would anyone buy now. It's not like friedcat can come back now and pretend nothing happened.
Would it be possible to sell the IP and distribute to shareholders? It seems a shame to let the BE300 go un-produced.
This probably happened already. To a different company so that they get to reclaim full ownership of the product and 0% to previous shareholders.
At this point it would make no sense to just reappear. Lots of people would be able to claim damages.
I guess it is "possible" but I don't think there's a minimum plausible chance.
Jump to: