Topic: [BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading - page 20. (Read 129529 times)

Please send us Americans money (USD, if it's all the same 2U), cookies (i like chocolate chip/almond, but not if they're dry and crumbly), pictures of cute kittens (my compats go crazy for kittens!), or just words of commiseration (along the lines of "It's OK, Tiger, there's always next time").  One or all of the above should dispel your sadness, spread the wealth, and end this mess on a happy note

Lol :-) Damnit.

Don't underestimate THE MAN. This is old news: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/world/asia/20beijing.html?_r=0

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.


You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

Not at all, i have not bet on it and i weren't fooled and whether the SEC or something else is behind this is still to be seen. Whatever the cause for this is in any case, won't matter that much for us non US citizens. Most of us should already be or be able to come out as a winner on this situation, i feel sad for the US based people thou that will end up loosing a lot on this, there the one that really got screwed...

 

See here:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3307956

"While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation."

"The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled.  You were."

Such terms is rather ridicules and im sure they wont hold up in court in many country's, what matters depending on what type of product/service people buy/use would be the laws in the country the company is registered/operating in and/or laws in the country the consumer/user is located in.

BTW, while SEC regulations might not be perfectly suited for the kind of securities we see on bitcoin exchanges, personally I have no problems whatsoever with forcing registration of these securities, giving us at the very least basic disclosure of the people, company and business plans behind  them. It would prevent at least 95% of all the scams, make it much more easy to invest wisely, while costing next to nothing.

Now legally operating an exchange under current laws would be another matter, and probably out of reach of bitfunder & Co, but even there I will not shed a tear to see them go and get replaced with much more trustworthy companies that do have the resources to operate legally, like Second Market. Its not like we were hurt to see the early bitcoin currency exchanges get replaced or regulated, I would love to see a similar move to more professionalism for security exchanges so we dont depend on amateurs (/scammers) running toy exchanges like GLBSE, Bitcoinica, Mpex, picostocks, and yeah, bitfunder. As it is, there is no snow balls chance in hell we could ever attract serious investment money and we are left gambling with our own playmoney on 50% scam securities on exchanges that disappear every 6 months, usually along with their anonymous operator.

I think that the whole story is most likely not about these tiny unimportant exchanges but about bitcoin. The usgvt wants to crack down on everything that they cannot control, and bitcoin must be really annoying for them. Unfortunately the short term solution is to block us customers. In the long run some p2p exchange based on bitcoin technology might be viable.

By the way, I never understood why the usgvt always goes this far to "protect" its citizens from evil. If I go and buy mushrooms in the regular market, I know that it had been checked (by the SEC) and I don't have to worry (yes, I still have to worry!). If I pick them in the woods, I am responsible for that. But outlawing picking mushrooms because there are some irresponsible people, in my opinion, is too strong. And by the way, in the us I am encouraged to own guns to protect myself from my neighbour, the govt does not take responsibility for that...it does not seem to be consistent.

But of course, it is. The usgvt does not protect the interests of us citizens in general, just some us citizens. Those that control the gvt and it is in their best interest to control every important thing in the world through their government.

Correct.

Thanks for the opportunity.
By "push" you mean I just have to transfer shares to issuer's account on Bitfunder?

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, or illegal drugs for that matter, you cant sell securities in the US market that dont comply with SEC regulation. That the purchase happens over the internet doesnt change a thing.  If you dont like SEC requirements (which frankly are for the most part quite sane disclosure requirements that apply to almost any civilized country), sell your securities elsewhere, which is what bitfunder is doing by blocking US investors.

Terms and conditions text from Ukyo's site:

I don't disagree mate. You had no choice.

As I said, it's incredibly annoying. Although thankfully I'm not in the US!

That may be true but the SEC do like to get their way and do have influence across the world. You can scream and shout about how unfair it is but that won't change a damn thing.

All of these possibilities were considered. In the end, we had to make a decision now. Other contingency plans are in the works for the future, but for now we must make do.

well  the usgov don't have jurisdiction to do whatever they like wherever they like in the world even if the usgov seems to think they can, there is international laws to that stand above us laws even that the usgov seems to not give a damn about that most of the time...

Transferring to Havelock is just pushing the problem back a few weeks. They will only have to do the same thing. If you'd can't see that then you have your head in the sand quite frankly. It was quite obvious this would happen back in July and I said as much at the time having looked into the legal situ. Ukyo claimed he shouldn't need to block US citizens but that was never going to hold water.

The only way out is to get out of the shares completely until a legit exchange is online or to have direct shares with someone managing the transfers and paid a fee for doing so. Even then the sec are going to be watching as this isn't legit either, not if US people own shares (so any one entity or person handling shares may need to do KYC or expect legal problems).

Either way, their value isn't going to hold up until this is sorted. Nothing negative about the company, this is about the trading environment. The shares could well step downwards and downwards until the situ is sorted or high dividends are paid (which is some time away).

And yes, it's very annoying.

Country of origin doesnt matter, what matters is the markets where these securities are offered:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

This Bitfunder thing is a total mess.
Ukyo the Bitfunder & Weexchange sites was supposedly getting registered in "respectable" non us country i think you mentioned before, what on earth does us laws(that looks to be the problem here) have to do with Bitfunder and there users.
If the site's .com domain is a problem by all mean change that, but if the Bitfunder and Weexchange both is registered in other country's and the site's owner(s) is not American citizens(Japan and Australia i presume) whats the problem. No gag order that prevents you from communicating whats behind the drastic change at least....

Why will American's be locked out of the site and why does international users on Bitfunder have to get verified (at Weexchange !!??) at a level where it's hard or impossible (at least in that short timespan) to achieve for a large number of the worlds population or do you expect all international(and US) users that miss at least one of driver license/passport/creditcard to get that in the coming 22 days, will Bitfunder pay for those users expenses getting those then...


And what has verification level at Weexchange anything to do with international users(or even usa based users current trading) future trades or not on Bitfunders site ?
If people wanted to trade btc for usd/cad/aud at Weexchange i can somewhat understand that they might need to get some verification level for that, but Weexchage and Bitfunder was supposedly set up like this to prevent any problems for people trading shares at bitfunder.

If this change will force anyone to sell at loss, are Bitfunder going to cover there losses then as this is not the conditions people signed up for as a user of Bitfunder...

Also the Weexchange site dosent send out verification emails, at least thats an issue for some and i saw someone mention they had the same problem with Bitfunder to, fix that !

2FA really should be possible to remove and just have that as default for people that will need to transfer shares to another family member for example and they don't have modern phones that can handle it. if other options than using mobile phones exists and works on Bitfunder you need to make a good explanation on exactly how people should do to make that thing work unless the requirements will be lifted for transfers.


What will happen to the us citizens that can't get verified on Weexchange and those that refuse to sell at underprices caused by this mess, are Bitfunder going to steal there assets(stocks/shares..) ?

What will happen to international users that don't see what has happened before the 1 Nov and can't get verified on Weexchange or refuse to sell shares at underprices caused by this mess, will bitfunder steal there assets(stocks/shares...) to ?

I saw it was mentioned they could still transfer out funds(btc's) after the 1 Nov but what about shares they may never will be able to sell, are people allowed to redeem shares back to the asset issuer after the respective deadline 8 Oct/1 Nov ?

Will redeems of shares work for those that can't be verified after there respective deadline (8 Oct/1 Nov) ?

What about shares that people have left after the deadline, will the asset issuer be able to call back those at a further date and pay the shareholders that can't get verified ?

Will the us/international shareholders still be able to receive dividend after there respective deadline if they can't get verified ?

How on earth did you think this is going to work out for shares that don't have any buyback options in the contract, will Bitfunder buy those people's shares(that has got, will get or may get there shares in a position where they can't sell them) out at fair prices if people want out of them or are Bitfunder just going to confiscate them ?

As it looks now the whole thing looks like a gigantic attempt to steal btc's from users on Bitfunder if things not get fixed, explained and improved soon in a way so that all people have a reasonable way to continue trading as it was before on Bitfunder or at least so there able to access and sell off all there current holdings if they so like.
I presume there will be 100's if not 1000's of lawsuits(..or one big joint lawsuit for all that was effected) from people if this will be the final version of how things is going to work on Bitfunder..