Topic: [BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading - page 51. (Read 129490 times)

Yes, I made a mistake due to the fact of Avalon's 4X price increase and 3 days notice on batch 3.

ThickAsThieves, Yes it was designed to be a hybrid mining and development coop, this was to give the investors more protection.  Ukto suggested that we purchase ASICMiner shares, which I think is a good idea with cash(Bitcoins) which is not being used. i.e waiting on mining machines to be purchased, R&D not being used but needed the future, commitment of cash not being used but needed in the future.

"Active Internet Communications" has being administratively dissolved.

(Also, 7 posts in a row?? Really in a hurry to get your post count bumped up..)

Just did, ask me any question you want.  I would be happy to answer any question you
may have.

burnside, not twice, I was just providing proof of my orders which I like to have a company name on.  Yes, the Virtual Mining, Inc. lapsed, because I was working with Achronix on their 22nm FPGA which turned out to be to slow and cost to much, so I did not need the corporation any more.  How ever I am going to register it again.  If you really want me to I can pay the $10 for a fictitious name if that would make you happy.

burnside, can't seem to find your BTC Trading Corp registration, where do you have it registered?

Wisard, I think you are right that would have help me.  I did leave my name, address and gee cell phone number for everyone to view.

Deprived you are right I should of listed my business experence of 42 years and the fact that I created a nationwide Internet Service Provider (Active Internet Communications) on the domain axs.net.

Honestly, I am serious that I am referencing at least 2 asset requests to bitfunder.

I like neotrix and his assets. I think I may be one of the larger holders even.
I did give him a bit of a hard time about his new asset asking what if's just to be sure of what to expect in the future.
I do it to my would-be issuers as well. Every one of them disappeared along with their site when I told them they would have to wait for fund releases.
I am also the owner/operator of another exchange very similar, and know very well first hand the requirements of banks, and anti-fraud measurements.
He referenced BTC-e who has no problems with this. Granted most people some how associate them with being shady because of whatever reasons myths tend to propagate.
They are however based out of Cypress. I just hope they don't have users funds stored in a a bad bank. That being said, being a currency exchange, handling large amounts
of money, with absolutely no intentions of fraud control has a high chance of ending up like the many other large exchanges that have had bank accounts frozen, or like some where no other banks will simply send to them. And yes, it does fit the bill for that example also.

I am hoping for everyone's sake that his new site takes off with a roaring success. He is about a week away from launch, and has been pretty focused on testing.
So far though there has been no announcement of the official company registration that the investment is into, or any public facing updates on the site leading to any
new information. Currently the site is a project being launched under Esecurity SA company, who is in Panama, and listing a HK address on the asset and website.
Again, last I knew eCurrencies are/were highly illegal in China/HK. Perhaps it does not apply to HK and China only.

I am not, nor have I accused this of being a scam, or warned anyone away. I have only asked questions, and now re-stating some facts. It is entirely plausible that he has
everything good to go on his side, and just waiting for a big April 1st release. I will say that should the day come and go, without and happy results or extended delays, it would begin to lead to rather sad speculations.


And yes, I agree that special precautions should be put in place for easily "fakable" things.

You're referring here to CRYPTO-TRADE.  First let me be plain that personally I would NOT have approved it.

But there's a few massive differences between it and AMC:

1.  Neotrix (who issued the CRYPTO-TRADE IPO) has been around in the community for a long time and already runs assets that have performed as promised for a significant amount of time.
2.  Neotrix' existing company clearly exists, trades, is registered and is run by him.
3.  Neotrix posted his a thread for discussion of his IPO - you'll see that I posted in it and was less than flattering.
4.  To the extent that either of them has provided proof of anything, neotrix has provided more.  It would take a few minutes to edit Avalon receipts as provided by AMC.  It would take at least hours to produce the evidence neotrix has provided.
5.  Neotrix' intention to build the exchange site was public knowledge and discussed for a fair while before the IPO.

I think CRYPTO-TRADE mainly got approval because of his existing securities.  I don't view that as a good reason myself - but 5 people did (4 if we assume one of the 5 yes votes was neotrix himself).

As I said, I wouldn't have approved EITHER of them at their current stage of development.  But AMC's is just so shockingly horrible that I'm amazed ANYONE would approve it.  Even if you accept most of the assumptions built into their model, it's not even consistent INTERNALLY.  There's basic errors like assuming they can add hash-power without increasing the network's hash-power.  All the math looks as though it was done in 5 minutes by someone who couldn't do math at all.  And the only proof offered of anything is something that's fakable in a few minutes (a screenshot of some text).

My first reaction to it was that it was April Fool's joke that got released a week early by mistake: and that he'd left an apostrophe out of his name.  Ken Slaughter = Ken's Laughter - laughter at anyone stupid enough to fall for it.

For the record, the example asset profile I listed in my last post fits descriptions of asset requests I get 1~2 times a week.
Upon being told that their funds would be held frozen until they produce, they magically disappear and most times their sites do too within a short time frame.

Wisard, even companies in the real world still have IPO fails.

I expect things to change regarding IPO's on BitFunder over the next couple months.

As prerequisites become finalized you can expect to see BitFunder taking the crypto asset exchange to a new level.

Personally, I have always been a fan of "Announce IPO, let users post a BID wall, and release."
Issuers seem to not be so keen to that as they have minimums they are trying to raise. They also want/try to keep share pricing at a set amount.
Some for reasons of repaying the IPO amount on a per share basis back. Similar to AM.

I agree Dutch auction would be better.

The problem (in my view) with the recent wave of tiered prices isn't so much the principle of tiered prices but the extent to which it's being done (the difference in pricing between the tiers).  Having small increases (as with Satoshi Dice) is perfectly sensible - having prices that double (or multiply by ten or more in the case of the scammy ones) is rarely going to work out well : as one or other (or both) of the prices MUST be massively adrift of any reasonable valuation.

That's NOT an issue specific to Bitfunder - we've seen it on LTC-Global a fair bit too.  It nearly always happens on securities where the issuer is unable to work out a proper valuation for the shares.  If they can't work out a proper valuation then, honestly, they aren't ready to IPO.

I'm not sure that your first assumption is true though (that they are testing demand). It could be they are intentionally creating an "Early Bird" situation to grease the wheels, like I mentioned. With Dutch Auctions not being the standard, I think they could just as easily be a recipe for a failed IPO.

If I were to IPO a business I would probably offer early bird pricing too. Or, pre-determined batch pricing (not sure if there is an official term for this), where you do like 25 price levels, and release all at once. For example, 1000 shares for X, 1000 for X(1.1), 1000 for X(1.2)... and so forth.

I'm sure there are even better approaches to pricing IPO shares, and ways to mix these methods of pricing, but I do lean towards accommodating all types of investors to make a successful IPO.

Thank you for being devil's advocate. I'm not against flipping. In fact, I've made decent coin because of scaled bitcoin IPOs - just because I could get in earlier. But for the entire ecosystem, there are better systems and ideas available.

We've seen that the issuers have not sold all the shares they intended to or announced earlier. Seems like they are using this scaled pricing as a way to gauge demand.

Dutch auctions (with price reserves and minimum sale requirements) are a much better way to achieve that. It allows the crowd to decide if the company is worthy to be listed, instead of an exchange deciding that.
Good companies will raise more money with Dutch auctions.
And it won't create a pyramid type of a situation that pump-and-dump creates - which is good for investors.

So why not use better systems for IPO launches? Overall, auctions seem better for good companies, for investors, and for the exchange. The only parties it hurts are bad companies.

Playing devil's advocate here, but as long as uptake of IPO shares is sufficient, why would the issuer care if people flipped shares? I'm theorizing that the flippers act as fluffers to get an IPO snowballing into completion, thus play a helpful (or at least not harmful) role.

One more debatable topic is:

I don't think a company should set multiple IPO prices.
x shares at 0.0001
y shares at 0.0002

This just encourages pump-and-dump.

I understand that because of the lack of underwriters in the community, companies have a problem valuing their security. But a possible solution is holding a dutch auction. Instead of having multiple IPO prices. And then not going through with selling all the shares when the company sees that the demand is not there for higher priced shares.

If the security is announced a week in advance, and the company reveals their reserve price and their minimum shares that needs to be issued in secret to the exchange (and not the public), the exchange can then hold a Dutch auction.  Allow the investors to make their bids. And then sell the shares to the bids if they are above the reserve price.

If the bids are way lower than the reserve prices - or if minimum shares won't be bought - the exchange knows that they shouldn't list the security.

Instead of a Dutch auction, OpenIPO works too.

Apologies for starting this row by talking about AMC. It may have been a good idea to create a new thread for it. (Maybe a moderator can move these select comments to a new thread?)

Here is my point of view as an investor. This is just my opinion. And I think I've posted something similar on Burnside's thread too.

I believe in the broken window fallacy. Shit companies attract more shit companies on an exchange. Awesome companies attract more awesome companies on an exchange. While the exchange should try to remain neutral and not judge the valuation of the company, it should have some kind of a vetting process that gets rid of most obvious scams.

My suggestions on what would help:

1. Have a pre-IPO announce and wait period. Every IPO should be announced at least 1 week in advance. Let the potential investors read the description and the plans. And ask questions or seek clarifications. Only after the 1 week period has gone by - should the exchange decide to list the security or not - after going through the feedback.

2. Ask the promoters to reveal who they are and why they are capable. If they don't want to do so publicly, a trusted escrow should be used.

These 2 things should make sure worthless and possibly scam securities don't get listed.

Great over-reaction.  Nice escalation.  Good shift of focus.  Way to treat a "Tier 3" BitFunder customer.

The asset you side-step around had a thread up for discussion for some time before voters approved it.  It still does.  Post there.  I'm but one of many in charge of approvals and your contribution is welcome.

Instead of assuming the worst, how about we assume that I was an early investor in Asicminer, (I was, tho not nearly enough!) and saw similar potential here, (I did) then with 10 minutes of digging discovered that the guy is ordering gear (interstate commerce) thus conducting business under an unregistered trade name (mail fraud? IANAL) and claiming (falsely) the legal protection of incorporation.  How might that change your response?  (thank you? you're welcome.) Do I assume this was malicious?  (no)  After seeing all the claims of experience in the description do I assume this was inept?  (pretty much have to.  read the pdf's on the MO website I linked.)  Is it important for other investors to know?  (duh)  Does it leave me feeling good about the new AMC CEO?  (let's discuss...)


So with AMC... is it real?  Or is it not?  I can't tell.  Where does it say?


Did we read different descriptions?