[BitFunder] G.ASICMINER-PT - page 8.

gotpetum

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: puck2 on October 11, 2013, 01:45:19 PM

Another choice... Liquidate and wait for share price to justify re-entering shares in other location (PT or direct)... Such is the beauty of Bitcoin, as it shows the liquidity of the asset itself while highlighting the lack thereof when dealing with individuals and gov'ts.

Liquidation could be an option if Ukyo didn't stop bids on bitfunder...

gotpetum

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on October 11, 2013, 08:23:15 AM

Quote from: gotpetum on October 11, 2013, 06:51:50 AM

Quote from: bitmoon on October 11, 2013, 04:40:15 AM

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

No, FC would transfer the shares from Ukyo to the asset list holders...

No, as in Ukyo has X direct shares backing the PT but the asset list adds up to X+1 shares.

Yes, Ukyo would then be motivated to release the shares so the number of his direct shares equals the number of shares in his PT.

puck2

full member

Activity: 234

Merit: 105

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on October 11, 2013, 12:46:51 PM

G.ASIC would need to be frozen for Friedcat to perform such a task. Even then, it would be theft, as these are Ukyo's shares, not yours or FC's.

Even then, some people have likely chosen wallet addresses they can't sign, bringing more problems.

If you have more than 250 shares, and you want to export to direct, simply contact Ukyo every few days ... and wait. He has no right to deny exports from people meeting the requirements in the asset description.

Everyone else must either hold, or sell.

Another choice... Liquidate and wait for share price to justify re-entering shares in other location (PT or direct)... Such is the beauty of Bitcoin, as it shows the liquidity of the asset itself while highlighting the lack thereof when dealing with individuals and gov'ts.

SEC, Bitfunder, Ukyo, friedcat, etc... Fuggedaboutit... nothing beats cold hard bitcoins.

ThickAsThieves

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: thejestre on October 11, 2013, 12:26:00 PM

Quote from: thejestre on October 10, 2013, 12:31:34 AM

I need to transfer my shares out of this PT and into direct shares. Please tell me how.

Thank you,

_theJestre

I sent a signed PM about this, still no response.

G.ASIC would need to be frozen for Friedcat to perform such a task. Even then, it would be theft, as these are Ukyo's shares, not yours or FC's.

Even then, some people have likely chosen wallet addresses they can't sign, bringing more problems.

If you have more than 250 shares, and you want to export to direct, simply contact Ukyo every few days ... and wait. He has no right to deny exports from people meeting the requirements in the asset description.

Everyone else must either hold, or sell.

thejestre

member

Activity: 76

Merit: 10

Quote from: thejestre on October 10, 2013, 12:31:34 AM

I need to transfer my shares out of this PT and into direct shares. Please tell me how.

Thank you,

_theJestre

I sent a signed PM about this, still no response.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: gotpetum on October 11, 2013, 06:51:50 AM

Quote from: bitmoon on October 11, 2013, 04:40:15 AM

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

No, FC would transfer the shares from Ukyo to the asset list holders...

No, as in Ukyo has X direct shares backing the PT but the asset list adds up to X+1 shares.

pascal257

sr. member

Activity: 493

Merit: 262

Quote from: gotpetum on October 11, 2013, 06:51:50 AM

Quote from: bitmoon on October 11, 2013, 04:40:15 AM

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

No, FC would transfer the shares from Ukyo to the asset list holders...

Indeed, if Ukyo does not react within a reasonable amount of time, I'm sure FC would be able to handle the situation. It's in his interest to solve the problem.

gotpetum

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: bitmoon on October 11, 2013, 04:40:15 AM

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

No, FC would transfer the shares from Ukyo to the asset list holders...

pascal257

sr. member

Activity: 493

Merit: 262

Quote from: bitmoon on October 11, 2013, 04:40:15 AM

btw, if ukyo accept your request, i bet very few to none will be left staying on am-pt, it will be ghost, less liquitidy.

I don't think so. Folks are just selling right now because they're afraid the PT can't be transferred to direct shares. If Ukyo goes ahead and clears the situation I am sure the price will stabelize. On BTCT you could get direct shares without a problem, but it was still traded on the exchange because thats way more convenient.

bitmoon

sr. member

Activity: 242

Merit: 250

feels like everybody wants to leave bitfunder, including non US. due to weexchange ID requirements.

then wouldnt ukyo loose customers?

if ukyo has the backing direct shares for your AM-pt, then i dont think friedcat will pull the direct shares from ukyo without authorization from ukyo per customer request.

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

btw, if ukyo accept your request, i bet very few to none will be left staying on am-pt, it will be ghost, less liquitidy.

pascal257

sr. member

Activity: 493

Merit: 262

Quote from: puck2 on October 10, 2013, 05:16:37 PM

Quote from: donut on October 10, 2013, 03:35:45 PM

Quote from: puck2 on October 10, 2013, 02:34:19 PM

Let's play a thought experiment. What if Ukyo is MIA? What well PT shareholders recourse be? What course of action can we take to convert or shares to direct?

We use this: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist

Right, but how? Can the asset list be partially used to convert individual blocks of PT shares to direct shares? Can the list be used to convert only G.ASICMINER-PT to direct shares while leaving other assets at Bitfunder? What would be the mechanisms/processes in each of these scenarios?

FriedCat would have to use the assetlist to transfer the G.ASICMINER-PT shares into direct shares.

puck2

full member

Activity: 234

Merit: 105

Quote from: donut on October 10, 2013, 03:35:45 PM

Quote from: puck2 on October 10, 2013, 02:34:19 PM

Let's play a thought experiment. What if Ukyo is MIA? What well PT shareholders recourse be? What course of action can we take to convert or shares to direct?

We use this: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist

Right, but how? Can the asset list be partially used to convert individual blocks of PT shares to direct shares? Can the list be used to convert only G.ASICMINER-PT to direct shares while leaving other assets at Bitfunder? What would be the mechanisms/processes in each of these scenarios?

donut

sr. member

Activity: 248

Merit: 252

Quote from: puck2 on October 10, 2013, 02:34:19 PM

Let's play a thought experiment. What if Ukyo is MIA? What well PT shareholders recourse be? What course of action can we take to convert or shares to direct?

We use this: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist

puck2

full member

Activity: 234

Merit: 105

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on October 10, 2013, 01:57:53 PM

DT has absolutely no power in this PT anymore.

Let's play a thought experiment. What if Ukyo is MIA? What well PT shareholders recourse be? What course of action can we take to convert or shares to direct?

lan787

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

oh my... Since when?

ThickAsThieves

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: lan787 on October 10, 2013, 01:39:11 PM

Quote from: gotpetum on October 10, 2013, 01:23:19 PM

If DeaDTerra has the direct shares, then he can make a signed request to FC asking FC to transfer ownership of his (DeaDTerra's) shares to each of us (at our bitfunder public addresses).

So, why did DeaDTerra say to ask Ukyo?

DeaDTerra does not take any fees for this PT operation. I believe he "outsourced" that part of his job to Ukyo.

Quote from: DeaDTerra on August 01, 2013, 04:56:05 PM

Quote from: gravito on August 01, 2013, 04:48:25 PM

Quote from: TsuyokuNaritai on August 01, 2013, 04:07:21 PM

Quote from: gravito on August 01, 2013, 09:47:11 AM

Will the amount of shares needed for a transfer out of the PT remain at min. 250?

This was no longer the case as of a month ago.

Quote from: DeaDTerra on June 30, 2013, 11:25:44 AM

If you do not like my service and the PT I provide, then I advice you to switch

If anyone feels that they don't want to be part of this anymore then I am more then happy to provide you with a free transfer out of the PT, regardless of share number.
//DeaDTerra

If a high limit for transfers was to be reintroduced now, it would be a big step backwards by the new operator, so I trust he won't do this...?

I considered his offer a one-time-only deal. But I may have misread this.

It was meant to be a one time thing

As for how Ukyo decides to do it, I do now know.
//DeaDTerra

DT has absolutely no power in this PT anymore.

lan787

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

Quote from: gotpetum on October 10, 2013, 01:23:19 PM

If DeaDTerra has the direct shares, then he can make a signed request to FC asking FC to transfer ownership of his (DeaDTerra's) shares to each of us (at our bitfunder public addresses).

So, why did DeaDTerra say to ask Ukyo?

DeaDTerra does not take any fees for this PT operation. I believe he "outsourced" that part of his job to Ukyo.

Quote from: DeaDTerra on August 01, 2013, 04:56:05 PM

Quote from: gravito on August 01, 2013, 04:48:25 PM

Quote from: TsuyokuNaritai on August 01, 2013, 04:07:21 PM

Quote from: gravito on August 01, 2013, 09:47:11 AM

Will the amount of shares needed for a transfer out of the PT remain at min. 250?

This was no longer the case as of a month ago.

Quote from: DeaDTerra on June 30, 2013, 11:25:44 AM

If you do not like my service and the PT I provide, then I advice you to switch

If anyone feels that they don't want to be part of this anymore then I am more then happy to provide you with a free transfer out of the PT, regardless of share number.
//DeaDTerra

If a high limit for transfers was to be reintroduced now, it would be a big step backwards by the new operator, so I trust he won't do this...?

I considered his offer a one-time-only deal. But I may have misread this.

It was meant to be a one time thing

As for how Ukyo decides to do it, I do now know.
//DeaDTerra

gotpetum

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

If DeaDTerra has the direct shares, then he can make a signed request to FC asking FC to transfer ownership of his (DeaDTerra's) shares to each of us (at our bitfunder public addresses).

So, why did DeaDTerra say to ask Ukyo?

But yeah, if both DeaDTerra and Ukyo go missing, FC can, at his discretion, transfer ownership of the PT shares to each of us, based on the published bitfunder asset list.

puck2

full member

Activity: 234

Merit: 105

Quote from: donut on October 10, 2013, 11:24:23 AM

Sent Ukyo a PM about transferring shares to havelock (or direct if that's not an option) a few hours after the announcement- no reply.

Much silence from Ukyo regarding transfers. I'm wondering what our other recourses for claiming PT shares. Could we send signed message from public address listed at Bitfunder?

donut

sr. member

Activity: 248

Merit: 252

Sent Ukyo a PM about transferring shares to havelock (or direct if that's not an option) a few hours after the announcement- no reply.

Topic: [BitFunder] G.ASICMINER-PT - page 8. (Read 74622 times)